Posts

Showing posts from March, 2005

Save your breath

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?

Schiavo's Death

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."

The Times was wrong, world ends

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

Thoughts on Schiavo

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

Bush and the Sox

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.

Tax the Rich (after they take your property)

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

Ethelred, a dubious role model

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