From the land of 10,000 lakes and 30,000 bars November 1994 (formerly the NEWS FROM DETROIT) EDITORIAL Steve Langer email@example.com (Ultrix) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Standard disclaimers apply. In addition, the author makes no guarantees concerning the grammatical accuracy of his writing. Submitted text files must be in raw ASCII, compressed tar (file.tar.Z) or PK Zip format. Image files must be in GIF89 (or older), PostScript or compressed (see above) versions of same. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- On last month's Fix; the answer to last month's Fix, "Illegal immigrants: return them, let them starve here, or grant them full rights and priveleges (whatever are left)?" is Most of you wrote Personally, I think that there is an interesting lesson to be learned by the contrast between California and Texas on this issue. Texas has a much longer border with Mexico than California, yet California seems to have a much harder time with illegal immigrants. It's a matter of perspective. Californians see the illegals as a threat, while Texans see them as a resource. To be blunt, in Texas you have lots of employers willing to hire illegal aliens illegally and make them work for peanuts. A largely apathetic, if not supportive, remainder of the citizens tolerate the practice. In California you have similar selfish employers, but a larger portion of the citizenry who (to their heart's credit, if not their brain's), insist on trying to make life "fair". These "liberals" don't seem to realize that their largesse with other people's money leads to inflation, higher taxes and unemployment as companies flee the state to escape punitive taxation. Should the illegals be deported? Of course. Will they come back into the country the next day? Sure. Does Joe taxpayer owe them a chunk of his paycheck? I don't think so. There is a point to Prop. 187 which bothers me though. It would create yet another ID card that people would have to carry on their person to prove their state citizenship (Achtung! Ver are your papersss?!). Curiously, the lack of such a card would entitle one to stand in line to get illegal immigrant benefits. Geez, why doesn't the INS just post agents at these new welfare offices and deport the applicants? It used to be that immigrants came to this country for equality of oppurtunity. They rose or fell on their own efforts, and the nation prospered. Now, with the aid of those citizens already here, illegals are coming to this nation demanding equality of outcome, regardless of their personal efforts. We have numerous historical examples of this philosophy, most to the east of the old Iron Curtain. On Campaign Strategies; It is an interesting fact that while the public says it wants to see candidates debate the issues, they vote for the Party that makes a career of scandal mongering, the Democrats. Proof? Well the Dems hold a majority almost everywhere. What? Oh, you mean proof that Dems are more hungry for scandal than Reps. Ok; a. '92 Rep. Christine Todd-Whitman defeats incumbant New Jersey Dem. Govnr. Jim Florio. Within 2 weeks, Florio demands her recall for alleged campaign improprieties by her campaign manager. b. '90 Rep. Engler defeats incumbant Michigan Dem. Govnr. Blanchard. Within 3 months a recall petition is started. Reason? Why, the foolish public elected a Rep. Isn't that reason enough? c. '92 Texas Dem. Govnr. Ann Richards attacks Kay Bailey Hutchison's campaign for the Senate on the grounds that she used publicly paid employees to make her vacation travel arrangements. Richard's attacks notably stopped when Hutchison pointed out that Richard's personal office and home are decorated with flowers paid for out of state coffers. . . . you get the point How is the GOP responding to this barrage in an election? Why, they made a contract with America. It says this (abbreviated); - Force Congress to live under the laws it passes on the rest of us. - Cut 1/3 of congressional staffers - cut the congressional budget - Balanced budget amendmant and line item veto - Stop violent criminals - Welfare reform - Protect our kids - Tax cuts for familys - Strong national defense - Raise senior citizens earning limit - Roll back govt. regulation - Legal reform - Term limits You may or may not agree with these specific goals, but do you see any mention of the House Bank Scandal, the House Post Office Scandal, Keating Five, Whitewater, the personal habits of Ted Kennedy or Dan Inouaye? If Reps. are using these arguments in local races, they are not getting covered in the national press. No, the GOP has made an effort to actually run _on the isues_ because they believe that it is not good enough to vote against someone unless you have a reason to vote _for_ someone else. Personally, I think the contract was a mistake. Polls show that voter support for Reps. has been eroding ever since the contract's debut. Why? Simple really. Now Dems. actually have a target to take aim at and criticize. They don't really need to go on record with an alternative because the GOP was wrong. Joe Voter really doesn't need a reason to vote _for_ something. He proved this most recently in 1992 by firing George Bush and he's proven it in every city, state and national election this century. The Reps. have utterly failed to learn this. The true lesson, of course, is this; you have to stand for principles and don't go back on them once they've gotten you elected, but you also have to honestly annhilate your opponent's ideas and/or character when there is just cause. On the Results: YOU FOOLS! What have you done? Don't you realize that Bill's mission to save the planet is now at risk? Thank God the East coast is awash with shrinks. At least Mass., Virginia and Wash. D.C. had the moral courage to reelect those pillars of decency Ted Kennedy, Rich Robb and Marion Berry. Perhaps therein lies hope. But seriously ... Evidently Garrison Keillor was right to be worried about a nation of soreheads last month. And the carnage could have been even greater had the Republican contract not given Dems. the targets they needed to attack. It is a curious, but nevertheless true observation born out by political pollsters during every election that a generic candidate always gets better ratings than the incumbant. That is, you ask Joan voter who she likes better, Dem. incumbant A or unknown Rep. B, and Joan will pick B. However, as soon as a name is attached to B, along with some background, B's negatives start to increase. In other words, familiarity breeds contempt. Rather like romance. But let's take a look as some pivotal states; Mass: Ted Kennedy survived New York: Cuomo lost Virgina: Robb held on Florida: Chiles scraped over Jeb Bush Illinois: Rostenkowski finally bit it Texas: George Bush Jr. beat Ma Richards California: Pete Wilson held on, but so did Feinstein Wash: The de-Folyater's were victorious Given this, it may be a bit premature to attend a wake for the Dem. party. Yet, it has to send a stinging message to the White House when not ONE SINGLE INCUMBANT REPUBLICAN LOST. And recall that this is the first time since FDR that the Rep.'s have controlled both houses. Ouch. So how will we be governed in the next two years? Well, expect Congress to get even more polarized (for once I agree with the major media pundits). There is tremendous resentment on the Dem. side and a sense of "in your face" on the Rep. side. There will be precious little bipartisanship. As a result, most bills will be voted on purely along party lines and Clinton will feel compelled to veto them. Since the Reps. don't have a veto proof majority, the result will be gridlock. In '96, gridlock will again be a major campaign issue, but this time it will be the Reps who bemoan it because it will be their initiatives that get blocked. The Dems and Clinton will say they saved us. Meanwhile, many folks here were sweating about the appearence next year of Health Care II. After this Tuesday, they all heaved a big sigh of relief. [Oh, and I know many of my liberal readers are probably tearing their [hair out right now because they can't understand my mixed review of [this election. Perhaps I'm not the idealogue they think? Naaa On Prop. 187: Recall last month when I mentioned that the California Supreme Court has already delared the bill unConstitutional? Well, guess what? The day after it passed overwhelmingly, the state Court ordered a halt to all enforcment measures. Furthermore, US Ambassador to Mexico Jimmy Jones, a Clinton appointee, apoligised to the Mexican president today (NPR, Nov. 9) and said not to worry about Prop. 187 because; "... it was a mistake that will be corrected by the courts." So do you California readers understand this?! It doesn't matter what you vote for because it was a mistake. I repeat last month's advice. Renounce your US citizenship, you'll no longer be taxed and you'll enjoy all the welfare bennies of a citizen. Of course you'll no longer be able to vote, but since your vote doesn't count anyway, who cares? On the Media Reaction; One of the prereqs for becoming a journalist must be schizophrenia. Today's (Nov. 13) _New York Times_ is replete with reasons for the downfall of the Dems. last Tuesday and what it means for the US future. On page one of Sec. 4, the explanation for the Rep win is that for once, Reps have good candidates. Then the op-ed page of the same section calls Newt Gingrich an "... authoritarian racist bigot in the mold of Gov. Wallace." and a similar piece was done on soon to be Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole. As Frank Scripter is fond of saying, "I'll give my opponent either side of an argument, but damnit, he can't have both." On page 8 of section one, writer Steve Erlanger foretells that a GOP Congress will result in cooler relations with Russia and maybe even a resumption of the cold war. Geez. Mr. Erlanger, do you know who was in office when the Berlin wall went up? When we went into Vietnam, had the Cuban Missile Crisis, or who sat in the Oval office during the invasion of Afghanistan? Mr. Erlanger, do you know who re-normalized relations with China, or led Russia to the negotiating table so that his successor could preside over the demolition of the Berlin Wall? To a liberal journalist, reality is a small white bird tweeting in a meadow. These people have such incredible reality filters that if they somehow actually _see_ suffering, they go to a charity ball in Hollywood, New York or Wash. D.C. wearing a colored ribbon and call that compassion. These damn fools cannot bring themselves to understand one simple, fundemental truth; US voters fired George Bush because their quality of life is declining. They would have fired Clinton for the same reason, but since they couldn't, they took out their anger on Clinton's party. I wouldn't be too surprised to see the New York Times suddenly reverse itself and favor term limits in the next election. The editors will say they were for term limits all along, but the readers, given the decline of U.S. intelligence, were just too dumb to notice. On Who voted for Whom: Exit poll data from New York Times Nov. 13. Voting trend percentages Dem Rep Single Men 52 48 SIngle Women 66 34 Married Men 44 56 Married Women 48 52 Men 18-30 52 48 Women 18-30 56 44 Men 30-45 43 57 Women 30-45 51 49 Men 45-60 46 54 Women 45-60 56 44 Men >60 49 51 Women >60 53 47 Income under 15k/year 62 38 15-30k 52 48 30-50 k 49 51 50-70k 46 54 over 70k 47 53 Non-high school grad 68 32 High school grad 52 48 Some College 47 53 BS 49 51 Post BS 45 55 PhD 54 46 East 52 48 Midwest 44 56 South 45 55 West 59 41 Pretty much what you'd expect. Women are more liberal than men, and the richer and more educated you are, the more likely you are to be conservative. One interesting point is how much more liberal single women are than married women, which may go some way towards explaining why they're still single. In fact, those numbers are very similar to the numbers for non-high-school grads and incomes under 15k/year. This indicates to me that these are probably unwed mothers who never finished high school and are on public assistance. However, without cross-tab data, I cannot verify this. Another interesting point is that conservatism increases with education until one gets a PhD. Then, presumably, one goes into academia and lives off of grants and as we all know, all beggars preach that others should give. This being one of the fundemental tenants of liberalism, they then vote Democratic. I've often thought that all recipients of public money should be disallowed from voting, since this is an inherent conflict of interest. Of course, this will never happen. On Feminism; The other day, some of the female residents were bad-mouthing their boyfriends, the glass-ceiling and men in general. They made sure I was aware of the discussion, as I was the only male in sight and there were three of them, I guess they felt safe. It seems that their biggest gripe is that men are too materialistic and concerned with furthering their careers. "Ok", I said, "Who are all of you dating or married to?" All of them named other residents or newly made staff. "Ok", said I again, "Now who is Frank, Eric, etc. married to?" They named women who I know are nurses, interior decorators, some have no college education at all. I launched. "You've just pointed out a trend I've seen at Madison, MSU, Detroit and here. Women, with few exceptions, marry up or equal as a means of securing a comfortable, materialistic existence and/or possibly as a means of furthering their own careers. Of the four-five hundred couples I know, I can count on one finger an example of a female MD marrying down. Yet you yourselves have just listed the significant others of the male residents here and _none_ of them are on an equal educational or socio-economic plane with their men. Perhaps when feminism reaches the point when a female Mayo resident is as likely to marry her male Volvo mechanic as the Clinic Pres., all of you will have the credibility to disparage men as being wickedly materialistic." The female residents left the room after that. GUEST EDITORIAL [It's been said that I sometimes come down too hard on the govt. [so here is an editorial from a more mild mannered source. The Punishment of the Wise by Timothy Haight _Network Computing_, Nov. 1 1994 I'm writing this in Sep., but you're reading it in Nov. Meanwhile, some distressing bills are going through Congress. They may well be law by the time you read this. The bills, sponsored by Sen. Leahy and Represen. Edwards, which are based on an FBI proposal, require the phone companies to redesign the national digital phone network so that police can tap calls more easily. Four aspects of this plan bother me. First, it's expensive. The Feds have authorized 1/2 a billion dollars to pay for this, but the phone companies say it will cost a lot more. Fixing call forwarding alone is supposed to cost over $1 billion. Second, it seems obvious to me and many experts that systems that are easier for the police to tap will be easier for industrial spies to tap. Third, while defenses against govt. abuse were added to the bill by people who remember wiretap abuses 25 years ago, these protections are mostly procedural, and bureacrats are paid to circumvent them. Fourth, it initiates a really nasty process. In the future, to avoid expensive retrofits, we can expect phone carriers to build in easy access at the outset. Allowing for wiretapping will become a design principle. These bills have a chilling effect on designers of technology. Design in security at your own risk. Next year it may be outlawed and you won't be able to sell it. It's Oct. now and the Digital Telephony bill has passed both houses and Clinton is expected to sign it. Telecom security will become harder to achieve and phone service will cost more. Over 2300 years ago Plato wrote, "The punishment which the wise suffer who refuse to take part in govt. is to live under the government of worse men." The bills supporters claim that its provisions won't be extended to on-line communications. Sure. When they are, I hope we just don't watch the bills slide by next time. LETTERS 1. From Geza Erdos, one of my old lab mates in Detroit. Geza is a visiting post-doc from Hungary and while he is not yet a citizen of this country, his children are (since they were born here). From firstname.lastname@example.org Mon Nov 7 22:52:34 1994 Hi Steve Some thoughts on your 'monthly fix' on immigration. I am not qualified to say anything about it -I am not a citizen and even not a green card holder - but I guess I have special insight on the problem. Just to refresh your memory, I am living here for 11 years now. I always been here legally, and pay taxes, most of the time more then the Big "3" all together (State, Federal and FICA). I even payed those taxes which I cannot benefit from at all (FICA). More, I have two boys (US citizens) whom for some years I couldn't even get an exemption on my tax return (see NR1040), they just cannot be counted even if they are American. So I do not think I am living off anybody's tax dollars, rather I think I support some of the needy of America. So, as I see, the press the politicians, and about everybody mix up two very different problems: 1. Immigration, as it is governed by well established laws, would not be a problem if the laws are observed and evenly applied. (Just admit a certain level of immigration is very usefull, you really do not want to see that 'bell curve' shift way far left). Furthermore, controlled immigration would not drain tax dollars, I never drained. 2, Violation of the borders of a recognised and historically established country (what I do not know, why the press and politicians call it 'illegal immigration', it is not immigration but complete disregard of a country's laws, therefore a criminal act) and everywhere around the world is sanctioned with deportation and/or prison terms, even in countries where the immigration laws are more relaxed than here. Basically I do not comprehend how anyone can obtain rights to something in an illegal way. I dont think an American citizen has rights like that. Like, the constitutional right to bear arms may not support one's right to keep a gun that he or she has stolen or does it, please set me straight! So you dont need new laws just enforce what you already have, like your constitution. The bottom line, you have no immigration problem, you have law enforcement problem. Patrol your border, enforce your laws, make sure who came illegaly is going to be deported and repeated offenders will pay dearly for breaking your laws. The legal immigrants are cheap targets, in the last few decades laws mostly limited the immigration of those who would not need public assistance at all and focused on the so called family reunification programs (see cubans, south-east asians, latinos, indians and so on). The rules and priorities have to be clarified, do you want immigration to be a resource for America or do you want to be a dumping-ground for everything that comes. And finally, it is not a good idea to mix up two existing problems, which relate to each other only marginally or not at all. I am sure immigration is a great resource to this country just have to use it wisely. Geza [Since you're a legal immigrant the motivation for this question, Cal- [fornia's Prop. 187, does not apply to you, nor does the discussion [that this question was intended to generate. Furthermore, I too [know a little about being an immigrant. I had the joy of being considered [a Michigan resident for taxation purposes, yet was forced to pay [out state college tuition because despite living there for 8 years, [I was not a land owner or permanent job holder, thus not entitled to [resident tuition. [ [Prop. 187 asked a very simple question, [ "Do you want to pay for the welfare, health care and education [ of people who are here illegally?" [ [ Well, do you? I have long been a staunch advocate of legal immigration [for the very reasons you suggest, among others. I have been fairly [vocal in the Young Scientists Network in fighting those who would [ban immigration of scientists to make a better market for those already [here, though I _am_ smart enough to know this is against my own best [interests. You can ask L. Townsend about this. It just goes to show [how truly selfish and conservative I am ;-) [ [As for how the law looks at the legality of the right to keep and [bear stolen arms, that's easy. All arms in the possesion of the [people are stolen and should be returned to the loving and caring [Feds. Geez Geza, I thought I told you that. 2. Keeweenaw Paul informs us of a new Mosaic home page that all well informed citizens simply must read. From email@example.com Wed Nov 9 10:08:13 1994 >Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.misc >From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Christian Hamer) >Date: Mon, 26 Sep 94 09:48:20 EDT Condoms and other sexual items, as well as relevant information, are now available on the World Wide Web from Condom Country at URL: http://www.ag.com/condom/country Along with its product line, Condom Country also provides its customers with information content, such as government statistics on AIDS, instructions on how to use a condom, and a chart on the average male penis length. Interested customers should try out the above URL or send e-mail to: "email@example.com". Condom Country is a service of The Access Group, a Cambridge, MA company that specializes in publishing electronic catalogs over the Internet. ****************************************************************************** * Christian Hamer (firstname.lastname@example.org) 586 Putnam Avenue * * Vice President Cambridge, MA 02139 * * The Access Group (617) 441-9173 * * http://www.ag.com/ag.html email@example.com * * Check out Condom Country at: http://www.ag.com/condom/country * ****************************************************************************** 3. From Arizona Matt From firstname.lastname@example.org Thu Nov 17 20:24:17 1994 Received: from dagobah (slip176.indirect.com) by Vela.ACS.Oakland.Edu with SMTP [...] Illegal immigrants, deport them, shoot them, or give them full rights and privelages? As with most "dilemmas" (so-called), the answer is obvious if you keep sight of your (libertarian) principles. Give _everyone_ full _rights_. Give _no one_ any _entitlements_. Matthew Birkholz email@example.com 4. And Texas Tom From ApogeeTom@aol.com Sun Nov 20 17:58:08 1994 > Illegal immigrants, deport them, shoot them, or give them full rights and privelages? Give them a way to, once caught, pay their last year's tax, take the immigrant test, and become citizens at that point (or else tear down the Statue of Liberty--I believe they are a huddled mass of a sort). It would require a probation officer of a type. If they don't want to do that, deport them. They are breaking the law by earning income and not paying taxes. That, or deport them, then shoot them, then give them the full rights and privileges of dead people. Tom 5. Dave Gay writes from merry old England From firstname.lastname@example.org Mon Nov 21 08:52:56 1994 > > Illegal immigrants, deport them, shoot them, or give them > full rights and privelages? > The problem with illegal immigrants (especially in Southern California) is that they are used like slave labor. They are payed in cash and do not pay taxes. This means they do not pay for the services they receive. The real problem is that they do succeed in getting jobs. The best way to deal with this problem is to eliminate their source of revenue. To do this I propose this very radical approach. Anybody caught taking advantage of illegal immigrants (hiring them without paying taxes, and not paying at least minimum wage, etc.), should lose their right to be a US citizen. The illegal immigrant should them be given full rights as a US citizen or become a permanent resident that can then be naturalized. This weekend marked the beginning of a new age in Great Britain. There is now a national Lottery. The proceeds of which will go to the arts, heritage and charities. The effect of this will be like the Michigan --More--(46%) lottery (which helps fund the schools) where the proceeds go to reducing the treasury funding of the beneficiaries. With this new age, it is still impossible on Sunday to buy fish and chips at all, or beer between 3 and 7 on Sunday afternoons! London (what the media say): It is quite interesting to read the British interpretation of the US mid-term elections. They way the Government works over here is a bit different. The prime minister is elected by the parlement, which is like the speaker of the House. The other house (House of Lords) is appointed by the Queen. Now the assumption here is that Clinton won't be able to get anything done now that the Republicans control both houses of Congress. The problem really is that he couldn't get anything done while the Democrats controlled Congress, so there is nothing new there. There was an interesting interview with Stephonopolis by the BBC (Clinton's mate, I mean friend). He was asked why the pedominately "Democratic" press was so hard on him. Steph... said that he did not believe the press was "Democratic" and that they were not being fair with all the wonderfull accomplishments that Clinton has made as President. The actual accomplishments were never actually mentioned! For those of you who are looking for a replacement to Baseball, the test series between England and Australia is about to start. I would not recommend cheering for England, since the result of which would be like cheering for the Cubs. It will only lead to dissappointment. The problem with England is their lack of variety in bowling (pitching for the baseballites). It is like having a team of slowish fastball pitchers. In cricket, a full test match takes 5 days and can end in a draw (the game is not really finished not that the scores are even). Most baseball fans would not like this. Cheers, Dave 6. The GE of MTU speaks. From email@example.com Tue Nov 22 02:54:24 1994 Hey Steve! > "Illegal Immigrants: Deport them, let them starve here, or > give full citizenship and rights (whatever are left) to any > who reach US soil?" Hehehehe... You're gonna love this one... ;-) Give 'em all a rifle and 500 rounds of ammo, then send them right back to wherever they came from. Tell the dictator/asshole in charge that if he's going to continue sending his problems our way, we'll send them right back; tougher and meaner to boot. (This would be particularly useful for the times when Castro lets his criminals and lunatics out and send them to the US. Go for it Fidel, we'll send them back to you, armed... ;-). > Michigan; > > 1. Oct. 3, Petoskey: Outside the room where the Northern Michigan > Regional Militia is meeting stands a poster of a 1935 quote by Adolf > Hitler extolling the virtues of gun control. Inside, Ray Southwell > warns that Clinton is moving to disarm the U.S. His proof: I heard that the first time this group met, the State Police were out there taking down license plate numbers. Then it occurred to me... By doing so, the the State Police were willfully intimidating these folks as they exercised their Right to peaceably assemble (as guaranteed by the 1st Amendment). Since there were 2 or more out there, this constitutes a conspiracy. In fact, such action is a violation of 18 USC 242 (I've highlighted the relevant section): 18 USC Sec. 241. "Conspiracy against rights of citizens": "If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any citizen in the free exercise or enjoyment of any ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or "If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured-- "They shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results, they shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life." I think I'll have to pass this little tidbit along to Ray Southwell. It'd be nice to see the State boys have their leash yanked back. --Charles QUOTE(s) OF THE MONTH Ted Kennedy reminds one of a manatee in a suit. -- Anon. Rep. pollster We will cooperate, but we will not compromise. -- Soon to be House Speaker Newt Gingrich with a new definition of cooperation. FIX OF THE MONTH "Since the last election clearly proves that American's are poorly educated, what can be done to improve the schools?" NEWS Minn; 1. Twin Cities, Nov. 16 : A modern day Jack the Ripper is stalking the streets of the Cities. Eight prostitutes in two years have been found murdered in the same grisly manner, although the police will not release exact details. A lone female social worker has finally convinced the police that the killings are indeed the work of one man and they have gone on record for requesting help from FBI serial killer specialists. California; 1. San Francisco, Nov.1: While stumping on behalf of the Dem challenger to Rep. Govnr Pete Wilson, VEEP Algor said that when Wilson was a US senator, he proved his racism by voting for more restrictive immigration laws. Wilson responded that indeed he did, and Algor was one of the sponsors of that bill. Virginia; 1. Alexandria, Oct. 28: Algor sucked on his toes yet again during a campaign rally for Chuck Robb, the Dem running against Oliver North for one of Virginia's US senate seats. Said Algor, "North is just cozing up to his extra chromosome pals in the Rep. right wing, he won't represent you." Well, it turns out that the "extra chromosome pals" is a reference to mentally handicapped people, usually those with Down's Syndrome. The American Society for Down's Syndrome promptly demanded an apology for this slight, particularly when it was uttered during Down's Syndrome Awareness Week. [I can really relate to Algor on this. I can never keep all the [sensitivity/awareness/sincere weeping with white-male guilt [weeks straight myself. Florida: 1. Nov. 3 NPR; Paul Hill, the defendant in the slaying of an abortion doctor, was found quilty in Florida today and could get Florida's electric chair. Hill, a former minister, acted as his own attorney on the grounds of justifiable homicide. Hill also says that if put to death, he will become a martyr in the pro-life cause. Interestingly enough, the National Organization for Women (NOW) president Patricia Ireland has said that NOW is against the death penalty in Hill's case. Is this because NOW doesn't want Hill to be martyred? Why no, nothing that cynical. Ireland said, "... by the state killing him, it sends a message that homicide is sometimes justified and continues the cycle of violence. Taking a life is never justified." [Uhh ... what? [Course this line of reasoning from Ireland should not come as a surprise [to long time readers who are aware that Ireland has a husband and children [in Florida and a lesbian lover in Wash. D.C. Adultery? Of course not. [Just another broad minded lifestyle choice. [Now a WASP (White Anglo Saxon Penis) having a wife and mistress, that [would be adultery, you see, because it continues the oppression of women, [minorities, children, and small furry creatures. Wash D.C.; 1. Physics Today, Sep: Last year I reported on an impending experiment by the US Navy to use sonar to measure the temperature of the world's oceans to test for global warming. Basically, there is a deep channel in the oceans (called SOFAR for Sound Fixing And Ranging) that is an ideal sound pipe. By sending a sonar pulse around the world and measuring its time of travel, one can compute the speed of sound which is temperature dependant. Well, last year a preliminary test took place at Heard Island in the south Indian Ocean. Predictably, the Green Peace types went ballistic and wrote to the L.A. Times that the test killed 2/3 of a million marine mammals and the full power test would probably wipe out all life in the seas. Despite the Times printing a complete retraction several days later, the Navy cannot get the permits to run the tests. By the way, the peak power that was going to wreak this havoc, 260 Watts. [Long time readers should be noting a trend here. William Happer, [former DOE chair, was fired by Algore for daring to suggest an [experiment that would prove once and for all if ozone thinning [is leading to more UV over N. America. Now we cannot do definitive [tests on global warming without making whales go deaf. Convenient. [ [Thus, in the absence of data, we must assume the worst and ban [internal combustion engines, just to be safe. 2. Nov. 12: Clinton today ordered a unilateral halt to US enforcement of the weapons embargo against Bosnia. It remains to be seen what the UN will do now. [Attaboy BILL! Maybe that Rep. landslide taught you something after [all. This is absolutely the best thing you could have done. [Course now, you'll probably do 3 dumb things to make up for it. 3. Nov. 16: The Federal Reserve Chair Alan Greenspan announced another 0.75 % increase in short term interest rates today, a move which will likely curtail home and car purchases for many. It is not clear what signs of imminent inflation the Fed is trying to curtail. 4. Oct. Physics Today; The next Federal budget is a mixed bag for physics finding. The breakdown; a. NSF to get $3.3 billion, a 13% increase, the lion's share going to upgrading University research equipment and completing construction on LIGO (the laser interferometry gravitational observatory). b. Department of Energy gets $984 million, a 39% cut with most of that coming from the deceased SuperCollider and CEBAF. c. NIST (the Natl. Inst. of Standards and Technology) gets $854 million, a 64 % increase. Most will go to the expansion of industrial techniques. d. NASA, at $14 billion, will get a 1% cut. Net News; 1. From my old home, a not unexpected turn of events From firstname.lastname@example.org Tue Nov 1 08:25:08 EST 1994 Article: 13459 of alt.politics.usa.constitution Subject: Live Fire Practice Raids in Detroit Neighborhoods [taken from libernet digest on 10/29/94] Cops launch mock raids and provoke real concerns Some Cass Corridor [a bad neighborhood in Detroit] residents were jarred out of bed by gunfire and explosions in an abandoned building behind their apartments last month. Most frightened tenants stayed inside. But some poked their heads out their windows to see what all the commotion was; others went outside to investivate [sic] what was happening. Not to worry, police assured frightened tenants. The web of men scaling the walls of the vacant four-story apartment house were merely police officers practicing antiterrorist maneuvers. Residents complained to police and, four weeks later, still haven't gotten the answers to why such drills are being performed in their backyard--and why they aren't forewarned. "It was horrible," said Debbie Spencer, a resident of the 600 block of West Willis. "There were gunshots, hand grenades, men up on the roof shooting tear gas. They said they were using fake bullets, but it sure didn't sound like fake bullets ot me. It was scary," she said. "It wasn't a normal shooting; we are used to that," said Diane Haley, caretaker of the 19-unit Willis street apartment house. "It was like a war zone. The building shook." Karen McLeod, director of the Cass Corridor Neighborhood Development Corp., called Mayor Dennis Archer at home a couple days later to find out why the drills were being staged in a residential area without warning. Archer referred her complaint to the Police Department, which has not responded. "I think this is typical of the way people regard the corridor and the people who live here," McLeod said of the police action [good term for it]. "I don't think they would do this in Rosedale Park." On Wednesday, Detroit Deputy Police Chief Benny Napoleon defende dthe mock raid. More than 80 officers in the Police Department's special response unit participated in the drills that were done in conjunction with the Army and other federal agencies. He said such mock raids are recognized police procedures. "Barricaded gunmen and hostage-taking happens in neighborhoods, so these are the types of places we need to train in," Napoleon said. "we need realistic venues because we have realistic problems." [like an armed populace] Napoleon said few residents were warned of the raids because the law enforcement agencies did not want to attract a crowd that could disrupt the drill. He insisted the drills, which use explosives to open doors, posed no danger to residents. The first drill happened on West Alexandrine on Sept. 30 about 10:30 p.m. The next night, police staged another practice two blocks away at a vacant six-story building in the 600 block of Selden. That time, a fire broke out on the fourth floor that was extinguished within 30 minutes. Residents at the 24-unit Coronado Apartments, some of whom were alerted to the impending drill by police, saw it all. The apartment building reopened its doors in 1992 after the Cass Corridor Development Corp. poumped $2 million of city, state and federal funding into its renovation. Only a 20-foot wide driveway separates the Coronado from the Selden practice site. Resident Kathy Taylor said her 15-year-old son Paulee and a friend jumped into a closet when the gunshots started about 7 p.m. on the second night. 2. They slipped another one through while I wasn't looking. Longtime readers will recognize this as a continuation of the Digital Telephony Bill. From alt.politics.usa-constitution Unanimous Nod For Wiretap Bill [from Technology & Liberty] [By Clark Matthews ] [in The Spotlight November 7th, 1994] The so-called Wiretap Access Bill, S. 2375, passed at 10:30 PM. on Friday, October 7th,1994, with "the unanimous consent" of the U.S. Senate. It is likely to be signed by President Clinton by the time you read this. Two days previously, on October 5th, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the identical bill, H.R. 4922, by an overwhelming margin. There was no floor debate on the bill in either house. There was no reading of the bill. In fact, the final Senate vote happened so quickly that observers watching C-SPAN actually missed it. Nevertheless, a Senate vote unanimously passing the "Wiretap Access Bill" is recorded as having occurred at 10:30 PM, October 7,1994. MANUFACTURING 'CONSENT' FBI Director Louis Freeh personally visited every U.S. senator to lobby for the bill. I've even heard reports that Janet Reno accompanied Freeh for some of these little chats. Nevertheless, several senators positioned themselves to stop the vote on the bill, notably Howard Metzenbaum (D-Ohio), Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.). All of them placed "holds" on the bill in the days before the final vote. These "holds" permitted any of them to prevent a vote and stop the bill in its tracks. But none of them did. Each of these senators received a personal visit from FBI Director Louis Freeh in the days before the senate recessed for the fall elections. and none of them exercised their right to stop the bill. So there were no objections at 10:30 pm on Friday, October 7th, only "unanimous consent." No one in the Senate voted for the Wiretap Access Bill (or against it). No one left any fmgerprints. Ask your senators and they'll tell you no one's responsible. We shall see. In the end, this unstoppable bill slithered silently onto the books in the contemptible tradition of the 16th Amendment, the Federal Reserve Act and many other landmark frauds and fixes that have dearly cost our country's liberty, treasury and sovereignty. Late at night and out of sight, no one was responsible for passing the bill. And no one is to blame. A few days after this grubby victory, FBI Director Louis Freeh spoke at the annual A1 Smith dinner in New York City. Flush with his success with the Wiretap bill-and with the amazing silence of key congressmen and senators after Freeh's personal visits-Clinton's FBI director compared himself favorably with J. Edgar Hoover. The audience gave up a big laugh for America's "reinvented" Hoover sans perfume, ponies, peignoirs and roommate Clyde, of course. DIGITAL TYRANNY The Wiretap Access Bill, as critics call it, was proposed by the FBI and Janet Reno's Justice Department as the "Digital Telephony and Privacy Improvement Act" of 1994. The bill took its language from the computerized features of automatic, remote-controlled surveillance and eavesdropping equipment that is now being built into America's new telephone networks to spy on citizens. Freeh's and Reno's "Privacy Improvement Act" had nothing whatever to do with improving people's privacy. Instead, it aimed at eliminating people's privacy by effectively converting citizens' telephones into remote-activated listening devices and call-tracing systems. The Wiretap Access Bill simply legalizes these surveillance devices that are already in use in large parts of our country. It also forces taxpayers to pay $500 million for them. The Wiretap Access Bill effectively eliminates the bothersome Constitutional requirement that the FBI obtain court authorization to tap your phone or bug your house through your telephones. That's because your local telephone company can't tell what the devices are doing and, therefore, can't know whether the surveillance is legal or not. AUTOMATIC GESTAPO You see, the new equipment is remote-activated and it's designed to be installed on the telephone network (not in phone company offices). It gathers much of the same information about your calls that your phone company does-but the FBI (or whoever) clearly doesn't want your tele- phone company to know what information it's gathering. Or how much it's gathering. So the devices run "encrypted" to conceal what they're doing from telco employees, some of whom might become alarmed by the extent of federal surveillance or start asking troublesome questions about court orders and warrants. Even if your friends at the phone company were interested in safeguarding your rights, they will probably soon discover the same fundamental truth learned by citizens in places like the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany: It's not a good idea to ask questions about court orders when it comes to secret police surveillance operations. The question of court orders for surveillance is further subverted by the bill's requirement that your local phone company provide instantaneous, contemporaneous wiretapping capabilities to the FBI. It seems our rapidly "reinvented" government wants instant gratification-it has no time for trivialities like presenting court orders. -- Dave Feustel N9MYI Internet:
3. I still get down every now and again by the fact that I'm not doing real physics, so on the theory that misery loves company ... From email@example.com Sun Nov 13 10:44:48 EST 1994 Article: 1900 of sci.physics.research Originator: baez@guitar ********************************************************************** This is a "Physics News Update" distributed by Phillip Schewe of AIP Public Information. For those who want to receive PNUPs via email, mail firstname.lastname@example.org with a blank subject line and the command "add physnews" in the body, and you will be added to the distribution list. WHAT HAPPENED TO THE SSC STAFF? A year after Congress shut down the nascent supercollider, the number of scientists and technicians dropped from 1100 to less than 100. About a fourth are jobless. Some have returned to academe. Former SSC director Roy Schwitters is now a physics professor at the University of Texas. About half of those who have found jobs are working outside particle physics. Some examples: Cas Milner, who had worked on the Gamma-Electron-Muon (GEM) detector at the SSC, now works at the TIAA-CREF pension fund. Kate Morgan (also formerly with GEM) moved on to Citicorp. (Science, 28 October 1994.) 4. From our resident legal scholar, Keeweenaw Paul, a means to actually _own_ your land. [This is not obvious to those of you who think this foolish.] From email@example.com Mon Nov 7 20:00:29 1994 It is possible to take allodial title to your land. The title is called a land patent. It gives allodial title to the property. This means absolute ownership. They can't take your land away from you and it is free from zoning restrictions. Federal Land Bank and some other agencies and companies have been patenting their land left and right lately. Also, property taxes are not allowed on patented land. In fact, paying them may actually destroy your land patent status! This patenting business is currently being tested by Richard Delene, of the famous "Delene vs. the gestapo, err, Michigan DNR" case. I won't get into details too much. Anyone who wants my collected material can E-mail me and request a copy. The details are very, very long. I don't feel it is worth wasting the bandwidth to have the newsletter cluttered with it all (about 500K). Instead, I've given a short "what's involved" and list of the rights the land patent gives you. How to do it, from Acres, USA: HOW ... WHERE ... TO OBTAIN CERTIFIED FEDERAL LAND PATENT (FLP) FARM PROPERTY: Send Certified Legal Description of Property (from the County Treasurer or, Register of Deeds, and Town, Plat Map (from Register of Deeds or County Recorder) then circle your Property(s) on Plat Map(s) ... Your Property(s) may be in one or more Sections and/or Counties. (1 FLP per land Parcel) Be sure to request CERTIFIED COPY of FLP. Record FLP + Declaration of Land Patent + Deed. If desk clerk refuses to file ... use procedure outlined above by Paul Tomas. Clerk is bonded to per- form "ministerial duties"... NOT "Judicial". Certified FLP supersedes ALL CLAIMS. Bank must prove Title to land per #25 p.4. ALTA insures only "good title" per #32 p.5. Bank claims ceased March 3, 1893 - FOREVER BARRED per #12-14 pgs.2&3. ALL STATE COURTS LACK JURISDICTION OVER FEDERAL LAND PATENTS issued per TREATY LAW = Superior Status can NOT be overruled ... even by U.S. Supreme Court! (See A on the Treaty Power, p. 1) CITY PROPERTY: Can also be "patented" ... obtain Range and Township Numbers from City Engineer + total Certified Legal Description of lot/Property (ob- tain FLP as above) ... Record with a Declaration of Land Patent + Certified FLP + Declaration of Homestead attached and marked "Exhibit A & B"...on Dec- laration of, Land Patent write: "Attached hereto are Exhibits A & B". Regis- ter of Deeds or County Recorder then Records in "Real Estate" file.  CONTACT: FAMILY FARM PRESERVATION, Box 2587, Hwy. M, Tigerton, Wis. 54486. A recent "case" involving land patents: LAND PATENT STOPS BIDDING AT SHERIFF SALE In a recent case, Robert Deardorff of Indianapolis, Ind. had filed a DEC- LARATION OF LAND PATENT with a certified copy of the original patent. In a Sheriff s Sale, which took place last August, Mr. Deardorff and and a wit- ness went to the Sheriffs Sale and met with the sheriff. He had previously warned the sheriff that if he went ahead with the Sheriff s Sale, he would go to the U.S. Attorney and swear out a warrant for his arrest for Criminal Trespass on his Land Patent. However, the sheriff's counsel advised him to go ahead with the Sheriff's Sale anyway. So, on the day of the sale and while he and a witness were in the sheriff's office, he called the Federal Clerk of Courts and told him what was happening. The Federal Court Clerk, told Mr. Deardorf that, if the sheriff went ahead and sold the property, with a Land Patent on it, that inside of three days, there would be a U.S. Marshall there to arrest the sheriff. Mr. Dear- dorf then told the sheriff this, word for word. Later, at the sale, the sheriff told the bidders, including the bank's attorney, that there was a Land Patent on the property and that if they bought it, they could never be able to get a clear title and would never be able to get a loan on the land. As a result. no one bid. Under Indiana Law, when no bids are placed on a property, the property reverts back to the owner after 4 p.m. the same day. No new Sheriff's Sale was ever scheduled and there is no pending action of any kind in the courts. (Robert Deardorff, 7002 N. Graham Rd., #128 Indianapolis, IN. 46220; Phone (317)325-2505).  The following is a memorandum defining the rights under land patents somewhat succinctly: LAND PATENTS, EJECTMENTS, AND ESTOPPEL 1. In case of ejectment, where the question is who has the legal title, the patent of the government is unassailable. Sanford v Sanford, 139 US 642. 2. The transfer of legal title (patent) to public domain gives the trans- feree the right to possess and enjoy the land transfered. Gibson v Chouteau, 80 US 92. 3. A patent for land is the highest evidence of title and is conclusive as against the government and all claiming under junior patents or titles. United States v Stone, 2 Us 525. 4. The presumption being that it (patent) is valid and passes the legal title. Minter v Crommelin, 18 US 87. 5. Estoppal has been sustained as against a municipal corporation (county). Beadle v Smyser, 209 US 393. 6. A court of law will not uphold or enforce an equitable title to land as a defense to an action of ejectment. Johnson v. Christian, 128 Us 374: Doe v Aiken, 31 FED. 393. 7. When congress has prescribed the conditions upon which portions of the public domain may be alienated (to convey, to transfer), and has provided that upon the fulfillment of the conditions the United States shall issue a patent to the purchaser, then such land is not taxable by a state. Sargent v Herrick & Stevens, 221 Us 404: Northern P,R. Co. v Trail County , 115 US 600. 8. The patent alone passes land from the United States to the grantee and nothing passes a perfect title to public lands but a patent. Wilcox v Jack- son, 13 Peter (US) 498. 9. Patents and other evidences of title from the UNited States government are not controlled by state recording laws and shall be effective, as against subsequent purchasers, only from the time of their record in the county. Lomax v. Pickeriniz, 173 US 26. 10. In federal courts the patent is held to be the foundation of title at law. Fenn v Holmes, 21 Howard 481. 11. Congress has the sole power to declare the dignity and effect of titles emanating from the United States and the whole legislation of the govern- ment, in reference to the public lands, declare the patent to be the supe- rior and conclusive evidence of the legal tide. Until it issues, the fee is in the  government, which by the patent passes to the grantee, and he is entitled to enforce the possession in ejectment. Bagnell v. Broderick. 13 Peter (US) 436. 12. In ejectment the legal title must prevail, and a patent of the United States to public lands pass that title; it can not be assailed collaterally on the ground that false and perjured testimony was used to secure it. Steel v St. Louis Smelting and Refining Co., 106 US 417. 13. A patent certificate, or patent issued, or confirmation made to an original grantee or his legal representatives of the grantee or assignee by contract, as well as by law, Hogan v Pace, 69 US 605. 14. In federal courts, the rule that ejectment cannot be maintained on a mere equitable title is strictly enforced, so that ejectment cannot be maintained on a mere entry made with a register and receiver, but only on the patent, since the certificates of the officers of the land department vest in the locator only equitable title. This rule prevails in the federal courts even when the statute of the state in which the suit is brought pro- vides that a receipt from the local land office is sufficient proof of title to support the action. Langdon v Sherwood, 124 U.S. 74: Carter v Ruddy, 166 US 493. 15. The plaintiff in ejectment must in all cases prove the legal title to the premises in himself, at the time of the demise laid in the declaration, and evidence of an equitable title will not be sufficient for a recovery. The practice of allowing ejectments to be maintained in state courts upon equitable titles cannot effect the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States. Fenn v Holme, 21 Howard 481.  16. Under USCA Constitution, Article 4, section 3, clause 2, Congress, in exercise of its discretion in disposal of public lands, had power, by this section, to restrict alienation of homestead lands after conveyance by United states in fee simple, by providing no, such lands shall become liable to satisfaction of debts contracted prior to issuance of patent. Ruddy v Rossi, (1918) 248 US 104. 17. Patents are tied to the Bible, in Genesis 47 by way of the word as- signed in italicized print. Also note in later verses the beginning of sharecropping. BC 1701. 18. The right to the ownership of property and to contract with respect of its use is unalienable. Golding v Schubac, 93 U.S. 32: Seville v C I , 46 U.S. 495. 19. Parties in possession of real property have the fight to stand on their possessions until compelled to yield to the rule title determined by trial by jury. 47 Am. Jur. 2d 45. 20. Giving a note does not constitute payment. Echart v Commissioners, C.C.A. 42 F2d 158; 283 U. S. 140. 21. Actual or threatened exercise of power over the property of another is coercion and duress which will render the payment involuntary. Cleveland v Smith, 132 US 318. 22. Property value means the price the property will command in the market, or its equivalent in lawful money. PeQple v Hines, 89 P. 858, 5 Cal. App. 122  23. Neither a town nor its officers have any right to appropriate or inter- fere with private property. Mitchell v City of Rockland, 45 Me. 496. 24. A state may provide for the collection of taxes in gold and silver only. State Treasurer v Wright, 28 Ill. 509: Whitaker v Haley, 2 Ore. 128. 25. Taxes lawfully assessed, are collectible by agents in money and notes, cannot be accepted in payment. Town of Frankfort v Waldo, 128 Me. 1. 26. There must he strict compliance with statutory requirements to divest property owners of their property titles for non payment of taxes. McCarthy v Greenlawn Cem., 158 Me. 388. 27. At common law there was no tax lien. Cassidy v Aroostook, 134 Me. 34. 28. A tax on real estate to one not the owner is not valid. Barker v Blake, 36 Me. 1.  [source unknown..I don't know what  and  mean because I don't have the original document] These are the regional offices for the Bureau of Land Management: ALASKA: United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Anchorage Federal Office Building 701 "C" Street, Box 13 Anchorage, Alaska 99513 ARIZONA: United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management 3707 N. 7th. Street P.O. Box 16563 Phoenix, Arizona 85011 CALIFORNIA: United States Department of the Interior Bureau of land Management Federal Office Building 2800 Cottage Way, Rm. E-2841 Sacramento, California 95825 COLORADO (KANSAS): United States Department of the Inten@or Bureau of Land Management 1037 20th Street Denver, Colorado 80202 IDAHO: United States Department of the Inten*or Bureau of Land Management Federal Building 550 West Fort Street P.O. Box 042 Boise, Idaho 83724 MONTANA (NORTH DAKOTA, SOUTH DAKOTA): United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Granite Tower 222 North 32nd Street P.O.Box 30157 Billings, Montana 59107 NEVADA: United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Federal Building, RO()m 3008 300 Booth Street P.O. Box 12000 Reno, Nevada 89520 NEW MEXICO (Oklahoma): United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Joseph M. Montoya Federal Bldg. South Federal Place P.O.Box 1449 Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501 OREGON (WASHINGTON) United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management 825 N.E. Multnomah Street, P.O. Box 2965 Portland, Oregon, 97208 UTAH: United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management University Club Building 136 East South Temple Salt Lake City, Utah, 84111 WYOMING (NEBRASKA) United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management 2515 Warren Avenue P.O. Box 1828 Cheyenne, Wyoming, 82003 ALL OTHER STATES United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Eastern States Office 350 South Pickett Street Alexandria, Virginia, 22304.
Last Updated 04/14/95.© 1996 PPSA Consulting