Better Banter

Oh the lessons we've not learned! A mere four years ago, as you may remember, California suffered rolling blackouts. Electric power supplied to consumers in the state did not meet the demand. Curiously, there was no shortage in neighboring Oregon, Nevada, or Arizona. Why? Many reasons, and all specific to the oddity we know as the Golden State. The two major reasons were 1) a failure to build enough power plants to generate electricity within California, forcing California utilities to import power from neighboring states and 2) price controls that prevented California utilites from recouping higher costs demanded by out-of-state energy providers during a spike in nationwide energy prices. They couldn't generate enough power themselves, and as the public utilies went bankrupt due to balance of payment problems, many utilities outside the state became unwilling to supply more power. But the conventional explanation that seems to be accepted these days is much simpler: "Enro

Genius: The Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, thought the party with the most votes should be able to win. (Boy -- talk about out of touch! And this guy wants to be president?) The seven "maverick" Republicans thought a better idea would be to crawl to the minority party and plead for crumbs. If the "maverick" Republicans had a slogan, it would be: "Always surrender from a position of strength." The deal they struck, this masterful Peace of Westphalia, simply put into writing the rule that the minority party controls the Senate -- which will remain the rule until the Democrats aren't the minority party anymore. No wonder Democrats were so testy about bringing democracy to Iraq: They can't bear democracy in America. Liberals' beef with Iraq's new government was that the Sunnis -- the minority sect whose reign of terror controlled Iraq for almost 30 years -- wouldn't be adequately represented. Obviously, this did not bode well for the D

OK that's not really what this is about. We've all heard of the phantom "teacher shortage" and all know from friends and family that it is difficult for many well-educated, qualified people to become public school teachers. There's no shortage of teachers. There is a shortage of people willing to teach in the inner cities. I am certain events like this are not going to help matters (from today's Columbus Dispatch): Conference performers disrespectful to police Tuesday, May 10, 2005 The National Conference of Black Mayors was in town last week, and it invited more than 4,000 Columbus Public Schools students to a "Youth Day" concert. The duo Dead Prez, whose lyrics contained sexual content, gang violence, drug use and the use of guns, was appalling. To know that the rap group broke out in a chant "F--- the police!" (inciting the kids to do the same) before the sound system was turned off is very disturbing. To allow this to happen shows the f

A Columbus man has shot and killed his wife. Unfortunately, that alone is not news. What is news is that the shooting happened at a hospital and the shooter was shot by police as he exited. News reports say the man and his wife were both in their 70s. Preliminary speculation as to motive is a mercy killing/suicide. Jay Nordlinger wondered why not shoot Terri Schiavo, given the court had essentially ordered her death. It would certainly have caused less suffering. Are we there yet? What will be the reaction of those on the left if it is determined (or perhaps just intimated) that the wife in this case wanted to die? Is this Dr. Kevorkian with a bullet? Will the left be able to swallow this one?

In my post below on Fairleigh-Dickinson Professor Jacques Pluss, I relied on an excerpt from equinoxnews.com, and did not register with the site to get the full article. I decided later to do so and see the rest of it. After Prof. Pluss' dismissal, the National Socialist Movement issued a press release condemning the firing of Pluss. The NSM officially condemns Fairleigh Dickinson University for engaging in acts of left-wing McCarthyism. This past Monday, Professor Jacque Pluss was removed from his teaching position apparently for no other reason than being a member of NSM. It is against every concept of the Constitution and the principles of our republic and an act of sheer stupidity for the powers that be to force anyone to leave job [sic] simply because of his/her legal political affiliations. If American universities truly stand for the market place of ideas, and of freedom of expression, then we must protect all, including Professor Jacques Pluss . . . We at the NSM also reali

OK, not really. At least, I'm not the one to do the defending. However I do call upon academia to do so. Last week Professor Jacques Pluss, a history professor at Fairleigh-Dickinson University, was fired for his political views. Pluss made several racist statements regarding Jews and blacks on a National Socialist web site. The university acted quickly and fired him. They were right, and within their rights, to do so. Contrast this with the quagmire of the Ward Churchill "firing" in Colorado. Churchill compared victims of 9/11 to "little Eichmanns", said "more 9/11's are necessary", and compared Indian reservations to Nazi concentration camps. He lied about serving in combat in Vietnam, has apparently lied about his Native American ancestry, and fraudulently passed off another person's art as his own. That's bad stuff. But Churchill is a leftist, and in the ultra-liberal world of academia, academics are loathe to call out one of their own.

President Bush hits the nail on the head: "The essence of civilization is that the strong have a duty to protect the weak. In cases where there are serious doubts and questions, the presumption should be in the favor of life." While greatly saddened about this case, I'm overjoyed to have a president of this caliber. Would a President Kerry have signed the Schiavo bill after he vetoed it?  

Jane Fonda has issued a half apology for her antics in Vietnam, 33 years late. "The image of Jane Fonda, Barbarella, Henry Fonda's daughter ... sitting on an enemy aircraft gun was a betrayal," she said, calling the act, "The largest lapse of judgment that I can even imagine." But she said she did not regret visiting Hanoi, or being photographed with American prisoners of war there. Because what she meant to say was she supported the troops, but not the war, right?

Today's NRO editorial on the death of Terri Schiavo is a must-read . Her death is a tragedy in itself, but the greater evil is, as the editors say, that "next time it will be easier. It always is."

You may have missed this Tuesday, but at the end of a NYT editorial blathering about the merits of Democrats filibustering Republican judicial nominiees comes the following acknowledgement of why they were wrong to support measures that would have quashed Republican filibusters during Clinton I: A decade ago, this page expressed support for tactics that would have gone even further than the "nuclear option" in eliminating the power of the filibuster. At the time, we had vivid memories of the difficulty that Senate Republicans had given much of Bill Clinton's early agenda. But we were still wrong. To see the filibuster fully, it's obviously a good idea to have to live on both sides of it. We hope acknowledging our own error may remind some wavering Republican senators that someday they, too, will be on the other side and in need of all the protections the Senate rules can provide. While it's wonderful that they acknowleged their error, it is certainly a decade late

Shamefully, the Banterers have yet to broach the hottest news topic of the last month, so I thought I'd make a quick observation. Poll numbers indicate that Americans are overwhelmingly against Congress and the President acting on behalf of Schiavo's parents. But the questions actually asked reflect the spirit of the libertarian feeling that the government should not invervene in deciding when someone should die, it should be up to the family. But the very purpose of government is to establish and enforce laws that protect the people. It is also the purpose of government to provide a judiciary system to settle disputes among citizens. What we have in the Schiavo case is 1) a possible infringement on Terri Schiavo's right to live. What if she doesn't want to die? and 2) a legitimate dispute as to who should make such a life or death decision. Congress did not step in to order the tube reinserted. They did not decide she should live. Congress and the President merely aske

Fox Sports has the following info about Johnny Damon's views on meeting the President: Damon wants Bush's autograph for his 5-year-old son. "He knows every single president," Damon said. "His favorite, of course, is Zachary Taylor because he carried a sword. So I'm going to tell President Bush (to) start carrying a sword. He's going to have a stronger fan base." That's fantastic on so many levels. Bush is meeting with the Red Sox (have we mentioned they are World Series Champions?), Damon's son knows every president at the age of 5, he knows that Zachary Taylor carried a sword, and of course the image of Bush with walking around with a cavalry sword. That made my day.

Here's a disturbing story I've been following the last week. The limits of "eminent domain" are being tested in Connecticut, as the town of New London is attempting to use it to acquire private property for the "public good." What is this public good? Not a road or school, but a private commercial development, including a hotel. If you're puzzled as to how the government can force you to sell your home so that someone can put up a Marriott in its place, so is Justice Scalia. The case is in front of the Supreme Court, and arguments from the city and from some of the other justices are alarming, to say the least. The basic argument is that it is in the public good to put the land to a different use if it could garner more tax revenue for the government. The invaluable Jeff Jacoby gives us the following quotes: "For example, a Motel 6," O'Connor says. "A city thinks, 'If we had a Ritz-Carlton, we'd get higher taxes.' Is that

What to do with Iran? The Europeans subscribe to the idea that offering the mullahs enough carrots will make them quit their nuclear ambitions. The Wall Street Journal on Tuesday put this policy in its proper perspective: As it is, even if the Europeans were sincere, the deal being considered for Iran is certain to fail. The Iranians have already publicly forsworn any interest in nuclear weapons: Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi insists that Islam itself forbids their development. So just what purpose is served by another attestation of Iran's fidelity to the NPT? Perhaps Tehran's good faith may yet be purchased with (Airbus) planes and WTO membership. But what guarantee is there that the arrangement will last? As we have seen with North Korea, rogue regimes rarely stay bribed, and the most effective way Tehran could up the ante is to continue to develop its nuclear options. The statement that "rogue regimes rarely stay bribed" reminded me of the story of Ethelred the

The British Navy is actively recruiting gays and lesbians, according to an article in the International Herald Tribune (link from Drudge). But I bring your attention to it not to revisit "don't ask, don't tell," but to point out this chuckler (emphasis mine): In response to the ruling, in 2000 the services abruptly changed their policy, stopped monitoring a recruit's sexuality, and began allowing gays to serve. Gay men and lesbians have since fought in Iraq alongside heterosexuals, as well as alongside Americans , without it being an issue, military officials say. And I'll let you decide whether the following was intentional: The change in the law followed a long and agonized debate here, similar to that in the United States, over the possible consequences of allowing gays and lesbians to serve. But when it took place, it was an anticlimax.

Those of us who are involved in the vast right-wing pajama media conspiracy have noted many troubling stories in recent years regarding the rise of European anti-Semitism. Better late than never, the New York Times weighs in today with a piece about how Jews have been abandoned by Europe's left-wing elite. But what is wonderful about the article is that it relays to America and the world at large that European Jews are not content to let this happen, and have moved markedly rightward in recent years. In Britain in the last 60 years, the number of left-of-center Jewish members of Parliament has dropped from more than two dozen to about a dozen, primarily older, members while the number in parties of the center and right has climbed from none to about half a dozen. The Tories' would-be finance minister, Oliver Letwin, is Jewish, as is the party's new leader, Michael Howard. Mr. Lerman says Jews in Britain are now identified in public opinion more with the Conservative Party t

Last night as I creeped home from work in stop-and-go traffic I noticed a small pickup truck pass me, its bed cap bedecked with pro-Kerry and anti-Bush stickers. Over the space of two or three traffic lights, I was able to read all of them, as she in the left lane and I in the right (naturally) passed each other with the natural ebb-and-flow of city driving. I have my own sticker (of a markedly different variety) on the back of my car, and was hoping she'd notice, but alas, she was consumed with a cell phone conversation. One sticker on the back of the truck had the unintended consequence of making me laugh out loud. It said: "Ideas are more important than knowledge." That, my friends, explains a lot. I was still considering this monumental admission when I received an email from a friend containing many musings from the great Thomas Sowell. One seemed like it was written in response to that sticker: People who pride themselves on having ideas often fail to understand tha

Spring training kicked off today as pitchers and catchers reported to camp in Florida. Gear has not been fully unpacked and we have our first breakout of animosity between the World Champion Boston Red Sox and the also-ran New York Yankees. Check out Trot Nixon's comments regarding Alex Rodriguez: "Like Rodriguez says," Nixon said, "his running stairs at 6 in the morning while I'm sleeping and taking my kids to school. I'm like, well I'm not a deadbeat dad, Alex." On Nov. 18, Rodriguez's wife gave birth to a daughter. "He's got a kid now, too, so I guess he'll have his limo driver take her to school," Nixon said. It's going to be a great season. Let the posts fly.

If the people only knew what the Bush administration was peddling, why surely they would reject it outright as evil. So says The New York Times in a Monday editorial. ...the administration is manipulating information - a tacit, yet devastating, acknowledgement, we believe, that an informed public would reject privatizing Social Security. The Times grasps at many straws in coming to such a conclusion. The thrust of the message is that there is no problem with Social Security, and if there is no problem with Social Security, the Republicans must be eager to "fix" it only so that they can destroy this 70-year-old institution. No problem with Social Security? Here's the argument: At a recent press conference, Mr. Bush exaggerated the timing of the system's shortfall by saying that Social Security would cross the "line into red" in 2018. According to Congress's budget agency, the system comes up short in 2052; according to the system'