HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cedman@714-725-3165.nts.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Subject: Re: Media Bias
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.news-media,alt.activism
Reply-To: cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Date: 27 Aug 92 19:30:45 GMT
Distribution: na

Cliff Heller writes
> > Carl Edman writes:
> > > If PRO-LIFE is such a fundamental position, then why are
> > > there so many pro-lifers who support capital
> > > punishment? 
> > 
> > "I think that was a particularly knee-jerk response.  I
> > don't think anyone who   uses or hears "pro-life" really
> > thinks it means anything beyond the abortion   issue -- it
> > is implied and understood to mean pro-fetal-life.  This
> > isn't the   same as pro-choice, which is intended to imply
> > that the other side is made up   of a bunch of authoritarian
> > fascists." Or so the argument in your post a few   minutes
> > ago goes. 
> 
> Hey.  You can't play games like this.  Why does pro-choice
> imply that the other side is a bunch of authoritarian
> fascists, yet pro-life does not imply that the other side
> are a bunch of murderers?
> 
> I can just as easily say that pro-choice is implied and
> understood to mean pro-choice-to-have-an-abortion. 

Now hopefully for the last time. That has been my point all along.

Pro-Choice is a propaganda term. Pro-Life is a propaganda term. Neither side  
really supports its banner consistently. Both sides have chosen their  
descriptions in order to win public sympathy for themselves and public  
disregard for the other side.

A journalist may very well decide to use more descripitive names for both  
sides, because he dislikes the use of propaganda terms. Pro-abortion-rights and  
Anti-abortion-rights or Pro-fetal-rights and Anti-fetal-rights seem reasonably  
honest terms. On the other hand a reasonable journalist can decide that  
everybody knows what is meant by Pro-Life and Pro-Choice and that the  
descriptive terms are inconvenient and so decide to use the propaganda terms.

But a journalist can not use the propaganda term for one side and the  
descriptive term for the other (like Mr Voss admitted he did) and still expect  
to be considered fair and unbiased.

	Carl Edman
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Subject: Re: Military censorship of news
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 16:39:24 GMT

pvanmeur@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Pim van Meurs) writes:

>In article <1992Aug30.192335.20297@afit.af.mil> jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:

>>I think mankind has generally agreed that there are some things worth
>>fighting and dying for.  Freedom is certainly one of them and there
>>have been plenty of political theories throughout history that have 
>>denied people freedom.  The British colonial system of two centuries 
>>ago comes immediately to mind...

>Or the US's restoration of a restrictive government lately in
>Kuwait. Where it fought the war for economic reasons. The US is only
>too happy to reinstall the previous rulers since they are happy to
>have the US serve under them. Money talks I guess. Words like
>freedom are happily forgotten and only used when needed.

>Pim van Meurs

The Gulf War was fought for several reasons.  Like I said above (in
response to someone who implied that no political theory was worth 
dying over), freedom is only one of the reasons we have gone to war.
The stability of the world is another pretty good reason, in my opinion.
If we refuse to do anything until directly threatened, we will find
ourselves in another world war eventually.  

But I'm having a hard time debating the merits of war in general with
somebody who firmly believes that the Soviet Union was never a military
threat to us.  We are obviously in two very different worlds.  Bye.
-- 

Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire 
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.news-media,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: nyh@newton.WPI.EDU (Nevo Y Hed)
Subject: Re: NBC news and Dan Quayle
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 21:15:24 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.170254.934@igor.tamri.com> donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin) writes:

>
>Not just the media.  I feel that the people of the US had a right to know
>that we were about to attack a foreign country, instead of waking up one
>day and finding out over coffee, after the fact.  And that we should have
>had some say in the matter...


	common don, how can a suprise attack be a suprise if you have
CNN report it 2 weeks earlier...  disen't matter if we agree that the
attackes were carried out or not but surely you cant expect the gov't
to carry out an opinion poll before they start a military operation.


	That is the job of the elected few, they have to make the
descisions in such matters.


	-Nevo

-- 
Nevo Y. Hed ............. nyh@wpi.wpi.edu .....................................
++1-508-754-2491 ........ CS student, Worcester Polytechnic Institute .........
"I like my cigar too, but I take it out of my mouth from time to time" G.Marx .
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Usual libels against Chomsky (Was Re: Media Bias ...)
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1992Aug22.224039.14143@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 22 Aug 92 21:57:43

Dave Kohr asks:

     >Why aren't you ashamed of all the boat people the leftist
     >aid to the conquest of South Vietnam helped drown?

     What "aid" was this?  Mere opposition to the US
     intervention?

Exactly.  It enormously helped the communists win - as was its
intention.  I remember reading about Sam Brown, the leader of
some phase of the anti-war movement, telling the communist Vietnamese
Ambassador when the communists took over the UN seat, "The day
you entered Saigon was the happiest day of my life."

--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: drm@esl.com (Don McGregor )
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: Usual libels against Chomsky
Date: 3 Sep 92 01:05:17 GMT
Reply-To: drm@esl.com

In article <1SEP199222301798@reg.triumf.ca> orwell@reg.triumf.ca (BALDEN,  
RON) writes: (quoting a book by someone or other)
# "  A critical element of the [Reagan] administration's campaign, 
# therefore, has been a broad series of accusations, regularly repeated, 
# of Soviet expansionism, Soviet violations of arms treaties, Soviet
# intransigence in arms negotiations, Soviet initiatives in the arms
# race, Soviet planning for nuclear war, Soviet use of inhumane weapons,
# Soviet violations of human rights, and Soviet support of violence and
# terrorism throughout the world.
# 
#[...]almost all of the remaining charges are wholly without
# foundations.  

Hmmm.  Since the book was published, the then-Soviet foreign minister  
admitted that the xUSSR cheated on ABM radar agreements, and it was  
revealed recently by the current Russian government that arms transfers  
were made to IRA and to mideast terror organizations.  The East German  
government also sheltered baeder-meinhof gang members on East German soil.

--
Don McGregor
drm@esl.com  
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.news-media,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.war
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: NBC news and Dan Quayle
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 17:28:54 GMT

In article <5972@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil>, rovero@oc (Josh Rovero) writes:
>Before people get out of hand in criticizing the MILITARY for "invading"
>Grenada and a host of other sins, please remember that it was the civilian
>leadership that decided to use military force, as per the US constitution.
>
>The military leadership hasn't, to my knowledge, gone off and invaded any
>one without getting the nod from the civilians.  

I might be mistaken on this (my memory is vague), but I think I
somehow got the impression that the Iraq war and many U.S. government
adventures abroad were called "conflicts" or any other euphemism
officially to bypass the decision of Congress (as according to the
U.S. constitution Congress is the one deciding about wars, not the
President or someone else).  Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Hmm, Bush _does_ appear to call the Iraq war "Gulf War" in the
candidate speech.  Perhaps I'm mistaken with regards to Iraq.

//Jyrki
Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:2923 alt.news-media:1033 alt.rush-limbaugh:3998
From: jac54@cas.org ()
Subject: Re: NBC news and Dan Quayle
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 19:11:26 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.172854.1311@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>>
>>The military leadership hasn't, to my knowledge, gone off and invaded any
>>one without getting the nod from the civilians.
>
>I might be mistaken on this (my memory is vague), but I think I
>somehow got the impression that the Iraq war and many U.S. government
>adventures abroad were called "conflicts" or any other euphemism
>officially to bypass the decision of Congress (as according to the
>U.S. constitution Congress is the one deciding about wars, not the
>President or someone else).  Please correct me if I'm wrong.
>
>Hmm, Bush _does_ appear to call the Iraq war "Gulf War" in the
>candidate speech.  Perhaps I'm mistaken with regards to Iraq.
>

	The big giveaway is intent.  Under the War Powers Act it doesn't
	matter if you tell congress they're going to help with the annual
	Attar of Roses festival in Bulgaria.  If you happen to be sending
	your forces with enough firepower to put Colorado into orbit then
	Congress will look askance at you and ask for an explanation.

	There are other weaknesses in the War Powers Act, but playing
	silly word games was something they outgrew a long time ago.

	Alec.
From: Student.Assembly@dartmouth.edu (Student Assembly)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
Subject: Network of student governments and student unions
Date: 27 Aug 92 22:51:14 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH


The Student Assembly of Dartmouth College would like to establish and
maintain communications links with other student governments in the
U.S. and around the world.  The benefits of such an arrangement would
be many.  When issues of national and international importance arise,
we could coordinate our responses.  Since many of us face similar
problems on all our campuses, we could share ideas and tactics.  For
instance, the administration here has recently agreed to grant us one
student seat on the college's seven-member budget committee, the
highest financial decision-making body.  Student representatives at
Dartmouth will now have real influence over the amount of money
allocated for financial aid.   Student governments without such power
may be interested to know simply THAT such an arrangement exists so
that they, too, can force a similar concession from their
administration.

Any student government with e-mail capability is invited to send us
their e-mail address, and we will compile them and send updated lists
regularly to all participating governments.

(If there is already such an e-mail directory or network of student
governments, please let us know; we haven't heard of it.)

Earlier this week, we passed a statement against the upcoming anti-gay
and -lesbian referendum in Oregon, and we've already been covered by TV
stations in Oregon.  Tonight we will be faxing the statement to AP and
CNN.  We hope that other colleges will likewise do their best to put
this matter on the national agenda by generating media coverage.  And
there are plenty of other matters on which we could cooperate.

If you like the idea of inter-college e-mail, let us know.

Jeff Strabone
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Smearing I.F. Stone  (AIM, Truth not in the middle)
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 25 Aug 92 22:52:33

Ron Balden asks

     Would John McCarthy agree that there is a dangerous fallacy
     in unthinkingly applying the heuristic "truth lies somewhere
     in the middle" in judging various reports of public affairs?

Yes, it's a fallacy, and sometimes it's dangerous.  Indeed Reed Irvine
cosntantly finds media executives using that argument to avoid
answering his specific accusations of bias.

However, I don't agree with

     A.I.M serves a highly useful ideological function; by
     constantly accusing the U.S. mass media of having a "liberal
     bias" it allows the powers that be in the mass media to say
     (roughly): "See!  We're attacked equally by both the right
     (AIM) and the left (FAIR); therefore we must be doing ok" in
     a tacit invocation of the heuristic that "Truth lies
     somewhere in the middle."

It strikes me as presuming, on the basis of their being run by
corporations, that the media executives want what Ron Balden thinks
the capitalist class wants.  "The powers that be in the media" is
one of the portentous and vague phrases that George Orwell criticized
as designed to conceal meaning.

--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: NLG Civil Liberties Committee <cberlet@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Date: 25 Aug 92 21:12 PDT
Subject: Re: Lyndon LaRouche & the Liberty L
Nf-ID: #R:QFS-fv@engin.umich.edu:1034962224:cdp:1296500305:000:1825
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!cberlet    Aug 25 21:12:00 1992



Folks, try some intelligent analysis. Any large academic study of fascism
will give a far more complex definition than authoritarian repression by
a government. The major academic work on Liberty Lobby by Mintz, for example,
discusses at great length the fascist tendencies of the group and the role
it plays in bridging the neo-Nazi right and the reactionary right. The major
error you folks are making about fascism, is that it is widely recognized that
there is a dramatic difference between fascism as a political movement, with itspopulist and pseudo-radical appeals to the middle and working class, and the
brutul form it takes when it gains state power.
  Please read Hannah Arendt on "The Origins of Totalitarianism" and her
careful discusion of Fascism as a political movement: it sounds just like the
appeals of LaRouche and Liberty Lobby: no surpise, both are fascist movements.
Please recall that as movements, fascism in Italy and Germnany attacked the
regimes in power as corrupt, and promised to represent the average person
against the elites.
  Sorry suckers, you're falling for the con again. I would have thought
thinking folks would not make the same error twice...at least not in
the same century.
  I will post a lengthier discussion I co-wrote on LaRouche in a new
topic.
  And please do some reading in a real library, not just issues of
LaRouchian and Liberty Lobby screed.

George Seldes, author of "Sawdust Caesar," first biography of Il Dulce:
"This guy LaRouche is pushing the same line as the Italian Fascists, it's
Italian Fascist Economic theory...anyone can see that."
   (Interview with Seldes at age 96 at his home in Vermont, 1986)

-Chip Berlet
Sued twice by LaRouche for calling him a fascist...LaRouche lost both cases.
One was a jury trial...they did their homework...why don't you?


Xref: sparky alt.activism:15756 talk.politics.misc:43027
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Monday, 31 Aug 1992 14:53:48 CDT
From: <U19807@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: "Lies Work"
 <92243.163225SML108@psuvm.psu.edu>
 <1992Aug30.224700.15365@oracle.us.oracle.com>

In article <1992Aug30.224700.15365@oracle.us.oracle.com>, mfriedma@uucp (Michael
Friedman) says:
>
>In article <92243.163225SML108@psuvm.psu.edu> SML108@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
>>Various brouhaha about who claims what deleted...
>
>>Here's how I see it...
>
>>Bush makes invalid claim about Clinton raising taxes 128 times...
>
>>Clinton responds that by same criteria, Bush did it 327 times...
>
>>Third party says real score is Clinton 59, Bush 78...
>
>>Now here's the clincher.  The way I see it, Clinton was not lying because
>>he had already stated the criteria was bogus and was merely showing that
>>if you apply the same Bu1!$h|+ to Bush, he's even worse...
>
>Excuse me, but don't you think 327 vs. 78 is significant?  I just love
>the way the Clinton weenies bend over backwards to pretend that their
>idol always tells the truth.

Pardon me,sir,but it seems to me that you've failed to read the above post,
as it clearly states that "by (the) same criteria", the Clinton score is
lower than the Bush score as far as raising taxes is concerned. the original
"327" number doesn't even enter into it.

Don't assume that I have the numbers to prove Clinton right-I don't. On the
other hand,it seems that you went to a great length to either ignore or
misinterpret what the original poster was really saying.

>Next thing I expect to hear is that it wasn't George Washington and
>the cherry tree but that it was really Slick Willie.

Nope. I have heard rumors that Bush is talking to some of the former editors
of _Pravda_ in order to hire their historical rewrite skills to prove
that he signed the Declaration of Independence,though. >:)

      ** Chris Krolczyk,esq.  * DISCLAIMER: My opinions are in **
      ** Maniac-at-Large      * no way endorsed by the Univer- **
      ** U19807@UICVM.BITNET  * sity of Illinois at Chicago.   **
      ** u19807@uicvm.uic.edu * So there. Nyaah.               **
Xref: sparky alt.activism:15762 ca.politics:7286 talk.politics.misc:43047
From: jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu (Michael Lodman)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Date: 1 Sep 92 03:27:07 GMT
Followup-To: alt.activism
Organization: CSE Department, UC San Diego

In article <1992Aug27.201620.11624@adobe.com> pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
>Considering that the Chancellor and his family had already been
>evacuated, I don't see why the cops had to kill her. She didn't even
>have a gun.  They should have just shot her in the kneecaps or used
>mace. I bet the cops in England could have handled it without
>killing Rosebud.

Have you _ever_ heard of a cop backing down? It seems to be some sort of
code that when they encounter force they can't handle non-lethaly
immediately, to resort to deadly force. I agree 100% Phil, they knew
they had a nutcase on their hands, and yet they did almost nothing
to attempt to resolve it peacefully, even if that meant giving the woman
some space. _Nobody_ was immediately threatened by her once the family
was evacuated, they could have talked to her for a week if they had to,
but killing her was quicker and cleaner.

This kind of shit goes on every day. Why be surprised? And why be surprised
that the net is full of morons who think it's ok that this cop was
somehow surprised that a crazy woman was loose?

-- 
Michael Lodman	Department of Computer Science Engineering
	University of California, San Diego
jlodman@cs.ucsd.edu		      (619) 455-1500 x2627
From: drm@esl.com (Don McGregor)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Sandinista Death Squads Continue?
Date: 31 Aug 92 06:27:09 GMT
Reply-To: drm@esl.com
Followup-To: alt.activism.d
Organization: ESL, a TRW Subsidiary

According to a report from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
217 former Contra rebels who laid down their arms after the elections
and peace agreement were later slain.  Among those killed were five 
former commanders of the Contra's general command.  There have 
been no prosecutions in connection with the killings; the Nicaraguan 
army and police are still under Sandinista control.  The report
says that "There are strong indications of a systematic campaign to 
assassinate former members of the Nicaraguan resistance."

---
Don McGregor | "That which does not overflow my swap file 
drm@esl.com  | makes me stronger." 

Xref: sparky alt.activism:15398 alt.discrimination:3978 talk.abortion:33413
From: cook@dollar.crd.ge.com (Cathi Cook)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.discrimination,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: FOCA: And I quote.....
Date: 25 Aug 92 21:06:40 GMT
Reply-To: cook@dollar.crd.ge.com (Cathi Cook)
Organization: GE Corporate R&D Center

In article <RJOHNSON.92Aug21104309@conus.shell.com>, rjohnson@shell.com
(Roy Johnson) writes:
|>smccabe@author.ecn.purdue.edu (Sarah A McCabe) writes:
|> >>because pregnancy would interfere with vacation plans.
|>			    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> >Could you please provide some documentation for this claim?  Perhaps
|> >something a little more verifiable thatn "it could have happened so it
|> >probably did" or "my best-friend's sister's next-door-neighbor's niece did
|> >this."  Thanks ever so.
|>
|>What, anecdotal evidence isn't any good anymore?  8^)  I read it in
|>a series of interviews done by one of the Houston papers, and it stood
|>out in my mind as outrageous.  That's the best I can give as a source.

I don't get it, Johnson.  You point out that there is a possibility that
women will have abortions for what you term "outrageous reasons".  You seem
to think that this is a Bad Thing, and that it should Not Be Allowed.

But what's the alternative here?  If you deny these women abortions, they
will soon have _newborn_infants_ under their care and control.  Do you think
that these formerly flagrantly irresponsible women will suddenly be infused
with some sort of responsibility hormone immediately upon childbirth?
Don't you think that the sort of woman who would have an abortion _solely_
becuase it would interfere with vaction plans (which, btw, I can hardly
believe was anyone's _sole_ reason, though they may have thought it was
funny to give it as a flip answer to an intrusive question of the none-of-
yer-damn-bizness sort) would be the same sort of woman who might, say,
leave an infant at home alone for a few hours if she felt she needed a break?
Or decide not to feed the baby if she didn't feel like going to the store
for formula?  Perhaps put a pillow over its mouth if the crying annoyed her?

|>I make no representation that it is a common thing (in fact, that was
|>the point of my mentioning it), only that it is an area that is currently
|>permissible and potentially in need of examination.  This remains true
|>even if all of the abortions done to date were done for medical reasons.

I think that if these mythical irresponsible women exist, society in general
is much better off if they never become mothers at all.  Even if it takes
abortion to ensure this.

|>Roy Johnson, who is not Kibo

You're _proud_ of not being Kibo?

                                    -rocker
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,talk.bizarre