HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: BOOK: Brian Willson Autobiography
Date: 30 Aug 92 05:21:04 GMT
Organization: misc.activism.progressive on UseNet ; ACTIV-L@UMCVMB

[Via misc.activism.progressive from LaborNet's apc.labor]
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Topic 201       BRIAN WILLSON AUTOBIO 
wheimbach       apc.labour       7:43 pm  Aug 29, 1992 
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                     NEW FROM KERR PUBLISHING 

                        Brian Willson 
                     ON THIRD WORLD LEGS 


        On September 1, 1987 Brian Willson sat down on the 
railroad tracks at California's Concord Naval Weapons Station as 
part of a nonviolent peace action campaign.  200,000 pounds of a 
munitions train ran him over, as trainmen followed orders not to 
stop. 

        The riveting story of Willson's life is told in his 
autobiography, On Third World Legs. 

From the introduction by Staughton Lynd: 

        "Brian Willson's historical significance goes beyond his 
role in riviving the practice of nonviolence in the United 
States, and the fact is that he does so as a person of 
workingclass background...Life has provided him a unique 
opportunity to bridge the gap that had hitherto seemed 
unbridgeable: between the exploited workers of the imperialist 
United States and the super-exploited workers of the colonialized 
and neo-colonialized Third World. He invits us to join him in 
that adventure." 


ON THIRD WORLD LEGS, 96 pages, paperback, over forty 
illustrations / $7.95 ($9.45 postpaid) 


order from: 

        Charles  H. Kerr Publishing 
        1740 W. Greenleaf Avenue 
        Chicago, IL 60626 
Xref: sparky alt.activism:15750 soc.college:3728 talk.politics.misc:43007
From: bfrg9732@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Brian F. Redman)
Subject: Re: Adopt a BBS
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 14:03:13 GMT
Keywords: democratize democratic democracy

bud@mtek.com (Bud Hovell) writes:

>bfrg9732@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Brian F. Redman) writes:


>>     Adopt a BBS
>>     ===========

>>Although there is a wealth of fine articles continually 
>>being posted on this "net," this information does not get out to 
>>the general public. Hence, by the nature of the technological 
>>setup through which this vitally important information is 
>>disseminated, we are talking about an elitist, undemocratic 
>>distribution system.

>We are talking about an elitist, unequally distributed system that
>is *voluntarily* supported by the people who distribute it.

One of the definitions of democracy which I have is as follows:
  "the common people, especially when constituting the 
   source of political authority."
As you have agreed (above) that the system *is* elitist, it follows
that it is not democratic.

>It is no more subject to criticism as "undemocratic" than might be,
>for example, the New York Times, the Sun Valley PTA, the Masonic
>Order of Ames, Nebraska, or the best little whorehouse in Texas.
>Democracy (in the restrictive American sense) is a concept that is
>as null and void in the context of Usenet as in the finest private
>establishment in Texas.

See the definition of democracy above. 

>Many of the taxpaying American public, once exposed, would likely
>consider the absence of this "wealth" from their lives to be a
>feature, not a bug. It does, after all, require rather a strong
>stomach (combined with a focussed -- if narrow -- mind) to sit and
>read much of the copious bilge that daily slops from one end of
>the usenet to the other. Do you really want *your* Mom reading
>this awful stuff? :-) :-) :-) :-)

I differ with you as to my evaluation of the quality of what is
posted here. Personally, I think it is quite good and ought to
be shared with the general public. Your question as to "Do you
really want *your* Mom reading this" implies that my mother somehow
needs to be shielded from reality. I have complete confidence
that my mother could handle what is written here. How about
*your* Mom? Could *she* handle it?

>P. T. Barnum once made a remark to the effect that no one would
>ever go broke underestimating the bad taste of the American public,
>and it may be that the usenet could conceivably replace TV as the
>most-favored form of mindless entertainment in the American home.
>So I *could* be entirely wrong about all this.

Actually, to my knowledge, P.T. Barnum said that no one would
ever go broke underestimating the gullibility of the American
public.

You are of course entitled to your opinions about the usenet,
however, if it is as bad as you claim, why do you bother to
access it? 


Brian Redman
(bfrg9732@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu)
"Ah yes, Armageddon. I remember it well."


Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.latin-america
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Who Were the "Contras" ?  (II)
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 13:16:26 GMT

In article <9209030733.AA11198@tba.msi.cornell.edu> harelb@MATH.CORNELL.EDU (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator) writes:

>       "Rosa had her breasts cut off. Then they cut into her chest and
>       took out her heart. The men had their arms broken, their
>       testicles cut off, and their eyes poked out. They where killed
>       by slitting their throats, and pulling the tongue out through
>       the slit."

Others have posted about Sandinsita torture and killing of people but this
story reminded me on one in particluar. The Sandinista Army (funny how a
political party has its own private army) entered a Miskito villiage. The
adults, knowing the Sandinistas where in the area, fled into the jungle to
hide leaving the children (assuming they where safe). The Sandinsita
commander asked the children where the adults where. When they didn't
(couldn't?) answer he cut their hands off.

How about it Harel? I have condemned this sort of thing but so far you 
refuse to condem any abuses made by people you like. Is it that you can't
admit to yourself they are happening? Is your ideology that fragile? Or
is it that your concern for human rights only comes into play when it is
to your political advantage?

   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?"                               |
+----------------------231 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.environment,alt.save.the.earth,misc.headlines,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
From: atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: Society should start afresh
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 92 19:59:56 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

>Say. . .
>
>Who let the wonks on the net?

Your system administrator.

>Death to idiots!

Be careful what you ask for...

>Jason
>NLNS


    Alan T. Furman         | VOTE LIBERTARIAN!!  Marrou/Lord in 92!!
---------------------------+----------------------------------------
  atfurman@cup.portal.sig  |   (800)682-1776 for more information
Xref: sparky alt.activism:15387 talk.politics.misc:41739 misc.headlines:5921
From: Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines
Subject: Re: Socialism, again
Date: 25 Aug 92 16:42:37 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
>sj> Stephen Jascourt

>  ["From each according to ability, to each according to need".]

>sj> But ultimately, one is motivated to accumulate wealth regardless of what
>sj> effect that has on the society-- including accumulating wealth at the
>sj> expense of other people rather than in a way in which they benefit too.

>  Any examples? Sam Walton accumulated more wealth than anyone. Whom did he
>  exploit and cheat?

Many people would argue that IBM accumulated wealth at the expense
of other people during its golden age.  Look at the prices and
performances it offered.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk      Computing Lab, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Still shone the candlelight on the empty screen, after the power went.
From: harelb@MATH.CORNELL.EDU (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: 2 in 3 Canadians oppose NAFTA
Date: 27 Aug 92 19:43:15 GMT
Organization: misc.activism.progressive on UseNet ; ACTIV-L@UMCVMB

[Via misc.activism.progressive from PeaceNet's eai.news]
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
kmander eai.news         9:37 am  Jul 20, 1992 
The Enterprise for the Americas (EAI) Bulletin 
Monday, July 20, 1992 
_________________________________________________________ 
Regional News Summary 
__________________________________________________________________ 
NAFTA LOSING SUPPORT AMONG CANADIANS 

Fearing Canada will be unable to compete with Mexico's lower wages,  
environmental and safety standards, fewer Canadians are supporting the  
North American Free Trade Agreement.  A recent Gallup poll showed that  
only 28 percent of Canadians are in favor of NAFTA, down from 35 percent  
last year.  An Angus Reid Group poll recently found 29 percent of  
Canadians in support of the deal.  The poll concludes that "support for  
NAFTA has crashed since September 1991."  Canadians already are  
unhappy with the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement, which many blame  
for the 11.6 unemployment rate, an eight-year high.  Critics of the accord  
say NAFTA will increase unemployment in Canada. 

A Canadian official said recently that Prime Minister Brian Mulroney still  
solidly supports NAFTA, despite the opinion polls and an appeal from  
Ontario Premier Bob Rae to suspend the negotiations. 

Source: Robert Kozak, ""Canadians Have Second Thoughts About North  
American Free Trade," REUTER, July 15, 1992; "Support for NAFTA Deal  
'Crashed,' Poll Says," OTTAWA CITIZEN; Bernard Simon, "Drop NAFTA,  
Mulroney Told," FINANCIAL TIMES, July 16, 1992, p. 4. 
_________________________________________________________ 
Produced by: 
Kai Mander     
The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) 
1313 Fifth Street SE, Suite #303 
Minneapolis, MN 55414-1546 USA 

Telephone:(612)379-5980 Fax:(612)379-5982 
E-Mail:kmander@igc.org 
_________________________________________________________ 

Xref: sparky alt.activism:15728 talk.politics.misc:42956 talk.bizarre:28154
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 31 Aug 92 11:33:42 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <m9dnzfm.adamsr@netcom.com>, adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams) writes:
> Thus spake jimh@pacdata.uucp (Jim Harkins): 
> 
>>Nice to know you've got an open mind on this.  If I'm holding a gun on somebody
>>and they come at me I'll shoot.  Probably 15 times before stopping for 1.2
>>seconds to reload.  I don't care if they're armed or not.  If they're crazy
>>enough to attack then god knows what they'll do if they get my gun away.
>>And if you think I'll take the chance of losing the gun to a 100 pound 
>>lunatic then your elevator doesn't quite reach the top floor.
>>
> 	What a perfect demonstration of a need for gun control!
> 
> 	Anyone who would shoot down an unarmed 100 lb mentally ill woman
> (which you just said you would do) needs therapy, not firearms!

	But the woman shot was not unarmed.

> 	It's people who think like that (most of whom wear badges) who
> justify the abject fear of the police that many inner city residents share.
> 
>>I suppose if the cop used mace and got his hand chopped off you'd bitch about
>>paying him disability for life.  He's only a pig who was poorly trained, after
>>all.  Some peoples kids.
>>
> 	The woman who was shot was people's "kid," too. And there's not need
> to worry about paying HER disability. A cop who had already been charged
> with excessive use of force repeatedly in the past solved her emotional
> problems for her permanently.

	Yep.

> 	Anyone who is incapable of facing a situation such as that one and
> dealing with it with MINIMUM force has no business being in uniform. He, and
> any other officer who thinks that way, gives real meaning to the word PIG!

	And lunatic.

>>Lawyers Creed:  What's mine is mine, what's yours is negotiable.
> 
>  Cops Creed: What's mine is mine and what's yours is subject to seizure.

	If the police (or anyone) shoot an armed person coming at them, what
exactly should they have done instead?  Let the woman get a few chops in with
the machete to prove she was life-endangering?
                                    
Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: "Lies Work"
From: ivler@mdcbbs.com (J.M. Ivler    ivler@mdcbbs.com)
Date: 31 Aug 92 08:47:35 GMT
Organization: M&E (Division of EDS), Cypress CA
Nntp-Posting-User: ivler

In article <1992Aug31.104826.12754@anomaly.sbs.risc.net>, 
kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
> <SML108@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
> 
>>No, not at all.  Like the Bush Bozo that you probably are, you have missed
>>the point entirely. 
> 
> Everyone knows that once a poster starts to resort to personal
> attacks, you've won your argument.


In general, this is a true statement. In this case I think the term "Bush Bozo" 
may have been apropriate as it appeared that the person it was addressed to was 
showing support for the president, even though the logic and numbers showed him 
(the prez) to be in the wrong.

And yes, the poster he was referring to did miss the point entirely. In fact, 
it wasn't until a post just a short while ago that got down to the brass tacks 
and looked not only at the number of times taxs were raised, but over what time 
period.

As for my opinion... Bush lies, Clinton lies, they all lie. The question is, 
which one tries to keep his word and which one doesn't even care. In the proper 
perspective, Bush has shown that he doesn't care. We read his lips, and two 
years later he was breaking the one thing he prommised. Then he said that 
"Congress made me do it" (Somehow I just can't see him doing Flip Wilson). Then 
he said... "it was a mistake". Not, "I didn't keep the only mandate the people 
elected me with."

Clinton may not be the best choice for cheif exec., but anything has got to be 
better than a known liar, who refuses to take responsibility for anything even 
slightly negative, but will take the glory for things that he had nothing to do 
with (like the congressional bills that he originally opposed, yet in his 
convention speach, he took credit for).

jmi
ivler@mdcbbs.com
Xref: sparky alt.activism:15573 talk.environment:3429 talk.politics.misc:42447 misc.headlines:6029 alt.save.the.earth:1072
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.environment,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,alt.save.the.earth
Subject: Re: TRADE NEWS 8/24
Date: 28 Aug 92 00:49:37 GMT
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department

In article <9208271853.AA04231@poly.math.cornell.edu> harelb@MATH.CORNELL.EDU (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator) writes:
>Source: Rod Leonard, COMMUNITY NUTRITION INSTITUTE  
>STATEMENT, August 20, 1992. 
>_________________________________________________________ 
>US DAIRY GROUP DEMANDS DETAILS OF NAFTA 
>
>The U.S. Farmers Union Milk Marketing Cooperative (FUMMC)  
>has called on the Bush Administration to release details of the  
>NAFTA accord reached August 12. 
>
>President Stewart G. Huber said FUMMC is primarily concerned  
>about: loss of dairy quotas through tariffication; lowering of  
>sanitary standards; inadequate rules of origin which could allow  
>Mexico to buy dairy exports from outside nations and import  
>them into the U.S. and; exempting the Canadian dairy market. 
>
>Under NAFTA, Canadian marketing boards for eggs, dairy and  
>poultry products are exempt from tariff reductions. 
>

GATT is going to get Canada's marketing boards...for the
US to force Canada to do this in NAFTA will only make NAFTA
more unpopular in Quebec which would jeopardize NAFTA in
Canada.  Since the US knows that GATT is going to get Canadian
marketing boards, there was no need for them to insist on
getting them now in NAFTA.


Gerald
Newsgroups: alt.activism,soc.college,talk.politics.misc
From: cindy@solan10.solan.unit.no (Cynthia Kandolf)
Subject: Re: The Big Lie (PC)
Organization: /home/ludviga/cindy/.organization
	<Btwzr8.Jwq@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> <adams.715381348@spssig>
	<3SEP199217531925@venus.lerc.nasa.gov>
Date: 4 Sep 92 19:14:15

Cassondra Pope writes:
>Semite DOES NOT mean caucasoid.  Look at the word "semi"te. Semi means
half,
>would you agree.

The word is not originally English.  You can't use English morphology
to analyse borrowed words.  (Translation out of linguistese: The
"semi" here is not a prefix, as it is on "semiweekly".)

> Semite is referring to how the Jews were half white.  Look atExodus.
>Here we have all these Hebrews leaving Africa [...]

Your analysis here assumes that "Semite" only refers to Jews.  This
is false.  The word "anti-semitism" is usually used to describe
prejudice against Jews, but the word refers to many peoples from the
region we call the Middle East.  

-Cindy Kandolf
 cindy@solan.unit.no
 Trondheim, Norway
From: NLG Civil Liberties Committee <cberlet@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Date: 30 Aug 92 20:49 PDT
Subject: Re: LaRouche on Pirot Withdrawl
Nf-ID: #R:100-PCNews-124beta@ccs.covici.co:1710584814:cdp:1296500326:000:174
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!cberlet    Aug 30 20:49:00 1992



The report on LaRouche and his fascist connections is titled
 "LaRouchians as Fascists" so don't search for "LaRouche" but
"LaRouchians." Sorry for the inconsistancy.
-Chip

Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.environment,alt.save.the.earth
From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Subject: Re: BUSH Administration Hushes Auto Efficiency Studies
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 11:34:09 GMT

In article <5976@m1.cs.man.ac.uk>, bane@vtx.ma.man.ac.uk (Mr. Magic) writes:
>
>'cuse me asking but would somebody enlighten the people (well, me at least) on this
>side of the ocean what CAFE is?  Cars and Fuel Efficiency?

Close, it's Corporate Average Fuel Economy--the minimum average MPG (miles per
gallon) rating required of each automaker by the government.

-- 
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)	   For every Bill Joy there is a Kirk McKusick.
Martin Marietta Energy Systems     For every Bill Gates there is a Richard
Workstation Support                Stallman.                     --Paul Graham
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Myerson)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: Nicaragua: Myth versus Reality (I)
Date: 25 Aug 92 13:30:59 GMT
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO

In article <16322@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> ez000281@hamlet.ucdavis.edu writes:
>In <1992Aug24.185016.635@vexcel.com> Dean Myerson says:
>
>>Bottom line Allen.  I admit the 1984 elections were flawed.  Nevertheless,
>>I believe the Sandinistas were far better for Nicarauguans than Somoza.
>>I believe that U.S. support of the contras was wrong (to put it mildly).
>>Do you agree?
>
>Fortunately Dean, it does not matter what you believe about Nicaragua.  What 
>matters is what the people of Nicaragua voted for, unless of course, you 
>believe that they are imbeciles that need to be "educated" in order to see what 
>is best for them.
>
>Edelmiro

The 1990 election is another issue.  Even assuming that the U.S. intervention
in the 1990 election didn't affect the results and that the contra war also
didn't coerce people into voting for UNO, the results of this election say
nothing about whether Somoza was preferable to the Sandinistas, which is
what I was asking above.  Remember that the Sandinistas won about 40% of
the vote in 1990.

-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.environment,alt.save.the.earth,misc.headlines,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: BUSH: The "Energy President" (I)
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 21:00:28 GMT

harelb@MATH.CORNELL.EDU (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator) writes:


>Change in federal funding for mass transit 
>        from 1981 to 1989:                      -50% <=========== 


>Reduction in Department of Energy budget for 
>        renewable energy between 1981 and 1989: 90%  <========== 

Too bad this wasn't true acoross the board...the budge would be well in
balance and taxes much lower.

> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
>cost to build a mile of urban highway:          $100 million; 
>cost to build a mile of light rail mass transit:$ 15 million; 
Oh yeah?  And how much to purchase the right-of-way??  And the cost of
running the railroad?  Etc.

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
From: Dorothy Morse <dmorse@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Date: 27 Aug 92 19:37 PDT
Subject: Re: SOMALIA action materials and news
Nf-ID: #R:cdp:1296500303:cdp:1296500318:000:1778
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!dmorse    Aug 27 19:37:00 1992


Rakiya Omaar told me she feared the 145,000 tons of food was simply
ordered by Bush because he was afraid to go into the Republican Convention
with the publicity about the Somalians when he had done nothing about it.
She referred to the food as "a gimmick--a poorly organized gimmick."

The mass media have, in my opinion, failed to do their job properly, to put
it mildly.  They did not report on this crisis, and excused themselves by
saying the Americans were not interested in it.  When the story began to
get out in other ways, they then emphasized the violence and looting,
in accordance with the State Department's stated policy that "nothing
could be done without an enduring ceasefire."

The emphasis on looting of course turns off public sympathy, or public
will to do anything.  Some just think, "O those dreadful people, they
are doing this to themselves."  Other people think, "So sad, but nothing
you can do, they food we send will just be stolen."  In either case, the
effect is to turn people away from the idea of sending help.

But of course another way to get people to do nothing is to tell them
the problem is solved.

First, there was no problem--no reporting of it.  Then, there was a problem
but nothing you can do about it--the food will just be looted.  Now,
there was a problem, but it's solved--food is being sent.

IMHO, there is a problem.  There is something we can do--flood the country
with food--tell goverment officials that's what we want.  And the problem
is by no means solved.  If we turn our attention away too soon, the problem
will be right back to its original dimensions.

Pardon these lengthy and numerous posts.  I felt some of the objections
in the first reponse to my original post needed responses.

Thanks for reading.
Dorothy.

Newsgroups: alt.activism