HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ck442@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Floyd Low)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.current-events.somalia,alt.politics.bush,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: WAR IN BOSNIA!!!!
Date: 8 Jan 1993 07:52:59 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


in military operations the primary rule is selection and maintenance of the
aim. What is it? To keep unemployed NATO military forces on "duty" to justify their own existence? To backstop a foreign policy support an ill defined status quo with no national benefit? I think the answer is that the troops were sent hoping the belliger
ants would stop. That didn't work. Now we see talk of enforcing a no fly zone.
Remember all those who quote defeated Germans who couldn't pacify the balkans
that the Tito partisans and Chetniks and the entire grab bag of opposing forces
that they didn't have planes. In the modern context planes can only drop bombs
and launch missiles, they cannot capture ground. As the on the ground commander
MGEN Mckenzie said this past summer...(I'm paraphrasing here) there is an
unbelievable level of hate that he in a 35 year career had never encountered.
So, what I see are basically two Pitbulls fighting. If they don't or won't
take peaceful means as the way ahead and are intent on slugging it out then there is no point in direct military action anywhere. I think the west has an obligation to assist from a humanitarian standpoint, to the extent possible.That still does not
address the combatants. Don't worry about them. Siege them out...we sieged out
the Warsaw PAct, we know how to do this, lets put a ring around Serbia and waiit.........
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:66931 alt.politics.org.un:215 eunet.politics:1618 eunet.misc:666
From: chao6@husc11.harvard.edu (James Chao)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.org.un,eunet.politics,eunet.misc
Subject: World Model UN Conference. Second Announcement
Date: 9 Jan 93 23:12:12 GMT
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

To all those interested in international relations, politics, and the
United Nations: 

Harvard World Model United Nations (WorldMUN) is an international
conference that brings together university students and young
professionals from around the globe to siimulate the workings of the
United Nations.  The second annual WorldMUN conference will be held from
March 28, 1993, through March 31, 1993, at the Hotel Diplomat in Prague,
Czechoslovakia.  

Ten committees, representing the General Assembly, Economic and Social
Council, and Specialized Agencies of the United Nations, will discuss
issues from the actual UN agenda.  In addition to the formal debate of
resolutions, committee sessions will be augmented by presentations from
politicians, businessmen, scholars, and activists who have helped shape
the dramatic world events of recent years.

In this era of momentous political change, WorldMUN seeks to assess the
role of the United Nations in a new world order.  WorldMUN marks the first
truly international simulated United Nations where participants play the
roles of their own nation's ambassadors.  WorldMUN strives to teach
tomorrow's leaders about the United Nations and its methods of conflict
resolution.  It aims to foster skills in negotiation and debate, in order
that delegates may formulate resolutions on topics currently discussed in
the real United Nations.  These resolutions will be sent to the actual
United Nations committees.

WorldMUN 1993 will take place at the Hotel Diplomat in Prague,
Czechoslovakia.  The Hotel Diplomat is Prague's most modern conference
center.  Prague is both one of the most beautiful metropoles of Europe and
an ideal location for debating current world politics and the changing
role of the United Nations.

The Hotel diplomat is a luxury resort that offers restaurants, shops, a
night club, and fitness and spa equipment.  Delegates will stay at the
Hotel Diplomat for the reduced rate of 130DM/day double occupancy, which
includes two meals a day.

Delegate registration is $US60 per delegate.  For more information, please
reply to this e-mail address or write/fax:
Joshua A. Salomon, Secretary-General
Harvard World Model United Nations 1993
Suite 23, 1430 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02138-3810
UNITED STATES

Telephone:  001-617-493-6995
Fax:  001-617-493-6995

James Chao
chao6@husc.harvard.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Democrat == Loony Left??? (was Re: Christiani
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa, world
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 09:43:10 GMT

In article <1993Jan1.204526.7685@hobbes.kzoo.edu> k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie R. McCarthy) writes:
>[It's hard to be sure, but I believe it's "mike myke schwartz"
> (mykes@shell.portal.com) who writes:]

>>You could take the entire human race and put it in the state of texas, have
>>1/3 the state left over to grow enough food to feed the people, and still
>>have 1/3 of the state left over for natural habitat.

>4.5 billion people in one-third of Texas comes out to 50,500 people per
>square mile.  By comparison, the suburbs I grew up in probably have
>under one thousand.  Detroit/Windsor has 6,700.  NYC has 11,460.  And
>Tokyo/Yokohama, one of the biggest, crowdedest, most polluted places
>you'll ever want to be in, has 23,400.

>I don't think so, Mr. Schwartz.

>(By the way, Hong Kong's the winner, with over five million people in
>twenty square miles.  Several Third World cities top 100,000/sq.mi. as
>well.  But 50,000/sq.mi. is the next best thing to living hell.)

Not to mention that "mike myke"'s argument was irrelevant, anyway.  The
argument was that the earth is over *populated*, not over *crowded*.

As an aside, while we could cram all those people into Texas, I'd like
to see some evidence that we could feed all the people of the world on
the food grown in 1/3 of the state of Texas.

It's certainly an interesting claim, but it appears to be a Truth by
Blatant Assertion.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Is it too early to start making predictions for 1993?
niepornt@phoenix.    | Probably, but that never stopped me before.
   princeton.edu     | ALE: Baltimore ALW: Chicago NLE: Montreal NLW: Atlanta
Baltimore Orioles 93 | AL MVP: Cal Ripken  AL Cy Young: Mike Mussina
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: "New Right" Libertarians?
Reply-To: Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 00:19:55 GMT

In article <90191@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM
(Mark Wilson) writes:

|>In <1993Jan11.065529.27080@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
|>
|>[A couple of silly examples deleted]
|>
|>|	These examples can readily be multiplied; I have to question
|>|the seriousness of anyone who claims it's simple to start a business,
|>|especially a big one.
|>
|>If you think that the only possible employers are big companies, I think I
|>understand why you don't like libertarianism.
|>
|>Try these examples on for size.
|>
|>Put a sign in your front yard saying that you will take care of kids during
|>the day, or night if that is your preference.
|>
|>Buy a few skeins of wool and knit some sweaters.
|>
|>Buy a paint brush and paint houses.
|>
|>I could go on, ... and on.

I design computer systems costing a minimum of a million dollars. I do not knit
sweaters.

Libertopia may be OK for people who want to wear animal skins and live in caves
but for everyone else its a fantasy.


--

Phill Hallam-Baker
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:66453 ca.politics:10525 ba.politics:8098
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: A 4th branch of government?
Date: 12 Jan 93 19:19:34 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA


from WSJ, Dec. 28th, 1992

"Earlier this month, the Agriculture Department killed a 55-year-old
marketing order that kept two billion navel oranges off the market and
resulted in higher prices to consumers.  Sunkist, the cooperative that
dominates the orange cartel, went to court arguing that the Agriculture
Dept's move was illegal because it had only followed orders from the
White House and had not been 'free to decide the issue.'  Incredibly
Federal judge Gerhard Gesell agreed to impose a temporary restraining
order against the repeal pending a full hearing."

...

I don't know the results of this hearing, if anybody does, would you
post it please.

Regardless of the results, the logic behind the position is astounding.
An executive branch agency is supposed to be independent of the
President.
-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:66704 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11925
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Democrat == Loony Left??? (was Re: Christiani
Date: 8 Jan 93 14:20:08 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <C0JB5K.n15@unix.portal.com> mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz) writes:

|I didn't claim anything.  I just reported, as close to verbatim, as what
|I heard on TV :)  It just seemed surprising that that kind of blast happened
|and didn't reak major havoc on the whole world for years (as would be us
|launching all our nukes).  It also gives me a lot of respect for how the
|world works :)

I thought that the report in question refered to Hiroshima sized bombs.
Modern nuke's are several thousand times as powerful.
-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.libertarian
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS, READ THE INSTRUCTIONS)
Subject: Re: "Its all over for the political ruling class!"
Summary: Reality  
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 11 Jan 93 20:37:46 GMT

In article <C0nLuM.17D@dscomsa.desy.de>, Hallam@zeus02.desy.de                                       writes...
>In article <1993Jan9.005140.15584@news.columbia.edu>, gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu
>(Gary L Dare) writes:
>|>garrett@Ingres.COM (WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS, READ THE INSTRUCTIONS) writes:
>|>>ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
>|>>You mean borrow-and-spend Republicans. Bill Clinton also wants to 
>|>>socailize health care like all the rest of the industrialized world.
>|>
>|>... instead, you'd be lobbying for pseudo-socialized medicine via HMO
>|>(even Clinton is guilty here).
> 
>The important feature of a socialist medical system is that it be free.
> 
>Certainly there is no comparison with the US system, either before or after
>Clintons reforms. The fact remains that the country that spends least on health
>per person amongst the G7 nations is the only one that offers free medical care
>to all on demand. It will be intersting to see how long it takes for the US to
>recognise the potential savings and follow Britains example.
> 
This is a reality check for everyone. I live in San Francisco, and have a
couple roommates from England who haven't given up their English citizenship
yet. One needs some serious dental work, while the other needs medical help
for his neck. Neither have health insurance since the places they work don't
supply it.
	Here's the kicker. After checking into the cost of taking care of
their health problems, they discovered that it would cheaper to fly all the
way back to England to have it taken care of, then to have it taken care of
here.
	Ain't life a bitch.
> 
>Phill Hallam-Baker

-Garrett
Newsgroups: alt.acvivism,talk.politics.misc
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: One Simple Question for the Libertarians...
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 09:40:19 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.232744.26482@genie.slhs.udel.edu> rich@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Rich Schwartzman) writes:
>In article <1993Jan4.201735.18614@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> prs9k@brain.med.virginia.edu (Phil Scarr) writes:
>}One simple question.  No embelishments, no rhetoric.  I just want a
>}clear, concise answer to this question:
>}
>}Where does individualism come from (and as a corrolary, where do
>}individuals come from)?
>}
>}Now, to clarify, I am not talking about basic reproductive biology here.
>}I think we can all agree on THAT process.  What I want to know is where
>}does this amorphous entity called "the individual" come from?
>}
>}Let's work this one over for awhile.
>}
>
>The individual is the core unit of the grossly amorphous blob called
>society.
>

The notion of the individual, really self-consciousness, arises from 
the I-Thou dialectic...the consciousness of separation and relation.

Gerald
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,talk.politics.mideast,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.conspiracy,alt.censorship,soc.culture.arabic
From: harry@hershele.alf.dec.com (Harry Katz)
Subject: Re: ANDERSON TO HEAD CNI
Organization: DEC - Customer Support Center, Alpharetta, GA
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 15:09:30 GMT

In article <BzJFpr.Kv5@ddsw1.mcs.com>,
arf@ddsw1.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling) writes:

	Couldn't help think of McLaughlin's interview with Lee Hamilton
	this morning.  He is the head of the Foreign Relations
	Committee.  John asked him what he thougt of the move afoot to
	spring Pollard and he said he didn't know enough about the case
	to comment.   When pushed for a response, he pleaded totaly
	ignorance of the most evil spy in decades.  Some foreign
	relations committee.  Wonder if he would have had an opinion
	on Walker?  Can't be that he is afraid of the Israel lobby,
	could it?

"So, Lee Hamilton pleaded ignorance of the man who gave up his freedom
to keep Iraq from developing nuclear arms.  Can't be that he is afraid
of the anti-Israel lobby, can it?"

The crude propagandist can build any kind of a case he wants based on
idle speculation, especially if he has a reckless disregard for truth
and accuracy, and a fanatical devotion to his cause.

The great American man of letters, Samuel Langhorn Clemens, once noted
that one should never attribute to malice things that can be more
easily accounted for by ignorance.  This applies equally as well to Mr.
Schmidling as it does to Lee Hamilton.  Mr. Schmidling fancies himself
an advocate for American culture.  He should spend some time getting
acquainted with some of it.

Harry Katz

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:66486 soc.motss:55238
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss
Subject: Re: What is Clay's real motivation?
From: sbrack@jupiter (Steve Brack)
Date: 6 Jan 93 17:50:44 EST
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
: 
: By allowing NAMBLA and others to march, they are saying that they
: are part of the "We're just like you" gay community, which it
: completely self-defeating and stupid.

	First off, you're just plain wrong in your assertion.  NAMBLA
	marching in solidarity with other gay groups, other sexual 
	liberation groups, does not implay a sameness among the groups, 
	just that they support each other, & join together to support
	gay rights.  Secondly, even if your assertion could be rationally
	discussed, you have given no basis for my believing it.  Lastly,
	calling the work *and beliefs* of anyone else stupid is so 
	incredibly closed-minded as to defy comment.  It's your attitude
	that so infects the religious right. 

: If people go see the
: parade and see a bunch of perverts who molest little boys marching,
: is it their fault that they associate the two?  No.  Not at all.

	What a good grasp of stereotypes you have.  

	When  were you crowned judge of all behavior, passing on whether 
	it was perverted?  I'm sure that others in the world see you as
	a pervert.  Of course, in this case, you're also a hypocrite, 
	denying understanding to others that you wish others to have for
	you.  

	Then, you make the wild leap, without benefit of fact, that NAMBLA
	supports child molestation.  NAMBLA supports youth empowerment, 
	a philosophy that goes a long way toward preventing all forms of
	child abuse.  Underlying all this is your assumption that there
	are no valid forms of sexual expression for people under the age
	of consent, which can be as high as 18.  Not only do you take a
	position against sexual liberation & youth liberation, you add
	insult to injury by equating your unsupported assertions with 
	NAMBLA, an organization that, as far as I know has done nothing
	to attack you, and, indirectly, to smear the good names of 
	NAMBLA members (including me), by accusing us of molesting 
	children.

	I haven't been bashed before in soc.motss.  It's certainly an
	experience I'll remember. 
	
	Intolerance, hatred, & fear ran as
	Intolerance, hatred,  fear ran as undercurrents in your post, and I 
	feel sorry that a member of my own community could turn on me so
	unfeelingly. 

	I am greatly saddened by this.

--
Steven S. Brack        |"But the greatest of|   sbrack@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu
2021 Roanwood Drive    | these is love."    |  STU0061@uoft01.BITNET 
Toledo, OH  43613-1605 \____________________/    brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu 
+1 419 GR4 1010        |  MY OWN  OPINIONS  |   sbrack@maine.cse.utoledo.edu 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Straw Heaven (Was: Libertarian heaven)
Organization: Rice University, Houston, Texas
	<1993Jan6.215940.13559@informix.com>
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 05:28:28 GMT


>Did anyone else notice that the total number of votes for the Libertarian
>presidential candidate in November was rather less than the daily number
>of Libertarian rantings on usenet?

Really?  What kind of site are you at that gets greater than 300,000 or so
articles a day?

--PLH, this I have to see...
--

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:67247 ca.politics:10567 ba.politics:8160
From: jeffd@sybase.com (Jeff Deboo)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Speaking ill
Keywords: AIDS HIV molest
Date: 11 Jan 93 21:49:17 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: Sybase, Inc.

In article <1993Jan6.031006.2712@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>When Dr. Williams, a gay specialist, warned of the dangers of promiscuity,
>he was publicly denounced as a "momgamist" in the gay press.

That "gay press" sure doesn't pull any punches.  It would have been
understandable if they'd denounced him as a "monogamist", meaning an
advocate of having sex with only one person.

The mind reels to imagine what a "momgamist" advocates.

J
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: thomasr@cpqhou.se.hou.compaq.com (G. Thomas Rush)
Subject: Re: Libertarian heaven
Organization: Compaq Computer Corp
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 22:25:10 GMT

In article <C0nyA4.2s8@dscomsa.desy.de> Hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>In article <1993Jan07.030032.4406@microsoft.com>, leecr@microsoft.com (Lee
>Crocker) writes:
>
>|>You'll find no argument from me, even though the party itself is
>|>mostly reformer types with softer rhetoric--I'm a more orthodox
>|>Libertarian.
>
>|>Libertarian heaven may or may not have a government, but its people
>|>will be too busy getting rich to notice.
>
>Well finaly the Libs manage to come out with their bottom line. If we had a
>libertarian society nobody would notice the starving in Somalia, they would all
>be getting too rich to notice.
>
>Unless they were starving of course.

The quote above, Phill, implies that, in a libertarian society, 
the people would not notice whether _they_ had a government.

Libertarians, as a group, are very aware of suffering in places
like Somalia, and want to help -- but we've got far different 
ideas than you, apparently, of what constitutes help.  Of course,
a libertarian society wouldn't have worked so hard to screw
Somalia (Panama, Iran, ....) up in the first place.

As far as starving in a libertarian society goes, wealth increased
at an amazing rate in the United States in the period from 1865 to
1914 -- back before our government began in earnest its slide away
from libertarian principles.  Did some go hungry?  Without doubt.
But the fact remains that the population as a whole was far better
off at the end of the period than at the beginning.  Compare that
era to the present, with the billions of dollars we've spent
on the Great Society in the last thirty years: virtually every
study I have seen says we are, at best, no better off now than we
were then.  Could it be that our "solutions" _aren't_?


thomas rush			compaq computer corporation	
thomasr@cpqhou.compaq.com	their employee, not their opinions.
By my belief that government should be minimalized, I swear to oppose
the unrequested intrusion of government into the lives of individuals
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: What Did Karl Marx Propose? (was Re: Libertarianism...)
Reply-To: Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 01:20:04 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.072447.27409@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
writes:

|>In article <C0nwxF.2GI@dscomsa.desy.de> Hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
|>>In article <markp.726644616@spider.wri.com>, markp@spider.wri.com (Mark 
|>>Well aside from the abvious observation that Marx saw the dictatorship of
|>the
|>>Proletariat as a transitional stage in building society and Lenin and Stalin
|>saw
|>>it as the ultimate achievement the major difficulty with Marx is that he
|>spen
|>>several thousand pages haranguing the Capitalist system and very little on
|>>expounding what he actualy wanted to replace it by.
|>
|>	That's one criticism I've never seen too often, although it
|>does seem to be true of a lot of left-wingers (never mind that
|>government-bashing right-wingers often sound like that also).
|>
|>	Apparently, this Communist Commonwealth he prophesied would be
|>a society where everybody would be totally unselfish and helpful to
|>others, a society where everybody would live happily ever after.

He did however give one very useful warning. He predicted that unless somthing
was done to redress the human misery caused by nineteenth century capitalism
there would be a violent revolution. It was because the Tory party was running
scared in 1867 that they brought in the representation of the people act to
widen the franchise - only a few months after demolishing the 1866 Whig reform
act. There were a number of truly cynical calculations going on at the same time
though, not least by introducing a reform they despised they could ensure it had
least effect.

The capitalism of today is very different to the capitalism of Marx's day.
Buckminster Fuller user the terms Land Capitalism and Lawyer Capitalism to
distinguish. Certainly the Capitalist interest fought tooth and nail to prevent
any expansion of the franchise in the UK, just as the Southern capitalists were
fighting to prevent the abolition of slavery in the US south.

The essence of capitalism is that control of capital provides power. Today it is
universaly acknowleged in all "capitalist" countries that the use of capital is
subject to the approval of society. To the extent that my Libertarianism
(Liberal Utilitarianism in the spirit of J.S. Mills) is socialist I assert that
the right of property ownership ceases at the point where it gives power over
others. If property ownership provides someone with power over another then it
is subject to the consent of society. If property ownership does not confer
power then it is rightfully private.


--

Phill Hallam-Baker
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:67286 alt.activism:20449