Date:    Wed, 29 Apr 1998 09:16:48 -0500
<br>From:    Dennis Baron <debaron[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]UIUC.EDU>
<br>Subject: excerpts from az court decision
<br>
<br>Excerpts of Court's opinion
<br>
<br>
<br>              The Associated Press
<br>
<br>              April 28, 1998
<br>
<br>
<br>              PHOENIX -- Excerpts from Tuesday's Arizona Supreme Court
<br>
<br>              opinion written by Justice James Moeller ruling that the state's
<br>
<br>              official English law is unconstitutional.
<br>
<br>
<br>              "We hold that the amendment violates the First Amendment to the
<br>
<br>              United States Constitution because it adversely impacts the
<br>
<br>              constitutional rights of non-English-speaking persons with regard
<br> to
<br>
<br>              their obtaining access to their government and limits the
<br> political
<br>
<br>              speech of elected officials and public employees. We also hold
<br> that
<br>
<br>              the amendment violates the equal protection clause of the 14th
<br>
<br>              Amendment to the United States Constitution because it unduly
<br>
<br>              burdens core First Amendment rights of a specific class without
<br>
<br>              materially advancing a legitimate state interest.
<br>
<br>
<br>                                      ***
<br>
<br>
<br>              "In making these rulings, we express no opinion concerning the
<br>
<br>              constitutional validity of less restrictive English-only
<br> provisions
<br>
<br>              discussed in this opinion. We also emphasize that nothing in this
<br>
<br>              opinion compels any Arizona governmental entity to provide any
<br>
<br>              service in a language other than English."
<br>
<br>
<br>                                      ***
<br>
<br>
<br>              "We agree with the Ninth Circuit's statement that Arizona's
<br>
<br>              rejection of that tradition (of tolerance) by enacting the
<br> amendment
<br>
<br>              has severe consequences not only for Arizona's public officia
<br>======================================================================
<br>
<br>From: Automatic digest processor (4/29/98)
<br>To: Recipients of ADS-L digests
<br>
<br>         ADS-L Digest - 27 Apr 1998 to 28 Apr 1998             98-04-29 00:00:38
<br>This message contains more text than QuickMail can display. The entire message
<br> has been enclosed as a file.
<br>
<br>There are 10 messages totalling 648 lines in this issue.
<br>
<br>Topics of the day:
<br>
<br>  1. Hello; ho! boy; cover jinx
<br>  2. United Nations (an Americanism!) (3)
<br>  3. Thole story
<br>  4. Fwd Re A raft of... reply functions?
<br>  5. thole story, etc.
<br>  6. Reply Functions
<br>  7. Reply-to issue, tech notes (2)
<br>
<br>----------------------------------------------------------------------
<br>
<br>Date:    Tue, 28 Apr 1998 05:53:38 EDT
<br>From:    Bapopik <Bapopik[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]AOL.COM>
<br>Subject: Hello; ho! boy; cover jinx
<br>
<br>HELLO
<br>
<br>      I had previously discovered "hello" in the first issue of the theatrical
<br>weekly NEW YORK CLIPPER (1853), used by that famous Bowery fireman of the
<br>stage, Mose.  This predated the telephone "hellos" of the 1880s.
<br>      I checked the comic magazine THE LANTERN (NY) January-June 1852, and our
<br>first "hello" is now on page 200, col. 1:
<br>
<br>      _Armed Intervention._
<br>"Hello, fels!  Where's de muss, say?"
<br>
<br>      Interestingly, it is also spoken by a fireman.  I haven't yet checked
<br>the 1840s Mose cites at the public library's Lincoln Center branch for the
<br>performing arts.
<br>      Previously, on page 31 of THE LANTERN, under "New Works in Progress,"
<br>there was "_Hallo There!_--By the author of Eo-then."  Pg. 4, col. 2 of the
<br>first issue had "Hallo, Bill!"
<br>
<br>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<br>-------------------------------------------
<br>HO! BOY
<br>
<br>      This is from THE LANTERN (Jan.-June 1852), pg. 116, col. 2:
<br>
<br>      If an individual were to ejaculate a vociferous summons to one of the
<br>masculine gender not yet arrived at the age of maturity, what musical
<br>instrument of celebrity would he be induced to denominate?
<br>      Ho! boy.  (Haut-boy.)
<br>
<br>      The RHHDAS's earliest citation is Bartlett's in 1857.  I had found the
<br>"ho-boying" in the RHHDAS.
<br>
<br>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<br>-------------------------------------------
<br>COVER JINX
<br>
<br>      I'm doing a study of the word "jinx."  I recently came across "cover
<br>jinx" by accident.
<br>      I was always familiar with the Sports Illustrated "cover jinx."
<br>Supposedly, whoever was on the SI cover would then start to lose.  However, I
<br>always felt that it was the nature of sports--you made the cover because you
<br>won a championship of some sort, and you had nowhere else to go but down.
<br>Record losers never made the cover.  I thought the phrase came from the 1970s,
<br>but I haven't seen it recorded.
<br>      This is from TIME, 5 January 1942, pg. 3, col. 1:
<br>
<br>_Cover Jinx_
<br>Sirs:
<br>   TIME cover jinx still seems to be working.  Latest casualties:  Hutband,
<br>Kimmel, Ferlor (?-ed.) von Bock.
<br>   J. F. R.
<br>Washington, D. C.
<br>--TIME's "cover jinx" has sometimes appeared to work on sports figures but not
<br>on others.  Franklin Roosevelt, who has appeared on TIME's cover six times
<br>(including this week) since 1923 has, apparently, never felt it.  No jinx
<br>operated on Admiral Kimmel or General von Bock; the Admiral was placed on the
<br>cover after the news of Pearl Harbor arrived; of the General TIME said in its
<br>cover story, "When a list is made of the generals who have done most to
<br>whittle down Germany's chances of victory the name of Bock may lead all the
<br>rest."  TIME hopes Admiral Yamamoto may rank as a sports figure.--ED.
<br>