Blog O

Don’t Believe Everything You Haven’t Read

2006-06-12T19:37:00.000-07:00

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

2006-03-01T12:40:00.000-08:00

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

2006-01-31T21:30:00.000-08:00

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

2006-01-06T23:41:00.000-08:00

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

2005-12-18T16:05:00.000-08:00

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!

2005-11-01T08:47:00.000-08:00

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

2005-09-26T20:22:00.000-07:00

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!

The Commissions Commission

2005-09-12T01:00:00.000-07:00

Recently, catastrophic events over the past four years have prompted congressional democrats to demand a series of hearings- commissions, if you will- in order to investigate why such events occurred- or more specifically, who was to blame for them. Originally a noble concept in the wake of the attacks of September 11, the commission eventually turned partisan and sinister, complete with defeated senators and former presidential advisors passing blame like a hot potato. Ultimately, after untold hours and taxpayer dollars were wasted, the members of the commission copped out and blamed President Bush.

Commissions seem to be all the rage these days in Washington, becoming as popular as multi-billion dollar, decade-long studies and subsidized Alaskan bridges to nowhere. Senator Hillary (D-NY) and others are calling for a Hurricane Katrina commission. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) will be calling for a commission on yesterday’s Los Angeles blackout, and Herbert Kohl (D-WI) is assembling a commission investigating why nobody knows who he is.

Perhaps in the midst of all this commissioning there should be a congressional commission investigating congressional commissions. This is analogous to how government bureaucracies have been created with the sole purpose of overseeing and regulating government bureaucracies. This Commissions Commission could be chaired by a sitting or former senator selected by holding a commission on the selection of commission chairs. The chairman would then assemble and select the most mediocre and forgotten former senators they could find who weren’t ousted in the Abscam scandal.

The commission would open with members calling outspoken partisan blowhards to testify to their own agenda, followed by dissenting members tearing them a new orifice. Over the course of the year-long hearings, responsibility (and more importantly, blame) would be sent back and forth with the frequency of an air hockey puck, the media covering it all. When polls finally indicated that enough Americans were fed up with the antics of the Commissions Commission, the commissioners would hastily prepare a final report to mask their utter lack of accomplishment (before planning a commission on why Americans don’t care about commissions). The commissioners would prepare their report, dripping with partisan nonsense and incoherence, in a book long enough to keep most Americans from reading it. Then the New York Times and CNN would report that the commission blamed President Bush, and Charles Schumer and Barbara Boxer would demand his resignation.

While these commissions are the most recent fad in Washington, they are part of a tendency that is nothing new either in Congress or politics in general. Since the establishment of the first colonial legislatures, when problems came around politicians made it look like they were solving a problem without actually having to do anything about it (and in the meantime voted themselves pay raises and built bridges to nowhere in Alaska). Meanwhile, valuable time and money is wasted in an attempt to make the opposing side look at fault. Blaming the other party for given problems, be they terrorist attacks, natural disasters, or the inability to win a national election, is as old as politics itself and is American as apple pie. In the meantime, the Senate is preparing a commission on the use and popularity of metaphors and similes, to be followed by one on food-related clichés.

Hurricane Blame

2005-09-03T00:36:00.000-07:00

It was two days after Hurricane Katrina vanden Heuvel slammed in to the Gulf Coast and the democrats started looking for someone to blame. Not surprisingly, it was the same person they’ve blamed for every problem anywhere in the history of the planet, ever since Hurricane Hate struck the Democratic Party in January of 2001. Indeed, the media’s assertions that we are witnessing history are correct. Never before has one political party blamed so much on one person. Like the supposedly sluggish economy, the terrorist attacks of 9/11, oil prices, and the failure of After MASH, Hurricane Katrina vanden Heuvel’s destruction can be blamed on President George W. Bush.

One would think the media would have exposed the left’s lunacy by now, if only they weren’t in their back pocket. Recall how mad they went when the likes of Jerry Falwell claimed the attacks of 9/11 (which liberals and their media have long since forgotten about) were a punishment from God for America’s tolerance of abortion, witchcraft and feminism. Hurricane Katrina vanden Heuvel, on the other hand, is apparently a punishment from the left’s god of “mother nature” for America’s tolerance of SUV’s, President Bush, and his immoral, illegal, imperialist war for oil and Zionism in Iraq.

Indeed, this is proof of the old adage that truth is stranger than fiction as some of the left’s latest comments wouldn’t even make The Onion or Weekend Update. Global warming has been commonly invoked by the likes of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Arianna Huffington. This phenomenon, of course, was caused by President Bush, since everyone on the left knows that global warming did not exist before January 20, 2001. Never mind that far more destructive hurricanes have existed before then and even before President Bush himself was born. Global warming also could have been stopped by him, if only he would have destroyed the American economy and pushed the US Senate to ratify the Kyoto Protocol (a treaty not even fit for the many trees that had to be cut down to put the thing on paper) - the same Senate that voted 95-0 to not even look at it.

Maybe it was also President Bush’s fault for not having enough National Guardsmen in New Orleans. Never mind that practically every elected official in the state has said that there were, in fact enough. Yes, if only those Guardsmen weren’t off fighting in Bush’s evil, immoral, illegal, imperialist war for oil and Zionism in Iraq they could have been helping those evacuees in the Superdome (instead of doing both). Or maybe President Bush won’t authorize enough federal aid to help the region, just like he apparently did when the tsunami struck East Asia. Never mind that America was one of the world’s most generous donors in that event, and certainly pledged more money than some countries (cough, France, cough).

Recall the aftermath of the Mississippi River floods of 1995 when Congress sent an aid package so full of pork it would have made a fine Easter dinner. Congressmen from states such as Massachusetts, Alaska, and West Virginia (which didn’t happen to border the Mississippi River) made sure their constituents received generous aid, whether they needed it or not. Yes, President Bush will surely be blamed if Alaska doesn’t get another Bridge to Nowhere, Massachusetts doesn’t get another underground freeway, or Robert Byrd doesn’t get another statue.

I suppose it doesn’t really matter what President Bush does or doesn’t do in the coming weeks and months, since he can do no right with the left anyway. For those of you who aren’t simply ignoring the loony left’s media coverage of Hurricane Hate, we are already seeing the true spirit of America, the same spirit that emerged in the wake of the 9/11 attacks (the same attacks which the left has forgotten about). Americans are pouring forth effort and aid in the hopes of rebuilding the Gulf Coast and showing solidarity with the people of New Orleans. Given time, this spirit will carry through and succeed in rejuvenating the area long before Hurricane Hate’s barrage of Bush-bashing and anti-Americanism wears off. On the other hand, I suppose that if Americans took the left seriously they would have won an election by now.

The Negative News

2005-08-26T22:55:00.000-07:00

Vice President Spiro Agnew once referred to those in the media as “nattering nabobs of negativity.” It wasn’t just alliteration and wit he was conveying, he had a point. In addition to craving sensationalism, scandal, and stories about missing white women from suburban Modesto, the mainstream media persists in portraying domestic and international events as being worse than they actually are. Take, for example, Walter Cronkite’s role in losing the Vietnam War from his perch on the CBS Evening News. Indeed, his reports- which run the gauntlet between half-truths and blatant lies- are still influential even today as no one in America realizes that we actually won the Tet Offensive. Sorry Uncle Walter, that wasn’t the way it was.

Cronkite’s trademark style of turning victory in to defeat can still be seen today in a media that is still somehow considered “mainstream”- CNN, the New York Times, broadcast television, and other outlets which haven’t been relevant since 1996. Over the past twenty-five years, their attempts to mold reality in to their pessimistic perceptions have been met with mixed results. Their efforts to pin something- anything- on Ronald Reagan were an unmitigated failure, seeing as how “the Teflon President,” as Congresswoman Pat Schroeder (D-CO) once begrudgingly called him, was recently voted the Greatest American of All Time. Leading up to Gulf War I in 1991, those in the media predicted a Vietnam-style quagmire, complete with American servicemen coming home in body bags and Jane Fonda committing treason. A more accurate assessment of the fighting was offered up by Kevin Pollack in Canadian Bacon: “four days after we invade, they’re begging for a Big Mac.” Of course, once they succeeded in ousting President George Bush the Elder everything was rosy again.

Fast forward eight years to the presidency of George Bush the Younger and the media’s unrelenting and vicious assault on him and this country. From watching CNN or the network news, reading the New York Times or Washington Compost, or listening to NPR, one would think a deep recession began in this country on January 20, 2001 and has yet to be remedied, since President Bush is still in office. Indeed, during the 2004 presidential campaign, many opinion columnists wondered why popular perceptions of the economy- propagated by a media desperate to oust Bush- didn’t match the actual economic reality. In any event, despite the media’s best attempts otherwise, America quickly rebounded from a brief recession thanks in large part to Bush’s much-vilified tax cuts which have since resulted in increased tax revenue and massive reductions in the federal deficit (not meaning to sound at all like Ken Mehlman, let me remind everyone that I don’t pretend to be an impartial reporter).

Supplement that with the current coverage of the Iraq War by a media that seems to want us to lose, just as they made us think we did thirty years ago. Every day produces another ridiculous attempted parallel to Vietnam and another treasonous and asinine comment from America’s most famous unemployed woman, Cindy Sheehan. The media would have you believe that America is losing this war, even though to date America has yet to lose a single military engagement since the war began in spring 2003. The media would have you believe that American servicemen and women are dying in droves reminiscent of the First Battle of the Marne, when in fact more American servicemen and women died accidentally from 1983-1996 per year than in this current conflict. Besides, more Americans are dying per day in Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and Detroit than in Baghdad, Fallujah, and Mosul. Should we pull out of there too?

Perhaps Sean Hannity said it best; Iraq is just like Vietnam, except for the fact that we’ve captured Ho Chi Minh, occupied Hanoi, and held free elections. Indeed, the only people who are saying Iraq is like Vietnam are aging former hippies who actually want Iraq to be like Vietnam so that they can watch America lose as well as revisit the days of their youth, right down to the acid tripping, draft card burnings, communism, and treason. Honestly, listening to some of the squatters in Crawford makes you think these midlife crisis-types are stuck in 1969. Soon these imminent pensioners will be growing their hair out, wearing beads and tie-dye, and moving to Wasco County, Oregon. Personally, nothing makes me happier to have missed the sixties than to see 50-somethings joining hangs singing Kumbayah, and teaching that sort of incoherent drug-educed psychobabble to kids named Moon Beam.

Be advised, Americans, don’t blindingly believe everything you read in the Washington Compost. Just because they claim US Army recruitment is down and our forces are running thin doesn’t make it so. In fact, this blatant lie was refuted by- of all sources- the French, who cited the fact that Army re-enlistment is through the roof. Just because CNBC says the economy is in the tank doesn’t mean it is. If anything, rising employment, continued job growth, and a housing boom prove the economy is kicking butt. Just because CBS News reports Iraq as being a mess and an unsolvable quagmire doesn’t make that the case. Infrastructure is being rebuilt, vital services have returned to the cities, and new hospitals and schools are being built. You don’t know that because Bob Schieffer didn’t report it. And just because Cindy Sheehan refers to President Bush as a “filth-spewer,” a “fascist,” “the fuehrer,” and “the world’s number-one terrorist” (among other more colorful, unprintable descriptions) doesn’t mean he is. President Bush may not be a media darling (maybe that’s a good thing), but he is doing something the democrats aren’t: providing leadership. Don’t be surprised if that doesn’t get reported either.

"Absolute" Treason

2005-08-20T15:18:00.000-07:00

It is often said that nothing of consequence happens in regards to the news cycle in the month of August. With both Congress and the President on vacation, the nation takes a break from caring about substantive news and commentary and starts waiting for things to happen again in September after government returns from its summer break. In the meantime, the media gets desperate, looking for anything they can make a story out of in hopes of filling up twenty-two minutes in an otherwise empty newscast.

Case and point is their obsessive round-the-clock coverage of a stark raving mad mother of an American serviceman killed in action in Iraq. Cindy Sheehan, the nation’s most famous unemployed woman, has been given close to 20,000 stories on cable and broadcast news since she took up panhandling in Crawford, Texas. In the meantime she has blamed Bush and America for everything that has gone on in her otherwise unremarkable existence and has been asked questions on Good Morning America as difficult as “how do you feel?” Not even the Olympics tolerate such softballs. Meanwhile, those who still cling to rational thought and common sense rightfully ignore Sheehan’s insanity.

In their fanatical and all-consuming hatred of President George W. Bush, the left in this country has made a hero out of Cindy the Psycho. Meanwhile, in the midst of their worship of this derelict dissident they have completely ignored everything she has ever said. Maybe it’s because her statements run the gauntlet from idiotic and asinine to paranoid and treasonous. She has called America a fascist state and not worth dying for. She has referred to flag-waving and patriotism as B.S. She has said- as Michael Moore, George Galloway, and most of the more radical members of the Democratic Party have said- that Iraq is part of a war of terror and genocide waged for profit, oil, and Zionism by “the real terrorist,” George W. Bush. Maybe those on the left actually agree with the opinions of her and her fellow squatters in Texas. Or maybe they realize the poison and excrement spewing from the mouth of Cindy the Psycho and seek to place a continent’s worth of distance between her and themselves.

It’s becoming quite apparent that Cindy the Psycho doesn’t even care about her late son anymore. If she did, she wouldn’t be doing or saying what she is. On the contrary, she cares only about her Bush-bashing, America-hating agenda, crafted by the most extreme and treasonous elements of our society. Instead of recognizing his sacrifice and his heroic actions, Sheehan is dishonoring her son and the entire armed forces in the most despicable way possible. There quite simply is no greater insult a person can give than to say that a soldier, sailor, airman, or marine died for nothing. The fact that she is saying this about her own son speaks volumes. Every time this wretched woman opens her mouth, Casey Sheehan is dying again and again. Her outrageous comments amount to actions worse than filicide.

Perhaps instead of focusing on the Michael Moore and MoveOn.org-inspired rants of Cindy the Psycho, the media should be covering the words and actions of those who actually know her. Sheehan’s entire family has condemned what she is doing, rightfully stating that she is dishonoring the memory of her late son. Sheehan’s hometown of Vacaville, California, instead of holding ANSWER-backed treason fests, Bush-bashings, and flag-burnings, like many of the media’s favorite cities, they actually had the audacity to support America and her troops and dare to criticize the actions of a woman Maurine Dowd has anointed with “absolute moral authority.”

Dowd’s ironic and comical use of such a term should be enough by itself to successfully and unintentionally discredit this woman, if Sheehan hasn’t done so herself. Cindy the Psycho gradually pissed away any chances of her being taken seriously by the mainstream by opening her mouth and letting her MoveOn.org talking points ooze through. Indeed, President Bush was right in not meeting with her and instead spend his vacation time on more worthwhile activities, like chopping wood. The leader of the free world is a busy man, and perpetually has much more important things to do than meet with those of the intellectual capacity of a doughnut hole. Perhaps instead of trivializing the activities of the President of the United States by demanding he meet with dim-wit dissidents, those in the media and elsewhere should ask themselves a simple question: What Would Nixon Do?

Brave-less New World

2005-08-13T00:58:00.000-07:00

Asinine political correctness won big last week with the NCAA bringing the tomahawk- er, the hammer- down on mascots, team names, attire, symbols, and colors it deems “offensive.” Never mind what the majority of America thinks, never mind what the majority of the supposedly-offended group thinks, and never mind what mascots, team names, attire, symbols, and colors might be offensive to other groups in this country. This time, the group in question was Native Americans. With schools changing their Native American themes in favor of more “culturally-sensitive” names for the past thirty years already, the NCAA decided that was not enough and made their reservations- I mean, their objections- clear.

The NCAA has developed a list of 18 mascots they find offensive, “abusive and hostile” toward Native Americans. One of those mascots, the Seminoles of Florida State, has been endorsed- repeatedly- by the actual Seminole tribe. Indeed, every aspect of the university’s use of Native American symbolism, from the name of the tribe to their use of garnet and gold to the pre-game ritual performed by Chief Osceola at home football games, has the approval of the tribe itself. So much for “abusive and hostile.” FSU has stated it will seek legal action to stop the NCAA’s ridiculous act of political correctness. This marks the first time I’ve ever rooted for Florida State in anything. Florida governor Jeb Bush, uh, hit it right on the head earlier in the week when he said that the arrogant presumption of abusive hostility insulted the intelligence of Native American groups, like the Seminoles. Then again, that has always been one of the roles of liberals- telling entire groups of people what to think.

It should serve as no surprise to anyone that the only ones who have been complaining about Native American names have been pissant, whiney white liberals, apparently believing Native Americans cared less about their own cultural genocide than their supposed modern-day hurt feelings. Obsessed with political correctness, cultural sensitivity, and a load of other Berkeley buzzwords, the left is meddling in issues they do not understand. Perhaps one piece of irony is that the very same anti-BCS liberals who pined for the Utah Utes to play for college football’s national championship are now demanding they be prevented from playing for next year’s college basketball national championship. NCAA Myles Brand is a college president, his last stint at Indiana University where he fired basketball coach Bob Knight. They talk endlessly about what is offensive and what is tolerant without knowledge or interest in what it really means.

The NCAA has taken it upon itself to decide what is and is not offensive, particularly without any regard or consultation of the group in question. Somehow “Indians” is offensive and somehow “Fighting Irish” is not. Just who is to decide this in the first place? Furthermore, why are only references to people considered offensive? Just a couple of years ago, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (not to be confused with People for the Eating of Tasty Animals) tried pressuring the NCAA to take similar action against teams with animal names. Truly, this move by the NCAA, this crusade for an idiotic notion of political correctness and cultural sensitivity is the first step down what may become a slippery slope.

First the NCAA strikes down 18 names with Native American themes it- and nobody else- finds offensive. Next PETA gets their bite of the apple and abolishes animal names. Then religious groups force the NCAA to get rid of names they find offensive, like Sun Devils and Blue Devils. Then to be fair, anti-religious groups force the NCAA to get rid of names like Saints, Crusaders, and Friars. Maybe storm victims will want us to get rid of names like Hurricanes and Cyclones. Personally, I find Portland’s Jefferson High team name, the Democrats, to be offensive. In this victimized and guilt-ridden society, truly the sky is the limit.

Perhaps we shouldn’t just limit this to team names. Perhaps the very states themselves should stop harboring these racist, “abusive and hostile” sentiments toward Native Americans and change their names too. The states of Alabama, Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Utah are directly named after Native American tribes originally settling in the region. Just about every other state in the union can trace its name to something else attributed to a Native American tribe, unless they were named after European monarchs. Several cities share this distinction as well. I guess it wouldn’t be that far off to make such a demand. States have already had to change their flags, symbols, mottos, and histories to accommodate the ideal of political correctness. This ideal can have a rather enigmatic and arbitrary nature about itself. It allows one set of speech in the name of tolerance and vehemently disallows another in the name of whatever –ism it can think of. Yes, the left says it tolerates the Nazis marching through Skokie but it may be a long time before we see the Seminoles running through Tallahassee again.

Salem's Session Scorecard

2005-08-06T02:47:00.000-07:00

It’s finally over. The second-longest legislative session in Oregon history, 207 days in length, is finally over. While accomplishments were few and far between, one of them should stand out among all others: no new taxes. Somehow, miraculously, the Legislature resisted the temptation to give in to the extortion tactics of the public employee unions and others and held the line on taxes. The accomplishment should be regarded all the more extraordinary thanks to an entire chamber, the Oregon Senate, being controlled by the democrats. Indeed, if there is one member of the Legislature who should be pitied more than anyone else it is Senate Majority Leader Kate Brown (D-Portland) who, despite her numerical advantage, simply couldn’t assert her agenda. On the other hand, House Speaker Karen Minnis (R-Wood Village) gets the Legislator of the Session award for keeping Brown’s agenda from becoming state law.

No new taxes. Even with the unions and special interest groups keeping with their tried and true message- doomsday warnings about grandma getting thrown down stairs, rapists and murderers being set free, kids with 30-day school years crammed hundreds at a time in cramped, dingy old rooms, urban single moms with ten kids who just can’t make ends meet- the legislators would not be swayed. Instead, they drafted a modest budget that met the needs of Oregonians without succumbing to their addiction to over-spending.

Other notable achievements should include the phasing out of the Oregon Lottery’s sports betting program, passed Thursday night. This will allow for NCAA Tournament games to be played in the Beaver State for the first time in decades, and will greatly increase tourism revenue. New money for higher education will allow more people to attain such degrees, and desperately-needed reforms were made to the mental health system, without raising taxes.

Probably the most-publicized piece of legislation came in the form of attempting to prevent Oregonians from producing and using methamphetamine, which has brought nationwide infamy on the state, again. Meth use has recently reached epidemic proportions in Oregon and thanks to this recent bill passed by the Legislature, cold medicine used in the production of such substances now require a doctor’s prescription. While well-intended, this bill will do nothing to curb such production and use. Indeed, the legislators’ naivety was fully exploited on this issue as they have forgotten that Oregon is not an island state but is surrounded by four western neighbors with far more lenient laws. Pseudoephedrine may be illegal in Oregon without a prescription but it can still be brought in from other states (or other countries) where it is still available over the counter. Even in this state meth producers are buying up their last stocks of Sudafed in droves (a process apparently referred to as “smurfing”) and all of it without raising a single red flag among pharmacists.

Above all, however, the Legislature, and specifically Speaker Minnis, should be commended for their work in stifling a democratic scheme to legalize gay marriage in Oregon, and in so doing override the will of Oregon voters last November. A clear and overwhelming majority of Oregonians said no to a small band of Oregon’s most extreme elements attempting to devalue and destroy one of humanity’s longest-lasting and most sacred institutions. While House Republicans may be called every name under the sun by these groups- hatemonger, bigot, homophobe, Christian rightist- they are doing the right thing and the silent majority of Oregonians know it.

If anything, this should be the theme of the 2005 Legislative Session- doing the right thing, even when it wasn’t particularly popular politically among a small band of radical leftists. While the juggernaut that are the public employee unions demanded higher taxes and increased spending for their pet programs, the Legislature stood firm and held the line on both. While the rabid homosexual lobby cried foul and screamed bigotry and homophobia, the Legislature maintained their reserve and kept their nerves in upholding the will of the people of Oregon and standing by the great initiative system that has brought democracy to the common citizen. It might not have been the most expensive legislative session in state history, or even the most radical, but for the most part, it ranked among the most satisfactory for the most Oregonians.

Taking the Initiative

2005-07-28T21:27:00.000-07:00

They think you’re stupid. They think you’re wrong, and in this case, they think you’re bigoted and homophobic. They don’t want you involved because they don’t want to give up the power they think they have, the power you gave them, the power you can take away from them. They don’t trust you. This isn’t the first time they’ve thought or acted like this, and it certainly won’t be the last. Yes Oregonians, the State Legislature is once again ignoring your will, your voice, and is once again trying to undermine the nearly century-old initiative process that has brought direct democracy to Oregonians.

Last November Oregonians overwhelmingly passed Measure 36, which clearly defined the institution of marriage to be a union between one man and one woman. The measure met the defined requirements of an amendment to the Oregon Constitution and is now a part of it, as Oregonians wished. But they don’t care. Now the Oregon State Senate has taken it upon itself to override the will of the people and impose their agenda upon the state. This is hardly surprising, given the democrats’ recent nationwide assault on the five-thousand year old institution of marriage as well as their recent nationwide unwillingness to accept electoral results.

Thankfully, there are some people in Salem who still recognize and respect democracy. House Speaker Karen Minnis, in just about the first competent thing she’s ever done as Speaker, has vowed (in my words, not hers) that the Senate’s recent assault on Oregon democracy will not see the light of day in the House chamber. As you might expect, the democrats and their allies in radical interest groups aren’t happy and have succumbed to their tried and true methods of name-calling. Anyone who dares get offended at the radical homosexual agenda, anyone who protests the illegality of last year’s Multnomah County marriages, anyone who clings to the ancient institution of traditional one man, one woman marriage, anyone who stands up for democracy and upholding the will of the people through the initiative process is a bigot, a homophobe, a hatemonger, a member of the “Christian Right” (whether or not they’re actually Christian), and whatever immature names they can conjure up. These names have now been thrown upon Speaker Minnis for doing the job Oregonians elected her to do and for upholding their will, their voice.

The democrats of the Oregon State Legislature don’t care what you think. They never have and they never will. They never have recognized the initiative process or any results of it, except in the very rare circumstance in which they benefit from the result. For years they’ve nullified your laws in the Legislature, struck them down in the Courts, thrown out your petitions, disregarded your signatures, ignored your voice, and acted in spite of it. With every one of these actions they’ve further driven the citizenry out of government and further solidified and institutionalized their oligarchic hold on state government.

Rather than immaturely being called names by fringe activist groups representing an out of touch agenda, Karen Minnis should be praised for standing up for Oregonians not rich or fortunate enough to hold a seat in the Oregon Legislature. She is sending a statement to the elites in government that their reign is not supreme. She is reminding us all who really controls government in a representative, democratic republic.

The Oregon System was established to give a voice to the people of Oregon who were routinely being ignored by corrupt and out of touch career politicians. They were given the power of initiative to act when the Legislature would not. They were given the power of referendum to express their voice on matters of state importance and to check the power of those who would take their hard-earned money away. They were given the power of recall to remove the corrupt, out of touch career politicians who served themselves rather than the people. The State of Oregon has a rich history of expanding and honoring democracy that today’s citizenry- and politicians- should be proud of. If Oregon democrats have forgotten, perhaps the people should remind them of that next year.

Hail to Thee, Land of Terrorists, My Oregon

2005-07-21T17:14:00.000-07:00

Hello friends, and welcome to another edition of This Week in Terrorism. As we know, it's been quite an eventful week, particularly in London. In the midst of the investigation of the Seven-Seven bombing we've seen a homegrown connection, another attack, and more posturing and blame from the terrorists' left-wing allies in both America and Britain. What can be done on the home front in order to keep it from happening again? That and more on This Week in Terrorism.

Yesterday it was discovered there was a homegrown connection to the Seven-Seven bombing in London. Not just a homegrown connection, but an Oregon connection. It seems that the mastermind of the London bombing, Haroon Rashid Aswat, attempted to set up the terrorist training camp in Bly, Oregon. This should come as a surprise to no one familiar with the state of Oregon as a whole. Both the people and governments of Oregon seem to be quite welcoming and even sympathetic of Al Qaeda, their membership, their objectives, and their means. This terrorist training camp was scouted by an Al Qaeda cell operating in the northwest, since the region held a climate hospitable to anti-American activity. This was the same region in which millennium celebrations in Seattle were cancelled because Algerian Ahmed Ressam tried to launch a terrorist attack. After September 11, seven members of the mayor of Portland’s staff attempted to join the Taliban so they could join their fellow Muslim extremists and left-wing traitors like John Walker Lindh in killing the American infidels. The Portland Seven have since been thwarted, much to the dismay of their left-wing allies and enablers in the Rose City.

The governments of the State of Oregon, Multnomah County, and several of Oregon’s cities, have been among the least compliant with the War on Terror in this country. Several cities- including Portland, Eugene, Corvallis, and Ashland- several counties- including Benton, Multnomah, and Lane- and the state government itself have passed resolutions of non-compliance in fighting terror with the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force. Portland’s Congressman Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) urged Portlanders to “resist” the US War on Terror. As simplistic as it sounds, President Bush was correct in his “either you are with us or you are with the terrorists” assessment in that so-called neutrality in this war is tantamount to aiding and abetting terrorists in committing their savagery. It seems clear as the crystal methamphetamine their residents enjoy which side Oregon is on.

With all the time and trouble America and her allies are going to defeat terrorism in the Middle East, we often forget about the dangers looming at home: the twin terror in London, the Madrid attack, the brutal murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh in Amsterdam, and terror cells operating throughout Europe and America under the apathy or sympathy of their governments. The solution would seem simple enough but has been complicated by- you guessed it- the terrorists’ anti-American allies on the left.

It wouldn’t be that difficult to infiltrate and prosecute terror cells in the northwest and in other parts of this country and the world. Much of it could be done through existing law. Indeed, if radical Muslim clerics said the same things about African-Americans, women, and homosexuals that they do about Americans, Jews, and Christians they would be charged with hate speech. Freedom of speech is not without limits- it never has been- and under the circumstances, radical clerics inciting acts of terrorism against the west would in fact meet the “imminent lawless action” requirement set by the United States Supreme Court. Immigration and asylum laws- completely out of whack in Europe- should be subjected to stricter scrutiny to prevent terrorists and recruiters from reaching their intended target countries. It should not be considered extreme to take these and other necessary measures to protect this country from further barbaric savagery.

That about wraps it up for another edition of This Week in Terrorism. This is your humble blogger and columnist reminding you to stay vigilant and keep supporting America- it’s the easiest way to stop a terrorist and annoy a liberal.

Seven-Seven

2005-07-14T23:32:00.000-07:00

Well folks, it’s been a week since the horrific terrorist attacks in Great Britain and still the left doesn’t get it. No, if anything their resolve and commitment to America’s unconditional surrender to Al Qaeda and their allies in the Middle East has been strengthened. Democratic politicians were quick to assign blame for the London bombing on- you guessed it- President Bush. Our so-called allies elsewhere on the European continent expressed their concerned and troubled reactions to the slaughter of innocent civilians and steadfastly pledged to do nothing about it. Jacques Chirac showed the world why everyone hates France, Gerhardt Schroeder showed the world why he’s unemployed, and Jose Zapatero (who’s election was made possible by a terrorist attack) showed the world why Spain’s flag is yellow. Meanwhile, the only ones who demonstrated clear moral clarity and leadership, staunch and tempered resolve, and a firm commitment to bring those responsible either to justice or to their maker- President George Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair- are the ones facing vilification and derision. Some things never change.

I keep asking myself the same question every time something like this happens: how many more will it take? How many more terrorist attacks before the left finally comprehends that this is not a game? How many more innocents murdered by these barbarians before they realize that this is literally life and death? How many more soldiers killed before the democrats finally start supporting America and not the insurgents? I keep asking and with each homicide attack and every train bombing and the left keep answering. The sad possibility is that they may never come around. Perhaps the average Iraqi or Afghan can be converted, and both countries may become peace-loving secular democracies where terrorists have no safety. The democrats, however, are a lost cause. Their seething and all-consuming hatred of George W. Bush, his administration, anything connected to it, and this country itself is too great to be overcome.

Since September 12, 2001, America has been fighting a war on two fronts against two enemies. The first was the declared war, the one outlined by President Bush in his speech before Congress mere days after the most horrific and unspeakable act of violence and terrorism ever committed on US soil. The second was undeclared but has been waged just the same with comparable fervor and unrelenting hatred for this country by what possibly is a more dangerous enemy. The first war is a military one against Al Qaeda. The second is just as important and is a battle for the country here at home and is being waged by Al Qaeda’s allies- the communists, “pacifists,” defeatists, environmentalists, anarchists, and democrats- against America. Losing the second war at home will almost certainly guarantee defeat in the first in the Middle East.

Just imagine what victory for Al Qaeda’s allies will be like in 2006. The democrats, armed with what they believe will be a mandate against Bush’s “immoral and illegal war” will make sure we lose it, just as they did in Vietnam for us a generation ago. Our troops will be called home almost immediately from Afghanistan and Iraq with tails between their legs. With the Great Satan finally gone, the armies of darkness and unspeakable evil will be allowed to reign supreme, with Iraq and Afghanistan being handed over to Al Qaeda. The unimaginable oppression and terror committed in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan will pale in comparison to what will become of Afghanistan and Iraq once the democrats give the terrorists free reign. Don’t believe me? There’s already a resolution in the works calling on President Bush to do just that.

America’s enemies will not be defeated until their supporters here at home are subdued, or at the very least, kept out of political office at the ballot box. As I have stated time and again, the stakes are simply too high to let the democrats lose us yet another war. This isn’t just a conflict against an enemy in a far away country with no capabilities whatsoever of hitting America. If you haven’t forgotten already (as it is quite clear large segments of the American people have), America was, in fact, attacked by these vicious barbarians and they have every intention of doing so again. I hope it won’t take yet another terrorist attack on our soil to make my point so blatantly evident. Hopefully, next time (and I pray there will be no next time) the enemies within will come to their senses, put their petty partisan hatred of a single man aside, and support America. But don’t count on it.

Democrats March to War!

2005-07-06T16:29:00.000-07:00

Last week Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor retired from the bench and already the democrats are preparing for war. Already, democrats are dropping the f-bomb (filibuster) and have sworn to defeat a nominee who hasn’t even been named. Never mind democratic senators pledged not two months ago never to filibuster judicial nominees, lest the Republicans go nuclear. Never mind Republican senators approved nominees Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Steven Breyer some ten years ago by wide margins and without a single hurdle, lest the democrats do the same to their nominees once a Republican occupied the White House. Of course, this behavior from the democrats should come merely as par for the course and is nothing new from this sore, bitter, rancorous, and hateful party. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: the democrats need to MoveOn.

The democrats warn President Bush (at least they’re finally calling him “President” now) against appointing an “extremist” to the Supreme Court. By “extremist” they mean an anti-communist who won’t legislate from the bench and doesn’t think the Constitution is anything they write on a piece of paper. An extremist is someone not endorsed by the ACLU, MoveOn.org, the Alliance for Justice, NAMBLA, the Workers’ World Party, and the European Union. An extremist is someone who bases their decisions on important legal issues on the Constitution and not on “international law.” An extremist balances their legal views on those held by the founding fathers and doesn’t ask “What Would Belgium Do?” A democrat’s extremist can be found in the American mainstream.

Then again, the warning against appointing extremists to the Supreme Court is a valid one. After all, Republican presidents have time and again appointed some of the worst, most extreme members in the history of the Court. It was President Eisenhower who appointed Earl Warren, William Brennan, and Potter Stewart. It was Richard Nixon who appointed Warren Burger and Harry Blackmun. It was Gerald Ford who appointed John Paul Stevens. It was Ronald Reagan who appointed Anthony Kennedy. And it was George Bush the Elder who appointed David Souter. Yes, President Bush should be warned against appointing extremists such as these to the Court.

Given the recent lunacy of the Court in morphing the Constitution to serve the very same extreme left-wing agenda that has been defeated three times at the ballot box since 2000, a new breed of judicial nominee is needed. Perhaps not so much someone who can turn back the tide of left-wing judicial activism as much as stop it in its tracks. To be sure, the kind of conservative judicial activism perhaps advocated by social conservatives, theocrats, and the Constitution Party should also be avoided. What is needed is a judicial conservative- a strict constructionist who recognizes the Constitution for what it is, not what their ideology, left or right, would want it to be- as opposed to a judicial liberal- an activist who uses their ideology, left or right, to morph the Constitution to fit their agenda.

Speaking of what the Constitution says, the document states the President- and not a gang of seven Senate moderates, five northeast liberals, a drunk driving murderer, and a former Klansman- has the power to nominate Supreme Court Justices. Article II, Section 2 gives the President the power to “nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . Judges of the Supreme Court.” Nowhere does it mention a body of seven liberals and seven moderate collaborators. Nowhere does it mention blocks in the Judiciary Committee. Nowhere does it mention judicial filibusters, and nowhere does it mention that appointees must pass with three-fifths or two-thirds majorities. A Supreme Court nominee is not a constitutional amendment or a treaty. “Advice and Consent” means a majority vote and is something all nominees are entitled to, even- as Republicans demonstrated- Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Steven Breyer. However, the democrats will still be counted on to break the rules and their own agreements to express both their hatred of President Bush and all connected to him as well as their unrelenting sourness and bitterness over their repeated defeats at the ballot box.

The Islamic Republic of Poland

2005-06-30T18:35:00.000-07:00

This is a dark time for Iran. Not two weeks after the so-called presidential elections, the newly elected Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has announced his intentions upon entering office in August. The hard-line former mayor of Tehran most famous for segregating men and women in elevators has taken hard lines against America, the United Nations, and Israel and has staunchly defended Iran’s emerging nuclear program. Possibly the most troubling is that the presidency of Iran wouldn’t be the first thing Ahmadinejad has seized. Several former American diplomats taken hostage in the infamous seizing of the American embassy in Tehran have positively identified Iran’s new guy as one of their captors. Iran’s official news agency has vehemently denied Ahmadinejad’s connection to the hostage taking, which would make such a connection all the more likely. After his days as a student radical in the late 1970’s, Ahmadinejad became a lead agent in the Iranian secret police in charge of murdering dissidents and exiles opposed to the revolution. Combine his terrorist background with his hard-line views against the United States and the dissent of his own citizens, and this could indeed be a difficult term for both the Iranian people and the world.

There is, however, an historical parallel present. Twenty-five years ago a population thirsty for democracy and freedom- one supported by the international community and, for a time, by their own government- was harshly squelched. Not by a sham election but by the imposition of martial law. Today’s Iranians excluded from the recent “elections” share much in common with the Poles of the early 1980’s momentarily silenced by General Jaruzelski. One of the sources of their discontent has been economic stagnation since the revolution. This should hardly be surprising for a country that has shunned both capitalism and socialism in favor of a system better suited for the 14^th century. The revolution itself plays an important role in that it has almost no relevance in the lives of most people. The overwhelming majority of the Iranian people are too young to remember the revolution that brought the current theocratic tyranny to power. Given the demographics of the country it is hardly surprising that the mullahs, their hard-line Islamism, and their complete disregard for political, economic, and social freedom are hardly embraced by the populous. Their discontent was voiced in the election of reformist candidate Mohammad Khatami in 1997 and reformist legislators ever since.

Apparently the ruling Guardian Council learned their lesson. Like the Polish communists of twenty-five years ago, the mullahs cracked down on this emerging movement toward freedom. They made a mockery of their own political system by fixing the recent presidential election in almost every way possible. They stuffed ballots, they bussed in residents from other areas to Tehran (where locals were unlikely to elect their own mayor president), and exercised their veto power over the elections themselves by disallowing reform-minded candidates. The election of a hard-line president will more than likely spell an end to the recent policies of gradual reform at home and détente abroad and is not unlike the martial law imposed by communist Poland against the emerging Solidarity movement. While the citizens’ taste for freedom and democracy may have been withheld temporarily in Iran, if history is any guide, this struggle between freedom and tyranny is far from over.

What the US and the rest of the freedom-loving world can do, as they did in Poland, is deal not with the “Dictatorship of the Mullahtariat” as it has been called, but instead with underground and exile groups seeking democratic reform in the country. Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul II were instrumental in bringing down the Iron Curtain in their continuous support for Lech Walesa and his Solidarity movement. President Bush, Tony Blair, and others have an opportunity in seeing an equally strong movement and leadership emerge that can oppose the un-elected mullahs.

There is a lot in common between the contemporary Middle East and Eastern Europe of the 1980’s. The struggle for and against freedom is being waged in the region, and Iran’s status plays as much an important part in that struggle as Poland did twenty years ago. The success of freedom and democracy in places such as Iraq, Iran, and Lebanon is vital to the people of the region, the US, and the world. As President Woodrow Wilson stated following the First World War, a democratic world is a peaceful world, and one in which terrorists can find no haven. That is why the Bush Doctrine was enacted, that is why new democracies in the Middle East must be allowed to succeed, and that is why Iran’s freedom is so imperative. If Islamism fails in the Middle East as communism failed in Eastern Europe, this titanic and protracted struggle against Al Qaeda and its allies may be a brief and successful one.

Eminent Destruction

2005-06-23T17:00:00.000-07:00

Somewhere, Nicolae Ceausescu is looking up at America and smiling. The late communist dictator of Romania notorious for bulldozing the homes of his own citizens for his personal glorification- while relegating their previous occupants to shoddy apartment complexes- must have blushed a little at Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling allowing for the expansion of the government’s powers of eminent domain. Under the provisions of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, the government may seize private property from its owner if it provides just compensation for the seizure. Until today, they could only do it for public uses, such as schools, libraries, or roads. Now they can do it for private uses too, such as malls or office buildings.

Given the increasing erosion and fragility of property rights in this country over the years, this new gigantic expansion of eminent domain spells imminent doom for home owners. The Genius of the Carpathians himself would be quite proud of us. Just as Ceausescu could condemn an entire row of houses to dust with the wave of his arm, for the purpose of building yet another presidential palace, now a private firm can have bulldozers sent in for the purpose of building a shopping mall. Today’s ruling should frighten any property owner in this country- even with the promise of compensation- as the specter of the wrecking ball now potentially looms over every home in America.

This ruling shouldn’t be surprising either, given the current climate of the Court. The 5-4 decision was as split along party lines as an officially non-partisan Supreme Court could be. The swing to the left came from moderate Justice Anthony Kennedy. Leftist activist John Paul Stevens cited increased tax revenue as a reason why local governments would be justified in seizing land from homeowners. Sandra Day O’Connor wrote the dissenting opinion, stating that the promise of improved economic development of a community was not reason enough to bulldoze someone’s property- or provide government the unlimited authority to do so- even with compensation.

Such an action provides for the kind of income redistribution not even the staunchest of liberals would advocate, the transfer of wealth and property to from the poor to the rich. Indeed, the rich and powerful must be feeling pretty good about themselves, both in the private and public sector. Government and business both win in this decision while the individual home owner loses. Business gets your land, government gets more taxes, you get to look for another place to live.

In addition to increased land snatching power of Blazing Saddles proportions, this ruling represents a giant step towards corporatism. While government non-interference in the economy should be embraced, government cooperation with business should be greeted with a giant red flag. So are the teachings of F.A. Hayek, author of The Road to Serfdom. Corporatism is as dangerous as the totalitarian controls of communism and an essential element of fascism. I love capitalism as much as anybody, but as long as the interests of business and government flourish, freedom and property rights suffer.

What would America’s founding fathers- the very authors of eminent domain- think of Thursday’s ruling? I would at least hope they would be alarmed, as the very principles for which they rebelled against Great Britain are being eroded one by one. Life, liberty, and property was the rallying cry of the malcontent colonists, and it should be clear that none are valued as highly today. Abortion and euthanasia have effectively killed the culture of life in America. The left’s constant assault on personal, religious, and political liberty hasn’t ceased since the Warren Court fired the first shots in the 1950’s. Thursday it was property rights that took a severe blow with eminent domain now protecting corporate interests.

It was about this time of year some two-hundred twenty-nine years ago when Thomas Jefferson stated in one of the most eloquent works of political philosophy in the history of modern man that whenever a government became destructive of certain inalienable rights- not limited to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness- that it was the right and duty of the people to alter or abolish that government and replace it with a government that protected those rights. Perhaps the likes of Stevens, Souter, and Ginsberg should take notice.

UN-Reformable

2005-06-15T20:03:00.000-07:00

The once-esteemed organization known as the United Nations is awash with scandal and calls for reform are increasing in number and volume. Indeed, there is a great deal of merit in those calls for reform. Now different ideas have been put forward here and there- attempt to weed out corruption, further the Oil for Food investigation, sack Kofi Annan- but few have realized the real ways to reform the organization, which includes taking in to account the organization’s biggest problems and reasons for criticism.

One of the most obvious problems with the UN is that it commands what seems to be a destructive form of the Midas touch. While whatever King Midas touched turned to gold, whatever the UN touches seems to turn to disaster. Recall such black spots on the UN’s record such as their intervention in the Bosnian Civil War, in which thousands of Croat and Bosnian Muslim civilians were massacred by Serb militias in UN “Safe Havens.” Or their present engagements in central Africa and Latin America in which UN peacekeepers and humanitarian workers are engaging in rape, sexual abuse, pedophilia, prostitution, and other acts of sexual misconduct and deviance. Or perhaps the most oft-mentioned act of corruption, the Oil for Food scandal. Liberals in the United States love talking about how the war in Iraq was for the benefit of Halliburton, an American oil company once headed by Vice President Dick Cheney. However, those same liberals remain mum in regards to how the Oil for Food Program was run for the benefit of Cotecna, a Swiss oil company presently headed by Annan’s son.

The best way to combat the UN’s destructive touch is to simply keep the UN from touching things. Politicians in this country and others should stop fooling themselves in to thinking that the United Nations is a humanitarian organization when they have in fact created more humanitarian catastrophes than prevented them. Whenever such a catastrophe arises, such as the crisis in the Sudan, other organizations or countries in the region should be consulted and the UN should be ignored at all costs, at least while the organization remains in its present form.

Many people have charged the United Nations is an unelected body for the world’s elites, and they would be correct. The UN thinks of itself as, among other things, the world’s legislative body. In that regard, they should act as such and be restricted to the policies and prerequisites of such. In some form or another, UN representatives should be elected to the positions which they hold. This can be done by national referendum or by act of national parliament. The election of members to the UN will bring with it credibility which for far too long has been absent in the UN and its members.

The Oil for Food scandal and its stance on issues such as the Iraq War bring up another point for reform. The United Nations is too easily influenced, and in some matters controlled, by dictatorships. Call me an imperialist, but I don’t think the Human Rights Council should be chaired by the likes of Sudan. Nor should the Council for Nuclear Disarmament be chaired by Iran. Too often, regimes like Saddam’s Iraq, Mugabe’s Zimbabwe, and others have been able to shape UN policy in their favor. Remember, this is the same organization that awarded Pol Pot’s “Democratic Kampuchea” government in exile with a UN seat throughout the 1980’s. Dictatorships should not be condoned or rewarded for their disregard for democracy or their oppression of their native population. These regimes are reprehensible for many reasons and do not belong in the community of nations making important decisions that could benefit or condemn entire populations.

The means for solving this problem is to simply exclude or isolate non-democratic members of the UN. Yearly audits would be performed on all member states to ensure their governments allow their citizens basic political, economic, and civil rights. Such audits would be conducted by NGO’s such as Freedom House, which perform such yearly reports anyway. That means no dictatorships on the Security Council, Human Rights Council, or any other council, for that matter. One would think common sense alone would be enough to exclude the likes of Saudi Arabia from the Council on Women’s Rights. Further more, dictatorships would not be allowed to craft or vote on UN policy to ensure such policy is not authored for a regime’s own enrichment. And we all know that’s been done before. A far more drastic but viable option would be to turn the United Nations in to a democracies-only club. This way, the world’s most important decisions would be made by democratic governments that respected freedom and human rights. Membership would depend on whether or not a government was democratic, and is at least in some ways similar to the British Commonwealth.

No matter which options are considered (and I’m reasonably confident none of mine will be), something must be done to reform this otherwise vile band of some of the world’s most villainous people who are not permanent residents of a certain nameless western European nation. In its present form, the United Nations spurns the very tenets and principles for which it was founded. Instead of standing up for freedom, human rights, and social justice, the United Nations serves the interests of totalitarian governments, friendly ideological NGO’s, and self-serving corporations who profit in violation of their own sanctions. Either credibility must be restored to this organization or the organization itself must be disbanded.

A State Party No More

2005-06-10T16:52:00.000-07:00

They didn’t use to be this way. They used to be winners. Quite simply, the Oregon Republican Party is not what it once was. Once a proud bastion of Nixon-Rockefeller moderation and frequent electoral victor, the party has since been hijacked and rendered unelectable. Strangled by out of touch ideologues, there seems to be no saving this party, especially if nothing is done. Until these critical problems are solved, the losses will keep piling up. If this seems familiar to you readers outside the state, it should. Many of the same problems ravaging the ORP are currently plaguing democrats on a national level.

It wasn’t always like this. Many years ago, when the party was still focused on winning, the Oregon Republican Party was more or less the dominant party in Oregon. The state had two Republican Senators, Republican Governors, Republican state-wide office holders, and Republican legislators. Of course now, those days are gone. In 1986, Republicans lost the governorship and have not regained it since. In 1995, Republicans lost a Senate seat and have not regained it since. In 2002, the last Republican state-wide officeholder was defeated. Last November, the democrats took the Oregon State Senate. In a state getting bluer by the day (at least in terms of electoral results), it seems the losses may continue piling up.

They’re not what they once were. Apparently fed up with winning elections, the party underwent an extreme makeover (with emphasis on the extreme) in the early 1990’s. The moderates who ran the party for decades were systematically swept away when the party conducted local leadership elections. The Christian Coalition packed precinct after precinct and ensured that their members and their allies would win, and they did. The Christian Coalition, now with the numbers, enacted policy which took the party far away from their winning position in the center. Since then, their focus has overwhelmingly (and misguidedly) been on social issues. Just recall what happened in the last gubernatorial election: candidate Kevin Mannix made, of all things, opposing abortion the cornerstone of his campaign. Yes, Oregon is still in a deep recession, state programs are being poorly-run and under-funded, education is an absolute mess, deficits are getting larger, and people (myself included) are fleeing the state in droves. However, the Oregon Republican Party still believes their number one priority should be outlawing abortion and gay marriage.

This doesn’t work in Oregon. In the age of red and blue, Oregon as a whole has turned navy and the current state of the ORP hasn’t helped things. One of the saddest things about this party is that over the past fifteen years they have still yet to realize that social conservatism doesn’t win elections in Oregon. Recent polling has proven this. Oregon has the lowest percentage of church-goers in the nation at an unbelievable 12%. Contrast that with France, the most secular state in Europe, at 15%. Campaigning on prophesies of fire and brimstone might help energize the base, but only work to further alienate a religiously apathetic population.

All is not lost. While the party as a whole has been committing a series of critical errors over the past decade in terms of policy and leadership, victory can still be attainable. The first step is leadership itself. The party cannot continue to function effectively as long as it is controlled by the Christian Coalition cadre. This includes the current chairman who is responsible for both the continuation of an incoherent policy (aside from overemphasis on social issues) and the raiding of funds to pay off outstanding campaign debt. The first objective of a political party, this one included, is to win. The Oregon Republican Party can’t do that as long as it serves as the personal microphone and bank account of Kevin Mannix.

The party should focus not on extremist policies on social issues but on winning elections. The state has many problems including those mentioned above. The party should focus on trying to find solutions to those problems. Note how abortion and homosexuality are not included among them. Indeed, fiscal policy should be the focus of the party, which leads to another critical error that needs to be corrected: read my lips, no new taxes. The Oregon Republican Party has on many separate and numerous occasions broken the Republican Prime Directive of not raising taxes. This needs to end. Now. This is another sad occurrence of the party that it has failed to realize over the past decade that Oregonians don’t want higher taxes. By increasingly greater margins Oregonians are rejecting proposed tax increases. Campaign against such increases and they can win.

The next year may prove to be an opportunity for the Oregon Republican Party, having just lost another institution, the Oregon State Senate, and gearing up to challenge the unpopular and reclusive Ted Kulongoski. The Oregon Republican Party deservedly has an image problem statewide. If the party is dedicated to winning elections rather than pandering to the Christian Coalition, they can fix this problem. Step one would be to not run Kevin Mannix again. Step two would be focusing on the real issues and problems facing Oregonians: high unemployment, bad school systems, government deficits, and an overbearing tax burden; not abortion, gay marriage, and public school prayer. Step three would be recalling the history of the party, the good and the bad. The days of Lon Mabon and Bill Sizemore must end and never occur again. Only then can the party attain the heights it did under Tom McCall, Mark Hatfield, and Vick Attiyeh. This choice can be as easy as one, two, three or as difficult as four more years of democrat control.

The Most Important Issue

2005-06-02T04:10:00.000-07:00

If I write about one topic all quarter it must be on this issue, the most important issue facing this country today, and an issue the left in this country has yet to grasp. No, it has nothing to do with income redistribution, institutional discrimination, or “social justice.” The very existence of this country is being threatened. Not by greedy reactionary capitalists, not by abortion doctors and homosexuals, not even by free masons, but by a large group of fundamentalist terrorists based in the Middle East and elsewhere and consolidated in an organization known as Al Qaeda.

The very fact that I seem to have to write about this is insulting. Anyone, it seems, would be able to realize this country is at war with Al Qaeda after what happened on a certain Tuesday in September 2001. But amazingly, four years after the worst terrorist attack in the history of the United States, large segments of the population who seem to all congregate on the left side of the political spectrum still don’t get it. That’s why I’m writing, in order to explain the gravity of the situation. Since President Bush’s speech to Congress mere days after September 11, 2001, the United States of America and the countries around the world that still understand how the world works joined the war on terror started by Al Qaeda and their supporters. This war on terror, Bush promised, would not be over quickly, it would have many fronts and battles (some seen, others unseen), and may involve the loss of American life, as all wars do. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are not just isolated conflicts started “for oil” or other reasons. They are part of the larger war on Al Qaeda and states known to support terrorism. Again, this larger war on terror will not be over today, tomorrow, or even a year from now. This war on terror is a long, protracted conflict perhaps lasting several decades and constituting the defining struggle of this generation. This is fundamentally not unlike our parents’ cold war or our grandparents’ second world war. However, the stakes are much, much higher.

The nature of the enemy is another point of confusion among the left, including who they are and what they want. No matter how much left-wing protesters say it, or want it to be true, this is not a war on Islam, this is not a racist war against Arabs, and this is not another crusade. Islam, as President Bush described it, is a religion of peace. “Those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah.” This is a group representing a very small, fringe sect who refer to themselves as Muslims. Al Qaeda has many members, not just Arabs but members of many other nationalities, including those born in this country who have since betrayed it. This enemy is unlike any enemy America has ever faced. They cannot be persuaded by negotiation, concession, or appeasement. They do not seek peaceful coexistence, they do not want to “just get along,” they don’t even want to conquer or enslave us. This enemy wants us dead. All of us. Just ask the nearly 3,000 Americans who were killed on 9/11 what Al Qaeda’s objectives are. This is why the only acceptable outcome in this war on terror is absolute victory.

There you have it, folks. In approximately 650 words, a brief synopsis of the most important issue facing our country. This is who we’re fighting, why we’re fighting, and why it is so important. If you like living in America, if you like living at all, realize how important absolute victory in this struggle is. You and your posterity might not be here if we lose.

Surrender in the Senate

2005-05-25T16:22:00.000-07:00

Perhaps Walt Kelly said it best: “we have met the enemy, and he is us.” This week, in a last-minute effort to avoid the supposedly-horrendous specter of changing Senate rules (ominously called “The Nuclear Option” by the left), seven Senators referring to themselves as Republicans broke with party leadership and negotiated a backroom deal with seven democrats. Hailed by the mainstream media and co-conspirators alike as a “compromise,” the agreement is anything but. It is instead a capitulation, a surrender, and is unacceptable behavior for a party in power. This party had the votes but not the guts to carry out its agenda and literally surrendered on the verge of their impending victory. Not even the French do that.

The backroom deal on the one hand allows for three Bush nominees- Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown, and William Pryor- to get the up or down vote they were entitled to in the first place, and most-likely be confirmed. However, many other nominees, including William Myers and Henry Saad, must remain in judicial limbo, and most-likely be filibustered. Furthermore, the issue which prompted the “Nuclear Option,” judicial filibusters, remain legal and viable for left-win Senate democrats. Officially, the filibusters are only to be used “under extraordinary circumstances.” However, to the likes of Charles Schumer (D-NY), Ted Kennedy (D-MA), and Robert Byrd (D-WV), nominating a candidate who refuses to legislate from the bench, or even someone with any links to the Federalist Society, would constitute “extraordinary circumstances.”

Bush’s nominees have been attacked by these three senators, and others, as being “outside the mainstream,” believing “the mainstream” to run through Havana. Schumer even went as far to declare that “ideology is an issue” in determining who does and does not get a vote. “The Nuclear Option” is now off the table thanks to this collusion for the entirety of the 109^th Congress. That means that any of Bush’s nominees must now receive 60 votes- unprecedented in the history of the United States- in order to be confirmed. What is most serious is what this agreement means for the future. The “extraordinary circumstances” doctrine also applies to any potential Supreme Court nominees. This either means that Bush’s nominees would again need to meet the 60 vote threshold to invoke cloture and end the filibuster, or President Bush would have to start appointing clones to Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Indeed, this is just what this agreement would allow. As a condition of the deal, the administration is now urged to consult with the conspirators before appointing nominees. This provision is a direct assault on the powers of the executive branch guaranteed by the Constitution, and is most likely the product of the Senior Klansman from West Virginia’s long-standing crusade against that body.

There should be no mistaking who won this past week. Seven “Republican” Senators, three of them up for re-election in 2006, stabbed their leadership in the back and sold their party down the river. The seven tell us to look toward the future to a point where the Republican Party no longer controls the Senate. If this is the way the Republicans behave when they are in control, then they deserve to be in the minority. If the American people wanted their Senators to behave and vote like democrats, then they would have voted for the democrats. This past November the American people gave the Republican Party a firm mandate in the Senate to carry out their agenda, not to pander to left-win extremists. After all, what good is a majority when the minority gets everything they want? Walt Kelly said “we have met the enemy, and he is us.” However, perhaps the more appropriate quote comes from one Darth Vader: “I am altering the deal. Pray I don’t alter it any further.”

Hit It and Miss

2005-05-18T02:18:00.000-07:00

It’s a Saturday night and you’re drinking your weight in booze, as you normally do. Through thick beer goggles you find your target, an equally plastered member of the opposite sex you’re seeing for the first time. After short, suggestive, and slurred small talk, the two of you move in to even less substantive actions and proceed to casual sex. The next morning the two of you are still as clueless as to the other’s identity as you were when you first met, and you never speak or see each other again. Soon after, the practice begins again with different partners for each. For those who do not frequently engage in the preceding activity, what is being described is known as the hookup, which is steadily becoming more and more prevalent in today’s college culture, and is delivering a death blow (pardon the pun) to traditional relationships between young men and women.

Keep in mind, this article is primarily being written for those who have no idea what a hookup is or have yet to realize its destructive power. Imagine a world completely devoid of passion, emotion, and feeling, and one in which the once sacred ritual of sexual intercourse has absolutely no inherent meaning. Such significant elements as intellectual stimulation, emotional connection, and enduring companionship are no longer desired. Instead, as one College of New Jersey student was quoted as saying in October 4’s Newsweek, a good hookup is one in which “no one finds out about it or talks about it later.”

Of course, not all hookups are as good, with morning-after regrets somewhat common. The afore-mentioned beer goggles play a part when one partner realizes their lay wasn’t as attractive as they were the night before. Indeed, the resulting humiliation of doing a less than standard partner will ensure that “no one finds out about it or talks about it later.” Sometimes feelings do, in fact, get in the way. The feelings and attachment that may result only lead to the misunderstanding that this was a hookup, and not the beginning of a meaningful and lasting relationship. Of course, since your then partner doesn’t want to see you again (they’re only following procedure, after all), your strife will fall upon deaf or apathetic ears. Besides, by now they’ve already moved on to their next hookup with someone completely different. While beer goggles and caught feelings can be temporarily troubling, they are of course a walk in the park to the ever-looming specter of pregnancy and disease.

The hookup seems to mesh well in to both aspects of the college lifestyle. On the one hand, the stress and time constraints of schoolwork, jobs, grades, and resume-padding leave little in the way for relationships. A hookup here or there can provide for meeting sexual needs without taking up too much time. One the other, being tied-down and committed might get in the way of the care-free, fun, and drunken nature of college life. How much fun are parties, after all, if there’s no chance of getting laid with someone you don’t know? While hookups may be all the rage in college, those who habitually engage in them will receive a massive dose of reality in the long run. One of the greatest indictments against the hookup is that it stunts emotional growth and maturity and does not prepare practitioners for real life relationships. Sooner or later college students will have to learn that relationships are not merely all about sex. Like other aspects of the collegiate lifestyle, the hookup catches up with you. There may be no lingering physical effects, but the emotional damage can last a lifetime.

Public Enemy

2005-05-12T04:38:00.000-07:00

This past Monday an editorial in the Chicago Tribune called for the “liberation” of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting- the entity responsible for overseeing the Public Broadcasting System and National Public Radio- from public funding. The article cited the pronounced left-wing political bias that has steadily infiltrated the organization, specifically the hiring of Bill Moyers, who did the biddings of the left at taxpayer expense. The Tribune is correct in their demands for the removal of government funding from public broadcasting, albeit for the wrong reasons. No matter how unbiased the stations and programs may be, government should not be funding domestic public broadcasting.

In 1995, newly-elected House Speaker Newt Gingrich promised to do just this, telling Americans to be surprised if the Corporation for Public Broadcasting outlived his tenure as Speaker. While CPB won that round, now may be the appropriate time. The reasons for doing so are numerous and more appropriate than at any time in the history of public broadcasting. First, take the current state of the federal budget. The left loves pointing out the massive government deficits but often hesitates when asked what to do about it, especially when they are required not to mention the word “taxes.” Many millions of dollars are spent funding CPB, PBS, and NPR, and if legislators are looking for a superfluous program in order to save money, these should be among the first.

This is so because of all the organizations and programs currently receiving federal funding, public broadcasting is probably the one most able to afford to take such a hit. While the amount of federal money spent funding public broadcasting is very large ($350-$400 million), the percentage funding from government on any level makes up as a part of a public broadcaster’s budget- be it CPB, PBS, NPR, or WOSU- is minimal. The overwhelming majority of such funding comes from members, individual and corporate donations. The percentage received from government can run in the single digits.

Even if the doomsayers’ predictions were correct and public broadcasting would entirely cease to exist, few would realize it had disappeared. PBS’ programming, for example, is currently in competition with a multitude of cable channels such as the History Channel, the Discovery Channel, the Learning Channel, Arts and Entertainment, National Geographic, 24-hour news channels, and networks focusing on children’s programming. Indeed, many children’s programming networks already syndicate programming from the Children’s Television Workshop, the folks who brought us Sesame Street. I dare say many of NPR’s most popular programming, such as A Prairie Home Companion, Car Talk, and All Things Considered, could in fact survive in a commercial format. Satellite Sisters is an example of such a program that has successfully converted over from public to commercial radio.

Judging by the hate mail that other columns have generated, I venture to guess that many readers would be quite upset if government funding for their favorite public radio and television stations were dried up. This could also work in favor to public broadcasting as angered or frightened listeners and viewers would be all the more compelled to increase their annual donations in order to “save public broadcasting.” The fundamental reasons for establishing such broadcasting in the 1960’s have long since outlived their original intent. People no longer live in markets with only three television stations and a handful of radio stations. Given the current reality of 500 cable channels and satellite radio, the supply for educational, children’s, and news programming, and the performing arts would not simply go away by any stretch of the imagination. The federal government should not be involved in keeping these programs on the air as they are already quite successful without it.

Labour Lengthens Tory Troubles

2005-05-05T00:04:00.000-07:00

This Thursday marks a milestone in both British and world politics. For the first time in British political history, the Labour Party led by Prime Minister Tony Blair will win a third consecutive term in office. Additionally, for the first time ever, the Republicans have more in common with the afore-mentioned Labour Party in their foreign policy agenda than the Conservatives. Indeed, it is not just foreign policy that Labour and the Republicans have in common but recent electoral success. Labour beat the Conservatives last night for the same basic reason why the Republicans beat the Democrats in 2004: lack of a functional opposition party.

One would think a party with serious aspirations of power would have learned a thing or two from the 2004 American elections in how the opposition should not behave. Instead, Conservative Party leader Michael Howard has apparently taken entire sections out of the Democrats’ 2004 playbook. Imagine a candidate for head of government criticizing the incumbent for going to war in Iraq on false pretences and faulty intelligence, lying to the people, and plunging the armed forces in to a quagmire. All this while having voted for the war himself. Sound familiar? Now imagine a candidate for the nation’s highest office described by focus groups as old and creepy. Detecting a pattern? Now imagine that candidate tailor making his party for election season so it is out of touch with the electorate on practically every single issue, and represents nothing more than the opposition to a single person. That’s right folks, Michael Howard is fast becoming the John Kerry of Great Britain without the three purple hearts and million dollar trophy wife.

On the other side of the pond, one has to wonder what Democratic Party chair Howard Dean must be thinking. Eight years ago, his party, led by Bill Clinton, was where Labour is now. A strong economy and the advantage of experience and incumbency led the Democrats to an easy victory in 1996. A new, improved, and moderate Bill Clinton was able to outmaneuver the, um, “old and creepy” Bob Dole on practically every issue. A champion of the political center, Clinton and the New Democrats presided over eight years of power and came very close to extending that mandate in 2000. Contrast that with today’s democrats, who have apparently decided that pandering to a particular extremist ideological faction is more important than winning elections. Coincidentally, this is what kept “Loony Labour” out of power throughout the 1980’s.

The Conservatives do face an adversary not present in America, a prominent third party. Charles Kennedy and the Liberal Democrats may very well capture their best result in over eighty years by running hard on a single issue, the Iraq War. By remaining opposed to all aspects of the war, the Lib Dems are hoping to capitalize on a sizable enough portion of the electorate that itself is anti-war and anti-Blair but not about to vote for the Tories. While their chances of taking over the opposition are slim, they may grow within shouting distance, enough to scare an otherwise comatose Conservative Party back to life. Perhaps a stunning and historic defeat is just what the Tories need to put themselves back in competition with Labour.

The Republicans and Labour, both once minority parties in their respective countries, have now both seized power and shown they can hang on to it thanks to a powerful combination of their own ideological and political strengths as well as their opposition’s baffling weakness and incompetence. Both parties won sweeping victories within this past year because of it, and will continue to do so, barring sweeping changes in the opposition or a colossal failure of their own leadership. Both parties were out of power for a generation prior, and both have so far proven themselves worthy and capable of carrying their standards well in to the new century.

UN-Thinkable

2005-04-27T16:52:00.000-07:00

It is not usually my place to dispute or debunk a guest columnist, but that is exactly what I have to do this week. Tom Moosbrugger’s column on Darfur, while exposing a critical issue as well as cataloging several infamous genocides throughout the 20^th century also made grave errors in judgment and several notable omissions. Moosbrugger’s implied course of action, letting the United Nations take care of events in Darfur, would in reality make matters far worse.

The United Nations, whose status ranges from international hero to all-powerful deity in the eyes of the left, has a miserable and atrocious history in intervening in human rights catastrophes. Take one of their most recent cataclysms (an event Moosbrugger omitted), Bosnia. While the country was under siege from Serb forces, the United Nations decided to extend an existing mandate in neighboring Croatia. The mandate established “safe havens” for Bosnian Muslims throughout the country. Thousands of petrified refugees huddled around the headquarters as General Philippe Morillon promised to protect their city as well as stay with them as a symbol of solidarity.

Six cities became “safe havens,” Srebrenica, Srajevo, Tuzla, Zepa, Gorazde, and Bihac. However, the safe havens soon became death traps as defenseless refugees made an easy target for Serb snipers. In 1995, Srebrenica was overrun by Serb forces led by Ratko Mladic, now one of the most wanted men in the world. When the Serbs came in, UN forces- the town’s supposed protectors- fled. Thousands of Muslims were slaughtered by the Serbs in one of the darkest moments in UN history. Powerless to stop the Serbs ten years ago, and just as cowardly to defend their territorial mandates as last year, when UN headquarters in Iraq were bombed, there is no indication that such operations would be any different in thwarting the Janjaweed militia now.

Flash forward to the present day, where UN forces in Burundi, Haiti, Liberia, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo are facing allegations of sexual misconduct. Over the past twelve years, UN peacekeepers have engaged in acts of rape, pedophilia, prostitution, and other atrocities in already volatile situations. Numerous attempts at reform and punishment over the years have failed to change the peacekeepers’ culture of sexual permissiveness. And these are the folks we want protecting already panicked and weary refugees?

The other course of action Moosbrugger hints at is letting the International Criminal Court get involved and try members of the militia for war crimes. He makes sure to point out that the United States opposes the ICC on the (very reasonable) grounds that Americans could be tried under the same charges for political reasons. Imagine the likes of the Bosnian Serbs charging our troops for war crimes. Furthermore, no sense of justice would be done against these murderers. Just look at how The Hague is dragging their feet with Slobodan Milosevic, who will most likely go scot-free for masterminding the wars in Croatia, Bosnia, and Kosovo. Additionally, many of Milosevic’s afore-mentioned henchmen- Mladic, Karadzic, and others- are still at large.

The events of ten years ago as well as the events of today should serve as a very dark and stern warning to anyone believing the United Nations can make things better in the Sudan. The situation in Darfur cannot be solved as simply as sending in UN peacekeepers or even US troops. It is clear some sort of action is necessary, but it is always prudent to first think before you act. Otherwise the cry of “Never Again” may become more and more frequent.

Desperate House Dems

2005-04-21T00:18:00.000-07:00

The democrats really are desperate. Five months after losing everything, again, the democrats have taken their four year old policy of obstruction and hindrance to new heights. Apparently unable to “MoveOn” from the 1998 impeachment of Bill Clinton, they have once again resorted to the politics of personal destruction in order to disguise that they have no other legislative agenda to offer the electorate. Given the foot-dragging tactics they’ve employed since their historic 2000 defeat, it should come as a surprise to no one that their new target is a man named DeLay.
The House Majority Leader has been in the democrats’ sights for years. In 2003, a proposed redistricting plan somehow attributed to DeLay was attacked by democrats in Congress and the Texas State Legislature as gerrymandering. This coming from the party that created a congressional district out of a portion of a North Carolina interstate. Instead of debating the motion like the professional politicians they were, or letting the state Supreme Court decide it like most other states, democrats in the Texas State Legislature fled like Frenchmen to neighboring states. Twice. Even if DeLay drew up the map himself, gerrymandering is not a crime. Far from it, gerrymandering is an American political tradition that has been endorsed and even mandated by the United States Supreme Court.
Now, seeing their political relevance flash before their eyes, democrats have turned up the heat on DeLay, cataloging a litany of allegations they themselves have committed from the vague to the outlandish. One such charge alleges DeLay did not “conduct himself at all times in a manner which shall reflect creditably on the House of Representatives.” Really! This from the party of Abscam, James Wright, Gary Condit, and James Trafficant, just to name a few. Tom DeLay also allegedly took money from lobbyists representing the island of Saipan. Apparently DeLay’s crime was not picking the right foreigners, as it apparently is not a crime for Bill Clinton to take campaign contributions from communist China. Democrats even accuse DeLay of using his constitutionally-protected rights to freedom of speech (as well as the constitutional immunity from retribution afforded to congressmen on the House floor) and for using the constitutionally-mandated powers of Congress to impeach federal judges.
We truly have reached the point in the democrats’ ailing life in the minority where party members are so desperate to have their names said on television that they will say and do anything. Unable to win votes on Election Day, democrats are hoping they can strike down republican senators and congressmen on phony ethics charges. In addition, democrats are hoping these ethics probes can distract voters from the fact that their party doesn’t have a message or anything to offer them except more allegations and ethics probes. The American people have an important role to play in all of this as well. The best way to deal with the democrats’ attacks on Tom DeLay is to deal with them the same way people did when democrats launched personal attacks against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice, Wolfowitz, Ashcroft, Bolton, or anybody else in any way connected to the Bush administration, past, present, or future. unlike other nasty infections, democrats typically go away if you ignore them.
While these amateurish attacks against members of the republican leadership can be annoying as well as unworthy for even USG members, they have also proven to be quite helpful to the Republican Party itself. If Fahrenheit 9/11, MoveOn.org, and Hollywood celebrities taught us anything it’s that personal attacks from the left always backfire and result in doing far more harm than good (to their own side anyway). It is also proof that whoever said “hell hath no fury like a woman scorned” never met a democrat who lost an election.

USG’s Flying Circus

2005-04-11T13:13:00.000-07:00

And now for something completely irrelevant. With USG elections now reaching a fever pitch (or the closest thing to it), candidates are making their final appeals to voters and this very publication will soon be issuing an endorsement of which candidates students should vote for. With this in mind, I would like to issue my own word of advice to any undecideds who would otherwise wait until the very day of the election to make up their mind: don’t. The Undergraduate Student Government is such a waste of university resources and state spending, as well as a complete and utter joke that it should not be justified with electoral participation.

It would seem that the vast majority of students already share this sentiment, as last year’s election attracted a staggering 12%. Granted, I voted, but we all do stupid things our freshman year that we’re not proud of. Many candidates are promising that this year will be different, as they do every year. Many of them are already involved or even hold elected office and are still urging us to “Take Back USG!” This statement, my personal favorite slogan, is a lot like the Saudis urging Americans to “Take Back OPEC!”

The USG is a lot like the UN in that it is as completely and totally irrelevant as it is anti-American. Walk in to a Senate meeting and you’ll think you’re at the General Assembly. The same topics are debated incessantly (Darfur, Iraq, “fair trade” coffee) and they always come to the same conclusion (it’s America’s fault). News flash: USG is not MUN. Irrelevant state law also comes up, with Issue One continuing to dominate. This just in: USG is not a Political Action Committee.

When we come to the types of people who make up USG, they are mostly one of three types of people. Some believe USG will look really good on a resume and impress future grad school admissions offices or future employers. These were the types who joined every group in high school but never attended a single meeting. Many are political radicals so far away from the American mainstream they have to dig for well water. They represent the best reasons for bringing back the House Un-American Activities Committee. The snobs who think their position matters will face a hard dose of reality when they realize their three years in the Senate won’t get them a cup of coffee. These are your candidates, folks, as homogenous as they come. I now know how the rest of America feels during the real elections.

On a beautiful spring day there are several more worthwhile activities I can think of that would better suit the common college student than voting online in an inconsequential election that will decide and change nothing. No one outside this part of Columbus will know or care who won, nor should they. Neither the administration nor the Senate will do anything other than play the part of sycophant and puppet to the Board of Regents (the people who really do matter at this university), too busy wasting time on issues that have no connection to The Ohio State University whatsoever. I would go out on a limb to suggest the only topics up for consideration will be Issue One and the Iraq War. Meanwhile the Board of Regents’ power over students will remain unchecked as life continues to grow progressively worse at the nation’s most accredited construction site- er, I mean, research institution! Perpetual construction, closing of favorite landmarks, rises in tuition, divestment in public safety, and neglect of undergraduates will continue and no one who supposedly represents us will care. Finally, one year from now, tomorrow’s candidates will pledge that everything will be different next time. My fellow students, don’t bother voting in this so-called election. Haven’t you got anything better to do on 4/20?

Kill Terrorists, Not Patriot Act

2005-04-06T15:56:00.000-07:00

Every so often I find myself wondering why it is I write and what could possibly inspire me. This past Friday, I found my muse. A small group of students protested outside the main library at Ohio State, and apparently were joined by students on campuses around the country. In a strong display of educational priorities and intellectual prowess, students across the nation cut class to protest an issue they no little about, wearing t-shirts asking “Am I a Terrorist?” Probably not, but they are misinformed.

A quick crash course on the USA Patriot Act: it was passed with wide bi-partisan majorities in both houses of Congress (including 98-1 in the Senate) and allows the federal government to combat international and domestic terrorism by strengthening existing laws used to combat drug trafficking and organized crime for decades. Indeed, in the words of Democratic Senator Joe Biden (D-DE), “what’s good for the mob should be good for terrorists.” In addition, the Patriot Act breaks down the Watergate-era barriers imposed on law enforcement, national defense, and intelligence agencies and permits unprecedented and radical actions such as allowing the FBI and CIA to talk to each other and help prevent crimes. As eventual Democratic Vice Presidential nominee John Edwards stated, the Patriot Act allows the right hand of our government to know what the left hand is doing. The Act also updated existing laws to fit with modern times and technologies (such as provisions to combat computer hackers) and increased punishment for those who commit terrorist crimes.

Back to the protests, the usual suspects were all there: the Atheists, Communists, and Leftists Union (ACLU), Amnesty International, and the left’s usual crowd of bussed-in stooges and conspiracy theorists supplemented the truant pupils. The theme of the protests were geared toward checking out supposedly “flagged” books which deal with topics such as bomb-making, terrorism, and Islamic fundamentalism, among other subjects. The basis for this irrational fear is that if they check out the “wrong” book, Big Brother will ship them to Guantanamo. The truth is the Patriot Act merely allows federal agents to ask for a federal court order to obtain business records (including library records) in national security terrorism cases, which law enforcement could do anyway through grand jury subpoenas. The provision attacked by the protesters is simply a strengthening of existing law. Court orders are, of course, at the discretion of the court and can only be used when the government demonstrates business records are sought to pursue an authorized investigation. So unless the answer to the shirt is “Yes,” the students have nothing to worry about.

There are other invalid criticisms of the Patriot Act. The ACLU complains about the length of the Patriot Act (which means they haven’t read it) and its many complications beyond the reaches of the layman (which by that logic should do away with our tax code). Even the controversial nature of the law is valid criticism, which would allow for Roe v. Wade to be struck down, by this standard. It doesn’t take a degree in political science to figure out the real reasons behind the objections to a piece of legislation which simply applied existing law enforcement techniques to terrorists. I don’t recall seeing the ACLU this agitated when these same provisions went after the mafia. The simple truth is that civil libertarians don’t want a safe and secure America, especially when it might inconvenience them at an airport or keep them from threatening the president. “Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither,” they quote Benjamin Franklin. Then again, those who would sacrifice security for liberty will receive neither. After all, what good are rights and liberties without citizens to enjoy them? Personally, I would much rather be randomly padded down at Port Columbus than be killed by a terrorist attack. Am I a Fascist?

Media On Life Support

2005-03-30T22:39:00.000-08:00

As crazy as it sounds, I actually envy Terri Schiavo. After all, she doesn’t have to watch the incessant media coverage of her impending death. For the past two weeks since her feeding tube was removed, the major television, radio, and newspaper outlets have given the vegetative Florida woman’s suffering wall to wall, 24 hour coverage not seen since two weeks ago, when they did the same to Michael Jackson. The incessant revolving coverage between irrelevant news stories such as Schiavo, Jackson, and Scott Peterson is insulting to the intelligence of the viewer, reader, and listener and begs the question: is there nothing else going on in the world?

One would think the opposite would be true, if one paid attention to alternative news, followed that scrolling bar at the bottom of the screen, or had a memory longer than that of a goldfish. A new democracy is forming in the Central Asian republic of Kyrgyzstan, making it the third former Soviet authoritarian government to fall in the past two years. China is continuing its latest round of yearly threats against Taiwan, and this time they claim they’re serious. Major historic developments continue in the Middle East in places such as Israel, Lebanon, and Iraq where terror and tyranny are giving way to peace and democracy. An 8.7 earthquake off the coast of Indonesia killed an estimated 1,000 people. I’d stop if I thought you had heard any of this already.

If there is one positive in all of this it is that Greta van Susteren now has something to talk about besides Scott Peterson, who deserved the death penalty not just for murdering his wife but for taking up valuable airtime. The radio talk show hosts also have not gotten the proverbial memo that things are in fact happening outside the Sunshine State. On television and radio, it seems anyone with any prior connection to Schiavo is being called forward to venture an opinion on whether or not she should die. TV and radio show hosts are setting up shop on the front lines in Tallahassee, prepared to dish out “breaking news” developments, such as whether or not Terri is still moving. Indeed, moving on is something the media seems totally incapable of doing.

It may very well be that the media is anxious for summer to start, when all news totally stops. For reasons that can’t fully be comprehended, the big story of the summer of 2001, as we all recall, were the escapades of then-Congressman Gary Condit. In the absence of (and sometimes even in spite of) actual events, the media seems to believe catastrophes involving suburban white women from California constitute earth-shattering news. Lots of people go missing in many parts of this country. Why they make it to the fourth story on the local news or on the front page of the metro section is the real mystery.

Therefore, I launch the following appeal to all in the news industry, those who report the news and those who create it: find something else, please. A scandal, a small-scale calamity, or even an asinine comment by a member of USG would do. If need be, we can call Congress back in session. They’re always good for something. If not, realize that other things are happening in the world not limited to the handful of stories I mentioned earlier. Furthermore, many viewers, listeners, and readers are hungry for something different, something substantive. One week is bad enough for a story like this. Two is overkill. I do realize, however, that my plea will most likely fall on deaf ears. The media is too busy getting ready to follow the antics of Bobby Fischer next week.

Democrats to Schiavo: Drop Dead

2005-03-23T14:09:00.000-08:00

I can remain silent no longer. As hard as I tried to ignore the Terri Schiavo feeding tube fiasco, the antics and hysterics of one side of the case has driven me to the word processor. The circumstances of the case are quite simple as well as partisan. Schiavo’s parents want her feeding tube reinserted, allowing her to stay alive. Schiavo’s husband (who in the midst of this has the compassion and devotion to find a new girlfriend) wants to kill her. Just guess who the democrats are siding with. That’s right folks. This past Monday the Republicans were hoping to keep an innocent woman alive and the democrats were telling her to drop dead.

The great irony here is that the democrats, who supposedly are against the use of cruel and unusual punishment for mass murderers and Al Qaeda terrorists, are advocating something far more cruel and unusual against Terri Schiavo. In that case, Schiavo’s only means of survival would be to somehow commit a crime. Yes, if only she had killed someone before the injury, democrats would be begging and pleading to keep her alive. Does anyone recall a different situation in which death by starvation would be legitimate? Ok, except what Stalin did to the Ukraine. We all know the liberals were for that too. This simple truth bears repeating: you couldn’t treat a mass murderer the way democrats want to treat Terri Schiavo. Schiavo simply represents the latest example of how democrats favor the protection of the guilty and the killing of the innocent. Just keep in mind how they want to treat unborn fetuses.

Indeed, where are the women’s groups on this one? Does anyone else find it strange that the same people who supposedly staunchly defend a woman’s right to choose are so vehemently opposed to a woman’s right to life? And don’t tell me the National Organization for Women supports letting a husband- or any man for that matter- make decisions for his wife. Weren’t you people fighting against this sort of thing thirty years ago?

In the midst of this catastrophic suffering, there is something constructive that can emerge called precedent. Since democrats believe forced starvation is an effective and humane way to treat the terminally ill, perhaps they would support the practice on those who are more of a burden on society. The most obvious case are criminals, especially those on death row. While Scott Peterson probably wishes he was in Michael Schiavo’s position, perhaps it would not be a bad idea to forcibly starve people like Scott Peterson. Since those who oppose the death penalty site that it is more expensive to keep a person on death row, and since those who oppose the death penalty for the guilty support its use against Terri Schiavo, perhaps instead of keeping them alive we can simply not feed them during the appeals process.

In addition to the terminally ill and the criminals, perhaps we could also forcibly starve the poor. Both parties fought for years to reform the welfare system a decade ago, but simply starving welfare recipients would eliminate the need for such a program altogether. Keeping them both alive and on the state’s payroll is simply an undue burden on society. Starving them is simply the humane thing to do as it ends their suffering in squalor. Many other social, economic, and political problems could be solved by simply treating them as democrats want to treat Terri Schiavo. In this culture of death and devaluation of human life, the sky is the limit.

The Issue That Doesn't Exist

2005-03-04T02:36:00.000-08:00

There’s nothing worse than being told that a problem you see and experience on a regular basis doesn’t exist. This is especially true when the ones denying the problem are the ones causing it. The issue of institutionalized ideological bias and the corresponding lack of political tolerance and diversity on campus is very real, clear, and present. Don’t try telling that to a professor, faculty member, or liberal however. It is for this reason why no candidates for Undergraduate Student Government will discuss this issue and exactly why they should.

I’m sure many of you have no idea what I’m talking about. Then again, maybe some of you do. Have you ever noticed that the only dissenting voice in a classroom discussion setting is the one supporting the Iraq war? Conversely, have you ever found yourself the only one defending free market capitalism? Have you ever wondered why none of your conservative friends ever speak up in class? Do you think it at all plausible that there may be a professor out there who bases your grade on whether or not you agree with what he or she says? If so, you already realize that an institutionalized problem exists not just at Ohio State but at colleges around the country.

The Ohio State University (or Research Institute, depending on who you ask) preaches diversity and tolerance from day one. Indeed, the fostering of diversity on a college campus is an important university goal and a compelling state interest, according to the United States Supreme Court. However, Ohio State is not honoring this spirit of diversity by perpetuating ideological bias. They are, in fact, hindering it, and continuing to both insult and oppress dissenting opinion by pretending a problem doesn’t exist. Anyone who believes stifling ideological diversity isn’t a problem should try substituting the word “ideological” for “racial.”

It may be said that ideological bias on campus is not a relevant issue, especially when compared to tuition, public safety, or Karen Holbrook. From what I understand of USG though, the less an issue has to do with the university, the more likely it is to be discussed at Senate meetings. I would be so bold to predict that USG presidential candidates will either ignore this issue, or do what amounts to speaking out against ideological diversity. Just look at the number of articles in this very publication that have stated opposition to Senate Bill 24, The Student’s Bill of Rights.

It doesn’t have to be this way. Instead of ignoring this institutionalized suppression of diversity and difference, USG candidates can urge that something be done about it. USG candidates (I would hope) would not tolerate the intimidation and harassment of African-Americans or Muslims, so why should they tolerate the same directed at conservatives? Candidates should urge that diversity of opinion be a goal to be pursued with the same energy and vigor as any other issue of socioeconomic, racial, ethnic, cultural, or sexual diversity. Without diversity of opinion, true diversity cannot be achieved. Lacking this key component, the illusion of diversity on campus is just that: an illusion.

Do You Play Hockey? Guess Not.

2005-02-24T01:03:00.000-08:00

Did anyone else find it fitting that the only hockey game on TV this week was ESPN Classic's re-showing of the 1980 Miracle on Ice? One of the great ironies that presented itself during the past week is that the National Hockey League would call their season quits mere days before the 25th anniversary of the greatest triumph in the history of United States hockey. Something tells me that if the great Herb Brooks were here, he'd be quite disappointed.

The story of the 1980 United States Olympic hockey team is one of legend and worthy of the memorial they received in the recent movie "Miracle." The odds were against Herb Brooks and his squad from the very start. The hegemon of Olympic hockey were the Soviet Union, who were in the twentieth year of their reign as gold medal champion. Brooks took it upon himself to assemble a squad of the best collegiate hockey players in the nation- mostly from Minnesota and Boston- who would come together as a unit, a family, for something greater and more important than themselves.

Adversity hit the team early and often as disappointments in exhibition and qualifying matches only seemed to solidify the views of the doubters. Once the Olympics rolled along, however, Team USA sent the skeptics and critics down with a hard check in to the boards. In a rematch with the mighty Soviets in the semifinals, the Americans leveled a final blow to all those who had counted them out from day one. In a stark contrast to a 10-3 rout earlier in the year at Madison Square Garden, Team USA stayed close with the Soviet juggernaut. Down 3-2 after two periods of play, the Americans scored two goals in the third to cap off their legendary victory. In their next game, Team USA completed the impossible dream by beating Finland in the gold medal game. In a relatively short time, Coach Brooks took a band of self-absorbed misfits from the "Me Decade" and transformed them in to an invincible unit who played for the name on the front rather than the name on the back.

Contrast that to today, where the squabbling between players and owners has delivered what could be a death blow to the National Hockey League as we know it. Unfortunately, the likes of both sides care more about money and themselves ("the name on the back") more than they care about their team or their sport, ("the name on the front"). Given the successes of other American sports, like football, basketball, and baseball, this could prove to be a critical and fatal error in judgment. My hope is that, after this dispute has been solved, Americans can forgive the NHL as they have other sports. Otherwise, the league and sport may not be able to survive and may go the way of soccer in the '80's and early '90's. "Do you play hockey?" Well, we'll see.

Ann Coulter and the Real Treason

2005-02-20T12:30:00.000-08:00

This past weekend I had the opportunity to attend the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, DC. I listened to and got to meet several noted speakers, politicians, and authors. Among these was the noted attorney, columnist, author, and University of Michigan law school graduate Ann Coulter. Her speech to a packed house at the Ronald Reagan Building resembled more of a stand up comedy routine than any kind of substantive speech or even book promotion. She told jokes about the democrats, Howard Dean, and Chappaquiddick, and urged republicans to make the left as oppressed as they thought they were. "The New McCarthyism," she called it. She, along with Big Media scourge Matt Drudge also took questions at the end, and I was fortunate enough to ask one of them.

Referring to a chapter in her latest book, How To Talk To A Liberal (If You Must), entitled "The Battle Flag," I asked the Treason author why she wrote said book vilifying supposed traitors from the latter half of the twentieth century while at the same time writing said chapter lauding actual traitors from the 1860's. Her initial silence was deafening. Calling me "a unionist who is apparently still pissed that the south seceded," she literally danced around my question. She talked about the Battle Flag, about how the Confederacy never flew the flag above a government building, about how it didn't represent slavery and racism like everyone said it did, and instead stood for heritage and pride. Then, she praised the south and the Confederate army as "the greatest army ever assembled." "The south is our warrior class," she said, and concluded by somehow asserting that "the first civil right is the right to secede." Each of these remarks was met with applause from a sycophantic audience. Drudge added comments relating to the Chinese and European Union flags.

But that wasn't the point.

My issue with the Confederate battle flag is not that it represents racism or slavery, like every other democrat appears to believe. On the contrary, the flag of a regime that rebelled against the United States represented sedition, rebellion, and (oddly enough, the title of Ann Coulter's previous book), treason. Ms. Coulter apparently has created a double standard in regards to the subject of treason. She portrays the likes of Alger Hiss and Daniel Ellsberg as traitors, yet somehow also portraying Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee as heroes. In her own words, if taking up arms and rebelling against your own country is not treason, then treason has no meaning. A traitor is a traitor, whether they are on the left or right. Indeed, the threat we faced in the Civil War was far more dangerous than the threat of communism in the Cold War in that we actually fought the Confederacy in armed combat on our own soil. Secondly, the traitors of the Confederacy fought against the United States in armed struggle in the Confederate army or government. The traitors of the Cold War merely served in the State Department.

I share Ms. Coulter's affection for the south. That is, as much affection as I can have for not actually having been there. The southerners I have met are a very proud people, steeped in faith and tradition and patriotism. They are very proud Americans and Americans first and foremost. Yes, many of them do serve in the military and they should be commended for their selfless service to their country. My question was not meant to attack them and it did not. Southerners, like any group of people, have a dark spot or two they're not proud of, and open rebellion against the United States should very well be that mark. We should not forget that and certainly not deify their ancestors. They were traitors, plain and simple. Coulter’s chapter and wishy-washy stance on treason, however, panders unnecessarily to a regional group due to their recent loyalty to the Republican Party. We don’t praise northeastern colonists who initiated the revolutionary war because, after all, northeasterners are democrats.

Finally, the issue of secession. Ann Coulter believes it a right for any state to secede and believes it to be "the first civil right." I would like for her, a constitutional scholar and strict constructionist, to show me where in the Constitution such a right is guaranteed. If she uses the be all, catch all Tenth Amendment, I would remind her that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." could just as easily be interpreted to guarantee free vanilla ice cream for all citizens. So too could it justify the practice of abortion she so despises. If secession is guaranteed as a civil right, than the United States as a nation is no better than it was under the Articles of Confederation. America is not a loose EU-like confederation of sovereign states, each one with the ability to leave of its own free will. The United States of America is a union of states who are united together forming a single federal nation. The Civil War solved this question once and for all. For all those people, like Coulter, who still cling to a nostalgic secession fever, I would advise them to concede the nearly-150 year old defeat, re-acquire their patriotism (American patriotism), and join the twenty-first century. Anything short would be treasonous.

An Open Letter to the Democratic National Committee

2005-02-14T23:33:00.000-08:00

To whom this may concern,

Sincere congratulations on the election of your new party chairman, former Vermont Governor and presidential candidate Howard Dean. That being said, there is a question that immediately comes to mind once the result of the race sinks in: is this really what you want? I'm sure we can all agree that your party, having lost the past three elections, is not in the best shape. Indeed, much of Chairman Dean's criticisms of the party were accurate in that since the 2000 election, the party has represented nothing. The best illustration of this was a candidate, John Kerry, who ran on nothing. However, for the sake of electability, running on empty may be better than running with Howard Dean.

I'm sure we can also agree that Mr. Dean represents a certain element of the Democratic Party that has been repressed for many years. However, I genuinely fear that this angry, moderate-spurning, Bush-blaming lunatic may prove to be the cancer of your party. Most Americans don’t identify with this Michael Moore-led X-Files wing of the party, and if it remains to dominate your party, only disaster can result. Forty years ago, a similarly angry, moderate-spurning lunatic was our party's nominee for President of the United States. His name was Barry Goldwater. He won six states. While extremism in the defense of liberty may be no vice and moderation in the pursuit of justice may be no virtue, it won't get you anywhere electorally. Trust me, we know.

In order to win elections again, your party must return to the center to its New Democrat past. It wasn't long ago (twelve years, in fact) where a floundering democrat party was saved by a young, charismatic governor from a southern state who emphasized moderation and message rather than ideology and rhetoric that hadn't been successful in twenty years. He not only won, he unseated a sitting president. Bill Clinton won two terms because he successfully went after the moderates of this country. The mainstream, if you will. While energizing your own base might be tempting, it won't win elections.

For the sake of a competitive election in 2006, here are a few pointers. First, don't run against America. Americans love their country more than you can possibly imagine, and they don't want their decisions being made in Manhattan, Brussels, or Paris. Americans have always favored a strong military as well, so it won't help to be on the wrong side of this issue either. Americans generally hold a favorable opinion of their nation's foreign policy, so demanding the troops leave tomorrow won't go over well.

Second, remember the lesson learned by Walter Mondale 20 years ago: Americans don't want higher taxes. Every candidate in the history of organized democratic government who has promised higher taxes has lost, big time. So if you really intend on actually raising taxes, just don't tell anyone. Social Security, education, and health care need to be fixed. These traditionally are your strong points, so use them to your advantage. As long as you don't propose new government agencies or a European welfare state, Americans should find favor with whatever you have in mind as they have for decades.

Third, Americans don't want to hear about moral issues. The only reason why moral issues were such a big issue in this past election is because democrats literally forced issues like gay marriage down our collective throats. Running extreme on either side will only produce a backlash from the opposition. It’s not a coincidence that Pats Buchanan and Robertson don’t speak at the Republican Convention anymore. If your party's social policy is dictated by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, you will lose every time. Americans generally favor God, so running against him won't go over well either.

Fourth, location and geography is important. One simply can’t win a nationwide election while pissing away over 100 electoral votes. Those red states are important. If you would have tried to carry Florida, for example, you would be in the White House. Furthermore, telling everyone you don’t like to go to Dubuque is a bad move. We don’t like to go to Detroit or LA, but we do it anyway and pretend to like it. With geography comes image. A blue state democrat hasn’t gone on to live in the White House since 1960. What’s more, that’s not a coincidence. It’s far easier to paint a northeastern or west coast liberal as being out of touch with the mainstream than it is to do the same to a southern or Midwestern conservative.

While many of you who read this may dismiss my proposals as "Bush Light," one need only look across the Atlantic Ocean to find a left-wing party that favors strong national defense, stays true to its moral and traditional foundations, and proposes moderate change to the socio-economic structure. Additionally, that party is about to thrash the Conservatives this spring. There is hope for the Democratic Party. Tony Blair's New Labour is proof of this. Clinton's New Democrats could win, and did, and in order to become relevant again, your party must come back to these attractive themes. As long as the Democratic Party remains divisive, angry, vengeful, and personalistic in attacks, the losses will continue to add up. How do you change that? It's the moderates, stupid.

Sincerely,

Brendan Monaghan

Groundhog Day Democrats

2005-02-03T03:04:00.000-08:00

The democrats' response to the State of the Union was appropriate to the day it was given, Groundhog Day. Instead of the beginning of a moderate or rational spring, they promised two more years of a dark, vengeful, and liberal winter. Instead of anything new and hopeful and workable, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid promised more of the same. More obstruction, more criticism without ideas of their own, more inconsistency with the values of real Americans. In short, the donkey saw its shadow when Bush spoke tonight and fled in terror.

The democrats continue to be wrong on many issues that are critical to Americans such as national defense, social security, immigration, and social issues. The problem is not just that these positions are wrong -half of America seems to agree with them, somehow- it's that the democrats summed up the entire nature of the state of their party in one word: "No!" This word was uttered, quite loudly in fact, when Bush discussed much-needed reforms to save Social Security. On this issue, the democrats seem to be the only ones who now believe there is not a problem with Social Security (which represents quite an about face from four years ago). The truth is clear and simple: there is, in fact, a problem with Social Security. This problem will not just go away either. In fact, if we don't fix this problem, Social Security itself will go away.

Social Security, as President Bush pointed out, was initiated during a very different time in American history. Fewer people were eligible to receive benefits and people did not live as long as they are now. Additionally, there isn't enough money available in the long run to give out benefits to a rapidly expanding senior population. As a matter of very basic economics, when demand exceeds supply, especially in essential services, you have a problem. This is a somewhat clear problem which lacks a clear solution. There are a multitude of options available which can fix this problem. President Bush's plan implements some of them, and is both moderate and sensible.

Americans should be allowed to invest a portion of their savings in the stock market if they so choose. The democrats say no. Such investments would, in fact, yield a greater amount than what seniors would make on Social Security alone. The democrats say no. Allowing these accounts would free up more revenue within the program which could be used on other beneficiaries. The democrats say no. The democrats' simple solution (do nothing) to a problem they claim does not exist would in fact do more damage to Social Security than they claim Bush's reforms would do. Social Security is running out of money. They even said so before being swamped in the last election. If Social Security's problems have suddenly gone away, President Bush deserves a great deal of credit.

With the exception of Social Security, nothing else was new in the democrats' response. No new policies, ideas, principles, or methods of execution. The democrats are as committed as ever to opposing President Bush's will, whatever it may be, without offering alternatives of their own. They will continue to filibuster non-communist judicial nominees. They will continue to oppose legislation and action vital to the defense of our country because they do not believe in defending out country. They will continue to oppose Bush's immigration plans because on this issue they don't have a clue. They will continue to be on the wrong side of moral issues because they believe a moral compass can be bought at Wal-Mart.

Make no mistake, folks, this is winter for the democrats. It has been since January 2001. President Bush promised, as democrats seem so fond of bringing up, to change the climate in Washington, and to his credit he has. The democrats are stuck in this endless winter and with Howard Dean (who would make a real Doctor No) poised to become Democratic Party chairman, spring must seem eons away. Perhaps the Groundhog Day state of the democrats seems more in line with the movie than the holiday, since democrats keep making the same mistakes. A Howard Dean chairmanship ensures the party will be stuck in that destructive, yet endless loop for quite some time.

Decision 2005: Iraq Wins

2005-01-31T21:20:00.000-08:00

You are watching what neo-conservatism is all about. For the first time in its country's history, the Republic of Iraq has become just that- a republic. The Iraqi elections yesterday were in many ways a triumph. For the Iraqi people, for Middle Eastern democracy, and in this country, for the Iraq War and neo-conservatism. While the same staunch leftists, who opposed the war, continue to oppose the rebuilding, and wish Saddam Hussein was still in power may criticize neo-conservatism as nothing more than "invading their countries, killing their leaders, and converting them to Christianity," they need only look to yesterday to find the fruits of such labor. As I witnessed a staggering 72% of Iraqis going to the polls, many in spite of the threat of violence, I am left thinking the same thing I was in the spring of 2003 when Iraqis were celebrating their liberation and the statues were coming down in Baghdad: what a bad day this must be for the liberals.

As we witness these momentous events in Iraq we must be mindful of why they are occurring. Quite simply, the only reason why Iraq had elections Sunday is because George Bush won his election in November. Remember those same leftists who opposed the war, continue to oppose the rebuilding, and wish Saddam Hussein was still in power? They're vying for control of the democrat party. Had they won the 2002 midterm elections, they would have made execution of the Iraq War (which they approved months before) very difficult if not impossible. Had they won last November, they would have forced President Kerry to withdraw the troops at some future date (end of the year, six months from now, or immediately after his inauguration). At which point, their beloved United Nations would step in and allow the country to descend in to chaos, as they have so many times and in so many places before. In either case, the events of Sunday would not have taken place for reasons of either Saddam-imposed despotism or UN-imposed anarchy.

While the democrats, and furthermore the American liberals and leftists can count themselves as some of yesterday's biggest losers, another such loser is Al Qaeda and international terror. As a result of Iraq's democratization, international Islamic terror loses a major ally. No longer can Al Qaeda members receive funding and shelter from the regime. No longer can Palestinian families receive checks for suicide bomber sons slaughtering Israeli women and children. And no longer can Iraq so much as feign the threat of weapons of mass destruction. Whether or not the US found WMD in Iraq is no longer relevant. A peaceful and democratic Iraq will neither use nor develop such weaponry to use on its neighbors or citizens. And we know Iraq has done both in the past. Ultimately there is only one weapon of mass destruction in Iraq that mattered. We found him in a spider hole and he is now sitting in jail.

In the long run, if you enjoy seeing our troops killed and humiliated, if you love watching the US screw things up militarily in places you think they don't belong, in short, if you're a liberal, revel in this while you can. It won't last long. It is only a matter of time before the insurgency crumbles under the legitimacy of an internationally-recognized government. With Al Qaeda, the Ba'athists, and all other foreign trouble-makers swept in to oblivion, a new era of hope awaits the Iraqi people and the whole of the Middle East. As much as it may pain me to say it, Wilson was right. A democratic world is a peaceful world, and a democratic middle east is a middle east devoid of terrorism. That is why we neo-conservatives are "imposing democracy" on the world. It's safer that way. Since 2001, three Muslim countries have had elections that will change the course of their country and the lives of their citizens. To all Syrians, Iranians, Saudis, and other Arabs and Muslims still living under the darkness of tyranny and terror, I offer the catch phrase of the candidate who would have kept you enslaved: help is on the way.

Roe, Roe, Roe Your Vote

2005-01-28T13:23:00.000-08:00

Earlier this week, the 32nd anniversary of the worst Supreme Court case since Dred Scott was observed across the nation, by pro-lifers and anti-lifers alike. The pro-lifers came together, most notably at the capitol, in solemn vigil and prayer. The anti-lifers, on the other hand, most notably on the campus of The Ohio State University, had a party. 32 years gone by, 35 million lives destroyed, and they had a party. This from the same campus group that advertised a lecture on "the future of abortion" with a flyer with a picture of a hanger on it.

For 28 or so of those 32 years, it was traditionally conservatives that were the emotional bunch and the liberals that were the rational status quo types. After all, liberals had the advantage thanks to an activist Supreme Court and Roe v. Wade. Never mind that Ms. Roe, better known as Norma McCorvey, is now a pro-life activist. In fact, many pro-lifers at the rally were women wearing shirts reading "I Regret My Abortion." Now, as in so many other political areas, the situation has re-aligned, and the liberals have become the hysterics. The reason for this, whether justified or not, is two-fold. The Supreme Court justices, the sacred guardians of this so-called "right," are getting older. Much older. Near death, even. With them, the anti-lifers feel, so too may this "right" die. After all, the one who appoints judges is now the evil, reactionary, chauvinist, woman-hating, Bible-belt pandering fascist himself, George W. Bush. That's right, once the Supreme Court justices die off, Bush can start appointing Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell to the bench.

The liberals' claims, as always, are greatly exaggerated. Apparently they have forgotten some critical aspects and procedures regarding judicial appointments. Judges are appointed by the president only at the advice and consent of the Senate. Apparently they have also forgotten that (Up)Chuck Schumer and Ted Kennedy have made it quite clear that only staunch, hard-line communists will get through their committee, since, as Schumer stated quite clearly, "ideology is an issue." Democratic filibusters will ensure this as well, since the Republicans are short of the sixty votes needed to invoke cloture. A very liberal acquaintance of mine assured me that the John Kerry presidency that so scared me would have done nothing with a Republican-controlled Congress. Indeeed, as long as there are democrats in the Senate, especially those so dedicated to maintaining infanticide, nothing regarding Roe will be done. If anything, the demise of a Supreme Court justice will mean that the Supreme Court will have one less member until at least 2006.

The real reason for the panic of the left is that the majority of American opinion is no longer on there side. 32 years of force out, flogging, and flushing have tipped the scales against abortion. Those who favor the process the most, NARAL, state that they want abortion to remain "safe, legal, and rare." Can you think of any other constitutional rights that advocate groups want to remain "rare?" What would the second amendment be if the NRA wanted gun ownership to remain "rare?" What of free speech if the ACLU wanted it "rare" as well? NARAL realizes, as do other anti-life groups, that they can't simply come out and claim they are in favor of the wholesale slaughter of the unborn. Abortion is a horrific procedure, and they claim to know it, yet they continue to support it.

The truth is that the practice of abortion is in no real danger, either long or short-term. This is simply due to the public outcry that would result if Roe was overturned. The population knows little of what would really result if that indeed happened. Most assume the decision would ban abortion altogether. This is untrue; the decision would return to the states, where it belongs. In this case, a few states would ban abortion in some way or another while others would expand the practice, probably allowing for grade school girls to obtain an abortion from the school nurse without parental consent. Most, however, in some way or another, would keep it legal as is. This is their right, of all states to act in the manner of their choosing, which has been denied for 32 years. Most liberals are not "pro-choice" as they claim. They are, in fact, pro-abortion. Conservatives, however, are pro-choice- they support a state's right to choose.

Bush Holds First Inaguration in US History

2005-01-17T21:46:00.000-08:00

If that headline looked a little funny to you, it should. Then again, if it didn't, there is definitely something funny with you. This is yet another exploration for the benefit of us conservatives in to the minds of liberals. In the same sense in which liberals believe George W. Bush caused the recent tsunami, liberals also believe Bush's second inauguration will be the very first in American history, and are therefore raising hell about it. Granted this might take some explaining, but practically every asinine assumption made by liberals does.

The left, still refusing to accept the victory of President George W. Bush in the November 2004 elections, as well as the recent failure of what is now known as the "Boxer Rebellion," are perplexed as to why a supposedly illegitimate president is holding a ceremony in his own honor commemorating his supposedly stolen victory. I'll give you a while to digest that.

In what represents a monumental shift in left-wing ideology, liberals are actually using cost as an argument against holding the inauguration. That's right. Liberals have now begun caring about how much something costs. The cost of the inauguration is somewhere in the millions of dollars, but since these figures are cited by liberals, the exact cost is not known. In yet another example of their "why spend millions of dollars on (blank) when we could use it on worthless social entitlement programs" argument, the left is actually arguing against holding the inauguration at all. They cite the usual emotionally-based arguments for why we should instead divert more money to welfare, social security, and the National Endowment for the Arts; they talk about the down-trodden economy as if one actually existed, and they talk about the under-funded Iraq War, as if they actually supported going to war in the first place. The left would have President Bush cancel the inauguration, the ceremony, and all the traditional balls and galas because we as a nation somehow can't afford it.

The real reason for their opposition should in fact be as clear as the botox on John Kerry's face: the left hates George W. Bush. They always have hated him and they always will hate him and anything remotely connected to him. Whenever his name appears in the news, they blame him for whatever it was he is in the news for. It's not Chappaquiddick or Up-chuck Schumer’s fault no judicial nominees have been confirmed, it's Bush's. This is why, as previously mentioned, they blame the tsunami on Bush. President Bush has become a left-wing scapegoat, replacing their other long time source of blame on the planet, Jews.

Like it or not, the inauguration of President George W. Bush will go on, as will his presidency go on for the next four years. The left is somehow going to have to live with that. Or move to Canada. I personally am looking forward to the multitude of events and circumstances the loony left tries to blame on President Bush. They should provide blogging fodder for years to come.

Rape and the Big Ten

2005-01-14T14:18:00.000-08:00

In October 2002, Iowa basketball player Pierre Pierce pled guilty to misdemeanor sexual assault involving an acquaintance of his at a party. He had been charged with third-degree sexual assault, which is a felony, but was able to plea bargain thanks to his victim's consent, numerous anonymous threats to the prosecution team, and the fact that he is an Iowa basketball player. Now, two years later, a man who is at best a convicted assailant and at worse an un-convicted rapist, is still being protected by the Big Ten Conference and at least two athletic departments, ours and theirs. This represents new policy for these three institutions, which have taken it upon themselves to condone the crime of rape.

In basketball games in January of 2004 and 2005, Pierce was made aware of his crimes and conviction by home fans at Ohio State. The fans chanted and sang, among other things "Hey Pierre Pierce, we wanna know why you're not in jail." However, nothing was said by fans that could not be repeated in front of their mothers, which is often rare among student sections. For this, the Big Ten Conference took the side of the rapist in reprimanding the Buckeye Nuthouse, a student supporter group. Outgoing athletic director Andy Geiger recently expressed his indignation, that Ohio State students could go so far as condemning, rather than shielding, a rapist and convicted sexual assailant. The Buckeye Nuthouse is now being punished by having to publish a written apology advertisement to be seen in The Lantern. Whether or not the group should be made to apologize for not showering the rapist with praise has not been announced.

The stated basis for their reprimand was sportsmanship. Namely, they claimed the Nuthouse did not exercise good sportsmanship in heckling a rapist. Sportsmanship is, of course, important in athletics, particularly in college. We are continually reminded by our own conference to be good sports. But sportsmanship means nothing without respect, and respect must be earned. Clearly, a convicted sexual assailant, a coach who keeps him on the team, and a program that tolerates both commands no respect. It may be said that other programs tolerate criminals, including our own. One need look no further to our own football program to find criminals protected because of their status as star players. But this is different. This is rape.

The Big Ten Conference as well as its member schools should reconsider their position on the issue of rape for, if nothing else, public relations reasons. What kind of message does this send to female student athletes, or indeed, female students that the Big Ten now considers rape a tolerable action if the assailant is a star player? Perhaps they should consider this if they wish to remain a legitimate entity which furthers the development of student athletes and their supporters. After all, good sports make great fans.

A Modest Proposal for the America-Hating Left

2005-01-10T14:07:00.000-08:00

Months ago you drew a line in the ground. You promised and threatened to cross it if the inevitable occurred. We laughed and taunted in response and dared you to cross it. That line, of course, is 49 degrees north, the Canadian border. We all remember your half-thought out rhetoric and your ungoverned hatred for the president and country. Therefore, I submit to you a modest and simple proposal: put your proverbial money where your mouth is and head north.

We all know how you feel about America, about Bush, about the republicans. Consequently, we also know how you feel about Canada, Europe, and socialism. Your positions on the war on terror and Iraq are quite clear, as are your positions on income redistribution, drug use, and gay marriage. On practically every issue, foreign and domestic, your positions are incongruent with the views of America and 59 million voters and far more in line with our neighbor to the north. By your own admission you don't identify with your own country anyway and take every opportunity while overseas to slander it and its citizens. I submit any singer, actor, or elitist billionaire as an example of this.

We've all heard your praises of Canada and its "progressive" policies on these matters. Your verbal fellatio is far beyond envy or wanton lust of such a system. You want it here, you want it now. That's not going to happen in this country, however, and you know it. You know Americans will never go for socialism. We've all seen, and you've cringed at the fact that Americans don't want gay marriage. You've literally been confounded beyond speech at how Americans don't want to give away 80% of their income to the government like the Canadians or Swedes. All of this is true, and you hate it. Americans just are too stupid to see the appeal of socialism. Too selfish.

The grass (no pun intended) is far greener on the other side of the border. They share your beliefs in social, economic, and political matters. You have a certain rapport with Canadian culture and government, as if Canada had either. Canadians are just so much better than those ugly Americans in every way: they allow for an anything goes social policy, they aren't burdened by such foolish things like religion, they don't engage in fascistic military matters like defending their country, and they have absolutely no problem with giving away all their money to the government or waiting ten years for basic health care, which is supposed to be the envy of the world.

So here's the situation: it's obvious you hate this country and you love Canada, or any other socialist paradise, for that matter. That being the case and considering your earlier threats and promises, there is no reason to stay here. I propose that you execute this badly-thought out plan and move to Canada as you said you would. I'll even help you pack. I'm sure very many conservatives would be glad to buy your plane or bus ticket or pay for your gas. Without you around, both of us would be better off. We wouldn't have to listen to your asinine breed of lunacy or your attempts to compare the Bush administration to the Nazi regime. What's more you could enjoy all the alleged benefits of living in a degenerate socialist member of the British Commonwealth.

I'm sure Canada would welcome you with open arms. After all, the likes of British loyalists, draft dodgers, traitors, and dissidents of every persuasion and generation have called Canada home. They've even begun taking visas from America-haters like yourselves who didn't get their way on November 2nd. So to paraphrase John Kerry, we're staying, you're going, and don't let the door hit you on the way out. We’ll be laughing at you from the other side when you realize your beautiful system doesn't work.

Playoffs??!!

2005-01-08T01:45:00.000-08:00

Every year around this time we Americans get in to heated debate. Our passions run high and, occasionally, our tempers flare. Values such as tradition and fairness are balanced against each other. Yes, this is the time of year where the debate rages on whether or not there should be a playoff in major college football.

To risk shortening the importance of this entry, no, there shouldn't be. If you want football with a drawn-out playoff, watch the NFL. An entry on why college football is better than the NFL is forthcoming. The gist, however, is tradition. College football has it, the NFL doesn't. Tradition is literally what distinguishes the game and makes it the greatest game in this country and one of the best on the planet. There are many aspects of tradition that would be destroyed by a playoff system.

The most obvious is the bowl system, which is already under assault by the Bowl Championship Series (BCS). It used to be that the Big Ten and PAC-10 champion would meet in the Rose Bowl, the Big XII champion would go to the Orange Bowl, and the SEC to the Sugar, and all would be on New Year's Day. This year Texas- yes, Texas- went to the Rose Bowl. In the past, Oklahoma & Nebraska have played in Pasadena and Iowa & Illinois have played in the Orange and Sugar Bowls. Additionally, with only a limited number of teams in this playoff system, teams that would otherwise be playing in bowls would be relegated to watching on TV. So if you're 5-5 heading in to your last game, tough luck. Win or lose, you're still screwed and not going anywhere.

Speaking of that last game, a great deal of importance would go the wayside in the event of a playoff. You know how teams will start their third-stringers late in the year? Yeah. That's what would happen in "meaningless" late-season games. Teams that have clinched playoff births and/or achieved home field advantage would end up throwing games. Because they certainly wouldn't be playing for pride. After all, why risk injuring your key players when they'd have to play a week or so later? Just imagine some of the greatest rivalries- another thing that makes college football America's greatest game- reduced to no meaning whatsoever. That's what would happen under a playoff with teams benching starters or playing for nothing (because they certainly wouldn't be playing for a bowl game).

One thing I've noticed is that there tend to be as many possible playoff systems as there are people that support them. Maybe we could have a fifth bowl, where the winners of the national championship game and some other team play each other. Or maybe we could have all the winners of the BCS games play each other and go from there. Or maybe we could have a certain multiple of four (four, eight, sixteen, thirty-two, whatever) play each other in a tournament. This is just the tip of the iceberg. I've also heard discrepancies in scheduling, which teams deserve slots, and the overall length of the tournament. This, of course, completely leaves out the very serious roadblock of existing contractual obligations. The third is an issue since you can only play football games once a week. You'd either have to start playing football in mid-August or shorten it dramatically to have a system that both made sense and ended before the Super Bowl. Then again, maybe the "madness" in March could be the ending of both college basketball and football seasons.

I'm not a fan of the BCS. I'll even admit that. That doesn't mean the system should be scrapped for some playoff that would be as equally flawed as the current plan. The BCS was brought about to avoid split national championships, like what happened in both 1997 and 2003. This begs the question that split national championships are a serious problem. Another one of the great examples of why college football is better than the NFL is that, in the past, it didn't matter who the national champion was. The national title was just that. A title. Something to brag about, something that meant that you had a great season (another thing that wouldn't matter in a playoff, the regular season). What really mattered was whether you won your conference or beat your arch-rival. That way you could play a in a meaningful game on New Year's Day that would showcase your program's talent on national television in front of millions of viewers. If you won, fantastic. If you lost, hey, it was still a great season. Nothing to be ashamed of.

That's why, instead of adopting some playoff (and at the same time, deciding just which plan to implement, exactly) college football should in some way go back to the old system. That way you would have meaningful games all season, not just one and a bunch of consolation games. Auburn could claim the national title under this system. I guess Utah could too. That's why 1993 was one of the best years in college football. You had at least half a dozen teams with something to play for in bowl season. Once the games were over, many teams and their fans were satisfied after enjoying a great season. Many could also claim their team was the best in the game that year. It didn't matter as such who the real #1 was, since no one could agree anyway. Fans will always debate about certain things, so this condition is natural.

That's what supporters of both the BCS and a playoff have lost sight of. College football is unlike the NFL in yet another important matter. It's not just about finding out who the best is at the end of the year. There are things far more important than that. It's about players and fans. Specifically, players playing for the enjoyment of fans, for tradition and for school pride. If we want to turn Division I-A college football in to an unpaid NFL farm system, that's one thing. If we want it to remain the nation's greatest game, then these very important intangibles must be preserved.

Who's number one? Does it matter that much?

Geiger's Gambit

2005-01-05T17:23:00.000-08:00

Most people who follow intercollegiate athletics are aware of the perils plaguing The Ohio State University, where this blogger is currently an undergrad. The numerous allegations by a former running back, the massive shipments of cash from a former head coach to a Serbian basketball recruit and his family, and the recent transaction between a quarterback and a rogue booster. Above it all, the specter of probation (in more than one sport).

Now it has been revealed that embattled and somewhat controversial Athletic Director Andy Geiger will retire after this school year. Personally, I am uncertain as to how much encouragement Geiger received from the likes of President Karen Holbrook to retire. Whether OSU's recent problems will go away with his successor is not clear, nor is it clear who is responsible for all this or what to do about it.

This is a problem that is not unique to Ohio State by any stretch of the imagination. Those who are baying for blood need to consider that and look at the programs they support (like anyone who roots for a team from the Southeastern Conference). Additionally, nothing illegal has occurred at OSU, with the exception of Ira Guilford and Louis Irrizari, who are no longer connected with the program. Keep this in mind if you follow an ACC team from Florida.

Indeed, "rogue boosters" as Mr. Geiger calls them, are not native or indigenous to Central Ohio. The problem with boosters lies in their mentality. Their devotion to the program they support is so apparently absolute that it twists their sense of ethics and morals. They don't consider what they're doing, namely giving gifts to players, as wrong. Rather, they see it as a means of supporting their program and rewarding them for on the field success. Furthermore, the players who are receiving gifts from boosters are first and foremost college students. As we all know, college students are as poor, starving, and destitute as your average panhandler. Only the college student might actually tell you if they're spending your money on booze. If you offer gifts or cash to college students ten times, they will take it ten times. I know I would. Of course, that doesn't make it right, but it happens. Everywhere. Even at your program.

Academic misconduct is also not exclusively confined to Ohio State athletes, although one would believe this if their only news source was ESPN. What Maurice Clarett was involved in is inexcusable but again, not unheard of at other schools. Why there seems to be a nationwide double standard in regards to athletes' academics when compared to other students remains a mystery. I don't see why I should be denied a spot at a university if someone with lower grades and test scores can run faster than me. That, however, is life. One of the lone exceptions to this rule is Notre Dame, which is still trying to cling to their precious academic standards, and is paying the price for it on the field.

As for Mr. Geiger, it is the end of an era at Ohio State. Since his arrival in 1994, he has witnessed some of Ohio State's greatest triumphs and tragedies in the field of athletics. The 2002 national championship in football is the most obvious, as well as championships in lesser-followed sports such as fencing, men’s' gymnastics, pistol, and synchronized swimming. The men's basketball team made a memorable Final Four run in 1999 and just last year men's ice hockey won the CCHA tournament. In addition, the university underwent some of the biggest construction projects in recent history, renovating Ohio Stadium and building the Schottenstein Center, Jesse Owens Memorial Stadium and Bill Davis Stadium. Furthermore, anyone who fires John Cooper deserves a medal.

What he will be remembered most for, however, are the recent problems facing the university. Hopefully his departure will be the extent of the consequences of these actions. However, probation still looms like a dark cloud on the horizon in football and men's basketball. If that happens, however, it would only be fair to sanction about a half-dozen or so other programs where things like this are taking place. Additionally, the University of Colorado should never be allowed to play football again. To all those non-Ohio State fans who are demanding stern punishment from the NCAA, I ask once again for you to take a look at your own program before casting stones. The same things that are going on, publicly, in our program might very well be going on privately in yours. I dare say they are indeed.

How the Tsunami Was Our Fault

2005-01-04T12:22:00.000-08:00

The most powerful, destructive earthquake and tsunami in forty years. Hundreds of thousands dead. Devastation as far as the eye can see. A natural disaster of biblical proportions. And it was our fault.

That, at least, is what the America-hating left both in this country and abroad would have you believe. This represents a rather unprecedented event in the history of the planet. For the first time, a natural disaster was caused by humans, not nature. And not just any humans, but Americans. Furthermore, not just any Americans, but President Bush.

To some, this may come as complete and utter nonsense. That or it may come as par for the course for the loony left. When reading statements such as these one has to realize that the left think differently from other, normal people. While it may take days to walk through the thinking of the left on this one, a simple statement of the basic premise would be far more efficient. The gist is this: the Americans, and specifically, President Bush, caused the tsunami by not sending enough money to the region for disaster relief. While this implies backward causation of time, which is logically impossible, most people know that logic and the left have little to do with one another.

This latest asinine statement from the left is based upon the belief that the US did not send enough money to the region as well as that our spending priorities, supposedly, are jacked up. The US, they claim, spends the meager sum of $35 million an hour on the Iraq war (without giving figures or citing sources) and should instead spend the entire defense budget on similar humanitarian relief. Additionally, they believe American soldiers should be handing out rations to tsunami victims rather than defending the country. Amazingly, if the United States spent significantly more in relief aid, the left would still complain about the amount and mention the ever-growing deficit and how we couldn't afford it.

The America-hating left in this country, of course, has found an echo chamber overseas. It is concentrated in a certain building in Manhattan (well, two if you count New York Times headquarters) and a certain country in Western Europe. I won't tell which, but it rhymes with "pants." Surprisingly enough (or not, supposing one has a sufficient amount of cynicism) a UN official of minor importance actually accused the United States of being "cheap" for sending the meager sum of $35 million to South East Asia. For the record, this person could have been Kofi Annan and he would still be a UN official of minor importance. Not surprisingly, this official came from France. Great. The French are accusing us of being cheap. Next they'll accuse us of being snobbish and cowardly.

Few people with rational minds buy this latest example of left-wing hogwash, including former President Bill Clinton. In a meeting of the last two former presidents, Clinton and Bush I urged Americans to give whatever they could, even if it was, as Clinton said, "ten bucks." And for the record, neither Bush I nor Clinton thinks we are being stingy. Far from it, our $35 million donation shows the continuing spirit of our generosity to the rest of the world. Americans are free to give what they can in relief to the region, including the America-hating left. However, given their post-9/11 donation track record, that ten bucks might be a tall order.