FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED OCT. 22, 1997
Producer Mike McNulty sought me out at the Soldier of Fortune convention in Las Vegas two weekends back to announce that, after years of delays, he's finally had it with what he characterizes as the failure of executive producers Dan and Amy Sommer Gifford to achieve broad theatrical release of their excellent documentary "Waco: The Rules of Engagement."
Siskel and Ebert recently gave the film two strong "thumbs-up" on their nationally syndicated TV show. When (in his view) his former partners failed to take advantage of that spurt of momentum -- failed to even officially submit the film on time for an Academy Award in the documentary category -- McNulty decided to take matters into his own hands and start selling the film in a direct videotape version, 16 minutes longer than the shortened theatrical cut, at $29.95 plus $5 shipping and handling.
The film is excellent. No cobbled-together "militia recruiting reel," it consists 99 percent of original video footage and audio recordings, including home videos of the church members during the siege, taped with a video camera provided by the FBI, which later decided not to release the resulting tapes for fear of generating too much public sympathy with the moms and kids inside.
Particularly haunting is a child's voice on the phone, haltingly asking the FBI negotiator again and again if he's going to come and burn her house down, if he's coming to kill her.
"No, honey. No one's going to do that," he assures her.
But the government's own Forward-Looking Infrared footage, shot from an aircraft circling overhead during the final assault, shows that's exactly what they did -- shot flammable, poisonous aerosols and machine-pistol fire into the complex, mostly from the rear and out of sight of the befuddled press, with the result that most of the children whom the government did not incinerate actually died of the same kind of respiratory cyanide poisoning that did the job at Auschwitz.
Order multiple copies of this fine and important film (Christmas is coming) before any court injunction can halt sales, by sending check or money order to: Michael McNulty, 1001-A E. Harmony Road No. 353, Fort Collins, Colo. 80525; tel. 970-472-9048; e-mail cops555@aol.com. Or, fax your credit card information to 970-472-9049.
I took some heat last summer for forwarding to my readers a fund-raising plea from Dr. Murray Sabrin, Libertarian candidate for governor of New Jersey, who asserted that under New Jersey state law, if he could raise $210,000 by Aug. 31, the state would have to allow him into a three-way televised debate with incumbent Republican Christine Todd Whitman and Democratic State Sen. James McGreevey.
Was I aware, several alert readers asked, that reaching the $210,000 threshold would also qualify Dr. Sabrin for taxpayer "matching funds," and that Dr. Sabrin had already taken the quite un-Libertarian position that he would accept such purloined moneys, if offered?
I was not, and I should have researched the matter more fully.
However, the Sabrin campaign seems on the point of re-proving quite a different lesson.
The good doctor did indeed meet his Aug. 31 deadline for raising the $210,000. But now, the New Jersey state Election Law Enforcement Commission has concluded the Libertarians still don't qualify for inclusion in the TV debates (or the matching funds.)
And why? Because although there's no doubt Dr. Sabrin has raised $210,000, they doubt he has binding commitments to spend that much money.
This is like playing croquet with the Queen of Hearts in "Alice Through the Looking Glass." If the rules are "whatever I say they are," this is a game we will never win, so long as we play on the enemy's field, dutifully tackling each new gratuitous task assigned to us.
The pro-government extremists are always whining that all we have to do to change things is to register, and vote, and "play by the rules."
Which rules?
Meantime, I read on page A-10 of the Oct. 13 New York Times: "New Jersey Governor's Race Close in 2 Polls."
Those polls show Ms. Whitman leading Mr. McGreevey, either 34-to-31, or 39.2-to-35.2, with a 4 percent margin of error, and "about 25 percent of voters undecided."
Look again. The second set of numbers is a New York Post/Fox poll; the first set comes from the Asbury Park Press.
Add up the New York paper's curiously specific 39.2, 35.2, and 25 percent undecided, and the 99.4 percent total might as well be 100.
But the New Jersey paper's figures add up to only 90 percent.
Are Dr. Sabrin's Libertarian totals hiding somewhere in that missing 10 percent? Were respondents even allowed the choice of saying they favor the Libertarian?
You'll never find out by reading The New York Times, where the existence of a third candidate is not acknowledged.
Vin Suprynowicz is the assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. The column is syndicated in the United States and Canada via Mountain Media Syndications, P.O. Box 4422, Las Vegas Nev. 89127.
-- Samuel Adams