In Ann Coulter's September 17th column, she condemns the editor of the New York Times as a "traitor" because the editorial on the issue commemorating the second-year anniversary of September 11th equated the tragic deaths of September 11th to General Pinochet's coup in Chile in 1973. The New York Times called this 1973 coup "September 11." Ann Coulter claims that the New York Times is saying that "We deserved it," simply because Salvador Allende, a democratically elected Marxist leader of Chile "deserved it" when the Presidential Office was bombed in a coup. Allende had previously invited Castro to his country, and was therefore "evil." Never mind the CIA involvement in this murderous coup, the very fact that Coulter takes the enourmous leap from "Allende derserved it" therefore "we deserved it," is the biggest slander of all. Do you want to know why the New York Times said that this 1973 coup was Chile's September 11th? BECAUSE IT HAPPENED ON SEPTEMBER 11TH, 1973. Ann Coulter, you should be ashamed.

It pains me to watch Hannity and Colmes. Really, I get stomach cramps, nausia, etc., and not just because it's Fox News. But really, Alan, do you fucking do anything on this show? Mr. Liberal To Be Determined, all you do is blow smoke up Sean Hannity's ass. How can you let him get away with the things that he says? For real, every day Sean accuses Alan of "Hate politics," when all Alan does is discuss policy issues with which he has trouble. But does Alan respond to any of this? No! He sits like the obedient dumbass that Fox News producers have trained him to be. Anybody with one-fourth of a brain could stand up to the directionless whining that Sean spends the entirity of the show spewing from his trachea, and Alan Colmes just doesn't fit the bill. Really, Sean is becoming convinced that he's right all the time, and this is the most troubling thing of all.

On the day of the historic California Recall election, I find myself wondering why I even care. After all, this is California, the home of the crazy, the wacky, home of Ronald Reagan, an actor turned governor turned president of these United States. This is the definition of democracy, isn't it? Never mind that a rich Republican named Issa basically funded the entire recall with his own money. Never mind that a disproportionately large percentage of minorities will be disenfranchised simply because we're in such a rush to oust Davis. We are seeing democracy in action.
Well, is that really what we want? We do hold certain restrictions to the excercise of pure democracy. Take the electoral college, for example. We want to be able to ensure that a mere popular vote does not have enough power to decide something as important as the position of the leader of the greatest democracy in the world. A presidential candidate can't win just by carrying certain large states, and never bothering to address or even visit places like Rhode Island, Hawaii, and South Dakota. Yes, it is true that these states do not matter, and are often embarassing to other, more important states (such as Massachussets). But we do place these restrictions.
Take the term limit, for example. An elected official is entrusted by those who vote for him to represent his or her constituency to the best of his ability. This often entails making decisions that are less than popular. This is why governors, senators, presidents, etc., serve terms. How can we expect a governor to better his state when every time he excercises any aspect of tough love, he becomes susceptible to another election?
This is why California matters. We need to be opposed to this recall, not because we need a Democrat in the governorship of California, but because this is how our country has functioned for the duration of its legacy.