From: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com (roc-digest) To: roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: roc-digest V2 #89 Reply-To: roc-digest Sender: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk roc-digest Wednesday, March 18 1998 Volume 02 : Number 089 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 16:18:43 -0800 (PST) From: Boyd Subject: Re: Wisdom from Neal There is no "cure" for large organizations (other then working in them yourself for positive change). They are a unique type of tool. You wouldn't use a grinder to machine a valve stem, nor would you use a CNC machine to sharpen your pocket knife. You wouldn't use Solaris to play solitaire (well, ok not exclusively) nor would you use Win3.1 to control the high pressure flood valves on a regional nuclear plant. Boyd "the right tool for the right job" Kneeland > O.K., I can't resist throwing in my two cents. > > My discontent with the NRA is cumulative. First snip > The overall impression is that the NRA is like any large > organization with a diffuse membership and a lot of > money and a lot of hangers-on. They are no different > than the GOP in terms of mailings and overall measure of > silliness. > > My bottom line: The NRA is big and slow and somewhat self-serving. > Mr. Knox doesn't appear to be the cure. GOA *seems* to be > a lot leaner and somewhat meaner, which suits me fine. > > ciao, > > jcurtis > >- - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 16:19:06 -0800 (PST) From: Boyd Subject: Re: Wisdom from Neal EJ; sit down, those of you with heart meds pop 'em if ya got 'em. I agree with EJ. When I first saw this my reaction was -exactly- what Neil said (except for the purists part -: ) As a newly (92) reformed Liberal myself I wondered why bring it up now, what does such an ancient thing matter anyway? But, just like with Liberalism I was wrong. And the key difference here is that I -admit- that right up front. Anyone who's been on roc (or before that noban) for any time has read detailed descriptions of my "see the light" experience, not because I'm comfortable with my mistakes (though frankly, being uncomfortable with making mistakes is a mighty serious impediment to learning) but because it was a seminal moment in my life. Where was Chucks? That's the big deal here, and that's what Knox is asking. If Charles Heston has had the fantastic turnaround on RKBA that it -appears- he has had, why haven't we heard about the turnaround part? As an active NRA volunteer, donater, and trainer wannabe I have a right, no an responsibility to ask that sort of question of the organizations that claim to speak for me. I can believe Mr. Heston has changed, I want to believe Mr. Heston has changed but why hasn't someone pointed it out before now? As it is the whole thing smells like something trying to crawl out from under the rug. It's best not to sweep things under there, but if it happens (and it does, lets be reasonable) it's better to air it out smartly rather then have some visitor point out the odiforous lump. Boyd Kneeland At 1:18 PM -0700 3/17/98, E.J. Totty wrote: > Neil, and Skip, > > [...] > For what it's worth, you're absolutely >correct about Charleton Heston. You're right about >Mr. Knox as well. What possible good purpose could >be served by dredging up that 30-year-old bit of >"news?" > None whatever. > The purists will be the death of us. > [...] > > <><><>Rhetorical Reply mode on <><><> > > Well, now I just want to say that before >you two go any further, you aught consider that the >'Heston side of things' brought this whole sheebang >down on themselves. > Mr. Heston decided to use the "extremist" >card to get his butt elected. > All's fair in love and war? Perhaps. > Okay, so what he did thirty some odd years >ago ain't important to you now. Pardon me for saying it, >but I find that position just a wee bit hypocritical, when >neither of you two would so much as trust a former >communist at the nuclear push bottons of America. > What's next? Jane Fonda on the NRA board >also? How about her ex Mr Hayden? > Okay, I'm pushing the envelope. Those last >two won't consider the job. > Don't like my analog? > What's the darned diff between a nuke war >and the loss of our Right? > As far as I'm concerned, if what you did thirty >years ago won't fly in a government position in the >U.S. of A, what the hey is the difference at the NRA??? > Did we all of a sudden get a liberal line on >things here? > > However, and as much as I respect the >current office holders, the resort to calling the rest >of us a bunch of extremists is unacceptable. > I respect Neal Knox, and I do believe that >his worth to the NRA as the 'bad cop' player has won >us some places where we wouldn't have gotten otherwise. > This whole bit of infighting is going to stink >for a long time. > > And, yes, AND I've said it before, the only >way Mr. H is going to impress the the living day lights >out of me, is to shoulder an AK-47 or other 'heinous' >and 'evil looking gun' and proclaim loud and long that >the Right to keep and bear arms is all inclusive of >those nasty FULL AUTO rock'n rollers. > Anything short of that, and you can count >on my continuous howl from now and untill he departs, >either the NRA or this world. > > I want to see the veins stickout in your >foreheads when he testifies before a Senate, and then >House committe that anything more than a shotgun or BP >arm aught to be outlawed. > > You guys are remind me of a pack of liberal >woman, all you do is swoon over a handsome face and cum >in your jeans. > That Billy Clinton should be jealous. > > <><><> Rhetorical Reply mode off<><><> > >ET > > > > >- - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 16:35:11 -0800 (PST) From: Boyd Subject: Re: Wisdom from Neal At 4:45 PM -0600 3/17/98, Neil Dickey wrote: >"E.J. Totty" wrote: > >I wrote: > >> [...] >> For what it's worth, you're absolutely >>correct about Charleton Heston. You're right about >>Mr. Knox as well. What possible good purpose could >>be served by dredging up that 30-year-old bit of >>"news?" >> None whatever. >> The purists will be the death of us. >> [...] > >E.J. wrote: > >> <><><>Rhetorical Reply mode on <><><> >> >> Well, now I just want to say that before >>you two go any further, you aught consider that the >>'Heston side of things' brought this whole sheebang >>down on themselves. > >We're all our own worst enemies. > >> Mr. Heston decided to use the "extremist" >>card to get his butt elected. > >As is Mr. Knox, but I digress. snip Where'd ya get that? Certainly it's a claim being made. But speaking as someone who's walked, talked and bought a diet coke for Mr. Knox (and Ms. Metaksa, and Mr. Heston, though I don't know that I got him a diet coke) I gotta tell you it's the most laughable part of this thing. Neil Knox is an "extremist" like I'm a 200lb Leprechaun. Hasn't happened, isn't happening and I'd wager won't ever happen. He is a kindly (I'd say "older" but I'm 36 still and I dont want to get all you list subscribers all in a tizzy ; ) gentleman who wears a tan sportcoat and likes to talk about his kids (all my age). The "E" word was getting used against all of us (any NRA/GOA/rkba activist) until this internal bickering broke out. Now we're using it on ourselves? Rediculous! If you're going to shoot at your own foot you owe it to yourself, and everyone around you, to at the very -least- hit the target. Tell me the head of Militia of Montana is an "extremist". Tell me the head of the KKK is an "extremist". Tell me Lenin was an "extremist", I'll quietly listen. But calling Mr. Knox that? I'm Laughing Out Loud. Boyd Kneeland, NRA. - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 18:39:29 CST From: Brad Alpert <1911a1@gte.net> Subject: View from NRA Director Clark * * Please read, circulate, disseminate widely * * The Future of NRA Weldon H. Clark Jr. NRA Director Like you, the members of the Second Amendment Action Committee care for, and worry about, the future of NRA. If we are to preserve our gun rights, and restore the rights that have been lost, only NRA can do it. If we are to expand the shooting sports, with more shooting and collecting activities and more places to shoot and hunt, only NRA can do it. That's the reason why we and countless other NRA members spend their time, money and energy working to improve NRA. What the present leaders of NRA have forgotten is that NRA is a member organization, one that should reflect the wishes of members like you, not the Washington, D.C. political establishment. They have forgotten that NRA is a service organization, not a fund-raising organization. They have forgotten that NRA is a shooting organization but also a rights organization; if we are to continue to have the right to own guns and use them, we MUST be involved in politics, or we'll have nothing to shoot. In 1968, when the Gun Control Act was passed, NRA did not have a single lobbyist, and no lobbying effort worthy of the name. Undergunned and underfinanced, NRA was overwhelmed by the all-out efforts of the press and the HOLLYWOOD COMMUNITY -- including the present First Vice President, Mr. Charlton Heston (as documented in the Wisdom from Neal post). Heston is a wonderful spokesman for the Second Amendment when he's speaking from a script, but when he's speaking on his own it is often clear that his view of the Second Amendment does not square with that of most NRA members -- as when he said the private possession of AK-47's is "inappropriate." (ABC affiliate radio KGO on May 6, 1997) Heston and Wayne LaPierre have said they want to take NRA into the "mainstream." Liberty cannot be defended from the middle of the road. Instead of debating ideas and methods, the present leadership focuses its efforts on personal attacks upon those who question their stewardship of NRA and the Second Amendment. Look at their advertisements. Before their ads last year, had you ever been told to "Vote Against" a group of candidates? Do you like it? Fourteen incumbent Directors who have questions or constructively criticized the present leadership were not renominated by the Nominating Committee. Free debate and honest disagreements are not tolerated by the present leadership. Despite a Federal judge's written ruling, in FITZGERALD v. NRA, that officers may not use "corporate instrumentalities such as the American Rifleman to perpetuate themselves in office," the ballot issue of the NRA magazines was loaded with photos and articles designed to do just that. The direct cost to NRA members was at least $200,000 -- to be propagandized with their own money. When ten petition nominees realized management intended to publish the Nominating Committee Report next to the ballot, after being notified that it was a clear violation of Bylaws Article VIII, Sec. 3(e), they sued to prevent it. New York Supreme Court Justice Shainswit prohibited publication; NRA management appealed and lost. In retaliation, management published the names of those who asked the court to assure a fair election -- unfairly blackballing them. When Justice Shainswit saw that report, she said, on March 5, "I find that statement bordering very closely on contempt" of court adding "I think your organization is out of control." That is precisely the problem. NRA management has refused to be guided by the Board on legislative policy and on financial policy. Millions of dollars have been spent without written contracts, and without following the Board-established policy of requiring volunteer officers' approval on contracts over $100,000. Further, some NRA Directors are receiving significant unreported financial benefits - -- including President Marion Hammer, whose Unified Sportsmen of Florida salary is paid from an NRA-ILA grant of over $120,000 per year (ten times as much as the next-largest on-going grant to a state group). Over 1,500 members petitioned a Bylaw amendment, which is on the ballot in the March issue, requiring full disclosure of NRA financial benefits to officers and directors. The paid staff's response has been to jump into the political fight, actively and openly campaigning against reform-minded directors. It is outrageous that paid staff would try to select who their bosses will be, but that is what is happening (and which the member-proposed bylaw would prohibit -- which is why NRA management calls it "Censorship"). It hasn't been easy telling you these things about the state of affairs in an organization that we both love, and which is critical to the preservation of our rights. I hope this will give you a better understanding of what is happening in NRA, and hope that you will vote for the reform slate of candidates. Please VOTE FOR THE FAITHFUL Second Amendment Action candidates: Jerry L. Allen Michael J. Beko James A. Church William Dominguez Howard J. Fezell Daniel B. Fiora Arnold J. Gaunt Fred Griisser Wesley H. Grogan Jr. David M. Gross John Guest Fred Gustafson Don L. Henry William B. Hunt Phillip B. Journey Michael S. Kindberg Jeff Knox John C. Krull Robley T. Moore Larry R. Rankin Albert C. Ross Frank H. Sawberger Thomas L. Seefeldt Kim Stolfer John H. Trentes Glen I. Voorhees Jr. Copy and circulate this letter: a) to NRA members on the internet, b) to your gun clubs and NRA member friends, c) distribute this letter and list at gun shows, gun stores, and shooting ranges. Ask all NRA members you know to VOTE FOR THE SECOND AMENDMENT ACTION CANDIDATES. Visit our web sites: http://www.2ndamendment.net (contains Heston interview) http://www.mcs.net/~lpyleprn/home.html http://www.nealknox.com/ (contains Heston interviews) - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 21:54:24 -0600 From: neil@jove.geol.niu.edu (Neil Dickey) Subject: Re: Wisdom from Neal Boyd wrote in part: >When I first saw this my reaction was -exactly- what Neil said (except for >the purists part -: ) As a newly (92) reformed Liberal myself I wondered >why bring it up now, what does such an ancient thing matter anyway? But, >just like with Liberalism I was wrong. And the key difference here is that >I -admit- that right up front. Anyone who's been on roc (or before that >noban) for any time has read detailed descriptions of my "see the light" >experience, not because I'm comfortable with my mistakes (though frankly, >being uncomfortable with making mistakes is a mighty serious impediment to >learning) but because it was a seminal moment in my life. >Where was Chucks? [ ... Snip ... ] The fact that you had something like a religious experience that changed your outlook doesn't mean that other people have to undergo the same process in order to have their new positions taken seriously. In my own case, abandonment of many liberal opinions occurred gradually, with experience. There was no sudden conversion. If that means to you that I can't seriously have changed my mind, then we'll just have to disagree. The opinions which I have expressed herein are entirely my own, unless other- wise noted. No-one else should be held responsible for what I think. - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | D. N. Dickey | Virtuous motives, trammeled by inertia and | | Research Associate | timidity, are no match for armed and | | Northern Illinois Univ. | resolute wickedness. | | neil@earth.geol.niu.edu | - W. S. Churchill | | **Finger for public key** | | - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 22:04:13 -0600 From: neil@jove.geol.niu.edu (Neil Dickey) Subject: Re: Wisdom from Neal Boyd wrote: [ ... ] >>> Mr. Heston decided to use the "extremist" >>>card to get his butt elected. >> >>As is Mr. Knox, but I digress. >snip >Where'd ya get that? From the newsletter he publishes on the internet. >Certainly it's a claim being made. But speaking as >someone who's walked, talked and bought a diet coke for Mr. Knox (and Ms. >Metaksa, and Mr. Heston, though I don't know that I got him a diet coke) I >gotta tell you it's the most laughable part of this thing. I met him once too, years ago, in a meeting of a shooting club I belonged to then. I was not impressed with the way he conducted himself. He was definitely part of the problem and not part of the solution. >Neil Knox is an "extremist" like I'm a 200lb Leprechaun. Hasn't happened, >isn't happening and I'd wager won't ever happen. He is a kindly (I'd say >"older" but I'm 36 still and I dont want to get all you list subscribers >all in a tizzy ; ) gentleman who wears a tan sportcoat and likes to talk >about his kids (all my age). You have your impression, I have mine. For what it's worth, I have seen pictures of tyrants in tan sport coats cavorting with kids. Images nowadays are very carefully crafted. >The "E" word was getting used against all of us (any NRA/GOA/rkba activist) >until this internal bickering broke out. Now we're using it on ourselves? >Rediculous! If you're going to shoot at your own foot you owe it to >yourself, and everyone around you, to at the very -least- hit the target. >Tell me the head of Militia of Montana is an "extremist". Tell me the head >of the KKK is an "extremist". Tell me Lenin was an "extremist", I'll >quietly listen. But calling Mr. Knox that? I'm Laughing Out Loud. If you find it amusing, that's fine, but I hit the target I was aiming at. The opinions which I have expressed herein are entirely my own, unless other- wise noted. No-one else should be held responsible for what I think. - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | D. N. Dickey | Virtuous motives, trammeled by inertia and | | Research Associate | timidity, are no match for armed and | | Northern Illinois Univ. | resolute wickedness. | | neil@earth.geol.niu.edu | - W. S. Churchill | | **Finger for public key** | | - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 00:17:55 -0600 From: Joe Sylvester Subject: National Guard To Fight Terrorists???? Quoted under fair use. >National Guard To Fight Terrorists >By SUSANNE M. SCHAFER AP Military Writer >WASHINGTON (AP) -- The National Guard will play a role in helping local >authorities respond to potential terrorist attacks from chemical, >biological or even nuclear weapons, Defense Secretary William Cohen said >today. >The Guard will establish 10 units, each composed of 22 full-time members. >Cohen has asked Congress for $49.2 million in next year's budget to pay for >them. $49.2 Million /220 ~ $223,636 per unit member. >``These teams will arrive quickly, assess the scene and help ensure these >affected areas get the federal assistance'' they need, Cohen said in a >speech at the National Press Club. This is a role for the State Militia? Being a conduit for federal assitance. If they are going to use full time folks anyway, why not use regular military, or non military federal civilians with the necessary training? >A Pentagon statement said the units will help in ``providing early >assessment, initial detection, and technical advice to local commanders >during an incident involving weapons of mass destruction.'' > >The new units will be given additional training and equipment, and National >Guard and reserve forces could be deployed to handle reconnaissance and >decontamination. A new office will oversee coordination of the units with >existing ones. > >Barred by federal law from acting in a police capacity, the military units >will play a support role, the Pentagon said. Local authorities will retain >their jurisdiction and the Federal Emergency Management Agency will remain >the lead federal agency in handling disasters. This is of course not true. The regular military cannot be used as police. The National Guard can be. That's why they are called for riot duty after all. >The Pentagon did not say where the units would be based. Then their is the problem of 10 units and 50 states. Sure states can share undercooperative agreements, but isn't that something the states should be leading on, rather than being dictated to about? >Cohen also noted that the Pentagon has been involved in a program to help >train nearly 4,000 men and women in cities around the country who would >assist local authorities. Anybody have any more information on this "program"? >AP-NY-03-17-98 1946EST The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution. ---Doug McKay" Joe Sylvester Don't Tread On Me ! - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 05:55:41 -0500 (EST) From: Brad Subject: Re: Wisdom from Neal While we're sharing our conversion experiences, I'd like to weigh in as someone who used to have knee-jerk conservative opinions when younger but who is drifting in the dreaded llllllllLiberal direction with age. There's a joke that a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged and a liberal is a conservative who has been arrested. I think there's a fair amount of truth to the joke. Certainly my opinions began shifting when the local "get tough on crime" policies resulted in a group of uniformed thugs breaking into my dad's apartment by mistake and beating him up when he objected. I kept a tenuous grip on my conservative leanings through the '94 elections, hoping that "conservatives" had some interest in limiting and controlling the powers of government to abuse its citizens. However, the conservatives have only expanded those powers. Digital wiretap bill, "Antiterrorism" bill, Habeas Corpus "reform," "Assault Weapon ban," ID-required-to-fly law, deadbeat-dad-database reporting requirements, big-brother-medical-databases, etc. As you all know. The main mainstream opposition to *most* of the above (certainly not the AW ban) has come from llllllLiberal organizations like the ACLU. So my support has been shifting in those directions. And I can't tell you how much it makes my flesh crawl every time I get an NRA "CrimeStrike" mailing full of hype for the latest plan to increase the powers of prosecutors or to decrease the rights of persons accused of crimes. Which is one of the reasons why I plan to vote against the current board majority. Another reason, as I've mentioned, is that conservative Oliver North is part of that board majority. I've never quite been able to understand why the conservative "get-tough-on-crime" policy didn't apply to North and his illegal arms-for-hostages/drug-money-for-Contra activities. Brad On Tue, 17 Mar 1998, Neil Dickey wrote: > Boyd wrote in part: > > >When I first saw this my reaction was -exactly- what Neil said (except for > >the purists part -: ) As a newly (92) reformed Liberal ... > > [ ... Snip ... ] > > The fact that you had something like a religious experience that changed > your outlook doesn't mean that other people have to undergo the same > process in order to have their new positions taken seriously. In my own > case, abandonment of many liberal opinions occurred gradually, with > experience. There was no sudden conversion. If that means to you that > I can't seriously have changed my mind, then we'll just have to disagree. - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 07:36:36 -0600 (CST) From: Subject: Slick: YEAR 3, No. 6 (fwd) - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 03:25:52 -0500 (EST) From: RichSlick Reply-To: Slick-L@Citadel.Net To: slick-l@Citadel.Net Subject: Slick: YEAR 3, No. 6 From the Desk of Rich Martin P O Box 123706 817 246-7544 Fort Worth, TX 76121 RichSlick@aol.com "We know what a person thinks not when he tells us what he thinks, but by his actions." Isaac Bashevis Singer __________________________________________________ Happy Spring, 1998 The prez sez he's bewitched, betwixt and bewildered by Mrs. Kathleen Willey accusation, and you know what, for the first time, I believe him. He hasn't got a clue where a woman like her is coming from. The govt puts together stats showing that 2/3 of all women are harrassed in the workplace and they conclude, women are too weak to stand up for their govt granted rights in fedl court. From their myopic point- of-view (they're from the govt and they're here to help us) they can't fathom why anyone woman wouldn't welcome their intervention. Hey, dummy, women are the fairer sex, not the weaker sex. Most women are quite capable of defending themselves from the sexual predators in the work place. They don't need the govt to help them; and they don't trust the govt to defend them. Often they don't even tell their husbands until much later, when it is too late to go postal. (I speak from experience.) If she felt Willey was "sexually assaulted" (Pat Ireland's words), why would she still write letters of praise to the prez and ask to work in his campaign? Could it be that she doesn't feel "assaulted". She encountered a baffoon unable to distinguish between sex and love. She didn't feel threatened. And besides, didn't someone make her debts "go away"? And when she was called into court and was asked about her experience, she answered reluctantly, but without perjurying herself. Bill clinton finds this beyond belief. As intelligent as he is, he can't process this. He's bewitched, betwixt and bewildered. How Slick is Slick? Last Sat the prez demanded that Congress pass his "emergency" spending bills "right now!", with no further natl discussion. His idea of an "emergency" includes money to settle the U.S. debt with the United Nations! HIDDEN TAX The IRS assessed tax payers $18 billion in 1996, proving the old adage, there is more than one way to skin a tax payer. But while congress feigns dismay over the size of these penalties, another one is about to take effect. On July 1 the IRS will start assessing a 10% penalty on employers who pay payroll taxes using IRS form 8106 thru their banks, rather than transmit them electronically. MARRIAGE PENALTY TAX If there's one thing that proves that the new majority in Congress doesn't value the role played by the traditional family any more than the old Dem majority did, it's the fact that despite a lot of lip service, the Marriage Penalty Tax is alive and well. Get out your 1040, and I'll show you how it works. Look at pg 2, line 35 (line 19 on 1040A) Standard deduction. A single person gets to deduct $4,150 and a married couple gets $6,900; so when two people marry, instead of getting $8,300 ($4,150 ea), they now get $6,900 combined. If they file separately, they get to deduct $3,450 instead of the $4,150 had they decided to live in sin. A single person making $20,000 pays $1,976,plus $3,060 on FICA/MediCare taxes. (Yes, I know half of that is called the employers coontribution.) A couple living in sin who each earn pay $20,000 each pay $1,976, or $3,952. But if they decide to marry, their tax goes up to $4,166. Not only do they penalize married couples, the reverse is true if they divorce. If they divorce the tax code rewards them by reducing their tax back down to $1,976. They financially punish people who marry, and reward people for getting a divorce! The tax code is riddled with such penalties against married people, including the new IRA laws passed in the last term. Instead of coming to an end, as Newt and Co promised, they have passed more anti-family legislation. MEDIA According to a CNN/USA Today poll, more people believe Kathleen Willey than believe him, and his popularity went up from 64 to 68%! Are we that dumb that we can't remember last week they were telling us his popularity was in the 70's. LINDA TRIPP The Friends of Slick are saying that Linda Tripp is in serious violation of the law by not mentioning a false allegation that occurred 20 years (1969) before White Water, which they've been saying is too old to be taken seriously. All this begs the question, what did Monica write on her hyper Top Secret Security application? How can they dig out this historical information, and are unable to identify who hired Craig Livingstone? He must have filled out a Security Clearance Application also, no? TALKING POINTS It is being reported that the prez has added 4 or 5 doz high-priced attorneys to defend him from his accusers. How many of these are being paid with tax payers dollars? And which one(s) wrote the infamous talking points that Monica gave to Linda Tripp? PAULA JONES Don't get your hopes up for Paula Jones chances when she finally gets to court May 27. It is hard to believe the fix isn't in with the judge, Susan Wright, a former student of William Jefferson Blythe Clinton III. You'd think a judge would recuse herself when she knows one of the litigants personally. There can only be one reason she didn't. My guess is the only thing they are waiting for is to make it as difficult as possible to appeal or resurrect the charges at a later date under a non-biased judge.. DOLLY KYLE BROWNING As if there weren't enough fires to put out, Dolly Browning testified [in the Paula Jones case] that she had a long sexual affair with Mr. Clinton, "and that she was contacted by agents of Mr. Clinton, including Bruce Lindsey, threatening to 'destroy her' if she told the truth, and later promising not to spread vicious lies about her in order to get her to downplay her disclosures." Source: The Drudge Report MUCKRAKER Altho the prez denies that he is hunting up dirt on his accusers, you don't hear Clinton supporters complaining that they aren't getting their $450/hr worth out of muck raker Bob Bennet. He claims that Willey is trying to get $300 K for a book deal. KATHIE'S KORNER Can't remember his name, but about a month ago I read that a would-be professional golfer won his case and will be allowed to ride his powered golf cart about the course while the rest of the pack is sweating off the pounds by striding the first nine and trudging the rest of the way. The golfer in the case is stride- & trudge-challenged. Reporters found a courageous few professional golfers who cried foul, who said the disabled chap should compete against other disabled golfers or be required to walk the course like everyone else. Not everyone, they said, is cut out to be a pro. I have a solution! It's easy!! Let the disabled golfer use a non-motorized wheelchair and wheel himself about the course. Offer the same option to everyone else in the game. Voila! a level playing field. Reply direct to: fishrap@netdex.com BOARD OF EDUCATION The FBI has accused a roof contractor and school inspector of bilking the Dallas P.S. out of $383,000, for work not done. That makes Yvonne look like a piker. AIDS Here's an odd stat for you. 43% of AIDS victims are black although they only make up 12% of the general population. The only places I've seen concentrations like that are in Africa and prison. ELLEN It is interesting to note, that despite the hoopla around Hollywood's favorite lesbian, it has now come out that last week her time slot had its biggest rating success since Ellen "came out". By coincidence, the time slot was filled by another program at the time. QUESTION FOR THIS ISSUE How many of these paragraphs are applicable to the opining quote at the top of the page? Make checks payable to: Shirley Allen Defense Fund And mail to: Shirley Allen Defense Fund c/o First Trust & Savings Bank P.O. Box 350 Taylorville, Illinois 62568 This is the only account known where Shirley can draw out these funds herself. Her SSN's on this account. * * * * * Subcribe to this Slick e-zine featuring Kathie's Korner, and receive absolutely free, a copy of Slick's Major Media Mailing List containing over 600 e-mail addresses. To subscribe, send your check for $12.50 to the address at the top of this message. Be sure to include your e-mail address. The Slick archive can be found on the World Wide Web. Goto: http://www.techmgmt.com/restore/restore.htm Page down till you come to Newsletters, Rich Martin If you want to place the Slick e-zine on your WWW, contact me. With one or more issues a week, it gives your visitors a reason to come back. Rich Martin, Editor THE TRUTH IS... A. Powerful. C. In the eye of the beholder. B. Irrelevant. D. All of the above. __________________________________________________________________ *** Attracting Your Market Niche *** Thinking of starting your own email discussion list, like this one? Then you're in luck! Get a full-year "maintenance free" list for only $85 and setup fees are waived! Find out why USA TODAY thinks we're a great business deal: =================================================================== To Join/Unsubscribe> - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 09:19:09 -0600 From: neil@jove.geol.niu.edu (Neil Dickey) Subject: Re: Wisdom from Neal Brad wrote in part, in response to me: >While we're sharing our conversion experiences, I'd like to weigh in as >someone who used to have knee-jerk conservative opinions when younger but >who is drifting in the dreaded llllllllLiberal direction with age. > >There's a joke that a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged and a >liberal is a conservative who has been arrested. I think there's a fair >amount of truth to the joke. Certainly my opinions began shifting when >the local "get tough on crime" policies resulted in a group of uniformed >thugs breaking into my dad's apartment by mistake and beating him up when >he objected. Do you think, Brad, that what you've said here is that traditional labels like "liberal" and "conservative," at least in their commonly understood meanings, really don't work any more? I remember a thread on this or another list some years back which sought to establish a new set of labels, though without notable success. >I kept a tenuous grip on my conservative leanings through the '94 >elections, hoping that "conservatives" had some interest in limiting >and controlling the powers of government to abuse its citizens. However, >the conservatives have only expanded those powers. Digital wiretap bill, >"Antiterrorism" bill, Habeas Corpus "reform," "Assault Weapon ban," >ID-required-to-fly law, deadbeat-dad-database reporting requirements, >big-brother-medical-databases, etc. As you all know. As a geologist, trained to take the *long* view and having seen how tremendously successful species have become extinct in a geological moment, I tend to support efforts to preserve what's left of the old-growth forests. That's commonly understood to be a liberal position. I despise what some of the "tree-huggers" have done to further that end, but I quarrel with the means, not the goal. >The main mainstream opposition to *most* of the above (certainly not the >AW ban) has come from llllllLiberal organizations like the ACLU. So >my support has been shifting in those directions. If it weren't for their position on the Second Amendment, I would be much more interested in supporting them myself. "Freedom means letting other people do things you disapprove of." (Reference: Someone's sig line, I don't remember whose.) >And I can't tell you how much it makes my flesh crawl every time I get an >NRA "CrimeStrike" mailing full of hype for the latest plan to increase >the powers of prosecutors or to decrease the rights of persons accused >of crimes. Which is one of the reasons why I plan to vote against the >current board majority. That's right up there with seizure of private property and forfeiture of assets upon *suspicion* of criminal activity, not conviction, in my opinion. Reading de Tocqueville shows that this sort of thing has been tried before in our country, with the same results, and abandoned as too dangerous to liberty. >Another reason, as I've mentioned, is that conservative Oliver North is >part of that board majority. I've never quite been able to understand why >the conservative "get-tough-on-crime" policy didn't apply to North and his >illegal arms-for-hostages/drug-money-for-Contra activities. It's because he's cute. The most telling bit I have is the understanding that his former colleagues, the Marines, can't stand him. If there are any Marines on this list, I'd like to know what you think. The opinions which I have expressed herein are entirely my own, unless other- wise noted. No-one else should be held responsible for what I think. - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | D. N. Dickey | Virtuous motives, trammeled by inertia and | | Research Associate | timidity, are no match for armed and | | Northern Illinois Univ. | resolute wickedness. | | neil@earth.geol.niu.edu | - W. S. Churchill | | **Finger for public key** | | - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - ------------------------------ End of roc-digest V2 #89 ************************