Sigh...Yeah, I guess there's one at every blog. But this one has a back story that I might as well share. Nutshell version is this:
I'm a regular poster on a message board that consists of Writers Guild members. Most of the posters there are kind, witty, helpful, incredibly smart, gifted writers, many of whom I am proud to call my friends. The majority of them, myself included, are also politically liberal, which has led to many a bitter political argument when one of the conservatives makes his/her case. Most of the time, it's a perfectly civil disagreement that gradually peters out. But naturally, because it's the internet, the board also attracted a serious devoted and demented troll whose stated goal was to be contrarian, to insult everyone else, to cause trouble, to basically be, as a colleague put it, the turd in the punch bowl.
His typical M.O. would be to regurgitate a pile of wildly extreme right-wing views and talking points that he didn't even believe for the sole purpose of creating havoc and disrupting conversations, and when these hysterics would be invariably dismantled with simple logic, common sense, and facts, he would quickly resort to name-calling and profanity, his mouth getting frothier and frothier until he finally melted down to such a degree that he'd say something so outrageously horrible and inappropriate that he'd get banned from the board for a while. Then he'd come back, not the least bit humbled, start posting his ravings again, and the cycle would start anew.
But his last visit to the board, several months ago, topped them all, when he tried to show off his bona fides as a "journalist" while arguing with someone who actually DID have years of experience as a journalist. He did so by posting a press release about his having won a large monetary award for his financial journalism articles online. The only problem? The award didn't exist, the entity giving the award didn't exist, and the day of the week listed in the "press release" that the award was supposedly given to him on did not match the actual day of the week that the date fell on.
In other words, dude was so pathetically desperate to make his point, and so cheerfully willing to be completely dishonest about it, that he invented an award for himself and concocted a phony press release about it.
So naturally, because it was so transparently phony that it took about two seconds of research to reveal it as such, he was outed as, on top of being a miserable troll, a blatant liar. Yet he continued to post, despite now having gambled away what little credibility he'd had left and was now basically the laughingstock of the board.
So he continued blathering his nonsense, and I and others continued rebutting him at every turn, never forgetting to remind him of the phony journalist award debacle (which he never even bothered to defend or explain), so he started issuing "warnings" to me to leave him alone...until he finally revealed what lay in store for me for not heeding his dire warnings: A blog post he'd written elsewhere (he has since deleted it) that called me out as a "cyber-stalker", took a bunch of baseless potshots at me, and somewhere in there mentioned that he had a gun, the implication being a pretty strong one that he intended to shoot me if I continued "stalking" him.
Well, the moderators of our message board didn't take too kindly to one of the members making what was essentially a death threat against another, so they banned him for an extensive period this time, and that's how it's been, and the board is all the better for his absence, and I went right on living my life.
And now...he's here.
Cats and kittens, meet I Lost the Nest Egg's most prolific commenter: "Karen".
Oh, make no mistake, it's him. He's denied it, of course, but judging from the instantly recognizable stylistic touches (the high school logic, the baseless potshots, the insulting tone, the crude sexual analogies, the insistence that I'm wasting my time responding to him (on the old board, he would ridicule anyone with a high post count) the use of LOL's (he's big on emoticons too), the begging me to delete his posts (on the old board he would constantly beg anyone he argued with to "Put me on IGNORE!")), and the fact that there's simply no one else in the world who would go to this much trouble to try to demean me in the way that "Karen" is trying, I would happily swear on a thousand Bibles that it's my old buddy.
Anyway, that's the back story behind all these "Karen" posts. I've deleted a few of them because they consisted almost entirely of potshots and served no purpose other than to stink up the joint, but I'm going to leave the lion's share of them up, because they so beautifully illustrate the sort of inanity I spent countless hours at various day jobs demolishing.
Oh, also, as you read them and take in all the cartoonishly nasty comments about my career and the "schooling" of me he's doing on how the business works and ridiculing me for embarking on a career outside the industry?
Keep in mind: This dude runs a payday loan company and spends much of his time lately blogging in defense of the wondrous world of payday loans. Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course (well, actually many would argue that there's PLENTY wrong with payday loans, but that's for another day), in fact, more power to him for finding an alternative line of work, since apparently the writing thing didn't pan out too well for him. It's just not really helping his case against MY career all that much.
So...fun's fun, "Karen", but I think you've worn out your welcome here at I Lost the Nest Egg.
And anyway, don't you have some more journalism awards to win?
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Friday, June 12, 2009
Ross Whats-his-name
Okay, look...Sure, Bill Kristol was a smug, pathologically wrong asshat whose writing skill level on a good day hovered around that of cocktail napkin riddles, but at least he was always good for a laugh around the water cooler. It is simply impossible for a conversation that begins "Did you read Kristol's column today?" not to dissolve into stomach-cramping guffaws. In my book, that's worth something. Whereas...
This guy hasn't expressed a single memorable thought or composed a single quotable sentence yet. Note to Douthat: If you can't even make a column headlined "Cheney for President" memorable, you're in the wrong line of work.
Compare with this recent column from Kristol, now at WaPo, who crams more nonsense into a few lazily dictated paragraphs than even Joe Scarborough can regurgitate in his daily seven-hour show.
"But the most successful conservative intervention in the first four months of the Obama presidency has been -- counter to predictions by consultants and pundits -- that of Dick Cheney on national security policy. He may be the only Republican so far who’s really forced Obama onto the defensive."
Don't you just love that herky-jerky -- and by "herky-jerky" I mean a style wherein rather than going to the trouble to create a smoothly flowing sentence, a writer -- a man or woman, as the case may be -- instead just stops the sentence cold -- or at least lukewarm -- to insert a qualifying clause -- style of his (Kristol's)?
Here, you can even make a game out of this next example; try to make it to the end of this sentence a) without having to reread any part of it, and b) without giggling.
"And most conservatives and Republicans would, I think, agree that the other Republican who’s effectively -- if episodically -- challenged Obama on foreign and national security policy has been Newt Gingrich."
How'd you do?
"Here’s an interesting question: (Little-known fact: Whenever Bill Kristol says "Here's an interesting question", what follows is not an interesting question. It's true!) Will any Republican whose career lies mostly ahead of him -- or her -- step up to confront Obama on the foreign policy and national security front?" (See?)
"Both Cheney and Gingrich have the background and stature to address credibly national security issues."
Yup. A grown man actually wrote that. Really. You couldn't make this shit up.
Douthat, my man...You have some big, stupid shoes to fill.
This guy hasn't expressed a single memorable thought or composed a single quotable sentence yet. Note to Douthat: If you can't even make a column headlined "Cheney for President" memorable, you're in the wrong line of work.
Compare with this recent column from Kristol, now at WaPo, who crams more nonsense into a few lazily dictated paragraphs than even Joe Scarborough can regurgitate in his daily seven-hour show.
"But the most successful conservative intervention in the first four months of the Obama presidency has been -- counter to predictions by consultants and pundits -- that of Dick Cheney on national security policy. He may be the only Republican so far who’s really forced Obama onto the defensive."
Don't you just love that herky-jerky -- and by "herky-jerky" I mean a style wherein rather than going to the trouble to create a smoothly flowing sentence, a writer -- a man or woman, as the case may be -- instead just stops the sentence cold -- or at least lukewarm -- to insert a qualifying clause -- style of his (Kristol's)?
Here, you can even make a game out of this next example; try to make it to the end of this sentence a) without having to reread any part of it, and b) without giggling.
"And most conservatives and Republicans would, I think, agree that the other Republican who’s effectively -- if episodically -- challenged Obama on foreign and national security policy has been Newt Gingrich."
How'd you do?
"Here’s an interesting question: (Little-known fact: Whenever Bill Kristol says "Here's an interesting question", what follows is not an interesting question. It's true!) Will any Republican whose career lies mostly ahead of him -- or her -- step up to confront Obama on the foreign policy and national security front?" (See?)
"Both Cheney and Gingrich have the background and stature to address credibly national security issues."
Yup. A grown man actually wrote that. Really. You couldn't make this shit up.
Douthat, my man...You have some big, stupid shoes to fill.
Intelligent Design on Trial
This isn't new, but I just got around to watching it. It's a 2-hour "Nova" episode on a case, Kitzmiller v. Dover, that I've been researching for a project about the landmark defeat of the attempt to sneak the intelligent design textbook "Of Pandas and People" into the science classes in Dover, Pennsylvania. The trial dramatizations are kinda cheesy, but this show covers the saga quite thoroughly.
The good guys didn't win too often in the last 8 years. This time, they did.
And keep the link bookmarked for the next time some chowderhead tries to tell you that evolution is "just a theory."
The good guys didn't win too often in the last 8 years. This time, they did.
And keep the link bookmarked for the next time some chowderhead tries to tell you that evolution is "just a theory."
Sunday, June 7, 2009
The Hangover
Yup, it's all true. The guys who wrote "Four Christmases" and the director of "Starsky and Hutch" somehow bring you the funniest Hollywood comedy since...Okay, since "I Love You, Man", but before THAT, it was a long dry spell.
Remember the names: Zach Galifinakis, Ed Helms, Bradley Cooper. You'll be seeing more of them (particularly Zach, who steals it). Hell, I'll bet they're signing the deal for the sequel as I type this.
Oh, and Heather Graham?
Welcome back.
Remember the names: Zach Galifinakis, Ed Helms, Bradley Cooper. You'll be seeing more of them (particularly Zach, who steals it). Hell, I'll bet they're signing the deal for the sequel as I type this.
Oh, and Heather Graham?
Welcome back.
Straight Flush
So I've started visiting the Hawaiian Gardens Casino with some regularity lately, as it's just down the block from the casino dealer school. Also, the cocktail waitresses are hot. If you don't usually hear HG mentioned in the same breath as the Bike, Commerce and Hustler, it's probably because it's a bit further south (off the 605, Carson exit), but as far as I'm concerned, it's worth the extra few miles. The vibe, with its tropical theme, is decidedly cozier than the others, the wait-lists are never too long, and did I mention the cocktail waitresses?
Anyway, so I'd been a couple times earlier in the week, the only memorable moment in the two visits being when I flopped Quad 6's. I hadn't seen Quads in a while; I barely recognized them. So the hand soon whittled down to me (6's) and Seat #1, who had bet about half his stack on the flop (K-6-6) and then checked the turn. The river brought another King, and I pushed my stack (about equal with his) all in. He hesitated, muttering his concern that I had hit a Full House. Arguably foolish to respond, but too deliciously tempted to resist, I turned to him and assured him that no, I did not have a Full House. He finally shrugged, "Well, I'm pot-committed at this point" and pushed in. We showed down. The table had a good laugh. To the villain's credit, he was a good sport about it.
So I left having doubled up my $40 and then proceeded to lose $30 of it two days later, and by yesterday, it had finally dawned on me that playing the $40 table ($1/$2 blinds) makes practically no sense when there is a $100 table ($2/$3 blinds). Well, okay, it makes sense if a) You have only $40; or b) You want to make absolutely positively sure that you don't lose more than $40. Other than THAT, it's silly.
At the $40 table, you are buying in for a mere 20 big blinds; at the $100 table, you get 33.3 blinds. Or to use Dan Harrington's "M" figure (which actually pertains more to tournaments, but it's a useful barometer for cash games as well) of your stack divided by the combined total of blinds (i.e. small+ big)...
$40/$3 = M of 13.3
$100/$5 = M of 20
...it's just no contest. So I figured I'd try the $100 table, promising myself that I'd probably walk away if my stack dipped below $50. My promises to myself are generally pretty weak. So anyway, after about a half hour, I was about even when I finally hit pocket aces and managed to scoop a big pot from the table's chip leader and her pocket Kings. This gave me some breathing room to widen my list of playable hands, so a few minutes later, when I got J/9 of spades, and only a minor raise was made, I threw in.
And the flop....
Q, 10, 8 of spades.
Rechecked the hand. Nope, wasn't dreaming, wasn't hallucinating. Holiest of craps, I'd just flopped a straight flush. I still carry the wound of having had my Ace-high flush walloped by a straight flush last year, in my own home, no less. But of the hundreds (thousands?) of poker hands I've possessed in the last few years since I started playing, I had never actually HELD a straight flush until that moment.
It felt...good.
The only question was how to maximize the profits off of it, and I wish I could report back that I had done so, but...Well, see for yourself:
Seat #2 bet $20. I called.
Guy to my left raises to $50, just less than half his stack.
Seat #2 folded.
I called, somehow refraining from weeping tears of joy.
The turn: King of spades. Not that it made any difference, but now I had a SIX CARD straight flush. I'm willing to take odds that I will never see a hand that good again, never, ever, ever.
So what to do?
Only the stupidest thing I could have possibly done.
Thinking something along the lines of, "Well, he's pot-committed at this point (apparently I had him confused with the Quad-6's villain), he's not going to just fold away his $50"...I bet. $50. Relatively meager, less than half the pot, not his entire stack, thinking he would have no choice but to go all-in at that point...
But nope. He considered it for a minute, then shook his head, turned his cards over. Two pair. What I hadn't considered, idiotically, was what a scare-card the King of spades would have been for him, creating a entirely possible straight and a highly probable flush for his opponent.
Thus, one could argue, even if I had checked, as any other moron would have done in my shoes, I still might not have made any money on the river. So...that's what I'm TRYING to convince myself of, but not really succeeding.
In any case, I flipped my hand, got a collective gasp from the table, scooped the pot...and all I could think was, GODDAMNIT, I should've checked.
Oh, sure, sure, sure, on the one hand, I scooped a decent pot and eventually walked out of there $115 up, so it's rather undignified to grouse. Guilty as charged.
But on the other hand, goddamnit all...Best hand I'll ever have, and basically, I blew it, and I deserve all your scorn.
I'm still a relative novice at Hold 'em, so don't expect to find any great pearls of wisdom on these pages, but this one you can take to your grave:
Never friggin' bet the friggin' turn when you have a straight friggin' flush.
Class dismissed.
Anyway, so I'd been a couple times earlier in the week, the only memorable moment in the two visits being when I flopped Quad 6's. I hadn't seen Quads in a while; I barely recognized them. So the hand soon whittled down to me (6's) and Seat #1, who had bet about half his stack on the flop (K-6-6) and then checked the turn. The river brought another King, and I pushed my stack (about equal with his) all in. He hesitated, muttering his concern that I had hit a Full House. Arguably foolish to respond, but too deliciously tempted to resist, I turned to him and assured him that no, I did not have a Full House. He finally shrugged, "Well, I'm pot-committed at this point" and pushed in. We showed down. The table had a good laugh. To the villain's credit, he was a good sport about it.
So I left having doubled up my $40 and then proceeded to lose $30 of it two days later, and by yesterday, it had finally dawned on me that playing the $40 table ($1/$2 blinds) makes practically no sense when there is a $100 table ($2/$3 blinds). Well, okay, it makes sense if a) You have only $40; or b) You want to make absolutely positively sure that you don't lose more than $40. Other than THAT, it's silly.
At the $40 table, you are buying in for a mere 20 big blinds; at the $100 table, you get 33.3 blinds. Or to use Dan Harrington's "M" figure (which actually pertains more to tournaments, but it's a useful barometer for cash games as well) of your stack divided by the combined total of blinds (i.e. small+ big)...
$40/$3 = M of 13.3
$100/$5 = M of 20
...it's just no contest. So I figured I'd try the $100 table, promising myself that I'd probably walk away if my stack dipped below $50. My promises to myself are generally pretty weak. So anyway, after about a half hour, I was about even when I finally hit pocket aces and managed to scoop a big pot from the table's chip leader and her pocket Kings. This gave me some breathing room to widen my list of playable hands, so a few minutes later, when I got J/9 of spades, and only a minor raise was made, I threw in.
And the flop....
Q, 10, 8 of spades.
Rechecked the hand. Nope, wasn't dreaming, wasn't hallucinating. Holiest of craps, I'd just flopped a straight flush. I still carry the wound of having had my Ace-high flush walloped by a straight flush last year, in my own home, no less. But of the hundreds (thousands?) of poker hands I've possessed in the last few years since I started playing, I had never actually HELD a straight flush until that moment.
It felt...good.
The only question was how to maximize the profits off of it, and I wish I could report back that I had done so, but...Well, see for yourself:
Seat #2 bet $20. I called.
Guy to my left raises to $50, just less than half his stack.
Seat #2 folded.
I called, somehow refraining from weeping tears of joy.
The turn: King of spades. Not that it made any difference, but now I had a SIX CARD straight flush. I'm willing to take odds that I will never see a hand that good again, never, ever, ever.
So what to do?
Only the stupidest thing I could have possibly done.
Thinking something along the lines of, "Well, he's pot-committed at this point (apparently I had him confused with the Quad-6's villain), he's not going to just fold away his $50"...I bet. $50. Relatively meager, less than half the pot, not his entire stack, thinking he would have no choice but to go all-in at that point...
But nope. He considered it for a minute, then shook his head, turned his cards over. Two pair. What I hadn't considered, idiotically, was what a scare-card the King of spades would have been for him, creating a entirely possible straight and a highly probable flush for his opponent.
Thus, one could argue, even if I had checked, as any other moron would have done in my shoes, I still might not have made any money on the river. So...that's what I'm TRYING to convince myself of, but not really succeeding.
In any case, I flipped my hand, got a collective gasp from the table, scooped the pot...and all I could think was, GODDAMNIT, I should've checked.
Oh, sure, sure, sure, on the one hand, I scooped a decent pot and eventually walked out of there $115 up, so it's rather undignified to grouse. Guilty as charged.
But on the other hand, goddamnit all...Best hand I'll ever have, and basically, I blew it, and I deserve all your scorn.
I'm still a relative novice at Hold 'em, so don't expect to find any great pearls of wisdom on these pages, but this one you can take to your grave:
Never friggin' bet the friggin' turn when you have a straight friggin' flush.
Class dismissed.
Friday, June 5, 2009
Video Post Test
Just seeing how this "video posting" thing goes...Might as well try it with one of my very favorite clips, Fred Astaire and Eleanor Powell beginning the beguine. Whatever that means. Just watch. Guaranteed smile.
Hey, check me out, it worked!
Hey, check me out, it worked!
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Ann Coulter
Let's just do this once, just to acknowledge that "she" is still out there and is the same as "she" ever was (other than her dwindling book sales figures), which is to say, a dishonest, racist, homophobic shrew. Or at least, that's the character "she" plays. Some highlights from her latest masterpiece, which harshly condemns the cold-blooded slaying of abortionist George Tiller.
Ha, ha! Just kidding.
For years, we've had to hear about the grave threat that Americans might overreact to a terrorist attack committed by 19 Muslims shouting "Allahu akbar" as they flew commercial jets into American skyscrapers. That would be the equivalent of 19 pro-lifers shouting "Abortion kills a beating heart!" as they gunned down thousands of innocent citizens in Wichita, Kan.
Why aren't liberals rushing to assure us this time that "most pro-lifers are peaceful"? Unlike Muslims, pro-lifers actually are peaceful.
Uh, yes, and unlike Muslims (particularly Muslims in the wake of 9/11) pro-lifers (her term...I still prefer "anti-choiceists") have never been the victims of any hate crimes. See how that works? You don't need to warn people not to do shit that they never do in the first place.
According to recent polling, a majority of Americans oppose abortion
I assume she's referring to the recent Gallup poll in which 51% to 42% of 1,015 people, asked whether they consider themselves pro-choice or pro-life, said the latter. 'kay...
a) So 517 people said they were pro-life, and 426 people said they were pro-choice, in this one poll, and from that difference of less than 100 people, Ann concludes that "the majority of Americans oppose abortion." Got it.
b) Pretending for just a moment that THIS ONE POLL is the end-all be-all barometer on the subject how does she explain the results from another of its questions:
"Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?"
"Legal under any circumstances": 22%
"Legal under certain circumstances": 53%
"Illegal in all circumstances": 23%
So according to this poll, the SAME poll that Ann is touting as evidence that America is against abortion, 3 out of 4 people think abortion should be legal in at least some circumstances. Go, Ann!
c) Aside from the Fox "News" poll, that is the ONLY poll (really the only PORTION of a poll) on this entire list of polls from the last few years on the subject that doesn't have abortion being legal to some degree coming out ahead.
d) Okay, now let's go stop pretending that a poll of this tiny a slice of the population has anything to say about anything.
which is consistent with liberals' hysterical refusal to allow us to vote on the subject.
Sorry? What? "Allow" us to vote on the subject? Could some 8th-grader out there correct her on this one? We don't "vote" on Supreme Court decisions. They either get reversed or they don't. Is that what she means by the "hysterical refusal" to allow it? It's not "allowed" because...it's not how things work? She's blaming the liberals for how the Constitution set the system up? Um...Okay.
And in any case, there kinda, you know, WAS a pretty high-profile national vote recently. A pro-choice guy was running against an anti-choice guy and his even more anti-choice running mate. How'd that pan out again?
In that same 36 years, more than 49 million babies have been killed by abortionists.
Why is Ann Coulter willing to live in a country where she believes it's legal to kill babies? She's got plenty of money; why doesn't she move to a less barbaric country where infanticide is illegal?
But the killing of about one abortionist per decade leads liberals to condemn the entire pro-life movement as "domestic terrorists."
Uh, no, no one's doing that. (Hiya, Strawman!) I've admittedly heard this one act referred to as "domestic terrorism". Probably because one American killed another as an act of political protest. Is there a better term for it?
Kansas law allows late-term abortions only to save the mother's life or to prevent "irreversible physical damage" to the mother. But Tiller was more than happy to kill viable babies, provided the mothers: (1) forked over $5,000; and (2) mentioned "substantial and irreversible conditions," which, in Tiller's view, apparently included not being able to go to concerts or rodeos or being "temporarily depressed" on account of their pregnancies.
Ha, ha! She's doing that thing she does. You know...lying?
Tiller's admission criteria:
In order to offer you an appointment, we require that a physician refer you to our center. In addition, we need your genetic counselor or doctor to provide us with gestational and diagnostic information regarding your pregnancy. Over the past twenty-five years, we have had experience with pregnancy terminations in such situations as anencephaly, Trisomy 13, 18, and 21, polycystic kidney disease, spina bifida, hydrocephalus, Potter's syndrome, lethal dwarfism, holoprosencephaly, anterior and posterior encephalocele, non-immune hydrops, and a variety of other very significant abnormalities.
As long as we're deciding who does and doesn't have an "absolute right to be born," who's to say late-term abortionists have an "absolute right" to live? I wouldn't kill an abortionist myself, but I wouldn't want to impose my moral values on others. No one is for shooting abortionists. But how will criminalizing men making difficult, often tragic, decisions be an effective means of achieving the goal of reducing the shootings of abortionists?
So this is Ann's idea of "satire." (I think. It's really hard to tell with her.) Her way of equating Tiller's "killing" of babies with his own murder. Naturally she doesn't come out and actually SAY that he got what he deserved, because that would be too transparently monstrous, as opposed to cloaking it in humor, which downgrades it to merely obliquely monstrous.
Or to put it another way:
On top of everything else...She's a coward.
She's also far too irrelevant for me to waste one more word on her, but if you're really jonesing...Well, you're in luck.
(Warning: Not anatomically correct.)
Ha, ha! Just kidding.
For years, we've had to hear about the grave threat that Americans might overreact to a terrorist attack committed by 19 Muslims shouting "Allahu akbar" as they flew commercial jets into American skyscrapers. That would be the equivalent of 19 pro-lifers shouting "Abortion kills a beating heart!" as they gunned down thousands of innocent citizens in Wichita, Kan.
Why aren't liberals rushing to assure us this time that "most pro-lifers are peaceful"? Unlike Muslims, pro-lifers actually are peaceful.
Uh, yes, and unlike Muslims (particularly Muslims in the wake of 9/11) pro-lifers (her term...I still prefer "anti-choiceists") have never been the victims of any hate crimes. See how that works? You don't need to warn people not to do shit that they never do in the first place.
According to recent polling, a majority of Americans oppose abortion
I assume she's referring to the recent Gallup poll in which 51% to 42% of 1,015 people, asked whether they consider themselves pro-choice or pro-life, said the latter. 'kay...
a) So 517 people said they were pro-life, and 426 people said they were pro-choice, in this one poll, and from that difference of less than 100 people, Ann concludes that "the majority of Americans oppose abortion." Got it.
b) Pretending for just a moment that THIS ONE POLL is the end-all be-all barometer on the subject how does she explain the results from another of its questions:
"Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?"
"Legal under any circumstances": 22%
"Legal under certain circumstances": 53%
"Illegal in all circumstances": 23%
So according to this poll, the SAME poll that Ann is touting as evidence that America is against abortion, 3 out of 4 people think abortion should be legal in at least some circumstances. Go, Ann!
c) Aside from the Fox "News" poll, that is the ONLY poll (really the only PORTION of a poll) on this entire list of polls from the last few years on the subject that doesn't have abortion being legal to some degree coming out ahead.
d) Okay, now let's go stop pretending that a poll of this tiny a slice of the population has anything to say about anything.
which is consistent with liberals' hysterical refusal to allow us to vote on the subject.
Sorry? What? "Allow" us to vote on the subject? Could some 8th-grader out there correct her on this one? We don't "vote" on Supreme Court decisions. They either get reversed or they don't. Is that what she means by the "hysterical refusal" to allow it? It's not "allowed" because...it's not how things work? She's blaming the liberals for how the Constitution set the system up? Um...Okay.
And in any case, there kinda, you know, WAS a pretty high-profile national vote recently. A pro-choice guy was running against an anti-choice guy and his even more anti-choice running mate. How'd that pan out again?
In that same 36 years, more than 49 million babies have been killed by abortionists.
Why is Ann Coulter willing to live in a country where she believes it's legal to kill babies? She's got plenty of money; why doesn't she move to a less barbaric country where infanticide is illegal?
But the killing of about one abortionist per decade leads liberals to condemn the entire pro-life movement as "domestic terrorists."
Uh, no, no one's doing that. (Hiya, Strawman!) I've admittedly heard this one act referred to as "domestic terrorism". Probably because one American killed another as an act of political protest. Is there a better term for it?
Kansas law allows late-term abortions only to save the mother's life or to prevent "irreversible physical damage" to the mother. But Tiller was more than happy to kill viable babies, provided the mothers: (1) forked over $5,000; and (2) mentioned "substantial and irreversible conditions," which, in Tiller's view, apparently included not being able to go to concerts or rodeos or being "temporarily depressed" on account of their pregnancies.
Ha, ha! She's doing that thing she does. You know...lying?
Tiller's admission criteria:
In order to offer you an appointment, we require that a physician refer you to our center. In addition, we need your genetic counselor or doctor to provide us with gestational and diagnostic information regarding your pregnancy. Over the past twenty-five years, we have had experience with pregnancy terminations in such situations as anencephaly, Trisomy 13, 18, and 21, polycystic kidney disease, spina bifida, hydrocephalus, Potter's syndrome, lethal dwarfism, holoprosencephaly, anterior and posterior encephalocele, non-immune hydrops, and a variety of other very significant abnormalities.
As long as we're deciding who does and doesn't have an "absolute right to be born," who's to say late-term abortionists have an "absolute right" to live? I wouldn't kill an abortionist myself, but I wouldn't want to impose my moral values on others. No one is for shooting abortionists. But how will criminalizing men making difficult, often tragic, decisions be an effective means of achieving the goal of reducing the shootings of abortionists?
So this is Ann's idea of "satire." (I think. It's really hard to tell with her.) Her way of equating Tiller's "killing" of babies with his own murder. Naturally she doesn't come out and actually SAY that he got what he deserved, because that would be too transparently monstrous, as opposed to cloaking it in humor, which downgrades it to merely obliquely monstrous.
Or to put it another way:
On top of everything else...She's a coward.
She's also far too irrelevant for me to waste one more word on her, but if you're really jonesing...Well, you're in luck.
(Warning: Not anatomically correct.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
