Commentary Magazine: Yuval Levin: 'Congress is Weak Because Its Members Want it To Be'

Source: Commentary Magazine- The do almost nothing U.S. Congress 

Source:Commentary Magazine

"Congress is weak because its member want it to be": I completely agree with Yuval Levin on this, but I would put it and phrase it differently.

The last 10-20 years perhaps longer Congress's ( both House and Senate ) approval rating has been somewhere around 10-20%. ( Depending on what poll you look at )

And the people who tend to approve of the job of Congress tend to either be Anarchists who don't want government do to anything.

Alcoholics who don't know what they want and believe and perhaps aren't even sober enough to understand the question do you approve or disapprove of Congress.

Or mental patients who believe they're being chased by flying Martians.

The rest of the country tends to be sane, sober, and in some cases even somewhat intelligent so of course they don't approve of the job of Congress, because Congress doesn't do a damn thing every year.

I mean, if Congress avoids a government shutdowns, that's considered an incredible accomplishment.

If Congress passes a budget even though according to the U.S. Constitution that both Democrats and Republicans now just view as an advisory documental and suggestions for how Congress should behave and what they should do, Congress passing a budget now is considered extraordinary.

Passing all 12 appropriations are now considered to be a miracle if Congress ever does that. Even though again under law and under the Constitution, Congress is required to pass an annual budget and all 12 appropriations bills.

Imagine being a public school teacher and your department head or principal told you that if your students do their work and learn the subject matter and pass your course, that would be considered a positive thing, but it's optional and you don't have to teach them anything, just give it your best shot. Wait, bad example because public school teachers in many cases aren't expected to teach their students and their students aren't expect to learn, but give it their best effort and show up.

But imagine running a grocery store or some other business that you don't own and your boss tells you that you're not expected to sell the products there and make a profit, but those things would be great if you did. What kind of business manager would that person be if they knew they would have a job in the future regardless of the job that they're doing and the success of their business. Well, that's how Congress operates and is judged. Americans are so fed up ( to be too kind ) with Congress now and politicians in general that they don't expect Congress to do their jobs. They just want their Representative and two Senators to repent their values and what they believe in and tell them what they want to hear. They do those things and stay out of legal trouble and avoid scandal, they'll probably get reelected over and over again.

What other job and profession in the world outside of politics and in Congress can you get paid and be guaranteed a job just for showing up. Again, public school teachers unfortunately and there are some good public school teachers, but too many bad ones and of course the largest verbal and physical punching bag in the world our U.S. Congress that houses the House of Representatives and Senate. Where a non-leadership member and not even a committee leader makes 150,000 dollars a year plus a generous benefits and retirement package. Which would be a good compensation package for an associate at a good law firm where people there are expected to actually work and represent clients well and win cases or at the very least give their clients the best legal representation possible.

Congress is weak, because there members are weak. They're in Washington about half a year on a good year, they're not expected to actually pass bills and in many cases are just there working to get reelected. And working to get reelected and governing are too different things. Working to get reelected now is about raising a lot of money and having your base behind you so you don't have to worry about getting primaried. Governing is about working with your colleagues in both parties at least when the margins are tight in both chambers ( especially in the Senate ) to pass needed legislation. And members of Congress are weak because that's what their voters want or expect and are tired of complaining about it and campaigning and voting for people who'll actually go to Washington to represent their state or district and work to pass good legislation.

Source: Crash Course: Craig Benzine- The Bicameral Congress - One thing that are tax dollars pays for is a do-nothing Congress 

Roll Call: David Hawkings- 'Opus: '5 Reasons Why Congress is Broken'

Source:Roll Call- Our broken U.S. Congress. 

"Roll Call senior editor David Hawkings has been covering Congress for three decades, and he’s convinced that the legislative branch is more broken now than at any other point in his career. Here’s why." 

Source:Roll Call

I guess I would disagree a little with what David Hawkings is saying here and that I would add a little to his argument as well.

Money, is an issue with Congressional elections, but it's not the issue. It's not so much what's spent on House and Senate elections, but the fact that we as voters don't know what the money is spent on and how it was raised, who donated the money to the Congressional candidate or incumbent, or did a third-party raise that money and decided to spend it on a Congressional race and how they raised that money.

If someone wants to spend ( or waste ) 10 million dollars on a U.S. House race, that's their money. But we as voters and the media have a right to know how they raised and spent that money. So we know if that candidate or incumbent is being bought like a loaf or bread and taking policy positions based on what their political contributors are giving them. And if they promised their contributors votes and bills if they give them money.

If we had full-disclosure on all political contributions from candidates, incumbents, and third-parties that and raise and spend their own money on Congressional elections and money that's raised and spent by third-parties to run their own advertising on those races, we could fire a lot of crooks and liars in Congress, because we would know how they get their political contributions. 

Or another option would be that those crooks and liars would clean their political hands and start voting and legislating based on what they actually believe is best for their district or state, because they don't want to be seen as bought because they know the voters, media, and probably more important for them the Federal Elections Commission will know how they raise their money. Who they're getting their political contributions from.

With full-disclosure, people could ask themselves: "Do I really want to vote for someone who takes so much money from the oil and gas industry and always votes and legislates in favor of them?" Or: "Do I really want to vote for someone who takes so much money from the teacher unions and never takes a position that goes against them like school choice and school accountability?" 

Members of Congress in both chambers fundraising records would become public, as well as their Congressional records their votes and positions that they've taken in Congress, because of full-disclosure and voters would have a lot of information at their disposal to look at and see if they want to reelect their Representative or Senator. or vote for or against their opponents when they're up for reelection.

Just to talk about the U.S. House for a second and the main reasons why the House is broken and functions more like a broken home where you can't close the doors or windows in it, and the floors are cracking, is two reasons.

Gerrymandering- the reason why Representatives are so partisan and act as if they now hate members of the other party and just don't disagree with them is because they represent gerrymandered districts and voters who hate the other party. These Representatives simply come from the community that they represent and are representing the views of their constituents in the House. 

You eliminate partisan gerrymandering from both parties and Democratic and Republican Representatives would then be forced to represent people from both parties in their district. Instead of representing a House district where 3-5 or 7-10 voters in their district are members of their own party. They would be forced to moderate their positions and tone in order to get reelected because their district would be a lot more diverse.

Majority always rules- the other reason why the House is so partisan is because of the way the chamber is set and run where the majority party isn't just in complete control of the agenda but how bills are debated and have complete control of whether even amendments to partisan bills can be offered or not. Unlike in the Senate where the minority party led by the Minority Leader can not only obstruct the majority if they have at least 41 votes to do that, but can offer amendments and substitutes and have those amendments voted on to every bill that comes to the Senate floor, as well as in committee.

Not saying that the House should also have a cloture rule and allow the minority party led by the Minority Leader to obstruct everything, because that would make the Washington rush hour look like a NASCAR event, ( an inside the beltway joke ) and nothing would get done in the house. But the House minority party should at least be allowed to offer amendments and substitutes to bills and have those alternatives voted on to every bill that the majority party tries to write and pass on their own. Giving the minority party stake in the game and a feeling that there to do something other than to talk and vote no.

I'll just close this piece with a little George Carlin the great political satirist. He asked the question to his audience during one of his shows where do politicians come from? And I'll paraphrase him by saying they weren't shipped here from Mars or some other planet or flown in here from another country. They go to the same schools that we did and same communities. They represent the communities that sent them to Congress or whatever office they hold.

Carlin's point was that politicians aren't much different than the people they're supposed to represent that their Congressional salary is supposed to pay for. The reason why Congress especially the House is so partisan is because that is what their voters want it to be. To vote exactly the want they want them to and represent their values and not compromise, because they see the other party as the enemy and not as opponent. 

You want a better and less partisan Congress, especially in the House, you need better and less partisan voters voting for its members. 

You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on Blogger.

AlterNet: Bob Hennelly: 'Watching Reality Luxury TV Is Killing America's Economic Drive & Maybe Its Soul'

Source: AlterNet- Keeping up With The Kardashian's on the i-phone. 

Source:AlterNet

In the last 15-20 years or so with Generation X full coming of age and now with the Millennials coming of age as well, we're seeing less religion and church going in America ( except deep in the Bible Belt where that's all they have, it seems ) but more emphasis on economic wealth and becoming successful and wealthy, and famous in America.

Except for Millennials, who seem to believe that they're entitled to live in their parents basements or off of government. In that generation the people who aren't driven to be the next "OMG reality TV pop star with their own reality show and entourage" are driven to move America to Scandinavia and building a socialist welfare state so big that no one would have to work in America. The two biggest social movements in America, are celebrity/reality TV obsession and socialism.

And in some cases Millennials try to combine both social movements. The Millennials who claim to hate American capitalism, personal freedom and choice, free speech the most, are the Americans who take full advantage of those American liberal values the most. Who are always up to date on the latest fashion trends and always have those things as far as clothes, new technology, lingo, while using those tools to bash what they claim to hate about America which is American capitalism, personal freedom, and free speech.

Apparently unaware because their i-phone didn't teach them this that American capitalism, personal freedom, our individualism is what created those fashionable items and products that they claim to love and can't live without. People who claim that eating meat is somehow animal cruelty, tend to be people who wear leather jackets and denim jeans, boots wherever they go and generally wear leather, denim, and boots together apparently unaware it's animals that gave us those fashion trends and  what those fashion staples are made from. You ever heard of lambskin, snakeskin, which is where leather jackets and boots come from.

And since we've become a country not all of us, I'm sure as hell not none of those people and I still love individualism, personal freedom, etc, but we're coming a nation where thinking and individualism, learning about things that have nothing to do with the latest celebrity or smartphone, has become unfashionable. Even things like human decency have become unfashionable. The biggest asshole whether they're a professional celebrity or not will have the most the most followers on Twitter, Google+, Facebook, whatever social network that you prefer will be the most popular on your social network of choice. Or a new technology developer, or the latest so-called reality TV star, not people who get people to think and to learn, because thinking for yourself, learning, human decency are "like so old school" with a lot of young people in America today.

Some of the most financially wealthy and successful people in America, are also some of the dumbest and least talented. Seriously, where would Paris Hilton and Khloe Kardashian be today without their wealthy father's? If not waiting on or cleaning tables, sleeping with wealthy men to pay their bills. With their current educational levels, that's what they would have to do in order to survive in America if their father's were truck drivers and their mother's were teachers. And I'm sure there's a list of dumb untalented male celebrities as well, but you get the point. If you come off as dumb, but say things that become pop catch phrases, are a little wild at least and have a dirty mouth and know how to use it, you'll be famous and wealthy in America. While responsible intelligent people who got themselves a good education, spend their lives working very hard and have to be very productive to live well in America.

Source: Alux: Top Ten Richest Reality TV Stars With Salaries - OMG, they're awesome!!! LOL

Skeptic Magazine: Michael Shermer & Amy Alkon: 'Unfuckology: A Field Guide To Living With Guts & Confidence'

Source: Skeptic Magazine- Amy Alkon, talking to Skeptic Magazine 

Source:Skeptic Magazine

I'm with Michael Shermer on this starting out in this interview where he says he doesn't know why publishers bleep cuss words in titles of books and or bleep one letter in the title of the book. Excuse my language ( if you want to ) but if you're going to say fuck or shit or whatever it might be, you should just say fuck or shit and not be a chickenshit about it, because you're worried it might offend overly sensitive people or deeply religious and culturally conservative people. If you don't want to say fuck or shit, but communicate anger with people, use a proper substitute like damn or hell, but don't say blankin which doesn't mean anything. Either use curse words or not. You gotta say shit or fuck, go for the gold and take a stand and say shit or fuck instead of saying you don't give an f or s. Words have meaning so if you're going to use them make you sure you what you're saying before you use them.

Source: Amazon- Unfuckology from Amy Alkon 

Amy Alkon, gets into self-help in her book ( to say the least ) her whole book is about self-help, but does it in a different way and isn't nice about it. She says one of the ways people can improve themselves is to do things that make them uncomfortable in order to conquer your fears. I think the common human reaction is to avoid people and situations that intimidate you and make you uncomfortable. Very common in school which is why good teachers will notice when one of their students is afraid of something and doesn't want to do it and tries to stay away from doing those things or being with those people. And what they'll do instead is try to get their students to deal with those situations and parts of their schoolwork where they are lacking do they can be better at it at and overcome those fears.

The only way you can overcome fear is to no longer to be fearful of whatever you're afraid of. Should sound simple enough but if that isn't then maybe you should go look for your brain, perhaps rent one or get a new one, but the point is the way to conquer fear is to realize your fear first and then take it on. Why are you afraid to speak in public or meet new people, be in crowded places where the only people you know there are the people you're meeting at the restaurant or public place that you're at. Whatever the situation is that you're afraid of and take it on. Practice being in the situation that you're afraid of and try to develop a comfort level there. Like when you're meeting new people relax and perhaps imagine that the people you're meeting you've known a while. And talk to them like you would talk to your friends, would be one example of how you can overcome a fear of new people.

Fear is not an excuse, to paraphrase Amy Alkon here. That just because you're afraid of something or someone is not good enough reason to do what you're afraid of or be with people who intimidate you. Because the reason why you might fear doing certain things or being around certain people, is your problem and your fault. That you lack the self-confidence that self-confident intelligent people have in order to be strong and feel that you can handle any situation and communicate with anyone that you need to do to be successful at life and win the game of life. ( To paraphrase Newt Gingrich ) Instead of saying life sucks and you suck at life and therefore you're just going to be a loser, because losing is so easy and you're so experienced at it and being successful and accomplishing things requires educated risks and taking real chances.

There's that old praise the highway of life and that might sound corny to some people, but it's so true and at this point is at risk of becoming cliche because it's been around for a long time and it's so true. But the point is that life isn't easy or hard. Life is not a picnic or a life sentence at a work camp. It's somewhere in between where things and times in life can be great for people like a great vacation. And there times where life can be a real struggle like when you're out-of-work or get in trouble with the law, lose a close relative or friend. The way you be good at life his though intelligence and with that knowing that you're smart and you're always learning and using those skills to be successful at life.

To make the good times last and always be around, as well as get though the deep valleys in life as well. To paraphrase President Richard Nixon and his farewell speech and he retired from the presidency in 1974 for well-known reasons, "only if you've been in the deepest valley can you know what it's like to be on the highest mountain." Meaning in order be where you want to be in life and be successful at it, you'll go though some struggles that you have to work through which will only make you better by the way if you play them right and perhaps even look back at those times at positive experiences, because it made what you accomplished worth it and feel like you earned your success.

George Carlin: Dumb Slogans

Source:Carlin Fan- Not a fan.

"George Carlin talks about dumb American slogans.. Clip from "It’s Bad For Ya!" (2008)"

Source:Carlin Fan

I get George Carlin's point about ethnic or national pride that we shouldn't look at them as being accomplishments even though I'm sure that there are some Anglo-Saxon ( people of English ethnicity ) families in Manhattan and New England who would disagree with that. For them being born in America is like winning the Super Bowl during your rookie season. Winning a 20 million dollar lottery the first time you ever played the lottery. A lot of these families tend to be born rich to the point they never even have to worry about college or even finishing it because they'll probably have a million dollars or more by the time they hit 21 in life.

But for the 90-99% of us that have to work for a living from the time that we're probably teenagers and looking to buy our first car and not sure how we're going to pay for college because we know our parents can't just write a check to finance that for us and buy us our own car, ethnicity is just about who we're born to, who our biological parents are. Passing the bar exam, or graduating college, getting a promotion at work that we deserve, perhaps becoming an executive, those are real accomplishments in life.

Being born English, Italian, Jewish, Japanese, Latino, African, etc, in America that's just about who our parents are that we have no control over who we're given to us. Not something that we ever worked for in life. It's not like we can decide before we're are born that we want to be Italian or Chinese in America and decide that's who we're going to be. 

As a German-American, I'm all in favor of people being proud of their ethnic people.  (Lets say) And being proud of what their community has accomplished in America. And being a member of the largest ethnic group in America as a German, I'm proud of what Germans have accomplished in America. But I'm not proud to be German just because I'm German, but because of what we've done in America and the country that Germany has become post-World War II as one of the greatest liberal democracies in the world.

As far as God Bless America: I'm an Agnostic myself not Lutheran or Catholic as Germans trend to be, so I'm not a fan of that expression. Especially when it comes from politicians especially career politicians who believe they can do whatever the hell they want to ( but I do believe in hell ) because they represent a deeply religious community and believe that if their voters believe they're devoutly religious and moral, that's all they'll need to do get reelected .

But I believe in free speech which covers religion and other personal beliefs and as voters if we don't like hearing that or believe we're getting played by some slick Willy politician who when they say that, we can always hold them accountable and look to see if that politician actually lives by the religion that they claim and doesn't have a handful of mistresses on the side and a fixer to pay them to keep them silent, while they bitch about the so-called immorality of others and then act accordingly.

Pride, whether it's ethnic, national or anything else, should be about what people accomplish themselves or what others have accomplished for themselves that people around them are proud of. Parents being proud their son or daughter graduated college, got married to someone they love and respect, had kids that made them grandparents. Things that we accomplish or that others accomplish around us that make us proud for them.

We shouldn't be proud because of how we born or buying one of the first 5 new I-Phones, or getting 1000 friends on Facebook, when maybe we only personally know 100 of those people and are only in contact we maybe 50 of them. And as far as God Bless America: again, we have a First Amendment and that means hearing things we don't like and that doesn't even make sense in many cases.

The National Review: Kevin D. Williamson: 'FDR's Nationalism Presaged Donald Trump's'

Source:The National Review- "President Franklin Roosevelt delivers a fireside chat from the White House, 1933 (National Archives)" President Franklin D. Roosevelt (Democrat, New York) 32nd President of the United States.

"Professor Samuel H. Beer of Harvard, once a speechwriter for Franklin Roosevelt, lived nearly a century, from 1911 to 2007. If he’d lived a bit longer, he might have made a good speechwriter for Donald Trump."

From The National Review

I don't want to sound like I'm trying to offend, but Kevin Williamson's who I tend to respect at least politically, has nationalism and progressivism, mixed up with a what I call unitarianism and not the religion, but in governmental sense.

Source: Wall Street Journal- Donald J. Trump, the first Nationalist POTUS 

The United States unlike the United Kingdom and like the Federal Republic of Germany is a federal republic. We have decentralization of governmental power in America. We have checks and balances, as well as branches of government. National, state, and local, and in many cases Americans tend to live under two local government's. County and city and if you live in the City of Los Angeles, or in Chicago (to use as examples) you know exactly what's that life. Since the City of Los Angeles is part of Los Angeles County and Chicago is part of Cook County.

Source: IZ Quotes- Truer words have never been said than what Sydney Harris said here 

In a country that has a unitarian government or is a unitarian state like Britain, most of the governmental power, but not all is centralized with the national government in London. 

The U.K. Government runs the education system for Britain, as well as health care and health insurance for the entire country. Whereas in America each state even city, county has their own public education system and make their own governmental decisions for all other local matters that go on in their local jurisdiction and state.

President Franklin Roosevelt, was neither a Nationalist or a Unitarian when it came to government policy. The man led us along with our allies through World War II and saved the European Jews from ethnic destruction from the German Nazis. 

If FDR was a Nationalist, we would've stayed out of Europe and perhaps Japan as well, especially if he were truly a Democratic Socialist who didn't believe in government force and a strong military during World War II.

According to Wikipedia

"Nationalism is a political, social and economic system characterized by the promotion of the interests of a particular nation, especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining sovereignty (self-governance) over the homeland. The political ideology of nationalism holds that a nation should govern themselves, free from outside interference and is linked to the concept of self-determination. Nationalism is further oriented towards developing and maintaining a national identity based on shared, social characteristics, such as culture and language, religion and politics, and a belief in a common ancestry.[1][2] Nationalism, therefore, seeks to preserve a nation's culture, by way of pride in national achievements, and is closely linked to patriotism, which, in some cases, includes the belief that the nation should control the country's government and the means of production."

President Franklin Roosevelt, was a Progressive in the true sense of the term. Someone who believed in progress and that progress could obtained through government action. That government could be used to promote and achieve progress in the country. 

FDR inherited the Great Depression and believed government should be used to help Americans through the Great Depression with things like Unemployment Insurance and Social Security, but that government could also be used to help us get out of the Great Depression and back to strong economy health. 

Pre-New Deal, there was no public safety net or a national infrastructure system of any kind and with President Roosevelt we saw the Federal Government pay for the financing of American roads and other infrastructure projects in America.

If FDR was a Unitarian or Socialist, he would've nationalized the public education system in and all public welfare policy would be complete run by the Federal Government. No more local public hospitals, because now the Feds would be running those hospitals, as well as public housing, no more private health insurance.

Under FDR the Federal Government got a lot bigger and spent more money than it did before especially as it related to the economy, but our National Security State was also created under FDR and we became a world economic, military, and diplomatic power under FDR. Because he was a liberal internationalist who believed in a strong America both at home and abroad. 

Democratic Socialists, who tend to be very dovish on foreign policy and national security. FDR, was a Progressive Democrat in the truest and best sense of the word, he did put limits on what government should do and try to do and who also believed in individual success in America.

Law & Order: Season 17- Talking Points: Featuring Charlotte Ross & Ron Silver

Source: Law & Order- Ron Silver & Louis Cancelmi, on Law & Order Talking Points. 

“Judith Barlow (guest star Charlotte Ross, “NYPD Blue”), a controversial speaker, participates in a question-and-answer at Gramercy College when the stage is mobbed, a gun is fired and one student is found dead. Detectives Ed Green (Jesse L. Martin) and Nina Cassady (Milena Govich) question the victim’s friend Malcolm Yates (guest star Louis Cancelmi), an older PhD student who creates human embryos to harvest stem cells. It is discovered that Yates has Parkinson’s disease and finds Barlow’s tactics as a direct threat to his job and life. But Yates, aided by his attorney, Bernie Adler (guest star Ron Silver, “The West Wing”), is not afraid to play up his illness to get sympathy from the jury. S. Epatha Merkerson, Sam Waterston and Fred Dalton Thompson also star.”

From Law & Order

Just on a personal note first, I'm a huge fan of Law & Order. It was one of 3-5 network shows that I watched regularly in the 1990s when I was in high school and just out of high school. It always had a great cast, great storylines, great writing, plots, guest stars like Charlotte Ross and Ron Silver in the Talking Points episode. We're talking about one of the most popular and best TV series that has ever come out of Hollywood and certainly one of the best series that NBC has ever produced along with their great sitcoms from the 1980s and Columbo before that.

Source: Charlotte Ross- Charlotte Ross, as Judith Barlow on Law & Order Talking Points 

And a few weeks ago I'm flipping around the tube after just finishing work and getting and eating dinner and I see a Law & Order marathon on ION-TV ( I guess it's called ) and if you're familiar with that network you know they only show old TV reruns and reruns in general. They've produced maybe one TV series of their own which is Private Eyes which is still on. And each night during the week they do a marathon of reruns for one particular TV series. On Wednesday it's Law & Order all day and all night. TNT, has a similar Law & Order marathon late Tuesday and Saturday night as well. Every other week and sometimes every week.

Source: Getty Images- Sam Waterston, as NYC Executive Asst. DA Jack McCoy 

So, watching this Law & Order marathon on ION 3-4 weeks ago is where I came across the Talking Points episode which is one of my favorite LO episodes or I wouldn't be writing about it, because it was so perfect with the times of the late 2000s. This show came out in 2007 when free speech and political correctness were real issues on campus and where you had controversial right-wing authors and speakers, talk show hosts, like Charlotte Ross's character on this show, speaking on college campuses that tend to be dominated by left-wing students who believed that controversial right-wing speakers didn't have a right to speak, at least at their school and to them.

Source: ION Television- Jesse Martin & Milena Govich, on Law & Order's Talking Points episode 

Judith Barlow, ( played by Charlotte Ross ) is controversial right-wing author and speaker who speaks on college campuses and is basically the Ann Coulter of this show who says nasty things to piss people off and to sell her books and other writings. She gives a speech on campus at a New York college to a bunch of leftist students ( to be kind ) who perhaps believe she doesn't have a right to her own opinion and perhaps not familiar with the First Amendment which unfortunately wouldn't have been in common back during the 2000s or certainly today. She goes too far at least for one particular student there and he not just brings a gun to this event but fires it into the crowd trying to shoot her and instead shoots and kills and innocent bystander there. Obviously not the work of a professional hitman.

The star of this show is Charlotte Ross, not the only star, but the star of this particular show. Ron Silver, does a great job playing the defense lawyer here, Fred Thompson is still on the show as the District Attorney, with Sam Waterston as his deputy and Alana De Le Garza has his assistant. Jesse Martin, as the lead NYPD Detective on the case, Milena Govich as his partner. Like I said before, Law & Order always had a great cast and both as far as regulars and as guest stars and Talking Points is a perfect example of that. But Charlotte Ross, on this show plays Ann Coulter better than Ann Coulter plays herself, but is a helluva lot better looking and so much cuter and sexier as she normally is and perhaps even funnier than Ann Coulter who also has a good wit, when she's not a witch from hell.