From: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com (roc-digest) To: roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: roc-digest V2 #161 Reply-To: roc-digest Sender: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk roc-digest Monday, July 13 1998 Volume 02 : Number 161 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 18:48:23 -0700 From: Liberty or Death Subject: The M-16 in Viet Nam Hi folks - While the lists I'm posting this to are primarily political in nature, the saga of the M-16 in Viet Nam is something that few people really know the details of and that a lot of people know was a problem. And, actually, it *was* a political problem, and it got a lot of good American soldiers killed. 31 years later, the story of what really went wrong with the "Matty Mattel Mouse Gun" is still controversial, and still important. A friend of mine, Dick Culver, has written the first of a series of articles on the M-16 in Viet Nam. Dick was a Marine officer in Viet Nam, and in fact was one of the two Marines that wrote the infamous letter about the M-16's problems that eventually wound up in the Washington Post and pretty much started all the hoopla back home about the little black rifle that couldn't. I think a lot of you will find this fascinating, and a good read. Part One is at the following URL: http://www.jouster.com/articles30m1/index.html I'll let you all know when he's finished with Part Two, which is going to delve more into the technical reasons why the M-16, as delivered, was responsible for *many* American soldiers being found dead with their cleaning rod in the barrel of their rifle and only one shot fired from the magazine. While you're at his website, look around :) I think you'll like it. - - Monte - -------------------------------------------------------------------- Let the sea roar and its fulness, The world and those who dwell in it. Let the rivers clap their hands; Let the mountains sing together for joy before the Lord. For He is coming to judge the earth; He will judge the world with righteousness, And the peoples with equity. - Psalm 98 - -------------------------------------------------------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Jul 98 08:57:38 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Heads Up #93 (fwd) On Jul 12, Doug Fiedor wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Heads Up A Weekly View from the Foothills of Appalachia July 12, 1998 #93 by: Doug Fiedor fiedor19@eos.net - --------------------------------------------------------------------- Previous Editions at:=20 http://www.uhuh.com/headsup.htm and http://mmc.cns.net/headsup.html - --------------------------------------------------------------------- CLINTON SAYS PAY AND OBEY Today, the executive branch legislates more=20 than the legislative branch. The number of rules,=20 regulations and executive orders promulgated annually far=20 exceeds the number of bills passed by Congress. No matter=20 that rules, regulations and executive orders that impact=20 the lives of citizens are not Constitutional, they are the=20 law. The administrative branch even has its own=20 courts to adjudicate these executive branch rules,=20 regulations and executive orders. We call them=20 Administrative Law Courts. That=92s an interesting arrangement. The=20 executive branch makes the rules, regulations and=20 executive orders. The executive branch enforces the=20 rules, regulations and executive orders through its many=20 police agencies. And the executive branch tries violators=20 in its own administrative law courts. Neither Congress=20 nor the federal court system (as 90% of the American people think of them) are necessary. James Madison warned about that type of=20 situation in The Federalist Papers (No. 47): =93The=20 accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and=20 judiciary, in the same hands, whether on one, a few, or=20 many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective,=20 may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.=94 Tyranny seems to fit nicely when a president=20 generates an executive order designed to change the=20 Constitutionally established relationship between the=20 federal government and the States. Tyranny is also a=20 good word for the actions of an administration that usurps=20 control over just about everything from the States, and=20 sets up dozens of administrative agencies designed to=20 control the lives of the people. Franklin D. Roosevelt did all that. FDR=20 issued over 200 presidential proclamations and over 1,500=20 executive orders, and these were all before the Second=20 World War started. There were a few thousand rules and=20 regulations issued, too. Since then, Clinton holds the record. And,=20 like FDR, Clinton means to change the whole relationship=20 between the federal and State governments. The craven=20 Congress let every piece of Clinton=92s unilateral law pass=20 so far, so Clinton now plans a whole flurry of unilateral=20 legislation in the form of executive orders. This is all quite unconstitutional, of course. =20 Most of these powers came about not by Constitutional=20 Amendment, but as a result of a few =93emergency powers=94=20 acts pushed through Congress in the 1930s by FDR. And we=20 also know for certain that both Congress and the Courts=20 are well aware that this whole shebang is very=20 unconstitutional. For instance, there=92s Senate Report 93-549=20 of 1973: As we said, Roosevelt had Congress pass special=20 laws, making a whole series of new =93emergency=94 powers=20 available to him, or any succeeding president. All that=20 is necessary is for the President to declare a national=20 emergency, which all presidents since FDR have done,=20 continuously. Anyway, back in 1973, a Senate committee=20 asked the Attorney General for a report on what the=20 consequences would be if all national emergencies were=20 terminated and the emergency powers laws repealed. The=20 Attorney General replied: =93. . . a 'national emergency' is now a=20 practical necessity in order to carry out what has become=20 the regular and normal method of governmental actions. =20 What were intended by Congress as delegations of power to=20 be used only in the most extreme situations, and for the=20 most limited durations, have become everyday powers, and=20 a state of =91emergency=92 has become a permanent condition.=94 The Senate Committee=92s report admits that: =20 =93A majority of the people of the United States have lived=20 all their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years,=20 freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the=20 Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by=20 laws brought into force by states of national emergency.=94 =20 But, Congress likes the federal government to have these=20 extra powers, so it does nothing. =20 In 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court commented=20 on the issue, too. In Printz et al v. U.S. (95-1478,=20 1997) the court writes: =93Much of the Constitution is concerned=20 with setting forth the form of our government, and the=20 courts have traditionally invalidated measures deviating=20 from that form. The result may appear =91formalistic=92 in a=20 given case to partisans of the measure at issue, because=20 such measures are typically the product of the era's=20 perceived necessity. But the Constitution protects us=20 from our own best intentions: It divides power among=20 sovereigns and among branches of government precisely so=20 that we may resist the temptation to concentrate power in=20 one location as an expedient solution to the crisis of the=20 day.=94 Clinton will continue playing king, ruling=20 by decree, because Congress is negligent. The bureaucracy=20 will continue churning out regulations because we do not=20 have an honest president. If we do not institute change,=20 all we taxpayers can do is pay and obey. POLITICAL PROPAGANDA Let=92s call it Operation PLAD (Political Lies,=20 Arrogance and Disinformation). In no particular order,=20 we find Sidney Blumenthal, Ann Lewis, James Carville,=20 Paul Begala, Lanny Davis, Marsha Scott, John Podesta, and=20 Rahm Emanuel -- the male voice of Ann Lewis -- heading up=20 operation PLAD. They are supported by a cast of=20 characters which includes at least two opposition research=20 teams, two or more private detective agencies and at least=20 two dozen attorneys. None of these people have much of anything=20 to do with turning the wheels of government, but they all=20 work in or for the White House and most are paid with=20 taxpayer funds. Their only function is to keep Clinton=92s=20 poll ratings high. From Operation PLAD, White House propaganda=20 moves down to the useful idiots in the national media. =20 CNN and the network news talking heads seem to accept=20 anything the White House offers as being fact. Then=20 there=92s a second line of so called journalists, who are=20 active White House propagandists. This group includes Al=20 Hunt, Margaret Carlson, Eleanor Clift, Geraldo Rivera and=20 others. So who can we trust in the mass media? =20 Peter Arnett, Jack Smith and April Oliver at CNN got=20 caught editing facts to make the story they wanted. Even=20 Larry King stuck his foot in his mouth last week. While being interview by radio host Ron=20 Owens on KABC in Los Angeles and KGO in San Francisco,=20 King stated that anyone who reads and quotes Matt Drudge=20 =93is stupid.=94 =93He's like a psychic,=94 King said. =93He makes=20 thousands of predictions and when one accidentally comes=20 true, everyone says he broke a story.=94 And, on his own=20 July 8 show, King said that Drudge is 98% wrong. However, Matt Drudge was paying attention. Drudge reported: =93First Larry King declares=20 on talk radio that anyone who reads and quotes the DRUDGE=20 REPORT =91is stupid.=92 Then on his own show he pretends that=20 he doesn't know who I am. Moments later, he declares that=20 my reports are =9198 percent wrong.=92 But said he doesn't=20 know who I am.=94 =20 Mark R. Levin, President of the Landmark=20 Legal Foundation, caught the far-left Internet tabloid=20 Salon trashing the facts last week, too. Levin said in=20 a press release: =93You conspiracy nitwits at Salon have it=20 wrong, again. Bruce Shapiro, one of your frequent=20 contributors (who hails from the extreme left-wing=20 magazine The Nation), writes in his article =91True=20 Believer=92 (July 3, 1998) that =91When [Ken Starr] returned=20 to private practice after his stint as solicitor general,=20 Starr became a director of the Scaife-funded ... Landmark=20 Legal Foundation ...=92 =93While we'd be honored if this were true, the=20 fact is that Ken Starr has never been a member of=20 Landmark=92s Board.=94 Patricia Smith, a columnist at the Boston=20 Globe had to resign when editors found that she had=20 fabricated quotes and characters in several columns. =20 Stephen Glass, writer and associate editor at the New=20 Republic was also fired for making up news -- 27 out of=20 41 articles, they said. Then came the media surprise of the year. =20 The Cincinnati Enquirer admitted some of the misdeeds of=20 Mike Gallagher, an errant reporter, and voluntarily paid=20 out an unasked-for $10-million to Chiquita Brands=20 International Inc. The reporter in question not only used=20 dishonest tactics, he actually tapped into Chiquita=92s=20 voice mail system for information. Therefore, along with=20 getting fired, he may also be looking at a little prison=20 time. Bruce Shapiro, who teaches investigative=20 journalism at Yale University, and writes the column Law=20 and Order for The Nation, wrote in Salon that Gallagher=92s=20 actions were only a =93comparatively modest legal=20 transgression. =93Yet if Gallagher goes to jail for theft,=94=20 Shapiro writes, =93or Chiquita wins its trespass-defamation- conspiracy suit, corporations all over the country will be=20 emboldened to use notions of intellectual property as a=20 club against aggressive investigative reporting. What=92s=20 the practical difference between one reporter=92s convincing=20 an executive to provide voice mail and another to provide=20 a ream of documents? Both involve what the Enquirer=92s=20 apology called =91privileged, confidential and proprietary=20 information.=92 Both involve reporters=92 treading a very=20 blurry line between leak and theft.=94 Apparently Shapiro thinks stealing confidential=20 and proprietary information is justified when done for the=20 cause of journalism. Stealing for personal gain -- in=20 this case, a story -- is still thievery. And, like=20 everyone else, reporters should go to prison for such=20 actions. The First Amendment allows publication of=20 almost anything, and that=92s just about what we get: almost=20 anything. Few of Washington=92s reporters check their facts=20 when these =93facts=94 come from Democrats. Nor do any of the=20 Washington media cadre ever consider that the political=20 =93facts=94 they parrot are often quite unconstitutional. It won=92t be long before =93journalist=94 becomes=20 a synonym for =93propagandist.=94 GOVERNMENT STIFLES ECONOMIC GROWTH The words =91interesting,=92 =91true,=92 and=20 =91government report=92 do not normally appear in the same=20 sentence on these pages, but there are exceptions. For instance, when a report states that if=20 government had stayed at its 1960 size the average yearly=20 income for a family of four would have hit nearly $75,000=20 in 1996, we tend to believe that. And when it reports=20 that if government spending as a share of GDP had stayed=20 at its 1960 level, every man, woman and child in American=20 would have had an extra $5,860 in the bank in 1996 -- or=20 $23,440 for a family of four -- we can believe that, too. =20 Or, when they report that when the researchers took into=20 account the impact of the decline in defense spending, the=20 family's 1996 earnings were boosted by $46,000, that even=20 sounds feasible on this end. The report was not actually written by=20 federal government employees, of course. The report was=20 prepared for the Joint Economic Committee of Congress by=20 economists James Gwartney, Robert Lawson and Randall=20 Holcombe, all college professors. They report that, as government grew over=20 the years, its spending swelled from 28.4 percent of GDP=20 in 1960 to 34.6 percent in 1996. So, what could have been=20 a $9.16 trillion economy in 1996 was, instead, only $7.64=20 trillion due to the growth of government. =93As governments=20 move beyond their core functions, they will adversely=20 affect economic growth,=94 the report points out. The study=92s authors define =93core functions=94=20 as the protection of persons and property, national=20 defense, education, monetary stability and infrastructure. =20 Those functions, they contend, typically cost 15 percent=20 of a country's GDP. They report that any spending above the=20 15 percent threshold results in economic slowdown or even=20 decline. They say that happens because higher taxes=20 discourage growth. Also, because government is not as=20 efficient as the private sector in allocating resources,=20 labor becomes less productive and investment is stifled. Interestingly enough, they estimate that, in 1996,=20 spending on core government responsibilities stood at=20 about 13.8 percent of GDP, but that all the transfer=20 payments and subsidies consumed nearly 14 percent more of=20 GDP. The bottom line -- their recommendation=20 to Congress -- is simple: =93This paper shows that=20 excessively large government has reduced economic growth. =20 These findings present a compelling case that rather than=20 devising new programs to spend any surplus that may emerge=20 from the current economic expansion, Congress should=20 develop a long-range strategy to reduce the size of=20 government so we will be able to achieve a more rapid rate=20 of economic growth in the future.=94=20 Just as an aside here, we seem to remember=20 economist and pundit Walter Williams pointing out this=20 very same information a few months ago. Williams reported=20 that, were the federal government limited to only those=20 functions delegated to it by the Constitution, our tax=20 rate would need be about one-third of what it is now. The full report: =93The Size and Functions of=20 Government And Economic Growth,=94 by James Gwartney,=20 Professor of Economics and Policy Sciences at Florida=20 State University; Robert Lawson, Assistant Professor of=20 Economics at Capital University in Columbus, Ohio; and=20 Randall Holcombe, DeVoe Moore Professor of Economics at=20 Florida State University, can be found on the Joint=20 Committee Study web page at: =20 http://www.house.gov/jec/growth/function/function.htm ARMED CITIZEN FOILS BANK ROBBERY =93A man needs his gun,=94 an old judge told=20 me during my first visit to Kentucky a decade ago. He=20 even had his wife drive me to the gun store to purchase=20 the handgun of my choice. In many areas of Kentucky, carrying a gun is=20 more or less a cultural thing. Gentlemen do not shoot at=20 each other much anymore, but many seem to feel more=20 secure knowing that extra hunk of steel is with them. So,=20 when some men put a hat on, they also put a gun in their=20 belt. The laws in Kentucky are rather straightforward=20 on guns. Any adult may carry an unconcealed weapon=20 anywhere. Carrying concealed supposedly requires a=20 license. But that=92s a relatively new law that has not=20 quite caught on completely in rural areas yet. Many=20 people also keep handguns in their vehicle glove=20 compartments, which is legal in Kentucky. And truly, sometimes a man does need his gun. =20 For instance, a Louisville man nearly walked into a bank=20 while a robbery was in progress last week. Just before=20 opening the door, he noticed that there was a man wearing=20 a bandanna tied around his face behind the teller=92s=20 counter, and the bank employees were =93acting strangely.=94 So, the man walked back to his car, got his=20 small caliber pistol, and waited outside the bank. =20 According to witnesses, when the robber exited the bank=20 the man yelled for him to stop. The robber turned to the=20 armed citizen and made the mistake of pointing his gun at=20 the man. The armed citizen began firing, and the robber=20 hit the deck, shot in the neck. The robber got off a shot too, but didn=92t hit=20 anything, and the armed citizen fired twice more. By then, the bank robber had dropped his=20 bag of cash all over the sidewalk, so he did the best he=20 could at getting himself up and out of there -- empty=20 handed. Witnesses saw the getaway car, and the police=20 were able to apprehend the robber an hour later. So the robber got a bullet, the bank got its=20 cash back, the police got their man, and the armed=20 citizen got his errands completed. All because that good=20 citizen had the forethought to bring along his handgun. When an arrant newspaper reporter asked=20 the police what charges would be filed against the armed=20 citizen, he first got a dirty look. No charges will be=20 filed, the police said. He is considered a victim, the=20 reporter was told. THE BLACKMAILING OF AMERICA By: Craig M. Brown -- for Heads Up It was almost two months ago when we discovered,=20 almost by accident, that President Clinton had issued=20 Executive Order 13083, transferring the power of the=20 sovereign states to the federal government, namely the=20 President. Cyberspace came alive over this diabolical=20 order while the media remained strangely silent. =20 =93Congress will never stand for this,=94 we said to ourselves=20 and we waited for them to stand up in outrage and strike=20 it down. Now two months have gone by, and our Congress=20 has sat by in befuddled silence. It's not that we haven't tried to bring it=20 to their attention. I myself spoke directly to my=20 Congressman about EO 13083 and faxed him countless pages=20 of background. His aides promised over and over again=20 that they would get back to me on this matter and after=20 weeks, still an embarrassing silence. This experience has=20 been repeated with our Congressional representatives=20 across the country, including, sadly, Speaker of the=20 House, Newt Gingrich. For the past few weeks, many of us have=20 been talking among ourselves, wondering why our Congress=20 has deserted us. These are men and women we believed in,=20 perspired for and gave our money to in order to send them=20 to Congress to represent us. And now they seem to have=20 turned their backs on us. Why? Why, indeed. There seems to be a pattern=20 of so many of our most conservative representatives=20 tacitly supporting the attacks by this administration on=20 our Constitution and our freedoms. The Clinton Executive=20 Orders are coming fast and furious as the administration=20 becomes ever more bold in assuming dictatorial powers, in=20 the process making Congress irrelevant. Why has Congress=20 stood by and allowed President Clinton to create any kind=20 of law, let alone laws that destroy the powers of the states? The answer, or at least a theory, came to me when I was=20 considering the sudden appearance of 900-plus FBI files in=20 White House computer banks on Republicans or others who=20 might oppose the administration agenda. Is it just a=20 coincidence that so soon after the breaking of filegate=20 that so many of our members of Congress were struck with=20 spasms of blindness when it came to abuses of power by our=20 President? Are we to believe that possession of these=20 files by Hillary Clinton are only for such things as=20 helping her out with her Christmas card list? I am just=20 paranoid enough to believe that those files in the=20 possession of the Clinton administration are there for a=20 more mischievous purpose. Our Congress is made up of people just=20 like you and me. I will confess that in my youth I=20 committed a number of less than saintly deeds, many of=20 which I wouldn't want everyone to know about. I assume=20 that the same is true of the members of Congress. It is=20 possible, even likely, that some Congress people have=20 something in their past so egregious that exposure might=20 threaten not only their careers, but their family life. =20 In these cases, here then comes the measure of courage. =20 The question is, shall the fear of the uncovering of past=20 misdeeds lead us into the paths of dishonor? Does the=20 protection of our reputations outweigh the love for our=20 country? Shall we change the lyrics to one of the stanzas in,=20 =93America The Beautiful=94 to read as follows? Oh beautiful, for patriots dream Of liberating strife Who more than country themselves they loved And freedom less than life. If our Congress is being blackmailed into=20 abandoning all the principles they swore to uphold, and=20 I have no proof that it is, then the members of Congress=20 are overlooking something very basic about the American=20 people. We are a very forgiving people. We will forgive=20 almost anything our leaders have done in the past and, in=20 fact, we exalt those who have the courage to deal publicly=20 with their past and we condemn those who are using it to=20 take away whatever honor they have left. What we will=20 never forgive is the selling out of our country. I repeat, this is only a theory. But I wonder=20 how close it is to the truth. And if it is true, I wonder=20 what honorable men will do about it. -- End -- [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 11:20:19 -0500 (CDT) From: Paul M Watson Subject: new section - help the cause (fwd) - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 11:51:06 -0400 (EDT) From: chairman@gunssavelives.com To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: new section - help the cause (small commission goes to non-profit pro-gun groups) We have added the links under the gun rights and politics section to FullBookJacket. if you want to search the subpages there for books of interest, use EDIT, FIND in Netscape 3.x other browsers' search functions work. please bookmark it and get all your amazon books, videos, and cd's there. you can also order magazines. GUN PEOPLE SHOULD GO TO AMAZON ONLY BY ROUTING THROUGH THIS SITE! http://thePentagon.com/FullBookJacket it's still under construction, but the search engines and links that are there work. THANKS - -- - ------------------------------------------------------------------- Get "More Guns, Less Crime" by John Lott from: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0226493636/gunssavelives/ small commission to non-profit pro-gun groups - ------------------------------------------------------------------- (opinions here are personal, not those of any organization) - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 12:48:59 -0500 From: Chuck Scanland Subject: Washington Times Op-Eds on the CNN "News" debacle The following three editorials were in today's online version of the Washington Times. Somedays you just gotta believe we're going to be ok. Chuck =============================================================== At CNN, the rot starts at the head By Christine Dolan Let there be no mincing of words: Tom Johnson, chairman, president and CEO of the CNN News Group, Rick Kaplan, president of CNN/ U.S., and Peter Arnett, the Pulitzer-Prize correspondent, should resign immediately. They owe it to Ted Turner, CNN employees, their audience, Time magazine employees and subscribers, and the Time-Warner stockholders. Not only has CNN's top management made a monumental journalistic blunder airing the "Tailwind" report, but their impulse to deflect responsibility was despicable, disingenuous and insulting to those associated with CNN, past and present. Their reactions have made "Tailwind" a story not only of news gathering, but of questionable news management at CNN. As the former political director for CNN during the eighties, my phones nearly melted in the past few weeks from all the calls I have received on the subject. Morally and professionally outraged, I confronted Mr. Johnson myself out of respect for my former CNN colleagues. The following account of events at CNN is based on my conversations with over 30 of my former collagues there. Mr. Johnson and I have never met, but I assured him that he had a "morale revolution" on his hands in the news rooms because of the extraordinary remark Mr. Kaplan made on CNN's "Reliable Sources" that "the producers fell in love with the story." But what about Mr. Kaplan's own role in the story? His comment, which deflects attention from his role, sparked a rebellion at CNN. Internally, CNNers' comments reveal their outrage. Some are accusing Mr. Kaplan of being "disingenuous," and "Clintonesque by deflecting responsibility." His explanation is "too little too late, and it breaks my heart!" "There is no reservoir of goodwill [for him]." Almost two weeks after the retraction, "anger is pervasive." Some are "seething." "This is the most depressing time ever." What about Mr. Kaplan's culpability? He reviewed the report, read the script, ordered last-minute edits, and was in the control room the weekend before "Newsstand" debuted. Mr. Johnson has told sources that he had great reservations about the report and that Mr. Kaplan talked him into airing it. But Mr. Kaplan's strength lies in the "looks" of his television productions. Why was Mr. Johnson relying on Mr. Kaplan's editorial judgment? Mr. Kaplan is no stranger to controversy. He was the hands-on producer for CNN's Ohio State University Town Meeting on Iraq earlier this year. He was the Executive Producer for "Prime Time Live" when ABC News aired the Food Lion story, which resulted in litigation and embarrassment to ABC. Mr. Kaplan was fined $7,500 for his role in that one. By the end of 1997, CNN was under budget for news gathering to a tune of $10 million. Since then, news gathering has been overspending $1 million on a monthly average. Since Mr. Kaplan arrived at CNN in August 1997, 17 news feature employees were laid off, and their departures were handled poorly. But the biggest battle on Mr. Kaplan's hands results from his abusive managerial style. He is notorious for shrieking "You should die" at colleagues at CNN, as he used to at ABC. Peter Arnett, who always has prided himself as a Pulitzer Prize correspondent for his Vietnam reporting, should have blasted into high gear, demanding irrefutability on "Tailwind." As seasoned as he is, Mr. Arnett should have known that when confronting the military over a black operation, you have to have incontrovertible evidence. Adding his name to the Time companion piece for "marketing" purposes is indefensible. Some news organizations promote stars, but if one is a self-promoting star, covering one's own "prized" and "prided" beat, you do not get to shirk responsibility. You deserve more than a reprimanded. David Kohler, CNN's legal counsel, who was assigned to vet the Tailwind report initially, called Floyd Abrams, the distinguished First Amendment lawyer, at Tom Johnson's request. Mr. Johnson wanted Abrams to analyze Tailwind -- Was it true? Was it provable? Should it have been reported? According to Mr. Abrams, he requested that the two producers, April Oliver and Jack Smith, turn over their tapes, notes, sources and write a paper, which they did. Mr. Abrams spoke with Messrs. Johnson and Kaplan. He never called Mr. Arnett during the examination. What is shocking is what did not happen. Mr. Abrams was specifically asked by Mr. Johnson not to examine the human factor of how "Tailwind" made it to air. But news reports don't just saunter onto the airwaves. There is a human component, and examining that is essential to getting to the truth. Mr. Johnson neglected this obvious angle. Was it too close for comfort? Why, for instance, was Major Gen. Perry Smith cut out of the loop by Mr. Kaplan? Why were the recommendations of CNN's Washington Bureau Chief, Frank Sesno, and Pentagon correspondent Jamie McIntyre's ignored? The night before CNN's retraction, Messrs. Arnett and Smith were summoned to Atlanta. Ms. Oliver could not attend because she was in her ninth month of pregnancy. The CNN brass, including Mr. Abrams, were braced. As the group was about to go over the Abrams report, Mr. Smith interrupted "NewsStand" producer Pam Hill and the boys and told them that April Oliver's voice was needed. Steve Korn, CNN's chief operating officer, demurred, saying that she didn't deserve to be in the room. (Earlier that day, Ms. Oliver contacted Mr. Kaplan and informed him that she was transmitting a memo to him to once again, protesting Mr. Kaplan's gag order on her and Mr. Smith. Mr. Kaplan did not want the memo and told her not to send it. Ms. Oliver sent it anyway.) Mr. Smith, class act that he is, then suggested that he and Mr. Kohler get on the next plane to Washington, in order to review Mr. Abrams' report with Oliver. Mr. Kohler didn't stir. Mr. Smith rose, walked out, caught a flight to Washington, and he and Ms. Oliver scrutinized the report. Mr. Smith and Ms. Oliver were promised a conference call with Mr. Kohler and Mr. Abrams the next day at noon. To Mr. Smith's stunned amazement, he was informed that Pamela Hill had resigned; that he and Ms. Oliver had been fired; and that the retraction had been released -- all before the promised conference call. On Monday morning, July 6, after Mr. Kaplan's CNN performance on "Reliable Sources," Messrs. Johnson and Kaplan held a company-wide conference call. Hundreds of employees tuned in. The two performed their mea culpas, asked for forgiveness, stated their positions, and accepted questions. Mr. Kaplan even apologized for not admitting on "Reliable Sources" that he was more involved in the production of the report than he had acknowledged publicly on CNN. Messrs. Johnson and Kaplan admitted that they were ultimately responsible. So why didn't Mr. Johnson resign? He offered Ted Turner his resignation twice, but Mr. Turner turned it down. Why didn't Mr. Kaplan resign? Well, he "discussed it" with Mr. Johnson, but concluded that he was not part of the investigative team and that information was kept from him. (Huh?) When the CNN family started demanding Mr. Arnett's head on a platter, Messrs. Johnson and Kaplan announced that they had new information about Mr. Arnett's involvement and that they were reassessing his position. But does Mr. Johnson yet know the extent of Mr. Kaplan's role? When confronted with the fact that Mr. Kaplan had been involved in the editing process, Mr. Johnson seemed somewhat surprised, stating, "I don't know anything about that." Would that make have made a difference in his decision? Mr. Johnson did not want to "speculate on a hypothetical." A second conference call occurred later that day for those who missed the first confessional or just wanted more. The audience grew. This time, Mr. Arnett called in to defend his reputation. Mr. Arnett maintained that he had done so much for CNN, given speeches, even risked his life. The CNN brass bought this argument. Mr. Arnett's colleagues still don't. Then for the benefit of the graveyard shift, Messrs. Johnson and Kaplan had a third conference call the next morning. This time the troops were more subdued, but the eloquence of one editor was riveting, as he confronted Mr. Kaplan about his abusive managerial style. Ted Turner's vision, my former colleagues' solid journalistic skills, their sweat and tears, and boldness, make CNN one of the most formidable news operations in the business. CNN earned its credibility. But my former colleagues' courage to demand an explanation from management and not buy into blatant attempts to deny culpability is what makes me proud to have been associated with CNN. During the first staff conference call, Steve Korn stated that CNN had been on the air for 18 years and that they were lucky that this hadn't happened before. Mary Tillotson, a CNN veteran and real pro, rose to the occasion and told Mr. Korn that luck had nothing to do with it. I don't know whether the Tailwind charges are true or false. The producers are so passionate about their sources that they may prove all the critics dead wrong someday. But a story of this magnitude must be solid as a rock for air. If the producers needed more time, then management should have given them that, not help rush the program to air. Had Messrs. Johnson, Kaplan and Arnett demanded to know more facts or asked for more time, maybe none of this would have happened. The way management handled the aftermath is not unlike the way it handled Tailwind itself. If Messrs. Arnett and Kaplan don't have the class to resign, and if Mr. Johnson doesn't have the guts to fire them, then Mr. Johnson ought to be fired as well. The three of them demonstrate that success has fathers and failure is an orphan. CNN deserves better than top executives and star reporters lacking character. As one senior executive stated, "Heads should roll from the top down. This is a management problem." Christine Dolan, an independent producer, is former political director for CNN. ==================================================================== Saving face at CNN By Suzanne Fields THE WASHINGTON TIMES Peter Arnett saved his career at CNN, reprimanded but still a hero for our time. His is the celebrity that comes with a familiar face, famous for being seen on the screen. He was once a man judged (not always favorably) on the substance of his reporting, but that was a long time ago. There are more important things to do today than reporting which takes time and sweat. There's image to maintain. You have to look the part, too. Mr. Arnett put his job in jeopardy with his participation in a story for "NewsStand," the premier program collaboration of CNN and Time magazine, since repudiated by nearly all hands. He interviewed several men for the story, including Art Bishop, a pilot on the mission, whose interview was cut at the last minute. The pilot refuted the assertion that the United States used nerve gas to kill American "defectors" in Laos. Mr. Arnett was busy travelling during most of the research and preparation for the program, but he had no trouble taking a large part of the initial credit for the television "magazine" story. When the New York Times questioned whether he pushed to have his interview with the pilot included, which any newspaper reporter and many TV reporters would regard as elementary, he offered an extraordinary defense: "The producers took the tape and I was gone. I was the face." I was the face. That's good. That's really good. He also shared a by-line in Time magazine for the written account. Face recognition spills over into name recognition. What would we think of a scientist putting his name on fraudulent research? In science the false data can affect people's lives directly. In journalism fraudulent stories ruin reputations. This story challenged the integrity of the United States military, regarded by certain TV journalists, no doubt, as a way to enhance reputations. The '60s live. Peter Arnett is not alone in this tawdry episode. There are villains to go around. The public to the shame of everyone in our trade, is aware of most of them. Just as shameful is the relentless sanctimony that passes for intellectual rigor in this episode. Sanctimony is the hypocrisy that hides behind piety, a disingenuous moral defense to excuse sloppy logic and the absence of facts. Sanctimony flourishes even in the retractions by CNN and Time executives. "We respect the forthright way that CNN handled their reinvestigation. . . ." says Time magazine in its apology. "We have leaned a lot from the mistakes made." That passive voice sounds familiar. Observes media critic Dorothy Rabinowitz in the Wall Street Journal: "The retractions were not acts of high principle but rather necessities forced by the collapse of a sensational story depicting the U.S. military as gung-ho perpetrators of an atrocious war crime." Reporting is about facts. Opinion, like mine, is reserved for the commentary pages. But such distinctions have been blurred since investigative reporting became radical chic. Hot stories now require self-righteous justifications. What made CNN think it could get by with this story is the belief that the U.S. military is bad. Didn't the Vietnam War prove that? Peter Arnett's past reporting reflects that mind-set. Rick Kaplan, the president of CNN, appreciates "the passion" his reporters took to the story. "I think what they did was fall in love with their reporting and come to believe their reporting despite what they might have been learning." Passion belongs in the personal advertisements, not news stories. Facts, not feelings, are supposed to be the reporter's stock in trade. A dangerous mentality lurks in the newsroom, substituting self-righteousneses for hard data, attitude for evidence, mock solemnity passes for significance. That's inevitable when credibility depends on a familiar face. The Asians have a phrase for public hypocrisy. "Saving face" saved Peter Arnett's job, but not his credibility. ==================================================================== April, Pat and Karen By Richard Grenier THE WASHINGTON TIMES First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams, while unequivocally condemning the CNN-Time story about Tailwind (the alleged secret nerve-gas raid into Laos in pursuit of defectors during the Vietnam War) was nonetheless indulgent toward the people who actually produced the story for CNN. He credited them after all with great "sincerity." But how much is sincerity worth coming from a person of fanatic temperament, or in the grip of some overpowering conviction? Years ago I spent some two weeks in the company of Jane Fonda in her "Hanoi Jane" period. China was then in the throes of its Cultural Revolution, which killed tens of millions, but Jane patiently and kindly explained to me that in Mao's China there was no such thing as coercion. Chinese authorities would pick up a prostitute on the street in Shanghai, for example, bring her to a reeducation center, and after a time, ask her if she was ready, as a productive citizen, to reenter their socialist society. Some of the girls would say yes, Jane told me, while others freely said no. They volunteered to go back to the labor camps, feeling they needed more reeducation. And, God, was Jane sincere. She'd never set foot in China - --where I'd spent some time -- but she knew in her bones that this was the way a peace-loving socialist society should function. You couldn't argue with her. Her sincerity was painful. There was no coercion in China, period. I've little doubt Jane could have carried out all 200 interviews April Oliver says were conducted on her Tailwind story and come away with the same conclusion: that the U.S. used nerve gas in Laos, and that the military sent out at least this one mission to kill American defectors. As for "sincerity," after all, Adolf Hitler was sincere in his conviction that Jews were a parasitical excrescence, and that the Aryan race would gain greatly if they were exterminated. Now there's sincerity for you. A great crisis in journalism and reporting has erupted in this country, but of the many names involved in the crisis I will pick only three, all quintessentially sincere: April Oliver herself, former Boston Globe columnist Patricia Smith and, believe it or not, Karen Finley, presently starring in a tiny New York theatre in "Return of the Chocolate-Smeared Woman." April Oliver has recently taken to television to denounce her critics. Her Tailwind thesis has been torn to pieces by virtually every American press institution of every shade and description, as well as by all ex-military people with knowledge of "black" operations. But Miss Oliver is still deeply convinced of the accuracy of her story, hailing it as a monument of "gutsy" American journalism, the "culmination" of her career. And she's accused her superiors, her inferiors, her alleged informants, and everyone else who has contradicted her of cowardice and "caving in" to official pressure. She seems to invoke everything but black helicopters to explain how the military-intelligence complex has kept the Tailwind nerve-gas operation secret for 27 years and is currently silencing her opponents, even forcing them to change their stories to repudiate her account. But why, in the whole Vietnam War, should the U.S. have decided to use nerve gas on only one operation? It recalls the downed American pilots of the Korean War who, when prisoners of the Chinese, confessed to dropping "germ bombs." "Experimentally," said Western communists. We cross a line when we come to the imaginative reporting of Patricia Smith, the lady columnist recently sacked by the Boston Globe for fabricating not only quotes but whole people, whole incidents. But Miss Smith was defiant. Also a poet, she declared her concocted stories were "essentially true." But what does that mean? Regardless of contradictory facts, and her brazen manipulation of interviews, Miss Oliver's feeling is doubtless that her account of Tailwind is also "essentially true." Now Miss Smith is explicit in her personal definition of truth, while Miss Oliver seems to be a victim of self-delusion (a common enough human phenomenon where self-interest is at stake). A poetic inner voice seems to be speaking to Miss Oliver and telling her that her account of Tailwind -- considered an abomination by almost the entire press -- is also essentially true. She seems extraordinarily sincere. Mr. Abrams tells us that Miss Oliver and partner approached the Tailwind story with no ideological bias. But it appears evident enough that she (and her superiors) approached the story with a Seymour Hersh/My Lai big splash bias. CNN and Time magazine have both apologetically retracted the whole story. It goes without saying that if we accept Miss Smith's "essential truth" criterion, we're in really hot water. Because Karen Finley's back -- the lady celebrated for using taxpayer money to publicly smear her nude breasts with chocolate sauce in her "performance art." Appearing in a tiny off-off-Broadway theatre, performing "Return of the Chocolate-Smeared Woman" for what seemed to be a largely lesbian audience, Miss Finley has launched again into her man-hating diatribes. Few reviewers have reported this, but she shrieks her whole text, as before, as if in the grip of an uncontrollable hysterical fit. Audiences are accustomed to seeing her bare breasts, so this time Miss Finley also takes off her pants. How's that for sincerity? The real novelty this time around is that she screams out physical details of blow-by-blow sexual encounters with a whole string of leading male politicians of both parties, from President Clinton on down. But Miss Finley doubtless feels her screaming, sexual wrestling events -- matched as she is against abusive males -- are all "essentially true." And unfortunately Miss Finley's notion of truth has now invaded journalism. ================================================================ It appears that the cardinal sin in the view of the wimp culture is that of being "judgmental." The only way to avoid being judgmental is to have no principles. We were given our brains in order to make judgements, and that includes value judgements. Values, by definition, are valuable, so by all means let us be judgmental! Jump into the argument and win! Jeff Cooper's Commentaries, 7/98 ================================================================ "The desire to order other people around and make them conform to one own's vision takes many forms." - Thomas Sowell Which emphasizes the great difference between those of us who are activist gun owners and other "extremists" who devote themselves to causes. Unlike the zealots who agitate for other causes, from tobacco bans to bunny hugging, we shooters have no wish to push other people around. Our major desire is that they leave us alone. It is odd that nobody has mentioned that difference before. Jeff Cooper's Commentaries, 7/98 ================================================================= - - ------------------------------ End of roc-digest V2 #161 *************************