There's been quite a lot of news in the background this week that doesn't seem to make headlines.

For instance, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) is getting results on Capitol Hill. Last Tuesday, the House passed the "Social Security and Medicare Safe Deposit Box Act" (HR 3859). That was a promising start.

Paul states: "Last year alone, Congress took $21 billion out of Medicare to pay for their unconstitutional, pork-barrel spending. Years of this kind of activity have left the government owing more than $150 billion to the Medicare Part A Trust Fund. That amount is enough to cover the annual medical costs of over 46 million American seniors. The 'Lockbox' legislation will keep politicians and bureaucrats out of Medicare and ensure our seniors have access to health coverage."

We're all familiar with the gas price fiasco. Well, there sits Al Gore, directly in the middle of that mess. Gore accused oil companies of "price gouging" but made no mention of the Clinton gas tax program, EPA's unconstitutional demand that nearly every area of the country use a different type of reformulated gas, or the pressure he and his eco-whacko friends applied to insure American oil is not drilled. Instead, Gore called on federal authorities to investigate oil companies for making "enormous and unreasonable profits" on the backs of American consumers.

"We now know that, according to the latest available statistics, oil company profits have increased by as much as nearly 500 percent in the first part of this year. These enormous and unreasonable profits suggest that big oil is gouging American consumers," Gore said.

Gore should pay attention once in a while. Taxes and the mandates of unconstitutional regulations account for half the price of each gallon of fuel. And, the unprecedented negligence and stupidity of the Clinton administration accounts for yet another quarter of the price.

The Clinton administration said it welcomed OPEC's decision last week to increase crude oil production by 708,000 barrels per day, and hoped the additional supplies would ease soaring gasoline prices for American motorists. It won't. That's just a drop in the bucket.

These people in government get paid big salaries for nothing. They are incompetent -- the Peter Principle personified.

For instance, there were calls for U.S. Energy Secretary Bill Richardson to resign over the nuclear secrets scandal. Richardson said the FBI had found no evidence of spying in the case of two hard drives that disappeared at the Los Alamos National Laboratory.

Republicans, on the other hand, demanded Richardson's resignation at a Senate hearing and even Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia deferred his afternoon naps long enough to say Richardson had shown contempt for Congress and would never again receive Senate approval for government office.

In a nutshell, the problem is this: The leftist liberals at U. Cal. run the place. Some of them are the very same hippies who were out demonstrating three decades ago, shouting things like "down with the establishment." They, in turn, hired scientists from foreign countries that desperately want our technology (like China) to work on our top-secret nuclear weapons. Now, people in government wonder why the secrets walked off? Idiots!

Anyway, the Chinese paid Clinton & Gore (and the Democratic National Committee) quite a lot for that information. Now they have it.

In other news, Congress is approving $13.4 billion in foreign aid. That's about $117.00 per taxpayer sent to foreigners. The national debt is still at $5.7 trillion. All the hoopla about paying down the debt was just political hot air. It hasn't happened.

So, let's see here . . . we have U.S. military people on food stamps but we can afford to give $13.4 billion away in international welfare. We have a national debt approaching $6-trillion, but the Senate wants to give our money away.

Israel is still our largest welfare recipient. They get a whopping $2.8 billion annually, which is more than many of our States get. In return, they interfere in our government, spy on us and sell high-tech military equipment to our enemies. Most other foreign aid recipients are about equally as grateful.

Now for the good news: Judicial Watch keeps working hard on its cases against the wrongdoing of the Clinton administration. Check their web page for results. <http://www.judicialwatch.org>

It really wasn't much of a surprise that the U.S. Supreme Court voted in the majority to ban prayer at some functions in public schools. Actually, our Detroit community did somewhat the same thing back in the 1950s. Of course, that was back in the days when people would never dream of asking permission from the federal government for anything.

Anyway, back in the Homeroom of my medium sized grade school, we started every day with a prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. No problem. Until teachers of indeterminate religious convictions started teaching there, that is.

We probably had at least five religions represented in my class, with one being only slightly predominant. But, sometimes we were led in prayers that none of us knew. That was a problem.

Somehow the PTA got involved and they formed a committee made up of preachers none of us knew. And, the preachers made up a prayer somewhat like the Lord's Prayer -- but encompassing (we supposed) a little from a number of denominations. Anyway, even though the prayer was equally unacceptable to all, we were kids and they were adults; so we went with what we were told. Which was much to the chagrin of many substitute teachers who often would keep right on praying when the rest of us stopped.

So, the matter of "Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe" (99-62, 2000) is no real surprise. Many of us would be willing to say a little public prayer once in a while, as long as it is our prayer and fits into our personal belief system. Should that happen in public school? The Supreme Court said no. So, right or wrong, we will work with that.

Most of us will, anyway. But, just as the federal government totally ignores the Court's opinions in New York, Lopez, Printz, and a whole slew of regulatory cases, so too will citizens who wish to disregard the Santa Fe opinion keep right on doing what they are doing.

That's what people say, anyway. But, maybe we had better read the opinion first, before we set out to disobey it. Maybe it's not exactly quite what some people are reporting.

You decide for yourself. The syllabus is included below. The address to the complete opinion follows at the end.

Justice Stevens wrote the majority opinion for the Court. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote the dissenting opinion, and was joined by Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas.

-----------------------------

Prior to 1995, a student elected as Santa Fe High School's student council chaplain delivered a prayer over the public address system before each home varsity football game. Respondents, Mormon and Catholic students or alumni and their mothers, filed a suit challenging this practice and others under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. While the suit was pending, petitioner school district (District) adopted a different policy, which authorizes two student elections, the first to determine whether "invocations" should be delivered at games, and the second to select the spokesperson to deliver them. After the students held elections authorizing such prayers and selecting a spokesperson, the District Court entered an order modifying the policy to permit only nonsectarian, nonproselytizing prayer. The Fifth Circuit held that, even as modified by the District Court, the football prayer policy was invalid.

Held: The District's policy permitting student-led, student-initiated prayer at football games violates the Establishment Clause.

(a)The Court's analysis is guided by the principles endorsed in Lee v. Weisman (505 U.S. 577). There, in concluding that a prayer delivered by a rabbi at a graduation ceremony violated the Establishment Clause, the Court held that, at a minimum, the Constitution guarantees that government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise, or otherwise act in a way that establishes a state religion or religious faith, or tends to do so, (id., at 587). The District argues unpersuasively that these principles are inapplicable because the policy's messages are private student speech, not public speech. The delivery of a message such as the invocation here -- on school property, at school-sponsored events, over the school's public address system, by a speaker representing the student body, under the supervision of school faculty, and pursuant to a school policy that explicitly and implicitly encourages public prayer -- is not properly characterized as "private" speech. Although the District relies heavily on this Court's cases addressing public forums, (e.g., Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819) it is clear that the District's pregame ceremony is not the type of forum discussed in such cases. The District simply does not evince an intent to open its ceremony to indiscriminate use by the student body generally (see, e.g., Hazelwood School Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260, 270), but, rather, allows only one student, the same student for the entire season, to give the invocation, which is subject to particular regulations that confine the content and topic of the student's message. The majoritarian process implemented by the District guarantees, by definition, that minority candidates will never prevail and that their views will be effectively silenced. (See Board of Regents of Univ. of Wis. System v. Southworth, 529 U.S. ___, ___.) Moreover, the District has failed to divorce itself from the invocations' religious content. The policy involves both perceived and actual endorsement of religion, see Lee, 505 U.S., at 590, declaring that the student elections take place because the District "has chosen to permit" student-delivered invocations, that the invocation "shall" be conducted "by the high school student council" "[u]pon advice and direction of the high school principal," and that it must be consistent with the policy's goals, which include "solemniz[ing] the event." A religious message is the most obvious method of solemnizing an event. Indeed, the only type of message expressly endorsed in the policy is an "invocation," a term which primarily describes an appeal for divine assistance and, as used in the past at Santa Fe High School, has always entailed a focused religious message. A conclusion that the message is not "private speech" is also established by factors beyond the policy's text, including the official setting in which the invocation is delivered (see, e.g., Wallace, 472 U.S., at 73, 76, by the policy's sham secular purposes, see id., at 75, and by its history, which indicates that the District intended to preserve its long-sanctioned practice of prayer before football games, see Lee, 505 U.S., at 596. Pp. 9 -- 18).

(b) The Court rejects the District's argument that its policy is distinguishable from the graduation prayer in Lee because it does not coerce students to participate in religious observances. The first part of this argument -- that there is no impermissible government coercion because the pregame messages are the product of student choices -- fails for the reasons discussed above explaining why the mechanism of the dual elections and student speaker do not turn public speech into private speech. The issue resolved in the first election was whether a student would deliver prayer at varsity football games, and the controversy in this case demonstrates that the students' views are not unanimous on that issue. One of the Establishment Clause's purposes is to remove debate over this kind of issue from governmental supervision or control. (See Lee, 505 U.S., at 589.) Although the ultimate choice of student speaker is attributable to the students, the District's decision to hold the constitutionally problematic election is clearly a choice attributable to the State (id., at 587). The second part of the District's argument -- that there is no coercion here because attendance at an extracurricular event, unlike a graduation ceremony, is voluntary -- is unpersuasive. For some students, such as cheerleaders, members of the band, and the team members themselves, attendance at football games is mandated, sometimes for class credit. The District's argument also minimizes the immense social pressure, or truly genuine desire, felt by many students to be involved in the extracurricular event that is American high school football. (Id., at 593.) The Constitution demands that schools not force on students the difficult choice between whether to attend these games or to risk facing a personally offensive religious ritual. (See id., at 596. Pp. 18 -- 21.)

(c) The Court also rejects the District's argument that respondents' facial challenge to the policy necessarily must fail because it is premature: No invocation has as yet been delivered under the policy. This argument assumes that the Court is concerned only with the serious constitutional injury that occurs when a student is forced to participate in an act of religious worship because she chooses to attend a school event. But the Constitution also requires that the Court keep in mind the myriad, subtle ways in which Establishment Clause values can be eroded (Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 694), and guard against other different, yet equally important, constitutional injuries. One is the mere passage by the District of a policy that has the purpose and perception of government establishment of religion. (See, e.g., Bowen v. Kendrick, 487 U.S. 589, 602; Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612.) As discussed above, the policy's text and the circumstances surrounding its enactment reveal that it has such a purpose. Another constitutional violation warranting the Court's attention is the District's implementation of an electoral process that subjects the issue of prayer to a majoritarian vote. Through its election scheme, the District has established a governmental mechanism that turns the school into a forum for religious debate and empowers the student body majority to subject students of minority views to constitutionally improper messages. The award of that power alone is not acceptable. (Cf. Board of Regents of Univ. of Wis. System v. Southworth, 529 U.S. ___.) For the foregoing reasons, the policy is invalid on its face. <http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-62.ZS.html>

Sometimes new is not always good for a while. Trying to be productive on a new computer, right out of the box, when it is set up with all new software, is one example.

And, when one piece of software is Word for Windows, that is doubly true. Those jokers at Microsoft have always shipped Word with all the new "switches" on, making a mess of documents for new users. I forgot that. Consequently, the newsletter I started writing this week is now stuck in a "read only" file and may never get out.

Word 2000 has many improvements over Word 97. It also has many stupid changes that are definitely not helpful. Word is now more of a memory hog than ever before and the conventional help system was all but removed. Apparently (with only three days experience at this writing), all help must go through this aggravating little Paperclip looking character called the "Office Assistant." Many standard functions now go through that office assistant -- even trying to shut the software down. Worse, it is not always clear what this Paperclip character wants. It's a very persistent little bugger, too. In at least two instances, it followed me over to Netscape and Eudora, tapping on the screen to get my attention.

The Paperclip, Office Assistant, help function will not, however, show me how to unlock a read only document. I now have over two hours invested trying to do that. That's enough. I gave up. Word 2000 is not useful until all the switches are located and most of the automatic baloney turned off.

Eudora was yet another problem. Everything went fine while updating the Eudora e-mail software on my old computer. The updated software corrected many of the problems found in the version I purchased. So, I tried to install the same updates on my new computer. It works fine. Except, the reason I bought Eudora was because it has PGP included. But, apparently they removed PGP recently. So, I'll have to find another software company. I wrote then about it but, historically, Eudora seldom replies.

But these are just incidentals. Over all, the new computer works like a champ and has many new features that will be very helpful in the near future. For instance, everything is installed to make a great audio and visual presentation and display it on any television for all to see. Therefore, it may also be recorded on video tape for playback at remote locations. Furthermore, with a faster modem, this notebook computer will play and save all television programs and film clips available over the Internet.

That presents some interesting future ideas: Radio programs are already archived on the Internet and available for playback at any time. Television programs will be, too. Which means that any of us with a fast modem will soon be able to watch television programming from around the world anytime we wish.

For breaking news stories, and whatnot, that could be a very interesting arrangement. No more will the leftist liberals controlling the national media have a lock on what news we can see and hear. Our news will come directly from international sources -- in living color, on our living room televisions. And, once this function becomes popular, TV manufacturers will build the technology into their products. Digital TV from around the world, via the Internet, has almost arrived.

Still, that's only part of the new communications world already on the horizon. Hand-held communication devices are already being released. Sure, they are still called "cell phones." But, they already far surpass the computing ability of the early personal desktop computers and many are already Internet ready. Soon, we will have color computers in our pockets, with digital wireless Internet connection 24/7 and hence, access to any news, sports or entertainment programming in the world at any time we wish to watch or listen. And, just as an added attraction, we will be able to call anyone in the world and talk with both audio and video.

Part of that is already available. Most of it will be on the market within five years, all in one package. Much more than that will be available within a decade. The next set of very successful entrepreneurs will be those who address the needs of the users offered this communication overload. Not necessarily the hardware and software, either, but a method (web page?) of making use of it all.

Meanwhile, I'll be attempting to use the interesting functions on my new notebook computer. Well, I will as soon as I can get Word 2000 and that aggravating little Paperclip "office assistant" thing to behave, that is.

That done, we will hook up to a faster Internet connection and do some exploring. Alternate news sources are available around the world. When we find a few interesting ones, we'll report back.

What does it take to get Americans fighting mad? First we allowed the EPA to hit us with a preposterous vehicle emissions test, which does nothing but make money for the companies doing the testing. Now we watch in angry silence as gasoline prices shoot for the stars. We hear politicians mumbling about OPEC, temporary suspension of federal and state taxes and using our oil reserves. These are all Band-Aids.

What we don't hear enough about are plans being put in motion to tap into our domestic oil deposits. The Alaskan pipeline is operating below half of capacity. Offshore exploration has ground to a halt and existing wells in the southwest lie capped and useless. And as demand for oil exceeds supply, the prices continue to rise.

Our politicians stand silent as this continues. Once in a great while, when a Senator or Congressman speaks up, he or she is demagogued by the Sierra Club and the rest of the environmental left as a "polluter" and "anti clean air". A case in point: Alaska's Senator Murkowski has introduced a bill, S2214, which would allow leasing oil drilling rights for more than a trillion gallons of Artic crude. This alone can make America self-reliant on oil for the next thirty years. Our price per barrel would drop from thirty-one to ten dollars a barrel, and OPEC could either meet it or eat it.

But this won't happen while the environmentalists and their useful idiots in the major media fill our minds with visions of Alaskan tourist images: Bambi drinking from a mountain stream surrounded by leaping salmon and virgin pine sweeping to a backdrop of purple mountain majesties. They know full well that this is not the Alaska that covers the ocean of oil. That Alaska, the oil-rich Alaska, is a frozen desert, a bleak plain of desolation where virtually nothing lives. That Alaska is the one that the environmentalists and their friends in the media won't show you.

And the prices at the pump keep climbing.

At the same time, the high priestess of the environmental movement, EPA chief Carol Browner, exhibits the most contempt for constitutional law and sound science since the Manson family. First, after commanding and getting wide spread use of MTBE additives to gasoline, she didn't even blush when she had to admit that MTBE was harmful to our lungs and contaminated our water. On the contrary, she didn't break stride. "Use it anyway," she said, and the EPA moved on to demand a second round of standards, which called for "green gas", RFG2.

For years, the EPA has been shrugging off losses in the courts and not skipping a beat. Frau Browner's attitude was that what the Judicial folks said was of no matter to the EPA. The EPA makes their own law.

Earlier this year the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals gave what should have been a death blow to EPA arrogance in ruling in favor of the American Trucking Association and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. In their ruling, the court stated that the EPA had overstepped the authority granted them in the Clean Air Act and had assumed powers that are relegated to Congress. It was a broad repudiation to the EPA, which is now headed to the United States Supreme Court. Frau Browner's reaction to this court decision was predictable. She ignored it and issued a mandate to selected regions to begin using the costly new reformulated gasoline.

So here we stand, with our gasoline prices being forced upwards from two directions. First, failure to tap our own oil deposits makes us dependent upon hostile nations. The other is our sheep-like adherence to an out- of-control EPA, whose stated purpose is to put an end to the internal combustion engine.

Okay, who is to blame for this? Is it Congress? Is it the elite media? No. It is we who are to blame. It is the fault of any of us who has not demanded that our elected officials do our bidding. It is we who elected them and it is we who have the responsibility to write them, call them and e-mail them to co-sponsor Murkowski's S2214 in the Senate, and locally demand that our leaders just say no to the EPA's mandate to sell only reformulated gasolines.

It has been said that it is better to have an army of sheep, led by a lion then an army of lions, led by a sheep. You want to buy gasoline at a price you used to consider normal? Then you'll have to stop electing sheep to lead us.

  ** uhuh **

The President said he is reducing taxes.

uhuh.

Congress says they are balancing the budget.

uhuh. Sez who?

Web Home Page: www.uhuh.com

---

This web page can NOT be altered or sold, but may be copied intact for reasonable distribution in keeping with the philosophy of uhuh and GR Force, who can assume no liabilities. Please make you own decisions.

The term U-Mail, uhuh and this web page are Copyright 1996 by Forest Glen Durland.

hu187.htm. Revised 1-15-02. uhuh and GR Force are non-profit.