AmeriCAN-DO Attitude

Are you an AmeriCAN or an AmeriCAN'T?

Why I’m an Unabashed, Unapologetic HUGE Fan of Ann Coulter

Here is exhibit #495,378: Her bitch-slapping of the treasonous New York Times. heh

*Do you consider yourself as speaking for the conservative movement, or just someone who has attracted many conservative fans? Something else?


Heh. Fucking brilliant.

March 9, 2009 , 4:35PM Posted by | Ann Coulter, Conservatism, Media Bias, New York Times | 6 Comments

At Their Mercy

Absolutely brilliant post by Jeff Goldstein at HotAir: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the F-Bomb

[ … ] Because even were Republicans to begin winning elections based on their newly found ability to negotiate a hostile media bent on misrepresenting them, they’d be compelled to maintain the practice of carefully parsing their words, which means they’d always be at the mercy of those looking to attack and discredit. And such has the effect both of chilling speech and of determining in what way a message must necessarily be delivered.

And when your opponents are making the rules, you are necessarily playing their game.

To put it more forcefully, it is a fact of language that once you surrender the grounds for meaning to those who would presume to determine your meaning for you, you are at their mercy.

Bingo. Exactly what I have been trying to say, though much less eloquently than Mr. Goldstein.

He also added to his post what he stated back when Bill Bennett was ridiculed and smeared by the Left in the same way they are doing now (and always do) to Rush Limbaugh. Perfectly spot-on as well. And I echo his wondering why people on the Right are too quick to surrender to the Left and the mass media.

First, [certain conservatives are making the claim] that it is standard business and political doctrine that communicators be aware of how they are likely to be interpreted, which conflates the idea of practice with rectitude. And the fact is, being aware of how your utterances may be interpreted by those who are looking to maliciously misrepresent them in a soundbite culture is a fool’s errand — one that is shown up by the very issue at hand: Bennett was careful to note that the hypothetical in question was morally reprehensible — and in fact used it to argue against utilitarian rationalizations for moral problems (a stand that implicitly rejects statistics-based racialist arguments) — but that important qualification was left out of many media representations of his quote, which allowed those who wished to embarrass Bennett to call him out. In this case, Bennett clearly was aware of how his words might be used, but that awareness could not prevent misuse. For Bennett to have avoided the “major failing” [some conservatives identified] he would have had to avoid the subject altogether. And to do so is to trade intellectualism for the kind of circumspection that has the practical effect of chilling free speech.

Linguistically speaking, we have but two choices: either insist language be ground in the intentions of its utterers, or else conclude that we must each be responsible, in perpetuity, for whatever might be done with our utterance once it leaves our control. [Some conservatives] it seems to me, [are] choosing the latter — an unfortunate choice, in that it will forever codify a use of language that demands of its users the kind of overly-self-conscious self-censorship that is anathema to the free exchange of ideas. And if our goal is to hash out policy or to discuss potentially controversial issues, we simply must be able to do so without worry that parties invested in maintaining the status quo are allowed to silence us by assuming control over the terms of debate.

[The political pragmatists’] thesis here is straightforward — and it matches the theses of many of those (including the White House and the Corner’s Ramesh Ponnuru) who’ve taken Bennett to task for his “impolitic” remarks. Bennett, the argument goes, is a seasoned political operative and a professional communicator, and so he should have known that certain people — from the perpetually aggrieved to those in whose interests it is to try to smear what they take it he represents — would use his remarks against him. Which is certainly true.

But why must an awareness of such dictate a surrender to it?

Descriptions about how communication can be made to function are no substitute for the insistence that it be made to function as it should — in a linguistically coherent way that is dependent on appeals to the utterer’s intent, and so therefore refuses to give equal weight to the whims and motivations of interpreters who wish to use their interpretations as a rhetorical cudgel (in this case, quite disingenously) against the utterer. Each time a conservative makes such excuses for linguistic surrender in the guise of world weary linguistic pragmatism (which it is not; it is a feint toward relativism and certain pernicious post-modern ideas of language that undercut its moorings), they cede a bit more control over future debates to their opponents.

I refuse to do so. And while I can understand why many on the left wish me to be cowed by their linguistic presumptuousness, what I can’t understand is why so many on the right allow them to get away with it.

Mike at Cold Fury is absolutely spot-on as well:

[ … ] The time for tailoring our words out of significant concern over whether our enemies might be able to distort them is past; they will find a way, always, and there’s absolutely no reason to think otherwise. The discussion going forward, it seems to me, ought to be about how we’re going to go around the liars and speak directly to honest people of good will — while revealing, every chance we get, the craven dishonesty the shameless Left has no qualms about employing as a political tactic.

Fucking A-men.

Here is my response I left to give kudos to Jeff Goldstein in the comments at HotAir:

Here, here, Jeff. Spot-on. Spot-f***ing-on. I have been getting sick and tired of the passive crap from Ace, Gabriel Malor and AllahPundit and this was an absolutely brilliant piece. Let’s hope these passive “pragmatists” get their heads out of their asses and understand this simple point that we have to stop playing the game by the rules of our enemies. Because in case these geniuses haven’t been paying attention, as soon as we prostrate ourselves and figure out the rules, the enemy changes the rules and f***s us all over again, even worse.

It’s well past time to stop this passive, victim sh*t and go on the offense against these lying, corrupt bastards and not apologize for anything.

March 9, 2009 , 4:06PM Posted by | Barack Obama, Censorship, Communism, Conservatism, Fascism, Liberalism, Marxism, Rush Limbaugh | Comments Off on At Their Mercy

My First ‘Hate Mail’ – I Feel So Honored

So I have just recently received my first bit of ‘hate mail’. Not exactly hate mail, but more like ignorant ranting mail. Either way, I am honored to have posted something which irritated someone so much that they were moved to write an e-mail to tell me about it. heh

So here’s “Independent” “Paul Be” from norethug08 at yahoo dot com. (Quite the “Independent” e-mail address, eh?):

So let me see if I have this right. Over the last 8 years, we have added 5 trillion dollars to the national debt. We created 3 million jobs, as opposed to 21 million the previous 8.

The national debt was reduced 4 of the 8 years of the Bush Administration. This despite inheriting a recession from the Clinton Administration, the 9/11 terrorist attacks, fighting in 2 war efforts and the Hurricane Katrina situation. I’d say that is pretty damn impressive. Especially considering the average debt was not too far off from the average debt during the Clinton Administration.

You are about to lose your job, and yet, you are focused on why people are attacking rush el lardo??

Um, no. People are losing their jobs, the economy is getting worse and the first thing that our new President did once in office was attack Rush Limbaugh, a private citizen and talk radio host. One would think that the President and his Administration had much better things to worry about than attacking a private citizen. But apparently not. One would also think that the President and his Administration had much more class and dignity and respect for the Office of the Presidency than to use their power to attack a private citizen. But apparently not.

Do you really listen to Rush?

I’ve been listening to him almost every day since September of 2001. I also have subscriptions to his website and The Limbaugh Letter. So, yes, I really do listen to Rush Limbaugh. Do *you*? From the sounds of it, you don’t at all, but simply know the talking points about him from the Left-wing outlets who smear him.

How can a conservative, especially a christian endorse him? Do you dismiss the hateful things he says about women, minorities, etc.?

Uh, what hateful things about women and minorities would those be, genius? Care to provide examples? I know of none. And if he were saying hateful things about minorities and women, I would think that his program guy Mr Snerdly would say something, since is Black. And Dawn, another show employee, would probably say something as well. Or they would both leave his show if he were hateful. But, they remain. So provide some examples or shut the fuck up.

The guy even went after Michael J. Fox. I guess that’s ok, cuz he’s a conservative.

Um, no, he did not, dumbass. Michael J. Fox was lying about stem cell research and using his illness to promote bad policy and lie to the American public about it in order to convince them to vote a certain way on bad policy. Rush Limbaugh called him out on his lies and deception. The fact that you don’t know this shows your utter ignorance.

As for your love of Reagn, a little news flash. He raised taxes and grew the government, BIG TIME. I happen to think he was a terrific president and great leader, but those are the facts.

He cut the federal tax rate from 70% to 28% in order to stimulate investing and job growth. This worked for JFK, worked for Reagan and worked for the Bush 43 Adminisration as well. Despite these facts, the Obama Administration flat out refuses to do this and, in fact, has decided to do the complete opposite in raising the tax rates.

You mentioned you are about to run out of money, cuz you lost your job. A few questions. Conservatives have been bashing the supposed reckless people who bought homes they could not afford. How come you don’t have enough savings to make it longer than to the end of May? Are you going to collect unemployment? Are going to use a free clinic if you can’t afford COBRA? Well according to conservatives, you don’t deserve that. You were reckless… Seems like a double standard to me.

(1) I don’t have enough savings, because I didn’t save enough money the last 5+ years of owning my home. (2) Yes, I am collecting unemployment. (3) I chose not to have COBRA, because I haven’t needed to go to a doctor or hospital in over 15 years. I take care of myself and don’t get sick. So I am *choosing* to not have health insurance. Something the Left and Democrats tell me that I should not have the freedom to do. That’s why they want to push National Healthcare and force everyone to pay for health insurance they don’t want or need.

Explain to me which conservatives are against unemployment and free health clinics, because I have never heard anyone express that before ever. Seems to me you have no idea what is conservatism and no idea what conservatives are for/against.

The fact is that I was not ‘reckless’. I made sure to get a 30-year fixed loan for my home and I have paid my mortgage without issue every month since I have moved in back in 2003. After getting laid off, however, I calculated that I could survive for 7 months on unemployment. After determining that, I did not go whining to the government for a bailout or go bitching to my lender and tell them that I am not going to pay my mortgage, nor did I go to Obama’s radical thug buddies at A.C.O.R.N. to have them help me bully people in order to stay in a home that I can no longer afford. I did the responsible thing and started looking at my options for selling the house, as anyone else should do. That is a bedrock conservative principle: personal responsibility. No double standard at all. I take responsibility for any mistakes I make in life and then work to fix them myself, without blaming anyone else or asking the government (American taxpayers) to bail me out or fix my problems.

As for you being called out as a racist, I don’t know if that’s true. It was curious though, that your post on black five media ended with, well at least he is black… Would you have ever said that about bush?

Why would I say President Bush is Black when he clearly is not? And I don’t know which comment of mine at Blackfive you are so riled up about, but if you are that ignorant to not know about the “My President is Black” movement of the Obama supporters, then you obviously missed my sarcasm. You obviously also missed Uber Pig’s admission on Blackfive that he voted for Obama based on his Blackness. My sarcastic statement that ‘we can not worry about any of the problems in America, because at least our President is Black and that makes it all better’ was making fun of Obama supporters who supported Obama solely because he is Black. And stated that we can now be proud of our country because “My President is Black”. If you truly are that clueless that you don’t know about this, then I’m not surprised that my sarcasm went right over your empty head.

I will say as an independent that the right’s rhetoric is appalling.

Heh, the Right’s rhetoric is appalling. Ah yes. Apparently you had no problem with the rhetoric of the Left of the past 8 years, but now the Right saying they don’t want the socialist policies of Obama and his merry Marxists, that’s appalling. Whatever, buddy.

I was on the fence between Obama and McCain. The Palin pick was a deal killer for me.

So let’s see. There was a choice between a socialist/communist/Marxist racist with no executive experience, no achievements or successes in his entire political life except giving speeches and co-writing a book with a domestic terrorist and whose entire political career was forged with the likes of communists, socialists, Marxists, racists, corrupt pols and domestic terrorists who all hate America and were anti-capitalism. And his VP who is an idiot and who also has no achievements in his entire political career. Compare that to a left-leaning Republican who brought on a running mate who had more executive experience and accomplishments than Obama, Biden and McCain combined, not to mention experience and accomplishments with the energy industry. And yet, the deal killer for you was not Obama’s horrible background and lack of experience, nor Biden’s horrible lack of experience and accomplishment, nor McCain’s policies being basically socialist-lite, but rather the one politician among the two tickets who was most qualified of the 4 to actually govern? Brilliant logic there, genius.

The BS since then is incredible. The right has become about the party of Jesus and Pro-Life. The stock answer is lower taxes. It lacks any intellectual arguments. So keep up your hateful rantings…

The Right has become the Party of Jesus and Pro-Life. Uh, sure thing, bub. And yes, lowering capital gains taxes and lowering corporate tax rates in order to encourage people to invest and businesses to invest and grow and hire people is a pretty much common sense stock answer and a proven successful solution time and time again. No intellectual arguments, eh? You apparently don’t spend much time actually listening to the arguments of conservatives then, because we are the only ones presenting intellectual arguments for successfully fixing the economy. Hateful rantings, that’s a laugh. Take care, Mr. ‘Independent’.

March 9, 2009 , 10:46AM Posted by | Barack Obama, Conservatism, Debating an Obama-Lover, Ronald Reagan, Rush Limbaugh, Socialism, Tax Cuts | Comments Off on My First ‘Hate Mail’ – I Feel So Honored