It has been four months since I last turned the spotlight on my readers, so this seemed as good a time as any to do so once again; they always have interesting things to say.
Davek@servtech.com wrote to correct me on my description of the Philadelphia court ruling on the constitutional questions surrounding the Communications Decency Act. In part, this is what he had to say:
That lawsuit is about PIECES of the CDA, not the whole thing. For example, I can read about the location of abortion clinics in the phone book or newspaper and, so far as I know, discuss this topic on radio, TV, by phone, or by snail mail. Do I risk prison if I discuss this topic via Email? the CDA says I do, and does not care whether my purpose is to help someone get an abortion or to campaign to close down another clinic.
Good point, Davek. I have changed the copy on my home page to reflect this correction. Thank you for pointing that out.
Amanda Siegel wrote complimentary words to me concerning my tenth anniversary tribute to the Challenger heroes. Thank you, Ms. Siegel. That installment was not one of my typical political rants, and had a special meaning for me. Space travel has always symbolized for me the best that may be in our future, and the dreams and aspirations of those who would conquer that hostile medium have a powerful beauty for me. Just recently, my technical side was delighted by the sight of those three candidates to succeed the space shuttle, which have been much in the news lately, the X-33 program. Wasteful as some of that spending may be, and as opposed as I am to our unilaterally funding behemoth projects like the space station, I must nevertheless confess that my political philosophy is less than steadfast in the face of such technological romanticism.
Ms. Siegel was also kind enough to recommend a book about the Challenger horror by Dan Simmons entitled Phases of Gravity. Sounds interesting.
Few Musings that I have published have provoked as much comment as my last one, Eyes On The Prize, in which I announced my support for former Colorado Governor Richard Lamm. Some of the Perot dissidents took me severely to task for my opposition to their attempt to persuade the FEC to rule against any federal funding for Reform Party presidential candidates.
Herb Rosenberg, the man who initiated this campaign to which I objected, and who is the proud possessor of a home page in his own right, had this to say on my position:
Charles, Charles, Charles. Don't you get it? The "Reform Party" is not a political party. It is a Ross Perot owned and controlled gimmick. Just as if Perot opened a store. The staff is his. The volunteers have no say in what is being sold, put on display, the store hours or any input. Look for a legitimate party. The so called "Reform Party" is not legitimate. It is Perot's plaything.
I must say that a casual observer reading the previous comment would not be blamed for coming to the conclusion that I believe Perot to be an honest straight-shooter, solely interested in democracy and reform. However, if that is the case, it is curious that my position was interpreted very differently by Patrick Ruffini:
I think you've hit it right on the money about Perot. Perot is essentially a little dictator who put up the Reform Party as a front to get himself nominated for President in a "democratic" way. (It's the return of the Volunteers!) By creating a party, he could make it seem like he had been drafted like a real man of the people. The test of the Reform Party's strength and the ability of its members to see behind Perot's bullsh*t would be to nominate someone other than Perot.
As I remarked previously, it is curious that two people reading my words interpreted me so differently. Frankly, I believe it is a question of whose ox is gored. Patrick Ruffini, I believe, has had no personal experiences dealing with Perot, and thus is capable of interpreting my opinions more fairly. The Perot dissident who initiated the FEC action, on the other hand, apparently finds it difficult to distinguish between opposition to a particular tactic, the attempt to deny federal funds to the Reform Party, and slavish support of and blind belief in the Texas martinet with the Napoleon complex.
Hey, what can I say? That's what makes horse races. Keep those cards and letters coming, folks. You are cordially invited to fill out the boxes below and express yourself. Bear in mind that I reserve the right to quote statements sent to me in this manner, in whole or in part, in subsequent Musings. Also, be sure to indicate in the Title of your Message the name of the Musings, "Your Musings," to which you are responding. Thank you.
Of course, if you prefer to contact me privately, off-the-record, feel free to do so at
