Doh Doh!

This video is captioned "Jordanian Special Forces on an exercise."

Not quite as impressive as it was intended to be.

Update: Watch that dude in the back of the truck. That had to have been fatal.

Posted by: annika at 07:02 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 42 words, total size 1 kb.

Not that it really matters now, but I wondered: what would cause someone to de-link Annika's Journal? I mean, if someone blogrolled me at one time, then decided to remove me years later, it must have been something I said right? Because it costs you nothing to keep me on there for old time's sake.

What have I ever done that might possibly be considered de-link-worthy?

Answer: nothink.

My policy regarding de-linking on my own blogroll has always been six months of inactivity. Although for Ginger, I stretched it out longer and a part of me still thinks/hopes she'll return someday.

Posted by: annika at 11:25 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 123 words, total size 1 kb.

No one says good-bye like Shakespeare.

Why art thou yet so fair? shall I believe
That unsubstantial death is amorous,
And that the lean abhorred monster keeps
Thee here in dark to be his paramour?
For fear of that, I still will stay with thee;
And never from this palace of dim night
Depart again: here, here will I remain
With worms that are thy chamber-maids; O, here
Will I set up my everlasting rest,
And shake the yoke of inauspicious stars
From this world-wearied flesh. Eyes, look your last!
Arms, take your last embrace! and, lips, O you
The doors of breath, seal with a righteous kiss
A dateless bargain to engrossing death!
Come, bitter conduct, come, unsavoury guide!
Thou desperate pilot, now at once run on
The dashing rocks thy sea-sick weary bark!
Here's to my love!

Posted by: Victor at 08:02 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 147 words, total size 1 kb.

I feel like with six days of blogging left, every post I do should contain wisdom of surpassing profundity.

Instead I got nothing.

So hey, did you catch Dancing With The Stars tonight? Let me tell you, Anton and Julianne's cha-cha was almost pornographic. No, it was pornographic. I watched it three times just to make sure. It was also quite simply the most exciting performance I have seen in three seasons of obsession with that show. Absolutely loved it! The video is here.

Did you know Julianne is Mormon? There goes that stereotype.

And don't give me any more of that "we've got a brother and sister type relationship," Julie. I saw Anton slip you the tongue during that last hold. If you two aren't doing it by now, I don't know what you're waiting for!

Overall, tonight's show had amazing performaces from every couple on every dance. But the standouts for me, besides Anton's cha-cha, were Joey and Kym's jive and Laila and Maksim's cha-cha. I've become a huge Laila Ali fan. She can really shake it.

I don't think any of these four couples deserve to go home next week. If I had to predict, I'd say Ian and Cheryl, despite Ian's breakthrough 30 score. I'd hate to see Cheryl go though. I really think she's the best all around pro of the bunch.

Speaking of stars and pro's getting it on, what's the deal with Kym and Joey staying out 'til 2:30 one night, and then going on a Disney date? Is there more DWTS love in the air? I don't know. Kym recently broke an engagement, but Joey's married.

technorati: dancing with the stars

Posted by: annika at 10:22 PM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 283 words, total size 2 kb.

Every time the Post Office raises the price of stamps, I trot out an old joke I heard years ago.

[I say] Did you hear the post office just raised the price of stamps again?

[You say] They did?

[I say] Yah, they needed the money to buy more "next window please" signs.

Posted by: annika at 02:25 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 67 words, total size 1 kb.

Who was that brilliant thinker who said this?:

Listen, i'm not saying i think people should have rushed him or anything like that. If i was unarmed, and i was a guy, i'm not sure i would have had the guts to rush him. Even if a couple of other guys went with me. In the spur of the moment, I can understand hesitating, who wants to be the one guy who gets shot so the others can jump him? Bravery like that doesn't exist in our culture anymore, as Professor Librescu demonstrated. What i am saying is that one guy with a gun could have stopped the whole thing. And every. body. fucking. knows. It. One guy. Because, think about it... If you're unarmed, it takes a hell of a lot of guts to jump a guy with two guns, but if you're sitting in that room, and you know you've got a gun in your pocket there is absolutely no way you're not going to use it. How could you live with yourself if 32 people die and you know you could have stopped it? You'd have to intervene. Whereas, unarmed people don't have that kind of motivation. They are more likely to wait for the Librescus of the world to save them.

Update: Part 2 is here.

Posted by: annika at 07:31 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 224 words, total size 1 kb.

[an Annika's Journal list]

• JR's Texas Barbeque


• The Rancho Cordova range
• The patio at The Firehouse, and their crabcakes
• Kayaking on the American River
• The State Capitol and park
• Winco
• The Gold Country and foothills
• Armstrong and Getty

Things I won't miss:

• Stupid traffic on every single freeway
• Stupid one way streets that make no sense
• Stupid unnecessary and counterproductive car-pool lanes
• K Steet
• The Kings
• The mosquito

Posted by: annika at 07:51 AM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 74 words, total size 1 kb.

From Orson Scott Card's* recent column, "Civilization Watch," on the global warming debate:

How many thousands do you want to spend this year on preventing global warming? And after you find out that there's no proof that humans even cause it, or that it's even a bad thing, how many thousands do you want to spend "just in case"?

Two thousand? Surely you can afford two thousand. What about five thousand?

You're not writing your check. I guess you're not such a true believer after all.

[GW advocate and columnist Andrew] Brod also ignores the fact that the British government report was issued in support of policy changes that are, by any rational standard, pathetic. The changes they are making are ludicrously inadequate to change the levels of greenhouse gases to any significant degree. Given that the results will be near zero, any costs, however divided, might seem exorbitant.

Brod likens this to insurance, but it is not. Insurance is designed to pay you money after a loss. It does not prevent a loss. The valid comparison is to protection money: Somebody comes to you and demands you pay money "or you might have a fire." You pay the money so that they won't burn you out of business.

That's what the global-warming protection racket is about: Hey, we can't prove anything is actually happening, but look how many people we've got to agree with us! You'd better make a whole bunch of sacrifices which, by coincidence, exactly coincide with the political agenda of the anti-Western anti-industrial religion of ecodeism -- or global warming will get you!

At the most basic metaphysical level, we are all ignorant of the future. I can predict that the earth will continue to revolve as it did today, and thus the sun will come up tomorrow. But to a metaphysical certainty, I have no idea whether I will be proven correct until it happens. If I look out my window, I can't even say for certain that the earth is spinning, or even that it is round. For those facts, I rely on the scientific consensus and my blind faith in the research and observations of others. I have enough confidence in those observations that I don't worry if they are wrong.

But global warming predictions are not based on observations. They can't be, because no one can observe the future. Therefore, when I make a judgment that global warming science is right or wrong, metaphysically speaking, I have no idea what the truth is. Whatever my opinion is, it can only be based on the observations of others, since I have not done the research. But the important point is that nobody has made the relevant observations necessary for proof. Not even the scientists. The data cannot be collected or observed, since the data does not yet exist.

For hundreds of years, Newton's laws were considered to be truth for two simple reasons. First, they accurately described the observed motion of objects and second, they accurately predicted the motion of objects as observed in the future. Based on the technology that existed to detect the necessary proof, Newton's laws were reliable.

Now, of course, we know that Newton's laws are wrong — or at least incomplete. Einstein has superceded them. Only advances in technology have allowed us to see that descriptions of reality based on Newton's work could only approximate reality. Newton gets us close enough for most purposes, but metaphysically speaking, it is not truth.

Yet for hundreds of years, Newton's laws were indistinguishable from the accepted version of reality. (Einstein blew a hole in that by showing us that reality itself is relative.) But the point I'm trying to make is that scientific consensus does not equal truth — even if the scientific consensus, as with pre-Einsteinian physics, conforms to observed reality and appears to predict future observed reality. Global warming theory, since it seeks to predict catastrophes that are far off in the future, doesn't even have those things going for it.†

h/t protein wisdom
_______________

* A science fiction writer. I read his most famous book Ender's Game, and thought it was creepy and over-rated.

† Which is not to say that GW science is wrong, only that we can not presently know whether it's right or wrong. This is why there's such an emphasis on "consensus." But the media, who don't understand the scientific method, continue to misrepresent "consensus" as truth, when in fact it is not. Without the ability to obtain proof, consensus is about the best people can do, but it is still something short of proof.

Posted by: annika at 10:29 AM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 826 words, total size 5 kb.

When this blog is long gone, its lasting legacy to the world will be enshrined at the Urban Dictionary.

Posted by: annika at 09:08 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 37 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Speaking for the lurkers: "I couldn't be more proud." I will be disappointed, however, if you never run for Senate.

Posted by: Mark W at May 10, 2007 10:18 PM (AVyfN)

2 It shows that you have too much talent to waste your life as a lawyer. Instead, you should entertain us.

Posted by: Jake at May 11, 2007 06:28 AM (V6rxT)

3 Frankly, I don't care what she does, just as long as she occasionally IM's me to straighten me out.

Posted by: Casca at May 11, 2007 06:35 AM (Y7t14)

4 Say it ain't so! When you have a child - you never plan for them to go first! I remember her first blog and her first poem on www.soulparking.com - and now I am seeing it all just disappear! No way! Greetings from Hong Kong!

Posted by: GS Jackson at May 11, 2007 08:29 AM (bpGC4)

5 Bronco Bomber seems a veiled reference to OJ and terrorism, an attempt to link Obama with the perils of jihadists, the farce of celebrity justice, and something racial too, which is always makes voters go "ooooh". She's a crafty hatchet lady for the GOP! this beats the willie horton ad by a mile

Posted by: Scof at May 11, 2007 09:09 AM (a3fqn)

6 Hey Straw, those yoga lessons sure paid off!

Posted by: Radical Redneck at May 11, 2007 07:52 PM (49yM9)

7 Annika, this might be a strange read, but I have just GOT to tell you that you were in a very long and weird dream I had this morning. We were high school classmates. We were two members of a four-member team. Our assignment was to compete with other teams to be the first to complete a maze made up of paths through a large woods. At one point we were on a path that ran alongside a small lake -- about the size of a baseball field. There was a large boulder sticking out of the lake about 100 feet from us, and rising about 20 feet of the lake's surface. The boulder was covered with snow on the half that was to our right. Above the half-snow-covered rock -- from a tree branch above -- hung a wooden box that was about the size of a large microwave oven. You lit a cigarette and I told you, "There's no smoking in the woods." You said, "Oh," and flicked the cigarette out over the lake and it hit the snowy side of the boulder. The snow burst into flames and the box above was burnt in a flash and a large pterydactl-like bird fell out of the box and into the water. The bird was just below the surface, face-up, and trying to get it's head out of water and it's body upright. You pointed and shouted, "It's warring! It's Warring!", which I immediately understood to mean that it was on a personal jihad against drowning. The bird did manage to get upright and essentially walk along the surface of the lake to the shore to our left. We and the the rest of our team went on to complete the maze and arrive back at school. That's all I want to tell you because the dream got really weird after that. Dang, I'm gonna miss you.

Posted by: Tuning Spork at May 11, 2007 09:12 PM (3hGnJ)

8 Spork, thanks for sharing that with us. Clearly, you've found out about Sally D. Better lay off; it's worse than LSD.

Posted by: shelly at May 12, 2007 04:13 AM (h/YdH)

9 Well, Shelly, I have no idea who or what Sally D is. Alls I know is that is a bright light that shall be sorely missed. But, she'll be back. I can dream can't I?

Posted by: Tuning Spork at May 12, 2007 04:31 AM (3hGnJ)

10 Whoops. That should have read: Alls I know is that Annika is a bright light that shall be sorely missed. Damn that Sally D.

Posted by: Tuning Spork at May 12, 2007 04:35 AM (3hGnJ)

11 Spork, when you say "the dream got really weird after that," are you implying the first part isn't? I do understand your angst though, I too shall miss this wonderful Journal and...can I really say this?....I may have found an attorney I like.

Posted by: Mike C. at May 12, 2007 06:48 AM (A5s0y)

12 Thanks for the kind words everybody. Hey Sporky, I had the exact same dream last night! How weird is that? Only it looked more like this.

Posted by: annika at May 12, 2007 07:39 AM (WfR6S)

13 Sally D. or, more correctly, Salvia divinorum - is the current drug de jour of the idiot set. The laws have not yet made it illegal, so they smoke it. It is a hallogen and much more dangerous than even LSD. Make sure that your kids are not trying it. It is seriously dangerous.

Posted by: shelly at May 12, 2007 09:30 AM (h/YdH)

14 I was hoping Annika's dream would have looked more like this.

Posted by: reagan80 at May 12, 2007 11:16 AM (iXkL1)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I feel the need to disabuse you all of the myth that is Fred Thompson.

Fred Thompson is not the savior. Repeat. Fred Thompson is not the savior. He does not ride a white stallion. He does not wear a white hat. Thus, he can not ride to the rescue of a Republican party that has lost its way. Stop expecting him to.

I'm not convinced that Fred Thompson will enter the presidential race. Neither am I convinced that if he runs he will win the nomination. He's currently polling third. Third is not first. Third is third. And right now that means he's in the low teens. Despite the fact that a lot of otherwise reasonable people think he's a viable candidate, polling in the teens does not indicate a huge groundswell of support.

I think a lot of people are projecting their own hopes on Fred, unreasonably. Sure, none of the top candidates are perfect conservatives. Sure, George W. Bush has been a disappointment for those of us who idolize Ronald Reagan. But wishing Fred Thompson is another Ronald Reagan does not make him so. And wishing Fred Thompson is another Ronald Reagan does not make him electable.

I've accepted this fact and you should too: We will not see another Ronald Reagan in our lifetime. The best we can hope for is that our presidents try to emulate him, but they will never duplicate him. The man was that great.

Please also remember the following (those of you who know a lot about Reagan should already know this): Reagan was a great man and a great president because above all, he was a great thinker. He thought big things, and he thought about them all his life. Before he entered politics he had his own idea of how the world should work. When he entered public life he put his ideas into practice. But make no mistake, the thinking part came first.

Fred Thompson has it exactly backwards, and too many people are forgetting that. Reagan left acting to enter public service. Fred Thompson left public service to become an actor. That should tell you something about their comparative priorities.

And don't tell me people aren't attracted to Thompson in large part because he is an actor. I'm sure the theory is that his acting experience should give him the ability to connect to the average voter. Reagan was an actor and he was "the great communicator." Therefore all actors who run for office should make great communicators. It sounds silly when you say it out loud because it is silly.

"But," you say, "Fred Thompson agrees with me on all the issues." Yah well, so do I. Why don't you write my name in? Being right on the issues is not enough, and never has been. Running for president is a huge, difficult job and I don't think Fred has what it takes to win.

First, you gotta have the right contacts, and lots of them. What contacts does Fred have? Contacts get you donors, and volunteers, who in turn get you money. You need a lot of money to run for president, and this time around you need a lot more than during past elections because the big states have all moved their primaries up front. Name recognition is not enough.

You still need money because you have to pay big staffs, and consultants, and they all have to travel, and you have to buy ads and computers and cell phones and pay rent on offices in fifty states, and spend your money on countless other expenses that eat it up like crazy. At this late date, Thompson's rivals have too big a head start.

Besides that, all the most experienced consultants are spoken for. Who's going to guide Thompson's campaign? Will he have to settle for some amateur? If you think these things don't matter, you're dreaming. Bush got half his contacts from family and business connections. The other half Karl Rove brought with him.

I'll always remember something I heard Phil Jackson say to his team in a huddle during one of their losing playoff runs. "I know you guys want to win, wanting to win is not enough." I know lots of people want Thompson to win, but it's not enough. He has to have the resources, the money, the people, the contacts, the ideas and the fire in the belly. I don't see him having any of that stuff. All I see is a relatively likeable conservative, who's been flattered way too much for anyone's good.

And as for qualifications, I have as much executive experience as Fred Thompson. What has he ever run in his life? A few months ago I explained one reason why I prefer candidates with executive experience over former legislators.

Theoretically, executives must work in the real world where results are expected. Therefore, they should be more results oriented. Legislators on the other hand, work in a world of theoretical projections, possibilities and imaginary outcomes. When they fuck up, they're rarely held to account because they simply blame the other party, the executive, or both.

"But, he's got a great speaking voice..." Okay. He does have a pleasant baritone. But if that's all it takes to get your vote, why stop at baritone? Why not draft a bass? If vocal timbre is all it takes to be president, we should have had a President Thurl Ravenscroft!

Technorati: fred thompson

Posted by: annika at 07:03 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 1011 words, total size 6 kb.

On one issue, I am not a "big tent" Republican. I don't think there should be room for pro-abortion candidates in the Republican party. But I think abortion is a great moral evil, so it follows that I don't think there should pro-abortion candidates in the Democratic party either. Nevertheless, I don't live in a perfect world. Much as I am confounded by his illogical position on the abortion issue, Rudy Giuliani is still the front-runner for my party's nomination.

But the same can't be said of Mitt Romney, who even after getting rave reviews for his debate performance last Thursday night, still remains mired in fourth place. Gallup even has him losing ground after the debate.

What's the difference between Romney and Giuliani? Both have flip-flopped on abortion. (So did I, by the way. Although I came over from the dark side much earlier than Romney, who "says" he switched in 2004). Giuliani donated to Planned Parenthood three times. Romney's wife donated $150 only once, back in 1994.

Both men supposedly have an impressive record of accomplishments. Rudy's is better known to me. He fixed an unfixable city, I watched him do it. Romney did something or other with the Olympics and as far as I know he was a successful governor of Massachussets.

One might say it's anti-Mormon prejudice. It might be, there certainly is some of that going on. But I don't think that explains all of it. I personally don't have any problem with Romney's religion, yet I don't like him at all. What's up with that?

I think one reason I don't like him is that he polls so badly, and I badly want to win. Would I like him better if he were a stronger candidate? Perhaps. I'm open to voting for Romney in the primary (which is more than I can say for Rudy or McCain), if Romney could somehow prove that he can beat Hillary, but so far he hasn't proven that.

Then there's the intangible slickness factor. Romney seems slick. I'll admit that's a silly reason not to vote for somebody, but I doubt I'm the only one who has noticed it about him. I also doubt I'm the only one who's slick-averse after eight years of Clinton. Would America vote for slick over shrew? I don't know. But I do know Romney's got a lot of work to do if he's going to get my vote.

For now, I'm leaning towards Mike Huckabee. He impressed me* during last week's debate, although he's not good on tax policy from what I understand. He has zero chance in hell of winning the nomination and Hillary would crush him like a bug anyway. But I always vote my conscience in the primary, and save my pragmatism for the general.
_______________

* And a lot of people.

Posted by: annika at 03:57 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 479 words, total size 3 kb.

The aptly named group Citizens for a Better America is doing work that I support wholeheartedly. Check them out here. They speak, I believe, for the vast majority of Americans.

Posted by: annika at 03:24 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 40 words, total size 1 kb.

For those who followed the various sidebar polls, and others who are merely curious, here are some results that I never got around to mentioning, due to a lack of interest on my part.

1. The current poll asks, "Annika trivia: If you busted into Annika's house, what would she most likely shoot you with?" The correct answer is Heckler & Koch USP in .45 ACP, not the Sig Sauer 9 mil that 50% of you guessed.


2. Do you think the Travelocity Gnome is funny? I do not, and thus I agree with 67% of you. Strangely, ten respondents did not know whether the Travelocity Gnome is funny, which is a "no" vote as far as I'm concerned.


3. Eighty-seven percent of you think Ohio State should officially change their name from the Buckeyes to Florida's Bitches.


4. On the burning question, "Egg salad sandwich, tuna salad sandwich, or chicken salad sandwich?" the response was evenly divided: 31%, 33% and 33%. So basically, they're all good.


5. Which Jessica is best? Thirty-four percent picked Jessica Alba, but I was happy to see that there were at least 23 Frank Herbert fans out there who voted for Lady Jessica Atreides.


6. Now that Sam Jaya has been kicked off American Idol, if he takes your advice he should go on one of those Bravo reality shows where everyone's gay. I think he'd be perfect for Shear Genius... as a client!


7. Eighty-five percent of you have health insurance. Fifteen percent of you don't. Amazingly, this result is almost exactly congruent with the latest national census figures. So anyone who thinks my blog visitors are not a representative cross-section of America is nuts.


8. Regarding the question: "What was the top story of 2006? The one everyone's talking about?" you were given a number of choices, and the majority of you picked, "Jackie Passey." That's crazy. What's even crazier is that "Evil donuts from the future invade Wall Street, reprogram the stock market" got only 14%, and that's only because I kept voting for it about two dozen times. The mere discovery that sentient donuts exist is enough to make it the top story in all of history, let alone the top story of last year. Add to that the fact that they're evil, they traveled through time, they invaded Wall Street, and they somehow managed to reprogram the stock market?!?! I just don't see how you people didn't think that was a major story! I suspect it's because many of you are doing well in the stock market and don't want to rock the boat.


9. ¿Qual es la favorita pictura del hombre de sombrero? Esta Alfonso Bedoya.


10. And finally, the winner of the Battle Of The Movie Assassins was Nikita from the original La Femme Nikita, starring Anne Parillaud. She got 58% of the vote, compared to Jason Bourne's 42%. I totally disagree with that result but what are you gonna do? View the tournament bracket here.

Posted by: annika at 06:56 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 527 words, total size 4 kb.

Forget the Yahoo weather site, which is really just the Weather Channel's site, which sucks. The most comprehensive internet source for all your weather related needs is Weather Underground, which I have just bookmarked under my "references" tab. It has complete and searchable almanac information too, for you global warming junkies.

No, I'm not a total geek. But I am the daughter of a former Navy Aerographer's Mate.

On a slightly related note, I want you all to know my electrical usage has decreased compared to last year's kWh for two months in a row! And I haven't even been trying. Of course that might be because last year I tended to forget to turn off the air when leaving the house. Now, I have a Puerto Rican butler who will do that for me.

Posted by: annika at 09:14 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 139 words, total size 1 kb.

1 There is nothing that brings out apathy in me more than the subject of Global Warming. I'd rather worry about Nuclear Winter, instead. Anyway, congratulations on snagging the "butler", Annie. You guys look like such a nice couple.

Posted by: reagan80 at May 05, 2007 12:31 PM (gyiuI)

2 I wonder if there's some way we could harness the power of hamsters in their wheels. I think it's on page 85 in Algore's book. My dad is a retired Navy chaplain and I thought I'd heard every Navy job title there was but I don't remember hearing that one! Must have to have a good mind for detail.

Posted by: Joules at May 05, 2007 02:13 PM (u4CYb)

3 I'm glad that pops turned back to women after he was done being an Aerographer's Mate. I guess mom is too. I'm also gratified to see that you've found a man who knows his homefire duties, i.e. turning off everything left unattended/in use, and keeping the hooch from burning to the ground.

Posted by: Casca at May 05, 2007 02:24 PM (2gORp)

4 Been a fan of weatherunderground for many years now. See pics from my deck at http://www.weatherunderground.com/wximage/imagesearch.html?citybox=on&city=Paeonian_Springs&statebox=on&state=VA&submit=go Good to hear you are doing your part on the conservation front (setback thermostats are very common now, btw).

Posted by: will at May 07, 2007 10:02 AM (z62e3)

5 I always wondered where the Wizard of Oz landed!

Posted by: annika at May 07, 2007 12:34 PM (zAOEU)

6 "No, I'm not a total geek..." True, but when you're in the high 90's, you just accept, ya know.      C'mon... embrace the geekdom! "Now, I have a Puerto Rican butler..." ... and for a brief moment, I had a quick visualization of Agador Spartacus. Luckily, I clicked the link.

Posted by: ElMondoHummus at May 07, 2007 01:30 PM (CCvex)

7 I hear ya Reagan! Now that it's warm I'll be wearing my "Fuck Recycling - Just Make More" shirt all the time. I love it! It just dares the moonbats to say something - then die! I'll make up a few more, of different colors, for the other days of the week. Over/under on when the journaljizzmers finally reveal the I-Slamic names of the Jersey terrorists? Were they caught with international terrorist surveillance? No wonder Straw and his fellow travelers hate it so much.

Posted by: Radical Redneck at May 08, 2007 07:13 AM (WKULG)

8 Prominent democrats weigh in on Kansas tornado!

Posted by: Radical Redneck at May 08, 2007 07:47 AM (WKULG)

9 I just can't look at that tornado link. I could not believe the reporter on NPR asking the governor if there was any human error involved in the enormous damage. Yes, as soon as they heard the sirens, the residents jumped into their bulldozers and leveled about a third of their town before the tornado hit, assuming it was going to be destroyed anyway.

Posted by: Joules at May 08, 2007 12:34 PM (u4CYb)

10 Is that the home page of the Weathermen?

Posted by: Mark at May 08, 2007 02:02 PM (krump)

11 "You don't need a Weatherman to know which way the wind blows."

Posted by: annika at May 08, 2007 06:33 PM (WfR6S)

12 only weather site you'll ever need: doineedajacket.com

Posted by: francis at May 08, 2007 11:03 PM (q+y+B)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

You can watch the Milblog Conference video feed here. I think they're on lunch now, but the schedule says they start up again at 1:00 eastern time.

The President spoke earlier today, but I missed it.

Update: Here's the video.

Posted by: annika at 09:00 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 50 words, total size 1 kb.

December 9, 2004: I post a poem I wrote about Jerry Orbach.

December 28, 2004: Jerry Orbach dies.

Coincidence? You tell me.

March 4, 2006: I post a review of Butterflies Are Free, starring Edward Albert.

September 22, 2006: Edward Albert dies.

Coincidence? Who knows?

November 18, 2005: I call Steve Irwin a goofball in a post about turtles.

September 4, 2006: Steve Irwin is killed by a stingray, which is a distant relative of the turtle.

Coincidence? Is this starting to freak you out?

September 27, 2006: I write a post about Screech from Saved By The Bell.

November 15, 2006: Slater from Saved By The Bell is eliminated from Dancing With The Stars.

Coincidence? Maybe. But maybe it's not. Did you ever think about that?

Posted by: annika at 08:21 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 149 words, total size 1 kb.

These are the sidebar agitprops I created during the course of this blog's run.

Number one was my first attempt, using a picture of Kerry doing the "raise the roof" gesture. Pretty self-explanatory.

Number two was a little more sophisticated, and the first time I did the whole top and bottom bar thingie. I like the long face distortion, which is useful anytime one wants to depict the french-looking candidate.

Number three was created soon after Byrd gave his freakish meandering oration against the Authorization for the Use of Force. I'm particularly fond of the vampirish pallor of his skin, which was created by manipulating the hue and brightness settings in photoshop. Great pose too. The caption is a subtle hint at his Klan history. Grand Wizard becomes Grand Poobah.

Number four is Nancy Pelosi at her most strident. For effect I manipulated the size of her eyes and mouth. Not enough to look photoshopped, but just enough to be weird.

Number five is connected to my infamous EJ for Sec Gen post, which got such wide exposure thanks to a mention by Jeff Jarvis on the Ron Reagan show. I totally lucked out when I found that picture of EJ with the blue hair wig. It was perfect.

And number six utilizes the gif animation function, which has given me hours of fun since I discovered how to do it back in January of '05. For those who don't know the references, this was based on the promotional photograph of Kiki Couric, which had been photoshopped by CBS to make her look younger and thinner. Tiffany is a reference to CBS's old nickname, "the tiffany network." I can't deny that I was also inspired by Violet from the old Willie Wonka movie.

So much for the agitprop. Someday, when the time is right, I'm planning to make a "Hillary: the female Nixon" sticker and plaster it all over California. Watch for it.

Posted by: annika at 05:06 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 339 words, total size 3 kb.

Rosie O'Donnell is a perfect example of the psychological defense mechanism known as "cognitive dissonance." Here's what she's written in the last few days in response to questions posed at her "Ask Ro" site.

Teresa writes:

Hey Ro!
I live in No CA and guess what? The freeway near the Bay Bridge is going to be open sooner than expectedÂ…Why? Because the steel didnÂ’t melt!!
HmmmmÂ…Â…Â… Love ya!

[Rosie:]

hmmm
and the concrete didnt pulverize

. . .

Jami writes:

Hey RosieÂ… you should send those who doubt the 9/11 stuff to watch the videos on Youtube about WTC7 fallingÂ… maybe that will make them believe what you are saying!!!! Rock on girlfriend!!!!

[Rosie:]

yup

. . .

Kim writes:

Hey…just watched Loose Change. I didn’t know that 9 of the “hijackers” were found to be alive. Why haven’t I seen this until now? Did the media ever cover that? Loving you from Toronto!

[Rosie:]

the media did not

. . .

amy writes:

rosie- i am horrified. i just googled wtc7 & i am just sick. i have always thought there was more to the story than what the media was saying- but to see actual evidence is frightening. IMPEACH!!

[Rosie:]

go amy

. . .

Dan writes:

U said the last tower on 9/11 couldnÂ’t have fallen by melting steelÂ…it has never happened. Did the recent incident in California where freeway girders melted from a tanker truck change ur mind?

[Rosie:]

no
wtc7
google it

. . .

Jan writes:

Can you explain how fire from an overturned oil tanker in San Francisco melted steel beams and bolts leading to the collapse of part of an interchange on Hwy I-80? But not on 9/11 you said.

[Rosie:]

watch wtc 7 fall
and tell me
it was not a controlled demolition

45 stories

come on

. . .

CYNTHIA writes:

is it plausable that terrorists placed bombs in the WTCÂ’s? y, but the real question is which terrorists,foreign or domestic? if u were a man the news would praise u 4 your views. they r full of shit!

[Rosie:]

loving cynthia

Posted by: annika at 07:53 AM | Comments (27) | Add Comment
Post contains 384 words, total size 3 kb.

During an inadvertently risque moment, Governor Romney demonstrates his "technique" in response to a question by moderator Chris Matthews.

Posted by: annika at 09:03 PM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 26 words, total size 1 kb.

Just out of curiosity:

Posted by: annika at 02:23 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 21 words, total size 1 kb.