Brought to you by...


SeaViews: Insights from the Gray Havens 
May 1999

(formerly the _Rochester Rag_, formerly the _News from Detroit_)

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 independence.

-- C.A. Beard


email Steve
Anon ftp site
News Archives

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 face and
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 map"?!?!

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 automatic)
b) They were already stricly controlled since the 1930s
c) The "assault" weapons banned by Brady were/are semi-automatic look-alikes

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 the bug.

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 cabinets.

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.

Guest Editorial:

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, 13.

"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 legislatures. 


1. David Gay writes a very thought provoking letter.

Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 16:50:42 -0500
From: "David H. Gay" <
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 Belgrade (100-150
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 the easiest
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 offer Clinton
the Prize (plus a few million in campaign contributions for the DNC) in
exchange for getting NATO out of Kosovo. Clinton responds well to
various inducements of this kind. Everybody would be happy except for
the Kosovo Albanians that have been relocated to places like New Jersey
or wherever.

There seem to have been a few chances to open negotiations with
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 likely
outcomes. The worst would be World War I/II, the best would be like
Northern Ireland in the 1960's. Viet Nam would round out the options as
the in-between. I fear that even the best case senario is not an
acceptable solution to the problem.

The question is when does a country have the right to interfere in
internal affairs of another country?

Clinton sent his friend James Carville and another campaign consultant
to Israel to campaign against the Israli Prime Minister Netanyahu. I
suppose this is little different from accepting contributions from a
foreign government. Maybe this will get Clinton the Nobel Peace Prize.
But, why wasn't it reported by the mainstream press?

I'm not an isolationist, but I think there are limits...


Quote(s) of the month:

"Where is General Schwarzkopf when we need him?"

-- Columnist Brian Dameral, speaking on the war in Kosovo

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, financially, etc.) 



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 fully devoured.


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).

Washington D.C.

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 war.

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 supporters).

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 would         press 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 give permission.
Ed: In which case it would probably not be a peacekeeping force.

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 discovered.

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 Report.

Net News;

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 Emperor!

excerpts from

Posse Comitatus Act no check on White House power say attorneys

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 power.

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 examples :

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 the participants.
 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 at:

© Steve Langer, 1995-2000