Time: Sat Sep 20 19:23:55 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA00556;
Sat, 20 Sep 1997 17:55:39 -0700 (MST)
id UAA23545; Sat, 20 Sep 1997 20:50:37 -0400 (EDT)
id UAA23534; Sat, 20 Sep 1997 20:50:33 -0400 (EDT)
id AA21904; Sat, 20 Sep 1997 20:50:31 -0400
by italy.it.earthlink.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA16818;
Sat, 20 Sep 1997 17:50:18 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 19:10:51 -0400
To: piml@mars.galstar.com
From: Jack Doolin <jackdoolin@earthlink.net>
Subject: SNET: [SacredBull] Standardized Test for
-> SearchNet's SNETNEWS Mailing List
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>===================================================================
>: ____ _ ____ _ _ :
>: / ___| __ _ ___ _ __ ___ __| | __ ) _ _| | | Copyright :
>: \___ \ / _` |/ __| '__/ _ \/ _` | _ \| | | | | | (c) 1997 :
>: ___) | (_| | (__| | | __/ (_| | |_) | |_| | | | :
>: |____/ \__,_|\___|_| \___|\__,_|____/ \__,_|_|_| News Service :
>: :
>: Because ridicule is a weapon. :
>===================================================================
>Congress and the Clinton administration have recently contemplated (if it
>can be said that either has ever contemplated anything) a proposal to set
>national educational standards, then test all fourth graders for reading
>ability and all eighth graders for math skills.
>
>One question that has so far gone unasked is this: what qualifies
>politicians even to *discuss* standards, let alone impose them upon others?
> Given the standards of most politicians for ethics, personal hygiene, and
>relevance to the real world, we're not sure we want them setting standards
>for anyone else.
>
>Nevertheless, and much to our surprise, the Beltway Bullies have
>accidentally hit upon a good idea this time -- just not in quite the way
>they intended. If they believe it is important to test school children,
>think how much more vital it is that we test our would-be rulers -- those
>selfsame congresspeople and administrators -- for some minimum level of
>knowledge and skill.
>
>Herewith we present:
>
>THE SACREDBULL BASIC ENGLISH AND
>MATH TEST FOR FEDERAL POLITICIANS
>
>SECTION I: Competency in English
>
>1. The phrase, "Congress shall make no law..." means
>
>a. Congress shall make no law...
>b. Congress shall make some laws...
>c. Americans can do anything they want, except things my colleagues and I,
>or our largest contributors, personally dislike.
>d. Congress can do anything it damn well pleases, starting with stacking
>the courts with our toadies.
>
>2. What is the correct interpretation of the phrase "...the right of the
>people...shall not be infringed"?
>
>a. The right of the people...shall not be infringed.
>b. The right of the people...shall be infringed, but only gradually,
>moderately and for the good of children and battered women (except the ones
>we batter).
>c. The right of the people is actually a state's right and the states are a
>bunch of wusses who'll put up with anything as long as we offer them enough
>tax-funded loot in return for selling out their citizens.
>d. The people are all sitting on their butts watching TV, so we can
>infringe any damn thing we feel like infringing, and we'll get the media to
>screw you if you think otherwise.
>
>3. What is the meaning of the phrase, "The powers ... are reserved to the
>states, or to the people..."
>
>a. The powers...are reserved to the states, or to the people...
>b. The interstate commerce clause gives us the authority to do anything.
>Therefore there are no other powers left to reserve for those other twits.
>Too bad for them.
>c. Where'd you get a stupid idea like that? We're more powerful and have
>bigger guns than they do, and that's all that really matters, isn't it?
>d. Hahahahahahahahahaha!
>
>4. Essay Question: Write a bill (a proposed law, you twit) in plain
>English, for once. We just want to see if you can do it. Extra credit if
>it's constitutional or can be read and understood in less than ten minutes
>by a high school student of average intelligence.
>
>
>SECTION II: Competency in Mathematics
>
>1. A fugitive oil baron named Roger gives $300,000 to the Democratic
>National Committee for the specific purpose of gaining "access" to the
>president. For that, he is given six invitations to the White House, but
>does not get the pipeline he wanted. How much money should Roger give to
>the DNC next time?
>
>a. Nothing. People shouldn't be able to bribe their way into the presence
>of public officials.
>b. This is a trick question. Next time, a Republican president might be in
>office, and Roger should give his money to the RNC, instead.
>c. I know the president. If Roger gives me the money, I'll give Roger
>access. Heck, I'll even throw in some hot babes, since Roger said the
>babes at the White House were too busy stroking Clinton to pay any
>attention to him.
>d. $600,000. (Roger's answer, in testimony before Congress 9/18/97.)
>
>2. According to the administration's own projections, Americans will soon
>face an 82 percent income tax rate if present entitlement programs and
>levels of federal growth persist. How many years before American citizens
>to rise up in rebellion?
>
>a. Americans should never be driven to that kind of desperation. We should
>immediately begin rolling the federal government back to constitutional
>levels.
>b. Don't worry, we're going to reform the tax system and, as Rep. Mitch
>McConnell says, "virtually abolish the IRS as we know it"; we'll just have
>an 82 percent national sales tax, instead.
>c. As soon as my term in office is over and I can get an oceanside place in
>Costa Rica, complete with Uzi-toting bodyguards.
>d. What do we care? We'll just let Janet burn the little jerks and claim
>they committed suicide.
>
>3. The federal budget is...oh...some great big figure in the gazillions.
>The national debt is probably about five trillion dollars, give or take.
>The annual deficit is, you know, billions and billions and billions (not
>counting off-budget stuff like Amtrak and the Post Office). Budgets for
>Social Security and Medicare are increasing at some really wowie-zow of a
>percent every year. (Not like you care what the actual figures are,
>anyway.) Congress and the president have just cooked up a tax cut package
>filled with goodies for favored special interests. Please explain how you
>can claim the budget will be balanced by 2002.
>
>a. We can't do it without extreme cutbacks in government. Anybody who says
>we can is lying like a congressman.
>b. Revenues will...uh...yeah...revenues will increase because of all those
>tax breaks and...uh...the economy will be just perfect forever and ever
>and...uh...maybe some plague or something will come along and kill off all
>those money-sucking old folks...or something like that, maybe.
>c. The media said it's true, didn't they? What more proof do you want?
>d. Hey, that's for the suckers who are here in 2002 to figure out. I'll be
>in Costa Rica by then.
>e. Well, actually, now that I think about it, I'll be in some other country
>with an army so they can fight off the U.S. troops who will be sent to take
>my loot like they did Noriega's. Like, hey, I stole mine fair and square!
>
>Correct answers: B, C, D and E (From the politicians' point of view, that
>is. Hey, you know, whatever we can get away with while the folks are
>watching TV...)
>
>Correct answer, in reality: L-E-A-D T-H-E-R-A-P-Y
>
>-----
>(c) 1997 Charles Curley and Claire Wolfe. Permission to reprint freely
>granted
>
>========================================================== =========
>To Subscribe: Send mail to majordomo@foxvalley.net with "subscribe
>sacredbull" as the message and you are OURS! Hahahahaha. We don't
>have unsubscribe instructions.
>========================================================== =========
>
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv
iQEVAwUBNCRX+Q1+em56DF4lAQEdhggAsiVBn1hpC3L4y9XWW+wkcGrljCY8XvE4
bB1z8jKJE74viyuyG86AasA0txleMrG7tmisinBnCulgqjgScLMJQTzSt0aXjVa5
Nx530HColRc5EDOW/uVdkBQyuIiAWxNTYU9sCH0baa68iazedxKFCHEWxajVXOqn
Ykh1KuiSWCdLDbfeCNEcMZ1KuvMb21wvtHphQhFzwLMSyRi+XZZV7Hi27MMbj2w1
xRGQOhEpkGaj8DnsAVvqsHiRxoipF9Dt+sCH0tplZVNQudgVk4TP0fbwMNLBSbmU
Nn2FQehaBIC0Btw+aCTQeSnq747wfrEtv8jtFlJXlZzQ7tjEGs1eWg==
=8b1C
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-> Send "subscribe snetnews " to majordomo@world.std.com
-> Posted by: Jack Doolin <jackdoolin@earthlink.net>
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail