Steamd

A couple of days ago, Ann Coulter posted another blog post called Liberal Victimhood: A Game You Can Play at Home. After reading it, some thoughts came to mind that I think help explain what the real problem is with Ann Coulter.

I think most of the problems with Ann Coulter stem from ignorance. Now, I’m not talking about a lack of knowledge here. It’s not like Ann Coulter isn’t smart because she is. You can’t skate through college if you’re a moron. It takes some brains to graduate. Ann Coulter is ignorant because she fails to see things how they really are. 

All of us pretty much perceive things in the same way. We all hear the same words, see the same images, and read the same words. What changes is when our mind and emotions come into play. When that happens our conception of things changes. Wisdom comes when you’re able to conceive things as they are without any precepts. As such, if you have a highly biased point of view from the very beginning then everything you perceive ends up becoming a series of misconceptions.

By now, if you’re asking yourself whether this is a very Zen-like way of looking at things, you’re not far off. 

Ann Coulter labels herself as an unapologetic, unwavering Conservative. As such, her view on things is automatically biased and skewed. Her misconceptions come in the form of labels. Ann Coulter is constantly categorizing everyone and everything: Liberal, Conservative, corrupt, victim, left-wing, right-wing, hypocrite, godless, hopeless, just to name a few. In the end, her mind is made up even before a politician opens up their mouth.

In her mind, virtually all Democrats are Liberals. Do most Democrats lean more on the Liberal side of things? Maybe. I don’t know. Personally, I do not believe that all Democrats are Liberals and all Republicans are Conservative and vice versa. Labels like this don’t serve any purpose. There are many Democrats and Republicans who share similar values and principles and have ideas that can fall on both sides of the fence. It’s a common misconception that has no base in reality. 

Borrowing from one of my favorite comic books, The Sandman, I would describe Ann Coulter’s game of labels as “a game of you”, a game played only within herself. Rather than seeing things as they are, Ann would rather fabricate her own reality in an effort to define her own identity. It’s a game that, in the end, only leads to a brick wall.

In her latest blog post, right off the bat, Ann starts off with a few misconceptions:

I notice that liberals have not challenged the overall thesis of my rocketing bestseller, “Guilty: Liberal ‘Victims’ and Their Assault on America,” which is that liberals always play the victim in order to advance, win advantages and oppress others.

I guess that would be hard to do when the corrupt Democratic governor of Illinois is running around comparing himself to Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi.

Indeed, you can’t turn on the TV without seeing some liberal playing victim to score the game-winning point.

As usual, liberals are the problem. They’re corrupt and they’re always playing the victim. Labels.

The reality is that Rod Blagojevich wasn’t much of a Democrat. In fact, he really didn’t get all that much support from his fellow Democrats in Illinois. To say that he’s a poster child of a typical Democrat, much less a liberal, is a complete misconception. He stood out on his own and didn’t in any way reflect the views, opinions, and/or values of the Democratic party. Rod Blagojavich was a turd, plain and simple. Thick, brown, and full of shit.

Ann then goes on and on about the ridiculousness of the Caroline Kennedy Senate seat debacle, accusing the media of painting her as a victim (there’s that label again!):

The Kennedys are the textbook case of victims who go around victimizing others.

Look, the Kennedy family has had it’s fair share of tragedies for the past 40+ years. John F. Kennedy was assassinated. Robert Kennedy was assassinated. Edward Kennedy died in a car crash. Robert Kennedy’s son, David, died of a drug overdose. Robert’s other son, Michael, died in a skiing accident. John F. Kennedy, Jr. died in a plane crash. You think this family has been through enough? Maybe this family has a serious omen on it. I don’t know, but I don’t think the Kennedy’s are ones who go around victimizing people. That’s just ridiculous.

The reality of the Caroline Kennedy situation was that a select few Democrats wanted to see her take the New York Senate seat. I mean, obviously someone wanted her to be seated otherwise the topic would have never been brought up. What I got out of it was that plenty of Democrats instantly said “Noooooo.” Caroline Kennedy simply wasn’t qualified to be a Senator. She simply didn’t have any real political experience. As such, most people viewed the idea as ridiculous. Just because she is a Kennedy doesn’t automatically make her qualified to be a Senator.

The topper comes at the very end of Ann’s post, when she says this:

Throughout Obama’s entire life, doors were opened for him, his college applications smiled upon and favors bestowed simply because he is black — the original victim category in America. Being black is the highest victim caste because of blacks’ authentic victimhood: The nation once tolerated slavery and Jim Crow.

I actually had to re-read that paragraph multiple times. I thought, “Is she really saying what I think she’s saying?” I think so. Black is another label. Couple that with victim and you end up with a real slap in the face. 

You mean to tell me that Obama got into Columbia University and Harvard Law School because he was black? I suppose that every teacher he ever had passed him even when they should have failed him, right? I’m sorry, but you don’t get a Juris Doctor, Magna Cum Laude from Harvard just because you’re black.

Obama didn’t get everything he received by being black; he got it the hard way: he earned it. People didn’t vote for Obama just because he was black. They voted for him because he was the right person for the job. Obama earned the respect of the American people and got voted into office because of it.

To sum up, Ann Coulter’s ignorance stems from a never ending array of misconceptions and labels. What she sees as the truth and what is reality are two completely different things. While she may think she is winning the game, what she doesn’t know is that she is only playing against herself.

I think the reason why Ann Coulter is so upset in her latest blog post, More Boos Than Balls, was that she wasn’t invited to any of the balls.  Hmm…I wonder why.  Maybe it’s because, like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter wants Obama to fail. After all, her buddy Bush Jr. failed miserably, so it’s only fitting that she wishes Obama to do the same. Such an American sentiment, huh.

It will not be easy for President B. Hussein Obama. More than half the country voted for him, and yet our newspapers are brimming with snippy remarks at every little aspect of his inauguration.

Here’s a small sampling of the churlishness in just The New York Times…

Obama said in his speech that ”the time has come to set aside childish things”. Ironically, Ann, you mention this very thing at the end of your post. And yet you do the exact opposite. This whole bait-and-switch bullshit is old. It’s not even clever anymore. It’s just…well…childish.

Obama’s inaugural address tracked much of Reagan’s first inaugural address — minus the substance — the main difference being that Obama did not invoke God as stoutly or frequently, restricting his heavenly references to a few liberal focus-grouped phrases, such as “God-given” and “God’s grace.”

And just how much God do you want in an inaugural speech? Obama uses the word God three time. Reagan used it five times. So what? Why does it matter? Should we break out the measuring stick while we’re at it?

And as far as substance goes, you obviously didn’t listen. Obama mentioned many things, all of which are highly substantive. Among the most important points was religion. I think Obama said it best when he said this during his speech:

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness.  We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus – and non-believers.  We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

 Maybe you’re just pissed because Obama is a better writer than you. I don’t know. But one thing I do know is that you’re sour, Ann. You just don’t get it. (There’s that New Year’s motto again!)

Under Carter, more than 50 Americans were held hostage by a two-bit terrorist Iranian regime for 444 days — released the day of Reagan’s inauguration. Under Bush, there has not been another terrorist attack since Sept. 11, 2001.

Yeah, but then again Carter didn’t stomp all over the Constitution. You’re buddy Bush did. Next line of bullshit:

So maybe liberals can stop acting as if the entire nation could at last come together in a “unity of purpose” if only conservatives would stop fomenting “conflict and discord” — as Obama suggested in his inaugural address. We’re not the ones who booed a departing president.

Yeah, but you certainly didn’t mind it when “conservatives” kept spreading lies like “Obama is a Muslim” and “Liberals are Godless” and other crack-pipe ideas that do nothing but stir the pot. People booed President Bush because he shit all over the Constitution. There is irrefutable proof that he allowed illegal methods of torture to take place as well as illegal wire taps. He basically said himself the very thing that Nixon said a long time ago during the Frost interviews, that the President can decide to do something if it’s for the greater good of the country because when the president does it that means that it is not illegal. Bush may not have said those exact words but he has said many things that imply that very thing. His actions speak for themselves. Ann, even the President isn’t above the law. Period. And that’s why he was booed.

When will the first reporter ask President Obama to admit that he has made mistakes? Try: Never.

No, that question will disappear for the next four years. It will be replaced by the new question for conservatives on every liberal’s lips these days: Do you want Obama to succeed as president?

Answer: Of course we do. We live here, too.

So, you’re saying that, unlike Limbaugh, you want Obama to succeed? I’m sorry, now I’m just confused.

And, yes, reporters will definitely be asking Obama to admit that he’s made mistakes. Already, both the President and his staff are getting drilled like crazy by the press. Trust me, someone will ask him to admit his mistakes. And I’m willing to bet that, unlike Bush Jr., Obama will be humble and will be honest about the mistakes he’s made. To err is human.

I guess it depends on the meaning of “succeed.” If Obama “succeeds” in pushing through big-government, terrorist-appeasing policies, he will not have “succeeded” at being a good president. If we didn’t think conservative principles of small government and strong national defense weren’t better for the country, we wouldn’t be conservatives.

Yeah, cause torture is such a great policy. I think Obama made it very clear in his speech that he’s going to continue battling terrorist. However, what he’s not going to do is allow our Constitution to be trampled on in that quest. Nor will he allow our values to be diminished. A strong national defense shouldn’t require us to have to give up any of our values or our Constitutional rights. Wouldn’t you agree, Ann?

Oh, that and the lovely “conservative” idea of a free market. I really do enjoy watching big banks have free reign to do whatever the hell they want to with our tax dollars. Don’t you? 

Honestly, I’m not so sure that Obama is about big government. The more and more I hear him talk the more I think he’s more of a moderate. I don’t think he want’s extreme regulation which, to you, is big government. I don’t like “big brother” looking over my shoulder and neither do you. Nor do I like the idea of my government constantly telling a free market what they can and can’t do. What I do think is necessary is some oversight. What we do need is for our government to oversee our markets to ensure that they remain free, fair, and balanced. Right now, our markets are so screwed up and skewed and it’s all because some really greedy bastards took advantage of an unregulated market. 

And why was that question never asked of liberals producing assassination books and movies about President Bush for the last eight years?

Any President who takes the oath of office says the following words: 

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

If you asked any person who wrote a book or screenplay depicting the assassination of President Bush, just about every single one of them will tell you that the reason they did it is because they felt that Bush failed to uphold his oath. He failed to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. Instead he chose to ignore it at times. 

Hell, I could ask you the same question. Why do you continue to write books calling “Liberals” godless? Why did you compare one of Obama’s books to Hitler’s Mein Kampf? The difference between what you say, Ann, and what so-called “Liberals” say is that they actually did their research.

Even Pat Buchanan makes more sense than you, Ann! On the very same website you post to, Pat said this about the recent inauguration of Obama:

A first sign this was not to be another windy progressive spiel came with his statement that our crisis is due not just to the “greed and irresponsibility” of some, but to our own “collective failure to make hard choices.”

All of us are at fault, Obama was saying, in what became a stern and severe sermon to the nation.

Indeed, “greed and irresponsibility” are the two main factors but also our inability to make proper choices. It’s not about being right or wrong. It’s about making the right choices and not being so damn selfish.

… this inaugural was the work of a mature and serious man who knows his county is in deep water, who seems to understand what got us there and who appreciates that, on some things, the right has indeed been right from the beginning.

I don’t agree with Buchanan all that much. With this statement, I don’t exactly agree with the idea that the “right” was right from the beginning. If the “right” was right then why did they make such poor choices? Granted, the so-called “left” made bad choices too. I’m not pointing fingers here. But in a Republican dominated Congress, why were so many bad choices made? Doesn’t make sense to me.

Hope and unity, apparently, can only be achieved if conservatives would just go away — and perhaps have the decency to kill themselves.

No, Ann, hope and unity can only be achieved when conservatives learn that there are other Americans in this country other than just them. You don’t have to kill yourself. Just gain some tolerance and find some common ground rather than constantly pick at all the differences. I’m sure if we were to have a conversation, I’m willing to bet even we might actually agree on something. Might not be much of anything. But any common ground, any at all, is a good start. And that, Ann, is exactly what Obama was talking about in his speech.

Anyone who has seen Fight Club will know exactly who Tyler Durden is. Just today, I get this email in my inbox from Classmates.com. See anything wrong with this picture?

When are these guys ever going to learn. According to Reuters, the U.S. Supreme Court let stand on Wednesday a ruling that a federal law designed to keep Internet pornography away from children violated constitutional free-speech rights. In a nutshell, it means that people running websites with pornography are not required to put systems in place that use credit cards and access codes in an effort tohinder minors from viewing pornographic material. 

Granted, I’m all for protecting our first amendment rights so I definitely do not want our Supreme Court to allow any law that impedes on those rights. However, I do believe that a simple use of technology can help…and it won’t even impede on anyone’s rights.

One simple solution is the .xxx domain suffix, an idea that keeps getting rejected over and over again. The reasoning for not wanting to implement this has never made any sense to me. I still haven’t heard any legitimate reason as to why it shouldn’t be implemented. The only thing I’ve heard is that implementing a .xxx domain suffix only legitimizes porn online.

Look, people are going to view porn online whether we like it or not. The real argument has nothing to do with whether you agree with the existence of pornography or not. Rather, the main thing we should be worried about is how easy it is for kids to gain access to pornography. What can parents do to ensure that their kids can get online and browse safely without worrying whether little Johnny accidently accesses a site with some hardcore porn? The fact that such material exists online isn’t the problem. The problem is that there isn’t any consistency in being able to filter the content.

Consider the top suffixes in use on the internet today: .com, .net, and .org. Granted, there are a bunch more but these are the three most popular. Do you know what they stand for and what their original purpose was? 

.com - Commercial site
.net – Internet administrative site and/or network
.org – Organization site

Think about the sites you see everyday that use the .com suffix. How many of them are really commercial websites? What about all the .net sites that aren’t really networks? The problem is that none of this stuff is really being used as it was intended. The contextual nature of domain names seems to have been lost in the shuffle.

A .xxx suffix would basically be used for sites that are pornographic in nature. Some sites like playboy.com would of course be able to maintain their existing .com address. After all, Playboy is such a big part of pop culture that to force them to use a .xxx suffix is ridiculous. In most cases though, it’ll be pretty clear whether a site should be under a .xxx or not.

Keep in mind that we’re not talking about regulation here but rather some simple oversight. I would hope that most online porn businesses would want to convert over to a .xxx for the simple fact that it’ll help their business in the long run. 

With .xxx suffix domains in place, parents can then filter virtually all domains with porn by simply blocking any sites with a .xxx suffix which is extremely easy to do. Any sites that are still under .com’s will be easy to filter simply because most of them will be available in a public list which can then be added to a simple filter.

In the end, parents win and online porn businesses can continue to do their thing without the government impeding on their rights. It’s a win-win situation so long as everyone can see the potential and stick to using the suffixes as intended. You’d think someone would have explained this to our politicians so they could figure this out by now. Nope. Guess we’ll have to wait another 5 years before they get their act together.

I use Basecamp quite a bit to manage the projects I do with Collabpad. So having a good, solid iPhone solution is starting to become a pretty important thing. A couple of weeks ago, I got a notification in my inbox about Outpost, the new iPhone application by Morfunk that allows you to manage Basecamp on the go. I was really excited. Finally I can monitor and process things on the go. It looked like a really promising app…till I read the reviews.

The problem with Outpost it seems is that it tries to sync everything locally to the phone. This sounds like a good thing but review after review after review indicates that it isn’t. Speed is the key to the success of a good Basecamp app. If I have to wait around for it to sync or if it crashes all the time because it can’t sync more than 30 projects at a time…that’s not a good thing. These problems made Output a major showstopper in my opinion.

Enter Encamp.

After reviewing other Basecamp solutions, I ended up giving Encamp a whirl. I was not disappointed. Upon opening the app and entering in my Basecamp domain and login, I noticed right off the bat that this was a pretty well designed app. The app felt like a typical iPhone application…which is a good thing. Rather than reinventing the wheel, Alexander stuck with the typical interface elements and workflow of most iPhone applications. The end result is an app that doesn’t take you any time to get used to. It just “feels” like a good iPhone app.

The other thing I noticed is that it’s fast. The only limitation is the speed of the network you’re on and whether or not if the Basecamp site is accessible. Encamp accesses information on Basecamp pretty darn quickly. It’s fast on wi-fi networks but it’s still pretty darn quick even when accessing it via 3G.

Is it perfect? No, but a version 1.x app rarely ever is. There are subtle things here and there that I wish were a bit different. For instance, it would be cool to have some way to switch between projects quickly without having to constantly tap back to the top project level. But that’s a very minor gripe that doesn’t at all have any impact on this review. 

About the only thing on my wishlist is the ability to view attachments on messages, to-do’s, and the like. I have a lot of clients that attach pics, Word documents, PDF’s, and such and I have to be able to review them prior to processing to-do’s and posting followup messages. If I were able to review things on the go then it would save me a ton of time. 

In conclusion, if you’re looking for a really good, solid Basecamp solution Encamp is the app to get! I’m looking forward to seeing what Alexander has in store for this app. 

This is just too damn cool. Puts that Lego Star Destroyer I want to shame.

Read more…

This is why I don’t recommend Windows for people who don’t know what the hell they are doing. Have them stick with a Mac. And if they can’t afford that, have them stick with Ubuntu. Far safer and they don’t even have to remember to update their antivirus software every year.  ;)

Read more…

Rob Griffiths of Macworld.com pretty much hit the nail on the head on why the video industry sucks. I’ve asked many of the same questions Rob has for the better part of five years. 

Come to think of it, I think I’ll make this my New Year’s motto for the year: “You just don’t get it!”  ;)

Read more…

Last week, I did a few posts regarding Ron Barrett, a blogger on NetworkWorld, did on Windows 7 (both here and here). Now, I stumbed on Ron’s posts purely by accident. I didn’t intend to write thoroughly about his take on Windows 7 but after reading his argument, well, I got inspired. Nothing personal against Ron Barrett. He’s got his opinion and I’ve got mine. And that’s the beauty of the internet. Everyone is free to voice their opinion in an unfiltered manner.

In his most recent blog post, Ron talks about Nvidia Ion, Nvidia’s new technology which was unveiled at CES 2009:

Interestingly, the NVIDIA ION runs on … Windows … Windows Vista Premium to be exact. Armed with the Intel Atom 330 CPU, the NVIDIA 9400M GPU (capable of full 1080p HD) and 7.1 audio. This is a system to keep your (pardon the pun) I-ON.

This is only the beginning. The ION has USB ports, HDMI, dual DVI, 1Gbps Ethernet, 3Gbps SATA (and eSATA connectors) as well as 2GBs of DDR-3 RAM.

The technology does sound interesting. This will definitely help elevate the concept of netbooks and steer them into a different direction. But Windows Vista Premium? The Intel Atom 330 isn’t a speed demon but it does offer quite a bit of power for really small form factors, which is perfect for things like netbooks. But with only 2 gigs of RAM, I don’t see a netbook with Windows Vista Premium being anything but a dog when it comes to performance. Virtually every notebook I’ve seen coming out with Vista on it has at least 3 gigs of RAM, which seems to be a good baseline for performance. An Nvidia Ion board with a max of only 2 gigs of RAM would have me worried. Still haven’t found any details on that so I guess we’ll see.

I am hoping to get a hold of one to test a little further and be able to report back to you in more detail. Perhaps I’ll throw the Windows 7 beta on it and check out how it handles. Maybe for fun I’ll even install Ubuntu on it to try it out, although I am not sure why, it’s not like I can play any of the hottest games with Ubuntu installed.

Yeah, let us know what you find out when you do test it. Personally, I just don’t see how Vista, let along Windows 7, will work all that well with this technology. Honestly, I don’t think you’re gonna be able to play many games on it.  Well, definitely not anything like Far Cry 2 or Crysis. I just don’t think Nvidia designed this technology to used to play high-end games on. 

A typical netbook with Nvidia Ion technology will likely cost around $400. Once you add-on a Windows Vista Home Premium license, that cost will go up to around $500. That isn’t that bad…but if the performance suffers due to the operating system then that’s $500 too much. Better to stick with a $400 netbook with Ubuntu on it at that point.

I’ve worked with too many small form factor notebooks to know that performance generally suffers the smaller the computer gets. I’ve had users with high-end needs insisting that they use a small tablet notebook for advanced 3D CAD drafting only to complain that it’s too slow. These are notebooks that are intended to be used lightly. They’re not meant for extreme power users.

Consider what the use of netbooks are. Most people who use netbooks use them primarily for web browsing, email, and general purpose applications. They’re typically underpowered in an effort to be highly efficient, light, low cost solutions. Desktop operating systems like Windows Vista, Windows 7, and even Mac OS X aren’t really the best candidates for these devices. Linux operating system like Ubuntu can be good candidates simply because you can configure them to run really light with minimal features.

What would work much better is if an operating system were designed around the concept of a netbook. Something really lean and clean with an interface that is better suited for a much small form factor. Doing that would allow applications much more room to make use of the available resources and provide a much better multimedia experience. 

Running a full-fledged OS on a netbook just isn’t a reality right now. The technology just isn’t quite there yet. Unless Microsoft has plans for a netbook version of their OS, the vision of running Vista and/or Windows 7 on a netbook is just that…a vision!

I’m a bit gobsmacked by Ann’s latest post entitled Murder Spree by People Who Refuse to Ask For Directions. I mean, I’m always perplexed by what Ann writes most of the time but this one…well…it just makes me wonder if this woman will ever stop.  As such, I akin Ms. Annie No-Hart Coulter to an Everlasting Gobstopper: ”You can suck ‘em and suck ‘em and suck ‘em, and they’ll never get any smaller”, as Wonka himself said. Plus, if you bite too hard you’re liable to break your teeth.

In her post, Ann talks about how the New York Times (or The Treason Times as she like to call them) wrote a series about Iraq and Afghanistan veterans accused of murder. It would help if she told us exactly what article she’s talking about. If I had to guess, I think she’s talking about the Across America, Deadly Echoes of Foreign Battles article. According to Ann, the New York Times doggedly refused to provide any statistics comparing veteran murders with murders in any other group:

What, for example, is the percentage of murderers among veterans compared to the percentage of murderers in the population at large — or, more germane, in the general population of young males, inasmuch as violent crime is committed almost exclusively by young men?

Why does it matter, Ann? That’s not even the point of the article. The point was to shed light on the fact that we have veterans committing homicide due largely in part to untreated combat trauma and post-tramatic stress. What part of that do you not get? Who cares about the percentage of murderers among veterans compared to the percentage of murderers in the population at large. That’s not even the issue here. You complete missed the point. Here’s the point (in case you missed it):

Why do we have so many veterans committing homicide? 

Forget the fact that they represent a small number compared to the many other people who have committed homicide in this country. I’m talking about veterans that, for the most part, were fairly normal before they went to Iraq and/or Afghanistan and probably would never have committed homicide had they not have joined the military.  As illustrated in the NYT article, the main reason for this is due to veterans not receiving a proper psychological evaluation when they return from a tour.

Have you ever been to war, Ann? Do you know what it’s like? You don’t, and neither do I. But I do know one thing: war can have a very dramatic effect on one’s mind. It can cause the mind to snap and enable folks to do things they normally wouldn’t do up to and including homicide. Many of the people profiled in the NYT series showed signs of post-traumatic stress after evaluation and even had signs prior to committing homicide. All this New York Times article tells me is that these veterans were not given the proper care prior to their release from tour. Given the proper evaluation and help, many of these homicides could have been prevented. 

Instead, Ann, you decided to beat a dead horse and talk on and on and on about something else:

Consider the harmless fantasy game, Dungeons and Dragons — which happens to be played almost exclusively by young males. When murders were committed in the ’80s by (1) young men, who were (2) Dungeons and Dragons enthusiasts, some people concluded that factor (2), rather than factor (1), led to murderous tendencies.

Seriously, what the hell does Dungeons and Dragons have to do with anything? So what? So a bunch of idiots in the 80’s claimed that Dungeons and Dragons was causing young men to commit crimes. Just because a few screwed up kids took their D&D too seriously doesn’t mean that everyone else who play it will to. My wife likes to play Manhunt, a highly violent video game, on our Nintendo Wii. Does that mean she’s likely to want to go out and chop someone’s head off? No, it doesn’t. It’s a baseless argument, so why even mention it?

From there, Ann continues to go on and on and on in a diatribe of statements to support her argument: that single mothers are the cause of social decline in our country:

But as long as the Times has such a burning interest in the root causes of murder, how about considering the one factor more likely to create a murderer than any other? That is the topic we’re not allowed to discuss: single motherhood.

I could go deeply into this and debunk all of this with statistics that show how homicide rates are close to half of what they were in the 80’s. I could also go on about the number of single mothers who have kids in prison compared to the total number of single mothers. To be honest, that would be pointless and a waste of time because that’s not even the issue with Ann’s blog post. 

Look, Ann Coulter is a writer. That is her job. Commentary, blog posts, interviews, and everything else she does are just ways to further promote and sell more books. The problem I have is the topics she writes about and the methods she use to sell more books. 

Take her current blog post for instance. She takes an article by the New York Times about veterans who have committed homicide, makes a connection with it to the total number of homicides in the country, and then links that to single motherhood as to one of the reasons why we have homicides in our country. It’s sick because she twists the context of the story around just to validate her argument. I find it quite disgusting because it means she’s completely ignoring the fact that these veterans needed help and our government wasn’t there to provide them with that help. It’s completely irresponsible. There’s just no logic or common sense to connecting this story with her argument at all. In the end all it does is further discredit her due to the total lack of regard for veterans of this country by making a connection with this story.

It would seem that Ann cares little about context or facts unless they help to support her argument. She cherry pick the parts she wants in an effort to support her argument just so she can sell more books. That’s what Ann Coulter does. She twists, distorts, and lies all just to rile up controversy in an effort to sell more books. Common sense, logic, proper research, Ann Coulter doesn’t care about any of these things. Instead, she just plays a game of randomly connecting dots between seemingly disparate things to drive an argument.

Frankly, I think anyone with Conservative viewpoints who actually believes what Ann Coulter says is an idiot. Hell, I’m not even sure if you could call Ann a real Conservative. To me, Ann Coulter is just a character, someone who treats life as if it were her stage. The part she plays is a caricature of a far right-wing neo-con woman. I don’t know if Ann Coulter really believes in the crap she says. If she does then she must be mental. If she doesn’t then it’s a hell of a good act.