Newt Gingrich Wanks Himself Through the Campaign:
One day, when the history of this elections is written in some oh-so-insidery tome by Mark Halperin or whoever, the campaign of Newt Gingrich will go down as the most sustained public masturbation ever seen. Sure, everyone who runs for president does so at least partly out of ego, the hubris to think that one should lead a nation of 300 odd million people, but, agree or disagree, valiant or vile, one thing you could say about most of them is that they did actually place country above self. You see that in the mostly despicable Rick Santorum. And even though he doesn't have any idea why he believes it, you see it in Mitt Romney, whose campaign is some kind of sociopolitical demonstration of just how much money a thoroughly unlikeable person needs to spend in order to get a nomination.
Not Gingrich, though. Every time he speaks, every idea he utters, it is about the greater glorification of Newt first. If anyone should happen to benefit, well, that's just a collateral effect. It is about a nation that should only exist in his image. So, in the last couple of weeks, Gingrich has been whipping out his dick and jacking it every chance he can. A moonbase tourist destination that simply can't be built for any sane reason? Who cares? Pass the moisturizer and break out the Kleenex, 'cause this cock needs strokin'. It's what Gingrich does. He goes around blowing his load, saying shit that's either deranged and grandiose or pissy and cruel, like when he said that he wouldn't debate Obama with a moderator present. In what world is that gonna happen?
Check out his interview last night on Fox "news" with Sean "My Dwindling Audience of Shut-Ins and Crazy People Think I'm Awesome" Hannity. Here's Gingrich on the Keystone XL pipeline and his first day in office: "I would issue an executive order to build the Keystone pipeline as of that day. And I'm trying to communicate publicly so the people of Canada understand, you don't have to cut a deal with the Chinese. You don't have to go to pipeline across the Rockies. Give us until November, when we beat Obama, you'll have a chance to build that pipeline in January of 2013." You got that? Gingrich is presenting himself as believing that the Canadian government is listening to him and thinking, "Oh, well, of course Newt Gingrich is going to be elected. Fuck all the other plans. We'll just wait, eh?" Whether or not Gingrich actually thinks the Canadians give a happy monkey fuck what he has to say is beside the point. The point was to reach under his barrel-sized belly, grab his AAA battery prick, and yank away. Hannity loved it as Newt jizzed in his face, but that's Hannity, a right-wing cumgobbler of epic appetites.
Gingrich is especially happy when he gets to masturbate in front of live audiences. In Florida, Gingrich outright lied to an audience. He said to a madly cheering crowd who just loved getting sprayed with Newt chowder, "We just got word of a brand new poll that came out about an hour ago that says we're now tied 35-35." The poll was actually a week old. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter that his attacks on Romney are as vicious as Romney's attacks on him as long as he can portray Romney as the villain. It doesn't matter as long as he can keep on masturbating. You can look on in horror and say, "Dude, stop it. Your penis is all raw and chafed and your balls have to hurt," and Gingrich won't care. He knows he's got one more spurt in there somewhere.
Meanwhile, the media, like teenagers with cell phone cameras filming a hobo with his pants around his ankles, jacking off on the subway, wants to keep the show going, all the way to the convention, as Gingrich has threatened. And it doesn't matter if he takes down the entire Republican party with him. Newt demands that you watch him as he gets keeps on masturbating. The eyes and the cheers keep him hard, keep him going until he comes again.
Well, at least we know how Callista keeps her hair so stiff.
In Brief: Fun Quotes About Mitt Romney (Updated):
These are from a Massachusetts newspaper while he was governor of that state from 2003-2007. Essentially, he started running for president as soon as he was elected. And he was always douchey about being a conservative in oh-so liberal Mass:
From the Berkshire Eagle, June 26, 2005: "Romney tried to make his election as governor look like some Herculean political feat in a liberal state like Massachusetts, by saying that he felt like 'a cattle rancher at a vegetarian convention.' He also referred to himself as 'the only red dot in an entirely blue state'...Massachusetts has had four successive Republican governors since 1990. Romney is just one of the faces of these governors. Today there is nothing special about being a Republican governor in this state."
New campaign slogan: Mitt Romney. Nothing special now, either.
From the Berkshire Eagle, June 27, 2006: "The governor's failure to attract new business to the state is one of the reasons he would have faced an uphill re-election fight had he decided to run for office again...His lack of interest in Massachusetts is a major reason why the part-time governor and full-time presidential candidate has no credibility on Beacon Hill, and his failure to understand how government can simultaneously boost both business and the communities they are located in is another."
Or perhaps even better would be: Mitt Romney. Newt may outright stab you in the back, but Mitt will just get bored with you.
These are from a Massachusetts newspaper while he was governor of that state from 2003-2007. Essentially, he started running for president as soon as he was elected. And he was always douchey about being a conservative in oh-so liberal Mass:
From the Berkshire Eagle, June 26, 2005: "Romney tried to make his election as governor look like some Herculean political feat in a liberal state like Massachusetts, by saying that he felt like 'a cattle rancher at a vegetarian convention.' He also referred to himself as 'the only red dot in an entirely blue state'...Massachusetts has had four successive Republican governors since 1990. Romney is just one of the faces of these governors. Today there is nothing special about being a Republican governor in this state."
New campaign slogan: Mitt Romney. Nothing special now, either.
From the Berkshire Eagle, June 27, 2006: "The governor's failure to attract new business to the state is one of the reasons he would have faced an uphill re-election fight had he decided to run for office again...His lack of interest in Massachusetts is a major reason why the part-time governor and full-time presidential candidate has no credibility on Beacon Hill, and his failure to understand how government can simultaneously boost both business and the communities they are located in is another."
Or perhaps even better would be: Mitt Romney. Newt may outright stab you in the back, but Mitt will just get bored with you.
Late Post Today (But Big, Fun Announcement):
Hey, Philadelphia, with your charming murals and obnoxious patriotism and dog-murdering football player, the Rude Pundit will be on stage this Saturday, Feb. 4 at 8 p.m. at the Merriam Theater as part of the Stephanie Miller Sexy Liberal Tour, featuring the aforementioned Ms. Miller, Hal Sparks, and John Fugelsang. He'll be part of the panel of wonders in the last part of the show.
So get your fuckin' tickets now.
Back later with more cantankerous rudeness.
Hey, Philadelphia, with your charming murals and obnoxious patriotism and dog-murdering football player, the Rude Pundit will be on stage this Saturday, Feb. 4 at 8 p.m. at the Merriam Theater as part of the Stephanie Miller Sexy Liberal Tour, featuring the aforementioned Ms. Miller, Hal Sparks, and John Fugelsang. He'll be part of the panel of wonders in the last part of the show.
So get your fuckin' tickets now.
Back later with more cantankerous rudeness.
Your State Sucks: Arizona Is Filthy with Assholes:
So it was that Jan Brewer, Governor of Arizona (motto: "We'll shoot your Democratic ass right out of the Congress") and ill-prepared debater, met President Barack Obama on the tarmac at the Phoenix Airport after Air Force One landed. Instead of greeting him with a gift basket of iguana jerky, cactus liquor, and rocks with googly-eyes on them, as is the custom there, Brewer handed Obama a handwritten letter that she said was about immigration policy. One might imagine the crayon-scrawled note says something like "Mexicans is bad, except for tacos. Help us get rid of Mexicans, but leave the tacos. Give us money?" At the bottom, there were probably "yes" and "no" boxes for Obama to check.
Brewer also asked for a meeting with Obama, and she invited him to return to the state when his schedule allowed. The President apparently mentioned that her description of a previous meeting in her book Scorpions for Breakfast was, to paraphrase, kind of cunty. This made for a tense face-off between Brewer and Obama, where the Governor probably said, "I write good. Sarah Palin said so," with Brewer thrusting her finger at the President, which should have made the Secret Service tackle her and drag her off to Gitmo, until Obama, realizing that talking to a crazy person was a waste of time, walked away from Brewer as she was in mid-sentence.
And what exactly did Brewer write that seemed to bear mentioning by the President? Well, we'll never know the trigger, but Brewer's book reads like it was ghostwritten by Sean Hannity while he was taking a dump, so it's filled with the usual nonsensical, huffy, snarky, insulting asides that conservative "writers" seem to think bring depth to a topic. Here's a hint to politicians: Leave that shit to idiot bloggers.
So not only did Brewer describe Obama as "patronizing" in the 2010 Oval Office discussion, not only did she say that, in their talk about immigration policy, "It was though President Obama thought he could lecture me, and I would learn at his knee," but Brewer dissed the Secret Service and the security measures around the Oval Office, where, you know, the President works:
"When we got to the White House, we were sent to a holding room outside the Oval Office. One of my staffers took pictures. This was apparently a no-no. The Secret Service confiscated all of our cell phones and cameras. Too bad we weren't illegal aliens, or we could have sued them."
You got that? Brewer, who, in the name of security, wants her state's cops to be able, on a whim, to ask you to prove you're a citizen or you'll get thrown in jail until you can, is mocking what's done for the safety of the President. And she's pissing on the people who enforce those laws because they briefly inconvenienced her and her staff. Whether or not that's what Obama was reacting to, fuck her. Here's another tip: Don't write books like that until you're no longer governor.
What really happened on the tarmac? Brewer probably invited Obama to meet, Obama probably said something sarcastic about how it might end up in another book, Brewer probably went off, and Obama probably thought "Fuck this" and walked away. And it's not outside the realm of possibility that Brewer was surprised to hear what was in "her" book. Because she's a dolt.
Why was Obama even stepping foot in Arizona? He was there to visit a massive new Intel semiconductor manufacturing plant that's being built in Chandler. Anticipating what Obama might say about the factory, Vice Mayor Jeff Weninger went on the insidious Twitter machine to say, "So @BarackObama is coming 2 @intel in chandler on Wed 2 take credit 4 a 1000 new #jobs & a 5 billion $ investment that he had 0% to do with." If you decode that, it seems that Weninger is mad that the President might say he's personally responsible for single-handedly building the joint. Also, buried deep within the code is the phrase "And I really am just a total asshole, like all elected Republicans in Arizona."
Weninger might have had a point if he hadn't been completely wrong. President Obama was there to give all props to Intel: "Let’s stop rewarding businesses that ship jobs overseas. Let’s reward companies like Intel that are investing and creating jobs right here in the United States of America," he said. "I want to thank Intel for leading the way, because they're investing in startups, they're supporting science and math education, they're helping to train new engineers." Yep. Obama was there to praise a corporation for creating jobs in the United States, in Arizona, in Chandler, rather than sending them to death camps in China.
Oh, by the way, just to make Weninger that much more of an ignorant, knee-jerk, right-wing dickbag, he sent tweets to Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, and Newt Gingrich informing them of Obama's egotistical intent: "Pres coming 2 Chandler AZ 2take credit 4 jobs that a conserv city council& a republican state leg got done." Someone was angling for a big-time Fox "news" or radio appearance. Which, ironically enough, would only be possible because of Barack Obama.
So it was that Jan Brewer, Governor of Arizona (motto: "We'll shoot your Democratic ass right out of the Congress") and ill-prepared debater, met President Barack Obama on the tarmac at the Phoenix Airport after Air Force One landed. Instead of greeting him with a gift basket of iguana jerky, cactus liquor, and rocks with googly-eyes on them, as is the custom there, Brewer handed Obama a handwritten letter that she said was about immigration policy. One might imagine the crayon-scrawled note says something like "Mexicans is bad, except for tacos. Help us get rid of Mexicans, but leave the tacos. Give us money?" At the bottom, there were probably "yes" and "no" boxes for Obama to check.
Brewer also asked for a meeting with Obama, and she invited him to return to the state when his schedule allowed. The President apparently mentioned that her description of a previous meeting in her book Scorpions for Breakfast was, to paraphrase, kind of cunty. This made for a tense face-off between Brewer and Obama, where the Governor probably said, "I write good. Sarah Palin said so," with Brewer thrusting her finger at the President, which should have made the Secret Service tackle her and drag her off to Gitmo, until Obama, realizing that talking to a crazy person was a waste of time, walked away from Brewer as she was in mid-sentence.
And what exactly did Brewer write that seemed to bear mentioning by the President? Well, we'll never know the trigger, but Brewer's book reads like it was ghostwritten by Sean Hannity while he was taking a dump, so it's filled with the usual nonsensical, huffy, snarky, insulting asides that conservative "writers" seem to think bring depth to a topic. Here's a hint to politicians: Leave that shit to idiot bloggers.
So not only did Brewer describe Obama as "patronizing" in the 2010 Oval Office discussion, not only did she say that, in their talk about immigration policy, "It was though President Obama thought he could lecture me, and I would learn at his knee," but Brewer dissed the Secret Service and the security measures around the Oval Office, where, you know, the President works:
"When we got to the White House, we were sent to a holding room outside the Oval Office. One of my staffers took pictures. This was apparently a no-no. The Secret Service confiscated all of our cell phones and cameras. Too bad we weren't illegal aliens, or we could have sued them."
You got that? Brewer, who, in the name of security, wants her state's cops to be able, on a whim, to ask you to prove you're a citizen or you'll get thrown in jail until you can, is mocking what's done for the safety of the President. And she's pissing on the people who enforce those laws because they briefly inconvenienced her and her staff. Whether or not that's what Obama was reacting to, fuck her. Here's another tip: Don't write books like that until you're no longer governor.
What really happened on the tarmac? Brewer probably invited Obama to meet, Obama probably said something sarcastic about how it might end up in another book, Brewer probably went off, and Obama probably thought "Fuck this" and walked away. And it's not outside the realm of possibility that Brewer was surprised to hear what was in "her" book. Because she's a dolt.
Why was Obama even stepping foot in Arizona? He was there to visit a massive new Intel semiconductor manufacturing plant that's being built in Chandler. Anticipating what Obama might say about the factory, Vice Mayor Jeff Weninger went on the insidious Twitter machine to say, "So @BarackObama is coming 2 @intel in chandler on Wed 2 take credit 4 a 1000 new #jobs & a 5 billion $ investment that he had 0% to do with." If you decode that, it seems that Weninger is mad that the President might say he's personally responsible for single-handedly building the joint. Also, buried deep within the code is the phrase "And I really am just a total asshole, like all elected Republicans in Arizona."
Weninger might have had a point if he hadn't been completely wrong. President Obama was there to give all props to Intel: "Let’s stop rewarding businesses that ship jobs overseas. Let’s reward companies like Intel that are investing and creating jobs right here in the United States of America," he said. "I want to thank Intel for leading the way, because they're investing in startups, they're supporting science and math education, they're helping to train new engineers." Yep. Obama was there to praise a corporation for creating jobs in the United States, in Arizona, in Chandler, rather than sending them to death camps in China.
Oh, by the way, just to make Weninger that much more of an ignorant, knee-jerk, right-wing dickbag, he sent tweets to Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, and Newt Gingrich informing them of Obama's egotistical intent: "Pres coming 2 Chandler AZ 2take credit 4 jobs that a conserv city council& a republican state leg got done." Someone was angling for a big-time Fox "news" or radio appearance. Which, ironically enough, would only be possible because of Barack Obama.
The State of the Union Is "Can We Just Start the Campaign Already?" (Random Observations):
President Obama's State of the Union speech last night (aka "Shit What I'm Proposin' That You Bastards Ain't Gonna Pass") was fine, dull, whatever. But a few things stuck in the Rude Pundit's craw and brain that he didn't really discuss while he was a-tweetin' it.
1. The use of the Osama bin Laden raid and killing as an analogy for how Republicans and Democrats can come together for a common purpose was just really weird. At first, it seemed like Obama was going to give his most obvious foreign policy achievement a subtle, almost in-passing reference at the top of the speech. But at the end, he dove in head first: "Some may be Democrats. Some may be Republicans. But that doesn’t matter. Just like it didn’t matter that day in the Situation Room, when I sat next to Bob Gates -- a man who was George Bush’s defense secretary -- and Hillary Clinton -- a woman who ran against me for president. All that mattered that day was the mission. No one thought about politics." How does this transform into tax policy or immigration reform? It's something about getting each other's backs or being stitched together human centipede-style or something. It was hard to tell, really. And coming from the President who regularly orders murder without trial, it probably might have been better to just toss bin Laden's rotting head in John McCain's lap and say, "That's what you get when you're not afraid to go into Pakistan, bitch."
2. But the positive outweighed the negative (a sentence that ought to be the Obama campaign slogan) in the speech. He seemed to indicate he was going to go after a couple of people in the financial industry. He said he was going to do some green stuff. He made a pitch for infrastructure spending. He said the word "unionized." He made another pitch (albeit with less commitment) for more bipartisanship. He didn't come at Republicans nearly as hard as he could have, although he did call out their rhetoric, as he has before, and he did say that they were big fucking hypocrites: "Even my Republican friends who complain the most about government spending have supported federally financed roads, and clean energy projects, and federal offices for the folks back home."
3. The thing that Obama does best, when he's not in "Fired up, ready to go" mode, is to present himself as this eminently calm and reasonable guy who is pretty much the polar opposite of the caricature that is tossed around by Republicans and the right-wing media every day. The speech was for the fence-sitters and for people who may not like Obama (primarily because they don't hear about the reality of what he's doing) but think the GOP is wacky. You'd have to be pretty nutzoid conservative, like licking-Gingrich's-taint crazy, to think that the rational man speaking of how make moderate changes to the tax code to save the economy is the Bolshevik Kenyan cartoon monster who is forcing people to take his goddamn food stamps and act European or risk being put in Sharia law concentration camps. Of course, Gingrich's taint is probably pretty clean these days.
4. Ultimately, what President Obama did last night was give a template for his campaign for reelection. And you can see that, in taking on Mitt Romney (which he will), all he needs to do is keep emphasizing that rich fucks can afford to pay more. He also spoke in a squishy, non-committal way about being open to war with Iran and being willing to negotiate on Medicare and Medicaid spending, leaving himself plenty of wiggle room. In other words, other than taxes, immigration, and a few other domestic issues, he's leaving Republicans with precious, precious little to run on.
5. Regarding creepy ass Mitch Daniels, staring at us like a mellow version of the screaming dude from the Munch painting, and his Republican response, the Rude Pundit didn't know what country he was talking about. When he said that "The late Steve Jobs -- what a fitting name he had -- created more [jobs] than all those stimulus dollars the president borrowed and blew," it wasn't just notable for the dumbass aside. No, it was an outright lie, by a factor of 20. And what the hell does "We must always be a nation of haves and soon-to-haves" mean? "Soon-to-have" sounds like a guarantee of economic comfort and stability. The only way you can do that is with, you know, socialism.
President Obama's State of the Union speech last night (aka "Shit What I'm Proposin' That You Bastards Ain't Gonna Pass") was fine, dull, whatever. But a few things stuck in the Rude Pundit's craw and brain that he didn't really discuss while he was a-tweetin' it.
1. The use of the Osama bin Laden raid and killing as an analogy for how Republicans and Democrats can come together for a common purpose was just really weird. At first, it seemed like Obama was going to give his most obvious foreign policy achievement a subtle, almost in-passing reference at the top of the speech. But at the end, he dove in head first: "Some may be Democrats. Some may be Republicans. But that doesn’t matter. Just like it didn’t matter that day in the Situation Room, when I sat next to Bob Gates -- a man who was George Bush’s defense secretary -- and Hillary Clinton -- a woman who ran against me for president. All that mattered that day was the mission. No one thought about politics." How does this transform into tax policy or immigration reform? It's something about getting each other's backs or being stitched together human centipede-style or something. It was hard to tell, really. And coming from the President who regularly orders murder without trial, it probably might have been better to just toss bin Laden's rotting head in John McCain's lap and say, "That's what you get when you're not afraid to go into Pakistan, bitch."
2. But the positive outweighed the negative (a sentence that ought to be the Obama campaign slogan) in the speech. He seemed to indicate he was going to go after a couple of people in the financial industry. He said he was going to do some green stuff. He made a pitch for infrastructure spending. He said the word "unionized." He made another pitch (albeit with less commitment) for more bipartisanship. He didn't come at Republicans nearly as hard as he could have, although he did call out their rhetoric, as he has before, and he did say that they were big fucking hypocrites: "Even my Republican friends who complain the most about government spending have supported federally financed roads, and clean energy projects, and federal offices for the folks back home."
3. The thing that Obama does best, when he's not in "Fired up, ready to go" mode, is to present himself as this eminently calm and reasonable guy who is pretty much the polar opposite of the caricature that is tossed around by Republicans and the right-wing media every day. The speech was for the fence-sitters and for people who may not like Obama (primarily because they don't hear about the reality of what he's doing) but think the GOP is wacky. You'd have to be pretty nutzoid conservative, like licking-Gingrich's-taint crazy, to think that the rational man speaking of how make moderate changes to the tax code to save the economy is the Bolshevik Kenyan cartoon monster who is forcing people to take his goddamn food stamps and act European or risk being put in Sharia law concentration camps. Of course, Gingrich's taint is probably pretty clean these days.
4. Ultimately, what President Obama did last night was give a template for his campaign for reelection. And you can see that, in taking on Mitt Romney (which he will), all he needs to do is keep emphasizing that rich fucks can afford to pay more. He also spoke in a squishy, non-committal way about being open to war with Iran and being willing to negotiate on Medicare and Medicaid spending, leaving himself plenty of wiggle room. In other words, other than taxes, immigration, and a few other domestic issues, he's leaving Republicans with precious, precious little to run on.
5. Regarding creepy ass Mitch Daniels, staring at us like a mellow version of the screaming dude from the Munch painting, and his Republican response, the Rude Pundit didn't know what country he was talking about. When he said that "The late Steve Jobs -- what a fitting name he had -- created more [jobs] than all those stimulus dollars the president borrowed and blew," it wasn't just notable for the dumbass aside. No, it was an outright lie, by a factor of 20. And what the hell does "We must always be a nation of haves and soon-to-haves" mean? "Soon-to-have" sounds like a guarantee of economic comfort and stability. The only way you can do that is with, you know, socialism.
Newt Gingrich: It Depends on What the Meaning of "Lobbyist" Is:
Here's a September 19, 2007 UPI headline: "Gingrich lobbies for health insurance plan." The first line of the article: "Former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich Wednesday lobbied Congress to support a health insurance measure he said would aid children." UPI was never asked to retract the story.
The only moment worth a damn in last night's endless, dull, repetitive, pathetic, bullshit debate in Tampa, Florida, was when Mitt Romney finally put down the juice box, grabbed a bottle of caffeine-free root beer, and went at Newt Gingrich like he wanted to start a bar fight. Gingrich kept insisting that he was not a lobbyist. That may be true in the technical sense that he was never given that title. But if you get paid for fixing people's pipes, you sure as shit are a plumber, even if you're not licensed.
Romney changed it up with the phrase "influence-peddler," attacking Gingrich for his work with the Center for Health Transformation, a "think tank" that Gingrich founded. Gingrich tried to play his tired "I'm just a citizen" routine to respond, but Romney pounced, saying, in essence, "No, you lying shitball, you're not just an ordinary citizen. You're the former Speaker of the House. If Johnny Underwater Homeowner calls up Congressman Dickbag's office, he'll be told to come to a townhall meeting. You dial Dickbag's cell phone directly."
CHT, for instance, has corporate members paying specifically for access to Gingrich. Is that because he's such a fucking genius? Is that worth $200,000 a year in dues? Or is it because he's got access? (By the way, the awesomest membership "benefit" you can have as a CHT member? "Discounts on Gingrich Group workshops and products." That's like saying, "Not only do you have to talk to Newt Gingrich, but he'll punch you in the tit, too.")
It's like they don't even understand what lobbying is, according to this October 22, 2007, Atlanta Journal-Constitution article: "[Wayne] Oliver, the project director in Atlanta, said the center's officials appear before lawmakers or other decision-makers but do not advocate specific legislation. Rather, he said, they expound on 'big ideas' to solve complicated problems. Likewise, he said, meetings that bring together members and public officials are 'solution-driven.'
"'We're really not lobbying,' Oliver said. 'We do play in the political sandbox, if you will, because that's where you can have an impact.'"
That's fucking called "lobbying." Companies that hired Gingrich or his "groups" did because his influence carried weight: "Gingrich's consulting firm, a precursor to the center, had a client, Millennium Plastics, that expected the firm would help it break into the lucrative government contracting business, according to a 2001 news release by the company."
How much more evidence do you want? Howzabout this from 2004, when CHT was started: "'Gingrich's center is a 'brilliantly packaged way of offering his services as former speaker and a man who can open doors to push along what he calls health transformation,' said Joseph Antos, a health policy expert at the American Enterprise Institute. 'In other words, lobbying.'"
But, you know, in a way that avoids scrutiny because of pesky ethics laws. "'He's making more money than he ever thought possible and doesn't have to tell everybody where it's coming from,' marveled former adviser Rich Galen. 'He has the amount of influence he chooses to have. I suspect there is virtually no one in this town of either party who will not take a call from Newt Gingrich, if only to hear what he has to say.'"
Everyone knows it's lobbying. And why does that matter? Because that means that Gingrich is a bought and paid for corporate whore. He's just one of those chatty whores who wants to talk about his kids before he sucks your cock. You listen only because he sucks it so good.
It was essentially a money fight on the stage in Tampa last night. The really rich fuck versus the really, really rich fuck. But, and the Rude Pundit's not proud about this, Romney landing a blow that actually rattled Gingrich gave him a momentary thrill, a bit of wood, even. It was fleeting, yes, but goddamn, it's sweet to see someone punch that white-domed phlegm globule right in his cash sack.
Oh, one last thing: Here's how the crazy conservative Weekly Standard mocked Gingrich's launching of the Committee for New American Leadership back on January 31, 2000: "Yet another anti-Beltway K Street lobby group run by people who've lived in Washington for 25 years." Everyone knows what Gingrich has been doing for the last dozen years. He doesn't even bother to wipe the semen off his upper lip.
Here's a September 19, 2007 UPI headline: "Gingrich lobbies for health insurance plan." The first line of the article: "Former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich Wednesday lobbied Congress to support a health insurance measure he said would aid children." UPI was never asked to retract the story.
The only moment worth a damn in last night's endless, dull, repetitive, pathetic, bullshit debate in Tampa, Florida, was when Mitt Romney finally put down the juice box, grabbed a bottle of caffeine-free root beer, and went at Newt Gingrich like he wanted to start a bar fight. Gingrich kept insisting that he was not a lobbyist. That may be true in the technical sense that he was never given that title. But if you get paid for fixing people's pipes, you sure as shit are a plumber, even if you're not licensed.
Romney changed it up with the phrase "influence-peddler," attacking Gingrich for his work with the Center for Health Transformation, a "think tank" that Gingrich founded. Gingrich tried to play his tired "I'm just a citizen" routine to respond, but Romney pounced, saying, in essence, "No, you lying shitball, you're not just an ordinary citizen. You're the former Speaker of the House. If Johnny Underwater Homeowner calls up Congressman Dickbag's office, he'll be told to come to a townhall meeting. You dial Dickbag's cell phone directly."
CHT, for instance, has corporate members paying specifically for access to Gingrich. Is that because he's such a fucking genius? Is that worth $200,000 a year in dues? Or is it because he's got access? (By the way, the awesomest membership "benefit" you can have as a CHT member? "Discounts on Gingrich Group workshops and products." That's like saying, "Not only do you have to talk to Newt Gingrich, but he'll punch you in the tit, too.")
It's like they don't even understand what lobbying is, according to this October 22, 2007, Atlanta Journal-Constitution article: "[Wayne] Oliver, the project director in Atlanta, said the center's officials appear before lawmakers or other decision-makers but do not advocate specific legislation. Rather, he said, they expound on 'big ideas' to solve complicated problems. Likewise, he said, meetings that bring together members and public officials are 'solution-driven.'
"'We're really not lobbying,' Oliver said. 'We do play in the political sandbox, if you will, because that's where you can have an impact.'"
That's fucking called "lobbying." Companies that hired Gingrich or his "groups" did because his influence carried weight: "Gingrich's consulting firm, a precursor to the center, had a client, Millennium Plastics, that expected the firm would help it break into the lucrative government contracting business, according to a 2001 news release by the company."
How much more evidence do you want? Howzabout this from 2004, when CHT was started: "'Gingrich's center is a 'brilliantly packaged way of offering his services as former speaker and a man who can open doors to push along what he calls health transformation,' said Joseph Antos, a health policy expert at the American Enterprise Institute. 'In other words, lobbying.'"
But, you know, in a way that avoids scrutiny because of pesky ethics laws. "'He's making more money than he ever thought possible and doesn't have to tell everybody where it's coming from,' marveled former adviser Rich Galen. 'He has the amount of influence he chooses to have. I suspect there is virtually no one in this town of either party who will not take a call from Newt Gingrich, if only to hear what he has to say.'"
Everyone knows it's lobbying. And why does that matter? Because that means that Gingrich is a bought and paid for corporate whore. He's just one of those chatty whores who wants to talk about his kids before he sucks your cock. You listen only because he sucks it so good.
It was essentially a money fight on the stage in Tampa last night. The really rich fuck versus the really, really rich fuck. But, and the Rude Pundit's not proud about this, Romney landing a blow that actually rattled Gingrich gave him a momentary thrill, a bit of wood, even. It was fleeting, yes, but goddamn, it's sweet to see someone punch that white-domed phlegm globule right in his cash sack.
Oh, one last thing: Here's how the crazy conservative Weekly Standard mocked Gingrich's launching of the Committee for New American Leadership back on January 31, 2000: "Yet another anti-Beltway K Street lobby group run by people who've lived in Washington for 25 years." Everyone knows what Gingrich has been doing for the last dozen years. He doesn't even bother to wipe the semen off his upper lip.
Gingrich Wins South Carolina as the GOP Embraces the Devil:
You want to know what a lying shitsack Newt Gingrich is? It's easy. Choose anything that he repeatedly asserts and look at the truth. Chances are that he's bending the truth. Chances are better that he's just outright lying to your face.
For instance, here's something that Gingrich said to David Gregory on NBC's Meet the Wimpy Press, a line that he repeats whenever anyone dares to ask him about his time working for despised government-backed mortgage bank Freddie Mac: "David, you know better than that. I was not a lobbyist, I was never a lobbyist, I never did any lobbying. Don't try to mix these things up. The fact is I was an adviser strategically and if you look at the only thing ever published by Freddie Mac I said, 'You need more regulations.' If you look at the only article ever written about my talking to the Congress it was in The New York Times in July of 2008 and I said, 'Do not give them any money.'" He said pretty much the exact same thing in the last debate.
See, here's the thing: No, officially, Gingrich was not a registered lobbyist. He was hired by Freddie Mac in 1999 as a "consultant" for his expertise in dealing with Congress. The only reason Gingrich was not a lobbyist is that the law actually prevented him from being one. Here's how AP described Gingrich's role in 2008: "Gingrich talked and wrote about what he saw as the benefits of the Freddie Mac business model." He was hired, with other conservatives, in order to push back against any regulation that might end up "scaling back" Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae as they were being hit by the subprime mortgage crisis. In other words, Gingrich wasn't a lobbyist by title. He just wrote about and talked to members of Congress about what Freddie Mac needed. That's like the difference between apples and...ummm...smaller apples?
Gingrich's other claim there, that New York Times article? Yeah, that's a lie. The article he's referring to is from July 26, 2008. It's about why congressional Republicans voted against the bank bailout, even though it was going to pass. The bottom line: it was a politically easy decision. And who helped them see it was a politically easy decision? "Former Speaker Newt Gingrich spoke at a private party meeting before the vote and joined Mr. Boehner in encouraging Republicans to oppose the measure." You got that? That line he quotes, "Do not give them any money"? Nowhere in the article. Gingrich was advising members of Congress how they could be weasels and not actually displease their banking masters.
The thing about the Devil is that he tells his lies with such utter confidence that the unquestioning listener hears them as truth. And the Devil wins when his lies begin to supplant the truth until there is nothing but lies left.
The idea that Newt Gingrich is positioning himself as some kind of Washington outsider is so laughable that it's pathetic. He has physically lived in the DC area for over 30 years. That meeting with members of Congress in 2008 wasn't some kind of anomaly: it's what he's been doing since he was whipped out of Congress by the members of his own party, not by Democrats, not by the elite media he so derides and uses as a safe foil for his own arrogance. The idea that a multimillionaire can position himself as the poor man against Romney is mind-boggling. The idea that he can keep berating the press without anyone in the press calling him on it is just depressing.
Gingrich is like a pimple you get on your forehead that you can't get rid of it. Sure, you can squeeze it, you can put creams on it, you can try alcohol or toothpaste or warm or cold compresses, but that fucker just won't go away. And it just gets bigger so that every time you look in the mirror, it's the only thing you see. You are your zit.
There's gonna be a war in the GOP between the Tea Party monster that was cravenly embraced and co-opted by the right and the old school Republicans, who just want their satisfactory corporate lackey who is easily controlled to be the nominee. It's more than likely going to be a civil war, with southern states going Gingrich and northern ones going Romney, thus making it an insurgency by evangelicals, people who have given a pass to the serial adulterer, but won't vote for a Mormon because it sounds almost like "Muslim." They wouldn't know the real Devil if he stabbed them in the ass with his pitchfork. If Gingrich wins Florida, it's gonna be wonderfully messy. (And if he gave a shit about Romney as a human being, the Rude Pundit would be advising him, "Dude, just tell everyone 'Kiss my rich white ass' and go home.")
The whole thing is chaos now. And having been a Democrat his entire adult life, so used to political chaos, the Rude Pundit can only sit back and enjoy watching Republicans tear themselves asunder.
In his victory speech on Saturday night, Gingrich continued with the lies, his ego inflated like a hot air balloon that's about to go up where the loss of pressure will make it collapse. He will fall again. It is natural. That's what the Devil must do.
You want to know what a lying shitsack Newt Gingrich is? It's easy. Choose anything that he repeatedly asserts and look at the truth. Chances are that he's bending the truth. Chances are better that he's just outright lying to your face.
For instance, here's something that Gingrich said to David Gregory on NBC's Meet the Wimpy Press, a line that he repeats whenever anyone dares to ask him about his time working for despised government-backed mortgage bank Freddie Mac: "David, you know better than that. I was not a lobbyist, I was never a lobbyist, I never did any lobbying. Don't try to mix these things up. The fact is I was an adviser strategically and if you look at the only thing ever published by Freddie Mac I said, 'You need more regulations.' If you look at the only article ever written about my talking to the Congress it was in The New York Times in July of 2008 and I said, 'Do not give them any money.'" He said pretty much the exact same thing in the last debate.
See, here's the thing: No, officially, Gingrich was not a registered lobbyist. He was hired by Freddie Mac in 1999 as a "consultant" for his expertise in dealing with Congress. The only reason Gingrich was not a lobbyist is that the law actually prevented him from being one. Here's how AP described Gingrich's role in 2008: "Gingrich talked and wrote about what he saw as the benefits of the Freddie Mac business model." He was hired, with other conservatives, in order to push back against any regulation that might end up "scaling back" Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae as they were being hit by the subprime mortgage crisis. In other words, Gingrich wasn't a lobbyist by title. He just wrote about and talked to members of Congress about what Freddie Mac needed. That's like the difference between apples and...ummm...smaller apples?
Gingrich's other claim there, that New York Times article? Yeah, that's a lie. The article he's referring to is from July 26, 2008. It's about why congressional Republicans voted against the bank bailout, even though it was going to pass. The bottom line: it was a politically easy decision. And who helped them see it was a politically easy decision? "Former Speaker Newt Gingrich spoke at a private party meeting before the vote and joined Mr. Boehner in encouraging Republicans to oppose the measure." You got that? That line he quotes, "Do not give them any money"? Nowhere in the article. Gingrich was advising members of Congress how they could be weasels and not actually displease their banking masters.
The thing about the Devil is that he tells his lies with such utter confidence that the unquestioning listener hears them as truth. And the Devil wins when his lies begin to supplant the truth until there is nothing but lies left.
The idea that Newt Gingrich is positioning himself as some kind of Washington outsider is so laughable that it's pathetic. He has physically lived in the DC area for over 30 years. That meeting with members of Congress in 2008 wasn't some kind of anomaly: it's what he's been doing since he was whipped out of Congress by the members of his own party, not by Democrats, not by the elite media he so derides and uses as a safe foil for his own arrogance. The idea that a multimillionaire can position himself as the poor man against Romney is mind-boggling. The idea that he can keep berating the press without anyone in the press calling him on it is just depressing.
Gingrich is like a pimple you get on your forehead that you can't get rid of it. Sure, you can squeeze it, you can put creams on it, you can try alcohol or toothpaste or warm or cold compresses, but that fucker just won't go away. And it just gets bigger so that every time you look in the mirror, it's the only thing you see. You are your zit.
There's gonna be a war in the GOP between the Tea Party monster that was cravenly embraced and co-opted by the right and the old school Republicans, who just want their satisfactory corporate lackey who is easily controlled to be the nominee. It's more than likely going to be a civil war, with southern states going Gingrich and northern ones going Romney, thus making it an insurgency by evangelicals, people who have given a pass to the serial adulterer, but won't vote for a Mormon because it sounds almost like "Muslim." They wouldn't know the real Devil if he stabbed them in the ass with his pitchfork. If Gingrich wins Florida, it's gonna be wonderfully messy. (And if he gave a shit about Romney as a human being, the Rude Pundit would be advising him, "Dude, just tell everyone 'Kiss my rich white ass' and go home.")
The whole thing is chaos now. And having been a Democrat his entire adult life, so used to political chaos, the Rude Pundit can only sit back and enjoy watching Republicans tear themselves asunder.
In his victory speech on Saturday night, Gingrich continued with the lies, his ego inflated like a hot air balloon that's about to go up where the loss of pressure will make it collapse. He will fall again. It is natural. That's what the Devil must do.
Hey, Stephanie Miller Show Listeners, Order the Book:
Show the bastards at OR Books that they can't hold back the 2012 Rude Pundit's Almanack. We gotta get to 500 bought in the next month or so (and we're well on the way). Order it for the eBook (that's just ten bucks, fer chrissake) or, you know, the paper one.
Show the bastards at OR Books that they can't hold back the 2012 Rude Pundit's Almanack. We gotta get to 500 bought in the next month or so (and we're well on the way). Order it for the eBook (that's just ten bucks, fer chrissake) or, you know, the paper one.
Moments in the Life of Newt Gingrich from the 1990s:
On September 8, 1995, then Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich told a crowd of 4,000 believers at the Christian Coalition's "Road to Victory" conference in Washington, D.C. that he "got married when I was very young. And we have two wonderful daughters by that marriage. And I got divorced. Later on, I got remarried. And we have a marriage which has a fair amount of stress, and it's difficult. And I think that's fairly typical of a lot of families. It takes a lot of work, a lot of prayer."
The "stress" he was talking about was that, for two years, he had been putting his penis into the vagina and possibly the mouth and anus of Callista Bisek, a woman who is 23 years younger than him and 14 years younger than his then-wife Marianne.
Gingrich continued, justifying his sexual betrayal as fitting in perfectly with one way of looking at family values. He told his daughters that "we know precisely because it's been hard why you should emphasize family values. Because even when you're emphasizing them, it's hard."
The audience, who by then must have known the whispers about Gingrich's relationship with Bisek, which had been swirling, applauded and cheered. Ralph Reed, head of the Christian Coalition, later said, "[O]ur members are not looking for someone who is perfect...They are looking for someone who will stand up for what they believe in."
The audience also knew that a British woman had said she had given him a blow job during his first marriage, back in 1976. If you ever wanted to know why Gingrich didn't run for president before, it's because he needed plausible distance from his affairs as a demonstration of his redemption.
In talking about marriage, Gingrich told the gathered Christians, "I start with the premise that all of us are sinful and that's why we need to seek salvation through faith because we're never going to earn it because we're inadequate." See, when it comes to marriage, the Rude Pundit starts with the premise that, if you're a man and you get married, you shouldn't be shoving your dick in the orifices of others, especially if you asked your wife for an open marriage so you could do so without a scintilla of conscience and she said, "No." But he's old-fashioned that way.
That's the brilliance of Gingrich, by the way, shining even brighter than the delusional hypocrisy of anyone who ever bought the "family values" bullshit lie. See, where others heard "marriage" and "family values" and thought, "Oh, he means 'fidelity' and 'being good to kids,'" what Gingrich really meant was "Families and marriages are fucked up and, boy, so am I." Really, the entire course of the 1990s would have been changed if the right had been clear on that.
And that doesn't even get into the Clinton impeachment matter, where Gingrich was actually as smart as possible and refused to talk about it as being about sex precisely because everyone knew it was about sex. He demanded that no one in the House Republican caucus speak about it in terms other than as "obstruction of justice." Still, everyone knew it was about hummers in the Oval Office and jizz on a dress.
But also, back in the 1990s, Gingrich used to rail against the "liberal elite media" who he believed sought to downplay President Clinton's transgressions.
So when Gingrich went all angry chimp on CNN's John King at last night's GOP South Carolina debate over a question about Marianne Gingrich's interview with ABC, it wasn't only unexpected. It's what he does. He's always the victim. When he said, "I am tired of the elite media protecting Barack Obama by attacking Republicans," you could have put Bill Clinton in there.
Oh, wait. Here's Gingrich in June 1996 in the Washington Times: "[T]here is no president in modern times more systematically protected by the elite media." (Indeed, one could go through much of the way Gingrich has attacked Obama and find almost verbatim antecedents in his attacks on Clinton, Gore, and Kerry.)
In December 1994, Gingrich was congratulating the House Republicans for their victory in the midterms. After talking about his family, he said, "I want to ask all of you to join me in -- (pauses) -- I'm trying to think. It's a little difficult to say. In thanking the person who has endured more from the media and more from the process than anybody should have to for me to be here, my wife Marianne." Callista Bisek, who was a House staffer, was probably there for that rally. Maybe she was a little uncomfortable as Gingrich introduced his wife since the Speaker had been fucking Callista for a year already.
No, there's no issue about a sociopathic character flaw here that might be of interest to the voters.
On September 8, 1995, then Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich told a crowd of 4,000 believers at the Christian Coalition's "Road to Victory" conference in Washington, D.C. that he "got married when I was very young. And we have two wonderful daughters by that marriage. And I got divorced. Later on, I got remarried. And we have a marriage which has a fair amount of stress, and it's difficult. And I think that's fairly typical of a lot of families. It takes a lot of work, a lot of prayer."
The "stress" he was talking about was that, for two years, he had been putting his penis into the vagina and possibly the mouth and anus of Callista Bisek, a woman who is 23 years younger than him and 14 years younger than his then-wife Marianne.
Gingrich continued, justifying his sexual betrayal as fitting in perfectly with one way of looking at family values. He told his daughters that "we know precisely because it's been hard why you should emphasize family values. Because even when you're emphasizing them, it's hard."
The audience, who by then must have known the whispers about Gingrich's relationship with Bisek, which had been swirling, applauded and cheered. Ralph Reed, head of the Christian Coalition, later said, "[O]ur members are not looking for someone who is perfect...They are looking for someone who will stand up for what they believe in."
The audience also knew that a British woman had said she had given him a blow job during his first marriage, back in 1976. If you ever wanted to know why Gingrich didn't run for president before, it's because he needed plausible distance from his affairs as a demonstration of his redemption.
In talking about marriage, Gingrich told the gathered Christians, "I start with the premise that all of us are sinful and that's why we need to seek salvation through faith because we're never going to earn it because we're inadequate." See, when it comes to marriage, the Rude Pundit starts with the premise that, if you're a man and you get married, you shouldn't be shoving your dick in the orifices of others, especially if you asked your wife for an open marriage so you could do so without a scintilla of conscience and she said, "No." But he's old-fashioned that way.
That's the brilliance of Gingrich, by the way, shining even brighter than the delusional hypocrisy of anyone who ever bought the "family values" bullshit lie. See, where others heard "marriage" and "family values" and thought, "Oh, he means 'fidelity' and 'being good to kids,'" what Gingrich really meant was "Families and marriages are fucked up and, boy, so am I." Really, the entire course of the 1990s would have been changed if the right had been clear on that.
And that doesn't even get into the Clinton impeachment matter, where Gingrich was actually as smart as possible and refused to talk about it as being about sex precisely because everyone knew it was about sex. He demanded that no one in the House Republican caucus speak about it in terms other than as "obstruction of justice." Still, everyone knew it was about hummers in the Oval Office and jizz on a dress.
But also, back in the 1990s, Gingrich used to rail against the "liberal elite media" who he believed sought to downplay President Clinton's transgressions.
So when Gingrich went all angry chimp on CNN's John King at last night's GOP South Carolina debate over a question about Marianne Gingrich's interview with ABC, it wasn't only unexpected. It's what he does. He's always the victim. When he said, "I am tired of the elite media protecting Barack Obama by attacking Republicans," you could have put Bill Clinton in there.
Oh, wait. Here's Gingrich in June 1996 in the Washington Times: "[T]here is no president in modern times more systematically protected by the elite media." (Indeed, one could go through much of the way Gingrich has attacked Obama and find almost verbatim antecedents in his attacks on Clinton, Gore, and Kerry.)
In December 1994, Gingrich was congratulating the House Republicans for their victory in the midterms. After talking about his family, he said, "I want to ask all of you to join me in -- (pauses) -- I'm trying to think. It's a little difficult to say. In thanking the person who has endured more from the media and more from the process than anybody should have to for me to be here, my wife Marianne." Callista Bisek, who was a House staffer, was probably there for that rally. Maybe she was a little uncomfortable as Gingrich introduced his wife since the Speaker had been fucking Callista for a year already.
No, there's no issue about a sociopathic character flaw here that might be of interest to the voters.
The Rude Pundit on Monday's Stephanie Miller Show:
The Rude Pundit and Stephanie Miller said all kinds of mean things about Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, but especially Mitt Romney:
If you want the Rude Pundit to canoodle with your digital music player, then subscribe to the free podcast, where pods of this and Cheater and the Rude are cast.
The Rude Pundit and Stephanie Miller said all kinds of mean things about Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, but especially Mitt Romney:
If you want the Rude Pundit to canoodle with your digital music player, then subscribe to the free podcast, where pods of this and Cheater and the Rude are cast.
Random Thoughts on the Latest From the GOP Primary Season:
1. Marianne Gingrich's interview with ABC News, revealing, among other things, that Newt wanted an open marriage so he could bang Callista and not suffer any political or financial consequences, won't matter. Nor will her re-assertion that Newt left her shortly after she was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. Because Newt Gingrich voters are divided between two groups: the Who-Gives-a-Fuck group and the Jesus-Forgave-Him-So-Can-I group. The former group's members are so deluded that they will tell you that the Clinton impeachment was about perjury. The latter group's members are so desperate for a candidate that, as long as he said he believes he's made peace with God, they wouldn't care if Newt had strangled his second wife with his first wife's intestines.
2. When Rick Perry first announced that he was running for President, do you remember how people were saying on the left and right that the nomination race, if not the whole election, was over? That a masterful manly man politician like Rick Perry, a George W. Bush who could ride a horse (yet, bizarrely, both were college cheerleaders), would fuck the asses of every other candidate like a horny hillbilly in a room of Ned Beattys? Yeah, that was awesome. Honestly, who'd've thought that Bush would turn out to be the articulate governor from Texas. The phrase "epic fail" gets tossed around and used too much, but in terms of success versus expectations, it's more than appropriate here.
3. Rick Perry endorsing Newt Gingrich was a no-brainer. After all, you can bet that Gingrich has an open marriage with Callista, so the man-love can be fulfilled. The real fun developing now is watching how visceral the hate for Romney is among the movement conservatives. For Perry and Gingrich, this shit is personal. Romney made Perry his bitch in the debates. And Romney's SuperPAC has been tearing into Gingrich with a savagery that Obama's ad people better be taking notes on. They want to destroy the fancier-pants Mormon who believes he's better than everyone else.
4. Oh, hey, looks like wee little Ricky Santorum might have won Iowa. And? The real story is that eight precincts lost their votes and can never be recounted. If that had happened during a Democratic caucus, Fox "news" would already be screeching about voter fraud and produced scary black people who did it.
5. So, just to get this straight, Mitt Romney says he paid his taxes at a 15% rate, which is the capital gains tax. And Newt Gingrich is running on eliminating the capital gains tax (with Romney running on some reductions). So they are both running for president to make themselves richer.
Christ. Just take your Romney pill already, GOP. You deserve nothing less and nothing more.
1. Marianne Gingrich's interview with ABC News, revealing, among other things, that Newt wanted an open marriage so he could bang Callista and not suffer any political or financial consequences, won't matter. Nor will her re-assertion that Newt left her shortly after she was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. Because Newt Gingrich voters are divided between two groups: the Who-Gives-a-Fuck group and the Jesus-Forgave-Him-So-Can-I group. The former group's members are so deluded that they will tell you that the Clinton impeachment was about perjury. The latter group's members are so desperate for a candidate that, as long as he said he believes he's made peace with God, they wouldn't care if Newt had strangled his second wife with his first wife's intestines.
2. When Rick Perry first announced that he was running for President, do you remember how people were saying on the left and right that the nomination race, if not the whole election, was over? That a masterful manly man politician like Rick Perry, a George W. Bush who could ride a horse (yet, bizarrely, both were college cheerleaders), would fuck the asses of every other candidate like a horny hillbilly in a room of Ned Beattys? Yeah, that was awesome. Honestly, who'd've thought that Bush would turn out to be the articulate governor from Texas. The phrase "epic fail" gets tossed around and used too much, but in terms of success versus expectations, it's more than appropriate here.
3. Rick Perry endorsing Newt Gingrich was a no-brainer. After all, you can bet that Gingrich has an open marriage with Callista, so the man-love can be fulfilled. The real fun developing now is watching how visceral the hate for Romney is among the movement conservatives. For Perry and Gingrich, this shit is personal. Romney made Perry his bitch in the debates. And Romney's SuperPAC has been tearing into Gingrich with a savagery that Obama's ad people better be taking notes on. They want to destroy the fancier-pants Mormon who believes he's better than everyone else.
4. Oh, hey, looks like wee little Ricky Santorum might have won Iowa. And? The real story is that eight precincts lost their votes and can never be recounted. If that had happened during a Democratic caucus, Fox "news" would already be screeching about voter fraud and produced scary black people who did it.
5. So, just to get this straight, Mitt Romney says he paid his taxes at a 15% rate, which is the capital gains tax. And Newt Gingrich is running on eliminating the capital gains tax (with Romney running on some reductions). So they are both running for president to make themselves richer.
Christ. Just take your Romney pill already, GOP. You deserve nothing less and nothing more.
Travel Insurance for People Over 50 Years Old
Travel Insurance for People Over 50 Years Old
Do you want to purchase travel insurance for people over 50 years? There is no age limit when it comes to travel is. The desire to explore the world, is not bound by the limits of all ages, according to the survey, most people go for a holiday at home and abroad are the 50s and 60s, as mentioned above, especially those who are outside. By the time you reach 50, your children are ready to leave home and most of them want to live an independent life. In these cases, you have the time and money to spend on themselves.
A lot.
Today, you can think of visiting the place when it comes to planning for the holidays. If you are adventurous enough, you can explore the woods, relax on the beach or exploring new places abroad, the options are very large, and certainly there is something for everyone. You can visit some of the leading companies specializing in planning a vacation and we are happy to advise you when it comes to planning for a lifetime. Many people who have already reached the 50 are using these opportunities offered by the company and to book a holiday to them. This trend is increasing day by day. It's really a dream come true when you can surf the web and through the resort for the best book for themselves.
Enjoy a better coverage.
The tendency to go on vacation the day it becomes increasingly important for the elderly to seek travel insurance policy that provides coverage for those times when you really need, accidents can occur. at any time during the trip or on the other hand, you can end badly and will need medical help. In this situation, if you have travel insurance, then it will be easier for you to meet your medical expenses. As you may have to make payments from their own pockets, you can claim the full amount of the insurance company later. But sometimes it's hard for people over 50, the insurer would be the insurance companies expect patients to pay the premium so large as to be able to enjoy protection. The more costs are quite high and can be difficult to pay.
How to make the best travel insurance for people over 50 years?
Some insurance companies do not include any age limit for insurance policies available, but these companies limit the duration of your vacation that you plan to enjoy. For example, if you are 60 and above, the time dropped to 42 days after 90 days if you want to go abroad for a holiday, you are free to have travel insurance for people over. 50 years or older. This insurance policy to cover $ 5 million for medical reasons, up to $ 1,500 for the loss of personal property and up to $ 5,000 for the cancellation of the trip. You can get the company's online terms and conditions, together with the cost of your travel agent or online. Travel insurance is also useful in similar conditions. You are allowed to travel for a period of 120 days every year, no single trip lasts longer than 42 days for most travel insurance policies are available for people aged over 50 years.
No SOPA/PIPA Blackout Here, But Christopher Dodd Is a Goddamned Tool:
The Rude Pundit didn't go dark to protest the Stop Online Piracy and the Protect IP Acts because, well, it just seemed like a lazy way to avoid blogging for a day. Go read about the acts, if you haven't, because it's pretty insidious stuff, not just because of the governmental control, but because of the corporate power behind it.
Besides, why go dark when you can point out something stupid said by the most powerful lobbyist supporting the bills? Former Senator Chris Dodd, now head of the Motion Picture Association of America (motto: "You can only be our leader if you're a male with a full head of white hair"), issued a statement attacking the websites that are participating in today's strike/blackout. It says, in part, "It’s a dangerous and troubling development when the platforms that serve as gateways to information intentionally skew the facts to incite their users in order to further their corporate interests."
You got that? The whore who fronts for an industry owned by multinational megacorporations like NewsCorp, Sony, and Viacom is actually attacking BoingBoing.net owners Happy Mutants LLC for using the internet for some evil agenda to steal Chipmunk movies just because they went on a one-day strike. That's a bit like Ted Bundy accusing a student nurse of having a messy dorm room just before bludgeoning her to death.
Here's the deal, entertainment industry: your old model for making money is dying, and you haven't figured out how to deal with it yet. You're still in the Anger phase when you need to move on to Acceptance. It sucks, yeah, but right now you're the brontosaurus in the room, and the little critters that don't need so much to survive are evolving and changing. Sure, you can stomp all the monkeys and aardvarks and panthers you want, but eventually you're just gonna keel over and die.
When he appeared on a panel on the future of book publishing at the Words and Music festival in New Orleans in November, the Rude Pundit told the audience that we haven't yet figured out how to adapt to new technology. "We're the missing link," he said. "We're the mutation that won't survive but is necessary to evolution."
In other words, instead of trying to rage against a future that one can't stop without resorting to draconian measures that will eventually fail, the MPAA and the RIAA and other "trade organizations" better spend more time figuring out how to co-opt and use the constant stream of innovation in digital entertainment delivery instead of wasting time suing and shutting down and lobbying. Even if it puts douchebags like Chris Dodd out of a job.
The Rude Pundit didn't go dark to protest the Stop Online Piracy and the Protect IP Acts because, well, it just seemed like a lazy way to avoid blogging for a day. Go read about the acts, if you haven't, because it's pretty insidious stuff, not just because of the governmental control, but because of the corporate power behind it.
Besides, why go dark when you can point out something stupid said by the most powerful lobbyist supporting the bills? Former Senator Chris Dodd, now head of the Motion Picture Association of America (motto: "You can only be our leader if you're a male with a full head of white hair"), issued a statement attacking the websites that are participating in today's strike/blackout. It says, in part, "It’s a dangerous and troubling development when the platforms that serve as gateways to information intentionally skew the facts to incite their users in order to further their corporate interests."
You got that? The whore who fronts for an industry owned by multinational megacorporations like NewsCorp, Sony, and Viacom is actually attacking BoingBoing.net owners Happy Mutants LLC for using the internet for some evil agenda to steal Chipmunk movies just because they went on a one-day strike. That's a bit like Ted Bundy accusing a student nurse of having a messy dorm room just before bludgeoning her to death.
Here's the deal, entertainment industry: your old model for making money is dying, and you haven't figured out how to deal with it yet. You're still in the Anger phase when you need to move on to Acceptance. It sucks, yeah, but right now you're the brontosaurus in the room, and the little critters that don't need so much to survive are evolving and changing. Sure, you can stomp all the monkeys and aardvarks and panthers you want, but eventually you're just gonna keel over and die.
When he appeared on a panel on the future of book publishing at the Words and Music festival in New Orleans in November, the Rude Pundit told the audience that we haven't yet figured out how to adapt to new technology. "We're the missing link," he said. "We're the mutation that won't survive but is necessary to evolution."
In other words, instead of trying to rage against a future that one can't stop without resorting to draconian measures that will eventually fail, the MPAA and the RIAA and other "trade organizations" better spend more time figuring out how to co-opt and use the constant stream of innovation in digital entertainment delivery instead of wasting time suing and shutting down and lobbying. Even if it puts douchebags like Chris Dodd out of a job.
Working With Depression: Accident and Insurance
Working With Depression: Accident and Insurance
Health and accident insurance, real concern for many people who suffer from depression in the workplace. It can be very difficult to do with the health problems of the metal as the disease is much more difficult to identify and treat physical ailments rather than easier.
Health and accident insurance, real concern for many people who suffer from depression in the workplace. It can be very difficult to do with the health problems of the metal as the disease is much more difficult to identify and treat physical ailments rather than easier.
So, you get sickness and accident insurance if you suffer from depression or other mental health problems? And you will be able to get the coverage you need from your insurance to help you deal with the reality of work with depression?
The problem is that no matter what the personal circumstances of you if you suffer or have suffered from mental illness, the insurance company sees you as' high risk and may be willing to sell accident and insurance. disease on this basis. This means that the insurer may unfairly discriminate against people with mental health problems, while the insurance company at the belief that everyone should have access to insurance, are forced to take all our customers at risk. This means that they are forced to pay higher premiums.
Alarming is that in 1996 25% of people who have used mental health services are denied insurance Luckily, this is beginning to change, and the numbers have been steadily improving in recent years. And 'understanding and development of claims for equality. Equality Act in 2010, has done much to improve the situation. The actions that make it illegal to discriminate against people who are 'protected characteristics', including people with disabilities, mental health.
Part III of the law, like the state to have a fair and equitable distribution of goods and services, which means that insurance providers are required by law to provide coverage to the party. suffering from mental health problems such as depression in a fair and reasonable rates.
If you suffer from mental health problems including depression and want to buy coverage as well as injury and illness is important to be open and honest with your insurance carrier for the future. Insurance policy may be more convenient if your insurance provider to find out that they failed to disclose information they consider relevant.
The trick is to always shop around for any accidents that different insurance providers and health plans with different statistical formulas, with which develop health and accident insurance premiums, so it really. can pay to get quotes from a number of different service providers.
Injury and illness is something that everyone is entitled to a key area where everyone should be insured. Mental health problems as a reason for not doing so you are assured, no. One of the accidents, excellent service and guaranteed to get sick, you should consider making reference to the protection of payment that offers a range of options and is known for the quality of key services and hands. their career
Newt Gingrich's Inner Redneck Appears:
There wasn't a safe goat ass anywhere in eastern South Carolina last night. After the Republican presidential debate in Myrtle Beach, the whooping, hooting, cheering white people, whipped into a frenzied state by the race-baiting rhetoric of Newt Gingrich, headed out to the backyards and barns of the Gamecock state to take out their throbbing desires on goats, fucking the goats from behind, getting ass-reamed by the goats, the women glazed by goat semen, the men plastered with goat shit on their dicks, none of them caring because, with Newt leading them against that uppity nigger, Juan Williams, the evening's surrogate Obama, the South would rise again, so they may as well do what they do best: wallow around naked in a mud pit, coated with goat feces and cum, staring up at the stars, remembering the glory of the evening they had witnessed, the confused goat, feeling both satisfied and violated, heading into a corner to sleep.
The Fox "news"/Wall Street Journal/Murdoch's Taint debate was only notable because of the moment when Newt Gingrich decided to double down on the racism on Martin Luther King Day when questioned by Juan Williams about his remarks on black youths and food stamps, as well as his call for poor kids to become janitors at their high school. When Gingrich refused to modify or sugarcoat what he had said, the audience at the Myrtle Beach Convention Center exploded.
Of course they did. There was a group of crackers, having been forced to go through an entire day hearing about how a great black man fought for the rights of black people so that now, not only do you have to share water fountains with 'em, but you can't even call 'em "boy" at work without someone getting all upset, and, besides, what are you gonna do with all these unburned crosses? And once the cork was off the crowd, it turned viciously on Williams, booing him loudly when he attempted to get Gingrich to explain because "It sounds as if you are seeking to belittle [poor and nonwhite] people."
Watch the video of the event. You can pinpoint the moment that Gingrich saw that he had the audience eating out of his hand like trained pigs lining up at the garbage trough. His hand movements get more forceful. His voice rises. He is surfing the wave of adoration like a California teenager on his board, hitting that sweet spot in the barrel. And he just goes to town with the lies: "[T]he fact is that more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history." (Not a fact at all. In fact, it was George W. Bush who is responsible for more people getting on food stamps; oh, and isn't that a good thing so that kids can eat?) "There’s — the area that ought to be I-73 was called by Barack Obama 'a corridor of shame' because of unemployment." (Nope. The "Corridor of Shame" is because of the condition of the rural schools in the area. Oh, and Obama didn't name it that; the people from there did. Oh, and it's along I-95.)
But who the fuck cares if Newt Gingrich is a venal, lying shitsack, an angry hippopotamus destroying anything it can and dragging the half-dead into the river to drown? The audience lapped it up as he jacked off in their faces, using his dick to slap the black guy who dared to question the rightness of his Newtness. He is a walking, talking infection, and every time we think we've gotten rid of him, he comes back stronger and more resistant to the drugs that can kill him.
However, big thanks to the people of South Carolina for revealing, as ever, that racist pricks will always and forever be racist pricks and that redneck assholes will always be easily manipulated into thinking that the rich motherfucker up on stage who calls out the "elitists" is one of them.
(Fun true story: Myrtle Beach is cracker vacation paradise. As the man who was repairing his air conditioner once told the Rude Pundit while living in Tennessee, he loved going to Myrtle Beach because he could drive his pick-up truck on the beach. "It don't get no better than that," he said. Having never driven a pick-up on a beach, the Rude Pundit could neither agree nor disagree.)
There wasn't a safe goat ass anywhere in eastern South Carolina last night. After the Republican presidential debate in Myrtle Beach, the whooping, hooting, cheering white people, whipped into a frenzied state by the race-baiting rhetoric of Newt Gingrich, headed out to the backyards and barns of the Gamecock state to take out their throbbing desires on goats, fucking the goats from behind, getting ass-reamed by the goats, the women glazed by goat semen, the men plastered with goat shit on their dicks, none of them caring because, with Newt leading them against that uppity nigger, Juan Williams, the evening's surrogate Obama, the South would rise again, so they may as well do what they do best: wallow around naked in a mud pit, coated with goat feces and cum, staring up at the stars, remembering the glory of the evening they had witnessed, the confused goat, feeling both satisfied and violated, heading into a corner to sleep.
The Fox "news"/Wall Street Journal/Murdoch's Taint debate was only notable because of the moment when Newt Gingrich decided to double down on the racism on Martin Luther King Day when questioned by Juan Williams about his remarks on black youths and food stamps, as well as his call for poor kids to become janitors at their high school. When Gingrich refused to modify or sugarcoat what he had said, the audience at the Myrtle Beach Convention Center exploded.
Of course they did. There was a group of crackers, having been forced to go through an entire day hearing about how a great black man fought for the rights of black people so that now, not only do you have to share water fountains with 'em, but you can't even call 'em "boy" at work without someone getting all upset, and, besides, what are you gonna do with all these unburned crosses? And once the cork was off the crowd, it turned viciously on Williams, booing him loudly when he attempted to get Gingrich to explain because "It sounds as if you are seeking to belittle [poor and nonwhite] people."
Watch the video of the event. You can pinpoint the moment that Gingrich saw that he had the audience eating out of his hand like trained pigs lining up at the garbage trough. His hand movements get more forceful. His voice rises. He is surfing the wave of adoration like a California teenager on his board, hitting that sweet spot in the barrel. And he just goes to town with the lies: "[T]he fact is that more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history." (Not a fact at all. In fact, it was George W. Bush who is responsible for more people getting on food stamps; oh, and isn't that a good thing so that kids can eat?) "There’s — the area that ought to be I-73 was called by Barack Obama 'a corridor of shame' because of unemployment." (Nope. The "Corridor of Shame" is because of the condition of the rural schools in the area. Oh, and Obama didn't name it that; the people from there did. Oh, and it's along I-95.)
But who the fuck cares if Newt Gingrich is a venal, lying shitsack, an angry hippopotamus destroying anything it can and dragging the half-dead into the river to drown? The audience lapped it up as he jacked off in their faces, using his dick to slap the black guy who dared to question the rightness of his Newtness. He is a walking, talking infection, and every time we think we've gotten rid of him, he comes back stronger and more resistant to the drugs that can kill him.
However, big thanks to the people of South Carolina for revealing, as ever, that racist pricks will always and forever be racist pricks and that redneck assholes will always be easily manipulated into thinking that the rich motherfucker up on stage who calls out the "elitists" is one of them.
(Fun true story: Myrtle Beach is cracker vacation paradise. As the man who was repairing his air conditioner once told the Rude Pundit while living in Tennessee, he loved going to Myrtle Beach because he could drive his pick-up truck on the beach. "It don't get no better than that," he said. Having never driven a pick-up on a beach, the Rude Pundit could neither agree nor disagree.)
Tips For Comparing Motorcycle Insurance Plans
Tips For Comparing Motorcycle Insurance Plans
You may find that motorcycle insurance is very similar, but that could justify all the other vehicles, because I think that most of my readers are familiar with the car, I think it would be useful in the comparison. These cars and motorcycles.
If you live in the U.S. make sure that your state requires a minimum of political responsibility. This is to protect the finances of other vehicles on the road, on the other hand, operators of other vehicles that must carry insurance to protect you. This is especially true if you drive a saloon car, motor home or motorcycle.
You can also perform a more comprehensive coverage to protect against losses in their cars. If you still owe money on the bike, the creditor can require you to have complete coverage.
If you live in the U.S. make sure that your state requires a minimum of political responsibility. This is to protect the finances of other vehicles on the road, on the other hand, operators of other vehicles that must carry insurance to protect you. This is especially true if you drive a saloon car, motor home or motorcycle.
You can also perform a more comprehensive coverage to protect against losses in their cars. If you still owe money on the bike, the creditor can require you to have complete coverage.
The premiums are affected by many of the same things that affect your car insurance. Your age, driving record and type of bike you ride, maybe not. How you use your bike, maybe not. If you drive just a few hours a week you could be driving distance is low. If you travel to work every day on the highway at a busy city, you may need to pay more.
At this point you should understand that we purchased our risk management policies. The insurer is looking for professionals who are at risk. So one of the most important things that's different about the bike is guaranteed by the fact that car insurance companies believe that the risk of making a motion of a machine.
However, insurers are smart enough to understand that cyclists safe in the hands of a very good might be a risk of short-trapped car in the hands of bad people. Therefore, there is always something you can do to shop for coverage and also to promote itself as a better risk.
Tips for the comparison between the bike and its policies.
As with other types of insurance is largely regulated at the state level. In addition, policies and prices vary depending on the area. Therefore, it is useful to compare plans in your area. You can find some great sites that will show you the best companies in your area. You just need to zip code.
Once you see the item you are free to click through to each company to find out more about prices and options to protect their If you have any questions, you can get contact information for choices. You can call, email or visit the company or its agent to receive more detailed information. If you are quite understanding about the politics of a motorcycle, you can find companies that will allow you to purchase online or by phone. This provides a good mix of using the Internet effectively and to request a personalized service.
You will need to understand how much you can afford to cover the balance of how much you can afford to lose. This will help you understand the amount of coverage and deductibles.
The insured person is not one that is perfect for all motorcyclists. When you shop and compare, you can find companies that are best for you.
You need a car or motorcycle insurance?
Visit us online for a way to get cheap motorcycle insurance. You can compare different insurers on the computer at home or at work. Of course we also provide car insurance quotes from the internet that can help you save time and money
Martin Luther King Would Still Fuck Your Shit Up (99% Edition):
Here's something relevant to our current debate over whether or not it's okay to raise the marginal income tax rate on millionaires by 4%. It's from the sermon "Remaining Awake Through a Great Revolution," delivered at the National Cathedral in Washington, DC, on March 31, 1968, after King had finished discussing racial injustice:
"We are challenged to rid our nation and the world of poverty. Like a monstrous octopus, poverty spreads its nagging, prehensile tentacles into hamlets and villages all over our world. Two-thirds of the people of the world go to bed hungry tonight. They are ill-housed; they are ill-nourished; they are shabbily clad. I’ve seen it in Latin America; I’ve seen it in Africa; I’ve seen this poverty in Asia."
King then described a trip that he and his wife took to India, coming to the conclusion that "maybe we spend far too much of our national budget establishing military bases around the world rather than bases of genuine concern and understanding."
He continued, "Not only do we see poverty abroad, I would remind you that in our own nation there are about forty million people who are poverty-stricken. I have seen them here and there. I have seen them in the ghettos of the North; I have seen them in the rural areas of the South; I have seen them in Appalachia. I have just been in the process of touring many areas of our country and I must confess that in some situations I have literally found myself crying.
"I was in Marks, Mississippi, the other day, which is in Whitman County, the poorest county in the United States. I tell you, I saw hundreds of little black boys and black girls walking the streets with no shoes to wear. I saw their mothers and fathers trying to carry on a little Head Start program, but they had no money. The federal government hadn’t funded them, but they were trying to carry on. They raised a little money here and there; trying to get a little food to feed the children; trying to teach them a little something.
"And I saw mothers and fathers who said to me not only were they unemployed, they didn’t get any kind of income—no old-age pension, no welfare check, no anything. I said, 'How do you live?' And they say, 'Well, we go around, go around to the neighbors and ask them for a little something. When the berry season comes, we pick berries. When the rabbit season comes, we hunt and catch a few rabbits. And that’s about it.'
"And I was in Newark and Harlem just this week. And I walked into the homes of welfare mothers. I saw them in conditions—no, not with wall-to-wall carpet, but wall-to-wall rats and roaches. I stood in an apartment and this welfare mother said to me, 'The landlord will not repair this place. I’ve been here two years and he hasn’t made a single repair.' She pointed out the walls with all the ceiling falling through. She showed me the holes where the rats came in. She said night after night we have to stay awake to keep the rats and roaches from getting to the children. I said, 'How much do you pay for this apartment?' She said, 'A hundred and twenty-five dollars.' I looked, and I thought, and said to myself, 'It isn’t worth sixty dollars.' Poor people are forced to pay more for less. Living in conditions day in and day out where the whole area is constantly drained without being replenished. It becomes a kind of domestic colony. And the tragedy is, so often these forty million people are invisible because America is so affluent, so rich. Because our expressways carry us from the ghetto, we don’t see the poor.
"Jesus told a parable one day, and he reminded us that a man went to hell because he didn’t see the poor. His name was Dives. He was a rich man. And there was a man by the name of Lazarus who was a poor man, but not only was he poor, he was sick. Sores were all over his body, and he was so weak that he could hardly move. But he managed to get to the gate of Dives every day, wanting just to have the crumbs that would fall from his table. And Dives did nothing about it. And the parable ends saying, 'Dives went to hell, and there were a fixed gulf now between Lazarus and Dives.'
"There is nothing in that parable that said Dives went to hell because he was rich. Jesus never made a universal indictment against all wealth. It is true that one day a rich young ruler came to him, and he advised him to sell all, but in that instance Jesus was prescribing individual surgery and not setting forth a universal diagnosis. And if you will look at that parable with all of its symbolism, you will remember that a conversation took place between heaven and hell, and on the other end of that long-distance call between heaven and hell was Abraham in heaven talking to Dives in hell.
"Now Abraham was a very rich man. If you go back to the Old Testament, you see that he was the richest man of his day, so it was not a rich man in hell talking with a poor man in heaven; it was a little millionaire in hell talking with a multimillionaire in heaven. Dives didn’t go to hell because he was rich; Dives didn’t realize that his wealth was his opportunity. It was his opportunity to bridge the gulf that separated him from his brother Lazarus. Dives went to hell because he was passed by Lazarus every day and he never really saw him. He went to hell because he allowed his brother to become invisible. Dives went to hell because he maximized the minimum and minimized the maximum. Indeed, Dives went to hell because he sought to be a conscientious objector in the war against poverty.
"And this can happen to America, the richest nation in the world — and nothing’s wrong with that — this is America’s opportunity to help bridge the gulf between the haves and the have-nots. The question is whether America will do it. There is nothing new about poverty. What is new is that we now have the techniques and the resources to get rid of poverty. The real question is whether we have the will."
That this sermon could be delivered today, 44 years later, with some adjustments for inflation and with "billionaire" in there, speaks to a shame that should scar us as deeply as any mark of Cain. That it doesn't and that we speak of helping the poor with the crumbs that fall from the table of the rich as "wealth redistribution," as if that's wrong and evil, demonstrates that we are, indeed, damned as Dives.
Here's something relevant to our current debate over whether or not it's okay to raise the marginal income tax rate on millionaires by 4%. It's from the sermon "Remaining Awake Through a Great Revolution," delivered at the National Cathedral in Washington, DC, on March 31, 1968, after King had finished discussing racial injustice:
"We are challenged to rid our nation and the world of poverty. Like a monstrous octopus, poverty spreads its nagging, prehensile tentacles into hamlets and villages all over our world. Two-thirds of the people of the world go to bed hungry tonight. They are ill-housed; they are ill-nourished; they are shabbily clad. I’ve seen it in Latin America; I’ve seen it in Africa; I’ve seen this poverty in Asia."
King then described a trip that he and his wife took to India, coming to the conclusion that "maybe we spend far too much of our national budget establishing military bases around the world rather than bases of genuine concern and understanding."
He continued, "Not only do we see poverty abroad, I would remind you that in our own nation there are about forty million people who are poverty-stricken. I have seen them here and there. I have seen them in the ghettos of the North; I have seen them in the rural areas of the South; I have seen them in Appalachia. I have just been in the process of touring many areas of our country and I must confess that in some situations I have literally found myself crying.
"I was in Marks, Mississippi, the other day, which is in Whitman County, the poorest county in the United States. I tell you, I saw hundreds of little black boys and black girls walking the streets with no shoes to wear. I saw their mothers and fathers trying to carry on a little Head Start program, but they had no money. The federal government hadn’t funded them, but they were trying to carry on. They raised a little money here and there; trying to get a little food to feed the children; trying to teach them a little something.
"And I saw mothers and fathers who said to me not only were they unemployed, they didn’t get any kind of income—no old-age pension, no welfare check, no anything. I said, 'How do you live?' And they say, 'Well, we go around, go around to the neighbors and ask them for a little something. When the berry season comes, we pick berries. When the rabbit season comes, we hunt and catch a few rabbits. And that’s about it.'
"And I was in Newark and Harlem just this week. And I walked into the homes of welfare mothers. I saw them in conditions—no, not with wall-to-wall carpet, but wall-to-wall rats and roaches. I stood in an apartment and this welfare mother said to me, 'The landlord will not repair this place. I’ve been here two years and he hasn’t made a single repair.' She pointed out the walls with all the ceiling falling through. She showed me the holes where the rats came in. She said night after night we have to stay awake to keep the rats and roaches from getting to the children. I said, 'How much do you pay for this apartment?' She said, 'A hundred and twenty-five dollars.' I looked, and I thought, and said to myself, 'It isn’t worth sixty dollars.' Poor people are forced to pay more for less. Living in conditions day in and day out where the whole area is constantly drained without being replenished. It becomes a kind of domestic colony. And the tragedy is, so often these forty million people are invisible because America is so affluent, so rich. Because our expressways carry us from the ghetto, we don’t see the poor.
"Jesus told a parable one day, and he reminded us that a man went to hell because he didn’t see the poor. His name was Dives. He was a rich man. And there was a man by the name of Lazarus who was a poor man, but not only was he poor, he was sick. Sores were all over his body, and he was so weak that he could hardly move. But he managed to get to the gate of Dives every day, wanting just to have the crumbs that would fall from his table. And Dives did nothing about it. And the parable ends saying, 'Dives went to hell, and there were a fixed gulf now between Lazarus and Dives.'
"There is nothing in that parable that said Dives went to hell because he was rich. Jesus never made a universal indictment against all wealth. It is true that one day a rich young ruler came to him, and he advised him to sell all, but in that instance Jesus was prescribing individual surgery and not setting forth a universal diagnosis. And if you will look at that parable with all of its symbolism, you will remember that a conversation took place between heaven and hell, and on the other end of that long-distance call between heaven and hell was Abraham in heaven talking to Dives in hell.
"Now Abraham was a very rich man. If you go back to the Old Testament, you see that he was the richest man of his day, so it was not a rich man in hell talking with a poor man in heaven; it was a little millionaire in hell talking with a multimillionaire in heaven. Dives didn’t go to hell because he was rich; Dives didn’t realize that his wealth was his opportunity. It was his opportunity to bridge the gulf that separated him from his brother Lazarus. Dives went to hell because he was passed by Lazarus every day and he never really saw him. He went to hell because he allowed his brother to become invisible. Dives went to hell because he maximized the minimum and minimized the maximum. Indeed, Dives went to hell because he sought to be a conscientious objector in the war against poverty.
"And this can happen to America, the richest nation in the world — and nothing’s wrong with that — this is America’s opportunity to help bridge the gulf between the haves and the have-nots. The question is whether America will do it. There is nothing new about poverty. What is new is that we now have the techniques and the resources to get rid of poverty. The real question is whether we have the will."
That this sermon could be delivered today, 44 years later, with some adjustments for inflation and with "billionaire" in there, speaks to a shame that should scar us as deeply as any mark of Cain. That it doesn't and that we speak of helping the poor with the crumbs that fall from the table of the rich as "wealth redistribution," as if that's wrong and evil, demonstrates that we are, indeed, damned as Dives.
How To Get The Best Pet Insurance Deal
How To Get The Best Pet Insurance Deal
With the economy like most of us it is impossible to hit with the big vet bill. But if our dear furry friend is sick, we will have no choice. It was found that the money would be of great stress. This is why pet insurance is a good idea, especially if you're armed with knowledge on how to get the best deal. If your dog or cat is sick or injured, then the insurance will cover the costs. Before you decide to get insurance for pets, there are some things you should consider.
A type of coverage.
This is probably the most important factor that influences the mode of payment of premiums. Do you need coverage only for injuries from an accident or medical care for animals? You want everything to be included? It 'important to consider this option carefully, and access to your lifestyle on what kind of problems your pet is likely to be found in the future. You can choose to cover some of the vet bills, which will eventually reduce the premium.
Secondly, your pet may affect the award.
The age and breed of your pet can affect the premiums. Older animals, the more you can expect to pay. In general, it will not be able to ensure the dogs over the age of 8 or cats over the age of 10, but if you are younger, then you can take out a life insurance policy that covers them for the rest. of their lives. Some varieties are more expensive to ensure that the risk of disease.
3 Shop around!
There are so many available from different insurance companies and the costs are very different. Ring around for quotes or to a comparison site to make sure you get a better deal.
4 It 'Spayed your pet?
If your cat or dog neutered / sterilized then you can expect to pay less for your insurance. This is because the animals are neutered are less prone to certain diseases. It may be helpful to get your pets spayed to save money in the long run.
5 Read the small print.
There is always a lot of terms and conditions of insurance policies or the first to introduce the policy carefully read all the details, especially what is and is not included, excess that you must pay and what they can decay. insurance required.
Emma Nutter is a freelance writer who writes for the dearly departed pets.
Cheap iPhone Insurance - Protecting Your iPhone
Cheap iPhone Insurance - Protecting Your iPhone
Insurance is what to do with nomophobia iPhone? Well, almost everything is Nomophobia fear of not being able to use the phone for any reason. In a survey conducted by YouGov at the request of the UK Post Office and 53% of respondents said they suffer from this phobia. This is not the official name and might not be true, it might scare people who can not stay in touch because of their cell phone was missing.
Obviously not a citizen of the United Kingdom, where all the people who were interviewed only a small number of participants was 2.163, which is not actually considered that the UK population is very large. But the point is here. It seems that in the United Kingdom, one of two nomophobes off their phones. Unfortunately, that has been lost, stolen mobile phones often. British Crime Survey conducted in August 2008, it was shown that in 6 out of 10 incidents, the phone is the only thing stolen. The same survey showed that 11% of victims were aged between 18 and 24 years, which is five times more people over the age of 64, this may mean that a person younger than people younger than the target for theft. persons phone, or that young people have mobile phones older.
Therefore, it is a great opportunity for anyone to lose their phone was rubato.Mentre may be true that you should ask yourself if you can afford to buy a new iPhone, it would pay a monthly fee for insurance. To help you decide if this is part of mathematics.
IPhone 3G, I will use this example. The online market is very popular for the iPhone 3G 8GB costs about £ 200, insurance is the cheapest iPhone 3G I found that the cost of cover is £ 6 per month, assuming that when we consider the statistics the above. Do not lose your iPhone for 2 years in two years you will pay £ 144 on insurance, so if you lose your iPhone after two years you will have to pay another 200 pounds to be. £ 400 in total, with the certainty that you pay only € 200 for mobile phones and 144 for insurance in addition to 344 pounds and get the new iPhone will be one of the best, as it covers. £ 1000.
In addition to this, if you're going to lose your iPhone, I do not know how long it will take to get a new one? Insurance companies typically take up to 48 hours to process a claim. So even if you're one of those 53% do not have to endure nomophobes for too long, because you will have a new iPhone back in 48 hours.
The bottom line is that when you get insurance for your phone, you can rest easy knowing that they will be in touch with family and friends. And we all know how important it is to be able to do so. Just be sure to get insurance, the iPhone and I do not agree with any policy, just read before accepting them and see which one fits you best.
Insurance is what to do with nomophobia iPhone? Well, almost everything is Nomophobia fear of not being able to use the phone for any reason. In a survey conducted by YouGov at the request of the UK Post Office and 53% of respondents said they suffer from this phobia. This is not the official name and might not be true, it might scare people who can not stay in touch because of their cell phone was missing.
Obviously not a citizen of the United Kingdom, where all the people who were interviewed only a small number of participants was 2.163, which is not actually considered that the UK population is very large. But the point is here. It seems that in the United Kingdom, one of two nomophobes off their phones. Unfortunately, that has been lost, stolen mobile phones often. British Crime Survey conducted in August 2008, it was shown that in 6 out of 10 incidents, the phone is the only thing stolen. The same survey showed that 11% of victims were aged between 18 and 24 years, which is five times more people over the age of 64, this may mean that a person younger than people younger than the target for theft. persons phone, or that young people have mobile phones older.
Therefore, it is a great opportunity for anyone to lose their phone was rubato.Mentre may be true that you should ask yourself if you can afford to buy a new iPhone, it would pay a monthly fee for insurance. To help you decide if this is part of mathematics.
IPhone 3G, I will use this example. The online market is very popular for the iPhone 3G 8GB costs about £ 200, insurance is the cheapest iPhone 3G I found that the cost of cover is £ 6 per month, assuming that when we consider the statistics the above. Do not lose your iPhone for 2 years in two years you will pay £ 144 on insurance, so if you lose your iPhone after two years you will have to pay another 200 pounds to be. £ 400 in total, with the certainty that you pay only € 200 for mobile phones and 144 for insurance in addition to 344 pounds and get the new iPhone will be one of the best, as it covers. £ 1000.
In addition to this, if you're going to lose your iPhone, I do not know how long it will take to get a new one? Insurance companies typically take up to 48 hours to process a claim. So even if you're one of those 53% do not have to endure nomophobes for too long, because you will have a new iPhone back in 48 hours.
The bottom line is that when you get insurance for your phone, you can rest easy knowing that they will be in touch with family and friends. And we all know how important it is to be able to do so. Just be sure to get insurance, the iPhone and I do not agree with any policy, just read before accepting them and see which one fits you best.
Choosing the best pet insurance
When choosing a pet insurance policy, it's important to weigh the risks you'd like to cover and decide on which type of insurance best suits your needs. There are many types of policies available to pet owners, and not all policies are appropriate for all owners.
In 2010, Americans spent billions on health care for their pets and $250 million on pet insurance. Pet insurance policies cover a wide variety of animals but mostly provide coverage for dogs and cats, the most commonly owned pets in America (77 million and 93 million).
Pet insurance is a good idea because veterinary care has become more sophisticated, and as such is able to cure injuries and illnesses that were once an automatic death sentence for pets. As a result of the increased sophistication in treatment, costs have also increased. Having a pet insurance policy in place can spare pet owners from the painful decision of making an economically necessary euthanasia.
Understanding the coverages available for your pet, and examining what several pet insurance companies have to offer can help you purchase the policy that's right for your pet. Coverage can range from policies that reimburse just for accidents and major illnesses to policies that cover routine check-ups and visits. Here are the three major coverage types available from most pet insurers:
When purchasing a pet insurance policy, it's important to check the policy's exclusions and other stipulations. If you see a condition specific to your pet's breed excluded, the policy you're considering may not be the right policy for you. For policies that exclude certain conditions, you may be able to purchase a rider to the policy that extends coverage. Riders are add-ons to insurance policies that add additional coverages to policies.
In 2010, Americans spent billions on health care for their pets and $250 million on pet insurance. Pet insurance policies cover a wide variety of animals but mostly provide coverage for dogs and cats, the most commonly owned pets in America (77 million and 93 million).
Pet insurance is a good idea because veterinary care has become more sophisticated, and as such is able to cure injuries and illnesses that were once an automatic death sentence for pets. As a result of the increased sophistication in treatment, costs have also increased. Having a pet insurance policy in place can spare pet owners from the painful decision of making an economically necessary euthanasia.
Understanding the coverages available for your pet, and examining what several pet insurance companies have to offer can help you purchase the policy that's right for your pet. Coverage can range from policies that reimburse just for accidents and major illnesses to policies that cover routine check-ups and visits. Here are the three major coverage types available from most pet insurers:
- Full coverage -- Full coverage plans will provide coverage for just about all medical expense that may be incurred by your pet's care, such as regular vet visits and some drug coverage. Also, full coverage plans will pay for some of the more expensive surgeries or treatments your pet may need. This type of coverage is most beneficial to pet owners with older pets or pets who may be frequently ill. Getting coverage for an older pet can be difficult, so most pet owners should get coverage for their pets when they are young. Full coverage is definitely recommended for animals used for sporting or work purposes, as these animals are more likely to be injured than house pets. Pet insurance coverage can keep pet owners from having to pay large amounts of money in treatment for pets should they become ill or injured, so it's a good investment to make.
- Standard coverage -- Standard coverage is a low price plan that covers routine veterinary bills such as expenses for vet visits and check ups. This coverage does not provide full coverage for the more expensive types of treatments and surgeries your pet may need if it becomes sick or injured, although many policies provide partial coverage. This type of coverage is appropriate for house pets or pets not likely to have major health problems.
- Catastrophic coverage -- This type of coverage offers reimbursement for expenses incurred by treating major injuries or illnesses. It does not provide coverage for routine vet visits. This type of policy is most appropriate for folks who want to handle routine costs out-of-pocket, but need coverage for the more expensive treatments that may arise because of an accident. These policies tend to be cheaper than full coverage policies.
When purchasing a pet insurance policy, it's important to check the policy's exclusions and other stipulations. If you see a condition specific to your pet's breed excluded, the policy you're considering may not be the right policy for you. For policies that exclude certain conditions, you may be able to purchase a rider to the policy that extends coverage. Riders are add-ons to insurance policies that add additional coverages to policies.
Insurance companies
There are several pet insurance companies, but one of the most well-established ones is VPI Pet Insurance. Founded in 1980, VPI covers hundreds of thousands of dogs and cats nationwide. The longstanding stability of this company means that when you need a claim covered, VPI will have the funds to reimburse you for your pets' medical costs. Another often-recommended pet insurer is the ASPCA's health insurance program. The ASPCA offers some pretty good benefits with some plans, including multiple pet discounts, a $100 per year deductible and 80 percent reimbursement on most charges.Exotic pet insurance becoming more commonplace
Last year Americans spent nearly $250 million on pet insurance. This coverage included dogs and cats, but also included policies for more exotic animals, such as chimpanzees and other pets. More than 77 million dogs are owned as pets by Americans, and nearly 93 million cats are owned as pets as Americans.
There are more than 50 million other animals owned as pets by Americans. Because of the prevalence of dogs and cats among pet owners, most pet insurance policies are most often written for these animals. Pet insurance is a form of insurance that provides coverage to pets for their veterinary care. Pet insurance helps to offset costs related to the expense of treating sick or injured pets. Veterinary care has become more sophisticated in recent years, making it more expensive, thus growing the market for veterinary insurance.
Here's a few "exotic pets" and some of their special care needs.
Owners of exotic pets can expect to spend more on average, because of the smaller insurance pool and because of the more specialized care needs of exotic animals. In addition to a monthly premium, pet owners may also have to pay a co-pay or deductible in some cases. Most exotic pet insurance polices offer care for illnesses and injuries your pet may endure, although some injuries and illnesses may be barred by exclusion. Drug coverage may also be offered by the pet insurance plan. For routine care and care barred by exclusion, riders offering extended coverage may be purchased in some circumstances.
Some exotic pet insurance policies offer death and theft insurance, which pays the owner a benefit if the covered pet dies or is lost or stolen. For owners of expensive pets, this coverage may be desirable. Exotic pets are becoming increasingly popular among Americans. As these pets become more widespread among pet owners, veterinary care related to these animals will likely become in higher demand. Because of the specialized nature of exotic pet healthcare, these policies can help offset what can be very high bills for the care of your exotic animals.
There are more than 50 million other animals owned as pets by Americans. Because of the prevalence of dogs and cats among pet owners, most pet insurance policies are most often written for these animals. Pet insurance is a form of insurance that provides coverage to pets for their veterinary care. Pet insurance helps to offset costs related to the expense of treating sick or injured pets. Veterinary care has become more sophisticated in recent years, making it more expensive, thus growing the market for veterinary insurance.
Exotic pets are less exotic than you think
According to pet insurance companies, an exotic animal is any pet other than a dog or cat. This means relatively common pets such as birds or rabbits are, for the purposes of insurance, exotic animals. Insurance companies basis this definition on the fact that exotic animals have care needs that are more specialized than those of dogs can cats. Because insurance is essentially all about probability and statistics, insurers must consider the health needs of certain animals and the chances these services may be necessary when writing insurance policies.Here's a few "exotic pets" and some of their special care needs.
- Rodents -- Hamsters, guinea pigs, gerbils and other rodents' primary veterinary concern will be dental care, as they tend to have rapid tooth growth. Most rodents have short lifespans, although guinea pigs can live for up to seven years. Because of their short lifespan, finding coverage for these pets is often difficult.
- Reptiles -- Many reptiles can live for decades, and pet reptiles often change owners over the course of their lifetime. Each type of reptile, including lizards, iguanas, snakes and turtles have very specific healthcare needs. Commonly, the healthcare needs of reptiles is related to feeding and nutrition, although other needs can arise. Reptiles are one of the species of exotic pets that are easier to insure, depending upon the species.
- Birds -- Birds have a variety of health issues requiring specialized veterinary attention. The lifespan of birds greatly varies. Some live only a few years while others can live for decades. Some of the most common health issues with pet birds involve wing clipping and infections.
- Pigs -- Pigs are an increasingly popular pet. Pigs can live for more than a decade and their specialized health problems involve digestive and breathing problems.
Obtaining an exotic pet insurance policy
Exotic pet coverage is a little more difficult to obtain than pet insurance for dogs or cats, but because of the increasingly sophisticated nature of veterinary care and the costs involved, it's a worthwhile investment. One of the largest pet insurers in the U.S. is VPI, which offers a number of exotic pet policies. Most dog or cat polices cost between $10 and $50 per month, depending on the level of coverage obtained.Owners of exotic pets can expect to spend more on average, because of the smaller insurance pool and because of the more specialized care needs of exotic animals. In addition to a monthly premium, pet owners may also have to pay a co-pay or deductible in some cases. Most exotic pet insurance polices offer care for illnesses and injuries your pet may endure, although some injuries and illnesses may be barred by exclusion. Drug coverage may also be offered by the pet insurance plan. For routine care and care barred by exclusion, riders offering extended coverage may be purchased in some circumstances.
Some exotic pet insurance policies offer death and theft insurance, which pays the owner a benefit if the covered pet dies or is lost or stolen. For owners of expensive pets, this coverage may be desirable. Exotic pets are becoming increasingly popular among Americans. As these pets become more widespread among pet owners, veterinary care related to these animals will likely become in higher demand. Because of the specialized nature of exotic pet healthcare, these policies can help offset what can be very high bills for the care of your exotic animals.
Pet insurance pros and cons
Pet owners are buying pet insurance in increasing numbers as veterinary care becomes more and more sophisticated and owners are more loath to euthanize their pets. While pet insurance can offset costs enough to help pet owners avoid the very difficult choice of economic euthanasia, policies don't cover everything and are not always a good investment. Like any other insurance policy or financial service, pet insurance had benefits and disadvantages buyers should consider before purchasing a policy.
Most pet insurance policies offer coverage for veterinary costs that arise from sicknesses and illnesses. Others offer coverage for theft and death. Most policies also contain exclusions barring coverage of illnesses and injuries arising from certain circumstances and barring certain treatments from coverage. What are the benefits of pet insurance? For pet owners, purchasing a pet insurance policy can have a number of benefits. In the event of a major accident or illness, pet insurance can come in handy in avoiding big medical costs. If your pet is struck by a car, the cost of treating broken bones can be very expensive. Many pet owners are forced to choose euthanasia because of economic concerns.
Having a pet insurance policy can spare a pet owner this difficult choice by making emergency care affordable. Pet insurance is very affordable, with most policies costing between $10 and $50 per month, depending on what type of pet you're insuring and the level of coverage provided. It may be best to purchase a low-cost policy that only covers the big accidents or illnesses and pay for routine care on your own. Many pet insurance policies offer discounts on coverage for multiple pets. Most of the time these discounts range from 5 to 10 percent. Some breeds of dogs and cats have problems that are common to the breed, such as hip problems with German Shepherds. Fixing these problems can be expensive, so purchasing a policy while the animal is young is a good investment.
The average pet insurance policy will pay for between $2,000 and $14,000 in care per year, but some cases the cost of care may exceed this amount. Routine treatment, the most common veterinary treatment, is not covered by most standard pet insurance policies. If you want coverage for vaccinations, wellness check-ups and other routine care, you'll have to purchase an add-on to your pet insurance policy.
Pet insurance policies often have limits on how many treatments or tests of a specific sort can be covered each year. For example, some policies will limit how many x-rays they'll cover each year. Like any form of insurance, your pet policy is a bet. If your pet never gets injured or sick, you've basically given the insurer money each year for nothing. However, if an illness or injury occurs, having pet insurance may turn out to be a good investment.
When considering purchasing pet insurance, pet owners should shop around and find the policy that best fits their individual circumstances. You may also want to see if you can buy pet coverage through your company, as now about 5 percent of companies offer some form of pet coverage as a benefit to employees. For owners of some pets, no policy will be a good deal and those owners may instead want to set aside savings each month as a fund to pay for emergency pet care. Evaluate your options carefully before making a choice.
What is pet insurance?
Pet insurance is essentially coverage for the costs of veterinary care for pets that arise from sickness or injury. Last year, Americans spent nearly $250 million on pet insurance, and nearly $10 billion was spent in the U.S. on veterinary care. Pet insurance is a form of property coverage, meaning that it works on a claims made basis, in which the insurer reimburses the policyholder for bills submitted after treatment. Pet insurance policies have existed in some form since the late 19th century but only became widespread in America after the 1980s.Most pet insurance policies offer coverage for veterinary costs that arise from sicknesses and illnesses. Others offer coverage for theft and death. Most policies also contain exclusions barring coverage of illnesses and injuries arising from certain circumstances and barring certain treatments from coverage. What are the benefits of pet insurance? For pet owners, purchasing a pet insurance policy can have a number of benefits. In the event of a major accident or illness, pet insurance can come in handy in avoiding big medical costs. If your pet is struck by a car, the cost of treating broken bones can be very expensive. Many pet owners are forced to choose euthanasia because of economic concerns.
Having a pet insurance policy can spare a pet owner this difficult choice by making emergency care affordable. Pet insurance is very affordable, with most policies costing between $10 and $50 per month, depending on what type of pet you're insuring and the level of coverage provided. It may be best to purchase a low-cost policy that only covers the big accidents or illnesses and pay for routine care on your own. Many pet insurance policies offer discounts on coverage for multiple pets. Most of the time these discounts range from 5 to 10 percent. Some breeds of dogs and cats have problems that are common to the breed, such as hip problems with German Shepherds. Fixing these problems can be expensive, so purchasing a policy while the animal is young is a good investment.
What are the disadvantages?
Pet insurance often bars coverage for pre-existing conditions -- ones you know about and ones you don't know about. So, if you purchase coverage for your pet and later it's discovered that he has a long-standing health condition, coverage for treatment of this ailment may not be covered by your pet insurance policy. Pet insurance policies often have caps on how much treatment they'll pay for, and in some cases these caps can be rather low.The average pet insurance policy will pay for between $2,000 and $14,000 in care per year, but some cases the cost of care may exceed this amount. Routine treatment, the most common veterinary treatment, is not covered by most standard pet insurance policies. If you want coverage for vaccinations, wellness check-ups and other routine care, you'll have to purchase an add-on to your pet insurance policy.
Pet insurance policies often have limits on how many treatments or tests of a specific sort can be covered each year. For example, some policies will limit how many x-rays they'll cover each year. Like any form of insurance, your pet policy is a bet. If your pet never gets injured or sick, you've basically given the insurer money each year for nothing. However, if an illness or injury occurs, having pet insurance may turn out to be a good investment.
When considering purchasing pet insurance, pet owners should shop around and find the policy that best fits their individual circumstances. You may also want to see if you can buy pet coverage through your company, as now about 5 percent of companies offer some form of pet coverage as a benefit to employees. For owners of some pets, no policy will be a good deal and those owners may instead want to set aside savings each month as a fund to pay for emergency pet care. Evaluate your options carefully before making a choice.
Who needs third-party pet liability insurance
When people think of pet insurance they usually think of coverage for veterinary treatment for accidents and illnesses that may befall their pets, but there is another risk that pet owners may want to insure against -- the damage their pets may cause to others.
Liability insurance is a form of insurance that protects the insured from risks of liabilites that can be litigated in claims and lawsuits. If an insured is sued for a claim that falls within the liability insurance policy's coverage, the insurer will pay for the insured's defense and indemnify against any judgment or settlement that may be reached in the case.
Third-party pet liability insurance provides coverage for injuries that may be caused by your pet. The most common form of pet liability insurance available is dog liability insurance. There are more than 4.7 million dog bites reported annually in the U.S. More than 1,000 people per day go to an emergency room with dog bite injuries and 33 people died of dog bites in 2007. Most dog bite injuries happen to children, most of whom are bitten in the face.
We live in a very litigious society, and with the many personal injury attorneys who take cases on a contingency fee basis, there's little deterrent for folks who suffer even the slightest injury to refrain from suing if they think there's an opportunity for them to profit from a suit. Dog bites and other injuries caused by pets can leave disfiguring scars and long-term pain. Because of this, its likely that hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages or more may be awarded to a plaintiff in a civil suit regarding a dog bite.
More than $1 billion of losses related to dog bites occurred last year, $300 million of which was paid for from homeowner's insurance. Many homeowner's policies extend liability coverage to dog bites, but many do not. If you own a dog, you may want to review your homeowner's policy to see if it covers dog bites. If it doesn't, third-party pet liability insurance may be a good investment.
Pit bulls have also been in the headlines recently for attacks on children and adults. Other breeds known for aggression include German Shepherds, chows, huskies and Dobermans. Insuring one of the more aggressive breeds of dogs may cost a little more than insuring a poodle or a dachshund, but when you consider the risk involved, it's a good investment to make.
When purchasing third-party pet liability insurance, experts recommend you purchase a policy that provides at least $100,000 in coverage for injuries that may arise from a dog bite. In some cases, if your homeowner's policy does not already offer dog bite or other coverage, it can be purchased as an add-on. Liability insurance for pets is usually inexpensive, but can run up to $1,000 per year for some pets, particularly aggressive breeds or animals with a history of biting. When applying for third-party pet liability insurance, your insurer will evaluate your pet, its history of causing injury, if any, and statistical data concerning how much of a risk that pet is. Based on this data, the insurer will approve or deny coverage and set a rate.
Liability insurance is a form of insurance that protects the insured from risks of liabilites that can be litigated in claims and lawsuits. If an insured is sued for a claim that falls within the liability insurance policy's coverage, the insurer will pay for the insured's defense and indemnify against any judgment or settlement that may be reached in the case.
Third-party pet liability insurance provides coverage for injuries that may be caused by your pet. The most common form of pet liability insurance available is dog liability insurance. There are more than 4.7 million dog bites reported annually in the U.S. More than 1,000 people per day go to an emergency room with dog bite injuries and 33 people died of dog bites in 2007. Most dog bite injuries happen to children, most of whom are bitten in the face.
We live in a very litigious society, and with the many personal injury attorneys who take cases on a contingency fee basis, there's little deterrent for folks who suffer even the slightest injury to refrain from suing if they think there's an opportunity for them to profit from a suit. Dog bites and other injuries caused by pets can leave disfiguring scars and long-term pain. Because of this, its likely that hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages or more may be awarded to a plaintiff in a civil suit regarding a dog bite.
More than $1 billion of losses related to dog bites occurred last year, $300 million of which was paid for from homeowner's insurance. Many homeowner's policies extend liability coverage to dog bites, but many do not. If you own a dog, you may want to review your homeowner's policy to see if it covers dog bites. If it doesn't, third-party pet liability insurance may be a good investment.
Aggressive breeds
While any breed of dog may bite someone, some breeds tend to be more aggressive than others. According to a recent study of all dog bite fatalities over a 20-year period, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and interbred dogs from the two breeds were responsible for three-fourths of all attacks. These breeds were responsible for nearly 70 percent of attacks on children, more than 80 percent of those on adults and almost two-thirds of the fatalities.Pit bulls have also been in the headlines recently for attacks on children and adults. Other breeds known for aggression include German Shepherds, chows, huskies and Dobermans. Insuring one of the more aggressive breeds of dogs may cost a little more than insuring a poodle or a dachshund, but when you consider the risk involved, it's a good investment to make.
When purchasing third-party pet liability insurance, experts recommend you purchase a policy that provides at least $100,000 in coverage for injuries that may arise from a dog bite. In some cases, if your homeowner's policy does not already offer dog bite or other coverage, it can be purchased as an add-on. Liability insurance for pets is usually inexpensive, but can run up to $1,000 per year for some pets, particularly aggressive breeds or animals with a history of biting. When applying for third-party pet liability insurance, your insurer will evaluate your pet, its history of causing injury, if any, and statistical data concerning how much of a risk that pet is. Based on this data, the insurer will approve or deny coverage and set a rate.
Coverage for non-canine pets
The vast majority of third-party pet liability policies are written to cover dogs. If you need a policy to cover another pet, it may be hard to find. Nevertheless, pet owners shouldn't snap up the first policy they find that covers their pet chimpanzee or snake. Like consumers of any other product, pet owners should shop carefully and make sure they understand the terms of the third-party liability policy they're buying -- what it covers and what it excludes and how much coverage it provides. Because of the potential for losses from a dog bite or other pet-related injury, it's wise to purchase a third-party liability policy to protect your wealth from a lawsuit, particularly if you own a breed of dog that's known to be aggressive. Paying a little in coverage now could save you considerably later if a suit is brought against you.Who needs dogs insurance?
Certain breeds of canine may be at greater risk of illness and injury than others. That's why for some breeds of dogs, buying pet insurance more than just a good idea. Veterinary care has become more sophisticated in recent decades. Illnesses and injuries that were once death sentences for beloved pets are now treatable. This treatment comes with a cost, which can be high. Some of the more sophisticated treatments of dogs such as cancer treatments or hip replacement surgery can cost thousands of dollars.
The high price of these care options, and the unpredictability of when they may be required makes dog insurance advisable for canine owners. Americans spend about $250 million per year on pet insurance, with dogs being the most frequently covered animal. Dog insurance typically runs between $10 and $50 per month and can cover a broad range of injury and illness, depending on the amount of coverage purchased.
As Americans spend more than $10 billion for dog health care per year, this insurance can be a good investment. Some breeds of canines are more susceptible to certain types of injury and dog illnesses than others. For example, German shepherds have a hereditary predisposition to hip problems. Modern veterinary medicine can treat hip problems in dogs, even to the point of offering hip replacement surgery, but these treatments can be quite expensive. Having a dog insurance policy in place can help defray the costs of expensive treatments that your dog may be predisposed to develop because of his breed. In general, larger breed dogs tend to be more expensive from a health care standpoint because larger breed dogs can require larger doses medication than smaller dogs.
Breeds at elevated risk for these illnesses include boxers, Great Danes, terriers and retrievers. Endocrine disorders -- This includes diabetes and hyperthyroidism. Mid-size dogs tend to be at greater risk for these illnesses. Dogs are also at risk for injuries, such as injuries caused by getting struck by a car in an accident or other mishaps.
Coverage is provided based on age and breed, and some dogs may be excluded from coverage. Some commonly covered illnesses include asthma, hip dysplasia, ear infections, bone and joint issues, cancer, etc. Routine coverage covers a variety of services, including spaying and neutering, heartworm treatment, dental care, vaccinations, etc. In general, the more comprehensive the coverage you obtain for your dog is, the more money it will cost.
When applying for dog insurance coverage, the insurer will evaluate a number of factors to determine whether they will cover your dog. Insurers will evaluate your dog's age, breed and general health, along with his medical history. This is why it's good to get insurance for dogs while they're still puppies, as older dogs are seen as a greater risk for insurers.
Pet owners seeking dog insurance should ask for quotes from several companies, as it is a competitive business and some insurers may offer lower rates or better services. Be sure to read and understand your dog insurance plan -- what it covers, its terms and what it excludes, before committing to it. Dog insurance can be a good hedge against expensive medical costs for pets, but only if you buy the right policy and the right amount of coverage.
The high price of these care options, and the unpredictability of when they may be required makes dog insurance advisable for canine owners. Americans spend about $250 million per year on pet insurance, with dogs being the most frequently covered animal. Dog insurance typically runs between $10 and $50 per month and can cover a broad range of injury and illness, depending on the amount of coverage purchased.
As Americans spend more than $10 billion for dog health care per year, this insurance can be a good investment. Some breeds of canines are more susceptible to certain types of injury and dog illnesses than others. For example, German shepherds have a hereditary predisposition to hip problems. Modern veterinary medicine can treat hip problems in dogs, even to the point of offering hip replacement surgery, but these treatments can be quite expensive. Having a dog insurance policy in place can help defray the costs of expensive treatments that your dog may be predisposed to develop because of his breed. In general, larger breed dogs tend to be more expensive from a health care standpoint because larger breed dogs can require larger doses medication than smaller dogs.
Common dog illnesses
Here's a list of common dog illnesses, and which breeds are particularly susceptible to them. Eye diseases -- Quite a few breeds are susceptible to eye problems such as cataracts, glaucoma, progressive retinal atrophy, etc. Some eye problems, like cataracts are fairly well spread out among all breeds, however some problems like ectropion affect a more select group of dogs, in ectropion's case, spaniels, labs and shih tzus. Musculoskeletal disorders -- These illnesses include hip and elbow dysplasia and a variety of other problems. These disorders mostly effect smaller breed dogs. Heart disease -- These illnesses include aortic stenosis, sub-aortic stenosis, mitral valve disease, cardiomyopathy, etc.Breeds at elevated risk for these illnesses include boxers, Great Danes, terriers and retrievers. Endocrine disorders -- This includes diabetes and hyperthyroidism. Mid-size dogs tend to be at greater risk for these illnesses. Dogs are also at risk for injuries, such as injuries caused by getting struck by a car in an accident or other mishaps.
Coverages available
There are essentially three types of coverage available for dogs, and all pets covered by pet insurance. Accident coverage is the base line insurance for dogs. Just about any dog qualifies for accident coverage, regardless of his breed, general health or age. This covers car accidents and injuries that may be caused by falls, poison ingestion, broken bones, insect bites, etc. Illness coverage covers sickness related ailments.Coverage is provided based on age and breed, and some dogs may be excluded from coverage. Some commonly covered illnesses include asthma, hip dysplasia, ear infections, bone and joint issues, cancer, etc. Routine coverage covers a variety of services, including spaying and neutering, heartworm treatment, dental care, vaccinations, etc. In general, the more comprehensive the coverage you obtain for your dog is, the more money it will cost.
When applying for dog insurance coverage, the insurer will evaluate a number of factors to determine whether they will cover your dog. Insurers will evaluate your dog's age, breed and general health, along with his medical history. This is why it's good to get insurance for dogs while they're still puppies, as older dogs are seen as a greater risk for insurers.
Pet owners seeking dog insurance should ask for quotes from several companies, as it is a competitive business and some insurers may offer lower rates or better services. Be sure to read and understand your dog insurance plan -- what it covers, its terms and what it excludes, before committing to it. Dog insurance can be a good hedge against expensive medical costs for pets, but only if you buy the right policy and the right amount of coverage.
Pet Insurance: The basics
With advances in veterinary treatment, illnesses and injuries that were once fatal to pets are now treatable. But with increased care options, there are also increased costs. Pet insurance can help pet owners defray the costs of potentially expensive pet care, and prevent them from having to make painful decisions regarding the well-being of their pets based on financial considerations. While pet insurance may sound like a new innovation, it's actually been around for quite some time.
The very first pet insurance policy was issued in the late 19th century to owners of horses and livestock. Pet insurance came to Britain in the 1940s and in 1982 the first American pet insurance policy was issued to a canine actor playing Lassie. Pet insurance may seem like a frivolous expense to some, but when considering the investment pet owners put into their animals, it's actually a pretty sound investment.
Treatment for life-threatening illnesses such as cancer can cost thousands of dollars. Having a pet insurance policy in place can greatly help to mitigate the costs of this treatment. In the U.S., nearly $34.4 billion was spent on pets in 2004, which is double what was spent a decade before then. Of that $34.4 billion, nearly $1.6 billion was spent on the purchase of pets, $14.2 was spent on food and nearly $16 billion was spent on medical care, including medicine. Today, pet insurance is common in some countries. In Britain nearly 23 percent of pet owners have insurance on their animals. Dogs are the most commonly insured animals, followed closely by felines.
Non -lifetime policies will offer coverage for treatment during a set period, but after that period some conditions may be excluded. Lifetime coverage will cover all specified conditions for the lifetime of the pet. Lifetime policies may have per condition, per year exclusions, which will deny coverage for some conditions if they occur more than a set number of times per year.
Most policies offer coverage for routine visits and emergency visits, medications, lab tests and x-rays and vaccinations. Like health insurance, many pet insurance policies work with a network of vets that the owner must choose from. Using a vet outside the network may result in a lower reimbursement or non-payment of a claim. Pet health insurance offers a variety of policies and coverages to pet owners. Owners can purchase coverage for certain treatments, like surgical coverage, or can purchase other options such as nationwide coverage if the owner travels a lot with his or her pet.
Often pet insurance policies will have discounts if multiple pets are being covered. A common discount is a 5 to 10 percent cut if the owner registers two or more animals. Just like human health insurance, pet insurers may require the pet to undergo a medical examination before offering coverage. This is why it's a good idea to obtain coverage for a pet while he or she is young, before the animal has the opportunity to develop significant health problems.
The very first pet insurance policy was issued in the late 19th century to owners of horses and livestock. Pet insurance came to Britain in the 1940s and in 1982 the first American pet insurance policy was issued to a canine actor playing Lassie. Pet insurance may seem like a frivolous expense to some, but when considering the investment pet owners put into their animals, it's actually a pretty sound investment.
Treatment for life-threatening illnesses such as cancer can cost thousands of dollars. Having a pet insurance policy in place can greatly help to mitigate the costs of this treatment. In the U.S., nearly $34.4 billion was spent on pets in 2004, which is double what was spent a decade before then. Of that $34.4 billion, nearly $1.6 billion was spent on the purchase of pets, $14.2 was spent on food and nearly $16 billion was spent on medical care, including medicine. Today, pet insurance is common in some countries. In Britain nearly 23 percent of pet owners have insurance on their animals. Dogs are the most commonly insured animals, followed closely by felines.
How it works
Pet health insurance operates much like property insurance. The insurer reimburses the owner for costs after the pet has received veterinary care. The owner submits a claim to the insurer in order to obtain reimbursement. In general, there are two types of pet insurance policies, lifetime policies and non-lifetime policies.Non -lifetime policies will offer coverage for treatment during a set period, but after that period some conditions may be excluded. Lifetime coverage will cover all specified conditions for the lifetime of the pet. Lifetime policies may have per condition, per year exclusions, which will deny coverage for some conditions if they occur more than a set number of times per year.
Most policies offer coverage for routine visits and emergency visits, medications, lab tests and x-rays and vaccinations. Like health insurance, many pet insurance policies work with a network of vets that the owner must choose from. Using a vet outside the network may result in a lower reimbursement or non-payment of a claim. Pet health insurance offers a variety of policies and coverages to pet owners. Owners can purchase coverage for certain treatments, like surgical coverage, or can purchase other options such as nationwide coverage if the owner travels a lot with his or her pet.
Often pet insurance policies will have discounts if multiple pets are being covered. A common discount is a 5 to 10 percent cut if the owner registers two or more animals. Just like human health insurance, pet insurers may require the pet to undergo a medical examination before offering coverage. This is why it's a good idea to obtain coverage for a pet while he or she is young, before the animal has the opportunity to develop significant health problems.
Average costs
On average, pet insurance costs between $10 and $50 per month, depending on the insurer the owner uses and how comprehensive the policy he or she buys is. Accident coverage, which covers injuries as a result of being hit by a car or other accidents for about $10 per month, while accident and illness coverage will cost between $20 and $30 per month. Many employers are beginning to offer workplace benefits that provide pet insurance at discount prices.Third-party liability insurance
In addition to pet health insurance, many insurers also offer third-party liability insurance coverage for pets. This insurance basically covers any damage your pet may cause to others or their property. For pet owners, pet health insurance can be a wise investment that will offset the costs of extensive and expensive treatment your animal may need. Pet owners should read over all policy documents and ensure that they understand all language in a policy before signing up for coverage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
