Newspaper Page Text
4A
i-THE*HOUSTON HOME JOURNAL, SATURDAY, JULY 25, 1992
Perry viewpoint
f ■—
The Houston Home Journal
OFFICIAL ORGAN, CITY OF PERRY AND HOUSTON
COUNTY, GEORGIA, SINCE 1870
PUBLISHED EACH WEDNESDAY AND SATURDAY MORNING
807 CARROLL ST., P.O. DRAWER M, PERRY, GA. 31069
TELEPHONE: (912) 987-1823
The Houston Home Journal (USPS 252-780) is published semi weekly for
$lB per year by the Houston Home Journal, Inc., 807 Carroll St., Perry, Ga.
31069. Second Class Postage paid at Perry, Ga. POSTMASTER: Send
address change to The Houston Home Journal, P.O. Drawer M, Perry, Ga.
31069.
ROY H. PARK, President & Chairman ol the Board, Park Newspapers
JAMES B. KERCE
Editor & General Manager
BRIGETTE HAMILTON TERESA HAWK
Managing Editor Advertising Manager
Perot out: Who is helped?
Ross Perot’s bid for the presidency had no real chance of
success; what it had the best chance of accomplishing was
the election of Bill Clinton.
Perot could have, at best, carried six or eight states. The
ongoing presidential campaign will be close; had Perot
done so, and won 50 or more electoral votes, that bloc
could have prevented either of the major party candidates
from winning a 270-vote majority in the college.
That would have transferred election of the president
from the Senate, in January, where and when electoral to
tals are traditionally announced, to the House of Represen
tatives, where members (one vote per state) would have
elected the president.
Most House delegations contain a majority of Democrat
delegates. Democrat Bill Clinton would have been the cer
tain victor.
Clinton would have become president whether or not he
received more popular votes than President Bush. He
would have been elected if Bush had won more popular
votes and more electoral votes.
Perot an his electors would have had mo supporters, no
votes in the House. Once the electoral vote count had been
announced in the Senate, electoral votes no longer would
have counted.
Only the votes of state delegations in the lower house
would have counted. There are 50 such votes. Clinton
would probably have had locked in 33 based on current
membership. The president would have had a sure 11. (The
other six state delegations are evenly divided, could vote
either way.)
November elections will change the majority in some
delegations but there’s no chance Republicans will win
majorities in 26 states. There’s more chance their majorities
will be reduced.
That’s the big plus in Perot’s exit for President Bush.
Whether Perot supporters turn in greater numbers to
Bush or Clinton is another question. Clinton campaigners
believe more will favor Clinton-wanting change. That
might or might not be Clinton’s plus. Only the election will
tell.
Cable subscriber speaks out
Dear Editor:
Enclosed is a copy of a letter 1 received from PCTV. In
short if I hadn't of complained in person I would have been
charged for additional channels 1 had not requested. Mr.
Mitchell apologized but, what about all of the other cus
tomers who didn't complain. We all as consumers have
certain rights and deserve more consideration than this.
PCTV has a monopoly in this area but, that shouldn't
warrant uncontrolled freedom. Other people offended by
this have the right to contact:
Better Business Bureau
1765 Shurling Drive
Macon, Ga. 31211
or call 912-742-8087 to file a formal complaint.
If we don't complain about this what will PCTV try the
next time?
The other question 1 have for Mr. Mitchell is, "What will
happen to the other silent consumers that didn't return their
form or make a complaint, will they be billed for new
channels that they didn't request?"
Sincerely,
Travis Ledford
Perry, Ga.
Voice your opinion.
Write a letter
to the editor.
Perry Scrapbook
On July 25,1968, the daytime Ochlahatchee League was made up of four teams and coached by
Marion Cloud, the recreation director at the park. Bottom row, left, Dennis Stewart, Allen
Brown, Kent Fleming, Keith Brown, Allen Sawyer, Malcolm Sistrunk, Ricky O’dell, Ray Mims Jr.
Second row, left, Jamie Matthews, Daniel Rainey, Craig Jackson, Harry Dubois, Randy Macrae,
Michael Kinsley, Jay Kinnas, Craig Cunningham, Steve Hardy, Mike Willard. Third row, left, David
Stewart, Johnny Attaway, Bert Brown, Doug Macrae, John Brown, Randy O’dell, Dave King, Robby
Jones, Jimmy Reese, John Pierce. Back row, left, Derryl Monroe, Evan Stembridge, Timmy
Newcomb, Yancy Chastain, Ray Johnson, Jimmy McCuan, Ronald Jauss, Kevin Monroe and Mike Long.
OTOrCT TA I IX. How do you feel about the primary
b I Hbb I I ALK. election results?
BPr "%nk'mSl
1!
Judy Hall
“I have mixed feelings. I
don’t feel like it's too bad,
but I was hoping some of
those who were more
sympathetic to south
Houston County would be
elected.”
Jl ' w ■
\ i
Wycile Williams
“Both happy and unhappy.
You have to vote for
someone, but not all of the
right people are running.”
Here’s an idea for prayer in our country’s schools
"God save this honorable court."
With that prayer, the Supreme
Court of the United States opened
its session-and then ruled 5-4
against the right to have a prayer at
a junior high school graduation!
This is same court that ruled
that "freedom of speech" allows
even the use of "hate words"-but
now it says that "freedom of reli
gion" does not allow "prayer
words"!
The case—Lee vs. Weisman—in
volved a Jewish girl and her father,
Daniel Weisman, who objected to a
prayer by a Jewish rabbi at a junior
high school graduation in
-* Providence, R.I.
Three years before, Mr.
Weisman had been offended by a
prayer by a Baptist pastor at the
graduation of an older daughter. So
alter a rabbi prayed at the graduation
of a younger daughter, he sued.
The issue was a violation of the
Weisman's First Amendment
rights. The First Amendment says
simply: "Congress shall make
no taw respecting an
M&-
' ■
••’•■ If'
Arthur Jones
“I did vote, so I guess I’m
happy with the results.”
Mike Lawhorn
"I’m pretty satisfied with it.
I was looking for a change
and maybe now it will
happen.”
Shipley I
If fl Presbyterian
Bm UI Church pastor |
establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise
thereof."
The obvious intent of the
Founding Fathers was to prohibit
the imposition of an official na
tional church-such as the Church
of England-while assuring freedom
of religion.
At that time, taxes were
imposed on the citizenry to support
the national church in England and
membership in it was required to
even vote.
During a tour of Williamsburg,
VA, and its community church, 1
remember the guide showing us
where the members of the Anglican
Church sat and then the special
gallery in the back for the
Journal
Sfi^r"'''
i
Hance Massey
“I think it reflects the mood
of the general public. I
won a few, I lost a few.”
McArthur Brooks
“I voted, but I’ll know
whether or not I’m happy
when they start working.”
"dissenters" who were not members
and were treated quite differendy.
Congress has made no law
establishing religion. It is claimed
that the 14th Amendment (which
has never been legally ratified) ex
tends that prohibition to the states,
and thus to local governments. But
neither has Rhode Island nor
Providence created "an establish
ment of religion."
There was only voluntary prayer
offered at a school graduation! To
deny that right, the Supreme Court
actually violated the second half of
the First Amendment, prohibiting
the free exercise of religion!
Thus, the five justices
(Kennedy, Blackmun, Stevens,
O'Connor, and Souter) in effect said
that the highest court of the land
may open with a prayer, bigots
may use hate words, but a junior
high school may not close with the
same kind of prayer the Supreme
Court uses, invoking God’s bless
ings on its proceedings!
The majority opinion by Justice
Anthony M. Kennedy said: "The
Politics shows
change is
inevitable
A few days ago Houston County
was anxiously awaiting to see the
results of the July 21 primary elec
tion.
Like never before had an election
been such an earth-shaking and his
torical moment like the ‘92 Georgia
Primary.
Thus, it is altogether clear that the
theme for the primary, as may be
for the general election coming in
November, is “anti-incumbency.”
Individuals can carry all sorts of
feelings about a pqjjtical figure.
One or two people can preach about
their political representative being
unconcerned or hard to get in touch
with to express their concerns to.
Once one gets angry enough to
make accusations about the whole
system, the present political heads
are threatened.
It is obvious over the past year,
people all over the country have
avalanched this “anti-incumbent”
movement.
Members of Congress are warned
they may be out of office, as well
as state officials. But now it is se
rious enough that the current Presi
dent of the United States will be
looking for a job this Christmas.
Furthermore, I do believe these are
the last days of George Bush.
Why would there ever come a
point where people want to throw
out incumbents, regardless of their
history?
Not all present politicians are
ruthless or unconcerned about their
constituents, although many of
them seem to ride the status quo
wagon from our perspective.
Yet there seems to be another idea
of why people arc uncomfortable
with today’s politics.
It’s about people’s money. Well,
you say it has always been
about money, you know.., taxes.
But the harboring point is that fi
nancial security is beginning to
play a role like never before in our
history.
The United States Congress may
be the real reason why all of this
“anti-incumbent” rhetoric is sweep
ing the country because of their
handling with the House Bank and
therefore no confidence in the han
dling of the country’s budget, i.e.
our taxes.
Having no confidence the gov
ernment is managing the country’s
taxes is enough to make people
talking and angry with the “system”
that change becomes inevitable.
As the results came pouring in
Tuesday night, the I (incumbent)
tag became a symbol of hopeless
ness, a kiss of death.
Whether all of the incumbents on
down the line were guilty of not be
ing the best they could be or as
honest in real life as the family
photo showed is besides the point.
The public sent a message, half
out of anger and half out of hope
that tomorrow would be different
and would then be better.
Hear me out, I’m not saying that
. Please see WARNOCK, page 6A
First Amendment’s religion clauses
mean that religious beliefs and reli
gious expressions are too precious
to be either proscribed or prescribed
by the state."
The problem is that "the state"
did not "prescribe" the prayer; it
was offered voluntarily by a rabbi.
But it was "the state"—through the
Supreme Court-that "proscribed”
the prayer.
However, Justice Kennedy said
for the majority: "We do not hold
that every state action implicating
religion is invalid if one or a few
citizens find it offensive. A
relentless and all-pervasive attempt
to exclude religion from every
aspect of public life could itself
become inconsistent with the
Constitution."
In an editorial in the
Chattanooga News-Free Pres.<; dated
6/25/92, a loop-hole was suggested.
Building on the above language
of the majority opinion, it was
stated: "Could it be that the
Supreme Court majority ruling
Please see SHIPLEY, page 10A