Assorted Nurses 5

My Love An Altar by Joan Sargent (1963) Ace D-582
San Francisco Nurse by Barbara Grabendike (1964) Ace D-586
Nurse Elaine and the Sapphire Star by Sharon Heath (1973) Ace 59537
Everglades Nurse by Peggy Gaddis (1965) MacFadden 40-161
Student Nurse by Renee Shann (1961) Dell D-260




Ann/otations 3


"Be still thralls, for I am about to speak."
Another installment in our attempt to explicate the unique logic, caustic prose, and insightful analysis of Republican performance artist Ann Coulter, gleaned from her "Seriously, I didn't write this in 15 minutes before heading out to a 5-Star Manhattan bistro" columns published weekly in Human Events. In this week's episode, Ms. Coulter must debunk a viral Facebook post by reminding us that all Democrats are liars, even if they work for the Wall St. Journal. 

 Figures Don’t Lie: Democrats Do

If you follow the rightwing blogosphere with any regularity, you soon realize that wingnuts believe the word Democrat is wholly synonymous with “liar”—all the time, no exceptions, throughout all of human history (indeed, as understanding the historical malleability of political positions and parties is brain-hurting, wingnuts find it much easier to project a Manichean struggle of leftist D’s and righty R’s all the way back  through history to when Jesus first tamed the dinosaurs.  Thus did the Son of God come to earth to cut our taxes, only to be betrayed by Judas (D-Galilee) who wanted to earmark a Museum of Roman Sex Toys for his home district). 

Coulter herself can take much credit for this branding, having incorporated the words “Demonic,” “Guilty,” “Godless,” “Treason,” and “Slander” into her book titles (her upcoming book, Scumfuck Rapists, is reportedly out for copy-editing).  Now you know this is a joke, and Coulter most certainly knows this is all in well-paying fun.  But after a decade of reading this dross, Coulter’s fans have gradually lost all ability to discern pandering hyperbole, and now take it as a matter of faith that any Democrat—even the local dog catcher—is a treasonous minion of Satan.  Coulter’s title reminds us of this fundamental premise: all Democrats are liars.   

(1). It's been breaking news all over MSNBC, liberal blogs, newspapers and even The Wall Street Journal: "Federal spending under Obama at historic lows ... It's clear that Obama has been the most fiscally moderate president we've had in 60 years."

There is apparently a new story and/or study demonstrating that President Obama has, contrary to wingnut dogma, actually worked to reduce the rate of Federal spending over his first term.  I will now find that study and read it so we might know what has Ms. Coulter in an ersatz lather this week.  Hold on, please.

As it turns out, Ms. Coulter’s need to rally the troops here stems from a threat more pressing than a mere MSNBC story.  There is apparently a Facebook posting that has gone viral demonstrating in fairly easy to understand terms that Obama is in fact NOT burning $1000 bills in the Rose Garden and wafting the smoke over to Maryland in the hope of causing a few spontaneous abortions.    

(2) There's even a chart!

Yes, there is.  Coulter’s no idiot, and she knows that a clear, concise graphic might actually have an impact, even with those loyal readers who look up to Ms. Coulter for instruction as to what not to believe.  Even worse, the legions of terrified elderly that comprise a significant segment of Coulter’s readership could actually have grandsons or granddaughters who, in theory, might send this chart to Gammy as an email attachment.  So the entire idea of a “chart” must be dismissed, which Ms. Coulter executes here through the sarcastic use of an exclamation point.  Crucially, Coulter herself does not reproduce said chart in her own article, even as she mocks it, realizing that even a fleeting glance at this graphic might sow a seed of doubt in the field of dimwits she has so carefully cultivated over the years.   

Here, for point of reference, is the viral posting (with chart!) that Ms. Coulter cannot allow her readers to see.


On the left side, an IBM punch-card passes through the Romnoid sprocket assembly and replicates a standard statement about Obama spending Federal money like a drunken socialist sailor.   On the right, meanwhile, is the potentially damaging chart that demonstrates this statement is more wish than fact.  In this comparison of the growth in Federal spending under the past five Presidents, please note that Obama’s rate of growth is actually the lowest (1.4), followed by Clinton (3.2 and 3.9).  Adding insult to injury, the really big Federal spender here is Reagan in his first term (8.7), although Coulter would no doubt justify that spending spree as it helped put a boot up the former Soviet Union’s economically unstable buttocks. 

Now remember, Ms. Coulter’s readers have not seen this chart—ideally, their only access to this information will be the frame provided below by Ms Coulter herself.   They have seen, however, a statement claiming Obama has actually slowed down the growth of Federal spending to an historic low.  This sets Ms. Coulter up for a very humorous “gag:” 

(3) I'll pause here to give you a moment to mop up the coffee on your keyboard. Good? OK, moving on ...

The above is a writer’s strategy for implying a kind of “spit-take,” that classic of stage and screen wherein a character is so surprised at receiving outrageous and/or shocking information that he “spits” out his beverage.  Jerry Lewis was very good at this gag, and Jon Stewart uses it quite often on The Daily Show, typically in “quotation marks.” Crucially, Coulter implies here that her readers will do a “spit-take,” not because they might be surprised to see that the growth of Federal spending has been very low under Obama; but rather, because they will be shocked that anyone would dare offer evidence contradicting something they feel so passionately to be true.   

(4) This shocker led to around-the-clock smirk fests on MSNBC.

I need to go boom-boom.
A note on style: Looking at this sentence, writer to writer, I would have suggested going with this subtle change: “This shocker led to AN around-the-clock smirk FEST on MSNBC.”  Identifying a singular “fest” would imply more unity of ideological action on the part of the MSNBC smirk team rather than fleeting, intermittent fests of smirk scattered across the schedule.  For example, if Fox suddenly found a video of Joe Biden kicking a retired Army mine-sniffing dog, I would write, “This has led to an around-the-clock outrage orgasm at Fox” and not, “This has led to around-the-clock outrage orgasms at Fox.”  The individual orgasms various Fox hosts might have at the sight of Biden kicking an old Army dog are not nearly as vivid or damning as the collective orgasm one might attribute to an entire organization, from Ailes all the way down to the interns charged with escorting Brian Kilmeade to the potty during commercial breaks. 

(5) As with all bogus social science from the left, liberals hide the numbers and proclaim: It's "science"! This is black and white, inarguable, and why do Republicans refuse to believe facts?

Ms. Coulter has some tricky maneuvering to do here.  She might simply dismiss all “social science” as “bogus,” but as we’ll see, she needs to invoke a conservative economist later in the piece, so very carefully she specifies that only social science from the LEFT is bogus (a big surprise, I know).  The portion in italics (hers, not mine), however, allows her embattled readership to rehearse previous traumatic exchanges they’ve had with friends, neighbors, and family who have dared challenge their conservative belief system by appeals to “science” and “fact.”   “But Dad, why is God no longer making us with wisdom teeth?”  “Aren’t the Bush tax cuts the single biggest hole in the deficit?”  “Sorry Grandma, but most folks think the GM bailout worked out pretty well.”  Stung by these frequent invocations of troublesome “facts,” wingnuts need Ms. Coulter’s reassurance here that she understands their italicized pain, that she knows what it’s like to have annoying liberals make reference to books, charts, and experts rather than feelings, fears, and intuition. 

(6)  Ed Schultz claimed the chart exposed "the big myth" about Obama's spending: "This chart -- the truth -- very clearly shows the truth undoubtedly." And the truth was, the "growth in spending under President Obama is the slowest out of the last five presidents."

Note that Schultz also said that the "part of the chart representing President Obama's term includes a stimulus package, too." As we shall see, that is a big, fat lie.

Wisely, Ms. Coulter diverts here from Marketwatch, The Wall St. Journal, and the other media sources that reported this story to focus exclusively on MSNBC.  This is because, for Coulter’s readers, anything that appears on MSNBC is false.  Tit-for-tatters might say, well isn’t that just the same way liberals feel about Fox?  Don’t liberals assume everything on Fox is propaganda?  For the most part, yes.  However, even I am willing to entertain the possibility that Steve Doocy really does find a Fox and Friends recipe for “whiskey-infused hush puppies” genuinely delicious.  If, on the other hand, Mika Brzezinski commented that the traffic in New York had been really bad that morning, Coulter’s readers would have no choice but to read this as a veiled socialist demand for more Federal money supporting public transit.

(7) Schultz's guest, Reuters columnist David Cay Johnston confirmed: "And clearly, Obama has been incredibly tight-fisted as a president."

Everybody's keyboard OK?

See note #3.

(8)  On her show, Rachel Maddow proclaimed: "Factually speaking, spending has leveled off under President Obama. Spending is not skyrocketing under President Obama. Spending is flattening out under President Obama."

In response, three writers from "The Daily Show" said, "We'll never top that line," and quit.

As an out lesbian with a Ph.D. from Berkeley, Maddow might appear to be the sine qua non of conservative pants-shitting.  They don’t like her, that’s true—but the real dig here is at The Daily Show. 

One of the things I’ve discovered in recent tussling with righties in the blogosphere is that they really, really hate The Daily Show.  They think Jon Stewart is nothing less than the new Joseph Goebbels—not content to simply smear the right and promote the godless liberal agenda—but also possessed of a singular vision to one day censor Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, and others by banning them from the airwaves.  They believe this whole-heartedly, even though the prospect of Stewart advancing from basic-cable satirist to  extra-Constitutional Minister of Information is remote at best.  Given this odd paranoia, the right has several strategies for dismissing Stewart, most often focused on the following claims:
                       
1.     He’s an idiot.
2.     He’s a puppet for the Obama administration
3.     He’s a narcissist who laughs at his own jokes.
4.     His show actually has very bad ratings.
     a). only a handful of liberals watch TDS.
     b)  this insignificant handful of liberals is nevertheless
                 “destroying” America.

I think this anger stems, in large part, from the fact that there are no funny conservatives.  The nearest equivalent to Stewart on the right would probably be Dennis Miller (who famously became a conservative after seeing a few lefty cranks violate “Godwin’s Law,” and yet seems to have no problem with his new frat house calling Obama the “Gay--Muslim—Socialist—Affirmative Action—Hitler” (just for point of record, none of these labels are actually insulting until, once again, we get to Hitler, but they are all most certainly inaccurate). 

Typically when righties whine about there being no good conservative satire on television, they proceed from the fatal misconception that “comedy” targeting the powerless or the historically disadvantaged might actually be funny.  Saying, as Letterman did recently, that “Mitt Romney pulled a groin muscle hiking to the top of his cash” is funny because it evokes a Scrooge McDuck wholly oblivious to the deprivations of everyday life facing everyday duckmericans.  On the other hand, saying that Sandra Fluke is a “slut,” as Rush Limbaugh famously did, is only funny if you are an asshole.  On one conservative comment thread attacking The Daily Show, I actually saw someone complaining that Stewart was making more George Zimmerman jokes than Trayvon Martin jokes, that he wasn’t being “balanced” in his satire, believing apparently that an unarmed teenager who got shot and killed for minding his own business and going to the local 7-11 was somehow getting a “free ride” at the hands of the lamestream media.  I invite you to imagine just how hilarious such riffing on Martin's hoodie and THC levels might be. 


(9)  Inasmuch as this is obviously preposterous, I checked with John Lott, one of the nation's premier economists and author of the magnificent new book with Grover Norquist: "Debacle: Obama's War on Jobs and Growth and What We Can Do Now to Regain Our Future." (I'm reviewing it soon, but you should start without me.)

Remember, only “social science” from the left is “bogus,” thus allowing Ms. Coulter to consult with John Lott, an economist who is not only “premier,” but also a co-author with Grover Norquist (which just as quickly puts this “premier” status in doubt—in fact, a quick Net search reveals that “premier” economist Lott is actually best known for his books on gun fetishism, which I guess is a little like being a “premier” surgeon famous for promoting the swinger lifestyle).    

Raise taxes and I'll Tea Party you. 
Lott’s co-author, Norquist, you might recall, is the GOP puppet-master who, at the age of 12, had a vision that taxes are in all cases a bad thing, much like a mandatory bedtime, and must be resisted whenever and wherever possible, presumably even in the face of an intergalactic attack on earth (“Let the free market decide how to repel the Zalacticons!”).  In a darkly comic sort of way, Norquist’s ability to compel almost every single conservative lawmaker to sign his ‘tweener” anti-tax pledge is somewhat hilarious, much like having a CDC director out there still fighting the war on “cooties” and forcing everyone to sign her picture of David Cassidy.  But like that episode of The Twilight Zone where everyone has to do what little telekinetic Billy Mumy tells them to, the real world impact of Norquist’s pre-adolescent dream has not been so funny (Samantha Bee's demolition of Norquist on Comrade Stewart's TDS is well worth the time, if you somehow missed it).

Should we listen to Lott?  Consider the title of his book: Obama’s “War on Jobs and Growth.”  Again, Coulter and her ilk can’t simply disagree about policy, but must instead see every political opponent as engaged in nothing less than insurrection, evil, and active sabotage.  Lott and Norquist invite us to imagine Obama in an “Economic War Room,” pushing around Monopoly pieces on one of those WWII-style table maps, laughing maniacally as his “war on jobs” sweeps across the nation (if Obama has declared a “war on jobs,” it would appear he’s not doing a very good job himself given that the nation has experienced almost two straight years of job growth—perhaps a seance with Saul Alinsky is in order). 

Given this title, we must come to one of the following conclusions about Lott:
1.     He is another wingnut idiot.
2.     He was actually once a respected economist, but having grown tired of the pay afforded to respected economists, has decided to throw his lot in with Norquist and the other vultures preying on the lunatic fringe of the GOP.

I’ll let you decide which is worse.

(10).  It turns out Rex Nutting, author of the phony Marketwatch chart, attributes all spending during Obama's entire first year, up to Oct. 1, to President Bush.

That's not a joke.

Here we get into some admittedly complicated definitional matters about whose budget takes effect when, and no doubt both sides are engaged in a little fudgery to push their talking points.  Coulter, for example, wants Obama to take on the debt of all the TARP money appropriated by Bush, since Obama had the temerity to actually spend the second installment of these funds rather than simply issue a yacht-storage rebate back to the top 1%.

Here I will defer to a generally objective judge, the folks over at PolitiFact.  No doubt most righties will argue that PolitiFact, in its attempt to deal in facts not feelings, is in the tank for the Left—but we should remember that no less a Stalinist than Rachel Maddow herself has refused to use PolitiFact as a source anymore because of their conservative bias.

Here is PolitiFact’s finding on the matter:

Using raw dollars, Obama did oversee the lowest annual increases in spending of any president in 60 years.

Using inflation-adjusted dollars, Obama had the second-lowest increase -- in fact, he actually presided over a decrease once inflation is taken into account.

Bottom line: The Facebook post’s claim that government spending under Obama is "slower than at any time in nearly 60 years" is very close to accurate.

I’d go on from here, but let’s face it, we’re both getting bored.  Plus, it’s much more fun to cut Coulter off just as she’s about to present her damning evidence via John “Guns are freakin’ awesome” Lott—data that Politifact has just refuted.   

See you next time if either of us can still stand it.

Ten Ignoble Departures from SNL

Many TV fans got misty-eyed this weekend at the sentimental farewell to 7-year SNL veteran Kristin Wiig.  Pulled on stage as a graduating senior by Mick Jagger, Wiig was treated to heartfelt versions of "She's a Rainbow" and "Ruby Tuesday," which all agreed were somehow appropriate to the situation.  Less remembered, however, are some of the more embarrassing final SNL appearances over the years.  Below, a quick recap, ranked in no particular order of ignominy:

1. Remembered primarily for his mute takes on pop second-bananas like John Oates and Andrew Ridgeley, Chris Mattelback ('06-07) left SNL after only two seasons. As a going-away tribute, fellow cast members stood in a silent circle during the final commercial break of the '07 season, miming a round of pretend sarcastic applause.  A confused Mattelback returned to his dressing room only to find his pink slip. 

2. Roundly despised by her fellow cast members in the 1986-87 season, Melissa Morgan ('86-87) arrived at 30 Rock for the new fall season only to find a cardboard box with all her personal effects dumped on the main stage.  Her fellow cast members had taken the time and effort, however, to each piss on the box individually.  The usually mild-mannered Jan Hooks felt so strongly about the matter as to leave a deuce in Morgan's "ridiculous goddamned potpourri basket."

3. Bemused by his unrelenting demands to "alienate' the audience with more confrontational material, SNL writers duped "conceptual" comedian Mike Hunt ('79-'80) into a bit where he pretended to join a a very real SLA splinter-cell and then lead a fake press conference denouncing Lorne Michaels as a counter-revolutionary pedophile.  From 1981 to 1987, Hunt continued his performance at the Leavenworth Federal Penitentiary.  He is now believed to operate an organic food cart on the campus of Arizona State University.

4. A notorious gambler, Groundlings wunderkind Chad Thompson ('95-98) simply went missing in the middle of his third season.  Most assume he is now part of a parking structure somewhere in Newark.

5.  Candy Mellons ('81-82) was one of the few SNL members forced on the cast by nebulous "higher-ups" at NBC.  Mellons specialized in playing strippers, prostitutes, and bar floozies, usually with only a single line or no dialogue at all.  Unhappy with her typecasting, Mellons left the show over "creative differences" when the writing staff refused to consider her sketch, "Busty Life-Vest Tester," a bit about a woman who has such large breasts that she proves very ineffective in her job testing life vests.

6.  After a notorious Rolling Stone interview in which he claimed to be the emerging creative voice on the show, Dirk Madigan ('89-90) was beaten to death by three unknown cast members wielding pillow cases stuffed with oranges and bars of soap.  In a tribute to the SNL code, the identities of Madigan's killers remain unknown to this very day.

7.  In a case still widely debated by Forteans the world over, 1986 SNL-rookie Bill Katarski can be seen apparently combusting spontaneously during the closing credits of that year's Thanksgiving episode (NBC would later respond to the rumor by claiming this "explosion" was an optical illusion produced by a smoking light gel).  Producers announced early in 1987 that Katarski had left to pursue a movie career, but as he not been seen since, the mystery still lingers.

8.  Though he has largely rehabilitated himself through his stellar performances on NBC's 30-Rock and ABC's Suburgatory, it was curtains for Chris Parnell ('98-06) when he interrupted a live sketch by stumbling onto the set, nude, with his penis stuck in a bottle of Jack Daniels.

9. Vince "Bones" Costellini ('02-04) briefly rocketed to fame during the 2003 season with his character "Tony, the mafia guy who really, really likes to watch big trucks unloading at the dock," best-known for his catchphrase, "Whoa, whadda load!  Costellini looked to have a bright future at SNL--until his odd detour into an unscripted rant about the holocaust during an otherwise forgettable Jeopardy parody.

10.  Six minutes into an eight minute sketch about "The Rebarbs," a typical American family where each member just happened to have a two-foot section of rebarb through the skull, journeyman character player Keith Wyndam ('02-05) suddenly dropped to his knees, produced a hari-kari knife, and looked to the heavens mouthing, "This is for you, Del."  Alert stagehands jumped Wyndam before any blood was spilled, and the troubled player was immediately escorted to Bellevue. But his protest was not in vain.  SNL's writers retired "The Rebarbs," replacing them with a new recurring skit about a typical family that incorporated a variety of dildos and vibrators in their daily lives, apparently without understanding the sexual function of these items.

Ann/otations 2


It is my contention that Ann Coulter is one of the greatest performance artists of our era, portraying a "sassy" pundit who inflames the lust of Republican men who wish their wives had more ideological backbone in combating the various people these men would like to blame for not being everything their very own ideology commands them to be.  

A while back, I vowed to provide an "annotated" version of Coulter's book, Guilty.  Wrestling with Coulter's prose in such large portions, however, proved both daunting and depressing.  So instead, I have decided to sign up for Coulter's weekly column at Human Events, which happily comes in much more digestible nuggets of noxiousness.  By annotating these smaller columns, I hope I can keep readers of this blog informed as to Ann's latest "performances" while not actually driving myself insane in the process.

A special note to conservative readers: Given that modern American conservatism has now become indistinguishable from paranoid schizophrenia, there will be no attempt made here to "persuade" or "convince" you of anything.  Rather, much as one might address a co-worker who suddenly professes a belief that extraterrestrials are filling his head with voices telling him to kill the neighbor's dog, the following will proceed from the assumption that logic and reason are of little use in convincing you of anything, and that your best hope resides in a carefully monitored regimen of Haldol or Thorazine. I'm so sorry.  If somehow appeals to cooperative reason and socio-economic justice prevail in the future, we will try to send a time machine back to rescue the rest of you from yourselves.  Until then, good luck.  Also, I think someone on your local public access station just suggested adding a penny in sales tax to help clean up that toxic dump site that's been festering out by the Johnson place and breeding all them mutant super-raccoons---your time might be better spent writing a letter about how the free market is the only way to deal with the mutant super-raccoon problem, and that you'll shoot any city animal control officer who comes on your property to implement a socialist "one-size-fits-all" campaign of mutant super-raccoon eradication. 
_____________________________________

In this week's column, Ann wants us to know that "public sector" workers are all leaches.  

AC: black
LD: red

The real class warfare in this country isn't rich vs. poor, it's government employees vs. we, the taxpayers, who pay their salaries.

Government workers, who help prevent airplanes from crashing into each other, put out apartment fires, and teach special-needs children, should either work for free or have their jobs privatized.  There is also the assumption that those working for the government, who are in fact also “taxpayers,” simply siphon money away from the “real” American taxpayers, and then spend this money by purchasing goods and services in an alternate universe that is also somehow wholly unrelated to the overall American economy. 

Working for the government is supposed to be a trade-off: You can't be fired and don't have to exert yourself, but you will receive smaller remuneration than in the private sector, where layoffs are common (especially in the Obama economy!). Instead, government jobs are safe, secure, pressure-free -- and now, amazingly lucrative!

Here Coulter repeats the beloved Republican canard that all public workers are lazy, like the snow plow driver who gets up at 3:00am to clear the very streets in Manhattan Coulter will later walk that day, or the various technicians necessary to make sure SSN and Medicare checks are processed on time each month for the millions who depend on them.  There is also the insinuation that a “lack of job security” is in fact a good thing, because nothing motivates an employee better than the constant fear of being fired.

Whether it's in Wisconsin, Illinois, California or the nation's capital, today's public sector workers expect to do little or no work (I'm not counting partying in Las Vegas as "work"), and then be lavishly compensated. Often, the only heavy lifting they do all week is picking up their paychecks.

Here Ann is making a joke about the recent GSA scandal where government workers were found “partying” in Las Vegas on the public dollar, implying that elementary school teachers in Wisconsin or librarians in Illinois are also regularly jetting off to Monte Carlo to get high and score prostitutes.  There is also a strategic decision here not to discuss how the cost of similar partying on the part of HMO presidents, Bankers, or even Snack Cake Magnates is also passed along to the consumer in the pricing of their various products.  

Ann also makes the hilarious joke that paychecks for government workers are so HUGE that they are in fact HEAVY to lift, even though we all know that a check for one penny weighs about the same as one for a million dollars.  This is the kind of joke that children enjoy quite a bit, especially as they are first acquiring language.  

When government employees mobbed the state capitol in Wisconsin last year, the upside was: They got to bully people. The downside: Voters finally found out what these public servants were being paid.

Their compensation included not only straight salary, but also lavish overtime benefits, pensions, health care plans, sick days and vacation time (most of which they spent protesting).

Here Ann identifies the following as outlandish job perks: overtime, a pension, health insurance, sick days, and vacation days.  The ideal Republican worker, by contrast, would work as much as demanded by his or her employer until that first prolonged illness caused termination.  In the meantime, there would be no retirement or health plan.  But if you were to make it past a year without getting sick, don't expect any vacation time either, you freeloader.
  
In typical conservative reverso-logic, Coulter maintains the fiction that union protesters are in the tradition of bullies, whereas the various historical forces that have shot, hosed, arrested, burned, and otherwise confronted unions with extreme violence over the years are in actuality a litter of sweet fluffy kittens. 

The unions thought they could fight back against Gov. Scott Walker's tiny pension rollbacks without anyone finding out the details. Most people saw what public employees were getting and assumed it was a misprint.

Two years ago, seven bus drivers in Madison, Wis., made more than $100,000 a year.

Here Coulter finds the seven bus drivers with the highest levels of seniority in Madison, and calls them out for being a drain on the public coffers.  It would appear, in Coulter’s world, that even if a person does a job and does it well for, say, forty or fifty years—his or her salary should never move a dime over the original paycheck—at least for those in the public sector.  Better to train a new batch of bus drivers every 3 years and keep them at low wages.  A middle-age bus driver--who may have no real skills beyond driving his bus through the streets of Madison really, really well--should be reminded that at any moment he can be replaced by a surly 24-year old who will work for half the salary, even if that means occasionally sliding a bus or two into Lake Mendota. 

A few years before that, we found out that the city manager of little Bell, Calif. -- per capita annual income $24,800 -- was making $787,637, or including benefits: $1.5 million a year. The chief of police was getting $457,000 a year -- $770,046 counting benefits -- making him the first chief of police to commit highway robbery on the job. The assistant city manager was taking home $376,288 per year, for a total compensation package of $845,960.

All were Democrats, the party of Big Government.

It seems like only seconds ago we were defending Scott Walker’s “tiny pension rollbacks” against an evil cabal of Madison bus drivers, but here Coulter cherry-picks the single most visible case of local corruption in the entire country and presents it as business-as-usual in all public sector jobs. 

Speaking of which -- whatever happened to that investigation Gov. Jerry Brown was launching into these thieving public servants drawing million-dollar pensions from California taxpayers? The Bell scandal broke during the California gubernatorial race between Meg Whitman and Jerry Brown, who was then state attorney general. Brown vowed a no-holds-barred inquiry.

Anyone seen his report yet?

Jerry Brown will demand to see Obama's birth certificate before he will call for a rollback of these undeserved, million-dollar government pensions.

For the latest in the Bell investigations, we can go to Wiki: 

In September 2010, the California Attorney General's office filed a lawsuit against eight former and current City of Bell employees, requesting the return of what the suit calls "excessive salaries" as well a reduction in pension benefits accrued as a result of those higher salaries.  Allegations about irregularities in the 2009 election also were examined by the FBI and California Secretary of State office. The city's high property taxes are also being investigated.

All of the above occurred while Brown was still in the AG post, so I’m not sure what Coulter is talking about here. 

Less than 20 percent of private sector employees get pensions. Most people save their own money for retirement -- for example, through 401(k)s. By contrast, government employees expect to be paid by us for the rest of their lives.

Former representative and amateur home pornographer Anthony Weiner was a member of Congress until he resigned last June in order to spend more time with his hard drive. He will probably end up collecting about a million dollars from his 80 percent taxpayer-funded government pension.

This is funny because we all saw those pictures of Anthony Weiner’s dick, and that was even funnier than it might have been precisely because his name was Weiner, a commonly accepted synonym for the "penis."   Here I can sympathize.  Writing 800 words a week is pretty tough, so all your points and/or jokes can’t be top quality.  Thank god for the dick joke!

These are the "1 percent" deserving of the public's wrath: We're paying their salaries. We weren't taxed to pay Mitt Romney's salary at Bain Capital. We aren't taxed to pay the salaries of Jamie Dimon or Alex Rodriguez. Anthony Weiner? Him, we pay for.

Coulter is on dangerous ground here.  While many New Yorkers are no doubt very angry that they will have to continue paying Weiner’s pension (much as they do so for Mark "Pages do it between the Covers" Foley and Larry "Wide-stance" Craig), I’m not sure using Alex Rodriguez as the "free market’ counter-example is necessarily a good idea.  

It is true, however, that New Yorkers are not “taxed” to pay Alex Rodriquez’s salary—instead, they are asked to pay $100 bucks for a seat and $10 for a hot dog at Yankee Stadium. 

Government employees expect to live like something out of the czar's court -- and then have us admire them as if they're Rosa Parks.

Czar is a great code-word for conservatives.  They believe Obama has surrounded himself with a thousand poobahs lounging on pillows who all consider themselves above the law and eligible for huge government salaries.  The fact that Bush, Jr. actually began the whole “czar” thing and actually had more of them on staff does not seem to phase them, for this is how they think. 

Coulter also implies that all public service workers see themselves as Rosa Parks, the famous civil rights icon.  I guess this means they all have an inflated sense of their self-worth.  This is much like saying a “free market” worker at the Foot Locker goes to the job each day thinking he’s Adam Smith, which is to say, it means nothing.

At the 2008 Democratic National Convention, Barack and Michelle Obama both paid heartfelt tributes to themselves for passing up money-grubbing private sector jobs to work in "public service."

In her speech, Michelle boasted that she had "tried to give back to this country."

"... That's why I left a job at a law firm for a career in public service, working to empower young people to volunteer in their communities."

She was hired by the University of Chicago Hospital as soon as her husband became a state senator. When he was elected to the U.S. Senate, her salary nearly tripled, from $121,910 to $316,962 -- and the junior senator from Illinois returned the favor by sending taxpayer dollars the hospital's way.

By Obama's second year in the U.S. Senate, in 2006, Michelle Obama's compensation from "public service" was approximately $375,000 a year -- more than triple the average salary for a lawyer in the United States with 20 years' experience. 

Lots of weird hocus-pocus above.

Factcheck.org pronounces this story about Michelle Obama's huge salary simply “incorrect,” and based on an anonymous email chain.  Coulter no doubt knows this, but who cares when you have a few hundred thousand knuckle-draggers waiting to rub one out to the latest in  hypocritical liberal impropriety?

It should also be noted that the University of Chicago is a PRIVATE institution, and by Ann’s logic, should be allowed in a free market to pay it’s employees, including Michelle Obama, whatever it would like.  But Ann is banking on the fact that most of her idiotic fans believe anything University related is supported by the taxpayer.  Right now there is a dimwit somewhere reading a copy of Ann's book, Demonic, incensed that his tax dollars helped bankroll the new football uniforms for Harvard.

(America to the Obamas: "You two have sacrificed enough. Please retire and kick back a little!")

Again, Michelle Obama’s salary was privately funded, so this advice to “retire and kick back a little” is nonsensical in a rant about public service workers.

Vice President Joe Biden, long touted as the poorest U.S. senator, took home $248,459 in household income in 2006, including his public school teacher wife's salary, also paid by taxpayers. In 2007, these working poor made $319,853. This puts the couple nearly into the top 1 percent of all earners in the U.S., where the median household income was $48,201 in 2006 and $50,233 in 2007.

The irony here, of course, is that Biden WAS in fact one of the poorest members of the Senate even while remaining well within the 1% of richest Americans.  Rather than meditate on how we are all ruled by the extraordinarily wealthy, from left, right, or center, Coulter instead pulls the "liberal-hypocrite" lever a final time. 

A career in "public service" pays well.

A last bit of easy irony for Ann’s dull-witted readers to process and repeat to their friends and relatives, no doubt with even more distortion and inaccuracy:   “See that guy scraping the dead raccoon off our street?  I hear Joe Biden made it so he’s making $240,000 a year.”