Why I love Ann Coulter

January 13, 2009 · Posted in People in the news, Personal Blogs, Political Figures, Politics, RNC · 6 Comments 

Yep, I enjoy her existence. I don’t particularly care for her persona, her constant desire to be in the limelight or the depths to which she will stoop to be the center of attention, and I certainly don’t agree with a thing she says. So why do I love her?

She’s a constant reminder of why I love my country.

I’m not sure that Ann Coulter has even made a point without bending and stretching the truth as if facts were one of those stress relieving items that just have no purpose in life unless they are twisted and crunched into an unrecognizable mess, but my point is that she can. Her credibility seems to be directly related to the size of her big brass balls. She’s like a bull in the china-shop of truth who after her Tasmanian-devil style rant, comes out with perfectly coiffed hair – no worse for the wear.

She has an audience, her books sell. I’m not sure if anyone actually believes the crap she spews out, but thanks to good ol’ American capitalism, she’s a success.

Not surprising, she has a new book out and she she’s on a press tour for it. Sometimes I think she churns out the books not so much to educate anyone on a particular subject, but merely for the fact of having something to talk about so can go on these press tours. She revels in the arguments she gets into with the liberal media and she tosses her blond tresses in a manner that shows she’s not really listening to the interviewer but knows that her points are crap so she expects the questions and has canned answers ready when she hears key words from the host. But again, she has an audience. Those who love her for her big cojones , and those who hate her existence. She thrives off both.

Truth be told, I can’t watch an interview with her without yelling at the TV. But I watch anyway for a few reasons:

1. Makes me appreciate the fact I’m not in a political group for whom she is a talking head. I couldn’t fathom being a part of an organization or movement that relied on her to get any message across. Her fact-tangling approach to most issues removes any credibility she may have on any relevant agenda item.

2. Gives me things to think about when I’m in a political discussion. Her mannerisms and approach are so polarizing that it’s almost like a “what not to do when trying to make a point and be taken seriously’ seminar.

3. Her confidence. We can learn from her ability to look you straight in the eyes and tell you the sun is bitterly cold and scoff at you when you point out scientific proof that it is, in fact hot, you liberal idiot.

4. I’m rubber and you’re glue whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you, you liberal idiot.

5. She is taking full advantage of her American rights and I hope she truly appreciates it. Nevermind the fact that she’s the two steps back for each step forward good, smart female political pundits  have made (on both sides, thank you) I really hope that she appreciates and thanks whatever god her close-minded little heart worships that someone decided to give  Republican Barbie a microphone and there are people who believe her outrageousness, just because it sounds so far out there, it must be true.

A few of her wonderfully classy quotes:

“I was going to have a few comments about John Edwards but you have to go into rehab if you use the word faggot.” –at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference

“These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefparrazies. I have never seen people enjoying their husband’s deaths so much.” -on 9/11 widows who have been critical of the Bush administration (note: nobody, except of course her, who is cashing in on slamming them)

“We need to execute people like (John Walker Lindh) in order to physically intimidate liberals.” (note: she calls Obama ‘B. Hussein Obama’ because of the fear that name instills but you notice she’ll use Walker Lindh and not refer to Bush as ‘G. Walker Bush’”)

“We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity.”  – Days after September 11 attacks

“Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam Hussein, liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots.”
“Press passes can’t be that hard to come by if the White House allows that old Arab Helen Thomas to sit within yards of the President.” (note: I find this particularly nasty, its because of women like Ms. Thomas who helped pave the way for women in political reporting)

Seriously Ann, stay classy. And thanks for reminding me how free this country still is.

Tags: <, , , , , , , , >

Health Care and capitalism a match made in heaven

January 8, 2009 · Posted in Government, Health Care, Social Issues, Society · Comment 
Some people think this is the future - Unfortunately it is the present and it must change

Some people think this is the future - Unfortunately it is the present and it must change

Health Care and capitalism a match made in heaven – seriously if you believe that you are more likely to go to heaven sooner rather than later.

There are truly intelligent people out there who say things like “Our rights were correctly identified by the founders of the United States: we are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If we study these rights, we can see that they are negative rights. Essentially, we are granted the right not to have our lives, freedom, or property taken away. These are our moral rights. Period. The proper (and original) role of our government is to protect the rights, or true entitlements, of its citizens.”

They then follow up that logic with beauties like this “We are not entitled to the materials or services (labor) of another person without that person’s consent. In a free society, those providing a good or service are compensated for it by receiving fair market value. This is the value set by free exchanges in the open market place. To quote Leonard Peikoff in “Health Care is Not a Right,” http://www.bdt.com/pages/Peikoff.html “Health care in the modern world is a complex, scientific, technological service. How can anybody be born with a right to such a thing?” “You have the right to work, not to rob others of the fruits of their work, not to turn others into sacrificial, rightless animals laboring to fulfill your needs.”

So let’s take a minute and think outside of the wacko box.  Let’s imagine a world where the government is not involved in health care at all.  In this imaginary world government does not participate in research, grants, medicaid or medicare, city or state or county run health programs and each person and corporation is totally responsible for funding their health care.

Now almost no one can afford to have a hospital in their home.  How often do even the super wealthy use a CAT scan machine?  Not often enough to purchase their own in most cases, and to have a surgery center on hold just for you is also not logical, because how often do you actually need surgery.  Additionally, not many people would want to go through the rigors of becoming a physician when so few people could actually afford to use their services.  There would simply not be enough job openings to make the field attractive to the masses.  The reduction in doctors would just be the start of the trickle down. Obviously there would be fewer medical devices built, so fewer people would be employed in these industries, and with no grant money available there would be very few research facilities at our universities and colleges.

Essentially with no government involvement in health care the industry would be virtually unsustainable.  My guess is it would revert back to the early 20th century and 19th century type of service.  Where your local doctor would work in your town and provide house calls.  They would be able to tell you in large part what actually ailed you, but they would have to send you to a centralized hospital in order to receive “traditional” services, because local hospitals would be nothing more than doctors offices with very limited technology.

In this world no research would be done into drugs or treatments that do not effect large portion of the population, because any discoveries would not be profitable and pure capitalism will not support philanthropy just for the sake of philanthropy. Additionally, the truly wealthy would be the only ones who could afford most long-term care services.

Now this is all doom and gloom, and to some people this world will sound horrific, but here is the really scary point of this story.

For 40 million Americans this ridiculous scenario would probably offer better health care than they currently receive.  The local doctor would probably be affordable, and the billing process would more than likely be reasonable, so you could pay a reasonable fee for the services you receive.  Additionally, if the doctor gives you grave news, and informs you that you will need to pay for centralized medical care you can just thank them and die.  This option is not much different for many people today.

Some people seem to believe those without health care are demanding health care services as a right, or an inherent right as a U.S. citizen.  I the vast majority of cases this is not true.  People do not believe health care is a right, just as they do not believe fire departments, police stations, libraries or city halls are built and staffed because it is a right.  People believe these services are provided for the betterment of society, and to protect the people who can not afford to purchase and staff these facilities on their own.  The truly ironic part, is no one is claiming we should stop funding these core services, because they just make since.  Virtually no one can afford to purchase a fire engine, and most people do not want every Tom, Dick and Harry running around with a firearm keeping the peace.

As an educated society we have determined that “some” things are better handled by the People for the People, and it is time we add health care to that equation.  We need to work on systematic reform.  We need to address not only the process of dispensing health care, but the foundation must be rocked.  We need centralized health care goals in research, infrastructure, personnel, disbursement and education.  These goals should be centralized one four levels.  There should be a national plan, a state plan, a county plan and a city plan.  Individual citizens should have a say in the elected officials who oversee their health care priorities, and be able to help their local officials help prioritize health care issues that most effect them.

If someone is sick or needs counseling they should be able to go to their local health care facility and visit their local physician who will assist them in the next steps required in their health care process.  Health care needs to be handled locally, but it must have the power of a nation behind it when that power is required.  Such as with epidemics, natural disasters and other unforeseen major events that would overwhelm local communities and in some cases even states.

This goal, nay this requirement is not some belief or desire that one man is dreaming.  This is something that a nation of great people must demand.  We can not watch people suffer.  We can not watch friends and neighbors go without treatment when treatments are available.  This is not what made us who we are today.  We are a great nation, and it is time we stopped putting dollars, and selfishness ahead of the common good.

I hope to readdress this issue in the near future, and I believe there are sound financial reasons for making these changes as well.  I believe once these changes are implemented it will have a positive affect on the economy, and if the entire process is implemented it will save money for the vast majority of businesses and people, as well as generating great strides forward with major health care issues.

Tags: <, , , , , , , , , , >

Part 2 – Seriously are we just this stupid? Auto bailout on hold because of lawsuit that reduces emissions

December 10, 2008 · Posted in Financial Crisis, Government, Politics, Social Change, Social Issues, Society, Things to think about · Comment 
Welcome to the jungle

Welcome to the jungle

The proof is in the pudding….

Here is the latest information about the auto industry bailout, and you will see the hurdle is still the California emissions. UNBELIEVABLE… Get over it already.  We should not let the auto industry regulate air quality.  If they need citizens money, then they should put citizens health and air quality higher on their list of priorities.

Here is a snippet of the current conversations on the hill.

—-Efforts by the Bush administration and congressional Democrats to fashion a government rescue of the foundering American auto industry hit other snags on Wednesday, including a dispute over the precise wording of the bill. That led the House and Senate to put forward competing versions of the legislation.

The last-minute disagreement centered on a SINGLE WORD — with the Senate bill requiring the automakers “to comply with all applicable FEDERAL fuel efficiency and emissions requirements” and the House bill referring to “all applicable fuel efficiency requirements,” which would include state emissions rules that the automakers oppose.

Nuff said, it is a scam and we are putting up with it.  Way to go lobbyists, and Andy Card…..

Car and smoke

Car and smoke

Tags: <, , , , , , , , >

Seriously are we just this stupid? Auto bailout on hold because of lawsuit that reduces emissions

December 10, 2008 · Posted in Big Business Ripoffs, Financial Crisis, Government, Politics, Social Change, Social Issues, Society, Things to think about · 1 Comment 
Welcome to the jungle

Welcome to the jungle

I will try to keep this post from becoming another rant, but it will be difficult. My frustration over the corruption and inbreeding in Washington is reaching an epic level. There is no way I can give this topic its due, but I will provide you with an overview, and then encourage you to do you own research on the specific topics.

Here we go. The auto bailout is a small amount of money, in fact, $15,000,000,000 looks like a large number, but in reality it is less than one months interest on the National Debt and it equates to 0.0008% of the nations GDP and less than 1 month worth of revenue for Toyota, so all-in-all it is a relatively small number from a national perspective.  If, you further take into account that the U.S. government and tax payers have a better than 50/50 chance of getting their money back on this transaction it really becomes a no-brainer that we should keep the industry afloat.

Now I am not saying the current plan is good or bad, what I am saying is something needs to be done, and the U.S. has the resources to assist if it so chooses, and letting the automakers fail entirely is not a viable option.

Ok, now on to the real point of this piece.  CORRUPTION, INBREEDING and SELF-INTEREST are running a muck in Washington this week, and in typical fashion the press is glossing over the real juice, because it will bore the average reader, so here is the boring juice for you to consume.

The primary stumbling block on the latest bailout proposal is not about the dollar amounts or really even a car czar, the real stumbling block at this point surrounds a little known lawsuit (little known to the average joe) between the auto manufactures and the State of California. The Auto industry wants California to overturn its agenda to force auto manufactures to produce zero emissions vehicles, if they want to sell vehicles in California.  The auto industry sees this agenda as a direct threat to their industry, and to the ancillary businesses that service automobiles in the aftermarket.

Here is a little history for review – The California Air Resources Board (CARB) was founded in 1967, in response to California’s air being worse than that of the other 49 states combined [Shnayerson, p. 50].  After the federal government enacted the Clean Air Act in 1970, California was the only state allowed to regulate its own emissions.  In 1990, impressed by the GM Impact, CARB ruled that each of the seven biggest carmakers — the largest of which was GM — would need to make 2% of its fleet emission-free by 1998, 5% by 2001, and 10% by 2003. In response to this rule GM produced the EV1, GM believed the EV1 would be a total failure, and therefore California would voluntarily remove this emissions free cap requirement.  Unfortunately for GM and other manufactures the EV1 was a huge success and it scared the crap out of them.

Luckily though the auto manufactures had an ace up their sleeve in the name of Andrew Card. You see George W. Bush’s original Chief of Staff Andrew Card was the chief lobbyist for the auto industry in Washington, and his primary responsibility was to overturn the California initiative. So when Andy was appointed to man the right ear of the most powerful man on earth he convinced him to use his new muscle to push for a repeal of this mandate and it worked, sorda.  You see California caved in on the emissions free mandate, but it then passed a law requiring a 25% reduction in emissions instead of emissions free.  This seems like a cave-in and a rational person would think everyone would call this a win, but no.  The auto industry was not happy, so they sued the State of California to overturn the law, and this lawsuit is the basis for the stumbling block we see today.

The Democrats have stipulated that in order to receive the $15 billion bailout the auto industry has to drop the lawsuit against California and any other states that are trying to curb emissions. One could take the point of view that forcing them to drop the lawsuit is fair, because none of the bailout money should be spent suing the citizens that provided them with the funds, but no, the Republicans do not see this as a reasonable request.  In fact, one might say they see the lawsuit as a good thing, and several key members of the Republican party have stated flat-out that forcing an end to the lawsuits is a “deal killer”.

Now I ask you, do the Republicans who view this as a “deal killer” have your best interest at heart, or do they have the best interest of their lobbyist friends at heart?

Emissions control is a good thing.  Forget the environmental effects and just think of it as a way to help people breath in the future.  Whether you believe in global warming or not you must believe in an individuals right to breath clean air, and cars pollute the atmosphere, so making them pollute less is a good idea.

In closing, it does not matter to me whether you are for the bailout or against it, but please keep an eye on the corruption taking place in Washington, and please let your Senators and Congress Person know how you feel about them keeping a lawsuit moving forward with your money.

Car and smoke

Car and smoke

Tags: <, , , , , , , , >