HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ez007856@hamlet.ucdavis.edu
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.latin-america
Subject: Re: HISTORY LESSON: Chomsky on Cuba
Date: 28 Jul 92 06:00:31 GMT
Followup-To: alt.activism
Organization: Computing Services, UC Davis

In article <BrwssK.1IC@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) 
writes:
>  The current issue of Business Week has an article on how European
>  companies are investing in hotels and other facilities in Cuba.  They
>  are thus establishing an economic beachhead, and when the Communist
>  regime inevitably falls they will be in a better position than US
>  firms which must start from scratch.   The Communist regimes in
>  eastern Europe were not toppled by isolating them, but by the
>  subversive effects of exposing them to our culture.  It is unclear
>  to me how the US policy of isolation benefits anybody.

The rationale behind your argument is:

U.S. buisiness has interest in investing capital in Cuba since the Europeans 
will gain a foothold on commerce in the island and will dominate the market 
when the regime "falls".  Hence, the U.S. governemt should abandon the embargo 
and embrace contructive engagements with Cuba.

Problem: What if these investments end up proping the regimed economic 
stability a la China and we end up promoting human rights violations?  We if 
you happen to be an inescrupulous capitalist, then this shouldn't bother you, 
in which case we would argue as such...

As as inescrupulous capitalist who is seeing the competition devour the 
tourist dollars in Cuba, or make inroads into smaller markets you could also 
wait until friendly forces to your own government take control of the Cuban 
government and establish trading policies that favor your own markets which 
are 90 miles away.  These political interests will eventually bump out all 
remaining investments and, with your large petty bourgeois exile community, 
the smaller markets will end up favoring U.S. capital and force all others to 
concede your monopoly over the Cuban economy.  If others want to risk their 
capital in hotel investments in Cuba, they may do so at their own risk. So, if 
you pardon the lack of morals (which was present ab initio in your own 
posting), the option of driving the Castro government to its knees, and later 
winning it all for yourself is much better than investing in a politically 
unstable ex-soviet colony.
 

Edelmiro
Newsgroups: alt.activism,soc.motss,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
From: archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Government Control Of Private Thoughts and Actions
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 17:57:46 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.231316.7739@auto-trol.com> katbea@auto-trol.com (Kathy Beatty) writes:

>archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>: In article <1992Jul22.223110.27143@auto-trol.com> katbea@auto-trol.com (Kathy Beatty) writes:
>: 
>: >When most people start acting in an enlightened manner, I might consider 
>: >voting libertarian. You are an unenlightened idiot if you think that makes 
>: >me anti-liberty. 
>: 
>: I don't understand why you are willing to trust the government, which is 
>: made up of individuals, to do what you do not trust individuals to do.
>: 

>I *DON'T* trust the government. I trust it more than I trust the masses, however.

You trust the government, made up of individuals, with power that you do not 
trust individuals with?

>If government were totally eliminated, you would not get enlightened individuals
Who said anything about eliminating government?  Neither I, nor the 
Libertarian Party, advocate that.

>: And anyone who favors empowering the government over individuals IS anti-
>: liberty.  Rubber-stamp me as an unenlightened idiot please.  Stereotype away.
>: 

>I don't favor empowering the government over individuals. 

But you do.  You would have the government FORCE individuals to do business 
with people that they do not want to.
>I do favor the government
>protecting individuals (like me) from other "enlightened" individuals and groups
>thereof - like the KKK, the LAPD, Aryan Nation, Coloradans for Family Values, 
>Oregon Citizens Alliance, on and on ad nauseum. 

Why do you call these groups "enlightened?"  Groups can't be enlightened, 
and the individuals in them are certainly not, by my lights, enlightened.
-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
Xref: sparky alt.activism:13258 talk.politics.misc:35230 alt.individualism:4401
From: rbuchanan@vitalink.com (Rick Buchanan)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Date: 22 Jul 92 15:46:24 GMT
Reply-To: rbuchanan@vitalink.com (Rick Buchanan)
Organization: Vitalink Communications Corp.  (Standard disclaimer of course)

In article <1992Jul21.135426.29953@shearson.com>, pmetzger@snark.shearson.com 
(Perry E. Metzger) writes:
> >A representative of a small software concern once told one of my co-workers
> >that they would not sell their package to anyone involved in the making
> >of weapons.  Should this be permissable?  
> 
> I would agree, but liberals would argue that the government has the
> right to force your friends to sell their package to anyone the
> government believes should have it.

But most of those same liberals will use different tactics against
the people involved in making weapons -- criminalization, prohibition,
confiscation and incarceration.   A good place to learn more about
these scum is to write to The Nat'l Coalition to Ban Handguns and
ask for them to send you literature.   A scary bunch of fascists!

Of course, they can't take my guns.   I "lost" them.  No idea
what might have happened to them.  Yeah, that's the ticket!

   ---   Rick

    *** My wife, fine.  My dog, maybe.  My gun, NEVER! ***
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.society.revolution
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: AF/ATS: Revolutionary Cells communique
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 01:45:56 GMT

In article <4669@sersun1.essex.ac.uk> tysoj@essex.ac.uk (Tyson J R) writes:

>>>Oh, goody. Next we'll replay the street battles between the communists and
>>>the brown shirts in the twenties and thirties....

>>As long as the last commie and the last brownshirt kill each other I don't
>>see this as a problem. :-)

>Well you are a fuckwit of the first order aren't you.

What the hell is a 'fuckwit'?

>Even if the vast majority of the 20,000,000 soviets who died
>were not communists, what about the leftists partisans all
>over Europe who were butchered by nazis?  You think that
>they got what was coming to them?

Many where of the same ilk. The leftists who whern't killed by
the NAZI's after the war got busy killing THEIR enemies. Even during
the war they spent as much effort fighting each other as fighting
the NAZI's.

Marxism-Leninism is an evil soul destroying ideology. The only difference
is that each has different lists of people they want to kill when they
take over.

>The most distinguished Trotskyist fighter in Belgium during
>the war was Avram Leon, who wrote the Book `The Jewish
>Question', he was martyred in a concentration camp.  The
>nazis didn't much care for Jews or trotskyists.

Of course the Leninists didn't care much for the Jews either so I
guess they had something in common after all. :-) 

>I sincerely hope that we meet someday, and then I can give
>you the welcome we traditionally reserve for scum like you.

And what would that be? Maybe it will be the traditional Marxist
welcome given to opponents: I will be tortured and killed.

"... Help! Help! I'm being repressed!".

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  aws@iti.org     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------272 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
From: katbea@auto-trol.com (Kathy Beatty)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Organization: Auto-trol Technology Corporation -- Denver, Colorado
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 23:13:16 GMT

archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
: In article <1992Jul22.223110.27143@auto-trol.com> katbea@auto-trol.com (Kathy Beatty) writes:
: 
: >When most people start acting in an enlightened manner, I might consider 
: >voting libertarian. You are an unenlightened idiot if you think that makes 
: >me anti-liberty. 
: 
: I don't understand why you are willing to trust the government, which is 
: made up of individuals, to do what you do not trust individuals to do.
: 

I *DON'T* trust the government. I trust it more than I trust the masses, however.
If government were totally eliminated, you would not get enlightened individuals
looking kindly upon one another, you would get rule by the mob (and I don't mean
organized crime). You are dreaming if you believe otherwise.

: And anyone who favors empowering the government over individuals IS anti-
: liberty.  Rubber-stamp me as an unenlightened idiot please.  Stereotype away.
: 

I don't favor empowering the government over individuals. I do favor the government
protecting individuals (like me) from other "enlightened" individuals and groups
thereof - like the KKK, the LAPD, Aryan Nation, Coloradans for Family Values, 
Oregon Citizens Alliance, on and on ad nauseum. You are dreaming if you think 
those people will act the way you *BELIEVE* we all should.

: >By the way, how's Dr. Pangloss?
: 
: Rational, but biased toward big government.  He just seems to realize that 
: we can't afford the utopia he would like the govt. to provide.
: 

Big government is a problem, that's true. No government would be a disaster.


Kathy
Xref: sparky alt.activism:13466 alt.conspiracy:9381 alt.conspiracy.jfk:2665
From: krust@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Kelly Rust)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: How easy was the rifle shot?
Keywords: continued endemic denial of our true history consigns us to oblivion
Date: 24 Jul 92 21:22:46 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes:

>Following Meagher, Roffman analyzes how the WR glossed over the fact that
>the shots required great skill. Lattimer dismisses this, in his famous story of
>him and his sons firing a Manlicher-Carcano. However, they did not fire
>the same rifle that Oswald used, and the NRA's Master rifleman could barely
>past the test with the alleged murder weapon. In a complete disregard for the
>evidence, the WR said that the Oswald shot was "easy", an absurd
>misrepresentation of the evidence:

>In article <1992Jul23.144144.70@odin.corp.sgi.com> dave@ratmandu.esd.sgi.com (dave "who can do? ratmandu!" ratcliffe) writes:

>[Roffman]
>|
>|         Here arises the crucial question:  Was Lee Harvey Oswald a
>|      "proficient man with this weapon," with "considerable experience"
>|      in his background?
>|         While in the Marines between 1956 and 1959, Oswald was twice
>|      tested for his performance with a rifle.  On a scale of expert-
>|      sharpshooter-marksman, Oswald scored two points above the minimum
>|      for sharpshooter on one occasion (December 1956) and only one point
>|      above the minimum requirement for marksman on another (May 1959)--
>|      his last recorded score.  Colonel A. G. Folsom evaluated these
>|      scores for the Commission:
>|
>|    > ...Folsom says marksman is nothing special...
>|
>|         There exists the possibility that Oswald's scores were either
>|      inaccurately or unfairly recorded, thus accounting for his
>|      obviously mediocre to horrendous performances with a rifle.
>|      However, there is other information independent of the scores to
>|      indicate that Oswald was in fact {not} a good shot.  In his
>|      testimony, Colonel Folsom examined the Marine scorebook that Oswald
>|      himself had maintained, and elaborated on his previous evaluation:
>|
>|            Mr. Ely:  I just wonder, after having looked through the
>|         whole scorebook, if we could fairly say that all that it
>|         proves is that at this stage of his career he was not a
>|         particularly outstanding shot.
>|            Col. Folsom:  No, no, he was not.  His scorebook
>|         indicates . . . that he did well at one or two ranges in
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>|         order to achieve the two points over the minimum score for
>|         sharpshooter.


Could someone with ready access to Lattimer (he acquired the scorebook)
remind us of the positions/ranges Oswald did score well at?

Kelly
Xref: sparky alt.activism:13566 talk.politics.misc:36139 soc.culture.latin-america:2738
From: rravelo@asturias.acs.uci.edu (Ray Ravelo)
Subject: Re: HISTORY LESSON: Chomsky on Cuba
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.latin-america
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 27 Jul 92 17:06:18 GMT

In article <1992Jul26.121449.7785@dscomsf.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>In article <2A704ECA.24545@noiro.acs.uci.edu>,
>rravelo@asturias.acs.uci.edu (Ray Ravelo) writes:

>
>The problem is that this analysis is insufficient. You fail to take
>account of the fact the the people of Cuba have rather lower
>expectations (if not aspirations) in these areas. If you are identifying
>Cuba as an area where there are human rights and ecconomic problems then
>you are correct. However if you are trying to assert that these problems
>may spark a revolution you are quite wrong. Since the effect of a policy
>can be the only justification for it it follows that US sanctions
>against Cuba should be ended. This is not to say that Latin American
>sanctions may not have an effect.

  Phill, could you tell us how/why do you know what the expectations or
  aspirations of the Cuban people are?

  Also, could you tell us why you don't believe the lack of freedom and
  foodstuff could spark a revolution in Cuba? How do you think revolutions
  start?

 
  Saludos,
--
Ray I. Ravelo                 "We're your opposition, Mr. Castro, we 10 million
Office of Academic Computing.  Cubans who look around us in terror"
UC, Irvine.                    from the open letter to Castro by M.E. Cruz-Varela
Xref: sparky alt.activism:13551 talk.politics.misc:36097 soc.culture.latin-america:2734
From: harelb@MATH.CORNELL.EDU (Harel Barzilai)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Nicaragua Anti-Gay Law -- UPDATE
Date: 22 Jul 92 03:45:06 GMT

...From PeaceNet's gen.gaylesbian via misc.activism.progressive...

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Topic 199       Update on Anti-Gay Law 
hrcoord gen.gaylesbian   9:33 am  Jul 20, 1992 
From: Human Rights Coordinator <hrcoord>
Subject: Update on Anti-Gay Law 
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
/* Written  8:42 am  Jul 20, 1992 by nicanetny in cdp:reg.nicaragua */ 

5. DECISION ON NICARAGUAN ANTI-GAY LAW DELAYED 

Article 205 of Nicaragua's revised penal code, the law that would 
outlaw "inducing, promoting or practicing" homosexuality that was 
passed by the National Assembly on June 11, has not yet been 
signed or vetoed by President Chamorro. The National Assembly is 
in recess until Aug. 3, and apparently went on recess without 
giving the legislation to Chamorro. Once the Assembly reconvenes, 
she will have 15 days to sign or veto the law. If she vetoes the 
article, the Assembly would need 47 votes to override the veto: 
the measure originally passed 43 to 39. (If she does not veto the 
article, it will become law even without her signature.) 
[International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC) 
Press Release 7/13/92] 

Since it is unclear whether Chamorro will sign or veto the law, 
we urge activists to demand a veto: Article 205 clearly violates 
the Inter-American Convention on Human Rights and the Nicaraguan 
Constitution, which guarantees the right to privacy and the right 
to organize without discrimination. So far, international protest 
has been strong: an activist in England reports that the woman 
handling press inquiries at the Nicaraguan Embassy in London has 
been snowed under by letters, phone calls and faxes. More work 
can be done collecting petition signatures and letters from 
elected officials. For up-to-date information on actions 
protesting Article 205 call the IGLHRC's Latin America 
coordinator Enrique Asis at 415-255-8680 or the Nicaraguan 
Lesbian and Gay Rights Information Line: 212-475-7159. 
Correction: The correct name for the Nicaraguan Collective of 
Homosexuals is SHOMOS. 
Xref: sparky alt.activism:13767 talk.environment:3068
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.environment
Subject: Re: INFO: Greenhype on Oil Spills
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 30 Jul 92 15:09:00 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.
Summary: Actions speak louder than accusations

In article <156g29INNnp7@agate.berkeley.edu>, jym@remarque.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes:
>> Afraid of comments, J*m?  Why make followups to you and
>> not the net? 
> 
> =o= Two reasons:  (1) There's really nothing worthwhile to be
> said about the matter, and (2) followups belong in alt.activ-
> ism.d, 

	But you specified followups as replies to you via email.

>of course, but as you know, Mr. Sherzer, yourself, and
> the Third Stooge get your jollies redirecting such followups
> to alt.activism.  Don't know why you dragged talk.environment
> into it, but I don't really care, either.

	Well, gosh, J*m, we were talking about he oil fires and oil slicks in
the gulf, were we not?

> =o= And there really is nothing more to say.  The reference
> I gave (the March/April 1991 issue of _Greenpeace_Magazine_)
> puts the lie to the whole stupid scenario you folks have cooked
> up.  If anyone out there actually finds Mr. Sherzer's scenario
> even remotely compelling after reading that reference, drop me
> a line and explain why.

        "You folks"? :)

        "We" cooked up no such scenario.  It's reality.  Greenhype ranted about
the US being responsible for all environmental damage, was silent about Saddam's
role, came to the scene late, then restated it's anti-western lies.

        Greenhype was so pumped up about the possibility of painting the US as
the great Satan of the environment that it was caught flatfooted by Saddam's
unprecendeted trashing of the environment.  One need only look at the date of
the Greenhype cruise up the gulf, and their itinerary to see the truth of that. 
Then compare that to the dates of other groups who actually went to the beaches
and oil fires and cleaned things up.

        How many wells did Greenhype put out?  How many miles of beach did they
clean up?  How many miles of ocean did they skim oil off of?

        Zero, zero, zero.

        Pretty lame scores for an "environmental" group.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Xref: sparky alt.activism:13451 misc.headlines:4977 talk.politics.misc:35849 alt.news-media:820 alt.censorship:6262
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: Libertarianism vs. government
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 18:28:58 GMT

mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>|> 
>What does this have to do with Ron's original premise that the trickier
>and nastier people will gravitate to the government, and that the idea
>of Libertarianism is to limit the damage these people can do?

>Even if all that is true, if you limit the damage government can do, these
>tricier and nastier people will move elsewhere (private sector, TV evangelists,
>Libertarian Party officers, etc) and do their damage there.  Now how do
>you limit the damage they can do.

The name for that is usually law enforcement.
-- 
Don't worry; the Brontosaurus is also slow, stupid, and placid.
Xref: sparky alt.activism:13425 talk.politics.misc:35779 soc.culture.latin-america:2711
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Libertarianism vs. government
Date: 28 Jul 92 01:40:29 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA

archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
: 
: A "crime" is any action that is against the law.  Some laws are immoral, and 
: the breaking of them is a moral act, but it is still a crime.  Crimes are 
: acceptable or unacceptable according to public perception.  In general in 
: this country, it is perceived as "ok to break the speed limit," but if you 
: get caught, you pay a fine.  The government is defined by the Constitution, 
: which is written by representatives of the people.  Crime is defined by the 
: government, which makes laws, also at the behest of the people.  
: Acceptability is defined by the general consensus of the population.

Hardly. It has been quite a while since the government really gave a shit
about what the population wants.  Our government was designed around an
elite that could make the decisions for the rest of the population who were
expected to be too ignorant to think rationally for themselves. Unfortunately,
the "representatives" are of only questionable rationality themselves.

Most laws are passed at the request of special interest groups, of one type
or another. Very few, if any, are passed because the majority wants the law.

Bill
Xref: sparky alt.activism:13216 alt.conspiracy:9269 alt.conspiracy.jfk:2594
From: geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: "`JFK: ' The Book Of The Film, The Documented Screenplay" is out
Date: 21 Jul 92 16:51:10 GMT
Followup-To: alt.activism
Organization: Decision Systems Laboratory, Univ. of Pittsburgh, PA.

In article <1992Jul18.175743.11812@samba.oit.unc.edu> Robert.Daniels@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Robert Daniels) writes:

>I believe the circumstances were that Rather was given a private screening
>of the Zapruder film, and then went on the radio to describe what he saw. 
>This was discussed in a series of postings on alt.conspiracy.jfk about 3
>or 4 months ago.
>
There is some speculation that the FBI produced a doctored version
of Zapruder with frames reversed to make the head jump forward.
Could that be the one Rather was shown?  I'd like to hear what
Rather remembers.  He could have been right.

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "Skepticism is the chastity of the intellect, and
geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu   |  it is shameful to surrender it too soon." 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.activism:13342 talk.politics.misc:35558 alt.individualism:4482