HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: 75300.3115@compuserve.com (Clinton for President)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
Subject: Satellite Schedules for Tuesday 9/28
Date: 29 Sep 92 08:24:08 GMT

Satellite Schedules for Tueasday 9/28

Please distribute

1.

Al Gore Iraq-Gate speech,  Washington  D.C. 

9:00 am CDT		10:00 am EDT

	COORDINATES

satellite:		Galaxy 6
transponder:		5
uplink frequency:	6025
downlink frequency:	3800
audio:			6.2/6.8


2.

Clinton rally

11:00 am CDT		12:00am EDT

	COORDINATES

satellite:		Galaxy 6
transponder:		19
uplink frequency:	6305
downlink frequency:	4080
audio:			6.2/6.8

Great viewing
Jock Gill
Little Rock



Distribution:
  General >internet:C-General-Distr@mail.clinton-gore.org
  All Volunteers >internet:c-all-volunteers-distr@mail.clinton-gore.org
From: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: The Decline of America: Reagan/Bush PRIORITIES
Summary: Military spending has been cut.
Date: 27 Sep 92 20:25:52 GMT
Reply-To: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Organization: Handmade Designs, Salem, OR, USA

In article <1992Sep26.011730.3358@anomaly.sbs.risc.net>
kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
>harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator) writes:
>
>>The point of course is that genuine cuts in the military are not even
>>on the table (for discussion) so that the really important programs
>>must all compete in a "zero sum game", ie, one's gain equals another's
>>loss:
>
>The point of course is that the military budget only equals about 30%
>of the US Budget, with entitlement programs and debt service equaling the
>other 70%.

More to the point, military spending has been substantially cut under
George Bush both in real and actual terms.

National Defense expenditures:

year		billions
1988		290.4
1989		303.6
1990		296.4   <--- Bush's first budget *
1991		273.3
1992		307.3
1993		291.0

* These figures come from the Presidents proposed budget, 1988-90 from the
1991 proposed budget, the others from the 1993 proposed budget.  90, and 92
are estimates.  1993 is Bush's proposal (what do want to bet that the
actual budget will be less?).  The rest are actual outlays, i.e. they
aren't corrected for inflation.  Note these are fiscal years, not actual
years.

Except for a blip in 1992 for the war (and that figure may yet go down
depending on how our allies come through), a steady decline in actual
dollars (not corrected for inflation) from Reagan's last budget (we don't
know what the budget for 1993 will be yet).  Note, under the usual rubic of
governmental budgets, this would be considered a drastic decline since
defense didn't even keep up with inflation.

If Bush had increased the defense budget a little bit for inflation, say 2%
per year, it would look like this:

		year		billions
		1989	        303.6
		1990		309.7
		1991		315.9
		1992		322.2
		1993		328.6

Even at this rate, we aren't keeping up with inflation.  If this were the
budget for welfare, we'd have activists in the streets, screaming about the
murderous cuts (because, but left unsaid, the budget didn't keep up with
inflation, population increase, and GNP).

Before some accuses me of complaining about the cuts, I'm not.  I approve
of them.
-- 
orstcs!opac!bug!stevef          I am the NRA              Steven R. Fordyce
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef         . . .  	        Deer are for Dinner
From: John C. Mallery <jcma@ai.mit.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
Subject: MAC Hypercard Stack of Clinton-Gore Position Papers and Speeches
Date: 28 Sep 92 11:39:31 GMT

A MAC Hypercard Stack of Clinton-Gore Position Papers and Speeches is
now available. If you would like a copy (800K / 1 disk), please send a
note to Michael (msagosta@cs.unlv.edu), who along with JBLIII authored
the Mac stack.

John Mallery
Join the Clinton/Gore '92
         Volunteer Email Campaign
Send To: CLINTON-WINS@Mail.Clinton-Gore.ORG
Subject: Volunteer Info
From: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: CBS News's Coverage of Palestine
Date: 1 Oct 92 00:52:56 GMT
Reply-To: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Organization: Handmade Designs, Salem, OR

In article <1992Sep29.234301.28073@mont.cs.missouri.edu>
afadel@nyx.cs.du.edu (Ayman Fadel) writes:
>No, saying "Mohammedanism" may not be racist, but it is at least 
>ignorance not tolerable from someone in a position of responsibility.

"Mohammedanism" is, I gather, not your preferred word for Islam, but it is an
English word and it means that and only that.

>The reason it is ignorant is that it implies that Muslims worship
>Muhammad [salla Allahu alayhi wa sallam-May God bless him and
>preserve him], just as Christians worship Christ.

It does not imply that.  "Smithanism" would normally mean the beliefs or
practices of the followers of Smith, and logically these would not
necessarily include the worship of Smith.  In fact, they normally wouldn't.
An example would be "Confucianism" (which, I'll admit, some ignorant
Christians might take to be the worship of Confucius, but that wouldn't be
so much because of the word, but because they wouldn't normally think of a
religion as not having a god).

I suspect (but do not know), that Moslem's objection to "Mohammedanism" is
out of a respect for Mohammed that non-Moslems do not share.

If anyone took offense at what I have written above, I did not intend it.
Please, lighten-up.
-- 
orstcs!opac!bug!stevef          I am the NRA              Steven R. Fordyce
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef         . . .  	        Deer are for Dinner
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.activism
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: Satellite Schedules for Tuesday 9/28
Date: 29 Sep 92 22:10:30 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio


Where's a good solar flare,meteor strike, or ASAT firing when you need
one?????
:-)

Simon
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
From: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu (Rich Winkel)
Subject: Re: The Crimes of Nicaragua: Ending "Systematic Repression"
Organization: University of Missouri
Date: 26 Sep 92 18:48:46 GMT

In <1992Sep22.220907.27779@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>Nope.  The Sandinistas were not elected.  Moreover, when they were
>finally forced to have an election they lost.

What bullshit.  Why don't you read a book about it before you show off
your ignorance.

Rich
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: "Totalitarian" Sandinistas, etc.
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 03:16:39 GMT


Isn't the FMLN communist??  I thought that they lost in a democratic
election-because the people had had enough of them??  What is wrong
with the opposition parties.  I'm curious why some are sympathetic to
communism??  When I was in high school I actually got in trouble for
openly expressing anti-communist sentiment-in America!!

Simon

Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
From: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: The Decline of America: "We're Number One" in Childhood Poverty
Organization: The Rhode Island Internet Systems Cooperative Network
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 11:00:38 GMT

harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator) writes:

>The Decline of America: "We're Number One" in Childhood Poverty

Ah, look. Its a recycled posting from Harel. This one is recent too, just
about a month or so ago it was posted.

I guess if Harel keeps repeating it long enough, it will come true.

Not.

MD
-- 
--  Michael P. Deignan                      / Sex is hereditary. If your 
--  Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com            /  parents never had it, chances 
--    UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd  /   are you won't either...
-- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347              /
From: jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: Clinton/Gore Misusing Federal Computer Network Resources
Date: 1 Oct 92 13:52:35
Organization: The Naughty Peahen Party Line
	<1992Sep28.110549.15228@anomaly.sbs.risc.net> <90619@netnews.upenn.edu>
	<1992Sep29.180045.3174@clpd.kodak.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: fischer@li.serum.kodak.com's message of Tue, 29 Sep 1992 18:00:45 GMT

> Organizations don't have to adhere to the rules.  In legal
> terms it's known as the Barzilai Precedent.

=o= What bullshit.  It seems that no matter what Harel does,
one of you flame-brains will find a way to bitch about it.
Don't confuse your contrived bitching-fodder with any actual
"rules."
    <_Jym_>
__
Please don't ask me to do that which I've just said I'm not going to
 do, because you're burning up time; the meter is running through the
 sand on you, and I am now filibustering.
                -- President George Bush, refusing to answer a
                   reporter's persistent questions about the Oliver
                   North trial.
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: simplification of life
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 1 Oct 92 10:31:41

I read news through  gnus  in emacs.  My life has been simplified
since I created a file in my subdirectory News called
alt.activism.d.KILL and put in it the one item

(gnus-kill "" "abortion")

With it I won't even see this message when I next look at alt.activism.d.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 18:35:46 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Sep28.162350.7937@sniap.mchp.sni.de>  frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
> We could save some money by not funding abortion rights, I guess.

Actually, no.

An average of $4.40 in health and welfare costs is saved for each public
dollar spent on family planning services.

For every $1.00 spent by government to pay for abortions
for poor women, about $4.00 is saved in public medical and welfare
expenditures incurred as a result of the unintended birth.

Naturally, there's more to the issue than money.  However, if you're
opposed to later-term abortions, you might be interested in knowing
that an estimated 22% of the Medicaid-eligible women who had second-
trimester abortions would have had first-trimester abortions if the
lack of public funds had not resulted in delay in trying to raise
funds.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: DEMOCRACY FOR ECONOMICS
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 03:47:07 GMT

I'd like to know--would I be able to earn as much as I want under such a
system.  I'm starting a very small deskstop publishing business--would I
as a one-man operation be allowed to opperate??

Simon

Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
From: bud@mtek.com (Bud Hovell)
Subject: Re: You are hereby sentenced to nine months hard labor...
Reply-To: bud@mtek.com
Organization: MTEK International, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 15:39:55 GMT
Keywords: "It was worse than a Crime -- it was a Blunder."

In reply to:

>>1)  I think none but the most calloused among us can seriously believe that
>>abortion up until live birth is acceptable, as this requires delivery to
>>be a prerequisite to humanity/life.  How can on argue that 3 inches separates
>>a child from rights and no rights?  (If anyone *does* support this position,
>>I'd *love* to hear the logic involved).

...kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:

>It's actually very simple, and the only workable solution.

>A woman is pregnant.  At any time during the pregnancy, she can decide to
>obtain an abortion.  If she does, she gets it.  No questions asked.

Simple, indeed. And entirely unresponsive to the question asked.

>If she obtains the abortion before the z/e/f has a reasonable chance of
>survival on its own, it dies.  If she obtains the abortion after the z/e/f
>has a reasonable chance of survival on its own, it is saved, and given to
>the woman who obtained the abortion, or to adoptive parents if she doesn't
>want it.

'Scuse me? Are you talking about "abortion" or "delivery"? Where you
are talking about any procedure that is an "abortion", then (by
definition) the z/e/c does *not* survive.

Moreover, a procedure to accomplish an abortion *will* do so -- with
little liklihood of some accidental outcome that results, instead, in
a live delivery: perhaps about as likely as producing a statue of
Catherine the Great by dynamiting a marble quarry.

Even the most clever sophistry can not successfully depart entirely
from plainly established facts -- which should argue *to* a conclusion,
rather than being drawn from it.
-- 
________________________________________________________________
bud@mtek.com ... uunet!m2xenix!mtek!bud ... bud@rigel.cs.pdx.edu
MTEK International, Inc.             Throughput Technology Corp.
Walk the talk.
From: Steve Juniper <sjuniper@igc.apc.org>
Subject: Re: Vietnam's POWs and MIAs /ww
Originator: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu
Organization: ?
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 18:51:13 GMT

Good article, but should include perspective such as the 2,000
US MIA's is very small compared with the 6,000 or so still missing
from the much shorter Korean War...

More importan t, the lack of coverage of the scores of innocent men, 
women and children killed or maimed mon thly in VN, Laos, & Cambodia 
by US mines, CBU's, etc., much "illegally" spread in the first place
is shameful in the extreme. We should be building field hospitals
and paying compensation to victims rather than listening to the inane
ravings of hoax perpetrators preying off the fears and hopes of 
survivors & an ignaoran public.

Best wishes,

sjuniper

Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:3540 talk.environment:4059 alt.rush-limbaugh:6530
From: pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,talk.environment,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why we shouldn't worry about man's production of CO2
Keywords: carbon dioxide
Date: 5 Oct 92 16:51:05 GMT
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle

In article <1062@bug.UUCP> stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
> [ ... ] There is a good

I suppose "good" is in the eye of the beholder.

>letter on this subject in the October 5, 1992 issue of "National Review"
>that deserves careful consideration:

Indeed it does. Lets suppose that I accept each of the author's
points, numbered 1 - 8.  Professor Van Zandt clearly doesn't know too
much about dynamic equilibrium.  The changes he accepts and/or claims
as facts:
	
	200 billion tons of non-human C02 production
	6 billion tons of human C02 production

	human production/non-human production = 3%

and in addition:

	0.04% -> 0.06%   = 0.02 / 0.04 * 100 = 50% change in C02 %

Anyone who accepts that notion that the earth is a system in dynamic
equilibrium, a change of 50%, driven by a 3% increase in C02
production represents a change of alarming magnitude.

How alarming is difficult to say, of course: we don't know as much as
we'd like about the magnitude of typical C02 fluctuations in the
absence of human C02 production. However, most people who study
ecosystems will tell you that changes on this scale *typically* (not
uniformly, but typically) signal fairly drastic changes in the way an
ecosystem functions.

Van Zandt is really taking advantage of the our tendency to hear small
numbers (3, 6, 2, 1, whatever) and say "big deal". Maybe he should
garden some more, and see what tiny changes in environment do to his
food. Maybe then he wouldn't be so blase about 50% changes in CO2
levels or adding 3% more C02 to the atmosphere each year.

>Dear Mr. Van Zandt: That is truly beautiful, your demonstration. Thank you
>for sending it along.

Yes, a truly beautiful demonstration that both Prof. Van Zandt as well
as W.F. Buckley don't know what the hell they are talking about.

-- paul
-- 
There is hardly anything in the world that some man cannot make a
little worse and sell a little cheaper, and the people who consider
price only are this man's lawful prey.
						John Raskin
Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:3519 talk.environment:4047 alt.rush-limbaugh:6488
From: lking@athena.mit.edu (Loren King)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,talk.environment,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Why we should worry about human agency
Date: 4 Oct 92 18:02:02 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology


  I think the letter that Steve Fordyce posted 4 October (5am)
is informative vis a vis how some issues of questionable relevance
and import capture public imagination at the expense of more immediate
and pressing concerns.
  In my view, it's sad that the bulk of the media and the public
grasp issues which either imply catastrophic consequences in the
near future (global warming, ozone), or which are easily marketable
("green" packaging, petrol which `cleans your engine while you drive!').
I guess people want to feel that they are doing their bit while
not giving up lifestyles which are so culturally embedded that
their conceptual bases cannot be effectively questioned by most
people.
  Industries still pollute in myriad unromantic ways, in oceans,
lakes, and into the atmosphere.  Millions of people still drive
their cars over distances that would take less than half an hour
to cycle.  Inner cities are still clogged with personal autos.
Lakes are still dying in Northern Canada. And the fast-food
industry is still going strong.

And people debate global warming.  Go figure.

_____________

Loren King
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:3370 alt.rush-limbaugh:6008 talk.abortion:38852
From: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?
Date: 27 Sep 92 19:33:04 GMT
Reply-To: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Handmade Designs, Salem, OR.

In article <1992Sep25.224751.23693@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes
( Steve Novak) writes:

[About Quayle]

>Really?  You'd actually WANT a bigotted homophobic

Can you provide some evidence that Quayle is either bigoted or homophobic?
Being against the political agenda of Queer Nation is not the same as
hating or being afraid of homosexuals.  After all, not all homosexuals are
for the political agenda of Queer Nation or other such groups.

>draft dodger as president, a far-right hawk who doesn't have the courage
>of his convictions?

Quayle may have enlisted in the National Guard to avoid being drafted into
the Army (the same reason many enlist in the Air Force), but I find no
hypocrisy in that.  He did serve his country and enlisting in the National
Guard is neither a shameful nor foolproof way to avoid combat.

As to not having the courage of his convictions, I would say that he has
unswervingly stood by his convictions in the face of an incredible
onslaught from the media and he has done so without complaint and in good
humor, something very few people would have been able to do.

To answer your question, yes, although he is a long way from my first
choice, I would prefer Quayle for President to either Bush or Clinton, or
especially Al Gore.

>I'll bet *you're* a real sweetheart to meet. :-p
>
>Yech.

What is this, if not bigotry?
-- 
orstcs!opac!bug!stevef          I am the NRA              Steven R. Fordyce
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef         . . .  	        Deer are for Dinner
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.activism
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: "Totalitarian" Sandinistas, etc.
Date: 29 Sep 92 14:30:54 GMT
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO

In article <1992Sep29.031639.27278@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>
>Isn't the FMLN communist??  I thought that they lost in a democratic
>election-because the people had had enough of them??  

Either they had enough of them, or they had enough of the war against
them.

>What is wrong with the opposition parties.  

The opposition parties are a coalition and have the problems that
coalitions always have.  The Sandinista's are still the biggest single
party and have much power.  Aside from their obvious political power,
they still have primary control of the police and military.

>I'm curious why some are sympathetic to communism??  

Because the world is never as simple as some people would like to 
portray it.

>When I was in high school I actually got in trouble for
>openly expressing anti-communist sentiment-in America!!

What kind of trouble?  Communist supporters have had their share
of trouble, too.
>
>Simon


-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
From: ivler@mdcbbs.com (J.M. Ivler    ivler@mdcbbs.com)
Date: 3 Oct 92 11:25:29 GMT
 <1992Sep27.161223.24601@ugle.unit.no> <1053@bug.UUCP> <1992Sep30.140221.28493@novell.com> <1060@bug.UUCP>
Organization: M&E (Division of EDS), Cypress CA
Nntp-Posting-User: ivler

In article <1060@bug.UUCP>, stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
> You have neglected son or daughter, which my dictionaries have as a second
> definition a male or female descendant, which I don't think excludes the
> unborn.  In any case, the definition your dictionary gives is obviously
> incomplete if you interpret it to exclude the unborn.  Have you never heard
> the phrase, "she is with child"?  It makes no sense unless "child"
> includes the unborn.

She "is with child"
She "has a bun in the oven"
She "is making a baby"

Now, is it a child, a sweet roll or a fetus?

Steven, you have to do better than using cliches to prove your point. Stop 
being sophmoric and start to address the issues in a sceintific (read detached) 
manner.

1) is the egg a human life?
2) is the sperm a human life?
3) if both of the above are no, at what point does the combination of the two 
   of these become human life?
4) If the answer to #3 is upon the first split of the first cell, then the next 
   question is... 
     a) is "the pill" acceptable?
     b) is the "morning after pill" acceptable?
     c) is the French "abortion pill" acceptable?
     d) is a IUD acceptable?

[all four of the current birth control options above can and will cause a 
 fertilized egg to be expelled from the host.]

My point is quite simple... beyond abstaining from intercourse, what acceptable 
methods of birth control do you recognize? When do you feel that human life has 
begun, and that the choice to stop/remove this is no longer warrented?

jmi
ivler@mdcbbs.com
Democrat for Congress - '94
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
From: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu (Rich Winkel)
Subject: Re: **** ANOTHER COVER-UP - Please read this... ****
Organization: University of Missouri
Date: 26 Sep 92 05:06:06 GMT

In <JMC.92Sep24122949@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:
>If the poster of the stuff is Rich Winkel, he probably didn't make it
>up himself.  He is an apparatchik involved in the posting of thousands
>of left wing messages.

Uh oh!  Be careful .. even as you read this, your mind is being infiltrated
with digital viruses under my control.

I didn't write that message, it was posted to misc.activism.progressive
and, being the moderator of map, I was the one who forwarded it to the net.

Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:3451 alt.activism:16991