i made these, but they sure would look good on your sidebar, i think.

(If you do take one, please copy it and load it on your own server so Pixy doesn't get mad at me for using up his bandwidth. Also, a link back here would be appreciated, but not required.)

Posted by: annika at 02:57 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 60 words, total size 1 kb.

i thought tonight might be an appropriate night to re-post my one and only baseball related sonnet:

More: The very prolific Scorebard says it in haiku.

Posted by: annika at 09:41 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 153 words, total size 1 kb.

i was so happy to see Phil Mickelson finally win a major, and in such an exciting way last Sunday. His family had a tough time last year, but he never whined about it or used it as an excuse for not winning. He seems like a really great guy.

And his favorite dish happens to be lobster ravioli. i love lobster ravioli, too. i had a great one in San Francisco last weekend. Here's a recipe i googled, from Emeril. i may give it a try someday when i'm feeling ambitious. With lobster meat, not live lobster, of course. i'm too squeamish to kill the poor things myself.

Posted by: annika at 07:24 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 115 words, total size 1 kb.

i'm listening to Attorney General Ashcroft's testimony as i type this. It's clear to me, after his opening statement, exactly why people hate and fear him so much. He's very good. The AG landed a number of effective shots in his statement, and i can't wait to hear how the opposition tries to deflect them. It's also clear that Dick Clark and Dr. Rice were the undercard and Ashcroft's is the heavyweight title match. i was that impressed.

Gotta go, Ben Vineste is on now, yakking about the PDB again.

. . .

WTF? Ben is asking about Ashcroft using a chartered jet? Slimeball. Why doesn't he ask if Ashcroft was the one who warned all the jews to stay out of the WTC on 9/11? Why doesn't he ask who planted the bomb in the Pentagon and made it look like a plane crash? Aaack!

. . .

Now the idiot commenter at NPR cuts in to assure his audience that they will "have a look at" Ascrofts answer to the sleazy chartered jet question after his testimony is over. Whaaat? Why the hell don't they "have a look at" Ashcroft's more serious and relevant accusations about Clinton's and Reno's eight year incompetence spree? Aaaack!

. . .

Why do the commisioners keep calling him General? He's not a general, he's an attorney general. The word "general" modifies the noun "attorney."

. . .

i'm unable to listen that closely because i am annoyingly distracted by the need to create a false impression of diligence in completing my job tasks.

. . .

It's now over, i didn't notice any effective counter-punches by the commisioners. Now the spinning begins.

Posted by: annika at 01:34 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 288 words, total size 2 kb.

1 I forgot that Ashcroft was testifying today. I've got to listen to it.

Posted by: La Shawn Barber at April 13, 2004 03:04 PM (tW8zw)

2 Annika, Go to Instapundit for what appears to be a conflict of interest involving one of the commission members--Jamie Gorelick, former deputy attorney general. This is the kind of shit--Gorelick's--is what will distract us from what's important--winning the terrorism war now. The Monday morning quarterbacking/after the fact analysis is an exercise in politicizing 9/11. Watch for further spin. And watch for dizzy spells.

Posted by: joe at April 13, 2004 03:53 PM (dprmZ)

3 "the need to create a false impression of diligence in completing my job tasks." When I've got a post to finish or a great article to read, well over the past 18 months of bloggin I've gotten pretty good at creating that false impression

Posted by: Scof at April 13, 2004 04:27 PM (XCqS+)

4 People very frequently address Attorneys General (both state and federal) as "General." It's one of my pet peeves, but such longstanding usage isn't going to change.

Posted by: Dave J at April 13, 2004 04:43 PM (VThvo)

5 Annika, the bombshell was that after a long build up about the "wall' that was built between criminal and terrorist investigations (to "preserve" testimony for prosecutions), the Clinton folks overdid it with memos that totally handcuffed terrorism investigators from getting info on real potential terrorism plots. Gorelick was mouthing denials to her fellow Commissioners, then, in a moment of high drama, Ashcroft stated that he had declassified the Memo and released it on the spot. Needless to say, Gorelick was both the author and her initials appeared on the document. There is now a building pressure for her to resign and testify to the Commission. The Memo cause Ben-Veniste to change course and ask Ashcroft about his refusing to fly regular commercial flights, to which Ashcroft replied that both he and his wife always fly regular commercial flights. Goelick was trying to get under the table, reminiscent of Teddy Kennedy during the Impeachment Hearings when Arlen Spector asked him "If the Senator from Massachusetts wishes to engage...?"

Posted by: shelly s. at April 17, 2004 05:57 AM (AaBEz)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

The troll comment i got this morning reminded me about something i've been thinking about since my visit to the State Capitol last weekend. It's an example to illustrate one difference between people on the left and people on the right.

i know i'm gonna be generalizing here, so save your breath. i'm aware that the majority of people on the left are not freakazoids who need to be locked up. There's some very decent and thoughtful lefties on my own blogroll, for instance. i also know there's some real whack-jobs on the right too, and in fact some of them actually have been locked up. (Right wing crazies tend to stay in jail though, instead of being offered tenure.)

Anyways, here's my observation. The great state of California has had thirty-eight governors in its history. Many are unknown. Some, however, are perhaps more famous:

• Hiram Johnson (the great reformer, who gave us the recall election);


• Leland Stanford (who gave us Stanford University, boooo);


• Earl Warren (later Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, disliked by liberals as well as conservatives);


• Ronald Reagan;


• Jerry Brown (Known as "governor moonbeam," he once dated Linda Rondstadt, wouldn't dare to swat a medfly, and appointed his former chauffer as Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court.* He's now the mayor of Oakland.


• Jerry's father Pat Brown (who gave us our freeways);


• Pete Wilson;


• Gray Davis;


• and of course, Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Can you guess which one?

No, it's not left leaning Jerry Brown's.

No, it's not that great judicial activist, Earl Warren's.

That's right, it's Ronald Reagan's.

Can you guess why his portrait, out of all thirty-eight governors, has to be protected by a layer of plexiglass? No, it's not UV light. Notice that Reagan's is hanging next to three other non-plexiglassed portaits.

The reason is that some asshole slashed Reagan's picture a few years ago. A left-wing-hater-nut-case. Some liberal fuck, with a head so filled with bitterness and so empty of common sense, that he or she thought vandalizing the portrait of one of our greatest presidents might be a good way to "raise people's consciousness."

Well, one might ask, if one of the governors' portraits was slashed why don't they encase all of them in plexiglass? Why not protect Jerry Brown's ugly abstract, or Earl Warren's distinguished visage on the second floor landing? Surely they're at risk of being slashed too?

No, you see only a conservative icon like Ronald Reagan can inspire such hatred and vitriol. Because he was, and still is, so loved, his portrait remains a target for the haters. And unfortunately, there seem to be a large number of lefties who have no problem being violent and destructive when they want to send their little hate messages. Conservatives might dislike Jerry Brown (especially conservatives living in Oakland these days), but they're not going to slash his picture.

Lefties like the one who vandalized Reagan's portrait, and the one who blew up all those SUV's in L.A. last year, and the professor who vandalized her own car, and the ones who screamed in my face as i walked to class during last year's anti-war demonstrations, and the ones who carry signs saying New York looks better without the World Trade Center, and the ones who smash the windows of Starbucks Coffee because it's a successful business, and the one's who go around saying that the terrorists in Iraq should kill more Americans, etc. etc.

Those are the ones you have to watch out for. Yah, maybe just as much as the far right wackos. They're both liable to blow something up, but only the left wing crazies will have the ACLU and the newspaper op-ed pages on their side after they get caught.

So when an idiot like this morning's troll says that he thinks conservatives should be "exterminated like vermin" and "need to be snuffed out of existence," how am i supposed to take that? Is it rhetorical hyperbole, or is the guy a real nutjob who needs to be monitored closely?

My point is this: in the cultural war that's been going on in this country for the last forty years, one side always seems to be more violent than the other, if not in deed then in rhetoric. i'm sure there's some psychological or sociological reason for that phenomenon, but i have no clue what it might be, nor at this point do i give a shit. i just think it's worth noting.

* In 1986, the late Justice Rose Bird became the first California Chief Justice to be voted out of office for being too liberal. Sounds familiar?

Update: Thanks to Blake for pointing out this example reported by Drudge, which further butresses my argument:

Campaign 2004 turns extreme in Florida with the placement of a newspaper ad calling for physical retribution against Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld!

"We should put this S.O.B. up against a wall and say 'This is one of our bad days,' and pull the trigger," the ad reads.

Posted by: annika at 06:04 PM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 974 words, total size 8 kb.

1 It may well be because they are cut from the same cloth as the Lenins and Stalins and Maos and Hitlers and Mussolinis of the world--political descendents of Jean Jacques Rosseau, who once wrote: "... every malefactor, by attacking social rights, becomes on forfeit a rebel and a traitor to his country; by violating its laws he ceases to be a member of it; he even makes war upon it. In such a case the preservation of the State is inconsistent with his own, and one or the other must perish; in putting the guilty to death, we slay not so much the citizen as an enemy." The "social rights" referred to here are the "rights" of the collective, not individual rights. In other words, those of us who stand astride the path of the relentless march of creeping socialism, who insist on the preservation of individual rights against their violation by an increasingly intrusive state, have made ourselves enemies of the state, and deserving of death. Rousseau is their founding father. Is it any surprise that his children espouse the same?

Posted by: Desert Cat at April 12, 2004 09:12 PM (c8BHE)

2 Regarding conservatives in Oakland, I don't think many dislike Jerry Brown. The far right (if they exist) and the far left probably dislike him equally, he is pro-business, pro-growth, tough on crime and high-profile. Generally I think people feel fairly lucky to have an ex-governor as a mayor and some (slow) progress is being made although his hands are tied in lots of ways.

Posted by: d-rod at April 12, 2004 09:27 PM (YKu7i)

3 Great post. So true.

Posted by: ginger at April 13, 2004 05:15 AM (eYQ9U)

4 D-Rod, check the crime statistics for Oakland, and see it they began to spike upward around the time of Jerry's first term. i believe they do. i'm not saying there's any correlation. (Okay, maybe i am.)

Posted by: annika at April 13, 2004 09:14 AM (zAOEU)

5 Great timing on this, Annika! Check out the headline on Drudge for another example to back up your observation.

Posted by: Blake at April 13, 2004 09:40 AM (AKSiu)

6 Annie, you're probably right that the overall crime rate went up early on. Murder rates went up - then down a lot, then back up (a lot). It would be interesting to chart that against some other variables. Didn't seem like the city sponsored "anti-war seminar" last year with Robert Sheer and various anti-Israeli speakers had much effect in educating the public about "peace".

Posted by: d-rod at April 13, 2004 10:18 AM (CSRmO)

7 I wish someone would put all Reich Whing scum-sucking vermin against walls and pull the trigger - repeatedly! All Reich Whing, bottom feeding, Hate Mongering, lowlifes should be squashed. Here are TRUE AMERICAN HEROES! http://users.lmi.net/zombie/sf_rally_april_10_2004/signs/

Posted by: Robert McClelland at April 13, 2004 10:48 AM (WwSqc)

8 Speaking of "bottom feeding hate mongers", McClelland, you're making a parody of yourself.

Posted by: Desert Cat at April 13, 2004 11:56 AM (sGeYL)

9 As a 6th generation Californian (on mom's side; Dad is from Austria, like Arnold), I share your appreciation for California history. I am sorry that Reagan's portrait requires protection; as a man of the left, I have no truck with those who attack symbols, unless they are Byzantine iconoclasts. But you know full well the right is capable of tough tactics. Think the violent halting of the recount in Miami in 2000. Forgot it? Go here: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/nov2000/riot-n29.shtml And/or here: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,89450,00.html Just one example of the fact that bad behavior is found among those who hold a variety of ideological views. Something that any student of history already, surely, knows, but something that we all conveniently ignore when we are structuring our arguments!

Posted by: Hugo at April 13, 2004 12:48 PM (LNc8S)

10 Robert McClelland, I'm not necessarily a right winger or conservative, but odds are you'd find my views more disturbing. In any case you'd probably lump me in with the right wingers because of a few shared views. So with that being said... Your shit talking is childish & impractical. First of all I doubt you have the intestinal fortitude to follow through with the actions you claim you desire. So instead you'll hope to inspire others with an actual backbone to do what you would have done. But your lack of courage aside, how exactly are you gonna crush people like me? How are you gonna place me up against a wall? Do you honestly think I'll just come along quietly because the arguments you use are so compelling? Think I'll submit myself to you & your mob for the good of the state? See you seem to forget that while people on the left/socialist side of the political spectrum tend to dislike firearms & push for prohibitions on them, people such as myself & a good portion of right wingers as you'd classify them tend to support not only the possession of firearms but practice with them. So in short if you or anyone else attempted to bust in my door or otherwise tried to place me up against a wall you'd discover a whole new connotation to the phrase "disproportionate force". It always cracks me up when the side of the political spectrum that usually preaches the need for gun control turns around & starts calling for violent retaliation against those with dissimilar views. Perhaps that's why gun control is such a priority for leftist/socialists - it's so hard to impress your view on people by force when those people are better armed & more proficient with said arms than you are. But please think about what you're saying. I know you're just talking shit & even if you had the means you'd lack the balls to follow through with it, but could you at least make your threats a bit more credible? BTW, with all your comparisons of the right wingers to that much reviled national socialist party of late, did you ever recall that it was the Nazi's (& the communists)who disarmed people & executed them for their political views? In essence your comparison is lacking & you make that more obvious (in addition to showing your hypocrisy) by advocating the same methods the Nazi's (& communists) used to stiffle & crush dissent. But should you ever feel the urge to start following through on your threats, feel free to make me the first one you attempt this on. I'm sure everything will get sorted out right then.

Posted by: Publicola at April 13, 2004 01:09 PM (Aao25)

11 Annika, Glad to help and thanks for the mention on your blog. Hugo, True, there is a lot of stupidity on both sides (especially with the heated 2000 election) but ask yourself something. Why is it that large protests are always from leftist groups and why do so many of them turn violent (anti-war protests, anti-globalization protests, etc.)? Do a little research and let me know how many "conservative" protests turn violent and compare the number to the leftist side. I'd bet anything the contrast is enormous. Annika's argument happens to be one of the reasons I moved from left to right about eight years ago. In fact, Annika, I think another good argument to make about the differences is the concept of trade-offs. Rather than go into it in detail, I'll just ask you if understand what I mean by this?

Posted by: Blake at April 13, 2004 01:26 PM (AKSiu)

12 Publicola, Since McClelland linked to the SF "remember Falluja" demonstration, he probably suscribes advocating domestic acts of terrorism similar to one of the speakkkers: "It's about time that we have an intifada in this country that change fundamentally the political dynamics in here. And we know every-- They're gonna say some Palestinian being too radical -- well, you haven't seen radicalism yet!" They aren't talking about targeting people who can defend themselves with guns. Some of these little bomb brats think taking out grandma and the kids would do just fine.

Posted by: d-rod at April 13, 2004 01:35 PM (CSRmO)

13 Blake, i don't.

Posted by: annika! at April 13, 2004 03:37 PM (zAOEU)

14 Well written Publicola! And should he manage to get past you, which I HIGHLY doubt, you will have a long list of people to help you out.

Posted by: budly at April 14, 2004 12:44 PM (6/1Z7)

15 Don't mess with Publicola or his good friend Garand!

Posted by: annika! at April 14, 2004 02:45 PM (zAOEU)

16 D-Rod, check the crime statistics for Oakland Okay sweetie, I did my homework assignment, not by googling but by talking to "sources close to the Man". First, he asked me if I wanted the "political" answer - I responded that I'd rather just hear the truth... So in general according to him then, dividing crime stats into violent vs. non-violent (the definitions of which may be questionable), the former has gone down while non-violent (theft,etc.)has gone up. He also said that when looking at a map, there is an "extremely high" correlation between where parolees are "located" and the areas where most crimes occur. I doubt that is the official "political" position one might hear about in the news. Can I have a gold star now?

Posted by: d-rod at April 15, 2004 09:54 AM (CSRmO)

17 Very intresting post. Amazing how liberal simpletons continually pine for differences and respect for "diversity" but get rather violent if (!)you DIAGREE with them on anything.

Posted by: Mark at April 16, 2004 05:26 PM (Vg0tt)

18 Just wanted to point out that Leland Stanford also drove in the golden spike that was the final bit of the connection of the trans-continental railroad. Other than that, I pretty much agree with you. Nothing like a far left wing fascist that thinks that everyone that does not agree with them is evil. That's a pretty fascit concept to me.

Posted by: Ben Skott at June 10, 2004 11:25 AM (ogcAP)

19 There are some nutcase left-wingers out there, but most of the anti-business people aren't left-wingers; they're anarchists. They get associated with the left because they have socialist economic leanings, but they are actually in favor of totalitarian governmental functions (though they really don't understand that.) Now they might be Leftists...But that is a different discussion entirely...

Posted by: flaime at June 10, 2004 03:18 PM (uKXhE)

20 A correction to the above: They are self-described anarchists.

Posted by: flaime at June 11, 2004 12:37 PM (Bax1+)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Where are all those assholes who, just a few months ago, were complaining that Halliburton was paying its employees too much for working in Iraq? Was Thomas Hamill getting paid too much?

Posted by: annika at 11:56 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 34 words, total size 1 kb.

i took this photograph last weekend outside the state capitol building. i thought it might be cool to Van Gogh-ize it with PhotoShop.

Posted by: annika at 09:47 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 25 words, total size 1 kb.

Hello, i hope y'all had a nice Easter/Passover holiday. This weekend i've been fighting two viruses. (Or is it viri?) The first is some kinda flu that i suspect i caught on the plane last weekend. It's weird. Usually i start with a sore throat and end with a cough. This time i started with a cough and now i have a sore throat. The second virus is a crappy toolbar spyware thingie that attached itself to my Internet Explorer like the monster in Alien. i had to hack it up piece by piece to delete it. i'm still not sure if i got it all.

So that's my excuse for light blogging. But, i have selected a Huge Comment of the Week^®, so i haven't been completely idle.

This week's H.C.O.T.W.^® laureate is someone by the name of Anonymous, who commented on an old humorous bit i did way back on March 5, 2003, called Match The Idiotic Quote With The Idiotic Celebrity. i was pretty proud of that post, it being so clever and snarky. But this person Anonymous didn't seem too impressed by my humor.

so i bet all of the previous posters have never made mistakes before and find it easier to just put other people down because of their mistakes instead of look inside their own selves. im not saying that i like any of these 'stars' as role models, especially for little kids. i really dont think they are great role models at all for kids. but. as adults, i think its time we stop bashing things down and provoke change. its not productive to participate in giving these people money (however inadvertantly) by paying any attention whatsoever to them. to me, it seems as if all of you have bought into the whole cherade. i mean, britney, christina, allanis, paris, theyve all got you writing and making pages 'worthy' of stooping to their level and even discussing them. it just doesnt seem to make sense to me....... i dont mean to offend anyone here and id be more than happy to clear up my position on things, but im just amazed that this badmouthing can be any more valid than the whole entertainment crap. just dont pay attention if you dont like it. and if you really dont like it, do something about it.

Posted by: annika at 09:11 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 449 words, total size 3 kb.

Which "happy bunny" am i?

Congratulations. You are the kiss my ass happy
bunny. You don't care about anyone or anything.
You must be so proud.

which happy bunny are you?
brought to you by Quizilla

Posted by: annika at 04:34 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 44 words, total size 1 kb.

1 HAPPY EASTER! just passing by and seeing how you been up to.. bee quite busy as i can tell... funny quiz! yeah!

Posted by: maizzy at April 10, 2004 12:40 AM (rifMD)

2 I was trying to leave a comment to the post below but was getting weird script instead of a comment box. Oh well, all I was going to say is that Lee Ann has the best cheese.

Posted by: Mr Mouse at April 11, 2004 02:07 PM (G5PGV)

3 Hahaha....this one is great and cute'ish. I am the you smell like butt bunny

Posted by: Joachim at April 12, 2004 09:34 AM (T/uAh)

4 Welcome Joachim, i'm always happy to see a fellow Dane visiting my weblog!

Posted by: annika! at April 12, 2004 10:00 AM (zAOEU)

5 Fellow Dane? I didn't know!

Posted by: Joachim at April 13, 2004 12:46 PM (T/uAh)

6 I can't believe I took this Bunny quiz. Here's my results: "you are the 'you're so dumb' happy bunny. you are brutal in your words and enjoy putting others down." Well, if you check my blog (you do read it regularly, dont you?), I intentionally avoid putting anyone down. Even dumbass (oops) liberals!

Posted by: Mark at April 17, 2004 04:34 AM (7WTeb)

7 lol! I got the same one! The one that has the lip prints on the butt! haha! Happy Bunny is soooooo KooooooooooL!!! hehe! Toooooodles!!! Buh-Buh-Buh-Bye!

Posted by: Lizzie at May 24, 2004 04:37 PM (pWVyH)

8 Pardon??????

Posted by: Concerned Person at February 14, 2005 09:53 AM (/YjzH)

9 If it's Easter I think we should more be celebrating that Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins so we could go to Heaven not Happy Bunny! He sacrificed himself with his perfect life for our sinful one and I think we should show him graditude and thanks. Also why do people swear just replace the word with anotherm it's not like you can't. Just a thought.

Posted by: Concerned Christian at February 14, 2005 09:56 AM (/YjzH)

10 wowwy sooooooo kool im the kiss my ass bunny i care nothing aout anyone or anything

Posted by: shannon at April 15, 2005 10:00 AM (v6kgl)

11 happy bunny rocks...to tell you the truth im all of the happy bunnies..no easter bunny but some HAPPY BUNNY happy bunny rox my sox!!! oh yah...U SUCK

Posted by: ash at April 15, 2005 03:00 PM (ywZa8)

12 HEY IM KISS MY ASS HAPPY BUNNY

Posted by: KAYLA at June 07, 2005 09:13 AM (M7kiy)

13 i hated it

Posted by: Jani-Lee COrnish at June 26, 2005 08:04 PM (8z7bf)

14 omg!i hated it. IT SUCKED BIG TIME. take my advice and do something that dosenot SUCK BIG TIME.

Posted by: Melissa at June 26, 2005 08:09 PM (8z7bf)

15 I hated it.YOU ARE A DUMBASS AND iI HATE YOU.YOU ARE MAKING ME SICK.

Posted by: Josh at June 26, 2005 08:12 PM (8z7bf)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Have you been reading LeeAnn, queen of the run-on sentence and a very funny writer? The blog's called The Cheese Stands Alone and it's mu.nu, too.

Posted by: annika at 04:26 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 30 words, total size 1 kb.

Today is Good Friday. There are some among my visitors who are religious, even religious intellectuals. i found a dense article by Romanus Cessario, O.P., which reviews Gibson's The Passion of the Christ in light of St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica.

i must admit, i have not read Summa Theologica and i had difficulty following a lot of the discussion. However, there is a passage in the review that addresses one problem i had with The Passion, which i described in my own review when i wrote:

The scourging scene goes on for an unnecessarily long time. Historically, people died from scourging. It didnÂ’t take a lot of strokes to kill someone, and Jesus was whipped savagely in the movie. Though iÂ’m not an expert on this, i really do think any person would have died from that amount of flogging. There was so much blood on the floor after the scourging scene, it is impossible to believe that Jesus wouldn't have at least passed out, let alone believe that he could carry a heavy cross afterwards. We know that Jesus did not die until he was on the cross for three hours, so i think Gibson overdid the scourging scene.

If one allows that the scenes of punishment exceed the modesty of the Scriptures themselves, or if we follow those who opine that after such beatings and harsh treatment, no man would be able to shoulder the cross or even walk, there is still the explanation that the artist chose this excess for a theological reason.

A long theological tradition supports this sort of iconographical modification: The Church asks us to ponder the price that the Savior of the world paid. Without this meditation, one cannot embrace the full dimensions of Catholic piety; instead, we would find ourselves moving rapidly toward those various forms of de-sacramentalized Christianity that focus exclusively on interior psychological states.

Thematically, itÂ’s clear Gibson wanted to shock the audience with the amount of torture in the scourging. His torture represents the sins of mankind. It looks horrible because Gibson wants to impress us with the magnitude of GodÂ’s gift to us. That was the director's choice. If Gibson had toned it down to a less shocking level, maybe we wouldnÂ’t get the message.

. . .

Nowadays, people seem to think that Jesus came simply to tell us to be nice to each other. ItÂ’s a pleasant message, and it fits into our overly secular world without ruffling too many feathers. But, itÂ’s not why Jesus came here. Remember, we didnÂ’t need Jesus to tell us to 'love our neighbor.' That commandment was already in Leviticus. But in our secular world, people have forgotten the real reason Jesus came to earth, which was to suffer, to die, and to rise again.

Mel Gibson directs Jim Caviezel in a way that, in my view, approaches accomplishing the impossible. There are the Christs of Pasolini, of Zeffirelli, and of Rossellini, but the Christ of Gibson captures what these others were content to accomplish by representing a high expression of human values.

Although I am not an art critic, it seems to me that the very excesses, even the distortions, which some commentators have questioned, in fact aim to show us that this man is more than human. That we have to look elsewhere for the source of his human endurance.

The whole point of JesusÂ’ torture and death was for Him to submit to it as a man. Using His power as God to withstand any torture would have been accepting the DevilÂ’s temptation.

Posted by: annika at 10:58 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 746 words, total size 5 kb.

i'm not too crazy about gimmicky poems that look funky on the page. i guess it's the lingering effects of trying to decipher too much e.e. cummings in school. But here's one i found via Ivy is here, which i really like a lot.

Click here to read Sunday Morning from the blog Watermark.

Posted by: annika at 09:21 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 60 words, total size 1 kb.

1 That link to ee cummings is the website for the school district i went to when i lived in arizona... ...but on to something that is actually interesting. I don't much go for those funky looking poems either. so if you bloggers would like to read a poem also called "Sunday Morning" then check out Wallace Stevens, the first 5 lines alone are worth it and quite pertinent to the going's on on this, Good Friday. He writes of "complacencies", etc being used "to dissipate the holy hush of ancient sacrifice." http://eir.library.utoronto.ca/rpo/display/poem2017.html ...annika if you'd still like to read that criticism of Stevens I was writing it's almost done. I'm sure you are waiting with bated breath

Posted by: Scof at April 09, 2004 11:16 AM (XCqS+)

2 i was wondering whether you ever finished that. : )

Posted by: annika at April 09, 2004 11:47 AM (zAOEU)

3 ...yeah i've got about 4 or 5 essays half finished lying around. i could use a live-in drill sergeant for a couple weeks... another good good friday poem, found via NRO today: The dripping blood our only drink, The bloody flesh our only food: In spite of which we like to think That we are sound, substantial flesh and blood — Again, in spite of that, we call this Friday good. - T. S Eliot's "Four Quartets"

Posted by: Scof at April 09, 2004 11:59 AM (XCqS+)

4 Scof, i just read the NRO article from which you pulled that Eliot quote. The author, Thomas Hibbs, makes a grave error of interpretation regarding The Passion. Did you notice it? Referring to the devil character played by Rosalinda Celentano, he said: "This hooded, feminine-looking figure with a deep, sinister voice floats effortlessly among the Jewish crowd during the sentencing of Jesus, appears just behind the Roman guard overseeing the sadistic scourging of Christ, and then exults at evil's apparent victory at the moment of Christ's death." How did he misinterpret that final scene at Jesus' death? That wasn't exultation, that was despair. i thought it was obvious, the devil was screaming in agony over its defeat at the moment of Christ's death. Only someone who does not understand the gospels could make such a mistake.

Posted by: annika at April 09, 2004 01:10 PM (zAOEU)

5 You're right, he does miss that point. which is the point really. a number of verses make that clear, i.e. john 12:31 I wonder why Hibbs thinks that the devil thought he was winning? as far as that scene in the movie, I'll have to judge for myself this evening and get back to you. I haven't seen the movie yet but am going tonight to watch.

Posted by: Scof at April 09, 2004 01:38 PM (XCqS+)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

"Hi Mom, is Derrick there?"

"Hold on sweetie, i'll get him."

Long pause, then Mom came on the phone again.

"Annie."

"Yah?"

"Derrick said he's kinda busy right now. He's in the middle of something. He'll call you back later."

"What's he doing?"

"I think he said he was pulling his throttle body."

"Ooo-kay Mom . . . ," i giggled, "i guess he'll need some privacy then."

(Hey, what do i know about cars?)

Posted by: annika at 10:05 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 85 words, total size 1 kb.

i just can't stop updating you on Brittany's antics. She's such an easy target, and there's no shortage of material out there, since her every waking moment is chronicled for all to see. (That is, assuming the level of brainwave activity inside her head ever qualifies as a "waking moment.")

Here's a picture i found, showing what the American Skankwoman likes to read while she's laying out by the pool and sucking down Marlboro Lights.

It's a book called Wheels of a Soul: Reincarnation - Your Life Today and Tomorrow, by Kabbalist Rabbi Philip Berg. It was no doubt recommended by her personal Kabbalah tutor, that very classy Madona lady.

i guess Brittany's born again experience didn't take. Between smooches, Madona probably informed her that Christianity wasn't cool these days.

Fictional dialogue goes as follows:

"Baby, you gotta dump that whole Mel Gibson shit if you wanna be like me. Don't you want to be like me?"

"Of course I do. You know I do. Please help me be more like you."

"Alrighty then. But first let's see if we can't make you a little more like Janet."

Whispering and giggling ensues. Justin's name is mentioned. Some more whispering and giggling.

"Okay Madona, I'll do it! You're so smart."

Then we have this story.

P.S. By the way, it's just my opinion, but i think reincarnation is complete bullshit.

Posted by: annika at 03:33 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 255 words, total size 2 kb.

What the heck does it mean?

Posted by: annika at 10:51 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 18 words, total size 1 kb.

William Wordsworth was born on this day in 1770. In honor of his birthday, here's one of my favorites:

      Daffodils

I wander'd lonely as a cloud
   That floats on high o'er vales and hills,
When all at once I saw a crowd,
   A host, of golden daffodils;
Beside the lake, beneath the trees,
Fluttering and dancing in the breeze.

Continuous as the stars that shine
   And twinkle on the Milky Way,
They stretch'd in never-ending line
   Along the margin of a bay:
Ten thousand saw I at a glance,
Tossing their heads in sprightly dance.

The waves beside them danced; but they
   Out-did the sparkling waves in glee:
A poet could not but be gay,
   In such a jocund company:
I gazed—and gazed—but little thought
What wealth the show to me had brought:

For oft, when on my couch I lie
   In vacant or in pensive mood,
They flash upon that inward eye
   Which is the bliss of solitude;
And then my heart with pleasure fills,
And dances with the daffodils.

Posted by: annika at 10:17 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 181 words, total size 1 kb.

i'm upset about the recent escalation of casualties and violence in Iraq. You know i supported the war and i still do. But we must win. i'm not ready to jump ship and start agreeing with Teddy Kennedy, but i'm starting to worry.

Kennedy compared Iraq to Vietnam. It was a foolish statement, and i hope to never see the day when Kennedy could be described as prescient. But i know all too well that we lost Vietnam because our politicians tried to fight a limited war against an enemy that used our reticence against us.

To me, there is one commandment of warfare and it is this: Thou must kick ass all the time. Americans like me do not want to see our side get hit like they did today. We're willing to go along with this war, but we don't want our best men losing any fights.

Patton said:

Americans love a winner. Americans will not tolerate a loser. Americans despise cowards. Americans play to win all of the time. I wouldn't give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed. That's why Americans have never lost nor will ever lose a war; for the very idea of losing is hateful to an American.

Patton again:

We'll win this war, but we'll win it only by fighting and by showing the [enemy] that we've got more guts than they have; or ever will have. We're not going to just shoot the sons-of-bitches, we're going to rip out their living Goddamned guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks. We're going to murder those lousy . . . cocksuckers by the bushel-fucking-basket. War is a bloody, killing business. You've got to spill their blood, or they will spill yours. Rip them up the belly. Shoot them in the guts. . . .

. . . [W]e are not interested in holding onto anything, except the enemy's balls. We are going to twist his balls and kick the living shit out of him all of the time. . . . We are going to go through him like crap through a goose; like shit through a tin horn!

When a newly acquired State has been accustomed . . . to live under its own laws and in freedom, there are three methods whereby it may be held. The first is to destroy it; the second, to go and reside there in person; the third, to suffer it to live on under its own laws, subjecting it to a tribute, and entrusting its government to a few of the inhabitants who will keep the rest your friends. . . .

We have examples of all these methods in the histories of the Spartans and the Romans. The Spartans held Athens and Thebes by creating oligarchies in these cities, yet lost them in the end. The Romans, to retain Capua, Carthage, and Numantia, destroyed them and never lost them. On the other hand, when they thought to hold Greece as the Spartans had held it, leaving it its freedom and allowing it to be governed by its own laws, they failed, and had to destroy many cities of that Province before they could secure it. For, in truth, there is no sure way of holding other than by destroying, and whoever becomes master of a City accustomed to live in freedom and does not destroy it, may reckon on being destroyed by it.

And here comes in the question whether it is better to be loved rather than feared, or feared rather than loved. It might perhaps be answered that we should wish to be both; but since love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved. For of men it may generally be affirmed, that they are thankless, fickle, false studious to avoid danger, greedy of gain, devoted to you while you are able to confer benefits upon them, and ready, as I said before, while danger is distant, to shed their blood, and sacrifice their property, their lives, and their children for you; but in the hour of need they turn against you. . . .

Moreover, men are less careful how they offend him who makes himself loved than him who makes himself feared. For love is held by the tie of obligation, which, because men are a sorry breed, is broken on every whisper of private interest; but fear is bound by the apprehension of punishment which never relaxes its grasp.

Machiavelli cautioned that fear should be distinct from hate. i don't know what he'd say about a people who already hate the new prince, but haven't learned to fear him yet. But Machiavelli's formula for instilling fear while staying clear of hatred is a do-able one, in Iraq.

[A] Prince should inspire fear in such a fashion that if he do not win love he may escape hate. For a man may very well be feared and yet not hated, and this will be the case so long as he does not meddle with the property or with the women of his citizens and subjects. And if constrained to put any to death, he should do so only when there is manifest cause or reasonable justification. But, above all, he must abstain from the property of others. For men will sooner forget the death of their father than the loss of their patrimony. Moreover, pretexts for confiscation are never to seek, and he who has once begun to live by rapine always finds reasons for taking what is not his; whereas reasons for shedding blood are fewer, and sooner exhausted.

But the final step of my Machiavellian advice to Bush is one that i'm worried about. Bush has shown an incredible amount of strength and leadership getting us this far, and changing the Middle East in such a fundamental way. i hope he's got the guts to start really kicking ass now, when it's necessary. Because unless the regime holdouts and terrorist assholes start fearing massive retaliation, i'm afraid they're not going to stop killing our guys. And if we don't stop them, they win.

Update: Guess i spoke too soon about messing with their property. Oops! LMAO.

Posted by: annika at 06:32 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 1389 words, total size 8 kb.

1 I suspect that comments may be few and far between for this particular post. So, lemme just say: great work Anni!!

Posted by: Tuning Spork at April 06, 2004 08:21 PM (H7OBy)

2 Annie, First of all the last thing Bush or any other damn Pres of this country needs to be thinking is, "What would Machiavelli do?" There is a difference between being an occupying force & a liberating one. The goals of each are different as are the methods ideal for the achievement of those goals. The first step is to decide which one we are * then move accordingly. Now for all practical purposes we seem to be in the occupying force role. This is akward 'cause we started out as a liberating force but that's another subject. So as an occupying force that is under increasing attack from the locals we can do a few things. The most pressing is to increase the size of our patrols over there. It won't stop the attacks but it'll give us a better chance of taking as many losses & an even better chance of capturing or killing the attackers. The next thing we need to do is start weening the locals on doing whatever it is we're doing there. Increase the numbers of Iraqi's involved in the patrols. Hell I'd be all for setting up a militia system over there if it wouldn't freak "no guns for the people" Bremer out. If you make the people understand they're being attacked as well as the occupying force then you stand a chance of cutting popular support for the attackers. But as it relates to Iraq specifically we need to speed up the process we're supposed to be working on, which is handing things back to the locals. Now personally I think it's a bad idea to liberate people who won't liberate themselves (yes, I know Hussein had opposition in some regions, but not much to speak of) which is why I've always been opposed to invading California or Chicago or NYC or Boulder. But the fact is we're there & there will be some people who are violently opposed to it. What we should do is leave the Iraqi's to handle their own business. Get Bremer & the Corps & the Army & all other troops out of the country the second we can. Now yes we should hang around until the Iraqi's are able to handle things themselves, but if we use attacks by people & groups opposed to Hussein's downfall as a justification we'll be there for the next 50 years. & the longer we do stay the more we look like an occupying force than a liberating force to many people. If the Iraqi's want freedom then they can have it. If they want another Hussein they can have that too. Yes, the latter would suck for them but freedom includes making bad choices as well as good. Oh & about Viet-nam... it wasn't just that we didn't give the troops over there enough support or a clear direction (althought those were big problems) it was that the politics at home affected the way the troops acted abroad. Little thought was given to the way to achieve the objectives in the beginning. It was just assumed that Americans will kick their asses & that'll strike fear in commie hearts worldwide. Hey - looked good on paper at the time, so why not? & you have to remember these were the people who thought giving front line troops a mickey mouse looking piece of shit that won't humanely kill deer was a good idea. Now we could have won the war itself eventually but again I question the wisdom of getting involved in other people's affairs. That aside we lost Vietnam because domestic political conerns outweighed the foreign political concerns we were supposed to be fighting for. If they understood what was going on in Viet-Nam they didn't care. which lead to the reasons you state. You weren't wrong by any means, it's just I'd much rather examine the cause instead of merely changing the effect. But please - no more Machiavelli for Bush. From where I sit he's had too much Machiavellian advice already. Tell him about Chief Joseph or Jefferson or any one of the Adams boys. Tell him about George Mason or Locke or Cesare Beccaria. Tell him about Tacitus or Mencken. Tell him about Paine & Andrew Fletcher. You know, people he could & should learn from. & just for me, tell him what Patton would think of the M16/M4.

Posted by: Publicola at April 06, 2004 09:23 PM (Aao25)

3 The Roman Army would have killed all the malesand sold the women and children into salvery. Maybe they had a good point.

Posted by: Chuck at April 06, 2004 10:07 PM (s6c4t)

4 Like so much else you write, Annika, I nearly swoon. As for liberating and occupying. Look, we were stupid for making such an emphasis on liberation. Moreover we were there not to liberate Saddam's Sunni cronies, but everyone else. The "hearts and minds" campaingn must be aimed at the undecided, who are now few, not our arch-enemies.

Posted by: roach at April 06, 2004 10:21 PM (DHoAQ)

5 As always, Annika dear, I disagree but am impressed -- best thing since your Pepys evening a while back! Here is the ONE thing that had me saying "amen": This Rumsfeld idea of doing things on the cheap is not looking too good right about now.

Posted by: Hugo at April 07, 2004 09:02 AM (LNc8S)

6 Fallujah Delenda Est http://www.newsmax.com/cgi-bin/printer_friendly.pl?page=http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/4/2/100042.shtml The above is a wonderful reference to Cato's problem with the Cathaginians, and his solution. Each day of this uprising leads me to believe that the author, Jack Wheeler (and Cato) were right on the money.

Posted by: Shelly S. at April 07, 2004 10:49 AM (AaBEz)

7 Is it just me, or is it suddenly getting hot in here??? Excellent job - it's good to remember we are discussing the military, not a police force. Beauty and Brains - maybe that cloning stuff isn't such a bad idea after all...

Posted by: John at April 07, 2004 02:32 PM (7UPKM)

8 George Mason and Co. were either Christians, which Islamists are NOT, or Greeks, which got swallowed up by Islamists when the Byzantine Empire died. The religion of Islam is convert or die. Well, then, we show them we understand the message. LOUD AND CLEAR.

Posted by: Cricket at April 07, 2004 03:31 PM (Ie8+U)

9 Prescient? Sent me to the dictionary couldnÂ’t find it. Anyway, Ted Kennedy is wrong to call this war a Vietnam. You should never give suicidal enemies a reason to kill our soldiers in the hopes that we will retreat. Ted Kennedy just prolonged the war and increased the body count on both sides

Posted by: steve at April 07, 2004 04:02 PM (ifByZ)

10 prescient

Posted by: annika! at April 07, 2004 05:03 PM (zAOEU)

11 And wasn't it Harry S. Truman who said "Drop that damn A bomb on 'em, and if them Japs don't surrender, keep droppin' one on 'em every day or so until they do surrender, dammit!"? Oops, I think that one might not have made the papers, yet. I guess I just blew my Top Secret Clearance all to Hell, huh? Sorry Condoleezza*, but he was a Democrat afterall. *Don't ya really hate it when ya have to look up a news story just to find the correct spellin' of a name of someone?

Posted by: notGeorge at April 08, 2004 05:03 PM (G5PGV)

12 Trust the Marines.

Posted by: Attila Girl at April 09, 2004 10:43 PM (SYwua)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

The Completely Pointless Personality Quiz

Thanks, Lemur Girl!

Posted by: annika at 10:49 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 20 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I scored 57%...I am an EXERCISE WHEEL. Should I be afraid? spark21

Posted by: spark21 at April 07, 2004 08:47 PM (iI//A)

2 A "Bucket of Chicken"....I am really not sure HOW to take that.....

Posted by: Courtney at April 08, 2004 08:28 AM (tyQ8y)

3 No worries though i still don't understand how i get to be three people at once! AxXx

Posted by: Lemurgirl at April 08, 2004 08:49 AM (DS0qC)

4 Wooohooo, I am a cinnamon roll -- 36%, which is much higher than I scored on my first Calculus examine in college* ... I knew someone had to be impressed with at least one of my buns. *Whis is the reason why I ended up being an attorney instead of a rocket scientist, I suppose.** **I am still of the opinion that I would have done much better at Calculus if the college had not been outsourcing the teaching positions to very poor English speaking people from India and China.

Posted by: notGeorge at April 08, 2004 05:16 PM (G5PGV)

5 OFFICIAL 2004 REPUBLICAN NATION CONVENTION PROGRAM 6:00 pm Opening Cross Burning Ceremony (Hoods optional). 6:30 pm Prayer by the flag pole. 6:40 pm N.R.A. pigeon shoot. 7:00 pm Prayer led by Charlton Heston 7:10 pm W.M.D. scavenger hunt. 7:20 pm Prayer led by Pat Robertson. 700 club donation drive. 7:25 pm (Men only) Army of God rally. (Women only) Dishwasher Demo. 7:45 pm Prayer led by Jerry Falwell and Tinky-Winky burning. 8:00 pm Fred Phelps Gay bashing rally by the barbed wire fence. 8:25 pm Prayer led by Fred Phelps 8:30 pm Workshops: (Men only) “WHITE POWER“ (Women only)“Home schooling your Children” 9:00 pm NRA’s history of the KKK led by Trent Lott in memory of Strohm Thurman 9:30 pm Intermission 10:00 pm Cross burning ceremony no. 2 (Hoods a Must!) 10:15 pm George Bush lands in a fighter jet. (only men under 5’5” on flight deck please). 10:30 pm George Bush speech “dow der der helldo my people, yeah well, I can hear ya’ll”!!!!!!! 10:40 pm Prayer led by Dick 10:50 pm Pledge of allegiance to Saudi Arabia led by Halliburton 11:00 pm Collect offerings for future attacks on abortion clinics 11:20 pm George Bush presents W.M.D. in France (Backup: France is better off without Chirac) 11:30 pm Enron rally led by Halliburton 11:45 pm Workshop: “Maximizing a Police State” led By John Ashcroft 11:59 pm Prayer led by Bush 12:00 am Nomination of the Republican candidate

Posted by: kg at April 27, 2004 06:49 AM (YwYPN)

6 Hello......................Good-Bye.................!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: UR MOM at April 30, 2004 11:04 AM (tU5Mu)

7 wow stupid quiz!!!!! im a toilet then i took it again and now im rubber dog poo?? but i answered the same questions?!?!!

Posted by: dazed and confused at December 19, 2004 01:35 PM (ywZa8)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Look at this, it's funny.

Posted by: annika at 10:38 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 11 words, total size 1 kb.

i usually don't link to Lileks, because i assume everybody is reading him anyway. However . . . Today's Bleat is in the top ten percent of the most brilliant things Lileks has ever written, IMHO. Let me add my voice to the multitude of bloggers out there who are saying: "read it."

Posted by: annika at 01:49 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 57 words, total size 1 kb.