learn “How You Can Build Your Career,rnYour Business, and Your Family’s Future.”rnIf I wanted to follow Kemp’s path tornsuccess, I would start out as a footballrnplayer, become a union-sponsored congressmanrnfrom Hamburg, New York, voternto spend more tax money than PatrnSchroeder, get appointed to a high postrnin a welfare-state bureaucracy, agitaternfor dozens of new liberal programs inrnthe name of “empowerment,” and expandrnthe agency’s budget 43 percent.rnYet in this mailing Kemp seems to bernan expert on business entrepreneurship.rnhi fact, he has “a warm spot in [his]rnheart for entrepreneurs and theirrndreams.” He complains about bigspendingrnelitist liberals, but fails to mentionrnthat he lent support to the Clintonsrnduring the presidential campaign.rn”They’re all friends of mine” he told thernWashington Post, which is why he, in anrnunprecedented action, testified on behalfrnof his Housing and Urban Developmentrn(HUD) successor Henry Cisnerosrnduring Senate confirmation hearings.rnSo what does Jack Kemp have to offerrnin his new newsletter? Inspiring advice,rnlike “never give in,” and practical helprnon starting a franchise. What should Irndo first? “Contact franchisers. Start torncompare the costs and benefits carefully.”rnAnd American Entrepreneur is onlyrneight pages long, so you won’t have tornwade through “lengthy, time-consumingrnarticles.” Like this 24-page promotionalrnmagazine.rnKemp wants to teach you the secret torn”Finding Creative Sources of Financing.”rnSpeaking of which, in his four yearsrnat HUD, Kemp spent $100 billion,rnwhich is more than enough to send arnsubscription of American Entrepreneurrnto every person within U.S. borders, includingrnillegal immigrants, until the yearrn2000. Or, come to think of it, he couldrnavoid isolationism and send a subscriptionrnto every literate person in the world.rnShould American businessmen reallyrntake his advice? His old agency is stillrnriddled with waste and corruption, withrnbillions “unaccounted for,” which is whyrneven his own inspector general hadrnwarned that “another scandal is a distinctrnpossibility” if he didn’t clean it up.rnThe Washington ]ournaUsm Review recentlyrnmarveled at how he scamperedrnaway with his reputation intact.rnIf Kemp is pro-business, why did hernrefuse to sell off the nation’s public housingrnstock to real investors when he hadrnthe chance and instead turn over publicrnhousing to the left-wing “communityrngroups” that will support him, he hopes,rnwhen he runs for President in 1996? Ifrnhe cares about private enterprise, whyrndid he block the sale of the Los AngelesrnAirport to business? If he loves smallrnentrepreneurs, why did he swoon overrnthe L.A. rioters and give the back of hisrnhand to the Korean merchants theyrnburned out? Why, in fact, should a businessmanrnlisten to a politician who toldrnthe Washington Post, “I’m from the LanernKirkland wing of the Republican Party”?rnKemp’s whole political life has beenrna racket, somehow maintaining a conservativernreputation while helping tornimpose welfarist, big-spending, socialdemocraticrnpolicies. The illusion continues,rnthanks to the publishers of ]ackrnKemp’s American Entrepreneur.rn—]effrey A. TuckerrnLADY-WRITER Moiiy ivins stampedrnher little foot in the Washington Post arnwhile back and urged us to “ban therndamn things.” “Ban them all,” she said,rnmeaning guns, and she must have madernher advanced composition teacher sornproud by using colloquial words likern”hooey” and passionate phrases like “justrnplain insane,” delivering blinding insightsrnlike “a gun is literally the power tornkill,” and constructing stunning constitutionalrnarguments like “14-year-old boysrnare not part of a well-regulated militia”rnso all guns should be banned. Fourteenyear-rnold girls, I guess, don’t play withrnguns; they play with dolls, or, in somernominous cases, word processors.rnSo Molly trips along, throwing herrnpseudo-pithy tantrum against the SecondrnAmendment rights of millions ofrnAmericans, and she apparently expectsrnto be taken seriously. Some people do,rnof course, take her seriously. Fans of lady-rnwriters (usually embittered, leftist,rnurban divorcees) like to put the cuterrncolumns on refrigerator doors so theyrncan revisit their favorite passages withrnfrequency. Most of us just shake ourrnheads in amusement and move on to seriousrnwriters, pausing only—in Molly’srncase—to send yet another check to thernNRA.rnLady-writers tend to write about thernsame things. Ellen Goodman, one of thernfounding mothers of the lady-writerrngenre, did another one of her gun controlrnthings a few weeks after Molly. Theyrnmust have the equivalent of their secondrncup of coffee over the back fence, afterrnthe real journalists have gone to work,rnand divvy up responsibilities as to whosernturn it is to whine on this subject andrnshriek on that.rn”Lady-writer,” by the way, is my littlernlabel for someone—usually an affirmative-rnaction case—whose gender can berndetermined even without a by-line orrninternal clues, other than a fluffiness ofrnthought and a penchant for throwingrnlittle self-absorbed, liberal snits. Theyrnare the emotional descendants of thern”committee of sappy women” MarkrnTwain wrote about over a century ago, alwaysrnready to “drip a tear from their permanentlyrnimpaired and leaky waterworks.”rnEven earlier they added to thernmelancholy of Edgar Allan Poe.rnSo, Molly doesn’t like guns. Theyrnmake loud noises and they scare her.rnThey should all be banned. Isn’t shernbold? While those tiresome nonladyrnwriters struggle with things like logic andrnreality—and history and law—she bypassesrnall that stuff. Ban them all. Justrndo it. Okav, on to the next column.rnWhat’s up for today? Sexism or daycare?rnHaven’t done the glass ceilingrnthing in a while. Florida going to fry anyrnmurderers we can cry over?rnNow, lest I be accused of sexism, notrnall women are lady-writers. Mary Mc-rnGrory, for instance, who is a predictablernand tendentious leftist harridan, is not arnlady-writer, nor are several women onrnthe right (Mona Gharen and PhyllisrnSchlafly come to mind). GeorgieAnnernGeyer certainly isn’t.rnActually, even some men can be categorizedrnas lady-writers. Abe Rosenthalrnof the New York Times, for instance,rncomes across as an old Russian womanrnat a funeral, wailing and screeching. Onerncan envision him wearing a babushka atrnhis word processor as he taps out yet anotherrntestimonial to his moral superiorityrnover just everyone—in particular PatrnBuchanan, or anyone else who quibblesrnwith leading-edge Likud thinking. EvenrnGeorge Will feels compelled on occasionrnto extract a lace hankie from hisrnfoppish attire and sniffle into it a columnrnor two designed to establish his sensitivity.rnThe agenda here is to distancernhimself, in the eyes of the liberal opinionrnestablishment, from grimy, bayonetwielding,rnright-wing infantrymen likernBuchanan, Sam Francis, and Joe Sobran.rnWilliam Buckley, in his dotage, donsrnlady-writer pantaloons every now andrnthen, no doubt to sweeten and lengthenrnhis under-construction New York TimesrnFEBRUARY 1994/5rnrnrn