The Public Interest (magazine)

[unmerged(1522)]

Dissident decision

After lengthy public debate over the question whether Eutopia should accept a request for political asylum by a group of prominent Western Saharan dissidents, President Murmurandus announced that the dissidents and their families will be granted provisional asylum. The final decision on their status will depend on the outcome of an investigation into the activities and background of the individuals in question, carried out by the Eutopian government. For the duration of that investigation, the Eutopian government plans to house the dissidents at a secret and isolated location - presumably both to minimize safety risk for the refugees, and to protect the Eutopian population from the latter in case it should turn out that some of them have indeed been engaged in terrorist activities.

Some of Eutopia's leading politicians have joined the Moroccan government in wholesale condemnations of the dissidents as "terrorists." In light of the fact that the Moroccan government has failed to provide any evidence linking the dissidents to terrorist acts, that position is ill-advised at best. Considering the complete lack of factual information, the government's decision to grant temporary asylum is the only morally and politically defensible course of action.

-mel


Four dead

Earlier this week, the capital was shaken by yet another attempt at assassinating a leading Eutopian politician. MDIA Jools - most recently in the headlines for characterizing welfare recipients as "lazy bums" - narrowly escaped the blast of a bomb planted in his government vehicle. His driver and three garage attendants were less fortunate, losing their lives in the explosion. President Murmurandus immediately relieved Mr. Jools from his ministerial duties, presumably to minimize the latter's exposure to further attacks - although cynics among Eutopia's political pundits have observed that this may have merely been an excuse to rid Cabinet of a member that had become a serious liability.

Addressing the nation from a secret location, Mr. Jools vehemently protested President Murmurandus's decision, accusing him of caving in to terrorists and demanding the imposition of martial law. Obviously shaken by the attempt on his life, Mr. Jools further claimed that there is a leftist conspiracy aimed at removing conservative politicians from government positions. Commentators rightly characterized these claims as "paranoid" and speculated about the state of Mr. Jools's mental health.

At this point, it is unclear who is responsible for the assassination attempt. When contacted by the PI, police declined to comment in order not to jeopardize a sensitive investigation; they did, however, indicate that they are currently pursuing several leads.

-mel


Party on

Elections are fast approaching, and Eutopia's political scene is once more marked by surprising changes and continuing upheaval. Several parties have been seriously affected by the latest update of membership lists required by Eutopian law, losing many of their former members in the process. While the ESRP and CRE emerged relatively unscathed from the experience, both the RD and FR lost a significant number of members.

The RD seems to have recovered from this setback, but the membership revision has caught the FR at a most inopportune moment: Eutopia's major centre-right party has been thrown into turmoil by the protracted absence of its founder and leader, Sean Galloglaigh. Former President Lundgren assumed the leadership of the party in an emergency session - a step that may well have been necessary to ensure that the FR would be able to field candidates in the elections.

By all appearances, the parliamentary elections will be a four-way race between the RD, FR, ESRP and CRE. Eutopia's former "third party," the Liberal Democrats, all but disintegrated earlier this month, and the Libertarian Party, while still breathing (if barely so), seems once again in no position to participate in the elections.

-mel

 

[unmerged(1522)]

Guest column

by Craig Ashley

The Rally for Democracy rally was interrupted today by a low flying aircraft. The plane made several passes, drowning out the speakers and pulling a banner that stated Prosperity Power and Purity, the motto of the new radical fringe group, the Nationalist Party.

The plane, apparently and old crop duster, then dropped thousands of pamphlets containing NP propaganda. The RD rally attempted to resume several times, but the low flying craft continued to pass. Fearing for the safety of the gathered public, the rally was ended.

Jake Langley, president and founder of the NP, took credit for the actions saying, “Just as they were exercising their freedom of assembly, we were exercising our freedom of the press. The voice of common man and the Naitonalist Party will be heard.”

There has been no official response from RD headquarters.

 

[hughbartlett]

Only Ten MPs?-Editorial

In a recent surprise announcement, CRO Melanchthon proposaed limiting the amount of MPs from 12 to 10. In the statement, he vaguely said that there were not enough people in EUtopia to justify a 12 seat parliament. This journalist cannot understand the benefits of this proposal, because it would make it even less likely for minor parties to be able to gain a seat, and could cause the current FR/RD monopoly to hold. This nation needs political diversity; and if anything we need more MPs.

National Party-Editorial

Although it is good to see the emergence of a new party in Eutopia, this editor is rather annoyed that the new National Party (NP) has created three avenues for itself and is constantly publicising itself, even if it has only one member. In my view, the NP should be allowed to do as much propagandising as they wish, but not create extra avenues (OOC: Threads) to do this.

New Movement formed?-Editorial

Rumours are spreading around the country that a new movement, similar to the Civic Movement, is about to be formed. Although nobody seems to know exactly what it is; leaflets with the acronym GAE have been seen around all the major cities. We fully support any new movements right to exist, but will wait until it is created to determine if we, the Public Interest, believe that it is of benefit to us.

-HuB

 

[unmerged(1522)]

Voice of truth gone hoarse?

In a recent initiative, RD-leader Melanchthon asked the governing coalition to consider several proposals for minor constitutional reform. Interestingly, only one of those proposals - reducing the number of parliamentary seats from twelve to ten - seems to have garnered much attention. Much of that attention has been skeptical or outright hostile. While some critics simply find the proposal lacking in merit, others, with customary hyperbole, portray it as something altogether more sinister: the proposal, so goes their tale, really aims at reducing both citizen representation in government and the parliamentary representation of the Right.

Given that Mr. Melanchthon has repeatedly and very publicly supported changes to the electoral laws that would benefit smaller parties, any claims that he is actively campaigning to reduce effective representation are obviously unfounded. Perhaps more to the point, reducing the number of parliamentary seats from twelve to ten would have a negligible impact on party representation. Currently, we have a representation threshold of 8.3%; with ten seats, that threshold would rise to 10%. A world of difference? Hardly.

As to the claim that a reduction of seats would harm minor parties and benefit specifically the RD: as common sense would suggest, the situation is a good deal more complex than that. In fact, if the current Parliament consisted of ten seats instead of twelve, it would *hurt* the RD's interests, as well as the FR's, since both major parties would lose one seat. By comparison, Eutopia's "third party," the LD, would hold on to its single seat, effectively increasing its representation in Parliament from 8.3% to 10% of seats.

More importantly, and based on last election's turnout, any party which meets the eligibility requirements for fielding candidates in national elections is all but guaranteed one seat in Parliament - whether Parliament has ten seats or twelve. In fact, reducing the number of seats to ten would, relatively speaking, once again benefit the *smaller* parties, not the major ones - and certainly not the RD in particular.

So, what does it all mean? It means that the proposed change is hardly earth-shattering. It means that, far from automatically strengthening the major parties, it may in effect strengthen the smaller ones (something to consider, perhaps, for Mr. Langley and his Nationalists next time they wish to complain about any imaginary disadvantage). And it means that some of the more inventive criticisms levelled against the proposal simply don't square with the actual facts of the matter.

-mel

 

[unmerged(1522)]

Sit back

... relax with a pint of Red Stripe, and tune in to the so-called Voice of Truth. That's what we did this afternoon, and I must admit, our staff hasn't had such a good laugh since our battles with the Voice of the Republic in the early days. It was an entertaining experience listening to Mr. Langley divest himself of whatever shreds of credibility he had left. For the most part, his "programme" consisted of involuntary humour, but we did manage to filter out one actual point he was apparently trying to make somewhere in between.

To wit, Mr. Langley claims that "it's common sense" that fewer MPs mean less representation for the people. Unfortunately, Mr. Langley gives no indication which number of MPs would satisfy his requirements for adequate representation (after all, why stop at twelve?), and he is equally silent regarding the simple fact that a reduction of seats from twelve to ten will not harm the diversity of parties represented in the House - as any calculator will show. Mr. Langley's rather unconvincing attempt to portray himself as a purveyor of common sense reminds us of Albert Einstein's poignant observation that "common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." On that definition, we fear that Mr. Langley possesses rather too much "common sense."

Luckily, the remainder of Mr. Langley's show contained no actual points, so we are free to turn our attention to more important matters - like the annual marbles tournament of King Edward High School in Spalding. We hear that KEHS has an excellent math programme; maybe Mr. Langley would like to visit it sometime.

-mel


Unlike some, students hang on to marbles

Over the last few days, students from King Edward High in Spalding enjoyed what, in the words of their Principal, M.J. Jackson, has become "something of an annual tradition." Starting in 2001, KEHS has organized a marbles tournament every February. "We encourage all of our students to participate," says the Principal, stating that about 80% of students do. According to Jackson, the tournament has been an unalloyed success in strengthening community spirit among the student body - "and it's fun, too," he chuckles.

The tournament has proven valuable in another respect as well: most students are accompanied by their parents and other family members, which provides the school's faculty with additional opportunities to "get to know 'our' parents and strengthen ties with the community," as English teacher Moira Kendrick puts it. In fact, since the inception of the programme, parent participation in the PTA and other school-related activities has seen a marked increase.

As regards the results of this year's tournament, we are happy to report that Marie Rejean, Joshua Reber, Martin Affleck and Louis Castlereagh won in their respective age groups (for Rejean, this is the third victory in a row), and will be participating in a city-wide high school marbles tournament later this spring. We wish them best of luck!

-mel


Turning the page

This week's title was chosen by Abe Pongee of Book Barn, Hannover:

Walter Meek, "Markland or Viking Age Eutopia" (Eutopia City: Eutopia National University Press, 2002).

This new book by one of our Island's leading historians offers an exciting glimpse of Eutopia's Viking history. One of the many though-provoking hypotheses advanced by Prof. Meek is that Eutopia is actually identical with the "Markland" mentioned in that ancient Icelandic epos, the Edda. A fascinating read that contains many insights into one of our Island's least understood periods.

[OOC: book title and concept lifted from the pages of the Journal of the Antiquarian Society. ]

 

[unmerged(1522)]

Letter to the editor

Dear Sir,

it has come to my attention that Mr. Langley of the notorious NP is trying to woo the CRE into cooperation with a right-wing alliance by spreading misinformation about the RD. In response to his comments, I'd like to underline three points:

• the RD is hardly "hostile" to the centre or centre-right; after all, we have been in coalition with the FR this entire term.
  
• it's not my place to advise the CRE on matters of strategy, but it has always been my impression that, while some aspects of the CRE's programme resonate with the Right, others are a good deal closer to the RD (I'm thinking particularly of their official stance on the economy and health care).
  
• it shouldn't need emphasizing that the RD is not "ultra left"; we are social democrats. Of course, in Mr. Langley's somewhat idiosyncratic perception of reality, anybody left of the FR seems by definition to be a left extremist.

Yours sincerely,
Melanchthon
RD-Spokesperson

 

[unmerged(1522)]

Elections Aftermath

The election results are in, and Eutopia's political landscape has changed dramatically. In the presidential race, incumbent President Murmurandus secured a clear victory over CC-challenger Morgan, despite the fact that the CRE started to rally behind Morgan in the last few days of the election. Murmurandus received 56.8% of valid votes (not counting abstentions), while Morgan trailed behind with 43.2%.

Political observers expect that President Murmurandus's new Cabinet will be sworn in shortly, and that it will consist exclusively of RD- and ESRP-members. While a number of names are being bandied about for ministerial positions, there are no concrete personnel decisions yet.

Parliamentary election results clearly reflect the divisive and acrimonious nature of the election campaign, as the legislature is now split evenly between the alliance of the Left and non-governmental MPs. The ESRP, despite sustained slanderous attacks from certain quarters in the CC, managed to win a respectable 15% of votes (not counting abstentions), while the RD captured 30%. The CC, drawing on the old FR-basis and the far-right Nationalists, became the strongest party with 35% of votes, while the CRE obtained 20%. In terms of seats, this translates into 6 MPs for the alliance of the Left (RD 4, ESRP 2), and 6 opposition members (CC 4, CRE 2).

However, due to one of those turn-around events which have become the hallmark of Eutopian politics, this breakdown of parliamentary seats has already passed its expiry date. In a stunning move, erstwhile presidential hopeful Morgan, elected to Parliament on the CC-ticket, decided to leave the Conservatives due to irreconcilable differences with the party's right wing. Mr. Morgan chose not to resign as MP, and will sit as an Independent for the time being. This now leaves the CC with a mere three seats.

So, what to make of all of this?

(1) The Left will be able to govern by itself. While a (potentially) hung Parliament will make legislation more difficult, President Murmurandus will be able to prevent legislative deadlock.

(2) Two opposition MPs represent a party that can't seem to decide between fundamental opposition to the Republic and limited cooperation with other parties. This holds little promise for a unified opposition, and is further good news for the Left.

(3) The CC is already disintegrating; given the deep divisions within this "party" (and the term has to be used loosely), that shouldn't come unexpectedly. The only surprise is that disintegration has set in immediately after election results were announced. One can only hope that the public will remember this next time an ad hoc, ill-defined and fragmented right wing coalition runs for election.

(4) As per usual, things are in flux. The only constant of Eutopian politics, it seems.

-mel

 

[unmerged(1522)]

Interview with the Umpire*

Observers of Eutopia's political scene may have noticed an unfortunate recent trend in the current opposition parties' rhetoric: it seems both the CC and CRE have developed an unhealthy habit of complaining about alleged foul play whenever they lose an election. First, the former Acting Speaker and the High Court were summarily dismissed as partisan and corrupt, simply because they prevented the opposition from bending parliamentary rules in their favour (one wonders who exactly was engaged in foul play here).

Then, an unholy alliance of Monarchist and far right nationalist media attacks the CRO for allegedly discriminating against the CRE in distributing parliamentary seats. We note with interest that none of the individuals who attacked the CRO found it necessary to approach him for his side of the story; in the interest of balanced media coverage, we have asked Mr. Melanchthon to answer a few questions on this matter.

PI: Could you briefly explain to our readers how parliamentary seats are assigned in Eutopia?

CRO: Certainly. Basically, we divide the number of valid votes a party receives by the total number of valid votes and multiply the result with the number of parliamentary seats. Let's say the result of this operation is 3.12; in that case, the party receives 3 seats in Parliament. Any left-over seats are then distributed among parties according to the largest remainder - i.e., the highest decimal.

PI: Simple enough. Of course, the recent controversy has turned on what exactly constitutes a valid vote. Could you elaborate on that?

CRO: A valid vote is any vote that is cast by a Eutopian citizen whose voting privileges have not been suspended, and that is cast within the voting period and in the proper voting locale. A vote is invalid if it violates any of those conditions, or if the ballot has been spoiled. A ballot is considered spoiled if it does not follow the format established by the election announcement, or contains material that does not serve to identify which of the eligible parties or candidates the citizen is voting for. This includes voting for ineligible candidates.

PI: Some members of the media claim that you intentionally disadvantaged the CRE by declaring some of their votes invalid.

CRO: Yes, I'm aware of the accusations. Let me just say that in my capacity as CRO, I could care less which party gets how many votes and seats, as long as they get them in accordance with the law. Charges of misconduct are understandable given the situation, but they simply don't hold water.

PI: But do you not agree that your decision might be perceived as unfair? Surely, what with the CRE's presidential candidates being disqualified from the race, there were extenuating circumstances which would have allowed your office not to throw out parliamentary votes simply because citizens voted for Royalist on the same ballot.

CRO: Needless to say, my office weighed our options very carefully. In the end, we came to the conclusion that we could not justify an exception to the rules. Election guidelines clearly state that ballots are to be disregarded as a whole even if they are spoiled only in part. Of course, this may be a matter for Parliament to consider in the future. In any case, citizens had more than enough time to alter their vote, and my office went to great lengths to put the information out there.

PI: But don't you feel that some citizens may have missed that information, and hence weren't aware that Royalist was no longer an eligible candidate? Or if they were, that they might not have understood that their ballot would be thrown out if they didn't change it?

CRO: On the first question: I think that is likely, and very regrettable. However, there is a limit to what the CRO-office can do. We can only do so much in providing information; ultimately, citizens are responsible for availing themselves of that information. Regarding your second question: that is, of course, possible. All I can say is that our staff felt the implications were clear, based on the electoral guidelines.

PI: Mr. Melanchthon, we thank you for this interview.

CRO: My pleasure.

-mel



Amnesia returns

Those of our readers who were concerned that a daily source of involuntary humour may have dried up may rest easy: Mr. Langley has returned to the airwaves with customary aplomb, energy and hyperbole. While it was certainly entertaining to watch Mr. Langley being outmanoeuvered on the right by the NEW party (and being chastised for his lack of ideological purity), it unfortunately seemed that he was losing his media zeal and drive as a result. And then, of course, there was the despicable hijack of his radio station by left-wing radicals. But, we say unto our readers, fear not: for Mr. Langley is back with a vengeance, and he is as tireless and tiresome as ever.

As they say, you can't teach an old dog new tricks, and so it should come as no surprise that this particular puppy is up to his old tricks: to wit, Mr. Langley is, still, desperately trying to paint the RD as a party of stagnation and inaction, to which the CC supposedly compares favourably as a party of movement and action. As always, Mr. Langley's questionable portrayal of the two parties runs afoul of a minor detail: the facts of the matter.

Let us quote Mr. Langely at some length here: "The country is about to sign a new minimum wage bill into law. As you know, this has been a top priority for myself personally and for the CC. The bill has sailed through parliament with ease and will become law in a few days. Already the CC has matched the RD's legislative output from last term." Need we *really* remind our readers that (1) the CC's predecessor, the FR, was in coalition with the RD all of last term - was, in fact, the senior partner of said coalition, (2) that the Speaker of Parliament, who is responsible for organizing parliamentary debates and votes, was a leading FR-member for most of last term, and that (3) as soon as said Speaker was replaced by an RD-member, Parliament actually started to pass legislation?

Of course, we are aware that Mr. Langley appears to be hard of hearing and that any such reminders will, therefore, fall on deaf ears as far as he is concerned - or if not, they will soon fall prey to his apparent selective memory loss. We would urgently recommend that Mr. Langley have this looked at by a physician. Lucky for him, Eutopia's right wing parties have not yet succeeded in privatizing health care, so he need not worry about the affordability of any treatment that should turn out to be necessary in order to improve his condition.

-mel



Cock-a-doodle-doo

On a humorous note, one of Eutopia's right wing extremists has recently taken it upon himself to publicly describe Communists as cockroaches. Judging from ensuing debates, it seems that in the right wing extremist dictionary, "Communist" denotes anyone left of Pat Buchanan, Joerg Haider, Franz Schoenhuber or Jean-Marie Le Pen. The ELSP, RD, and ESRP - cockroaches all. It seems that the RD-leadership was sufficiently amused by this grossly (in all senses of the word) simplified insult to consider adopting the cockroach as their new party symbol (letter received by our paper).

Considering that cockroaches come in all kinds of different (dis)guises (between 4000 and 7500 different species), that a single female German cockroach can produce up to 35000 offspring a year, that cockroaches are notoriously hard to get rid of, that they prosper in the most untoward circumstances and have been roaming the Earth for over 400 million years (a clear testimony to their hardiness and adaptability), any such step should suffice to strike fear into the heart of our impressionable right wing paranoiacs.

-mel



* [OOC: yes, this is a bit late, but I didn't get around to it earlier. ]

 

[unmerged(1522)]

Playing Jingo

The French issue has once again moved to the frontburner. Public discussion has been understandably passionate. Unfortunately, in some segments of Eutopia's political spectrum, passion seems to have eclipsed reason. In the wake of Parliament's narrow rejection of economic sanctions against France, several prominent citizens are painting those advocating a moderate and reasoned response as weak-kneed French apologists.

The time for talks, these people seem to suggest, is over; now it is time for action. Interestingly, they are quite vague when it comes to outlining what action they want our government to take. The only idea that has been put forward so far were economic sanctions, and we've seen what that got us: friendly threats of economic retaliation from France's allies. Impressive. Perhaps the opposition should consider proposing a course of action that will *not* throw our country into economic chaos.

All in all, it seems that a lot of the discussion's most vocal participants fail to appreciate the international situation. Let's have a look at the sequence of events from the perspective of an unsuspecting international observer, shall we?

(1) France arrests a number of Eutopian nationals on charges of piracy.
(2) France refuses to talk with Eutopia in the matter.
(3) The Eutopian Parliament narrowly defeats a motion to impose drastic economic sanctions on France.

And people wonder why other countries have chosen to close ranks with France? Folks, whatever the facts of the matter may be: right now, France isn't seen as the villain of the piece. We are. Talk of economic sanctions was a reckless act that has painted us into a corner we will have difficulties getting out of. If we want to get anywhere, we need to do a better job at sharing our perspective with other countries, and we need to make it clear that we will not overreact spectacularly every time we have conflicts with another country. We do *not* need to allow France to portray us as a bully (and a rather toothless bully, at that). Otherwise, our traditional neutrality could very quickly become something altogether different: involuntary isolation.

The responsible course of action is to solve the current crisis with as little damage as possible. That means strict observation of international law. That means *appropriate* responses to any provocation by the French. That means *gradual* escalation. That means working with the international community and France's allies to bring them around to our point of view - at which point we'd be in a much better position to exert pressure on France (or worse, if it should come to that). It does *not* mean shaking our allegorical fist and cursing the French into the seventh generation. Empty posturing will do nothing but hurt our country, and it certainly won't do anything to help those of our nationals who are currently being held by France.

-mel

 

[unmerged(1522)]

Academic Limbo

Observers of Eutopia’s parliamentary scene were startled to discover that, like Frankenstein’s monster, the CRE caucus is, happily but somewhat unexpectedly, alive. The Monarchists, noticeable mostly for their protracted (but unfortunately not profound) silence in the House, stunned the public by submitting to Parliament a bill that, for once, had nothing to do with the Monarchy. Will wonders never cease? Regrettably, wonders in fact ceased with the submission of the bill and did not extend to its contents.

Given that the CRE had shown no prior interest in questions of education, and considering Parliament’s rather meager track record in the field, Eutopian educators did not expect overly much from the so-called University Bill. But no matter how low the expectations, said bill effortlessly managed to disappoint them.

In a nutshell, the CRE proposed to construct a new Spanish/ French university in Nueva Rioja. Since Eutopia at present has only one Latin university, this would, at first glance, seem like a laudable goal. Unfortunately, a second and third glance reveals the bill to be an ill-informed and ill-thought out piece of legislation.

The problems begin with basic geography. The bill informs us that a new university should be constructed in Nueva Rioja. The only thing it neglects to mention is where precisely. Nueva Rioja is a big province, so whichever construction company ends up securing the contract to build the new campus (provided the bill passes) would presumably be grateful for a few pointers regarding its preferred location.

That is a minor quibble, but it is indicative of the care with which this bill has been drafted - which is to say, the bill’s authors clearly couldn’t care less. That is too bad, because they do intermittently raise some valid points - or at least one, namely that Eutopia currently has only one Latin university, and that this is a sorry state of affairs. We couldn’t agree more; what we can’t agree with is the idea that the arbitrary construction of a second Latin university in a randomly chosen locale is going to do much to remedy the situation. The marginalization of French and Spanish in Eutopia’s post-secondary institutions calls for a systematic reform. If the CRE was aiming at benefitting Eutopian education, this is what they should have invested their efforts in; they chose not to.

Instead, they proposed a bill which claims in all seriousness that the new university would be able to largely pay for itself through its future research. One wonders how university administrators around the globe have managed for so long to overlook such a blatantly obvious solution to their financial problems, and why they insist instead on pestering the public and private sectors with constant requests for funding...

The bill’s grasp of the financial side of things is shaky in at least two other respects: for one thing, it does not explain how the construction of a brand-new university would be more cost-efficient than the expansion of one of the two existing colleges in Nueva Rioja to full university status. Secondly, the CRE suggests that attending this new university should be free of charge, in order to make this institution accessible to all Eutopian citizens. While we welcome the egalitarian impetus behind this suggestion, we can’t help but notice that it seems to have escaped the CRE’s attention that university education in Eutopia is free. If citizens wish to access a university education free of charge, they presently have 52 opportunities to do so.

Which brings us to another issue: the CRE claims that their University Bill would address an overall shortage of post-secondary institutions in Eutopia. If our readers aren’t sure why 52 post-secondary institutions in a population of 27 million qualify as a shortage, take comfort in the knowledge that you are not alone. In fact, some experts have suggested that Eutopia’s post-secondary system may well be suffering from an inflated number of colleges and universities.

In a recent parliamentary debate on the issue, CRE-MoP Vilms rose to defend the bill against critics from the RD and MP, claiming that by “creating a completely government controlled [university] we create a top school.” The University Bill would - or so this MoP claims - effectively allow the government to create an elite school attracting the best and brightest, thus giving the rabble a fighting chance at other universities (our words, his concept). On behalf of the rabble, we would like to thank Mr. Vilms for his consideration.

Interestingly, despite his obvious enchantment with the concept of an elite university, Mr. Vilms also argued that “if we were to decide to completely fund just one university we would show favoritism for that, damaging the reputations of all other universities”; apparently, being seen as containers for the left-over rabble who didn’t make it into Mr. Vilms’s elite university would *not* damage other universities’ reputation.

All in all, we rather feel like observers at a high jump event that has been taken over by limbo dancers: somebody should tell the CRE that the idea is to clear the bar, not to slide through under it.

-sch




Watch your Left! No, your *other* Left!

Writing for that most reliable of news-sources, the “Royalist,” the CRE’s MoP Vilms recently displayed a degree of anti-Left paranoia that would have done a pre-medication Jools proud. Claiming that the Left aims to suppress the “Little Man” by reducing him to mindless state dependence, Mr. Vilms managed to ramble across a maximum of subjects with minimum coherence. While we do not wish to detract from the entertainment value of the piece and encourage our readers to forego today’s cartoon section in order to give it a read, we were puzzled about a few things:

- What happened to all the Little Women? And what relevance (if any) does Louisa May Alcott have for all of this?
- How come Mr. Vilms pulls a Cassandra at the very thought of “little folk” relying on the big, bad wolf (aka Government) but tells us in Parliament that a new “government controlled”
university would be the best thing since sliced bread?
- Is Mr. Vilms familiar with his party’s platform?

We also marvel at Mr. Vilms’s knowledge of European post-war history; if not for him, we would never have realized that over “the last 30 years, waves of primarily left wing governments have been the norm in Europe.” Narrow-minded critics that we are, we nevertheless feel obliged to point out that “waves” of Left governments have hardly been the “norm” in much of Western Europe since 1973: e.g., (West) Germany has had a Centre-Right government for 16 of the last thirty years, the UK was ruled by the Conservatives for 19 years during the same period, France has seen an undivided Left government for only ten years since 1973 but an undivided Right/Centre-Right government for 11, and Spain has been ruled by the Right and Centre-Right for 14 years out of the last 28 (16 out of thirty if you wish to count the last years of the Franco regime).

-sch

 

[I Killed Kenny]

*enters the Magazine center*

oh... COF COF this have so much dust..... COF COF

*Phones a clean-up company*

... Yes please... I ask you do clean the PI yes.... the adress is
(...)
Thanks

THE NEXT DAY

*seeing the cleaning*

Thanks very good, when?? tommorow will be all cleaned... thanks

THE NEXT DAY

*entering the facilities*

Oh... the new age of the PI will begin NOW!

 

[I Killed Kenny]

The new Public Interest

The magazine is reburn, with a reburn image
This is the RD magazine with a "left" eye on everything that REALLY metters

We'll criticize what needs to be criticized whatever the party or whatever the the individual. We don't want to start flame wars. We do hope the Eutopian press did evolve, so that will never happen again...

A Report about the left and the future of the left will be the next page...

 

[hughbartlett]

LEFT IN TURMOIL

RD/ELP/UAP SPLIT!

The RD, the bastion of the left for many years, has split into three didytinct parties overnight.

The First to seperate, the Eutopian Labour Party, was founder by Hugh Bartlett, a long term member of the RD. He said that he wanted to offer an alternative to both centrists and leftists in his slight left party, which seems to have similar views to the RD.

The second party, the United Authoritarians, was formed by The Rebel, a new member of the RD, and one who was very vocal. His party has an odd mix of fascist and communist policies. The only thing known about the party is that if we don't like it we will be fored to woek in labour camps.

Meanwhile, the RD is holding an election for a new lead3er. Although the candidates are unknown, it is widely believed that Vasco I-Killed Kenny will be running. The PI hopes that oce a leader is decided upon some stability will come to the rapidly deteriorating Rally for Democracy.

The PI will keep you informed on any more developements.