HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: drw@euclid.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley)
Subject: Re: Anarchist Picnic
Organization: MIT Dept. of Tetrapilotomy, Cambridge, MA, USA
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 01:56:01 GMT

In article <BvGt5H.4Gu@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> mwilkenf@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Missi Wilkenfeld) writes:
   Okay you should all know about this by now, but IUPAC is bring
   Bloomington its first Anarchist Picnic and Gathering.

Let me guess -- IUPAC isn't the International Union of Pure and
Applied Chemistry, eh?

Dale
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: wlee@argo.acs.oakland.edu (Walter Lee)
Subject: Re: black herring on econ
Reply-To: wlee@argo.acs.oakland.edu
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, MI
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 20:39:20 GMT

>
>>Keep the Aspidistra Flying!
In article <1992Sep30.063238.5721@genie.slhs.udel.edu>, nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Nancy Lebovitz) writes:
>
>Are you an Orwell fan?

Yup.  In fact he's one of my 2 or 3 faves.

"Keep the Aspidistra Flying" is a short novel by Orwell.  It is a case study in
the futility of dropping out of the career game.  It is as relevant to '90's
America as it is to '30's England.

Example:  In a previous post I indulged in whining about how much our
automotive konsumerist kulture sickens me even though I participate in it as
both producer and consumer.

Another example:  If I recall correctly (maybe I don't), one or two
self-identified anarchists have indicated in this newsgroup that they intend to
vote...the lesser of two evils, no less.

All this amidst a chorus of voices saying "nobody (in the private sector) is
holding a gun to your head."  OK, so they aren't.  What Orwell says so much
more eloquently than I can is how effectively the System closes alternatives to
itself.


Walter Lee    wlee@argo.acs.oakland.edu, lee@plex-1.ann-arbor.mi.us

Keep the Aspidistra Flying!
From: pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger)
Subject: Re: null juries
Organization: Lehman Brothers
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 16:41:30 GMT

tumidity@netlink.cts.com (Joel Garry) writes:
>
>Unfortunately, since the judge can throw out most any jury verdict
>anyway, that becomes moot.

Wrong. A judge in a criminal case can only throw out a guilty verdict,
not a verdict of innocent.

--
Perry Metzger		pmetzger@shearson.com
--
		  Just say "NO!" to death and taxes.
			 Extropian and Proud.
From: robwil@well.sf.ca.us (Robert Wilson)
Subject: Deep South Anti-Columbus Anarchist Gathering
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 06:42:07 GMT


DEEP SOUTH ANTI-COLUMBUS ANARCHIST GATHERING
	WHEN: OCTOBER 8-12 
	WHERE: NEW ORLEANS

Yes indeed friends, Columbus was definately a lost conquistador who screwed up
a pretty good scene.  That being the case, let's do something to correct the
image people have of Columbus and promote alternative to the Western Imperialism
that he brought over with him.  Let's all get together and promote anarchist
alternatives to the people of New Orleans.  This is a very poor city that is in
desperate need of radical solutions to a world gone wrong.  So come on down to
New Orleans and express your anger, joy, passion, rage, and everything else you
are feeling, thinking, believing, and not believing.  Living space will be 
provided, but bring all the supplies you would need to survive in campground-
like conditions.  Also, bring any ideas, posters, flyers, magazines, books,
tapes, musical instruments, silk-screening   equipment, or anything else that
you would like to share with a bunch of anarchists who drink alot of Bourbon,
but don't hang out on the tourist trap, consume/die Bourbon Street.  Following
are some ideas that we could put into action when you come:

		EDUCATION ABOUT COLUMBUS
		ANTI-COLUMBUS ACTIONS (to be planned here; many to do)
		WAR ON THE POOR ALTERNATIVES
		ANTI-WORK ACTIONS
		NETWORK TOGETHER FOR MUTUAL AID AFTER THE GATHERING
		HEAVY POSTERING AND INFO SPREADING SQUADS
		DAY OF WORKSHOPS (lectures, silk-screening, zines, flyering)
			We need more workshops by others, show us your stuff.
		FREE ALL-AGE HARDCORE AND MUSIC FESTIVAL!
		DON'T VOTE DEMO
		SWIM IN THE TOXIC MISSISSIPPI RIVER!

			Any ideas you have....

Send any ideas, info, posters, flyers, etc. to counter Columbus Day:
	Deep South Anarchist Federation
	P.O. Box 791191, New Orleans, LA 70179-1191

If you wish to participate, call our info-line to join us when you get in town:
	(504)364-5163

Any support anyone wishes to provide, at any level, is welcome!  Thanks.


Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:6093 alt.politics.usa.constitution:452 alt.drugs:16450 talk.politics.drugs:6519 alt.psychoactives:1257
From: gal2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Jacob Galley)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs,alt.psychoactives
Subject: Re: [alt.censorship] the FDA bans medical journals
Date: 30 Sep 92 15:19:38 GMT
Reply-To: gal2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

From: rlglende@netcom.com (Robert Lewis Glendenning)
>I am amazed that anyone on this forum would question the FDA! The FDA has
>been quite consciously set up to protect the income of physicians.
>
>The fact that its own internal studies show that the FDA's regulations kill
>more patients than they save has been well-known for 20 years. These latest
>attempts of the FDA to control the free flow of information are a linear
>extension of their control of the use of drugs. At worst, a bureaucracy
>gone awry. At best, further income for physicians.


From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
>The FDA's position on chemicals is that if the chemical is shown to
>have a beneficial effect then its a drug and concumers can't have it
>except by paying a doctor to write them a prescription for it.


Um, these accusations are slightly rediculous. The FDA can't be that
criminal, can they? Can someone cite real sources instead of just
frothing? (You too, Steve Dyer?)

Jake.
-- 
Reinheitsgebot <-- "Keep your laws off my beer!" <-- gal2@midway.uchicago.edu
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs,alt.psychoactives,misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: The FDA can't be criminal, can they?
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 19:45:57 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.042419.1992@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>ObExtraDisclaimer: The University of Chicago didn't teach me this
>opinion, though Professor Currie discusses this argument in his
>history of the Constitution in the Supreme Court.  On request, I'll
>update this opinion in a couple of weeks if I decide to take Con
>Law this quarter instead of spring.

Take Constitutional Law ASAP, Ted. It continues to dismay me that neither
Harvard nor the University of Chicago require Constitutional Law as a
first-year course.


--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"Liberty resides in the rights of that person
mnemonic@eff.org| whose views you find most odious."
(617) 864-0665  | 
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --John Stuart Mill
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.privacy,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.politics.usa.misc,talk.politics.misc
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: [alt.conspiracy] FBI Move to control network communications
Keywords: FBI NETWORK LAW
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 00:41:14 GMT

A repost from alt.conspiracy:

From: Concerned Citizen
Subject: FBI Move to control network communications
Keywords: FBI NETWORK LAW
Date: 25 Sep 92 17:44:30 GMT
Reply-To: Your congressman
Organization: The Truth Police

From recent Network World newpaper:

(paraphrased...)

It seems that the FBI has proposed a bill, called
"Digital Telephony and Interception", that would give 
the FBI the power to mandate communications equipment
design changes that make it easier for for them to 
spy on voice and data traffic on local and wide-area
networks.

The Bush Administration is pushing Congress to pass the
bill. Yes, this is the same Bush that says Cable TV 
regulation "hurts competitiveness".( Actually, it is 
because his little boy, Neil Bush, is now involved in 
the Cable TV industry in Colorado( Banking scandle, 
anyone???).

35 user, vendor, and industry groups, including:
	AT&T
	IBM
	Microsoft
	Sun Microsystems
	DEC
	American Civil Liberties Union
have already declared their fight against this bill.
The reason the FBI needs the bill is because
"the regional Bell holding companies and the independent 
local exchange carriers have failed to adequately address
the difficulties digital networks pose to government
surveillance."

What this really means is that regime wants to freely spy
on every citizen, over computer networks, phone lines, etc
private and public. To accomplish this, all communications 
hardware, from common carrier lines to the smallest Appletalk
network, would need to be compromised to allow free spying
by a paranoid regime. The ultimate goal is to "be able to 
isolate an individual`s voice or data traffic and provide 
the government direct access to it". (Sound like "1984", 
anyone???).

Aside from the apocolyptic view of this, what it would 
also do is severly hinder advanced technology development
in the U.S. and crush international competitiveness by 
forcing U.S. vendors to create a "retrofitting" device to
resecure hardware devices sold overseas, adding costs that
the international competition would surely beat.

Where is Bush`s idea of promoting competitiveness amoung 
business here? Why do you not see the puppet News networks
covering this issue?

Read the latest Network World...

--------------------------------------------------------------
My opinions are strictly my own (still free from brainwashing)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: [talk.politics.drugs] Re: History of forfeiture laws
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 14:49:34 GMT

A repost from talk.politics.drugs:

From: uk09365@nx01.mik.uky.edu (robert i kesten)
Subject: Re: History of forfeiture laws
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 23:41:15 GMT

> In article <1992Sep26.140604.2464@m.cs.uiuc.edu>  
kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> >According to a letter I received from Terry Bruce, my U.S.  
Representative:
> >
> >"Congress and state legislatures have authorized the use of forfeiture
> >as a law enforcement mechanism for almost two hundred years.
> >Traditionally, the crimes that triggered forfeiture have been those
> >which threatened the government's revenue interested such as smuggling
> >or tax evasion or crime which has a preceived threat to the public
> >health."
> >
> >Is this true, false, relevant to War-on-Drugs forfeitures?
> 

Until the 1984 (?) enhancements to the RICO laws, forfeiture
 - excepting admiralty cases - was (almost) entirely an
in personam procedure.  The property was forfeited only if it
had direct relationship to the crime and only upon 
conviction on criminal charges.  The shift has been toward
use of in rem proceedings, ie. civil claims against the
property rather than the owner.  Now any property with a
conceivable nexus to illegal activity is seized and the
burden of proving innocent owner status etc. is placed on
the owner.

Robert K.
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs,alt.psychoactives
From: yazz@locus.com (Bob Yazz)
Subject: Re: The FDA can't be criminal, can they?
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 1992 04:35:07 GMT

bchurch@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu (Robert Church) writes:

| Someone wrote:
| >I personally  would like to look at the facts and decide
| >for myself wether to take the risk. I am an adult. I don't need
| >a parent babysitting me.
| 
| In the case of Thalidomide that's a particularly ironic view. The basic idea
| behind the FDA is valid and important.

The basic idea of saving lives and not killing people is certainly as
important as an idea can get.

The point is that the FDA is doing more killing and less saving than
you realize.

I agree the pharmaceutical marketplace is a tough place for an ordinary
person to fend.  But we DO have doctors.  We also have surgeons, and
surgical procedures are NOT regulated by FDA.

The best solution is to make the FDA advisory.  You could ignore them
at your peril, but at least they wouldn't come in with armed goon
squads.  They've done this; people don't think of them as a particularly
gun-toting agency.  The most recent such raid, where rifles were aimed
at the heads of staff and patients alike took place at Dr. Wright's
office (the Tacoma Clinic) in Washington State.  Dr. Wright had previously
filed a suit against FDA and the raid reeks with the stench of bureaucratic
retaliation.

Incidentally, thalidomide was kept out of the US by co-incidence.  An
FDA staffer thought that there was some rat brain damage in a study
and her efforts kept the drug from being approved in this country.

This was done under old FDA law in the early-mid 60's.  Nothing of
the arm/leg birth defects that thalidomide caused was suspected.  I'm
not sure how many babies were affected, but I am not aware that anyone
directly died.  It was a terrible tragedy, and the photos were in
Life Magazine.  But one would be closer to the mark thanking Divine
Providence, rather than the FDA, for the relatively small number of
American babies affected.  (Anyone got the number?  I don't think it's
anything like 500 but I don't know for sure.)

Bottom line: don't confuse the noble mission of saving human lives
with what the FDA actually does.  When you see FDA'ers on TV talk
shows get backed into a corner they'll start talking about the nobility
of their mission, they'll chant the "safe and effective" mantra.  But
they won't successfully defend their agency's actions.

== Bob Yazz ==
-- 


"One word sums up probably the responsibility of any vice president, and that
one word is 'to be prepared.'" -America's own Danny "Mr. Potatoe Head" Quayl
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs,alt.psychoactives
From: yazz@locus.com (Bob Yazz)
Subject: Re: The FDA can't be criminal, can they?
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1992 04:37:13 GMT

dwharper@eos.ncsu.edu (DANTE WILLIAM HARPER) writes:

| the only real worry I see is ORRIN HATCH and his friends (pharmecuets) getting
| their grubby hands on vitamin companies.

You've got it backwards.

Orrin Hatch, formerly a staunch FDA supporter, is sponsoring a bill,
S 2835, to guarantee freedom of choice in health care.

There is another totalitarian (*) bill to increase FDA's powers that
you're probably thinking of.  Hatch is the good guy here.

(*) totalitarian.  I used the word because the bad bill would allow
    the FDA to install 24-hour audio/video recording equipment in
    any health food store it wanted to.  I don't use the word lightly.

And yes, the bill really says this.  I guess the armed goon squads
that they've got at their behest now aren't enough for them.  This
is the sort of thing they'd do in Cuba if they had the money.

== Bob Yazz ==
-- 


"One word sums up probably the responsibility of any vice president, and that
one word is 'to be prepared.'" -America's own Danny "Mr. Potatoe Head" Quayl
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
From: METZE@uimrlm.mrl.uiuc.edu (Virginia Metze)
Subject: Re:  History of Forfeiture Laws
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.11
Organization: Ginny Metze, not speaking for anyone but myself
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 02:44:46 GMT

In <1992Sep30.033413.2419@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu writes:

# In article <1992Sep28.215256.3366@island.COM> guido@island.COM (Guido Marx) writes:
# }How long do you think it will be
# }before the authorities start to confiscate the autos of people
# }suspected of drunk driving ? 
# 
# They're already doing this to consumers of both hemp and prostitution in the
# SF Bay Area, at least in Oakland and SF.  However, I forget which they're
# doing in which city.  Oakland is doing it to hemp purchasers, and I seem to

	But isn't hemp used to produce linen or rope or something?
	How many innocent people are being swept up in this net?

# recall that Sf is doing it to purchasers of prositution services in the
# Tenderloin.
# 
# 
# Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
# starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu
# 
# "True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
# oneself and others." - Voltaire

	Has this group already discussed the legal fiction by
	which these forfeitures were legalized?  I heard that
	it was by 'arresting' the property, rather than the
	owners of the property.  I do not see how that fiction
	is supportable.  Property cannot violate a law; certainly
	not a criminal law, as it is not capable of intent.  And
	property can't be guilty of negligence or any other 'act'
	so I don't see how you can 'arrest' property for a civil
	violation either.  Besides which one doesn't even arrest
	PEOPLE for civil violations.  How on earth is this supported?
	Under past supreme courts, which knew and understood the
	law, these laws could not have survived.



===============================================================================
Ginny                                  Impeach Thomas!
metze@vmetze.mrl.uiuc.edu              Impeach the Rehnquist 5, 6 or 7!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Can any of you seriously say the Bill of Rights could get through Congress
today?  It wouldn't even get out of Committee."  F. Lee Bailey, 1967. 
===============================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.elections,alt.drugs
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: The FDA can't be criminal, can they?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 16:54:38 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.042419.1992@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>That is not what we are taught.  We are taught that since Marbury v.
>>Madison, the other two branches have grudgingly accepted the role
>>of the judiciary as reviewer of constitutionalily.  

Note, by the way, that this grudging acceptance is largely due to political,
not legal issues: The people _expect_ it, and fighting a Court ruling
would probably result in loosing an election. However, the Court's
power of judicial review is only as strong as public confidince in the
Supreme Court. _This_ has been a factor in several recent rulings, and
is a reason the Court is unwilling to overturn earlier decisions
at the risk of being seen as biased and political, instead of impartial...

>I think though that this concedes too much.  The Supreme Court
>invoked judicial review numerous times before Marbury...

They invoked it, but Marbury was the first time they overturned a 
federal law and claimed the rest of government was bound by their
ruling (e.g. that they had the final say in the matter.)

>...and the 
>Federalist Papers (and records of the debates of the Constitutional
>Convention) clearly envision a judiciary with such a power.  

There is little doubt the extreme Federalists, such as Hamilton, wanted
judicial review, but the Constitution was a compromise in any ways, 
including judicial powers. Hamilton and company couldn't get support
for a constitutional grant of judicial review powers, so they avoided
mention of the issue in the Constitution and hoped to establish the
power through political means at a later date (exactly waht Marbury v.
Madison did.)

I really don't think a strong argument for such an implied constitutional
power can be made from the Federalist papers and the Convention debates:
John Marshall was _extremely_ familiar with this context (since he was
_part_ of it, to a limited extent.) In writing the Marbury v. Madison
ruling, he tried to put judicial review on the strongest foundations
possible (that was the entire reason the Court heard that case, and
ruled as it did...). But even so, he didn't think the debates around
ratification offered any support for judicial review worth mentioning.

                                                   Frank Crary
                                                   CU Boulder


Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs,alt.psychoactives
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: Re: [alt.censorship] the FDA bans medical journals
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 23:38:15 GMT
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting

The FDA's position on chemicals is that if the chemical is shown to
have a beneficial effect then its a drug and concumers can't have it
except by paying a doctor to write them a prescription for it.
-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>
 
[.sig on vacation]
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:6152 misc.legal:18127
From: jkreznar@ininx.UUCP (John E. Kreznar)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Most Corrupt Federal Law Enforcement Agency?
Summary: Shooting the I.R.S. agent is like shooting the messenger.
Date: 6 Oct 92 05:28:07 GMT
Followup-To: alt.society.civil-liberty
Organization: Independence Industries, Los Angeles

In article <1992Sep29.145037.29568@dcatlas.dot.gov>, joet@dcatlas.dot.gov (Joe Trott) writes:

> The I.R.S. is an organization _solely_ dedicated to the initiatory use
> of force for purposes of extorting money from those who *earned* it (by
> producing product(s) or providing service(s) of value to a _willing_
> consumer population).

True.  But they're just _agents_ for the initiatory use of force.
Scapegoating the agent is about as useful as shooting the messenger
who bears bad news.  It's also a cop-out in this case, because it's so
much easier than going after the principals for whom those agents
operate.

The principals, of course, are the "fences" --- those hundred million
or so of our neighbors who willfully receive stolen property by
accepting the "benefits" of the theft, thereby generating the demand
for its continuation.  These include corporate welfare recipients like
Chrysler and Lockheed, individual welfare recipients like those who
accept food stamps, social security beneficiaries, government
employees (is it significant that you post through dot.gov?), and
government contractors.

> If you kill an I.R.S. agent, you are performing a public service,...

No more so than killing the messenger who bears bad news.  His
principals will live on and will instantly replace him with another.

        Relations among people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.
 |  Voting in government elections, or petitioning government, or willfully  |
 |  accepting government ``benefits'' when it's feasibly avoidable (thereby  |
 |  generating demand for taxation), accelerate the supplanting of personal  |
 |  choice by collective dictate,  making these most serious crimes against  |
 |  humanity.  ---John E. Kreznar, jkreznar@ininx.com, uunet!ininx!jkreznar  |
   It got so cold last winter, I saw a voter with his hand in his own pocket!

Accepting government benefits causes taxes.  Taxation is enslavement.

-- 
        Relations among people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.
         ---John E. Kreznar, jkreznar@ininx.com, uunet!ininx!jkreznar
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs,alt.psychoactives