Brought to you by...

SeaViews: Insights from the Gray Havens
August 1998

-- C.A. Beard 

Editorial:

email Steve
Anon ftp site
News Archives

On last month's Fix;

the answer to last month's Fix,

"You know (sniff), I'm just sick that no-one has faith in our leaders anymore (sniff). I wonder what can be done to regain confidence in them? "

is ;

It's our own damn fault really. I know, I know. Many of you must be thinking, "But Steve, you must be ecstatic. Clinton admitted he lied about the Lewinsky affair. You've been proven right once again. How could we ever have doubted you?" True, true. But nailing Bill for this is like Elliot Ness settling for tax evasion on Al Capone. And it won't remove him from office. Oh no. Please disabuse yourself  of the notion that Clinton will be impeached. Even as I write this (two days post-airing of the Grand Jury tape) public sentiment is following the spin  that Clinton is the victim of a rabid Ken Starr (at least no one is claiming Starr wasted $40 million anymore, which was not true anyway). A gutless Rep. leadership is doing nothing to counter the spin and Starr, for unknown reasons,  is not playing his stronger cards. Yet we see stunning evidence of how slippery Clinton is in the video. From the transcripts;

        QUESTION: And do you understand that because you've been sworn to tell the
        truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, that if you were to lie or
        intentionally mislead the grand jury you could be prosecuted for perjury and/or
        obstruction of justice?

        CLINTON: I believe that's correct.
         [He believes its correct, but it may not be.]
 
        QUESTION: You understand it requires you to give the whole truth, that is a
        complete answer to each question, sir?

        CLINTON: I will answer each question as accurately and fully as I can.
         [As fully as I can, but maybe not the whole truth.]

        QUESTION: Now, you took the same oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and
        nothing but the truth on January 17, 1998 in a deposition in the Paul Jones
        litigation, is that correct, sir?

        CLINTON: I did take an oath there.
         [He took an oath, but we're not sure which one.]

***
        [Now let's see how long Clinton can avoid saying that he had a BJ.]
        QUESTION: What did you believe the definition to include and exclude? What
        kind of exclusions?

        CLINTON: I thought the definition included any activity by the person being
        deposed where the person was the actor and came in contact with those parts of
        the body with the purpose or intent of gratification, and excluded any other
        activity. For example, kissing's not covered by that, I don't think.

        QUESTION: Did you understand the definition to be limited to sexual activity?

        CLINTON: Yes, I understood the definition to be limited to physical contact
        with those areas of the body with the specific intent to arouse or gratify. That's
        what I understood it to be.

        QUESTION: What specific acts did the definition include, as you understood the
        definition on January 17th, 1998?

        CLINTON: Any contact with the areas that are mentioned, sir. If you contacted
        those parts of the body with an intent to arouse or gratify, that is covered.

        QUESTION: What did you understand...

        CLINTON: The person being deposed. If the person being deposed contacted
        those parts of another person's body with an intent to arouse or gratify, that was
        covered.

        QUESTION: What did you understand the word "causes" in the first phrase to
        mean? For the purposes of this deposition, the person engages in sexual relations
        when the person knowingly causes contact?

        CLINTON: I don't know what that means. It doesn't make any sense to me in
        this context, because I think what I thought there was since this was some sort of,
        as I remember they said in the previous discussion -- and I'm only remembering
        now, so if I make a mistake, you can correct me -- is I remember from the
        previous discussion they said this was some kind of definition that had something
        to do with sexual harassment. So, that implies as forcing to me.

        And there was never any issue of forcing in the case involving --well, any of these
        questions they were asking me. They made it clear in this discussion I just
        reviewed that what they were referring to was intentional sexual conduct, not some
        sort of forceable abusive behavior.
 

...
    [In this section, we learn how Clinton stalls to burn the clock.]
        QUESTION: I want to go over some questions again. I don't think you're going
        to answer them (OFF-MIKE), and so I don't need a lengthy response, just a yes
        or a no. And I understand the basis upon which you are not answering them, but I
        need to ask them for the record.

        If Monica Lewinsky says that while you were in the Oval Office area you touched
        her breasts, would she be lying?

        CLINTON: Let me say something about all this.

        QUESTION: All I really need for you, Mr. President...

        CLINTON: I know. But...

        QUESTION: ... I want (ph) an (ph) answer under the previous grounds or to
        answer the question, you see, because we only have four hours and your answers
        have been extremely lengthy.

        CLINTON: I know -- well it's -- I know that. I'll give you four hours and 30
        seconds, if you'll let me say something general about this.
        [What a guy, he'll add 30 seconds so he can give his statement.]

        I will answer to your satisfaction that I won't -- based on my statement I will not
        answer. I would like 30 seconds at the end to make a statement. And you can
        have 30 seconds more on your time, if you'll let me say this to the grand jury and
        to you. And I don't think it's disrespectful at all. I've had a lot of time to think
        about this.

        But go ahead and ask your questions.

        QUESTION: The question is, if Monica Lewinsky says that while you were in the
        Oval Office area, you touched her breast, would she be lying?

        CLINTON: That is not my recollection. My recollection is that I did not have
        sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky. And I'm staying on my former statement
        about that.

        QUESTION: If she said...

        CLINTON: My statement is that I did not have sexual relations as defined by
        that.

        QUESTION: If she says that you kissed her breast, would she be lying?

        CLINTON: I'm going to revert to my former statement.

        QUESTION: OK. If Monica Lewinsky says that, while you were in the Oval
        Office area you touched her genitalia, would she be lying? That calls for a yes, no,
        or reverting to your former statement.

        CLINTON: I will revert to my statement on that.

        QUESTION: If Monica Lewinsky says that you used a cigar as a sexual aid with
        her in the Oval Office area, would she be lying? Yes, no, or won't answer?

        CLINTON: I will revert to my former statement.

        QUESTION: If Monica Lewinsky says that you had phone sex with her, would
        she be lying?

        CLINTON: Well, that is -- at least, in general terms, I think, is covered by my
        statement. I addressed that in my statement. And I don't believe it's...

        QUESTION: Let me define phone sex for purposes of my question. Phone sex
        occurs when the party to the phone conversation masturbates while the other
        party is talking in a sexually explicit manner. The question is, if Monica Lewinsky
        says that you had phone sex with her, would she be lying?

        CLINTON: I think that is covered by my statement.

 So in sum, Clinton did not lie about having sexual relations, because he was only on the receiving end of the oral sex. So you wives out there, cut your husbands a break OK?

Back to the topic. Character does matter. Those who said otherwise in the '92 election, who said, "I don't want a Saint, I want someone who agrees with me on the issues", are now learning that without character, words don't matter. We the People get what we deserve and if you don't have the mental capacity to assess a candidate's character, if you cannot be bothered to apply some intelligence in your voting choices, then don't vote.

Let me be perfectly clear on this point. The power to govern is derived from the power to tax. Without money, the govt. cannot perform its functions. And the power to tax derives from one of two places. In a free society, the governed have faith that their taxes will be spent on services deemed necessary to promote peace, justice and the general welfare. When a govt. no longer earns the trust of the governed, it relies on the second method for collecting taxes - oppression. In other words, by not demanding integrity in our government we are

On Utopia;

When I was in high school, I wrote a scifi short story about a distant future where America would become a "perfect" democracy (via electronic implants and a centralized computer to tabulate the votes). This was before I read the Founders and learned the danger of Mob Rule. This is why the U.S. is not based on a democracy, but rather a representative republic. But in a recent editorial, pundit George Will noted that we are closer to my scifi story than the plan set forth in the US Constitution. Rep. leader of the Hill Dick Army has said that if the polls continue to show public support for  Clinton, the House and Senate may not pursue impeachment action. "Regardless of whether Clinton should be impeached," said Will, "the willingness of elected officials to rule by poll indicates that we would be served as well by a bunch of computers that voted based on polls from the constituent's newspapers."
 

On a new presentation;

For a long time now I have continued to use a double format of the News for the benefit of readers who only had email, but this month I have begun to use an HTML editor, rather than notepad. This change has several effects: it makes it easier for me to spell check, but the resulting HTML file is much tougher to read. Therefore, I've decided to halt the dual format and from now on will send just an email announcement when this Rag has been sent to John Johnson's PPSA server. Those who only get email without a browser capable connection - please send me a note.
 
On the Previous Fix ;

In yet another stunning example of the foresight of your humble editor ...

In last month's "Fix" I argued that the time is ripe for Star Wars (aka SDI) to make a come back. This month no less an august source then the Sept. 1998 Physics Today echoed those sentiments. Beginning on page 43, the story describes a bi-partisan House panel of 28 members have called for a resumption of SDI implementation in response to the Rumsfield Report. Donald Rumsfield, former Secy of Defense under Pres. Ford, argues that within five years terrorist nations such as Iran, Iraq and N.Korea will be able to hit northern cities in the US including Minneapolis and Madison.
 

Sheryl's Corner;
email Sheryl

Muriel's Wedding (comedy)
I couldn't find the year but I'm guessing early 90s. They had a web page.

One word I have to say about this movie: BIZARRE!  Takes place in Australia.  Muriel is an overweight, geeky twenty something who is extremely obsessed with getting married. She believes if she gets married she will actually be a different person.  She leaves her dysfunctional unemployed life in Porpoise Spit for the big city of Sydney.  There she meets up with an old friend and gets a "great" job at a video rental store.  Great to her because she can meet many men there.  She goes to many wedding shops trying on dresses and getting her picture taken for her wedding album.  She finally finds herself someone that will marry her and she takes the plunge.  Her life turns out to be not at all what she imagined it would be as it takes some negative turns.  It does end on a happy note.

Miramax films sure has some good review writers.  The movie jacket had me sold but the actual movie was quite a bit different from what I read.  I think the movie was quite odd but I still enjoyed it.  If you like ABBA music from the 70s and 80s you'll get a kick out of the music.  I give this movie a 9 for stupidity of exploiting it's heroine.  I remain confused on other categories to rate this film for.  Bottom line it was a weird story but it was still funny.

The Saint (Spy adventure);
Val Kilmer, Elizabeth Shue 1997

For those who don't recall, the late 60's spawned a whole raft of spy shows, in some cases modeled after - in others spoofing,  the James Bond series. Those on the more serious side were
Mission Impossible, The Avengers, The Saint, The Prisoner. Those on the spoofing side were Matt Helm and the Adventures of Maxwell Smart. Of these, the only one that hasn't been remade this decade by the creatively challenged  in Hollywood is Matt Helm.

Simon Templar, aka the Saint, is a free-lance secret agent who will steal anything for the right price. Suave, athletic and armed with a geek's array of high-tech, the Saint escapes his pursuers through an array of disguises. That is, until one of his pursuers is a idealistic, beautiful scientist who wants to give the world free energy.

Those looking for scientific accuracy should look elsewhere, but for a comic bookish romp (as well as a not so far off look at what may be happening in Russia right now), the Saint is a good film. Also, those who recall the TV series may particularly enjoy the explanation of the Saint's childhood. Genre rating: 3/5. Humor: 3/5. Sex: 1/5. Violence: 3/5.
 

The Avengers (Spy adventure);
Ralph Fiennas, Uma Thurman, Sean Connery 1998

Another throwback to 60's TV, when spys were spys, and espionage was played by the rules. Only now the time is the 90's, the girl's are dressed even less, and the world is about to fall under the control of a  weather wielding madman.

In the Avengers, John Steed works for Mother. Mother in turn, may or may not work for Father, and in any case both report directly to the PM. A dashing bowler wearer, not to be  tempted when there is an umbrella handy, Steed usually goes about saving Britain from baddies alone. Until now. The director of a research project to control Britain's weather, Emma Peel is suspected of sabotaging it. Mother gives her the chance to prove her innocence by working with Steed. Mrs. Peel is of course American, a brilliant physicist, drop dead gorgeous - and widowed.

The film is quite obsessed with the maintaining the style of the British aristocracy (which is true to the spirit of the series). But the bad guy (Sean Connery) can't seem to make up his mind whether to be totally evil or not - or worse, be evil in a Teddy Bear suit. One has to obey the rules in this kind of film you know. Genre rating: 3/5. Humor: 4/5. Violence: 2/5. Sex: 0/5.
 

There's Something About Mary (romantic comedy);
Ben Stiller, Cameron Diaz, Matt Dillon 1998

Ted (Stiller) has had a crush on Mary since high school when he only had
one day with her.  Actually it wasn't even a date since when he stopped by
Mary's house to pick her up for the prom and decided to use the bathroom
he very painfully zipped his privates into his pants!  OUCH!!!  Several
years later Ted hires Dillon to find Mary who also falls head over heels
in love with her but at the same time he is pretending to be someone he is
not.  Mary is a successful surgeon who has the misfortune of every guy she
meets falling in love with her.  Brett Favre makes a cameo appearance as
the jilted ex-fiance who still loves her.

This is an absolute HILARIOUS movie!  Steve thought it was going to be a
 "chick" flick and wasn't he pleasantly surprised.  We as well as the rest
of the theater laughed until we almost cried.  There were some disgusting
scenes with the zipper not being the worst however if you can get past
that pain you'll love it!  I give this a 10 for hilarity, a 8 for storyline and a 10
for originality.  Don't wait until this one comes out on video to see!

Guest Editorial:

Russian problem started in Mexico
by Pat Buchanin

    28 AUG 98 ó Last June, in a piece titled "Let Russia Default," this writer noted the
    obvious: Awash in debts, running a huge deficit, Russia should be allowed to default,
    and not one more U.S. tax dollar should be put at risk by the International Monetary
    Fund trying to hide Russia's bankruptcy.

    Russia's chief financial officer, Venianin Sokolov, was quoted in that column as
    conceding that all the IMF billions pumped into his country had been lost, wasted or
    stolen "at the highest levels" of what he called an "entirely corrupt regime."

    Yet the IMF handed Russia another $4.8 billion in July. What happened to it?
    According to Sergei Dubinin, Russia's central bank governor, every last dime of that
    $4.8 billion was spent propping up the Russian ruble, which Moscow last week cut
    loose and let fall.

    Within days, the ruble fell 30 percent against the dollar, 40 percent against the
    German mark. Again, Russia's people have been robbed. Again, U.S. taxpayers will
    have to make good the idiot loans of the IMF.

    Friends, this is coming close to indictable criminal fraud.

    Yet, according to London's Financial Times Aug. 20, "The IMF is expected to
    disburse the second tranche of its $11.2 billion loan in September to replenish the
    central bank's reserves and control the slide in the ruble." If Congress allows this loan
    to go forward and shovels out the $18 billion demanded by President Clinton for the
    IMF, it must be considered a moral accomplice to the looting of America.

    Russia has now admitted it cannot pay its foreign debts and has demanded that
    short-term bond holders accept long-term paper at 30 percent of face value.
    Panicked investors are fleeing Russia and every Third World market. Worldwide,
    stocks are plummeting, and billions of dollars of equity are being wiped out daily.
    Since mid-July, the U.S. stock market has probably given up a trillion dollars in value.

    Who is responsible for this global disaster, which began in Asia? Last week, on
    CNN's "Moneyline," Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman nailed the
    villain. Said Dr. Friedman, the IMF "is largely responsible for the Asian crisis."

    Instead of letting Mexico default in 1994, and Goldman Sachs take its hit, the IMF
    rushed in to bail out Mexico City and its New York creditors. That bailout sent a
    message: The risks of investing billions in emerging markets are minimal. Huge sums
    poured into these markets. It is those investments that are being wiped out today. To
    stanch the bloodletting, the IMF, since last summer, has put taxpayers at risk for
    $130 billion in loans to Asia and Russia, most of which we will never see again.

    Yet, as Friedman says, it is not the Mexican people, or the Russian people, or the
    Thai people who are aided by the IMF. "We speak about the IMF bailing out ...
    Thailand. It isn't bailing out the poor people in Thailand now suffering from the
    recession they're in. It's bailing out the bankers in New York and in London and
    Berlin who made loans to Thailand." Exactly.

    It is time for a congressional investigation that might well be titled: Who Lost Russia?
    Its focus should be on who got ó and who stole ó the scores of billions of dollars
    in Western loans sunk into Russia since 1991, because it surely was not the people of
    Russia, who are destitute and far worse off than in 1991.

    According to The Nation magazine ("The Harvard Boys Do Russia"), Russia's
    disaster is the work of three elements. First are the so-called "reformers" like Anatoly
    Chubais, who The New York Times says "may be the most despised man in Russia."
    Second is Harvard's Institute for International Development, which Clinton's men put
    in charge of U.S. aid to Russia. Third is the U.S. Treasury.

    The "privatization drive that was supposed to reap the fruits of the free market,"
    writes Janine Wedel in The Nation, "helped to create a system of tycoon captialism
    run for the benefit of a corrupt political oligarchy that has appropriated hundreds of
    millions of dollars of Western aid and Russia's wealth."

    Moscow's mayor recently "singled out Harvard for the harm inflicted on the
    economy by its advisers who encouraged Chubais' misguided approach to
    privatization and monetarism."

    In 1991, Russia was pro-American and on the road to freedom. Today, this nation,
    with thousands of nuclear weapons, is a basket case seething with anti-Americanism
    and ripe for an explosion.

    Meanwhile, Russia's tycoon capitalists romp on the Riviera, and the geniuses at
    Harvard, Treasury and the IMF who presided over this debacle have never been
    called to account. This must be done, but first, let's take Friedman's advice ó and
    abolish the IMF.

Letters:

1. A new visitor writes;

Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 15:07:51 PDT
From: Brian McCandliss <mccandliss@hotmail.com>
To: sglanger@vela.acs.oakland.edu
Subject: Wow

Wow, you are really amazing in your accuracy and figures. How do you do
it? I really learned a lot more about what I already partially knew and
fully suspected.
However, I have a question about your statement from the April '94
column that Clinton "Benefitted from his wife's insider trading when the
Pres. of Tyson chicken told her in the mid 80's about an upcoming
aquisition of an Alaskan fishing company."

Is this all? From what I learned, it turned out that, in the "$100,000
Cattle Futures" scandal, Tyson actually GAVE Hillary the money through a
third-party broker as part of a secret funds transfer by Tyson to
Clinton's re-election campaign fund, given in exchange for then-governor
Clinton passing union-banning "right to work laws" to prevent Tyson
workers from unionizing; futhermore Hillary in fact was never involved
in any trading herself, contrary to her claim; rather, the broker
handled everything, and forked over the 100 G's despite LOSING money on
cattle futures with several other portfolio's. Sounds kinda fishy to me,
and I don't just mean Alaskan companies. So it wasn't insider trading,
it was a good old-fashioned BRIBE.

You also didn't (in that article) mention that Clinton, when Ark.
Attorney General and Governor, funneled all state business through Rose
Law firm, of which Hillary was a convenient senior partner (?). This was
addressed by them saying that "she didn't handle any of that part of the
business," which would simply be a prudent ass-covering precaution,
however this, even if true, does not preclude her receiving kickbacks,
as well as being privy to the files and other business; furthermore,
it's a basic conflict of interest between her relationship with Bill and
with the law firm, and theirs has not been a life without collusion.
People say southern politics is corrupt, but Bill and Hillary showed
them!

2. Here's a Letter to the Ed that I wrote to The Source, a local computer retail
rag. I thought it might amuse.

Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 09:15:11 -0700 (PDT)
To: thesource@seanet.com
Cc: jerzys@yahoo.com, sprestek@aol.com
Subject: Sept 98 Letters to Editor

I read with interest the first two letters this month, and feel
compelled to respond, whether or not this note gets published matters
not.

jerzys on Linux;

  A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, if it leads one to
make unqualified assumptions. As the author noted,

 "Until Linux has available the equivalent of MS Office, Doom
or Turbo Tax it is merely an interesting also ran."

  1. Doom: Most distributions of Linux ship with Doom and Quake.
     This is quite easy for id (the authors) to do since they do
     their development on Linux, then port to DOS/Windows.

  2. Turbo Tax: I don't know about this one, but a look at the
     Linux Software Map (with thousands of entries) may turn up
     an equivalent. Look at www.linuxresources.com/apps/index.html#lsm

  3. MS Office: Well, it's not likely that MS would port this to their greatest
     competition is it. However, will this lead to the death of Linux? Probably
     in the same way that the absence of it has killed Sun, SGI
     and other UNIX vendors. However, there are Office like suites such
     as ApplixWare and StarOffice. And of course one can get WordPerfect
     on Linux, as well as Oracle and Informix (among other SQL databases).

     Still can't live without MS-Office? Then get SoftWin95, Wabi or
     WINE (all Windows emulators) that run on various UNIX flavors.
     I doubt you'll see a UNIX emulator to run on Windows.
 
 

On SPrestek's Technology on the Horizon;

  Clifford Stoll is a very clever man, and as such he has figured
out that there is more $$ to be made as a digital contrarian than
in Astrophysics (his day job). In Silicon Snake Oil, Stoll correctly
points out that the signal to noise ratio (SNR) on the internet
is poor, but somehow I don't think he'd use the same argument to
demand a cut to all funding for extragalatic radio astronomy.

  The Web as it exists now is a whopping 4 years old. Traditional
libraries have a better SNR because: purchasing agents for the library
exercise choices in what they buy (dare we use the "C" word), and
there is also much less material. But, clever people are figuring out
better search algorithm's all the time, and informed people will use
them. Bandwidth and compression gains are also boosting the amount of
content that can be transmitted, and at decreasing costs. If you
want a stunning example of scientific journals on-line, go to
www.aps.org and look under Research Journals. I doubt the corner
library would have that stuff.

Should we have told Henry Ford to abandon that silly Model T because
there were no interstates?

just my $.02
-Steve
 
3. Arizona Matt writes;

Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 14:09:56 -0700 (MST)
From: Matt Birkholz <matt@birkholz.chandler.az.us>
Reply-To: Matt Birkholz <birkholz@alum.mit.edu>
To: LANGER STEVEN C <sglanger@Oakland.edu>
Subject: lastcall

> From: LANGER STEVEN C <sglanger@Oakland.edu>
> Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 15:11:39 -0400 (EDT)
>
> [...]
>
> "You know (sniff), I'm just sick that no-one has faith in our leaders
> anymore (sniff). I wonder what can be done to regain confidence in them? "

I know it sounds impossible, but I think I could muster some confidence in
them if they all had real jobs.  Serving in Congress was not supposed to be
a full-time mud-wrestling event.  If they spent SOME time in their "home"
districts, trying to be productive (according to The Market's definition of
productive), working FOR the people they are taking money from, things
might calm down.

If every fillibuster caused the entire Congress to throw up their hands and
go home because they do not have time for that crap, just imagine the
deadlock, the ineffectiveness, the loss of influence!  Imagine all the
special interests groups going back to their grass-roots, private
organizations, answering tough questions like "Why do your efforts seem to
make things worse?" from people considering voluntary contributions,
instead of easy questions like "Can you get your intern to meet me in my
hotel room for ten million in funding?".  Just imagine the BILLIONS that
would NOT be paid to the sycophants and other types of lawyers (e.g. Ken
Starr) currently living the good life inside the beltway.  Can't you just
imagine it?  No?  Neither can I.

Matt
 

Quotes(s) of the month:

"I'm very very sorry."

-Guess who

Fix of the month:

The Washington Macah Indians want to kill Humpback whales as part of a tribal ritual. Green Peace and others are trying to stop them. What to do?

News:

Washington;

1. Seattle, Sept. 8: History happens at the Union Square Grill  Wednesday. The staff is laying plans to  concoct "the largest Manhattan ever  made."   Next thing you know, they'll revive flagpole sitting, stuffing freshmen into  VW Bugs and swallowing goldfish.

 Kevin Roscoe, who has created ice sculptures for such clients as President Clinton, Queen Elizabeth II  and Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates, will carve a  1,500-pound chunk of ice into what they're calling  "The world's biggest cocktail glass."

KING-TV's John Curley will emcee the 5 to 8 p.m. happy-hour event, which includes a cocktail-trivia contest, complimentary cigars, special appetizers and souvenir pictures. To comply with state laws that forbid dispensing free drinks, bartenders will charge $3 for each Manhattan dipped from the Godzilla-sized glass.

2. Seattle Times, Sept. 6: Frozen soil at the moon's poles may contain as much as 250 billion gallons of water,  according to data from the Lunar Prospector spacecraft orbiting the moon.
That's an amount equal to what is consumed in U.S. cities for 10 days. More important, it would be enough to supply the population of a lunar base for a long, long time.  In a study published today in the journal Science, researchers said Lunar Prospector has found evidence
of up to 10 billion tons of water locked into deeply shaded craters.

"There is an abundance of hydrogen at both lunar poles, and we interpret that to mean there is water there," said Alan Binder, chief scientist for the Lunar Prospector. "There is at least 1 billion tons of water, but there could be as much as 10 billion tons." "We knew from the Apollo missions that we could go to the moon and build a base there, but we would have to take our water and fuel with us," Binder said. The deposits of water or hydrogen, he said, are "an
enabling resource. You could build a colony without it, but this really makes it a lot simpler."

In addition to sustaining life in a colony, water can be used for rocket fuel by breaking it into its constituent chemicals - hydrogen and oxygen. Paul Spudis, a researcher at the Lunar and Planetary Institute in Houston, called the discovery significant. "We've debated for 30 years whether or not there is ice on the moon, and now this shows there is," Spudis said.

"This makes colonizing the moon a lot more attractive," said Ed Weiler, a space scientist at NASA. "I think before we colonize Mars, we need to colonize the moon for practice. So from that perspective this is a major discovery."  NASA has no firm plans to return people to the moon.
 
3. Olympia, Sept. 3: Freedom took another step backwards today, as health care workers are now required by law to notify the state and insurers if a patient tests positive for HIV. This is supposed to be so that law enforcement and social workers may more proactively protect the uninfected partners of, and counsel, the affected individuals.

4. Puaulyoop, Sept. 23; At the state fair, the petting zoo has been shut down since several kids have come down with E. Coli poisoning from contact with the animals.
 

Minnesota;

1. Minneapolis/St. Paul, 23 Sept; Some of you may recall during the Reagen years when the US went after Panama's leader Manuel Noriega. Since Noriega had taken up sanctuary in his mansion, the US Army blockaded it and hammered Noriega with round the clock rock music, a form of psychological torture which may have accellerated his surrender. In the first year of the Clinton Admin, the FBI tried the same trick on the Branch Davideans - it didn't work. Now the Minneapolis Police Dept. has decided to use the same technique to break up riots - they have commissioned the construction of several specially designed trucks with mega-speaker systems. The musical weapon of choice - opera.

Illinois;

1. Chicago, Sept. 6; On a scale not seen in decades, the Federal Government is helping cities clear slums again, but this time they are slums it helped create: public housing projects crippled by flawed policies and mismanagement and overwhelmed by poverty and crime.

From Hartford and Newark to Denver and San Francisco, 100,000 apartments in the nation's worst public housing projects are being razed under a Federal program called Hope VI. The plan is to replace them with smaller developments that mix families of different incomes, while moving thousands of tenants into privately owned buildings. In Chicago, where high-rise housing projects are corrosive landmarks of poverty and racial segregation, the demolition will be nothing less than seismic: the city wants to raze 11,000 apartments, nearly 40 percent of its public housing for families, over the next 15 years.

Washington D.C.

1. Sept. 3: The Wall Street Journal's Washington Wire reports that Microsoft, which is fighting a Clinton administration antitrust suit, is romancing the GOP. The company's chief operating officer, Robert Herbold, has joined the GOP's Team 100, whose members donate at least $100,000. Microsoft actually made the donation, according to the Republican National Committee.

2. Sept. 4: Attorney General Janet Reno on Aug. 26 ordered a preliminary investigation  to determine if an independent counsel should be sought to investigate telephone calls Vice President Al Gore made from the White House to solicit campaign cash during the 1996  presidential election.

3. Sept. 21: Clinton's Grand Jury testimony was played on the telly, just 2 weeks after his prime time admission that he had an improper relationshsip with Monica Lewinsky.

4. Sept. 23; Movie Mogul Steven Spielberg has offered Bill Clinton the position of President of his film company Dreamworks after Clinton finishes his term.
[No doubt the money will be handy for his forthcoming alimony payments to Hillary.]

Net News;

1. Arizona Matt sends this from the state's Libertarian party

Arizona Libertarian Party Announcements - http://www.primenet.com/~idic=
/azlp.html

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 2, 1998
For more information, contact:
Bob Bushkin, Murphy for Congress:
(520) 745-6297 or
Vince Desiderio, Running With Scissors:
(520) 577-0321
 

"Infamous" computer software design company goes POSTAL over Murphy campaign

Tucson, AZ - "Having the enthusiastic endorsement and national resources of
a company that's graced the front page of the 'Wall Street Journal' means
my congressional campaign just got very, very real," said Phil Murphy,
Libertarian candidate for Congress in Arizona CD-5.  Murphy is seeking to
upset Representative Jim Kolbe.  Murphy, who lost to Kolbe in 1994, is
making his second bid for the Republican's House seat.

"Tucson and Southern Arizona enjoy a huge technological base," said Murphy,
"but one company is so well known within their industry and a particular
arm of the federal government that their support of a Libertarian
congressional candidate is going to put this campaign on the map in a
serious way."

Murphy's endorsement came from the Tucson-based entertainment software
design manufacturer, Running With Scissors.  RWS claims to having developed
the most reviled and controversial computer game in history, POSTAL.  RWS's
success brought both wanted and unwanted national attention when it was
sued by the U. S. Postal Service over the adjective "postal" as used in the
gamemaker's main product, an outrageously violent computer game that's been
banned in several countries.

"No politician, government agency or fascist lawsuit will stop us," said
Vince Desiderio, CEO of Running With Scissors.  "Phil is for freedom". The
freedom to bear arms, the freedom to play any game you choose to buy, the
freedom not to be sued by the USPS on a trumped-up charge that only they
have the right to use certain words in the English language."

"Censorship, whether employed through strong arm tactics or legal
mumbo-jumbo, is still censorship," said Murphy.  "The mere fact the Post
Office would sue a private company over the use of a common colloquial
expression should prove to anyone the federal government is out of control
and needs to be reigned in."

"Phil Murphy has been a staunch supporter," Desiderio said.  "Ironically,
his opponent, the heavily retro seven-term incumbent, Jim Kolbe, heads up
the House Committee on the U.S. Postal Service."

Adding support to Murphy's campaign, GamePAC, a grassroots political action
confederation made up of game developers and publishers, co-founder Verin
Lewis said, "If our freedom of speech is curtailed when it comes to
computer games and our ability to play is prohibited, then those guiding
words 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' ring hollow and the
Constitution will not be worth the paper it's written on."

"The Generation 'X' potential is enormous," said Murphy.  "POSTAL having
been banned all over the world speaks volumes to them.  They know what
prohibition creates - a black market - and Americans simply won't stand for
another government 'war' on anything especially free speech."