Motto: The surest way to get a reputation for being a trouble maker these days is to go about repeating the very phrases that the Founders used in the struggle for independence.
-- C.A. Beard
Disclaimer: The editor speaks only for himself, and sometimes even
he is wrong.
Standard disclaimers apply. In addition, the author makes no guarantees
concerning the grammatical accuracy of his writing. Submitted text files
must be in raw or compressed (.Z, .gz or PK Zip) ASCII. Image files must
be in jpg.
On last month's Fix;
the answer to last month's Fix,
"Is it possible for the US to defend itself against terrorism and not endanger civil liberty? Explain."
If police state tactics and a loss of individual liberty were the answer, Israel should have absolutely no domestic terrorism. The fact that it still does is testament to one inescapable fact: terrorism will continue as long as the side being terrorized does not seek out and destroy the ability of the enemy to make war. The Israelis have always been temperate in their reponses and the US has also, until recently. The answer to this threat is not to imprison our population, but to seek out and destroy or imprison those who aid, finance and shelter the enemy.
Also, in this country you should seek to take a greater responsibility for defending yourselves. Even in my former homeland (not known for its freedoms) we carried weapons for self defense. And - unlike here with your strange laws - we could not only buy land, but we could use it any way we wanted to. Ah, but I digress ...
On a changing of the guard;
Steve has been the editor of this tome since about 1991 (before the archives on ppsa even - even before I arrived in this country from my homeland). He feels he has insuffcient time in his new position to give the News the full effort required and has thus asked me to assume the reigns. It is with deep humility and awe that I, Serge Pretentiatti, accept the honor. I will try my best to continue the tradition he has so amply and gloriously laid down over the previous decade.
June 27, 2002 : Townhall.com
JUNE 27, 2002 Indianapolis, IN — In a landmark ruling that will surely
send shockwaves throughout the
education world, the United States Supreme Court ruled 5-4 today that Cleveland’s school voucher
program is constitutional, arguing that vouchers given to parents which are then used at religious schools
are not an establishment of religion.
“This is a great day for the children of America,” said Dr. Milton Friedman,
the Nobel Laureate founder of
the Friedman Foundation who is credited with coming up with the concept of school vouchers. “The
Supreme Court decision opens the way for a major expansion of programs enabling parents to choose
the schools their children attend. The resulting competition and innovation will bring improvements in
quality that they have brought in every other area and that have been so clearly lacking in education.”
The historic ruling, which reversed the decision made last year by the
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals,
means that the long-embattled Cleveland Scholarship and Tutoring Program, which was struck down in
Federal Appeals Court last year, can now operate free of legal obstacles. The program, enacted in 1995,
provides vouchers worth up to $2,250 to low-income Cleveland parents that enable them to choose the
school their children attend. In 2000-2001, 4,457 children received scholarships, and 56 private schools
in Cleveland (10 non-sectarian and 46 religious) accepted voucher students.
“This is great news not only for low-income parents in Cleveland who use
vouchers and who faced the
prospect of sending their children back to poor performing public schools, but also for the thousands of
low-income parents around the country who want the same freedom to choose a good school for their
child that wealthier parents take for granted,” said Friedman Foundation President Gordon St. Angelo.
Cleveland voucher parent Christine Suma, who has 12 children, agrees. She
is ecstatic: “School choice
will be given to all, not just the rich and privileged. Now, a publicly funded education will take place not
only in a traditional public school but in all schools, public or private.”
“Now that vouchers has passed Constitutional muster, there’s no stopping
the tide of educational
freedom. The floodgates are open, and states across the union can introduce voucher programs secure
in the knowledge that the U.S. Supreme Court is on their side,” added St. Angelo.
Subject: Re: last call
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 10:08:22 -0500 (CDT)
From: Charles Scripter <email@example.com>
To: firstname.lastname@example.org (Serge Pretentiatti)
> "Is it possible for the US to defend itself against terrorism and
> not endanger civil liberty? Explain."
The implicit and almost certainly erroneous presumption in this
question, is the idea that by endangering or surrendering civil
liberty, we can can somehow combat terrorism and generally make
America a safer place.
How does limiting civil liberty help to defend against terrorism?
By what mechanism will my security be increased, in exchange for my
surrendering civil liberties?
But let us not forget that "the government" is our _employee_, rather
than our _ruler_ (as they often seem to believe).
Let us briefly examine a few examples of how our EMPLOYEES have made
us more secure, by depriving us of civil liberties...
By depriving the citizens of the right to carry a firearm, my
government EMPLOYEES created an environment wherein terrorists, armed
with only box cutters, could take over aircraft and drive them into
Yes, I feel safer already.
By declaring recreational drugs illegal, my government EMPLOYEES have
increased the value of these drugs, creating a vast black market,
turning many of my inner cities into warzones. (And we note that this
was done without resorting to the tedium of passing a Constitutional
amendment -- clearly required for the same reason as it was during
Yes, I feel safer already.
By nationalizing, socializing and mandating _public_ education, my
government EMPLOYEES have reduced our children to mindless,
_brainwashed_ twits, who think that the Constitution (the document
which _created_ the federal government), is just a "old relic, written
in different times". Hmmm...I wonder who taught them _that_, and why
they would do so?
Yes, I feel safer already...
By declaring the 4th amendment protections against unreasonable
searches and seizures to be "limited", my government EMPLOYEES have
permitted themselves the power to kick in our doors at 3:00 AM,
creating the proper environment wherein they can murder individuals,
while denying responsibility and legal recourse.
Yes, I feel safer already...
But perhaps we should instead look at this on a "contract basis".
government EMPLOYEES have told me that if I gave them certain
authority, and financial support, that they would provide certain
services -- a contract, in simple terms.
How well have they done at providing the promised services? Very
poorly, in my opinion. Nay, let me go further, and suggest that their
activities have been fraudulent at best (they did not fulfill their
"contract"), and more probably outright malicious and criminal.
So why the hell should I believe them when they say "just give me MORE
power and money, and I promise that I'll do a better job in the
future"? Perhaps a better solution is to terminate the entire group
of these rogue public EMPLOYEES, and find those more suited to
performing the limited task of guaranteeing my freedoms, and
performing the duties _explicitly_ stated in the Constitution.
What a novel concept...an organization that follows the rules under
which it was established...
2. And David Gay writes from MN.
Subject: RE: last call
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 10:07:54 -0500
From: "Gay, David" <email@example.com>
To: "'Serge Pretentiatti'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
"Is it possible for the US to defend itself against terrorism and not
endanger civil liberty? Explain."
They have done this in London for many years. There is no requirement
to carry state ID. Even the driver's license does not have a photograph. I
think the Brits are more worried about being forced to carry ID's than
they are of terrorists.
To fight against this new type of terror there is only one thing we
do. That is to protect ourselves first and then look out for our neighbors
and be vigilant. No matter what happens, the police, FBI, CIA, or Homeland
Security won't be there until it is too late.
The government also needs to implement a way to keep people who should
not be in our country out. We can't afford to have US Senators joining
protests to protect the rights of illegals to work in the US.
-- Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., May 2002, Des Moines Register
2. June 27: By a 2/1 vote, the state supreme court decided that the pledge of allegience is unConstitutional due to the phrase "one nation, under God ..." and as such cannot be required to be recited in public schools. Reaction from local and national politicians, including the Bush Admin, was swift and negative.
3. June 28: Due to the overwhelming negative reaction natgion wide,
the ranking judge in yesterday's "pledge" decision decided to stay his
own decision's implementation until he and his co-author can review their