# Opening Shots (Jan. 1980) **URL:** **By** Bill Birmingham **Published:** January 1, 1980 --- “For some years now the Postal Service has been telling us that it is losing money.” For some years now, as most of our readers know, college-bound highschool students have been scoring lower and lower on the Scholastic Aptitude Test. But according to Dr. W. Timothy Weaver of Boston University, the decline has been greatest among education majors. In 1979, says _Fortune_ magazine in its report on Weaver’s findings, students majoring in education averaged 420 (on the SAT scale of 200 to 800) in mathematical ability and only 392 in verbal skills, versus an average of 467 and 427 for all students. Matters are even worse on the postgraduate level. At the start of the 1970s education majors seeking admittance to graduate school scored an average of 39 points lower than other students on the math section of the Graduate Record Examination and seven points lower on the verbal section; by 1976 they trailed by 51 and 25 points. After graduate school, of course, some go on to teach undergraduates, closing the cycle and ensuring that the new federal Department of Education will always have a problem at which to throw money. Or as “Professor X,” pseudonymous author of _This Sure Beats Working For A Living_ and other tales of academic life, puts it: Those who can, do; those who can’t, teach; those who can’t teach, teach teachers. Here we go again: “US intelligence has determined that the Soviet Union is building a new pier at the Cienfuegos naval base here in Cuba, but Carter administration officials said last night that they do not know whether it could be used for offensive purposes such as servicing Soviet submarines.” (_Washington Post_, October 31, 1979.) No cause for alarm just now, then, but stay tuned for reports on the new facilities in the Havana red light district, which some officials fear could be used for servicing submarine crewmen. Department herpetologist C. Kenneth Dodd wrote a letter of protest to the Washington, D.C. (where else?) restaurant where Andrus was wont to dine on sautéed rattlesnake, the Secretary would react by firing Mr. Dodd. (The press, we are happy to report, raised such a hue and cry that Andrus was forced to give Dodd his job back.) “Officially,” observes Alan Abelson of _Barron’s_, “Mr. Dodd objected to the snake steaks because the type of rattlesnake being sautéed was an endangered species. But the inside story is that he was offended, as any civilized person would be, by the fact of politicians eating rattlesnakes—which, of course, is rank cannibalism.” Just when we thought those lovable madcaps at _National Review_ had broken forever with us “anarcho-totalitarians” (see Ralph Raico’s article in this issue, “Conservatives on the Run,” for particulars) we spotted Charles R. Kesler’s report on “The Movement of Opinion on Campus” (_NR_, November 23, 1979). Em-blazoned on the cover are the responses to Question 10 of _NR_’s exclusive poll of student opinion on 12 college campuses: “Which of the following four designations most nearly describes your own political temperament,” liberal, radical, indifferent, or “conservative or libertarian?” Yes, the keepers of the conservative flame have gotten back into bed—if only for a one night stand — with the “kooky” libertarians; who only six months ago they were denouncing as unregenerate enemies of civility, order, and the Crown of St. Wenceslas. How could they do such a thing? Easy; _National Review_ can now trumpet that “Conservatism \[sic\] is on the rise at 11 out of 12 campuses.” Effective immediately, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare will not accept any policy statement, document or memorandum contaminated by “gender-specific terminology.” Among the terms “dissanc-tioned” by HEW—or is it HW now? — are “he,” “she,” “manmade,” “womankind,” “mother” (What? Childbearing is now sexist? Someone should tell HEW it’s not nice to fool Parent Nature), and “batboy” — “which,” says the _Washington Post_, “has been changed —except in the American and National Leagues—to ‘bat person.’” Actually we suppose “gender-free” language is a not unpraise-worthy cause, but there are so many other words that HEW should purge from its vocabulary, such as “tax,” “spend,” “regulate,” “subsidize,” and “exist.” False Dawn of Libertarianism Department: “President Anwar el-Sadat \[according to the _New York Times_, May 13, 1979\] said today that he no longer expected Saudi Arabia to finance the purchase of 50 American jet fighters for Egypt, and would ask the American people to raise the money for them by public subscription.” We gave at the office. On October 30, the Treasury Department ruled that Mexican farmers, who supply nearly half of the country’s winter vegetables, are not “dumping” their produce at less than cost. Had it ruled otherwise and imposed the punitive tariffs the law requires, inflation czar Alfred Kahn estimated that food prices could have risen by half a percentage point. But an attorney for a group of Florida growers, who had sought an anti-Mexican ruling out of a pure desire to serve the public weal and crush their only competitors in the winter vegetable market, declared the decision monstrous and “political.” “A lot of Florida farmers will go out of business if Mexicans keep \[sic\] selling below cost,” said Howard Feldman, the attorney. “At the end we will have an ex-tinct domestic industry.” Why Feldman thinks the Mexican growers could sell below cost any longer than Florida growers is unclear, but obviously he includes political economy in his rejection of things political. _National Review_ heard John Connally being interviewed on WINS radio last September, where he promised that he would run a Clean Campaign against Teddy Kennedy, yes indeed. Asked about the infamous milk fund scandal, Big John replied: “Milk fund scandal! Well, what about it? I was tried and found not guilty. I never drowned anybody. I wasn’t kicked out of college for cheating.” . . . Columnist William Safire has rediscovered a little-remembered incident from the Pretender’s law school days: the time he, was convicted of reckless driving down in Charlottes-ville, Virginia and fined $35. One night in 1958, it seems, Deputy Sheriff T.M. Whit-ten caught Teddy speeding; but instead of pulling over and accepting his ticket he turned off his lights and tried to run for it. At the end of the chase Kennedy pulled into a driveway, killed his engine and hid on the front seat in a vain attempt to escape arrest. This, Safire believes, shows “a pattern of character” fully consistent with his behavior at Harvard and Chappaquiddick: “When in big trouble, Ted Kennedy’s repeated history has been to run, to hide, to get caught, and to get away with it.” . . . Even wee Jimmy Carter (made bold by desperation, no doubt) mocked Teddy for asking his Mommy’s permission to run. To which the Chappaquiddick Kid replied: “I should have said: ‘I wonder if you listen to your brother as much as I listened to mine.’” It is a paradox of American politics that Congress, which rails unceasingly against “the Imperial Presidency,” nevertheless continues to give the chief executive ever more power. The President’s new “standby gas rationing” authority is a case in point. Under the new law Congress would have 30 days to review a proposed rationing plan, after which it would automatically be approved unless both houses rejected it. But apparently Congress was afraid to keep even that much power. The Emperor —beg pardon: the President —would be able to veto the rejection, and Congress could override only by a two-thirds majority. This, according to Louisiana Senator J. Bennett Johnston, Jr., “would assure that all but the most outrageous plan would be approved.” Johnston, mind you, not only supported the standby-rationing bill, but was its floor manager in the Senate. Profiles in Courage: Senator Milton Young (R-ND) has a surefire method of avoiding the wrath of anti-abortion constituents: he agrees with them. _The Washington Monthly_ (“Mail Fraud on Capitol Hill,” October 1979) quotes his response to a fake anti-abortion letter concocted by the magazine: “I appreciated hearing from you and learning of your opposition on abortion. I thought you would be pleased to know that I have strongly supported the position you take. I have been a co-sponsor of a resolution in the Senate proposing a Human Life Amendment since the Supreme Court issued its decision liberalizing abortion almost six years ago.” Doesn’t this outrage pro-choice constituents? Not at all. He sends them such missives as: “I appreciated hearing from you” etc. “I agree with you that a woman should have a right to decide whether or not to have an abortion.”