Don’t Believe Everything You Haven’t Read

You know, it used to be that people would at least read or listen to something before they’d condemn it hysterically. Then came liberals who hate Ann Coulter. Judging solely by what they’ve read from The New York Times or heard from Matt Lauer, and without so much as being able to describe what’s on the cover of Godless: The Church of Liberalism, the far-left noise machine went to work screaming that Coulter was a vitriolic hatemonger (which is at least a little ironic). Not even a week after it first appeared on bookstore shelves, the far-left (predictably) went ballistic. A pair of Democrat Assemblywomen from New Jersey went so far as to demand her book be banned from New Jersey stores. So much for the party that allegedly champions free speech.

All of the hullabaloo began when- of all the things the left might consider venomous hate speech- some critic found a reference to the “Jersey Girls,” four women whose husbands were killed on September 11. I would describe them and their subsequent actions and political activity further, but I fear that would make me a heartless malicious Nazi hatemonger as well. No doubt searching for the most offensive thing he could find, this critic most likely came upon the section on the “Jersey Girls” not by reading the entire book but by finding out what was under “9/11” indexed in the back.

Not meaning to invite death threats, I will do the unthinkable: defend Ann Coulter. Of course, the highly-successful New York Times bestselling author hardly needs my help. First of all, Coulter’s criticism of the “Jersey Girls” was part of her chapter on a larger point, “The Liberal Doctrine of Infallibility: Sobbing Hysterical Women.” She characterized these four- FOUR- women as part of a larger group of people like Cindy Sheehan, Max Cleland, and others who supposedly have the “absolute moral authority” bestowed by whom else, Maureen Dowd. Coulter says this “absolute moral authority” gives these people the so-called right to say whatever they want- no matter how insane- with complete immunity from criticism. If anything, the frenzied overreaction from the left characterizes Coulter’s point perfectly.

Perhaps most importantly, Coulter distinguishes these four- FOUR- 9/11 widows from all others who lost someone in the very terrorist attacks the left now denies or has forgotten ever occurred in the first place. “The Jersey Girls weren’t interested in national honor,” she says, “they were interested in a lawsuit. They first came together to complain that the $1.6 million average settlement to be paid to 9/11 victims’ families by the government wasn’t enough.” Many other 9/11 widows did behave gracefully and courageously. Or at the very least they didn’t hold George Bush responsible for the attacks and acknowledged that other families lost loved ones too. “The whole nation was wounded, all of our lives reduced. But they believed the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony. Apparently, denouncing Bush was an important part of their closure process.”

The left’s visceral reaction to Coulter’s most recent book exposes a larger issue, the left’s war on freedom of speech (or at least speech with which they disagree). Sure they support pornography, obscenity, blasphemy, sedition, and comparisons of Bush to Hitler, but conservative thought they just can’t tolerate. Of course, nothing shows support of free speech like an old-fashioned book burning. Ann Coulter has the right under the Constitution to print whatever she wants, as much as the left doesn’t accept this. Then again, who am I to comment on Godless: The Church of Liberalism? I haven’t read it yet.

Creeping Buchananism

Don’t look now, but a battle is being waged for the soul of the Republican Party. Roughly speaking, it is the same one that has quietly raged within the ranks since the early 1990’s. Coincidentally, one of the most iconic fighters in this ideological sparring match is the same man that spearheaded (and lost) the last battle fifteen years ago: Patrick Joseph Buchanan. This struggle, waged for the most part behind the scenes over the past decade, was suddenly thrust in to the open after it was announced that Dubai Ports World, a company based in the United Arab Emirates, had bought out the operational duties of a British firm in several of America’s ports. Now the last remnants of Buchanan’s “America First” nativism, protectionism, and outright xenophobia may suddenly be flourishing among several dissenting Republicans.

To be sure, it’s difficult to say how much of this sentiment is genuine and how much is pure political opportunism on the part of a few ambitious potential presidential candidates wishing to distance themselves from an unpopular Republican president. Having said that, we can completely ignore the democrats on this issue; everything they’ve ever done since January 2001 is opportunism and hypocrisy. They may have taken it to a new level this time with a “racial profiling bad, doing business with the A-Rabs worse” policy. This current struggle within the party is on the voter and rank-and-file level. Those supporting President Bush are mostly business conservatives in favor of increased globalization, integration, and free trade. Not surprisingly, this is everything the paleo-cons of Buchanan’s ilk vehemently oppose. To agricultural and labor interests, people still stuck in the 1970’s, and Michael Savage’s core audience, this UAE ports deal is like NAFTA on steroids.

Buchanan’s faction has been consistently wrong on practically every economic and foreign policy issue since they came out in the 1990’s. They see free trade agreements as being more threatening to America and her interests than terrorist attacks. They grow indignant when dead-end unionized manufacturing jobs with mediocre pay are outsourced to be done better, cheaper, and more efficiently by workers overseas. They think immigration (especially from Mexico) is a disease and that American soldiers should be deployed along our southern border instead of defending freedom in the Middle East and Korea. They were wrong then and are very wrong now.

It’s one thing to object when our ports are being operated by a British firm. But to suggest that British companies are ok while Arab ports are suspect is pure unadulterated racism. So what if a couple 9/11 hijackers came from the United Arab Emirates? If they came from the United Kingdom instead would we be bombing London? Just last week three terrorists were arrested in Toledo. Does that mean we can’t do business with Ohio anymore (this would make sense, with Ohio 47^th in job creation)? The UAE has been criticized several times by these Buchananites as not being a reliable ally of the United States in the war on terror. I ask them who has been a more reliable ally since 9/11, the United Arab Emirates or France?

President Bush is right on this issue, plain and simple. In this war on terror, which will prove to be a generational struggle, we need every ally we can get in the Middle East. Blocking this deal will prove to serve as a slap in the face not only to the UAE but to every other moderate state in the region looking to improve relations with the US. It would also play in to the hands of terrorists in their America-bashing that we don’t trust or like Arabs and Muslims. On the contrary, there is no better rebuttal to the charge of imperialism than “look how much your country owns here!”

The Seinfeld Party

Over the past few weeks- and especially tonight with the President’s State of the Union address- we saw the sad state of the current national Democratic Party. It was bad enough when the democrats blocked aspects of the President’s agenda without offering any ideas of their own. It got particularly nasty the way they treated Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito (and even worse, his wife) during his confirmation hearings. Appropriately enough, democrats like John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, and others wound up with egg on their faces when Justice Alito was confirmed. While those were clues as to where the party was heading as a whole, the dead giveaway was when democratic members of Congress gave a standing ovation to, of all things, a line given by President Bush meant to serve as chastisement for not acting on Social Security reform.

“Congress did not act last year on my proposal to save Social Security,” and the democrats applauded. Personally, I don’t mind an opposition party (indeed, functional and responsible opposition parties are essential for democratic government) that blocks everything the party in power tries to pass. Is it too much to ask these days for that opposition party to, in so opposing, come up with competing ideas of their own? Apparently so. Attacks on President Bush and his policy agenda are far from scarce, but an alternative plan from the left side of the aisle is practically an endangered species. We saw it later tonight from democratic Governor of Virginia Tim Kane. “There’s a better way,” he repeated, several times. Again, attacks on the President, his agenda, and his actions were plentiful. We can only guess as to what that “better way” might be. Mine happens to be a plan for higher taxes, increased federal spending, more entitlement programs, and unconditional surrender to Al Qaeda. I could be wrong.

There was a time not too long ago when democrats were considered the party of ideas. They were a party that not only stood for something but stood up for their country and their citizenry. They had a clear plan for what America should look like, and like it or not, you knew what it was. They had charismatic and inspiring leaders who could carry out that plan and convince Americans that it was best for the country. Above all, the Democratic Party was once a party that- whether you thought they were right or wrong- you knew they wanted what was best for America. Those days are gone. This party is much like what Zell Miller has described at length: a party out of touch with American values, obsessed with political gain and partisanship, devoid of leadership or an agenda. What’s more, the confidence that democrats want what is best for America is gone as well.

It’s hard to tell exactly what democrats want these days. Perhaps democratic leaders like Nancy Pelosi really do believe ambiguity or nothingness is what’s best for their party. They’ve been cheering the blocking of Social Security reform for some time now, almost embracing the suggestion that they’re party has revolved around nothing. They’ve become the Seinfeld Party- the party of nothing. There once was a party in American politics formed and organized around opposing a single person that later dissolved for lack of a coherent national agenda and regional infighting, among other things. What’s more, they could claim a proud history of bold ideas as well. Perhaps this anti-Bush party of nothing may one day join the Whigs in the back pages of American political history.

A Contract With Women

As reluctant as I normally am to comment in this format on my personal life, recent events and circumstances have compelled me to do just that. Twenty-one years of rather futile searching, fatal mistakes, serious lapses in judgment, and subsequent heartache, sorrow, and loneliness should have produced some learning along the way. This time, I am determined that it will. With apologies in part to Newt Gingrich for his 1994 Contract With America and to Greg Behrendt and Liz Tuccillo’s list in He’s Just Not That Into You, here is a contract with both myself and future prospective romantic interests. I call it a contract; you could also call them standards. In addition to following through as best I can, I intend to learn something from each failure from now on as a means of strengthening the contract.

In order to avoid making the same mistakes, stave off the threats of despair and misery, and ensure happiness through a meaningful and fulfilling relationship with a partner worthy of respect and love, I intend to:

1. Never pursue a relationship with a woman below certain standards or requirements. Smoking, stupidity, self-absorption, vanity, apathy, too few common interests and beliefs and general disinterest should serve as automatic disqualifiers for any potential girlfriend.

2. Never make the same mistake twice. That is, to pursue a relationship with a woman who has rejected me before.

3. Never again pursue sex for its own sake or outside the confines of a relationship. Sex is the most intimate act possible between two people, complete with inherent feelings and emotions. It should be an expression of love and intimacy, not the product of an alcohol-produced meeting. It should benefit both who engage in it, rather than one partner or the other.

4. Never pursue a relationship with someone who isn’t sure they want one.

5. Never pursue a relationship- or any type of association, for that matter- with someone who drinks, does drugs, or engages in other vices to an extent where it causes me discomfort.

6. Never pursue a relationship with a woman less emotionally invested in me than I am in her.

7. Never demand a woman change for my sake. Conversely, never change for the sake of a woman.

8. Never be afraid to declare intentions with a potential romantic interest, no matter how early.

9. Never pursue a relationship with a woman who isn’t comfortable or tolerant of my imperfections.

10. Never settle for a woman who describes the preceding list as being too demanding, unrealistic, or the product of stubbornness or bitterness. Statistically, there are about three billion women on this planet. I’m sure at least one of them can fit the criteria. It is their own problem if they cannot and they are not worthy of my time, attention, respect, or devotion.

If I follow through on these standards and insist that all who may be interested in me, whoever and wherever they may be do the same, I believe I can find the right person worthy of affection, love, and devotion and capable of living in harmony and happiness. Furthermore, I can be a better person for it.

BWC’s: Greed, Corruption, Overspending- All the Essentials

By now Ohioans are well aware of the numerous problems plaguing the state’s Bureau of Workers’ Compensation- the Coingate scandal, the bad investments, the mismanagement- but few know what to do about it. Ohio’s state legislators are currently debating reform and restructuring to the program. One idea beginning to surface is that of privatizing the entire Bureau and turning over responsibility of handling claims and dispensing benefits to a private mutual company.

States began creating workers’ compensation funds around the turn of the century, however they began to divest from workers’ compensation in the 1980’s and 90’s. By now, most workers’ compensation systems are handled by a quasi-public firm. Currently, Ohio is one of only five states nationwide still running workers’ compensation with a total state-run monopoly. One of those five, West Virginia, is set to privatize their state-run system and remove itself from the insurance industry by the end of this year.

With Governor Joe Manchin’s signing of SB 1004 on February 16, 2005, beginning next year businesses within West Virginia are estimated by Manchin to enjoy a 15% reduction in their premiums, which is estimated to save the state’s employers $160 million, according to a report his office issued that month. The law also allows the state to bond out of $3 billion in unfunded workers’ compensation liabilities while at the same time transferring the whole workers’ compensation bureaucracy to a private firm by the beginning of next year.

Another state leading the way in this area is Nevada, which went private in 1999. Now Nevadans are reaping the benefits of a free market insurance system which has contributed to one of the most friendly business climates in the nation, says a September 2005 article by Sierra Pacific Economic Development. By privatizing the 86 year-old system, Nevada freed up 800 positions from state government and saved taxpayers $2 billion annually.

Between 2002 and 2004, Nevada’s employers saw a 12% drop in their workers’ compensation premiums, which Sierra Pacific describes as continuing a trend in the state- 20% since privatization. Next-door neighbor California, on the other hand, has seen a 90% increase in their premiums since 1999 and as found by an independent study by the State of Oregon, are the highest in the nation.

While America’s workers’ compensation premiums have gone up in recent times, Nevada’s private system has sent them down. Sierra Pacific quoted Derek Reinke, research analyst of the Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services as saying of Nevada’s system “it looks like you managed to have a rate decrease while most of the folks were going up.”

West Virginia and Nevada’s benefits from privatization could be applied to Ohio. Employers can be saved over $300 million annually from this system, and can be relieved from one of the nation’s last remaining monopoly systems. They would also see their premiums drop (currently the fifth highest in the nation according to Oregon’s study), which is a major factor in where businesses choose to locate themselves. If nothing else, the State of Ohio can quit lagging behind the wave of change and join the rest of the country in privatizing at least part- if not all- of their system. The new private, competitive system will ensure lower premiums to employers. This will meet the need of attracting new and diverse businesses to the state of Ohio and put an end to the state’s long struggles against flight and drain of capital, allowing for benefits to all Ohioans.

President Bush and Samuel Alito: The Best Just Got Better!

I have finally taken leave of my sloth-induced absence to respond to the recent nominations of Harriet Miers and Samuel Alito. I have a theory regarding their twin nominations, so bear with me here. Many of us are familiar with the story of New Coke, introduced by the Coca-Cola Company in the mid-1980’s. As the story goes, to try and compete with rival Pepsi, Coca-Cola changed its once sacred formula and adopted New Coke in 1985. Once it became clear that everyone hated it, Coca-Cola relented and re-adopted its old formula (later called Coca-Cola Classic) three months later. Of course, once this happened, sales of Coca-Cola Classic soared, prompting conspiracy theorists to claim that was their objective all along.

So to it may be with President Bush’s recent judicial nominees. In order to appease democrats wanting a fight over the Supreme Court and taking his own loyal base of conservatives for granted with the disdain of Old Coke drinkers, President Bush appointed an unqualified counsel with a background from Southern Methodist University to the United States Supreme Court. Criticism almost immediately followed from the right and left over her rather undistinguished resume. The public relations backlash against the White House appeared to be devastating as it might have seemed that the democrats (and even some Senate Republicans) would succeed in blocking a Supreme Court nominee.

Then, last week Miers unexpectedly pulled out and withdrew her nomination to the Court, apparently in the face of overwhelming opposition from Bush’s base of conservative voters angry enough to assert that they would not simply hand this or any president a blank check to govern. They demanded her replacement be a solid and well-qualified conservative jurist, or else. That’s what they got yesterday in Samuel Alito, a Third Circuit Appeals Court judge, who is nicknamed “Scalito” by his critics (a rather ironic means of insulting someone, as any intellectual conservative should be sincerely flattered if being compared to Antonin Scalia). Judging by the reaction of the usual suspects- Teddy, Boxer, Feinstein, Reid, and Upchuck Schumer- Alito in fact does appear to be the solid choice many conservatives, those in favor of judicial restraint, and those who recognize a separation of federal powers were hoping for.

Which leads to the New Coke comparison theory. Perhaps President Bush had intended to appoint Alito or someone like him all along. True, he could have just appointed him from the get-go, but his nomination prospects might look a lot better if contrasted with those of an unqualified White House Counsel with a history of praising the likes of Hillary, Ann Richards and Barbara Streisand. Support for the President, even among conservative circles, was slipping with the way he’s handled the federal budget (outspending even the likes of Lyndon Johnson) and the border with Mexico (prompting archconservative and xenophobe Pat Buchanan to suggest impeachment as a solution to the supposed disease of immigration). The appointment of a solid judicial conservative like Samuel Alito after this apparent fiasco only serves to welcome the base back in to the President’s column. True, it may be that everything just described occurred purely by accident and coincidence, or maybe not. After all, stranger things have happened in Washington, particularly around this time of year.

Not Over Yet

Despite the best efforts of the so-called “mainstream” press, the left’s reports of President Bush’s political demise are greatly exaggerated. In fact, just looking at the calendar tells us that George Walker Bush is still president- your president- for another three years. No, contrary to the beliefs of Maureen Dowd or Chris Mathews, President Bush is not a lame duck, and still has the powers to assert his agenda. Consequently, no president in the history of the republic has attained lame duck status less than one year after winning re-election.

This all began after the left (unsuccessfully) tried to pin blame for Hurricane Katrina Vanden Heuvel and its aftermath on President Bush. It doesn’t matter to what extent local governments were responsible for the exacerbation of this human catastrophe, or to what extent Hurricane Katrina Vanden Heuvel was a natural disaster- it was still Bush’s fault. Surely their own polls would show people believed Bush was to blame for the effects of the hurricane, and maybe even the hurricane itself. After all, it was Bush not pressuring the United States Senate to ratify the Kyoto Protocol- a treaty the Senate voted earlier 95-0 to not even consider- that caused the hurricane. Or something like that. When polls failed to reflect their “blame Bush first” sentiment, the press effectively buried the story (in fact, an overwhelming majority of Americans said President Bush was NOT to blame).

Their fortunes appeared to change, however, when the President’s approval ratings dropped below 50% in the aftermath of the catastrophe. The press went in to a frenzy and triumphantly declared Bush’s presidency to be over (who they think is currently occupying the Oval Office in his place is anyone’s guess). That at least was the mood of Hardball with Chris Mathews the night of Bush’s speech from New Orleans. Yes, somehow since the Washington Compost reported that less than 50% of Americans support President Bush that means we don’t have to listen to him anymore.

Assuming the truth of the left’s assertions, former president George W. Bush is enjoying what would appear to be the most productive retirement in the history of the presidency. In a speech watched by possibly millions of Americans a couple of weeks ago, Bush pledged to rebuild the Gulf Coast area, and do it with the help of entrepreneurship and free enterprise (what’s more amazing is that Congress will probably take his advice). On Monday, Bush even made an appearance in Washington to advise a new national energy policy. Perhaps the most remarkable accomplishment of all, former president Bush is about to have his Supreme Court nominee John Roberts confirmed to be the next Chief Justice. I’m sure the former president’s accomplishments, from legislative priorities to yet another Supreme Court nominee, will continue to mount. At this rate, Bush’s post-presidential legacy is bound to surpass that of Jimmy Carter’s without Bush even having to betray America in the process.

If only that were true, of course. It must be interesting to live in the far-left’s fantasy land. They have not and will not accept George W. Bush as their head of state. I would like to ask an open question to those liberals, progressives, socialists, Trotskyites, and other assorted leftists who read my column on a weekly basis: if George W. Bush is “not your president,” then who is? Can you list his or her accomplishments over the past one to five years? You can answer me in the stacks of hate mail I get for writing this column or any means you see fit. To the rest of you democrats who have accepted reality, do as we conservatives did when Bill Clinton was re-elected: cope and deal until the midterms, hope for a hostile Congress, and try to get his successor to screw up and lose. Until then, good luck with a nominee!