SeaViews: Insights from the Gray
(formerly the _Rochester Rag_, formerly the _News
Motto: The surest way to get a reputation for
being a trouble maker these days is to go about repeating
the very phrases that the Founders used in the struggle for
-- C.A. Beard
Anon ftp site
Standard disclaimers apply. In addition, the author makes
no guarantees concerning the grammatical accuracy of his
writing. Submitted text files must be in raw or compressed
(.Z, .gz or PK Zip) ASCII. Image files must be in raw or
compressed (see above) GIF89 (or older).
On last month's Fix;
the answer to last month's Fix,
"Construct an exit strategy for Kosovo where everyone saves
Clinton wins the Noble Peace prize."
David Gay is spot on below in his assesment. If
only Milosivic was smart enough to contribute to the DNC and
Clinton's reelection, Serbia could have been favored like
China has (whoops, except for that embassy thing in Kosovo).
Which brings me to another point. Have any of you wondered
at the decided lackluster apology by the Clinton admin to
the Chinese over that? I mean, 15 kids died in CO by gunfire
and it's time to turn over Congress to pass even more (we
really mean it this time) effective gun control, but 2-3
dozen Chinese diplomats were killed by a US laser guided
bomb and all we can say is, "Whooops, guess we had the wrong
Back to Kosovo. Is it ever acceptable for a nation to
involve itself in the internal affairs (by military means)
of another? Is it acceptable by other means (campaign
contributions, financially, etc.) These are good questions
and in fact you'll see them again.
On the Premeditated Dumbing Down of Language;
You know I have this simple rule that I try to stick to.
Words mean things. People practiced in the art of persuasion
know this too, but try to alter word meanings in ways that
help their arguments. For instance, murder or infanticide
sound rather harsh - so we have "pro-choice" supporters, not
"pro-death", "pro-murder" or "pro-infanticide" supporters.
But even more subtle is when the persuaders choose to
redefine existing words to either raise or diminish
the emotional knee-jerk reaction associated with it.
Take for instance the words "assault rifle". A few years
ago (1992 ?) the Brady Bill sought to ban assault
weapons. A majority of people polled in the country agreed
that "legitimate sportsman" had no need for such weapons,
and the ban passed. What few people knew is that
a) Assault weapons are select fire (either semi or full
b) They were already stricly controlled since the 1930s
c) The "assault" weapons banned by Brady were/are
So for example, the AR-15 (a semi-automatic civilian
version of the US Army M-16) was banned - as were guns that
looked like AK-47s or MAC-10s or UZIs. This is sort of like
charging someone with a Volkswagon Beetle a luxury tax after
he puts one of those home kit fiberglass Ferrari bodies on
Also banned by Brady were pistols with large capacity
ammunition clips. It used to be you could get a 9 mm pistol
with a 16 round clip. Now the limit is eight. Guess what.
Those clever lads in the CO school shooting had to reload
twice as often!
Now we have had a shooting in Conyers GA (May 19). The
shooter used a 6 shot revolver and a .22 caliber pump action
rifle. He stole both by breaking into his father's locked
gun cabinet. Now understand what this means. As we speak the
Senate has already passed a new gun bill that will "further
restrict" the sale of "assault weapons" (which
recall Brady already banned) and require gun locks or gun
So even as the knee-jerk law is being passed, another
event shows how ludicrous it is.
Of course there is only one possible answer. Within the
year expect to see pump, lever, bolt action and muzzle
loading guns to be called "assault weapons". Within three
years expect a call for mandatory registration of all
firearms. Within five years after that, expect all those
owners to see the BATF collection agents at the door.
Since I want to be on the cutting edge of societal
evolution, let me get on the bandwagon and boldly and fully
embrace the new, official - libspeak. Expect numerous
examples in this issue.
On the Phantom Menace;
OK, so after a 20 year wait we finally get
to see George Lucas' prequal. On the chance that not all of
you have seen it yet, I won't give away any vital plot info.
But, there were at least two gaffs that should have been
caught by the plot continuity advisors. One involves the
abilities of a Sith Lord, and the other involves the ability
of Jedi knights. Send me an email if you think you caught
them as well - and Tom Hall - if you didn't catch them you
should send me your Dr. Who scarf by way of atonement.
Getting Oriented in College
By William Buckley
Published May 19, 1999
Some years ago, under the sponsorship of a small
foundation, National Review undertook an ambitious four-year
project. How are the views of college students on
representative political and philosophical questions
affected by their four years in school?
The results (published in the current issue) are
instructive, not to say electrifying. They sustain the
intuitive sense one has of the direction of college
education, which tends to attract students to social and
political modernism. But then that's what colleges are
supposed to do some would remark.
Students were polled when they arrived as freshmen
in 1995, and polled as seniors four years later, the
identical students where possible. Twelve colleges were
examined: Liberty, The Citadel, Marquette, University
of California at Irvine, Indiana, UCLA, Wisconsin,
Dartmouth, Michigan, Stanford, Yale and Brown. As one might
have expected, Liberty and The Citadel imparted
traditionalist positions on God and man.
Moving from west to east, one pauses at UCLA, Indiana and
Brown, to ask, "Which of the following designations most
nearly describes your own political temperament?" UCLA
freshmen: 28 percent conservative, 39 percent liberal. In
senior year, 27 to 44. Indiana freshmen: 38 percent
conservative, 29 percent liberal. In senior year, 29 to 39.
Brown freshmen: 14 percent conservative, 54 percent
liberal. In senior year, 9 to 66.
"With which political party are you affiliated,
either in spirit or actual membership?" UCLA freshmen: 25
percent GOP, 32 percent Democrat. In senior year, 24 to 45.
Indiana freshmen: 44 percent GOP, 38 percent Democrat. In
senior year, 30 to 31. Brown freshmen: 10 percent GOP, 42
percent Democrat. In senior year, 11 to 53.
"Would you prohibit the death penalty?" UCLA freshmen:
yes, 18 percent. In senior year, 15. Indiana freshmen: yes,
7 percent. In senior year, 16. Brown freshmen: yes, 32
percent. In senior year, 37.
"Relationships between male homosexual couples or female
homosexual couples should not be granted the same
legal standing as traditional marriage between
heterosexuals." UCLA freshmen: agreed, 30 percent. In
senior year, 27. Indiana freshmen: agreed, 58 percent.
In senior year, 35. Brown freshmen: agreed, 13 percent. In
senior year, no change.
"Should college admisson offices give preferential
consideration to designated minorities?" UCLA freshmen: yes,
31 percent. In senior year, 39. Indiana freshmen: yes,
31 percent. In senior year, 17. Brown freshmen: yes, 48
percent. In senior year, 59.
"Do you believe in immortality, if this is taken to mean
the continued existence of the individual soul as a
surviving entity after the end of organic life?" UCLA
freshmen: yes, 71 percent. In senior year, 68. Indiana
freshmen: yes, 72 percent. In senior year, 77. Brown
freshmen: yes, 67 percent. In senior year, 57.
"How often do you attend religious services? (Once a week
or more often ...) UCLA freshmen: 41 percent. In
senior year, 16. Indiana freshmen: 36 percent. In senior
year, 14. Brown freshmen: 20 percent. In senior year,
"How often, outside of religious services, do you pray to
God? (Daily ...) UCLA freshmen: 55
percent. In senior year, 27. Indiana freshmen: 63
percent. In senior year, 32. Brown freshmen: 21 percent. In
senior year, 16.
"Given religious precepts, would you engage in, or
approve of, the following practices? (Mercy killing ...)
UCLA freshmen: 44 percent. In senior year, 58. Indiana
freshmen: 1 percent. In senior year, 41. (Dr.
Kevorkian's class was evidently a requirement.) Brown
freshmen: 54 percent. In senior year, 64.
There are anomalies there, and others, some of them
striking, in the entire poll, which asks also about
population, immigration, natural rights, the legalizing of
drugs, electoral redistricting, welfare benefits, government
price controls, tax-supported college financial assistance,
and sex -- a fair conspectus of the issues students
will confront at home, in the media and in
1. David Gay writes a very thought provoking letter.
Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 16:50:42 -0500
From: "David H. Gay" <email@example.com
Subject: May Fix of the month
"Construct an exit strategy for Kosovo where everyone
saves face and
Clinton wins the Noble Peace prize."
Clinton is bombing Belgrade because Milosevic has taken
the guns from
the Kosovo Albanians and controls their schools from
miles away). There is not going to be an easy way out.
Perhaps he could
simply order the bombing of Washington D.C. This might be
way to get Clinton the Nobel Peace Prize. I'd say that any
leader from a
NATO country has abdicated any claim on the Peace Prize.
The simplest solution would be for the prize committee to
the Prize (plus a few million in campaign contributions for
the DNC) in
exchange for getting NATO out of Kosovo. Clinton responds
various inducements of this kind. Everybody would be happy
the Kosovo Albanians that have been relocated to places like
There seem to have been a few chances to open
Milosevic. However, I don't think Clinton has anything to
say and that
is why the bombing continues.
Once the troops hit the ground in Yugoslavia, there are 3
outcomes. The worst would be World War I/II, the best would
Northern Ireland in the 1960's. Viet Nam would round out the
the in-between. I fear that even the best case senario is
acceptable solution to the problem.
The question is when does a country have the right to
internal affairs of another country?
Clinton sent his friend James Carville and another
to Israel to campaign against the Israli Prime Minister
suppose this is little different from accepting
contributions from a
foreign government. Maybe this will get Clinton the Nobel
But, why wasn't it reported by the mainstream press?
I'm not an isolationist, but I think there are
Quote(s) of the month:
"Where is General Schwarzkopf when we need
-- Columnist Brian Dameral, speaking on the war in
Fix of the month:
Is it ever acceptable for a nation to involve itself
in the internal affairs (by military means) of another? Is
it acceptable by other means (campaign contributions,
1. Neah Bay, May 17: With Seattle News Helicopters
hovering overhead to provide live coverage, Macah tribe
member Theron Parker threw an assault harpoon into a 35 foot
gray whale. Members in a motorized chase boat finished off
the animal with 2 shots from a .50 caliber assault bolt
action rifle. Protesters held an all night vigil in downtown
Seattle, denouncing the Native American butchers as pawns of
the Japanese, who they feel will now reactivate their
whaling activity under the "culteral right" excuse.
2. Neah Bay, May 22: The Native American Butchers of the
nobel ocean mammal are holding a week long PotLatch (party)
beginning today. They have invited other blood thirsty
Native Americans from Alaska and the American SW to come and
participate. The Neah Butchers believe that they should not
slaughter more nobel ocean mammals until the current one is
1. Conyers, May 20: The teen-age gunman who wounded six
classmates when he allegedly opened fire at a Georgia high
school had access to more firepower at home, but chose not
to use it, authorities said. That decision -- coupled with
15-year-old Thomas Solomon Jr.'s apparent effort to aim low
during his shooting spree Thursday -- suggests to some that
he was not trying to kill his classmates. If Solomon really
sought to leave a trail of bodies behind, he could have
stolen more powerful (trans Brady) weapons from his
stepfather's weapons hoard (locked cabinet) at their
suburban Atlanta military bunker (home), according to
Sheriff Jeff Wigington. As it turned out, he chose only an
assault .357 Magnum revolver and a sawed-off assault pump
.22 rifle, which he hid in the legs of his urban military
fatigues (baggy jeans).
1. May 22: The commander of NATO's air war said yesterday
the strategy being pursued is unlikely to break
Yugoslavia's will and may either force the alliance to
accept Belgrade's terms for peace or consider widening the
Since the accidental bombing (kindly US sponsored US
delivery to paradise) of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade two
weeks ago, NATO political leaders and Gen. Wesley Clark, the
allied commander, have changed course and forbidden attacks
against Belgrade targets considered crucial to Yugoslav
President (Satan worshipping Hitler youth) Slobodan
Milosevic and his supporters (fanatical right-wing death
squads), as well as the city's power supplies, bridges and
roads (tools of oppression).
They must fly high to avoid casualties in their own
ranks. They must radio for permission to hit targets near
civilians. One NATO ally has vetoed using U.S. B-52 bombers
in strikes that might endanger civilians (Clinton campaign
2. May 21: A Democratic fundraiser and longtime Arkansas
friend of President Clinton pleaded guilty Friday in a
federal court in Little Rock, Ark., to two political
fund-raising charges and agreed to cooperate with the
Justice Department's long-running (immoral and baseless)
campaign finance inquiry.
The fund-raiser, Yah Lin Trie, was one of the first major
Democratic figures from Clinton's re-election effort to be
charged in an indictment in January 1998. Trie was one of a
small group of Clinton associates (hallowed freedom
fighters) who used his contacts in Asia to help seek money
for the party of Truth and Justice (Democrats), ultimately
raising more than $1 million for the party's national
committee and Clinton's legal defense fund.
3. May 21: The Clinton Administration announced Friday
that the United States
its allies to move quickly to deploy what was described as a
peacekeeping force totaling 50,000 troops on the borders of
Kosovo. The release said that the force could include 7,000
Americans and would go into Kosovo even if Milosovic didn't
Ed: In which case it would probably not be a peacekeeping
4. 25 May: Cover stories provided by Chinese operatives
to hide China's illegal campaign contributions may have come
from or been approved by President Jiang Zemin. Transcripts
of FBI wiretaps obtained by Fox News also point to the
possibility that President Clinton may have known of both
the illegal donations and what was to be said if they were
A great deal of China's illegal contributions to 1996
Democratic campaigns passed through Johnny Chung, a
Taiwan-born U.S. citizen who received $300,000 from the head
of Chinese military intelligence to be given to the
Democratic National Committee and Clinton's re-election
campaign. When the contributions were discovered, Chung was
charged with making illegal donations, and later pleaded
guilty. Chung last week told Congress he was under orders
from the Chinese to keep the whole thing quiet.
5. 25 May: Rep. Congressman Chris Cox released his
declassified report today that details the means by which US
militray secrets became leaked to the Chinese. The recently
admitted theft of bomb plans from Los ALamos was only the
tip of the iceberg. It turns out that computer and missile
technology, which the Commerce Dept. did not allow to be
sold to China was sold anyway after the White House
controlled State Dept. overturned the Commerce ban. People
are finally beginning to ask if there was a connection
between the campaign contributions and the sellout of US
military know how. See the report at Cox
1. The following should scare the bejeesus out of you, if
you don't already figure that the Constitutional Republic
that we supposedly live under is dead. Long live the
THE IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY
Posse Comitatus Act no check on White House power say
By Sarah Foster
President Clinton doesn't need to sign an executive order
to start a full-scale gun grab. He doesn't need to declare
martial law if he wants to use the armed forces to deal
with public unrest. And if he figures a state
government isn't doing all it should to enforce some federal
law that nobody likes, he can use federal troops to make
certain that the law is complied with -- even if the
governor and everyone living in the state are adamantly
opposed to it.
He can do all these things on his own, without seeking
advice or approval from Congress becuase of a series of
statutes. Not even the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, which
Congress intended as a shield to protect citizens from the
military, places any significant limitations on presidential
The statutes referred to are found in Title 10 of the
U.S. Code, which deals with the Armed Forces. Through them
the president is given authority to intervene with military
force in a state's domestic disputes, upon request from the
state legislature or governor -- or without it. Some
Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 331: Whenever there is an
insurrection in any State against its government, the
President may, upon the request of its legislature or its
governor ... use such of the armed forces, as he
considers necessary to suppress the insurrection.
Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 332: Whenever the President
considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or
assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the
United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of
the United States in any State or Territory ... he may call
into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and
use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to
enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.
Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 333: The President, by
using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by other
means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to
suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence,
unlawful combination or conspiracy, if it hinders the
execution of the laws of that State, and of the United
States within the State ... or opposes or obstructs the
execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the
course of justice under those laws ...
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1863 that the
president can unilaterally decide whether an
insurrection is in effect and determine how much force is
necessary to suppress it. He can "brand as belligerents the
inhabitants of any area in general insurrection."
Equally shocking is the fact that the president can use
the military against civilians, is the fact that former
presidents have done so on "many occasions" -- none of them
declaring martial law.
For example, in 1914 President Woodrow Wilson deployed
federal troops in Colorado to suppress a labor dispute.
Olson-Wolls point out that Wilson ordered the U.S. Army to
disarm American citizens -- including state and local
officials, sheriffs, the police and the National Guard; to
arrest American citizens; to monitor the state judicial
process and re-arrest (and hold in military custody) persons
released by the state courts; and to deny writs of habeas
corpus issued by state courts.
Earlier, in South Carolina in 1871, without declaring
martial law, President Grant sent troops into nine counties
of South Carolina to enforce a proclamation commanding the
residents to give up their arms and ammunition. Grant
suspended the writ of habeas corpus. More than 600 arrests
had been made by the end of 1871.
Between 1807 and 1925, federal troops were used more than
100 times to quell domestic disturbances -- sometimes
the presence of the troops alone was enough to discourage
None of what's happening is new. Could you ever
imagine that the President of the United States could order
the Army to disarm sheriffs, disarm police, and disarm the
National Guard? Isn't that beyond what you'd ever dream? But
it has happened. It's the fact that this has happened that
should cause people to take this issue seriously.
Please note the Rochester Rag is available on the web