HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jyc@leo.Stanford.EDU (Jon Corelis)
Subject: Re: Usual Libels against Chomsky
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Date:  1 Sep 92 01:02:11 GMT

Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:

>jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:

>>In 1967 I attended an "anti-war" demonstration in San Francisco.  I
>>still had some leftist sympathies and "opposed the war".  However,
>>when I saw the people at the head of the demonstration carrying
>>placards reading "Ho, ho, Ho Chi Minh, NLF gonna win" and also
>>chanting the slogan, I realized that I wasn't marching in an anti-war
>>demonstration but in demonstration in support of a communist victory.
>>I never attended another.  Some people told me that the people in
>>front were just a fringe group, but this fringe group was never
>>criticized by the "mainstream" "anti-war" movement or prevented from
>>dominating their demonstration.

   I think John McCarthy made vastly too much of those chants.  I was in
those demonstrations too, as was virtually everyone I knew at the time,
and I can testify not only that the Ho Chi Minh chanters were a small
minority, but that most even of that minority took up the chant not
because they had any interest in a Communist victory, but because of the
gartifyingly infuriating effect it had on flag-waving jingoist
onlookers.  When your fellow citizens are lining the parade route
indignantly demanding that you kill and die for nothing, it's hard to
resist taking advantage of an opportunity to give them apoplexy. 
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
From: rivard@claude.ma30.bull.com (Dennis Rivard)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: Military censorship of news
Date: 31 Aug 92 16:03:22 GMT
Organization: Bull HN Information Systems Inc.

In article <1347@esl.ESL.COM> drm@stimpy.com writes:
>
>The famous Saturday Night Live press briefing sketch captured the public
>mood pretty well.  There has to be an element of truth in comedy.

I thought I was watching that skit again the other day, but then I
realized it was C-SPAN, and they were talking about the "no fly"
zone...




-- 
School:drivard@cs.ulowell.edu       | Those who know/What's best for us/|
Work: rivard@claude.ma30.bull.com   | Must rise and save us from        |
My opinions are my own.             | ourselves.  - "Witch Hunt" Rush   |
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.news-media,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams)
Subject: Re: Military censorship of news
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 18:46:02 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

Thus spake jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer): 

>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...
>
	On the contrary. While we may PERSONALLY agree that freedom, or any
other principle, is worth fighting for - that does NOT make such a belief
universal - particularly in an historical perspective.

	Bear in mind that your views of the British colonial system, by
necessity, differ radically from those of the British during that era - THEY
believed themselves to be the "protectors" of the people in the colonies.

	In a similar manner, your views on the propriety of the Gulf War
differ siginficantly from those of the Iraqi people, who saw the invasion of
Kuwait as a chance to regain a portion of their nation taken from them by
the West at the end of WWII. 

	You may perceive our role as that of "fighters for freedom." Others,
otoh, may with equal justification see the current government of Kuwait
(which WE support) as just as repressive of human rights as were the Iraqis
- and may therefore question why, if the war was REALLY about freedom, we
permitted THAT government to re-assume control without demanding human
rights consessions from them in return for "liberating" their country from
Iraq.

	MANY of us feel that this was NOT a war fought for "freedom" but one
fought for OIL instead - a VERY different matter involving a FAR less
"universal"  cause than you imply was existent.

>There was also the political theory that marched across Europe and bombed
>the crap out of your cities all night.  Worth fighting and dying for
>in order to stop such a "theory"?
>
	Sorry, I find it easier to equate George Bush to Hitler than I do to
equate him to the Allies.  That makes it rather difficult to justify
supporting his position - from my perspective.

-- 
    rick.adams on GEnie   /|\        You are right from your side,        
     adamsr@netcom.com  /  |  \        And I am right from mine.          
    adamsr@irie.ais.org \ /|\ /  We're both just one too many mornings,   
   adamsr@norwich.bitnet  \|/  And a thousand miles behind. (c Bob Dylan) 
Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:2874 alt.news-media:983 alt.rush-limbaugh:3954
From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.news-media,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: NBC news and Dan Quayle
Date: 25 Aug 92 15:01:39 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology

chrisda@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (David Christensen) writes:

>In article <5970@grus.cs.nps.navy.mil> shimeall@cs.nps.navy.mil (timothy shimeall) writes:
>>In article <h8=nqyn.adamsr@netcom.com> adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams) writes:
>>
>>Whether to provide information to those who oppose war wasn't a
>>military decision.
>>
>>You seem to be forgetting: the resources provided to the military
>>are a) finite (VERY tightly controlled by Congress) and b) dedicated
>>to a purpose (the mission statement described above).  Collecting
>>information for civilian personnel was not funded by Congress nor 
>>provided for in the mission statement under which the President and
>>Congress sent the troops to the Gulf.  Literally, any military person
>>that spent effort collecting non-operational information (information
>>not needed to deter Iraq from invading Saudi Arabia or to remove Iraqi
>>control over Kuwait) would be breaking the law.  Furthermore, the
>>sensors used for BDA are still highly classified.  Revealing the
>>characteristics of those sensors (such as how many bodies they can
>>detect) without need-to-know and appropriate clearance is chargable
>>as treason.  
>>					Tim
>>-- 
>Why, then, were there resources enough to provide CNN and other television
>services with videotape of "smart" bombs going down chimneys into targeted 
>buildings, videotape of a bridge precisely hit and destroyed, etc.  These
>images conveyed a carefully chosen image of bombing accuracy, and a sense
>that the resulting explosions harmed no actual people.

For any who may actually be unaware of the Air Force's methods of
obtaining videos of this sort, here it is.  They are a direct descendant
of the gun camera used in WWII fighters.  They were used to confirm
an enemy AC destruction.  The *only* reason we have video tapes of
smart bombs and the like is for intelligence use.  They were not added
to the AC weight and cost merely to provide us with neat evening news
footage.  


Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Available: Software Engineer or MIS. MSCE, 1 year C++, Unix Experience
	   Highly motivated, keeps political opinions at home!
	             Seattle area, only.  513-233-4502
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
From: chrisda@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (David Christensen)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.news-media,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Gulf War News Coverage (was: NBC news and Dan Quayle)
Date: 27 Aug 92 07:40:22 GMT
Followup-To: John McCarthy's civics lesson
Distribution: usa
Organization: Computer Science Outreach Services - Oregon State University

In article <JMC.92Aug26170515@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>What information a government agencys obliged to provide and to
>whom is regulated by the Freedom of Information Act.  If some
>outfit wants to request videotapes of military operations, they
>can make this request.  Unless the Defense Department can provide
>a security reason that satisfies the courts, they are obliged to
>provide it.  I suppose their budget for doing so is rather limited,
>but I haven't heard of FOIA requests for videotapes, so Mr.
>Christensen could be the first.  He can even ask them to search their
>files for tapes that show Iraqi babies being blown to bits.
>
I don't understand the unpleasant tone of your post, but whatever.. it's yours,
not mine.

My argument had to do with the availability of information before, during and
immediately after the war.  The Pentagon briefings released only the most
favorable information to the public/media, while preventing reporters from 
gathering information independently.

Several postings suggested that this was due to cost constraints; I just wanted
to show why I think that's a crock.

David Christensen
chrisda@atlantis.cs.orst.edu
From: drm@stimpy.com (Don McGregor)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: Military censorship of news
Date: 29 Aug 92 22:21:38 GMT
Reply-To: drm@stimpy.com
Organization: ESL, a TRW Subsidiary

In article 92Aug28202454@SAIL.Stanford.EDU, jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:
>They
>probably see this as necessary, because the media, when miffed as a
>group, seek revenge without the slightest compunction and with total
>self-righteousness.  Their revenge is effective against anyone who
>depends at all on public opinion.  There is no use in defying them,
>becasue they always have the last word.  Other institutions in our
>society also find it necessary to kiss the ass of the media no
>matter how unfair they think the media have been.
 
I think this is basically true.  As the old saying goes, "never pick a fight
with someone who buys ink by the barrel."

On the other hand, it was interesting to watch what went on during the
Gulf war.    Coverage was so intense that events were being covered
live, as they happened, with no filtering.  In the case of the press conferences,
the media came off as idiots while the military briefers looked pretty
good in comparision.  The media didn't seem very informed about
what was going on and behaved like a bunch of egotistical, imperious
twerps.  The military briefers came across as non-blowdried people
trying to do their best, even in the case of those without any camera
presence at all.  (ADM McConnell at the Pentagon briefings, the
Marine at the SA briefings.)  The final Swartzkopf briefing comes to mind...
a reporter asked in a somewhat snotty tone of voice if the faster than
expected progress wasn't due to ineffective mine fields, and Swartzkopf
cut him down by asking if he had ever been in a mine field.  I think the 
media would have edited out that response if they had had the chance.

The famous Saturday Night Live press briefing sketch captured the public
mood pretty well.  There has to be an element of truth in comedy.

 ---
Don McGregor | "That which does not overflow my swap file 
drm@esl.com  | makes me stronger."
From: orwell@reg.triumf.ca (BALDEN, RON)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: Usual Libels against Chomsky
Date: 2 Sep 92 20:21:00 GMT
Organization: TRIUMF: Tri-University Meson Facility
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41


John McCarthy (jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU), "replying" to me:
>Why should we believe Gervasi rather than the Pentagon?

I could answer in detail (Gervasi discusses this question himself, where 
he points out that the facts are generally not in dispute, but 
rather the interpretations used to create "threat inflation"), 
but the question is clearly disingenuous, since John McCarthy obviously
has no intention of letting the facts confuse his beliefs in this area. 
I presume this is not how he goes about his work in mathematics and
computer science. 

Let me -- with 46 years of historical justification -- turn the question 
around, and ask John McCarthy why I should believe anything the 
U.S. political-military-industrial complex has to say about this,
since they have shown themselves to be consistent liars in this area?

You just need a memory and knowledge of history longer than two weeks.
From George Orwell, "1984" (Part I, v, pg. 61 in 1989 Penguin Books
edition), emphasis in original:

  "... For the moment he [Winston Smith] had shut his ears to the
  remoter noises and was listening to the stuff that streamed out of the
  telescreen.  It appeared that there had even been demonstrations to
  thank Big Brother for raising the chocolate ration to twenty grammes a
  week.  And only yesterday, he reflected, it had been announced that
  the ration was to be **reduced** to twenty grammes a week.  Was it
  possible that they could swallow that, after only twenty-four hours? 
  Yes, they swallowed it. Parsons swallowed it with the stupidity of an
  animal.  The eyeless creature at the other table swallowed it
  fanatically, passionately, with a furious desire to track down,
  denounce and vaporize anyone who should suggest that last week the
  ration had been thirty grammes. Syme, too --- in some more complex
  way, involving doublethink -- Syme swallowed it.  Was he, then
  **alone** in the possession of a memory?"  [George Orwell, "1984"]


   Ron Balden
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
From: conty@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (Conty III)
Subject: Re: Military censorship of news
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 17:01:14 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.133440.18495@afit.af.mil>, jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:
> 
> The above is, of course, raw flame bait.  Nothing sugar-coated about it,
> and *all* my own opinions. 

Actually, I found it to be level-headed, and I agree with most of it, except:

> Is censorship ever justified?  I think so, when it serves our best
> interests as a country.  

I can see situations where censorship is definitely justified (troop movements
as such), but this can be one very dangerous issue.  Who defines what our
"best interests" are?  Certainly not the public, as they are the ones being
denied access to information.

-- 
			    E n r i q u e  C o n t y
			The Incredible Man-with-no-Life
			      jester@ihlpl.att.com
		    Disclaimer: You're not dealing with AT&T
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
From: drk@melodian.cs.uiuc.edu (Dave Kohr)
Subject: Re: Usual libels against Chomsky (Was Re: Media Bias ...)
Organization: CS Dept., Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 03:47:29 GMT

In article <JMC.92Aug22215743@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>     JMC:
>     >Why aren't you ashamed of all the boat people the leftist aid to the
>     >conquest of South Vietnam helped drown?
>
>     Me:
>     What "aid" was this?  Mere opposition to the US intervention?
>
>Exactly.  It enormously helped the communists win - as was its intention.

Then where do you draw the line between "leftist aid" and opposition to 
the US intervention on the grounds that the ends didn't justify the means?
-- 
Dave Kohr     CS Graduate Student     Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Work: 3244 DCL, (217)333-6561  Home: (217)359-9350  E-mail: drk@cs.uiuc.edu
                   "One either has none or not enough."
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: ANALYSIS/DISCUSSION: "Full Cost Accounting"
    The environmental crisis showed the incapacity of the market to
    preserve its own basis of reproducing the current development
    model. The proposal of defining moneywise the "environmental
    external
Followup-To: alt.activism.d
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 3 Sep 92 14:29:04

The trouble with "full cost accounting" is that what the "full costs"
are is politically determined.
  
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.news-media,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Subject: Re: Military censorship of news
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 12:55:41 GMT

jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:

>My opinion, and I have had little to do with the military since 1946,
>is that the military are so compliant to the wishes of the media that
>they risk incurring more casualties than they otherwsie would.  They
>probably see this as necessary, because the media, when miffed as a
>group, seek revenge without the slightest compunction and with total
>self-righteousness.  Their revenge is effective against anyone who
>depends at all on public opinion.  There is no use in defying them,
>becasue they always have the last word.  Other institutions in our
>society also find it necessary to kiss the ass of the media no
>matter how unfair they think the media have been.
>--

Case in point:  George Bush having to apologize for a Democratic tax
increase.  The tax increase was obviously not his idea, but the only
way he could get Congress to be fiscally responsible was to compromise
on it.  The media, of course, lambasted him so thoroughly for caving
on his "read my lips" pledge that he had no choice but to accept the 
blame.  The media had effectively talked the American public into 
believing it was really his fault and Congress got off scott free.  For
Bush to have stood up and said it wasn't really his fault, would have
looked like he was trying to weasle out of his responsibilities. 
-- 

Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire 
Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:2892 alt.news-media:1000 alt.activism:15425
From: cedman@714-725-3165.nts.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.news-media,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Media Bias
Date: 26 Aug 92 00:01:09 GMT
Reply-To: cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Distribution: na

Steve Voss 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.

I - on the other hand - consider both pro-life and pro-choice propaganda terms.  
If you want to be fair use pro-abortion-rights and anti-abortion-rights. If you  
as a reporter use the descripitive term for one side, while using the  
propaganda term for the other side (as you admit you did), you open yourself up  
for perfectly legitimate criticism of bias.

	Carl Edman
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
From: tcox@netcom.com (Thomas Cox)
Subject: Military Planning and the Media (was Re: NBC news and Dan Quayle)
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 92 21:15:16 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Followup-To: alt.news-media
Keywords: totally clueless

In article <1992Aug25.015306.10987@afit.af.mil> jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:
>donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin) writes:

>>Personally, I think it's REALLY dangerous when the military
>>gets too carried away thinking "They don't need to know we're invading
>>(name the country)"...because that isn't a military decision to make!

>>If the government is thinking about invading Grenada/Panama/Cambodia,
>>etc, I think that the people should have something to say about it.

(meta-x begin-hyperbole-mode)

You, sir, are totally clueless.  You have no concept of how the government
works, how the armed forces work, or the manner in which the government
controls the armed forces.

For you to attempt to post any opinion, when you are so heinously
deficient in basic data, is sheerest folly on your part, IMO.

(meta-x end-hyperbole-mode)

>Grenada and Panama were *sneak attacks*.  How do you reconcile telling
>the media we were planning it? Do you see how that just might get
>some Americans killed that wouldn't have been if they had had the element
>of suprise on their side?

For the benefit of those of you not up to speed on this, let me offer
some of the more basic info apparently lacking:

1. The purpose of the armed forces is to execute the commands of the gov't.

2. The government is (in theory) controlled by "the people".

3. If the government orders the armed forces to, say, invade Grenada, then it
   is absolutely necessary for the armed forces to follow that command
   to the best of their ability.

   For the armed forces to "notify the people" prior to a surprise military
   move, when surprise is important to success, is literally treason.
   Read the U.S. Constitution, and you'll see the definition of treason.

4. If "the people" don't like what the armed forces are doing, then they
   should look to their government, for the government issued the orders.

Now I *do* understand your feeling -- yes, "the people" should have something
to say about, say, the invasion of Grenada.  But "the people" elected the
Congress, who approved the invasion, and elected the head of the Executive
branch, which ordered the invasion.  What more control do you want?  Should
the foot soldiers refuse orders, and say "I'm not going to invade Grenada
until I see the NBC/Times poll results that prove it's a popular move"?

And if not, then what, exactly, *do* you want?

	Tom

-- 
Tom Cox      Dod #1776   '91 CB 750 Nighthawk   tcox@netcom.netcom.com
"My opinions are just that:  mine, and opinions."
From: drm@esl.com (Don McGregor )
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: Usual libels against Chomsky
Date: 3 Sep 92 01:04:20 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  
Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:2981 alt.news-media:1099 alt.rush-limbaugh:4122