HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hohm@cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Brian Hohm)
Subject: Re: PLEASE SIGN IN!
Organization: University of Calgary Computer Science
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 00:04:20 GMT

>This being a new discussion group, it's kinda nice to get to know
>everybody a little more.  Please let us know who you are by posting
>...

I'm JB Hohm, a technical writer/software guy from Alberta, Canada.
I do some radio broadcasting on my local campus/co-op radio station
and use material from "misc.activism.progressive" for my show.
Maybe there will be stuff here that I can use as well.  I
voted Green in the last national election.  My candidate got < 1%
of the vote.



-- 

[hohm@cpsc.ucalgary.ca]
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
From: Brian Chambers <bchambers@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Date: 07 Jan 93 17:39 PST
Subject: Re: Gender Balance?
Nf-ID: #R:1993Jan6.220541.6988@netcom.com:-2043752889:cdp:1678600061:000:1586
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!bchambers    Jan  7 17:39:00 1993


The conference began with a discussion of "property-rights" all
using the term "men" and "man" (well, many, if not most - but I'll
have to admit "all" is stretching it a bit).  Women in the US
where treated as property for most of US history - in the majority
of the world they still are treated as property of men.  This is
the definition of patriarchy - society based on the control of
women and children by men.  While many of our civil rights laws
have been writen to end this social system it is still quite
endemic.

The Econet international discussion "green.general" is also mostly
frequented by men.  The one woman who is on it as often as the
rest tends to be a lone voice on various policy issues of The
Greens/Green Party USA.  Fortunately, no one has used arguements
of "sexist" behavior in critiques of the debates that have
occurred.

Even on this discussion the Hawaii Green Party member (who's name
I don't have in front of me) is having to participate through the
good graces of her husband.

We'll really have to start the conference from the beginning and
get the wage and employement discrepencies straightened out for
women to be equal participants on this conference.  The
Greens/Green Party USA has set up separate funds for women and
people of color to support organizing efforts and meeting
attendence.  This is called affirmative action.  With such a
distorted system of inequities it is superficial and meaningless
to just declare everyone equal.

Saying it is so doesn't make it so!

Brian R. Chambers

Green Party of Huron Valley

Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
From: Dale McMillen <dmcmillen@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Date: 07 Jan 93 15:46 PST
Subject: THE CLASSIC FUNDI/REALOS DEBATE
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1678600058:000:2371
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!dmcmillen    Jan  7 15:46:00 1993


Karen's concern that some reporter will take some of the more radical
portions of The Greens Program (in her opinion) to deflate her efforts
to build a moderate Green Party is a concern almost exactly mirrored
by some of our more radicals.  This is the classic Fundi/Realo debate
that nearly all Greens and others for social change must deal with.

The problem is whether it is better to compromise the vision to achieve
minor victories or is better to remain pure and get no where.  "Fundis"
(for fundamentalists -- not the religious kind!) generally argue that
the minor victories achieved by the "Realos" (for Realpolitik) are so
minor as to be meaningless.  Fundis claim that only a complete overhaul
of the system will bring real change and that seeking incremental change
only serves to promote the very system that they are trying to overhaul.

Realos argue that actual change is incremental and that the best way to
reform the system is through a transformation from within.  Realos also
argue, as has Karen, that we need to do whatever we can to save what
remains of the world now, because it may be too late if we wait for
a more complete overhaul.  Realos are also generally much more likely to
want to establish close working relationships with other political
parties while the Fundis generally frown on this.

While Greens have debated this for years, I think it is safe to say
that most of us recognize the strengths and weaknesses of both
positions, and are willing to work with each other.  Personally,
I like to think of myself as Fundi, but I work in a very traditional
job, drive a car, own property, and received a shirt for Christmas
which I am sure was produced by exploiting children.  While this
causes me inner conflict, it at least helps me understand the
views of Realos.

As an aside, there are many Greens who have suggested that the best
use of their energy is to avoid these inevitable debates when trying
to interface with the current political system.  Instead of compromise
and consiliation or protest and purity, these Greens suggest that the
real work is to build alternatives, including intentional communities
and worker collectives.

Since this Fundi/Realos is mainly an internal Green debate, I would
be interested in what the other Greens out there think.  And, the
rest of y'all, you're welcome to add your two bits, too.

Dale

Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
From: moore@aztec.santafe.edu (Cris Moore)
Subject: How To Reach The Greens
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 93 22:06:17 GMT
Organization: Santa Fe Institute

A couple people have asked how to reach the Greens/Green Party USA
and get a subscription to the national newsletter.  Their address is

POBox 30208 
Kansas City MO 64112
(816) 931-9366

I believe the current rate is $25, and $15 for student/low income.

Enjoy!

- Cris Moore
New Mexico Greens
From: camerons@NAD.3Com.COM (Cameron Spitzer 764-6339)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Subject: Pointer to the activist discussion, was Re: PLEASE SIGN IN!
Date: 11 Jan 93 19:05:24 GMT
Reply-To: cls@truffula.sj.ca.us
Followups-To: alt.save.the.earth

In article 1678600080@igc.apc.org, dmcmillen@igc.apc.org (Dale McMillen) writes:
>
>> ... where people who aren't members of the activist community have
>> a hard time being taken seriously as activists, I'm not active in the
>> party - I'm just a number. But numbers are important, too, I guess ...
> 
>Robert, numbers are very important, too!!!  And don't feel badly about
>not being in the activist community.  Being an activist is very, very
>hard work.  While I enjoy it and I find that I easily get as much out
>of it as I put in, it's demanding, the pay is lousy (I am a volunteer),
>and many have personal responsibilities that preclude their involvement.
> 
>Dale

Don't get hung up on "joining" the "activist community," whatever that may be.
By using the resources available here on Usenet, you can do useful
activism in only a few minutes a month, if that is all the time you can
give it.  There is no need to commit hours per week if you don't have them,
and there's no reason a little activism need impact your personal
responsibilities.  I claim the contrary, that a little activism will enrich
your life in ways that make your personal responsibilities easier to bear.

This thread is redirected to alt.save.the.earth, which is the nearest thing to
a forum on environmental activism that I've been able to find on Usenet.

Cameron Spitzer in Santa Clara, Ca.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
From: moore@kiowa.santafe.edu (Cris Moore)
Subject: What Do Greens Do Anyway?
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 93 22:24:54 GMT
Organization: Santa Fe Institute

Hey, thought I'd give everybody an example of what a typical
Green group does.

The New Mexico Greens
Cris Moore, Santa Fe Greens

	New Mexico has four active locals: Santa Fe, Albuquerque, the
University of New Mexico (a student local) and Taos.  Our recent
projects include:
	In Santa Fe, we have adopted a fight against a golf course
in La Cienega ("the Marsh"), a 400-year-old village just outside of town.
On Santa Fe Fiesta weekend, we appeared with the Friends of La Cienega 
in a parade; yours truly got to be a developer, yelling "Sell your land! 
Sell your water!  We need more GOLF COURSES!"  
In a discussion afterwards, issues like the right of recall, 
municipal referenda, and community-based economic development came up.
It's great to know that these ideas have a real resonance in 
the community, not just among activists who call themselves Green.
	On Columbus Day, we supported a march celebrating 500 Years of
Indigenous Resistance, sponsored by MEChA (the Chicano student group), 
the Southwest Indian Student Coalition, and the Tonantzin Land Institute.  
We also co-wrote and distributed a leaflet with the La Raza Forum, 
an intercultural group, emphasizing sovereignty for all communities: 
native, Chicano, and low-income neighborhoods as well.
	In Taos, we ran two candidates for State office: Abraham Gutmann for
State Representative, and Andres Vargas for District Attorney.  Both ran
against the local right-wing Democratic machine.  
Both candidates got over 40% of the vote, making this race the best showing
of any third party in recent New Mexico history, and among the most succesful
Green campaigns in the country.  As for accountability,
both agreed to resign if the Greens voted to recall them.
	We are now beginning a major campaign on reforming the 
Property Tax system.  Rising property taxes are forcing long-term residents
from their homes, as tourists and wealthy retirees drive up property values.
This is an especially interesting issue to us because the Left, and the
social justice movement in general, has let the Right wing carry the
flag of tax reform.  It's time that Greens and other activists took up
this kind of issue, of clear economic interest to everyone, and deal with it
in a progressive way before the Pat Buchanans get there first.
As you can imagine, this issue has brought the Greens support from a 
more diverse base (in both race and class) than ever before.
	Finally, we are also planning to support a variety of 
small-scale economic experiments, such as a food co-op and market for
local farmers and craftspeople.  New Mexico's economy has a tradition
of barter and local, family-owned business; we want to make sure those
traditions don't get lost forever.
	For more information, or to support these campaigns, contact
Cris Moore, (505) 986-2071, 619 Gomez St. #E, Santa Fe NM 87501
(e-mail: moore@santafe.edu).
From: alaric@sti.com (Alaric Tekiahyn)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Subject: Re: PLEASE SIGN IN!
Date: 5 Jan 1993 03:09:12 GMT
Organization: Software Transformation, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: smurf.sti.com

OK:  I'm Phil Stracchino (mundanely), a software engineer/jack-of-all-
trades in Cupertino, California.  I'm not currently a registered
member of the Greens here, because I'm not yet a U.S. citizen; but I
was involved with die Grunen and the Ecology Party in England as far
back as 1978.  I fully intend to register with the Greens the day I
get my U.S. citizenship, or very close to it.

As a matter of fact, I was also a founder member of the short-lived
Survival party, an Ecology Party splinter group that was formed to try
to shake up the Ecology Party and get it moving again, when it bogged
down briefly in over-conservatism around 1979.  It [the Survival Party]
was doomed by an ill-advised choice of emblem, though.  (It was chosen
by the first founder member, despite my misgivings.)


-- 
      "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: leecr@microsoft.com (Lee Crocker)
Subject: Re: why another party, was Re: Greens vs. Property Rights
Date: 04 Jan 93 07:41:44 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1438@bridge2.NSD.3Com.COM> cls@truffula.sj.ca.us writes:
>
>Only the Greens have "binding none-of-the-above" for office races.

Sorry, the Libertarians beat you to that one.

-- 
Lee Daniel Crocker    | Free minds; free bodies; free trade.
leecr@microsoft.com   | Libertarian Party  1-800-682-1776
From: steinman@hslrswi.hasler.ascom.ch (Jan Steinman - Bytesmiths, 3946)
Subject: Re: LET'S DISCUSS NUCLEAR ENERGY!
Reply-To: steinman@hslrswi.hasler.ascom.ch
Organization: Ascom Hasler AG
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 15:33:06 GMT

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).

A common falacy -- it is more accurate to state that "given the subsidies
provided traditional fuels, wind, sea and solar power are still too
expensive to be of any use."

Case in point: liability limits for nuclear accidents *allow* nuclear
power to exist. (It was nearly still-born, because the insurance industry
refused to cover it at any price, but Uncle Same stepped in and said "No
problem, if there's a catastrophic accident, we'll give everybody ten cents
on the dollar for their losses. Doubt me? Look in *your* homeowner's policy
under "nuclear".)

Case in point: most states require that auto fuel taxes be invested in auto
infrastructure. Other countries invest their fuel taxes in public
transportation infrastructure of all kinds, thus allowing the most efficient
energy source to be used. (Ever hear of the Swiss train system? I can take a
train to Zurich and back -- two hours of travel -- for about half the cost of
a tank of gas.

Case in point: sulfur dioxide emmissions by coal plants are controlled by
sulfur credits, which can be traded on the open market. This means a dirty
utility buys the lack of pollution produced by the clean utility. No net
reduction in pollution in the face of the Clean Air Act (which mandates
reductions) equals subsidy, since energy sources that do not normally emit
sulfur get no sulfur credits to sell.

Case in point: many electric utilities have deep discounts to heavy users.
How do you convince a factory to install CFBs when it may cause their usage
to drop below a discount point? (Here in Europe, CFBs and halogens are
everywhere.)

Let's level the playing field -- then I'll listen to cries of hipocracy!
The Europeans and the Japanese use *half* the per-capita energy use as we do,
and they're gonna kick our butts because of it. With half the usage, they can
afford to pay twice the price. What does this mean? In 20 years, the US will
be importing all their energy technology, because the Europeans and Japanese
understand that alternative technologies *must* happen, and they're busy
getting a head start!

: : Jan Steinman, Bytesmiths			   steinman@hasler.ascom.ch : :
: : 2002 Parkside Court, West Linn, OR 97068-2767 USA	    +1 503 657 7703 : :
: : Beundenfeldstrasse 35, CH-3013, Bern, Switzerland	    +41 31 999 3946 : :
From: Dale McMillen <dmcmillen@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Date: 06 Jan 93 20:15 PST
Subject: Re: Greens vs. Property Rights
Nf-ID: #R:1hs8brEINNfle@uni-erlangen.de:-1634168734:cdp:1678600046:000:1678
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!dmcmillen    Jan  6 20:15:00 1993


Lee Daniel Crocker,
 
> Marx missed the point by blaming the Capitalist ideals which were not
> what was being practiced, but only being preached as justification
> for the slavery.  No nation in human history has every had a truly
> free capitalistic society, and until one does, there will always be
> slavery.
 
It's understandable Marx was so down on capitalism since history only
showed him how it produced slavery.  Do you see anything different
in capitalism today?  What steps would you suggest to make it freer?
 
>>Wealth creation is only half of the equation of providing the minimum
>>level of wealth for human dignity.  Wealth distribution is the other
>>half.  History has shown that Capitalism is a very good way to produce
>>wealth, but it has also shown that it is a really crappy way of spreading
>>it around.  What tends to happen is that a small minority get all the 
>>power and keeps it.
 
>This can only happen when capitalism is corrupted by government, as it
>is in the US.  In a fluid market, millionaires are made and unmade
>every day and the turnover of wealth is high.  Only when the government
>steps in with subsidies and licensing laws and taxes and other
>encumbrances to free trade do people acquire power.  Wealth is only
>power when there exist a power base (i.e. government) that can be
>bought.  If the government were not powerful enough to be worth buying,
>wealth would simple be wealth, not power, and the wealthy would
>spend it while they had it like there was no tomorrow.
 
    [ and nearly the rest of your arguments ]
 
Please explain why the capitalists and the government always seem
to be in collusion with each other.
 
Dale

Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
From: pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis)
Subject: Re: DEMOCRACY AND CONSENSUS
Organization: Precipitating Pendulums Postal Party Poopers
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 18:17:35 GMT

In article <1678600053@igc.apc.org> Dale McMillen <dmcmillen@igc.apc.org> writes:
[ ... a description of consenus processes  .... ]

One of the things Dale didn't mention is that the Iroquois Confederacy
used an essentially  consensus approach for a long time, and many
lessons about its effects from their experience. One practical effect
which may or may not be in its favor is that very little happens. The
Greens don't see this, because we're still preaching to the converted
when it comes to decision making. An good introduction to the Iroquois
Confederacy's use of consensus can be found in Mander's "In the
Absence of the Sacred: The Failure of Technology and the Survival of
the Indian Nations".

-- paul
-- 
hybrid rather than pure; compromising rather than clean;    | Militant Agnostic
distorted rather than straightforward; ambiguous rather than| I Don't Know
articulated; both-and rather than either-or; the difficult  |   and You Don't
unity of inclusion rather than the easy unity of exclusion. |   Know Either
From: Dale McMillen <dmcmillen@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Date: 07 Jan 93 08:42 PST
Subject: Re: SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE
Nf-ID: #R:cdp:1678600049:cdp:1678600052:000:535
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!dmcmillen    Jan  7 08:42:00 1993


> Here are some actual statistics taken from _The Statistical Abstract
> of the United States_ 1986 edition, p. 833.
>
>World production of agricultural commodities
>		1970		1978		1984
>corn		278		390		449
>rice		316		385		470
>wheat		318		449		522

The problem, as these many articles point out, is that this is not
sustainable growth, that it hasn't kept up with population growth,
that it is not being distributed equitably, and that it is very
costly in terms of resources (topsoil, oil, chemicals, water, etc.)
to maintain.

Dale
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: LET'S DISCUSS NUCLEAR ENERGY!
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 09:00:18 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.155433.9707@hasler.ascom.ch> steinman@hslrswi.hasler.ascom.ch writes:
}In article 14283@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU, prs9k@brain.med.virginia.edu (Phil Scarr) writes:
}>In article <1678600048@igc.apc.org> Dale McMillen <dmcmillen@igc.apc.org> writes:
}>>
}>>> In order to get the energy required by all these people [the supposed 
}>>> carrying capacity of the earth -- 30 Billion people], we would...
}
}This number is someone's opinion. Others feel we may have already exceeded the
}carrying capacity. (See "Beyond The Limits" the update of "Limits To Growth".)

You do know that the Club of Rome admitted that "Limits" was false, don't you?


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire
From: kushmer@bnlux1.bnl.gov (christopher kushmerick)
Subject: Re: PLEASE SIGN IN!
Organization: Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY 11973
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 20:38:50 GMT

In article <C0CvFn.1Ds@techbook.com> gummitch@techbook.com (Jeff Frane) writes:
>Dale McMillen <dmcmillen@igc.apc.org> writes:
>>Hi everybody!
>> 
>>This being a new discussion group, it's kinda nice to get to know
>>everybody a little more.  Please let us know who you are by posting
>>a reponse to this topic.  It would be interesting to know where
>>you are from, your job, interests and that other general personal
>>stuff.  Since this is a discussion about the Green Party, it would
>>also be interesting to know if you are an active member, have had
>>contacts with or opinions about the Green Party.
>> 


This isn't going to go into my FBI file is it?

-- 
Chris Kushmerick
kushmer@bnlux1.bnl.gov
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
From: doug@cdc.hp.com (Doug Sojourner)
Subject: Re: Greens vs. Property Rights
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 18:18:09 GMT
Reply-To: dsojourner@cdc.hp.com
Organization: HP California Design Center, Santa Clara, CA
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL7]

christopher kushmerick (kushmer@bnlux1.bnl.gov) wrote:
:In article <1678600006@igc.apc.org> Dale McMillen <dmcmillen@igc.apc.org> writes:
:>
:>1. In this world where the vast majority of people live in abject poverty,
:>wealth beyond what one needs to take care of one's self and family is
:>immoral.
:> 
:
:FALSE!
:
:I could give away everything I own (which is considerably more than what
:i _need_ to take care of my self and it would not help the Somalis one
:bit (nor the homeless in NYC for that matter). 
:
:There is inequity in the world. The way to solve it is to help those in need, 
:not punish those who succeed. The way to help those in abject poverty
:is to establish democratic capitalism and western values. 
:
:Once #1 is  removed, 2 no longer neccesarily follows, although it may
:still be true.
:

First, I want to note that "excess wealth" is not well defined, and I
don't pretend that it is.  A case can be fairly easily made for the
cut off for excess being somewhat above what is needed to satisfy the
obvious basic needs of nutrition, sufficient warmth, and so forth.
For example, one might argue that there is a need for a certain amount
of beauty in a persons life.  Regardless of this, I still think a case
can be made for excess wealth being immoral.

Just because you don't have enough excess wealth to solve some of the
major problems of want does not mean that excess wealth is not immoral.
It is quite conceivable that if ALL those people with excess wealth
(and I'm sure some have considerably more than you do) made that
excess available for the betterment of humanity as a whole, then
significant progress could be made.  Even if not, it seems hard to
justify that most of the wealth of our world is "owned" by very few of
the people - what is it that gives them the right to own this wealth?

I think that reasonable boundaries could be put on wealth which would
still reward those who worked harder, or were more innovative, or in
some other way "succeeded", but which would still recognize that
beyond a certain point extra wealth is simply unfair.

Doug Sojourner

dsojourner@cdc.hp.com