SeaViews: Insights from the Gray
Havens
February 2000
(formerly the _Rochester Rag_, formerly the _News
from Detroit_)
Motto: The surest way to get a reputation for
being a trouble maker these days is to go about repeating
the very phrases that the Founders used in the struggle for
independence.
-- C.A. Beard
Editorial:
email
Steve
Anon ftp site
News Archives
Standard disclaimers apply. In addition, the author makes
no guarantees concerning the grammatical accuracy of his
writing. Submitted text files must be in raw or compressed
(.Z, .gz or PK Zip) ASCII. Image files must be in raw or
compressed (see above) GIF89 (or older).
On last month's Fix;
the answer to last month's Fix,
"Is it a problem if the Chinese now own both side os the
Panama Canal?"
is
Let me put it this way, the week that the Canal was
turned over from the US Military to the Panamians, the
nightly news interviewed the Commander on teh scene who said
that the Panamanian military will now well prepared to
assume control. The White House echoed those sentiments.
Within the month, it was announced that the Chinese had
bought the Canal and would be reponsible for security. Now
either US intelligence was totally flat footed that this
deal was going down - or they knew but had orders from above
to keep it quiet.
Given the history of campaign contributions - what do you
think is likely?
This move will come back to haunt us.
On the Washington Primary;
Today, my fellow state citizens and I cast our ballots
for the respective presidential candidates. Politics in
Washington is a bit odd. We are an open primary state -
which means that one does not have to declare party
affiliation. It also means that the two primary parties are
not obligated to count our votes. It works like this:one can
declare oneself to be an independent, a Republican, or a
Democrat. Votes that are cast on an independent ballot are
ignored. Declared republican votes are actually
counted. Declared Democratic votes are used to assign
delegate percentages in the states Democratic caucuses which
than actually vote for the candidate. [Interestingly,
there is no guarantee that once at the caucus delegates that
claimed allegiance to one candidate cannot switch their
minds.]
On John McCain;
Those of you with short memories may not recall the
so-called "Keating 5". Let me help you out.
In the mid 1980's, Ronaldus Magnus deregulated Savings
and Loans so they could compete better with banks. However,
large deposits in banks were covered by FSDIC insurance -
those in S&Ls were not (that was in Ron's plan
originally - but it was dropped by the Dem Congress). Many
S&L CEO's made bad investements, lost their investors
money, and were called to task for it. Ultimately, the US
taxpayer ponied up about $400-500 Billion to make those
S&Ls solvent.
Now lets look at McCain's stance on campaign finance
reform. In 1987, Democrats were trying to restrict political
action committees, set up a system of public financing
for Senate campaigns and limit spending on Senate
candidates. During the debate, McCain derided Common Cause
(who supported the bill) as ''uncommon cause,'' and
characterized the bill, S.2, as a blatant power grab by
Democrats. In particular he railed against the proposal to
provide public financing of campaigns. Despite the
Democrats' eight tries over two years to pass the bill, John
McCain and his Republican colleagues killed the reform.
That stance changed radically in 1990. Then, when a
similar reform bill reached the Senate floor, McCain dropped
all his objections and voted for the Democrats' campaign
finance reform. What changed?
In late 1989, news broke that McCain, along with, Sens.
Alan Cranston, D-Calif., Dennis DeConcini, D-Ariz., Donald
Riegle, D-Mich., and John Glenn, D-Ohio, had pressured
bank regulators to go easy on Charles Keating, head of the
failed Lincoln Savings and Loan Association. Together, the
five senators had collected over $1.3 million in
contributions from Keating.
By the end of the scandal, Keating was jailed, and
Cranston was officialy reprimanded by the Senate. The
Senate Ethics Committee found that McCain hadn't broken
Senate ethics rules. But it officially admonished McCain
because he ''exercised poor judgment in intervening with
regulators.''
''It may have been very unfair that Sen. McCain was
included,'' said says Larry Sabato, director of
the University of Virginia Center
for Governmental Studies. ''It was pretty obvious that
the Democrats were desperate to find a Republican so that
they didn't have a pure Democrat scandal. They picked a man
who had done almost nothing wrong in that
episode.''
Despite the Keating Five scandal, it was clear that
McCain was a rising political star with presidential
ambitions. McCain is a frequent guest on the Sunday morning
political talk shows where he talks about everything from
foreign policy to tax policy to campaign finance reform. He
also enjoys friendly ties with the Washington press
corps.
''It is my belief that this legislative effort to adopt
campaign finance reform is due in part to a desire to
overcome what might have been his primary obstacle on the
campaign trail - the Keating Five episode,'' said Sabato.
''Now reporters rarely raise the issue, and they are almost
all his cheerleaders.''
For now. I guarantee you folks that if Al Gore has one
shred of intelligence and faces McCain in November, he will
start talking about campaign finance reform as if he
invented it, and thereby unload those bullets from McCain's
armoury. And in that instant, the liberal media will tar and
feather McCain on the Keating Cross.
Guest Editorial:
"Reformer" McCain? Bunk.
By L. Brent Bozell III
February 24, 2000
If youíre a conservative
considering voting for Sen. John McCain, youíre a
fool.
At least thatís what
McCain and his political hit squad think. Bill Clinton
conducted perhaps the
greatest smokescreen presidential
campaign in recent history in í92. It seems McCain
has
obviously studied it well; in both
word and tone he is running just as disingenuous an
effort.
Perception being the reality of
politics, like Clinton before him McCain is having a dandy
time
fooling a whole lot of people into
believing a whole lot of things about him that simply are
not true.
Clinton understood that the
Beast in modern day American politics is Washington. Its
personification is, of course, the
incumbent president, so Clinton broadsided George Bush at
will.
But what to do about the fact that
the legislative arm of the government was controlled by
his
like-minded liberal Democratic
colleagues? Bingo: Enter the New Democrat, the Man Who
Would Be Different.
If anything, the hostility
toward the federal government is increased today, so every
Republican
candidate has laid claim to the
"outsider" or "reformer" moniker. For some (Alan Keyes,
Gary
Bauer, Steve Forbes primarily) it
is/was an appropriate title. For others (George W.,
Quayle,
Alexander) it is/was a debatable
point. But for McCain (and Orrin Hatch) to claim that title
is
simply ludicrous. "Reformer" McCain
has spent almost two decades in Congress and as head of
the Senate Commerce Committee
controls one of the most powerful arms of the legislative
body.
If ever there was the idea of the
Consummate Insider, John McCain is it.
Of course, you canít just
call yourself a "reformer." You have to show the public how
things will
be very different with you at the
helm in the Oval Office. "New Democrat" Clinton was at
his
amoral best promising all things to
all people; "Reformer" McCain is proving to be a fine
student
of that art.
On abortion, "New Democrat"
Clinton championed the idea of making it "safe, legal and
rare,"
thus aligning himself with the
pro-choice rank and file of the Democratic party while
simultaneously signaling the
pro-lifers that he wouldnít hold to a pro-abortion
stridency.
"Reformer" McCain neatly reverses
the argument, claiming to rank and file pro-life
Republican
activists that he is unabashedly in
their camp, then finds the opportunity to make clear he
wonít
have "litmus tests" (once known as
principles) where Supreme Court justices are concerned;
would overhaul the GOP platform on
the subject; would not interfere with his daughterís
desire to
abort her child, etc. ñ all
carefully designed to woo the pro-choice crowd.
On fiscal policy, "New Democrat"
Clinton paid homage to just about every Democratic
spending
initiative possible and played the
class warfare game to perfection with relentless attacks on
the
"greedy rich," while simultaneously
proposing tax cuts and denouncing deficit spending.
"Reformer" McCain wraps himself in
the Reagan mantle, proclaims himself a fiscal
conservative,
but offers no program to reduce the
size of the bloated federal government. He (eventually)
offers
a paltry tax cut, and then
denounces his opponentís (somewhat less paltry tax
cut) as a giveaway
for "the greedy rich." And he
proposes massive new taxes on the tobacco industry.
"New Democrat" Clinton publicly
trashed "special interests," bashed Bush for "coddling
to
communist dictators" in China, and
then made it a point to have this very special interest
illegally
fund his re-election effort.
"Reformer" McCain thunders against the very same campaign
finance
practices Mr. Keating Five has used
to his advantage his entire career while regularly
denouncing
Washington lobbyistsí money
bankrolling the Bush campaign, except now theyíre
pouring money
into his coffers, and heís
cashing their checks in seconds.
If double-talk on policy is the
norm, so too is it in political tactics. Clinton regularly
bemoans the
"politics of personal destruction"
while his operatives proceed to destroy the lives of any and
all
critics. McCain continues to
promise a positive campaign while his goon squad slanders
Bush
with all manner of personal
attacks, including the wretchedly dishonest accusation
of
anti-Catholicism.
And yet some conservatives are
willing to ignore all this as they jump on the McCain
bandwagon
because suddenly the conventional
wisdom is that heís more "electable" against Gore. In
a recent
piece promoting McCainís
candidacy Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer
wrote
that while "Bush is the more
reliably conservative candidateÖthe political objective
for
conservatism is to put an end to
Clintonism. That can only be done with victory," which
victory
would be achieved with McCain
heading the ticket.
Wrong. The political objective
for conservatism is to elect conservatives who will advance
the
cause. Maybe Bush will, maybe he
wonít. But McCain has made it abundantly clear there
is only
one cause that motivates him:
McCain. That he will say and promise and do anything to
get
elected tells me heís no
conservative. Heís a fraud.
Letters:
1. Rafe rites
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:49:41 -0500
From: "Donahue, Rafe" <rd34115@glaxowellcome.com>
> "is it a good thing the the Chinese have bought the
rights to control both
> sides of the Panama Canal?"
Read my lips: Monroe Doctrine.
Rafe Donahue, PhD
Senior Statistician II
2. David Gay pens
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 15:50:05 -0600
From: David H. Gay <dgay@program-works.com>
To: LANGER STEVEN C <sglanger@Oakland.edu>
Subject: Re: lastcall
Steve,
>
> "is it a good thing the the Chinese have bought the
rights to control > both
sides of the Panama Canal?"
>
As long as the money from the sale doesn't end up paying
for political
campaigns.
I'm not sure this is related, but I have a question for
everybody:
Why didn't the Democrats have a primary in Michigan?
Dave
Ed: If this isn't a trick question, I believe its becuase
they have caucases.
Quote(s) of the month:
"The most obvious example of the superiority of the
free market is the contrast between East and West
Germany. Originally part of one whole, now torn
asunder by the vicissitudes of war. People of the same
blood, the same civilization, the same technical skill and
knowledge inhabit the two parts. Which has prospered?
Which had to erect a wall to pen in its
citizens? Which must man the wall with armed guards,
assisted by fierce dogs, mine fields, and similar devices of
devilish ingenuity in order to frustrate brave and desperate
citizens who are willing to risk their lives to leave the
Communist Paradise for the capitalist hell on the other side
of wall?"
-- Milton Friedman, in "Free to Choose"
Fix of the month:
"What should the Justice Department do with
Microsoft?"
News:
Washington;
1. 28th February: While walking off the ferry this
morning, commuters were surprised to be compelled to shake
hands with Bill Bradley. Yours truly politely obliged
the expected duty, but once he actually touched the hand of
Mr. Bradley a strange thing happened. All sense
drained out of my head and I felt a warm, loving connection
with this caring-honorable former NBA star. He touched
me so deeply with those dreamy brown eyes I felt I had no
choice but to declare myself a Democrat and vote for for
him.
2. 29th February: Once again demonstrating the neutrality
for which all labor unions are famous, the Washington state
Ferry Workers union invited the other presidential candidate
to greet commuters as they stepped off the boat this
morning. Al Gore, resplendant with his new buff
outdoor look and deep tan, pressed the flesh with commuters
as they stepped off the boat this morning. Many fair
minded Seattleites were heard to say, "Wow, it's good of
them to invite both candidates here."
3. 1 MArch: The aftermath. My dream boat Bill Bradley
lost to Al Gore, but the fight will continue.Oh yeah, there
were some other guys running too, but they weren't mentioned
in the news anywhere so they must not have been
important.
North Carolina;
1. 16 Feb: With Bush and McCain having decisive
leads, many other Republican candidates dropped out of the
race. Interestingly, Gary Bauer (arguably the most pro-life
candidate) lent his support to John McCain (who has
indicated his flexibility on the issue). Republican
observers are confused because Gary Bauer claimed up to the
last moment that John McCain was no friend of the
right to life crowd. However, the news media lost no time in
changing their assessment of Bauer overnight. Before
Tuesday, he was described as a fringe right-wing radical
Christian. After swearing allegiance to McCain, he was
described as an influential conservative opinion
maker.
California;
1. Santa Rosa, 14 February: Charles Schultz, the 77
yr. old creator of the Peanuts comic strip, died in his
sleep Saturday night at his home in Santa Rosa CA just two
hours before his final cartoon ran in the Sunday newspapers.
In November last year he was diagnosed with colon cancer.
Lynn Johnston, friend of Mr. Schultz, commented on how
amazing it was that he passed away just hours before his
final comic strip ran. His wife Genie said, "he had
done everything he wanted to do."
In his last Sunday strip, which ran yesterday, he signed
a farewell message, "Charlie Brown, Snoopy, Linus,
Lucy...how can I ever forget them..."
Washington D.C.
1. 1 March: Mr. Bush swept Mr. McCain in three
contests on Tuesday -- Republican primaries in Virginia
and in Washington and a party caucus in North Dakota
-- to pick up a large cache of delegates as well as a
considerable morale boost. Now the campaign moves to a rush
of a contests on March 7 in a dozen states,
including New York and California.
Net News;
1. The 1999 Darwin Awards
In the spirit of Charles Darwin, the Darwin Awards
commemorate individuals
who protect our gene pool by making the ultimate sacrifice
of their own
lives. Darwin Award winners eliminate themselves in an
extraordinarily
idiotic manner, thereby improving our species' chances of
long-term survival.
Gone Fishin'
1999 Darwin Awards Nominee
Confirmed True by Darwin
(25 May 1999, Ukraine) A fisherman in Kiev electrocuted
himself while
fishing in the river Tereblya. The 43-year-old man
connected cables to the
main power supply of his home, and trailed the end into the
river. The
electric shock killed the fish, which floated belly-up to
the top of the
water. The man waded in to collect his catch,
neglecting to remove the
live wire, and tragically suffered the same fate as the
fish. In an ironic
twist, the man was fishing for a mourning meal to
commemorate the first
anniversary of his mother-in-law's death.
www.DarwinAwards.com © 1997 - 2000
Submitted by: Michael Jacobson, Jeremy Fletcher, Rashawn
White
Reference: Deutsche Press-Agentur, Bloomberg news Source
Zany New Zealand Contest
1999 Darwin Stupidity Award
Confirmed True by Darwin
(7 June 1999, New Zealand) A student set his own penis
aflame in a
successful attempt to win $NZ500 cash and an equal bar
tab. Thomas stapled
his penis to a white crucifix, poured cigarette lighter
fluid over it, and
set it on fire in his bid to win a controversial "How Far
Will You Go?"
promotion for Trader McKendry's Tavern in
Christchurch. The event,
sponsored by New Zealand Breweries, encouraged patrons to
compete for the
most lewd act. Thomas walked away with the top prize,
which he used for
car registration, a warrant of fitness, and registration for
his bloodhound
Puss. At a student clinic, he obtained free medical
treatment for his
bruised and burned penis. After two weeks, he has
almost recovered, and
expresses no regrets about his actions.
www.DarwinAwards.com © 1997 - 2000
© Steve Langer, 1995-2000
|