On last month's Fix;
the answer to last month's Fix,
"Should women be subjected to the draft?"is
Yes.
Many of you wrote, "But Steve, there isn't a draft." You're right. This question is what as known as a hypothetical, motivated by last month's news on Shannon Faulkner, this month's Women's Congress in China and my (probably naiive) belief that equal rights demand equal responsibilities. My apologies for the confusion. The question should have been worded, "In the event that the draft is reinstated in this nation, should women be subject to it"? For an on-target analysis of this issue I direct you to Dr. Grimm's letter below.
On the definitive link to on-line Govt. Regs;
For those of you with a Web or Gopher client and a need to know about Fed regs on anything, the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and Federal Register (FR) are available at
Some of the info is free (Yale law stuff), but most is accessed by subscription only.
On Your's Truly;
By the time you get this issue, I will be winging (or have wung, or in German habst gevungdit ) to Mayo, Jacksonville for six weeks. Had I had my druthers (I didn't), I would have chosen Mayo, Scottsdale and would have been down there for the last 6 weeks instead of throughout the fall. So endeth my plans to see some Badger football, do some hunting and fall fly fishing. But fear not! The flag shall be transferred to the new flagship and, hopefully, most of the hurricanes will have past Florida by the time I arrive there.
On the Evolution of the Rag and a Poll;
I have seen an increasing amount of mail from readers who wonder when I will make full use of the power of HTML (jumps within the current article, or to previous articles, emebedded pictures, etc). Well, I have avoided all that because I still think that a substantial number of readers are getting this via ASCII email only, and a number of readers get this on paper only. Hence, I hope that I have struck a lowest common denominator approach that has been acceptable. However, to get a better sense of the modalities being used by the readers, I have included a poll in the Fix of the Month column this month. Please take the time to respond so that I, your ever humble servant, may serve you better.
While I have not implemented all the snazzy stuff, I hope you'll notice that the sub-Editorials are now set off in bold face and the masthead includes links not just for my email address, but also for my anon ftp site. Hopefully, this will ease file transfer concerns for some of you who think you want to send a file that may be too big for your mailer. Just drop your submissions into /pub/incoming.
On Windows-95;
Several years ago, I ran an editorial on Win NT from Digital News and Review. Among the many points made (that you'd need 16 MB RAM, 500 MB hard disk, etc), the author made a very salient point. If your going to have that kind of hardware commitment, why not run a real operating system? The answer, as always, is backwards software compatibility. But this was, and still is, a myth. Win-NT resulted in a barage of new versions of existing software which we call "upgrades". Win95 is doing the same. To get full performance, you'll have to upgrade all of your existing 16-bit Win3.1 apps to 32-bit clean apps. Of course, you'll be only too happy to do this so that you "don't fall behind." Besides, you figure the upgrades are only 1/2 to 1/3 the price of a new product. But be warned, Win95 is just a stepping stone to an eventual Win9x-NT merger. It seems Bill Gates has learned from NT the following lesson; people will not quadruple or quintuple their computer hardware investment overnight. It remains to be seen how many Win9x upgrades (and by extension, 1/2 to 1/3 price app upgrades) will occur. But, like the frog that will jump out of a boiling pot while content to simmer to death in a slowly heated one, the bulk of the computer market will happily pay for Bill's incremental upgrades. Which reminds me of a sign I had over my desk in Detroit;
Microsoft: offering you yesterday's technology at tomorrow's prices.
On IBM;
I was asked some time ago to put together a study of IBM's personal voice recognition software called VoiceType. In Rochester we use VoiceType on OS2, in the Mayo Souths they use it on Windoze. We had a video conference with Mayos Scottsdale and Jacksonville also in "attendance". Three IBM folks put on a dog and pony show. Then a Doc from Scottsdale and I were asked to report on our findings. The Doc from Scottsdale said he was going along for a few days, everything worked great, then wam, Windows locked up and when he rebooted all the voice recog. files were corrupted and he lost 20 hours of work.
The IBM types said, "Well you should be using OS2 Warp, that would not have happened."
The mic was then passed to me. I reported my performance measurements, then began humbly
(as I am want to do):
"I can understand the deep frustration of Dr. A, but OS2 Warp would have made no difference. Here, we have the system installed on Warp, and one day I found that someone had been playing with VoiceType and left the system locked. I rebooted. Unbeknownst to me, one of the configuration files that OS2 uses during boot contains the word
AutoRestore.
This meant that each time I rebooted, the system came back to exactly where it was and - hung. Fortunetly, I called one of our IS guys and the Warp box's ftp deamon was still functioning - very slowly. We ftp'ed a new startup file over without the dreaded AutoRestore and the system came back up with - you guessed it - corrupted VoiceType files. Luckily, I had backups. "
One of the three IBM types (Theresa) said, "You must be using an old OS2, the new one wouldn't do that."
I said, "When did the launch bar debut on OS2?"
"On Warp", she replied.
"We have the launch bar", I said.
"Well, than you have an old version of VoiceType", she shot back.
"Maybe", I said. "But correct me if I'm wrong here, on a robust multi-tasking OS, a bad app may hang itself, but shouldn't hang the box unless the app can write straight to kernel memory. Are you saying that Warp does not use protected memory for kernel code?"
"I think we should move on", interupted David something in charge of confidential product development. And so we did. David (who made each of us sign a non-disclosure agreement so I can't tell you the secret stuff which any moron would know is a goal of voice recognition anyway) went on to say that future VoiceType systems would not need an IBM proprietary sound card. I said,"So how does the sound get digitized?"
"It will all be done by the Pentium", he said.
"How will you get the AD done though?", I said - patiently.
"It will all be done by the Pentium", he repeated.
"So you're telling me there will be a mic jack right on the 586 that I can plug my mic into and you don't need anything like a SoundBlaster with an AD chip - that's interesting", I said.
"It looks like we're about out of time," said the 3'rd IBM guy running the demo. They packed up and left the room quickly.
On Colin Powell;
Well well. Now that the General has come out with his opinions on things (proChoice, pro-Gun control, fiscally conservative), will he run and as what? To answer the second question first, he'll run as a Rep. Why? Cuz the box you check on your 1040 to send $1 to the Presidential campaign fund only covers Dem or Rep candidates. Independants don't see a dime of that money. Since Powell, unlike Ross Perot, is not rich, he cannot afford to campaign on his own dime and he will not muddy the waters trying to steal the nomination from Clinton. The first question, will he run at all, is tougher to answer. Powell is extremely cautious and will probably not run unless the polls convince him that he'd slaughter Bob Dole for the Rep. nomination. Will the polls say this? Tough call. However, there is no question that Powell will not please the hard core of the Rep. party that campaigned on the "Contract With America" and produced the Rep. uspet in 1994. If anything, Powell sounds like a "kinder, gentler" George Bush, thus his devotion to free market economics is questionable. However, the fact that polls show 80% of his support comes from white voters does say something comforting about America in the face of media claims that most whites are Mark Fuhrman clones (Fuhrman is the white LAPD detective who may have planted evidence in the OJ Simpson trial).
O V E R K I L L
By JAMES BOVARD
when government abuses power, is it an accident or murder?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The story has been told in "The New York Times," "The Washington Post" and
"Soldier of Fortune" magazine. Somewhere you've read or heard about the
11-day stakeout that resulted in the death of a 14-year-old boy, a
42-year-old mother, a federal marshal and one yellow Labrador retriever. It
is an American tragedy, one that must be retold until some sense of truth or
justice emerges.
Randy Weaver lived with his wife and four children in a cabin in the rugged
Idaho mountains 40 miles south of the Canadian border. The cabin had no
electricity or running water, but the family survived, as had generations of
pioneers. According to his lawyer, Weaver was "a little man who wanted to be
left alone."
According to the government, he was a heavily armed white supremacist, a
former Green Beret, a member of a cult that believed a Jewish-led conspiracy
controlled the government. He stood convinced that God had created separate
races for a reason, and that the races should remain separate. Weaver was,
said one agent, "extremely irritable, and saw people plotting against him."
Weaver had every reason to be paranoid. People were plotting against him. No
fewer than three government agencies targeted Randy Weaver.
ENTRAPMENT?
Agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms were the first to turn
their attention on Weaver. In 1989 Kenneth Fadley, a BATF informant,
persuaded Weaver to sell him two sawed-off shotguns, carefully pointing out
where he wanted the barrels cut--one-quarter of an inch below the legal
length.
Prior to the sting operation, Weaver had no criminal record. The agents had
noticed Weaver and members of his family at a meeting of the Aryan Nation, a
white supremacist movement based in the panhandle of Idaho. According to
Weaver the BATF then threatened him, saying that unless he promised to
infiltrate the Aryan Nation and turn informer, they would prosecute. He
refused; charges were filed in December 1990.
A court date was set, then changed. A probation officer sent a letter to
Weaver with yet another date. When Weaver failed to appear, a warrant was
issued.
WYATT EARP MEETS RAMBO
Federal agents launched an elaborate 18-month surveillance of Weaver's cabin
and land. The agency this time was the U.S. Marshal Service (headed by
former Meese Commission star Henry Hudson), which is responsible for serving
high-risk warrants. The service seems to take its cue not from the
Constitution but from Hollywood. (As described in "On-Line Pedophiles" in
the March "Playboy Forum," Henry Hudson spent a small fortune trying to
entrap two men to make snuff movies.) David Nevin, a lawyer involved in the
subsequent court case, noted: "The marshals called in military aerial
reconnaissance and had photos studied by the Defense Mapping Agency. They
prowled the woods around Weaver's cabin with night-vision equipment. They
had psychological profiles performed and installed $130,000 worth of
long-range solar-powered spy cameras. They intercepted the Weavers' mail.
They even knew the menstrual cycle of Weaver's teenage daughter, and planned
an arrest scenario around it. They actually bought a tract of land next to
Weaver's where an undercover marshal was to pose as a neighbor and build a
cabin in hopes of befriending Weaver and luring him away." All this despite
the fact that the BATF had initially served Weaver a warrant without
encountering violence (agents faked a car breakdown; when he stopped to
help, they arrested him). According to several reports, Hudson's Special
Operations Group thought it was up against Rambo. Had the government
bothered to look carefully at service records, it would have known better.
According to "Soldier of Fortune," Weaver never completed Special Forces
training. He was an engineer in support personnel for the Green Berets.
"Although the marshals knew Weaver's precise location," reports Nevin,
"throughout this elaborate investigation, not a single marshal ever met
face-to-face with Weaver. Even so, Weaver offered to surrender if conditions
were met to guarantee his safety. The marshals drafted a letter of
acceptance, but the U.S. attorney for Idaho abruptly ordered the
negotiations to cease."
On August 21, 1992 six U.S. marshals outfitted in full camouflage and
painted faces entered Weaver's property. They carried automatic weapons.
They had been told to avoid contact with the Weavers, but had visited a
shooting range the night before to sight in their weapons. The group leader
was familiar with the terrain: It was deputy marshal Arthur Roderick's 24th
visit to the cabin. One of the Weaver family's dogs, Striker, caught scent
of the agents and ran barking down the hill. Weaver's 14-year-old son,
Sammy, and Kevin Harris, a 25-year-old family friend who lived with the
Weavers in the cabin, followed.
What happened next is a horrible vision of law enforcement agents out of
control. Lawyers for the defendants say that Roderick shot the dog,
shattering its haunches. Sammy Weaver fired two shots at the man who had
just killed his dog. Randy Weaver called out to his son. Sammy yelled, "I'm
coming, Dad," then turned to run to safety. A bullet from a U.S. marshal
nearly tore off his arm; a second bullet entered his back, killing him.
At some point during the exchange deputy marshal William Degan stood up and
yelled "Freeze." Harris fired, killing the marshal. Federal agents testified
in court that Degan had been killed by the first shot of the exchange, but
were unable to explain how it was that the marshal had fired seven shots
from his gun before he was shot.
Who was writing this script?
FBI MUTANT NINJAS
The surviving marshals trooped down the mountain and called for help. As
Weaver retrieved his son's body, the FBI's elite paramilitary Hostage Rescue
Team boarded a plane in Washington, D.C. Almost 400 state and federal agents
surrounded the site of the standoff. Although no shots came from the cabin,
FBI team commander Richard Rogers changed the standard rules of engagement.
The HRT sharpshooters were told to shoot any armed adult male on sight,
whether he posed an immediate threat or not.
The next day, August 22, Randy Weaver--with daughter Sara and Kevin
Harris--walked from his cabin to the little shack where his son's body lay.
As he lifted the latch on the shack's door, Weaver was shot from behind by
FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi. Weaver struggled back to the cabin while his wife,
Vicki, stood in the doorway, holding their ten-month-old infant in her arms
and calling for her husband to hurry.
Horiuchi testified that after shooting Weaver in the back, he followed Kevin
Harris through his telescopic sight, leading slightly. He fired as the man
rushed through the door of the cabin. According to "The New York Times,"
Horiuchi, who claimed he could hit a target at a distance of 200 meters
within a quarter of an inch, said he had "decided to neutralize that male
and his rifle." Instead, he hit Vicki Weaver in the temple, killing her. The
bullet that passed through Vicki Weaver's skull wounded Harris.
The paramilitary team then switched to psychological warfare. As "The
Washington Times"' Jerry Seper reported, "Court records show that while the
woman's body lay in the cabin for eight days, the FBI used megaphones to
taunt the family. 'Good morning, Mrs. Weaver. We had pancakes for breakfast.
What did you have?'"
Weaver surrendered after 11 days.
At the subsequent trial, the government sought to prove that Weaver had
conspired for nine years to have an armed confrontation with the government.
An Idaho jury found Weaver innocent of almost all charges and ruled that
Kevin Harris' shooting of the U.S. marshal had been in self-defense.
Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Louis Freeh.
raise a weapon in the direction of a helicopter carrying other FBI
personnel. But other federal officials testified at Weaver's trial that
there were no helicopters in the vicinity of the Weavers' cabin at the time
of the shooting.
Freeh also said the FBI's next shot--the one that killed Vicki Weaver--was
justified and that the killing was accidental. Freeh declared, "The question
is whether someone running into a fortified position who is going to shoot
at you is as much a threat to you as somebody turning in an open space and
pointing a gun at you. I don't distinguish between those." Not even when the
fortified position is a cabin filled with children?
Freeh found 12 FBI officials guilty of "inadequate performance, improper
judgment, neglect of duty and failure to exert proper managerial oversight."
However, the heaviest penalty that Freeh imposed was 15 days unpaid leave,
and that for only four agents. As "The New York Times" reported, Freeh has
imposed heavier penalties for FBI agents who used their official cars to
drive their children to school.
One of the most disturbing aspects of Freeh's actions has been his treatment
of Larry Potts, Freeh's pick as acting deputy FBI director. Potts was the
senior official in charge of the Idaho operation and defended the
shoot-to-kill orders. Despite the finding of a Justice Department
confidential report that the orders had violated constitutional rights,
Freeh recommended that Potts face only the penalty of a letter of censure.
That is the same penalty that Freeh received when he lost an FBI cellular
telephone.
In a letter to Attorney General Janet Reno, Idaho Senator Larry Craig asked:
"When does the Department of Justice consider it acceptable to fire on an
armed citizen first--even if he or she is not threatening the life of any
other person--and ask questions later? I am not alone in believing that
firearms restrictions do not prevent violent crime; it is appalling that in
this case, the enforcement of such restrictions actually led to the
sacrifice of three lives. In this sense comparisons drawn between the north
Idaho action and the Waco case are inevitable and deeply troubling."
The Weaver case presents a great challenge to the competency and courage of
the congressional leadership now in Washington. If Congress is not willing
to look into such misconduct, who will protect the Constitution? Will
Congress let the Justice Department and the FBI get away with murder?
[James Bovard is author of "Lost Rights: The Destruction of American
Liberty.]