HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,misc.headlines,talk.politics.misc,alt.news-media,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Top 10 Under-reported Stories of '91 released by Project Censored
Date: 23 Jul 92 10:14:19
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: harelb@MATH.CORNELL.EDU's message of 23 Jul 92 01:01:04 GMT

In article <9207230101.AA04031@tba.msi.cornell.edu> harelb@MATH.CORNELL.EDU (Harel Barzilai) writes:

> 	10.     THE BUSH FAMILY'S CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.  In recent history, 
> no president has had the blatant but unexplored familial conflicts of 
> interest comparable to that of George Bush.  These include his brother, 
> Prescott, a financial consultant with influential contacts in Japan, South 
> Korea, and the Philippines

And China---a major omission from this list.  Bush's brother has
invested a great deal of money in a hotel (for foreigners, of course)
in Beijing.  In other words: the Bush family has, for several years,
had a major financial stake in China having good relations with the
United States and Europe.

Think about that fact the next time you wonder why Bush was so eager
to cozy up to the Chinese leaders even after Tiananman Square.
--
Matthew Austern              I dreamt I was being followed by a roving band of
(510) 644-2618               of young Republicans, all wearing the same suit,
matt@physics.berkeley.edu    taunting me and shouting, "Politically correct
austern@theorm.lbl.gov       multiculturist scum!"... They were going to make
austern@lbl.bitnet	     me kiss Jesse Helms's picture when I woke up.
Xref: sparky alt.activism:13259 soc.motss:32126 talk.politics.misc:35243 alt.individualism:4404
From: fjvwing@cs.vu.nl (FJ!!)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,soc.motss,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Date: 22 Jul 92 15:30:03 GMT

gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
>jb> Jim Burke
>jb> I don't want to go back to living in a society where people can be denied
>jb> a life.

>  Then work against socialism and become a libertarian. It's up to *you* to
>  decide whether or not you're going to deny someone a life, but it's *not*
>  for you to decide for others. As long as enough people like you and me ex-
>  ist to assure that anyone who wants to live a decent life can do so, there

I don't think they will exist. Not after enough time, not in every
community. Just look around. there will be a lot of places where people
can and will be denied an existance.

I've finally found what doesn't click with Libertarianism and me: a
belief that people are guided by rationale, maximalisation of
happiness, and concious thinking about the cutting edges of judgements
in life, with total disregard of things like peer-pressure, basic
mine-is-mine like-me-not-like-me instincts. People aren't rational.

							FJ!!
From: covici@ccs.covici.com (John Covici)
Reply-To: covici@ccs.covici.com
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: The Burke & Hare of The Democratic Party
Date: 26 Jul 92 20:54:11 GMT
Organization: Covici Computer Systems

          THE `BURKE AND HARE' OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY

   Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
   July 25, 1992

This is independent Presidential Candidate Lyndon LaRouche
speaking, discussing with you the nature of the Clinton-Gore
campaign organization. I would take you back a bit in history to
earlier in the last century--to the time a famous writer then,
Robert Lewis Stevenson, who wrote a quasi-fictional account of an
actual occurrence of two gentlemen in Scotland called Burke and
Hare. Burke and Hare had the business of supplying corpses to
certain medical institutions, in Edinburgh and so forth, and they
robbed graveyards. When the proprietors of the medical
institutions complained about the quality of decay of the corpses
delivered by Burke and Hare, they resorted to the obvious use of
supplying these with fresh corpses, people they waylaid and
killed by methods which became known as Burking. So thus the
famous case of Burke and Hare, a true life story fictionalized in
part by the famous short story writer and novelist, Robert Lewis
Stevenson. 
   What we have coming into Washington, as the Clinton-Gore
ticket, is the Burke and Hare of the Democratic Party, who are
offering you not a recovery, but a resurrection. 


----
         John Covici
          covici@ccs.covici.com

Newsgroups: alt.activism,soc.motss,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
From: glp@fig.citib.com (Greg Parkinson)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Originator: glp@merlin
Organization: Citibank IBISM
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 14:23:13 GMT


In article <veal.122@utkvm1.utk.edu>, veal@utkvm1.utk.edu (David L. Veal) writes:
|> In article <1992Jul23.123832.18186@queernet.org> rogerk@queernet.org (Roger B.A. Klorese) writes:
|> 
|> >In article <archer.132@utkux1.utk.edu> archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
|> >>And if you are interested in bias, try being the only literate person in a 
|> >>public school system that reveres jock-dom and football above all else.  I'
|> >>ve shed my share of plasma on the field of bias.
|> 
|> >Yes, I agree, that's far more tragic than being denied housing,
|> >employment, or the right to walk down the street in peace.  Enough of
|> >this whining about racism, sexism, heteroexism... the real enemy is
|> >sports fandom...  Yeesh.
|> 
|>      This, I like.  "My form of discrimination is worse than your form of 
|> discrimination!" 

You don't mean you actually think that being annoyed because
you're an intellectual and everyone else in your school is 
a jock is equivalent to being denied the ability to support
yourself because of the gender of the person you fall in love with?

-- 
Greg Parkinson                  Phone: 212-657-7814  Fax: 212-825-8607
Citibank,111 Wall Street        E-Mail: glp@fig.citib.com
New York, New York  10043
The opinions expressed are my own and not those of the big 'ol bank.
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
From: archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Libertarianism vs. government
Organization: University of Tennessee Computing Center
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 15:00:52 GMT

In article <l6rl5nINN87v@spim.mips.com> mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:

>Ron Dippold) writes:
>|> What?  Libertarianism is the belief that while there are people who
>|> are good, there are also people who are bad, and they are going to do
>|> bad things.  And the trickier and nastier they are, the more likely
>|> they're going to gravitate to the government as a source of power.
>|> And even the only slightly bad people are still going to do bad
>|> things.  Non-rational things.   The whole idea is to limit the damage
>|> these people can do, when their best tool is the government.
>|> 
>So any crime is acceptable as long as it is not done by a government?
>Who defines crime?  Who defines government? Who defines acceptable?

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.

-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
Newsgroups: alt.activism,soc.motss,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
From: rogerk@queernet.org (Roger B.A. Klorese)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Organization: QueerNet
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 22:43:50 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.010100.13640@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
>However, there are bars that you can go to - right? If not, then you and
>your friends could open another bar - where you would not have a problem.

"Money talks."  Propertarian Party politics in action.
-- 
ROGER B.A. KLORESE                                              +1 415 ALL-ARFF
rogerk@unpc.QueerNet.ORG                 {ames,decwrl,pyramid}!mips!unpc!rogerk
"Normal is not something to aspire to, it's something to get away from."
                                                                   -- J. Foster
From: archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Private Discrimination
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 14:07:59 GMT

In article <nkjfh10@fido.asd.sgi.com> dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:


>I know many gay men who have been fired for being gay (I was one, my lover
>was nearly another).  I know people who have been denied promotion for being
>female, I know people who have been denied promotion for being black.

So we can see clearly by your example that anti-discrimanatory laws were not 
helpful in your case.

>I can cite cases of almost every minority being biased against for who they
>are, not what they do.

That is true, but governemnt intervention is useless and wrong.  

>Do you believe that women would not be sexually harassed in the military
>if the government did not say "stop it"?

This military is a US government operation paid for by tax dollars collected 
form all individuals.  The Libertarian platform is clearly opposed to the 
government, as a public entity from engaging in discriminatory practices of 
any type.  This example is invalid, except to prove my point.  Activity such 
as that which occured at the "Tailhook" convention is already illegal by act 
of Congress AND Naval regulations.  It did not stop it.  Only by changing 
the society can such things be prevented.

>I am a minority.  There are not enough gay owned businesses in the united
>states that I can take my business to them.  I have been thrown out of bars
>in Detroit where the owner has said "we don't serve faggots here."  Not
>worth pressing charges, but you bet your ass that if people thought they
>could get away with it, they would.

But he DID get away with it.  In SPITE of the law, which meant NOTHING.

-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.society.revolution
From: pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich)
Subject: Re: AF/ATS: Revolutionary Cells communique
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 02:02:20 GMT
Organization: Trivializers R Us

In article <wghm5rb.nagle@netcom.com> nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) writes:

>     The Klu Klux Klan, though, is an enduring bit of Americana, now in its
>second century.  It peaked in the 1920s, with over a million members.
>In recent years, the Klan has produced a major political figure (David
>Duke), so it can't be dismissed.  But it's not really going anywhere.
>
>      Gus Hall is still leading the Communist Party of the United States.
>Assuming anyone still cares.  SPY magazine interviewed him a few months
>back.  He has a little office in New York, with pictures of him with Stalin
>and other biggies of the heyday of communism. There's not much to do;
>the Daily Worker became the Weekly People decades ago, then turned into
>a monthly, and now is gone.  The rallies, marches, protests, and candidates
>are only a memory.  The days when the CPUSA struck fear into people are
>almost forgotten.  It's only a footnote to history now.
>
>       This is what the US does to fringe political groups.  They're
>tolerated, mostly ignored, and eventually, they die, although some linger
>on for decades with a few true believers.  This is the strength of
>an open political system.  It really does, in the long run, work.
>This is the best argument against political censorship and repression.

Then again, parts of eastern europe have new governments and we have
demopublicans as far as the eye can see. Perhaps that's the lesson
for a regime that wants to stay _in power_. (Mind you, of course, it's
only been 25 years since we gave up the last of the death squads here,
so it may be too early to tell.) The other thing that has worked so
well in this country is the trivializing of political speech in general
(could you imagine having a playwright for president here, or any kind
of intellectual?) and the privatizing of repression. If the government
made you piss in a cup, and threw you in jail based on the results,
that would be unconstitutional, but if your employer makes you do it
and conditions your livelihood on the results, that's responsible
corporate citizenship. Not to mention firing troublemakers and people
who just don't fit in, etc. The thing about economic repression is that
it's too diffuse to figh against, and the business system exerts such
a strong colonizing influence that even if you did throw the bums out
their replacements would behave in almost identical ways.

Oh well, nobody said it would be easy.

paul






Newsgroups: alt.activism,sci.environment,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism.d,talk.environment
From: rkrii@cco.caltech.edu (Roberk Kim Rickenbrode II)
Subject: Re: Rio and streetkids
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 20:55:40 GMT

[...]

{Armond} Nope.  The benefits are important enough that none of us care.

{Me}  Perhaps, or maybe we have been so dehumanized that we really don't care,
  regardless of any perceived benefits.  Let me pose it to you this way: if
  I told you that specific members of your family are going to die in 
  automobile accidents (or by secondary pollution effects), and
  furthermore gave you the power to effect the future only by halting automobile
  production, what would you do?

{Friedman} I wouldn't believe you.  If I did then I would halt it.
	 On the other hand, if you told me the truth - that I and virtually
	everyone else I know has approximately a 1/1000 chance (50,000
	autodeaths a year out of 250,000,000) of being killed by a car every
	year and I have the power to effect the future only by halting auto
	production I'd shrug and say "I accept the risk.  Virtually every
	other American does. (How many people do you know who don't get in cars
	becasue [sic] of safety concerns?)  Why should I interfere?"

{Me}  Ridiculous, I know, but I think it's illustrative, in this manner.  The
numbers we see on TV (200 die in plane crash; 100,000 die annually from
lung cancer, etc) are just that: numbers.  We must always keep in mind that
these are people, important in their own right, with family and friends.

{Friedman} Sure.  And how many million die every year just from being born?
Until we find the secret if [sic] immortality we can't live forever.

  The dismissive "sure" above and the quote below lead me to think that my
comments were misunderstood.  I am not against technology, I see the benefits;
but, I also see the deleterious effects of its wanton application, also.  The
original intent of my post was to remind the seemingly blase Armond that
the annual mortality figures represent people, not abstractions.  That is all.

[...]

{Me}  In short, I reject MY inclusion in the "us" pronoun used above.

{Friedman} So then why the heck are you using a computer?

  The point of my statement was merely to say that some of us see the 
figures in a little different light.

Robert Rickenbrode (rkrii@coil.cco.caltech.edu)

Xref: sparky alt.activism:13637 talk.politics.misc:36287 alt.individualism:4677
From: m15133@mwvm.mitre.org (Graham K. Glover)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Libertarianism vs. government
Date: 28 Jul 92 12:40:16 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation

In article <1992Jul27.221322.14618@watson.ibm.com>, strom@watson.ibm.com 
(Rob Strom) writes:

>Constitutional democracies provide mechanisms outside
>the "free market" to prevent such abusive situations
>before they get out of hand.  Libertarianism, on the
>other hand, defines these situations as *ipso facto*
>non-abusive.
>
>  ...
>
>Don't use these loaded words.  Nobody is "bleating".  We already
>have a constitutional democracy --- *you* are the one trying
>to change the rules of the game.

Mr Strom:

The Constitution of the United States of America established a 
Constitutional Republic -- NOT a constitutional democracy.  The framers of 
the Constitution wanted nothing to do with a democracy, it being a 
government of tyranny (See Federalist Paper 10, James Madison, which 
discusses how a republic protects the rights of minorities against the 
tyranny of the masses of a democracy).

YOU are the one trying to change the rules of the game.  Libertarianism is 
a philosophical attempt at returning this country back to the concept of 
individual rights and individual responsibility.

DISCLAIMER:  THESE ARE MY VIEWS, NOT MITRE'S.

----------------
Graham K. Glover
----------------
Xref: sparky alt.activism:13408 soc.motss:32400 talk.politics.misc:35734 alt.individualism:4532
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,soc.motss,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Date: 24 Jul 92 05:44:48 GMT
Article-I.D.: genie.1992Jul24.054448.714
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences

In article <nkghems@fido.asd.sgi.com> dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
}In article <archer.127@utkux1.utk.edu> archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
}
}>So, you anti-liberty types don't believe that individual people are capable 
}>of acting in an enlightened manner, and must be forced to do so by a benign 
}>statist government.
}
}Actually, what I seem to notice is that almost every libertarian I know
}is a white heterosexual middle-to-upper class male.  Why is this, you may
}ask?  Because these people have never seen how terrible people can be
}to each other.  Since they have never experienced bias, they do not see it
}anywhere.

Logical fallacy: circumstantial ad hominem.  Besides, this is also false if
taken to be a generalization, a stereotype of what libertarians are.

}I find it hard to believe that an american business would pay women as much
}as men if they were not afraid of a lawsuit (even with the fear of a lawsuit,
}they pay them less).  I do not believe that all store-owners in the south
}would sell to afro-americans if they had any way to avoid it.  

Frankly, this utopian, end-state, egalitarian view has yet to be justified.
Why should women be paid equally, so long as consensual association is
maximized?  Why shouldn't store owners refuse to deal with ayone they damn
well please?  More precisely, why shouldn't these actions remain permissible,
and why shouldn't people who engage in vicious behavior improve themselves?

}The amount of hate that I see for being a gay man, in my day to day life,
}convinces me that given a choice, many many people would be biased against
}me.

Funny, there are many gay libertarians.  I work with some.  They don't think
that liberty would immediately destroy vice, but they recognize that vice is
both outside the correct domain for coercion and that, all else being equal,
virtue wins out over vice.

}All the evidence that I have seen for libertarianism is history which has
}been rewritten to make libertarianism seem like the answer.

Gee, no historical revisionism is done by either the socialists or the fascists!

}In an ideal world, libertarianism might work (just like communism might
}work).  However, given the current situation with haves and have-nots, 
}libertarianism would give white heterosexual males the freedom to return
}to the exploitive days of the past.

Socialist nonsense.  Ludwig von Mises proved - that's right, proved - the
impossibility of socialism in 1922, 70 years ago.  This haves and have-nots
stuff is more commie nonsense.  I'd like to reference it, if possible.  Same
for the "exploitative" stuff, too.


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
Xref: sparky alt.activism:13669 soc.motss:32866 talk.politics.misc:36379 alt.individualism:4707
From: jbf@wts.com (Jens B. Fiederer)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Organization: Wegmans Transaction Services
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 15:41:35 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.164330.800@auto-trol.com> katbea@auto-trol.com (Kathy Beatty) writes:
>But under libertarianism, there would be no one to complain to, and no 
>mechanism for complaining.  And that's exactly why libertarianism, while 
>wonderful in theory, would in reality be a nightmare for minorities.  
>

There will be plenty of people to which you can complain, and the mechanism
will be speech.  The difference is that these people will not be able to
force a merchant to serve you.  They can, however, refuse to patronize the
merchant, set up a competing store, or at least suggest a "better" place.

Under libertarianism there will almost certainly evolve communities in which
certain groups (majority as well as minority) are not welcome.  There will
also evolve more liberal communities in which nearly everyone is welcome.

The greater success of the more rational communities will make them more
attractive, even to many of the children of the more prejudiced communities.
If you don't believe that, you are suggesting that
	THE PREJUDICED PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY CORRECT

I dont believe that.  Do you?

Jens
Xref: sparky alt.activism:13592 talk.politics.misc:36208 soc.culture.latin-america:2745
From: kamine@is.rice.edu (Jorge Hershel Kamine)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.latin-america
Subject: Re: HISTORY LESSON: Chomsky on Cuba
Date: 27 Jul 92 23:07:49 GMT
Organization: Rice University

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.
From an purely economic standpoint, I think you are correct in asserting
that limiting investment in certain countries, namely Cuba, can
only serve to limit the possible economic gains made by U.S.
companies.  However, the U.S. I grew up with was not governed nor
did it act solely on the basis of economics (at least ideally).
I would argue that U.S. companies should reread their history
books and take into consideration that investing in countries
that maintain "undemocratic" (if not, dictatorial) governments
can be a high risk.  In Cuba herself, the Cuban revolution is an
example of how dangerous it can be to seek economic gains while
ignoring the social consequences.  Although do not consider
myself to be a utilitarian by any stretch of the imagination, I
think it could be said that economic rewards will be greater and
more forthcoming if the environment in which they are sought is
stable and positive.  By this, I do not mean imposed stability by
military or other force, nor a positive environment provided by
lending a deaf ear and a blind eye to the practices of a
particularly "friendly" government.  For better or worse, I think
countries like Japan have demonstrated the benefits of a
government that works with the people instead of against it or by
enslaving it.  Therefore, limitations on U.S. investment should
be used to insure that said investments are going to nations and
not to perpetuate oligarchies or other monopolies of power.  


-- 
*******************************************************************************
*       Jorge Kamine Arreola      * "An eye for an eye leaves two men blind."  
*       email: kamine@is.rice.edu *  -Edward James Olmos   
*******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.activism