February 18, 2006
News Flash: Dick Cheney Was Careless
I just don't get all the hub-bub about whether Dick Cheney shot Whittington at 30 yards or at 30 feet or whatever. What's the point of that argument? If he fired at some closer range does that mean he was
extra-super careless instead of just careless? Where are the Cheney critics going with this argument?
Oh I know. The theory goes something like this:
If Cheney lied about the distance it means he lied about WMD. We can't have a Vice President who goes around shooting people. He's reckless. He's evil evil evil. Halliburton Halliburton Halliburton. AAAAAAAgh!!!
[head explodes]
You can only clutch at straws for so long until you run out of straws.
Like that? I just made that one up.
I love how people are saying Cheney was drunk. Like that disqualifies you from being a world leader. I think Churchill put that one to rest sixty years ago.
Look everybody. This was an unfortunate accident, but it's not going to get anybody impeached. Bush and Cheney are going to finish out their term. Get used to it.
Posted by: annika at
06:46 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 190 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Did anyone happen to catch Mary Matlin on Imus?
She nailed the story by saying that "Cheney stopped to be sure that his friend was well cared for and getting the right treatment instead of sending an urgent flash to the White House Press Corps. That caused David Gregory's hair to be on fire".
C'mon guys, hunters get shot carelessly every day. This wasn't bullets!!! It was bird shot, you know, BB's. Let's get real.
Isn't the situation in Iran a little more serious?
Posted by: shelly at February 18, 2006 07:43 PM (BJYNn)
2
I haven't been following the story all that closely (I'm too busy getting ready for nonstop Kiira Korpi koverage), but I figured this was as good a time as any to check the Air America affiliate in Los Angeles. Normally I find it boring...most broadcasts are variations on the theme "Bush is stupid!"...but I figured they might have something new after this earthshaking event. And I was pleasantly surprised - the "Dick Cheney's Got a Gun" parody was halfway decent - but then they got into the whole "alcoholic" "obstruction of justice" thing. Boring again...
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at February 18, 2006 09:49 PM (IzM+M)
3
What I want to know is why all the media outlets were describing the lawyer Cheney shot as "the Cheney victim". I mean come on! No bias in the mainstream media?
Posted by: Jeff at February 19, 2006 06:14 AM (Oy8FT)
4
Could this play into deeply held liberal belief that Conservatives are evil? And into the meme that Cheney is extra evil? Could the unstated/unconscious logic be:
Hunting is evil,
Hunting + shooting your friend is extra evil,
This is proof that we are right:
Cheney is extra evil!
Re not contacting the D.C. press corps:
Many claim the D.C. press corps considers itself an actual fourth branch of government, which the Executive and the Legislative are forced to deal with, and which weilds actual power via their keyboards and microphones.
Cheney, especially, ignores the press, and treats them
as if they have no real power - his handling of informing the D.C. press corps being a prime example of his dismissiveness, and his refusal to take them seriously. This contributed to the piqued and fearful reaction of the D.C. press. Everyone will fiercely fight against the loss of their own power(whether that power is real or imagined).
Posted by: gcotharn at February 19, 2006 01:04 PM (74mUn)
5
I find it interesting that you (and some of your readers) feel compelled to create strawmen to then beat on.
Posted by: will at February 19, 2006 06:50 PM (h7Ciu)
6
Will/Skye,
Are you willfully ignorant? Annika's post doesn't create any "strawmen." Did you catch the Dems talking points on the weekend shows? Here it was: The shooting wasn't the point. Oh sure, it obviously was an awful accident. The real point is the VP's "penchant for secrecy" (same phrase used by at least 4 people that I heard---no doubt a huge coincedence)as illustrated by how the story was handled and as illustrated by (fill in the blank with you favorite liberal fairy-tale.)
So, no "strawmen"....just perfect anticipation of the Left's tired, silly political games. Well done, Annika.
Posted by: Blu at February 20, 2006 11:06 AM (JBa2Z)
7
Apparently, Will hasn't noticed the last 2 comments in Annie's "Hunting Foul" thread:
http://blog.mu.nu/cgi/splorp.cgi?entry_id=157109
We don't need to create strawmen, they come to us.
Posted by: reagan80 at February 20, 2006 12:06 PM (K9tdw)
8
Well, actually, it is now the two comments prior to the last. I couldn't help but reply to Mr. Murphy....it was just too tempting.
Posted by: Blu at February 20, 2006 12:28 PM (JBa2Z)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Coolest Thing On The Internets Of The Day
The Human Clock.
Posted by: annika at
05:59 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 19 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Not really, and their off by a couple minutes.
Posted by: Casca at February 18, 2006 07:03 PM (2gORp)
2
Heh, it's late. I've been drinking.
Posted by: Casca at February 18, 2006 09:13 PM (2gORp)
3
Have you seen this one?
http://mis-group.com/funny/clock_hand/hand_clock.php
Posted by: Sarah at February 19, 2006 02:02 AM (4JPuR)
4
Wow, that is cool too. I want to watch it change at midnight.
Posted by: annika at February 19, 2006 08:23 AM (fxTDF)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 15, 2006
Plane Crash In Roseville, 2.0
Sheesh, I'm taking unexpected criticism for my "fuel feed problems" statement in
my post about the Glasair II crash in Roseville. The manufacturers' reps must be trolling the web. Here's some clarifying points to remember.
- I never said that the Roseville crash was due to a product defect. Obviously, I have no idea and if I had to guess, I'd blame pilot error first.
- Just as obvious, if the pilot was indeed doing aerobatics over a populated area, he would have been clearly negligent.
- One thing that should be investigated is how many hours that particular plane had been flying. There is a rule that you cannot have passengers in an experimental plane until a certain amount of flight time has been logged. I can't remember the requirement, maybe some of you know it.
- Perhaps I should have said fuel feed "challenges" instead of "problems." But, come on. There is a difference between low wing and high wing aircraft fuel systems. The difference is gravity. On a low wing plane, fuel has to be pumped to the engine. If air gets in the line the engine could die. The danger is magnified if the plane is doing stunts. I'm certainly no expert, but I did learn that to prevent cavitation in the fuel lines, tolerances have to be exact throughout the system. Also, some low wing planes do not allow a "both" setting on their fuel selector switch.
- It may be that kit planes are made with higher quality materials, as one commenter said. That's not my beef. I would much rather be in a plane that was mass produced, since there's a greater likelihood that any design problems will have been previously discovered by some other sucker, and not me. Also, I would expect quality control to be somewhat better at a factory than in Joe Blow's back yard.
That is all. Have at it.
Posted by: annika at
10:35 PM
| Comments (14)
| Add Comment
Post contains 324 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Ever since the cable got hooked up again (its been a while) I have been watching these aircraft shows on the history and military channels nonstop. its really got me curious on what exactly the sound barrier is, like why is there such a thing.
anyways i liked this line:
"I'm certainly no expert, but I did learn that to prevent cavitation in the fuel lines, tolerances have to be exact throughout the system." i've never even heard of cavitation before!
Posted by: Scof at February 16, 2006 08:36 AM (a3fqn)
2
Sorry to be coming to this late, I just wanted to talk about the high vs low wing fuel feed problems. Most new piston engine aircraft use a fuel injection system and thus require a pump to pressurize the fuel. Even the models that use a carburetor require some pressure (but less than the fuel-injected models,) and also require a pump. Some of the older radial engines that used carburetors didn't need that much fuel pressure to function and thus could get away with being gravity fed, but all new carburetors do need a pump.
This doesn't mean that there aren't issues between high and low wing aircraft, but that's not related to this discussion and I'm an engine guy not an aeronautics guy.
Posted by: Trevor at February 16, 2006 04:17 PM (GtBBB)
3
Welcome to an early introduction to your future profession!
I had once entertained building a kit plane with 3 other coworkers (engineers), though when the project changed, and they were reassigned, I let that whim pass.
http://www.velocityaircraft.com/airmodel.html
Glassairs have been around for some time and actually have a fairly good reputation. But you are right, someone who is doing this for the first time runs the risk of making simple mistakes that can prove fatal. That's one reason I let that whim go.
Posted by: skye at February 17, 2006 06:06 AM (GzvlQ)
4
No more DwtS liveblogging?
Posted by: Victor at February 17, 2006 06:19 AM (L3qPK)
5
Eh, it's like anything else. Pay attention to the little things, and the big things take care of themselves. As someone pointed out, the only reason these experimental designations exists is because lawyers destroyed the low end private aviation industry through litigation. It is a euphemism to escape liability.
The reason we like Cheney? He shoots lawyers!
Posted by: Casca at February 17, 2006 06:54 AM (y9m6I)
6
OMG, your best work ever!
Posted by: Casca at February 18, 2006 06:20 AM (2gORp)
7
The reason we like Cheney? He shoots lawyers!
Casca, didn't you learn anything in the corps?
Just shooting them is not sufficient, especially with just BB's.
You gotta track 'em down and finish 'em off, or no trophy.
Ask Kerry; he takes the wounded and blows them away from behind. Gets you the bronze star and a purple heart with an oak leaf cluster.
Posted by: shelly at February 18, 2006 09:43 AM (BJYNn)
8
I love the AnniKournikova photoshop and the Casca part too.
The trolls are fapping as we speak.
Posted by: reagan80 at February 18, 2006 10:00 AM (K9tdw)
Posted by: annika at February 18, 2006 11:05 AM (dH2gm)
10
Casca gets a mention on the cover?
CASCA?!?!?!
That bites.
Posted by: Victor at February 18, 2006 12:07 PM (l+W8Z)
11
I know. I just wanted an excuse to spell "Annikarnikova".
I've also been dying to say "Annikus Finch", but haven't found the right occasion yet.
Posted by: reagan80 at February 18, 2006 01:09 PM (K9tdw)
Posted by: annika at February 18, 2006 02:12 PM (1K/zG)
13
"Make Casca your Bitch"
LMAO!
Posted by: d-rod at February 18, 2006 04:33 PM (9/t+R)
14
Casca is only bitch to one.
Posted by: Casca at February 18, 2006 06:58 PM (2gORp)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Gotta Love The Beeb
The BBC, no surprise, was one of the many media outlets that refused to show the twelve Jyllands-Posten cartoons.
Their excuse was as lame and hypocritical as any other you've seen:
We recognised that among our users there is a wide range of different cultural sensitivities and that the images would cause genuine offence to some.
Tut, tut. Don't want to give offence you know. So sorry about that freedom of the press thing you Yanks are always on about.
Of course, they forgot to mention anything about that fear of gettin' blowed up thing. There's that too.
Interestingly, the Beeb has no problem with potentially offending Muslims when there is no chance that their offices will become targets for retaliation.
Exhibit A: the BBC didn't hesitate to plaster their website with the newest Abu Ghraib photos. Are they really taking the position that those photographs would not "cause genuine offence to some?" Or is the reason for their newfound boldness the fact that any retaliation would be directed at American troops, not journalists whose lives are, as everyone knows, worth more than the rest of ours.
I also love the disclaimer they added to the link in the main story.
Warning: You may find some pictures disturbing
The obvious rhetorical question seems to be: why wasn't such a disclaimer good enough to allow them to publish the cartoons?
Oh, yeah. It's that darn "gettin blowed up" problem.
Posted by: annika at
09:31 AM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 242 words, total size 2 kb.
1
You pose a very interesting and frustrating angle.
Are you saying that the position of the British press is that putting soldiers lives in danger is tolerable, but not so for journalists?
If this "every person for themself" mentality is true shouldn't the military stop protecting journalists? Obviously it is impossible to know for sure what the intention of the media in England is since it will constantly be changing.
Isn't the main lesson here that the only thing you can count on, from the media, is that it will take the side that makes the West look bad and the Middle East as the victim? Isn't this constant self-battering of the Western ideology self destructive?
I'm just amazed how few Muslim leaders come out and condone the violence. What is that religion working towards anyways if this is how its followers react to everything?
Posted by: Michael at February 15, 2006 11:23 AM (+f3EY)
2
I don't think the Abu Ghraib photos would "cause genuine offence to some" as much as cause embarrassment to the Bush Administration. And the Bush Administration admonished the EU press for showing the cartoons, so you must be disagreeing with him.
Posted by: skye at February 15, 2006 12:11 PM (GzvlQ)
3
Skye,
You are right; the Bush Admin did follow the PC lead of its State Dept, which was pathetic. This is just another illustration of the Admins unwillingness to call out the Muslim community and its medieval world view. This is an area (along with border security) that I think makes the Bushies look PC and weak.
The BBC is generally willing to put out anything that is anti-American and anti-Bush. That is just one of the reasons why their credibility has been under attack for quite a while.
Posted by: Blu at February 15, 2006 01:06 PM (Sr3zL)
4
I don't understand your point Skye. You don't think the Abu Ghraib photos are more offensive than the cartoons? And btw, I do disagree with the State Department's condemnation of the Danish newspaper.
Posted by: annika at February 15, 2006 01:07 PM (BbAWh)
5
Regarding the State Department's response to the cartoon intifada, Victor Davis Hanson had this to say:
[Instead, by letting the Europeans take the lead with the Iranian negotiations, and keeping nearly silent about the cartoon hysteria, the United States essentially has told the Europeans, “Here is the sort of restrained sober and judicious global diplomacy that you so welcome.”]
( http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-2_14_06_VDH.html )
Instapundit also posted this:
[UPDATE: Reader Shivan V. Mahendrarajah emails:
"While I agree that the State Dept. was wrong to be nuanced in their response re the cartoons of the Prophet and the ensuing brouhaha, in a Machiavellian way, I think it brilliant (though unintentionally so, otherwise that would be giving the State Dept. way too much credit). Here's why:
1. U.S. Embassies worldwide have not been stormed, attacked or burned, and if they had been, Marines would have to disperse the crowds to prevent another Teheran, even shoot to kill (one of my former Army Drill Sergeants was in that sort of a situation in Baghdad - very unpleasant), and shootings by Marines would exacerbate the anti-Americanism that currently prevails and take the focus off the Muslim v. Europe fight as it currently stands;
2. Maybe now the Euroweenies will wake up and see what we "imperialist" Amerikaners have seen. . . ."
One hopes that this will serve as a wakeup call in some quarters.]
Posted by: reagan80 at February 15, 2006 02:04 PM (K9tdw)
Posted by: Roach at February 15, 2006 03:58 PM (MRlvg)
7
We recognised that among our users there is a wide range of different cultural sensitivities and that the images would cause genuine offence to some.
If I lived in the UK, the fact that I'd have to pay a tax on my TV every year to support this sort of crap--even if I never watched the BBC--would "cause genuine offence" to me. As much I'd hope for them to do so, somehow I don't think that Auntie would either 1) cease to exist or 2) do away with its license fee, just to assuage my "cultural sensitivities."
The fact that, despite a more, um, vibrant print media than possibly anywhere else, many if not most people in the UK still get all their news from the BBC might make one wonder why they're not even MORE leftwing. And, of course, the fact that journalistic establishments everywhere routinely praise the BBC is reason enough among countless others for it to have been broken up and privatized ages ago.
Posted by: Dave J at February 15, 2006 09:53 PM (DWKDy)
8
"I don't understand your point Skye. You don't think the Abu Ghraib photos are more offensive than the cartoons? And btw, I do disagree with the State Department's condemnation of the Danish newspaper."
We'll have to examine what we mean by "offence" (good training for your upcoming profession). The cartoons offended some Muslims for religious adherence reasons we all now know. The Abu Ghraib photos enraged Iraqi citizens, and disturbed many others, because of the treatment of detainees, not because of the intent of an illustrator. The treatment was a news item, not an editorial cartoon, and as news, rightfully belonged in the news media.
In a generic sense of the word 'offence', I believe one could argue equally well on both sides of the debate. In the sense that I believe BBC was using the term, the Abu Ghraib photos were not offensive the religious beliefs, but embarrassing to political elements because of their (to some) unethical actions.
BTW, I normally post here as 'will' but my frequently used handle now shows up here as a default. Perhaps I used it some time ago, but I just felt it was best to keep in the open.
Posted by: skye at February 17, 2006 06:00 AM (GzvlQ)
9
The original publication of the cartoons was needlessly provocative; if the intent was to satirize the apparent contradiction between words and deeds in parts of the Islamic world, there were surely more clever and even thought provoking ways for the cartoonist.
While I agree with Skye/Will about the difference between "news" and "commentary", the reactions of the various communities have changed the cartoons from commentary to news. The events post-publication are newsworthy - and how can the BBC and US press report on the controversary without showing the cartoons (or at least a portion?). While some Christians may have found the 1989 "Piss Christ" and related NEA funded "art" objectionable, publishing pictures of some of the "offensive" works was important so the public could understand the issue.
The same is true here. While the original publication was a gross example of the failure to balance freedom with responsibility/prudence, the events and reactions (bounty on the head of the cartoonists now!) are news -- and the press should include a portion of the cartoons since those items are central to understanding the larger issues.
I do agree with thought the reluctance of US media to show the photos puts the spotlight on European nations for a change. Perhaps I'm harboring a little resentment for when the French show up in New Orleans to complain about lack of government action post-Katrina, the media conveniently forgets how *15,000* French citizens died over a couple of weeks in the summer of 2003 when most of the government was on summer holiday (but I digress..)
Posted by: Col Steve at February 17, 2006 10:31 AM (pj2h7)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Poetry Wednesday: Sandburg
I stopped in Springfield Illinois a few years ago, just to pay my respects to President Lincoln. Here's an account of a visit by Carl Sandburg, from 1918.
Knucks
In Abraham LincolnÂ’s city,
Where they remember his lawyerÂ’s shingle,
The place where they brought him
Wrapped in battle flags,
Wrapped in the smoke of memories
From Tallahassee to the Yukon,
The place now where the shaft of his tomb
Points white against the blue prairie dome,
In Abraham LincolnÂ’s city Â… I saw knucks
In the window of Mister FischmanÂ’s second-hand store
On Second Street.
I went in and asked, “How much?”
“Thirty cents apiece,” answered Mister Fischman.
And taking a box of new ones off a shelf
He filled anew the box in the showcase
And said incidentally, most casually
And incidentally:
“I sell a carload a month of these.”
I slipped my fingers into a set of knucks,
Cast-iron knucks molded in a foundry pattern,
And there came to me a set of thoughts like these:
Mister Fischman is for Abe and the “malice to none” stuff,
And the street car strikers and the strike-breakers,
And the sluggers, gunmen, detectives, policemen,
Judges, utility heads, newspapers, priests, lawyers,
They are all for Abe and the “malice to none” stuff.
I started for the door.
“Maybe you want a lighter pair,”
Came Mister FischmanÂ’s voice.
I opened the door Â… and the voice again:
“You are a funny customer.”
Wrapped in battle flags,
Wrapped in the smoke of memories,
This is the place they brought him,
This is Abraham LincolnÂ’s home town.
I might wonder why Carl Sandburg would need knucks. But then I would be committing the error of assuming that all poetry is autobiography.
Posted by: annika at
08:38 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 292 words, total size 2 kb.
1
That's more like it, Annie! I love the rhythm of Sandburg; so subtle, you think it's prose till you read it aloud...
Posted by: Hugo at February 15, 2006 09:03 AM (hDybU)
2
Sandburg's one of my favorite poets and one of the reasons I love Chicago. Hurray.
Posted by: lorie at February 15, 2006 12:49 PM (gxH3n)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 13, 2006
Silver Medalists!
Apparently, there is no Mandarin translation for "why why why!" When they bang their knee in China, they finish the program.
Posted by: annika at
11:27 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 25 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Check out my blog for My take on the Olympics.
http://impudent.blognation.us/blog
Then comment if you think Im full of crap.
Posted by: Kyle N at February 15, 2006 03:33 AM (IGPuy)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The First Rule Of 24
A hostile with key information is a hostile
down.
Posted by: annika at
10:00 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 19 words, total size 1 kb.
1
You're just not serious until you bring out the blow torches and pliers.
Posted by: Casca at February 14, 2006 07:13 AM (y9m6I)
2
True dat. I hope they bring in some more thugs to beat up on the Hobbit guy. That was fun.
Posted by: Dawn summers at February 14, 2006 12:15 PM (SOf9N)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 12, 2006
V-Day Advice
Purses and bags: NO. Our tastes are way too specific and there's too many variables involved. Don't fool yourself into thinking you can figure them all out. Same goes for shoes.
Pajamagrams, Vermont Teddy Bears or anything else advertised on late night cable tv: NO. Don't announce to your honey that you put no thought into the gift and selected it while watching re-runs of the A-Team.
Jewelry: Depends on the counter. Generally, if you can find it under glass, it's a YES. If it's hanging on a rack, give at your own risk.
Chocolate: Godiva, Sees, Dove? YES. Whitman's, Hershey's, Nestle? There better be another gift behind that one.
Flowers: Always a YES, unless they're the sole gift.
Gift Certificates: Book, record or department store certificates, NO. Everything else a MAYBE, but extra points for something out-of-the-ordinary, like an extravagant spa, a helicopter flight, horseback riding or something like that.
Useful housewares: Like a toaster or a blender? These might get you HURT. But anybody who doesn't know that probably doesn't date much anyway.
Fancy housewares: Like a set of delicate wineglasses? I'll give that a NOD.
Sex toys: I have nothing against sex toys, per se. But they're so overdone as a V-day gift, so I'm gonna say it's a NO. Valentines sex should be spontaneous, so don't announce that it's expected. As a surprise gift for no special occasion at all, there's a fun idea.
Lingerie: A possible YES. Here's the tip. Buy what she likes, not what looks good on Adriana. How do you know what she likes? Take a look in her drawer. If you don't see anything stringy, don't buy that three-pack of thongs. When in doubt, try boy-shorts. I don't know anyone who doesn't like boy-shorts.
Wine, beer or other intoxicants: If you have a nice evening planned, YES, by all means work this in. If you're thinking bubbly, I'd go with champagne over beer though.
Select wisely, and have a great Valentine's Day!
P.S. Remember to take the price tags off.
; )
Posted by: annika at
04:56 PM
| Comments (29)
| Add Comment
Post contains 345 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Well, back around 1998, I made a gal very happy on V-day with a swell Kate Spade bag... but most straight dudes don't know who Kate Spade is, so the advice is solid overall.
I agree completely on the sex toys and the teddy bears.
Really elegant candles (with holders) are a go too, I've found.
Posted by: Hugo at February 12, 2006 06:46 PM (Yu24L)
2
I thought the best V-Day gift was a long, slow sensual massage ending in ferocious, take-no-prisoners cunnilingus, but that's just me.
Orgasms: for women, they're the gift that keeps... (uuunnnhhh) on... (oooooooh... fuuuuuck...)
GIVIIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNGGGGGGG!!!
Kevin
Posted by: Kevin Kim at February 12, 2006 07:12 PM (TDwc6)
3
I thought the subject of "sex toys" was taboo for conservatives. And, I'd be turned off if I saw a dildo in my gf's room.
Now if y'all excuse me, I have to hide my inflatable Mohammed before company arrives...
Posted by: reagan80 at February 12, 2006 08:52 PM (BfbMq)
4
Actually, chocolate is not universally appreciated. Some women would not be pleased to receive it.
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at February 12, 2006 09:05 PM (62+YC)
5
I disappointed. Godiva is crap. So, It's a no too.
Posted by: Pursuit at February 12, 2006 09:19 PM (n/TNS)
6
Jeez Kev, that's my formula at least once a week. I have an account at the essential oils shop, and there's a guy who comes around once a month to fill my 500 gl in-ground AstroGlide tank.
Posted by: Casca at February 12, 2006 10:28 PM (2gORp)
7
Tommorrow is the day, and I have nothing. Guess I will get her a card if I have time, and I remember.
If women get Valintines day, and mothers day, and children get Christmas and all the other holidays.
We guys need a special day. How about "Steak and blow job Day"?
Posted by: kyle8 at February 13, 2006 03:48 AM (BUWVn)
8
Kyle, in my world, that's every Thursday.
Posted by: Casca at February 13, 2006 06:10 AM (y9m6I)
Posted by: Rob at February 13, 2006 07:00 AM (9DumO)
10
Luckily for me,
she likes to get her own gifts.
Posted by: tesco at February 13, 2006 07:05 AM (c0E+O)
11
i loved that commercial a couple years ago where the woman is agonizing over the card for her boyfriend and spends a long time getting that special card. shift to the guy, who grabs a card from the counter in the fast food place while picking up a six pack of beer. when he gives her the card, the woman is just so excited and grateful that he picked such a personal card, and he just smiles...men are pigs sometimes!
Posted by: tim at February 13, 2006 07:57 AM (JSetw)
12
Actually, my sweetie has very particular tastes in jewelry, and demands that any prospective gift of the same be pre-approved. I'm not complaining, though; my bank account is healthier for it.
Posted by: Matt at February 13, 2006 08:19 AM (10G2T)
13
I don't have to get anyone anything this year. I'll let that console me while the rest of you break out the astro-glide.
Posted by: Scof at February 13, 2006 12:16 PM (a3fqn)
14
I was originally going to post this:
Mmmmmmm champagne and chocolates and lacey boy shorts...
But now that I've read the comments I'm posting this instead:
Kevin, would you be my boyfriend?
Posted by: The Law Fairy at February 13, 2006 11:26 PM (954g7)
15
It's a shame my tongue doesn't stretch from Seoul to Los Angeles, Law Fairy.
Kevin
Posted by: Kevin Kim at February 14, 2006 01:36 AM (TDwc6)
16
You'd be sadly disappointed Kev. Law Fairy purports to be a chick.
Posted by: Casca at February 14, 2006 07:16 AM (y9m6I)
Posted by: Kevin Kim at February 14, 2006 08:56 AM (1PcL3)
18
Actually, I thought Law Fairy was a man myself.
Don't ask.
Posted by: reagan80 at February 14, 2006 09:27 AM (K9tdw)
19
Greetings Annie,
After enjoying reading this article and running it by my wife (of 30 years) I thundered out and bought the last thing that was available at the store, some godiva and a valentine's butterfinger thing. I was quite proud of myself and was told that this is like the 3rd or 4th time in the 30 years that I remembered. Sometime later my wife asked if the blog that reminded me of this said that the price tags should be taken off. I told her, "no, it didn't."
Posted by: Drake Steel at February 14, 2006 10:14 AM (jh4mE)
20
correction made Drake. Thanks.
Posted by: annika at February 14, 2006 10:40 AM (zAOEU)
21
Buying things on an artificial holiday because you're compelled to by a woman is not exactly the acme of romance. Especially when the woman is only satisfied by great expense, as if the dollar amount measures your love and personal commitment.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 14, 2006 11:00 AM (1Vbso)
22
"as if the dollar amount measures your love and personal commitment."
You say that like it's not true, Chris.
; )
Posted by: annika at February 14, 2006 12:45 PM (APvel)
23
Wow. Strange how many people think I'm a man from my fake internet name. I could comment on the social implications of this tendency... but that's probably more appropriate for my blog (where, by the way, my avatar is a very feminine-looking girl with wings) than annika's
Posted by: The Law Fairy at February 14, 2006 12:59 PM (XUsiG)
24
It's worse than that LF, not just a guy, but a goat-blower.
Posted by: Casca at February 14, 2006 03:32 PM (2gORp)
25
I'm not sure I even "get" that one...
Posted by: The Law Fairy at February 14, 2006 04:30 PM (XUsiG)
26
Neither did I the first time I heard the 1st Sgt say it. In fact he had to repeat himself three times, and finally in frustration reverted to a few more common, yet not necessarily descriptive colloquialisms. "Fairy" would have been a mild one of those.
Posted by: Casca at February 15, 2006 06:40 AM (y9m6I)
27
St. Valentines Day is no big deal. My dear wife of almost 17 years gets the same thing every year.
Two boxes of Elmer's Chocolates (sold at Walmart, its her favorite).
A potted plant (tulips, or some other bulb that she can eventually transplant into the garden.
A funny card. She claims my sense of humor is what attracted me to her originally so I try and go with what got me here. I usually try and write something mushy in it.
Lunch together. This is a small town with limited restaurants that are way to crowded on special nights.
I get the lunch, candy and a card.
We prefer to spend St. Valentines Day ruining each other's diets. Telling her I love her is what the other 364 days of the year are for. But I usually sneak one in sometimes during the day anyway.
Posted by: David at February 15, 2006 10:55 PM (auHyx)
28
Annika,
I wished my mate read your column prior to
V-Day, as he showed up with GODIVA choclotaes, knowing that I am dairy intolerate, no flowers, no card, a bag of chips, and a cheap bottle of wine. I had all these presents, plans of sexual excitement, a special card and made the dinner reservations. Needless to say the party was
over so no blow job or sex. Prior years were thong underwear and a funny card, next was flowers only. Get a clue guys! I agree with you Kevin, but we need to hear I LOVE YOU TOO!
Posted by: shelly at February 16, 2006 09:30 AM (0nDEs)
29
All that, and a bag of chips too?
Posted by: annika at February 16, 2006 08:24 PM (fxTDF)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Dick Cheney's Hunting Foul
From AP:
. . . Cheney, Whittington and another hunter got out of the vehicle to shoot at a covey of quail.
Whittington shot a bird and went to look for it in the tall grass, while Cheney and the third hunter walked to another spot and discovered a second covey.
Whittington 'came up from behind the vice president and the other hunter and didn't signal them or indicate to them or announce himself,' Armstrong said.
'The vice president didn't see him,' she continued. 'The covey flushed and the vice president picked out a bird and was following it and shot. And by god, Harry was in the line of fire and got peppered pretty good.'
Allow me to be the first blogger to make the "another case of faulty intelligence gone awry" joke.
Posted by: annika at
04:10 PM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
Post contains 140 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Waiting for someone to DEPLORE the incident as an example of fascist violence. Except that Kerry probably won't deplore it, after his tough talk during the debates. He'll probably say that Cheney not only needed better aim, but a stronger weapon that would kill the offending animal.
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at February 12, 2006 09:07 PM (62+YC)
2
THAT is why I do not shoot with civilians! You're all too undisciplined and dangerous!!
Posted by: Casca at February 12, 2006 10:48 PM (2gORp)
3
BTW for those of your in the know, Friday was qual day for Bravo '06 at TBS, and Casca II shot double expert (expert with the rifle and pistol). His rifle score was 233. Shit in my day that would have been the high score in the company. Bravo high score? 244 by a prior enlisted former scout sniper and silver star winner.
Posted by: Casca at February 12, 2006 11:07 PM (2gORp)
4
Interesting how the article makes it seem as if Whittington was somehow at fault. Whenever one is out hunting with others, one should always keep a sense about where the others are. Unless the safety remains engaged...
Posted by: skye at February 13, 2006 04:47 AM (GzvlQ)
5
My rifle was a weak-ass 221 or something -- barely expert. I've never been all that strong with the rifle. I had the high score in the company with the pistol, though -- 386 of a possible 400, IIRC. I'm definitely more suited to kicking doors than trading shots at 400m. That long-distance shit is what machine guns, arty and air are for (says the former FO).
Posted by: Matt at February 13, 2006 08:29 AM (10G2T)
6
What's interesting is that the liberal MSM is actually trying to make this into something other than just a silly accident. I just saw a Yahoo headline that said something to the effect of "White House Criticized Over Cheney Hunting Accident." What's the Big Fucking Deal? Apparently, it was necessary that this be made made public immediately rather than the next day. The incident occured at 5:30 PM on Saturday and was made public Sunday.The public had no immediate need to know. It impacted nobody but the poor bastard who got shot and his family. Some of the press is even trying to insinuate that the story was not told accurately. These people will really stoop to any level to try and paint this administration negatively. It's pathetic. At least, though, it is also obvious.
I wonder if the MSM will spend even half as much time covering Gore's most recent traitorous rants?
Not fucking likely.
Posted by: Blu at February 13, 2006 01:45 PM (Sr3zL)
7
Let's put it in perspective:
Would you rather go driving on Martha's Vineyard with Teddy Kennedy, or hunting with Dick Cheney?
Posted by: shelly at February 13, 2006 02:44 PM (BJYNn)
8
Shit Shelly, you're becoming the Milton Berl of the blogosphere. I know, you only steal from the best.
Shit it turns out that the WIA was 78 years old. One wonders what he was doing in the field without a keeper. Some days are best spent on the porch.
Posted by: Casca at February 13, 2006 03:45 PM (2gORp)
9
Blu,
Journalists stopped having to stoop for this administration five and a half years ago.
In this case i probably agree that it is ultimately a meaningless event unless of course we discover that this guy was going to testify before some grand jury or he was wearing a Scooter mask and this was a dumb joke gone terribly wrong.
I do however find noteworthy the the substitution of the word pepper for shoot in the whitehouse spin.
Posted by: Strawman at February 14, 2006 06:51 AM (0ZdtC)
10
I think this is more about a whiny WH media that thinks it is their constitutional right to be spoon-fed every bit of information remotely assoicated to the administration.
Posted by: Blu at February 14, 2006 09:40 AM (Sr3zL)
11
It's interesting to hear people whine about how others whine.
Posted by: skye at February 14, 2006 11:25 AM (GzvlQ)
12
Is responding to a whine, whining? Hmmm... You may have a point. And besides pointing out that the media is liberal, self-involved, and anti-Bush is like pointing out that the sky is blue.
Posted by: Blu at February 14, 2006 12:17 PM (Sr3zL)
Posted by: Don Myers at February 14, 2006 07:50 PM (Hn8NG)
14
The leftist liberal media? Cmonm, over 50 percent of the population in this country believes thaqt this administration is a bunch of lying stooges. Keep watching your Faux news and get the "truth". If these guys will obfuscate, and delay, and spin over something as meaningless as a hunting accident what are we to believe about things that are really important, like wmd's, patriot act and use of force votes being pretzle logiced into the right to spy on americans (or anyone for that matter) in a warrantless manner. Cmon, your heros have clay feet (like most of the rest of us. Give it a reast and keep your eye on the big picture,,more lies to come concerning Iran, North Korea, Palestine, etc etc etc. Face it, this is the crookedest bunch to run our country since my Commander in Chief Mr Nixon. My advice, tell the truth, tell it quickly and knock off the spin (oh by the way, no matter what Faux sways, they are out there spinning to the right so quickly they would get rug burns if they did it on carpet barefooted. Get used to it, it's going to get worst as these guys start to eat each other alive over scooter, abramoff, warantless spying, fema, etc etc. Your hero is a failure both as a man (I am a vietnam veteran and he and his veep did nothing but get defferment after deferment). And don't give me that air national guard crap, everyone from my generation knows that it was a dodge from active duty. Want to know how many reserves were on my ship? 7 all pilots and volunteers. How many national guard members? 0 none nada this is with a crew of 5200 and was endemic throughout the services. Better be glad that they are using the guard and the reserves and stop los orders to keep the military up to force or your rear end or a few fortunate sons kids might get drafed. Of course they have changed the draft law to drafting into the reserves instead of active duty but we all know quite well that right now being in the guard or reserves is an automatic ticket to Iraq. Wake up and smell the coffee, quit defending this fraud.
Posted by: Michael Murphy at February 19, 2006 06:23 PM (TNnt2)
15
Dear Mr. Murphy,
Thank you for your service. Now, with that said, please take the time to study an 8th grade grammar book. You might also want to consider a dictionary. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
Posted by: Blu at February 20, 2006 12:26 PM (JBa2Z)
16
I will take your kind advice. I will refrain from using internet grammar and do a little spell checking.
Thanks for being a nice person about it. We can all agree to disagree since we were lucky enough to be born in a free society.
Thanks again blu,
Mike
Posted by: mike at February 20, 2006 02:00 PM (TNnt2)
17
I totally agree. That is exactly how I understand it.I am very lucky to get this tips from you
neon signs wholesale. Great! Thanks for sharing will be sure to follow this blog regularly
Business Signs. WOW! this is awesome
LED neon sign! you can download it at my website for FREE along with lots of other games and media content
LED Signs. I look forward to more updates and will be returning.Cheers!
Posted by: Advertising signs at January 21, 2011 02:55 AM (zpIH7)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Plane Crash In Roseville
A plane crashed into a house in Roseville, northeast of Sacramento today. From
the video, it looks like a missile strike. The house is toast. Four people are feared dead, including possibly two inside the house.
The aircraft was a Glasair II, low-wing experimental kit plane. As a law clerk, I worked peripherally on a case involving the crash of a kit plane very similar to the Glasair II. Due to client confidentiality, I can't get into the specifics of the case. But suffice to say, you'd never catch me getting into one of them kit planes.
I don't know what possesses pilots to build their own plane when there are plenty of reliable manufacturers out there. Especially a low-wing plane with it's inherent fuel feed problems. Today's crash occurred after witnesses say the pilot was doing some aerobatics. Not smart over a populated area like Roseville.
Posted by: annika at
03:31 PM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 155 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I'm a high-wing guy myself, but of course there are lots of production airplanes out there with low wings and safety records comparable to the high wings. One advantage of low-wing is supposed to be better crosswind handling.
Posted by: David Foster at February 12, 2006 05:14 PM (/Z304)
2
I monitor a blog called Roseville Conservative (it's on my blogroll), but so far it hasn't said anything about the incident.
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at February 12, 2006 09:09 PM (62+YC)
3
That's right, just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you should.
Posted by: Casca at February 12, 2006 10:54 PM (2gORp)
4
This is funny. Lawyers pretty much killed general aviation in the US in the late 70's to early 80's - driving the price of a new Cessna 152 from about 15K to probably close to 100K due to "product liability" lawsuits against the airplane manufacturers because, horrors, airplanes sometimes crash...
There are really very few manufacturers left.
And we've all got to go somehow. So I can't get too worked up about somebody doing himself in in a kit plane. But the acrobatics over a populated area is wrong.
Posted by: MarkD at February 13, 2006 09:06 AM (oQofX)
5
Some pretty poor judgment was used by the pilot - it would appear at least four FARs (regulations) were violated. As a pilot and sometime aircraft builder, I am saddened by the apparent recklessness and awful outcome. It doesn't appear that the aircraft was at fault, and I believe the NTSB will fully validate this.
I wonder if you'll blog on the NTSB report when it comes out. It seems to me that it would be equally poor judgment if someone let you into their airplane.
Somehow the majority of aircraft in the world, being low-wing aircraft, seem to have solved the fuel feed problem? Perhaps it's just a problem for attorneys and law clerks?
Posted by: avboy at February 14, 2006 08:32 AM (eRFyD)
6
First off, Dont jump to conclusions that the plane is to blame. Most experimental Aircraft are built with materiails that superceed most all production aircraft.
Just because a plane has a low wing, doesn't have anything to do with inherent fuel feed problems.
The blame here should be the careless act as a pilot in command, not becaue the plane is registered "experimental".
Posted by: Guy Foreman at February 14, 2006 07:08 PM (zQh+h)
7
I know the owner of the plane and he didn't build it himself. The plane was purchased in Nov 05 from someone in TX. It is still has not comfirmed if he was actually piloting the plan when it crashed.
Posted by: San Clemente at February 14, 2006 08:59 PM (r43mB)
8
You know...the pilot and owner of the plane was my uncle, and none of you have the right until something like this happens in your family to bad talk a person you don't know, nor does anyone but him and his brother in law know what really happened in that plane. Several witnesses said that the plane stalled and the plane could not recover. Yeah he was violating the regulations distance rules, and such...but it doesn't mean that he deserved to die! My uncle was a veteran from the first Desert Storm, he served his country for all of you! He is a hero, and loved to have fun. They were doing stunts in that area because his brother in law wanted to put on a show for his son...and the really sad thing is, that his wife, mother, and son were watching when the plane went down. I feel horrible for the family who lost their son in the crash also...but lets remember that there are other victims here, and their memory deserves to live on in a good light! My uncles wife, son...all of us are devistated! You think nothing like this will happen to you, then you get a call like the one I got that morning. I love my uncle and he will forever live on in my heart and memories!
Posted by: Brandy Storer at February 17, 2006 10:10 PM (ZQ/Te)
9
This accident happened in my neighborhood, about 200 yards away from me. The plane was performing numerous manuevers, but way too low to the ground [at least 200 ft]. It was quite reckless, but no one deserved to die for it. With that said, that plane could've easily come down on my house & my whole family, plus 2 children from the neighborhood, would've been killed. I have compassion for those who lost loved ones, but the decision to fly illegally in my neighborhood, cannot be excused.
Posted by: SC at February 21, 2006 11:43 AM (iEkCM)
10
This is a very tragic accident and nobody should have died in this accident. Agreeing with what MarkD had to say about the lawers, the Glasair 2 and any Glasair for that matter have a great track record as far as safety. From what I know there has never been one come apart in the air.(Meaning from overstressing the structure of the plane) This accident from the evidence presented so far was due to pilot error. I have a Glasair 2 EXPERMENTAL and feel safer in it than I do in most aircraft.
Posted by: Brandon at February 28, 2006 03:26 PM (58Y9o)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 11, 2006
If St. Cindy Can Do It, Why Shouldn't I?
You heard that Cindy Sheehan
was selling herself over the internet? The ad got pulled by eBay, possibly because the product may produce involuntary stomach spasms.
However, with this auction, no such problems are likely:

As to any other disclaimers, I disclaim them.
Posted by: annika at
12:38 PM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
Post contains 61 words, total size 1 kb.
1
two major dissapointments with this
1) the auction is over
2) you read malkin
ps i totally would have paid 7.99 Buy it Now plys the 2.50 shipping.
heck i would have paid 8.99
Posted by: tony at February 11, 2006 01:42 PM (vRj+9)
2
Well, you might be pleased to know I bought two songs by Tsar today.
Posted by: annika at February 11, 2006 01:48 PM (fxTDF)
3
Perhaps we should go into the speaking business together, Annie -- we could debate and spout poetry at each other.
Posted by: Hugo at February 11, 2006 02:14 PM (Yu24L)
4
im very pleased to hear that
and if you like them, email me yr mailing address and i will send you a nice mix cd of tsar throughout the years
Posted by: tony at February 11, 2006 08:46 PM (vRj+9)
5
What would it cost for a speaking engagement in Seoul at one of the larger hotel conference rooms? I'm sure the South Korean youth would love all the nice things you'd have to say about their brothers to the north.
Kevin
Posted by: Kevin Kim at February 12, 2006 06:56 AM (1PcL3)
6
At first glance, that picture sort of looks like you're holding up a valentine heart. So that would be a different auction entirely.
Posted by: Jim Treacher at February 12, 2006 11:06 AM (/fbjZ)
7
Why would she want to go there, the South Koreans hate us. They openly discriminate against our troops:
http://freekorea.blogspot.com/2005/08/hrc-responds-part-ii.html
They think General MacArthur is a war criminal:
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2005/07/18/2003264019
http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/opinion/200510/kt2005102517073354300.htm
And, they think we are the evil bullies for "picking on" the poor little commie shits that have hundreds of artillery pieces aimed at them north of the border.
Posted by: reagan80 at February 12, 2006 11:20 AM (K9tdw)
8
Reagan80:
Precisely my point. I live in Seoul.
Kevin
Posted by: Kevin Kim at February 12, 2006 07:20 PM (TDwc6)
9
Sorry about that, Kevin. My sarcasm detector wasn't working at the time, and I didn't know you were even over there.
Posted by: reagan80 at February 12, 2006 08:43 PM (BfbMq)
10
Even if I had a group to which she could speak, I wouldn't want to ship Annika down to southern California for $2.50 or whatever, even if she poked air holes in the box. A speech is not that inspiring when the speaker has been bouncing around in a UPS truck for several hours.
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at February 12, 2006 09:12 PM (62+YC)
11
BTW, the Sheehan auction has been yanked. I'm kinda curious as to why.
Posted by: Victor at February 13, 2006 06:41 AM (L3qPK)
12
Victor, that's easy. She's shacked up with Jesse Jackson and can't be bothered.
Posted by: shelly at February 13, 2006 02:46 PM (BJYNn)
13
Ouch. There's a mental image I could have done without.
Posted by: annika at February 13, 2006 07:01 PM (fxTDF)
14
Roger that, annika *shudder* OTOH, I've now got something that pushed tubgrl to the rear...so to speak...
Posted by: Victor at February 14, 2006 09:44 AM (L3qPK)
15
You're right, Victor. That's worse than tub girl meeting goatse man.
Posted by: reagan80 at February 14, 2006 10:26 AM (K9tdw)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
A Critique Of The Pragmatic Approach To Bullies
Kevin Kim, an energetic advocate of free speech, provides a well reasoned argument against those pragmatists who say we should not provoke muslim outrage.
The pragmatic approach, which seems to have gained adherents even in our own State Department, can be summarized thusly:
[F]or the 'pragmatist,' it is abundantly clear that certain Muslims are prone to overreaction. Knowing this as we do, we Westerners would be at fault for provoking such people, because provocation in the awareness of Muslim oversensitivity is malicious. You know the angry dog will bite you if you keep prodding it with your foot, so it's your fault if you get bitten. What's more, provocation is impractical: how can we expect to change Muslim hearts and minds when we adopt a confrontational stance?
Kevin responds:
The West and its allies occasionally shoot themselves in the foot: Kim Jong-il, for example, relies on Seoul's and Washington's indecision to get what he wants, like a child adept at 'playing' his parents. North Korea, in the role of the spoiled brat, knows it can sit back and make demands of its far more powerful interlocutors. In the end, Seoul and Washington gain nothing while Pyongyang continues its illegal nuclear program, its counterfeiting, its drug trafficking, and its systematic oppression of the North Korean people-- all while spewing outrageously self-righteous rhetoric whose crazed tone I often wish we matched, just for fun's sake.
. . .
The pragmatic appeasers want to cut Western action off at the root: they would prefer that we stop openly acting outraged about Muslim outrage. Some . . . seem to feel that we should feel outrage but then do nothing-- that we should, in fact, compromise with oppression by reducing our own range of movement to accommodate the violent Other. This is a comfortable, lazy position that allows us to pretend we have the moral high ground even as that ground is rapidly eroding beneath us.
Others feel that dialogue with the wild-eyed Muslims is the best answer. While I'm a staunch advocate of dialogue (interreligious, intercultural, diplomatic, etc.), I'm under no illusions that the people out there destroying embassies and threatening infidels with death are going to sit down calmly and listen to rational discussion. As far as I'm concerned, most of those people are already beyond redemption. Dialogue is reserved, then, for moderates (in the Western sense of the word, not the Muslim sense). What's more, we need to be focusing on the next generation of Muslims-- the children, the ones who are impressionable. If we don't move to communicate with them directly, they'll grow up just as indoctrinated as the current generation of willful idiots.
. . .
I proudly advocate the right to offend [If you've seen Kevin's blog, you know he ain't kidding], and demand that offended parties unpucker their sphincters and relax. If you want to protest, fine. If you're planning to get violent, don't be surprised if someone shoots your stupid ass.
The whole thing is
here.
Posted by: annika at
09:46 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 503 words, total size 3 kb.
1
The history of man is the story of tyrants, and the struggle against tyranny. It is no accident that the roots of modern islamofacism suck from the twisted perversion of the Nazis.
Posted by: Casca at February 11, 2006 10:25 AM (2gORp)
2
Thanks for the shout-out, A.
My interlocutor, Sonagi, doesn't seem to get it, though. We've been going around and around in the comments.
Kevin
PS: "Sonagi" is Korean for "the rains" or "rainstorm." I'm not sure if the guy's actually Korean, though.
Posted by: Kevin Kim at February 11, 2006 10:25 AM (1PcL3)
3
Thanks for catching my typo.
Kevin
Posted by: Kevin Kim at February 11, 2006 10:28 AM (1PcL3)
4
Nice post, Annika. Thanks. The "pragmatist" position is intellectually dishonest and very annoying. Hugh Hewitt has recently taken that position. In fact, he had a special segment regarding this topic that included Michael Medved and Dennis Praeger, both of whom expertly shredded his arguments.
Posted by: Blu at February 12, 2006 05:01 PM (AMG/2)
5
"You know the angry dog will bite you if you keep prodding it with your foot, so it's your fault if you get bitten."
only once, then i would shoot the dog. Somtimes you just have to put the aggessive ones down, even though you know the dog was made aggressive by it's owners. You shoot the dog because you can't shoot the owners.
Posted by: cube at February 13, 2006 11:19 AM (nyNr0)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 10, 2006
Worlds Apart
Posted by: annika at
10:19 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 4 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Nice banner graphic, love the bunny slippers, but I'm a bit offput that Annika doesn't flash when moused-over.
Posted by: Casca at February 11, 2006 08:20 AM (2gORp)
2
Ha, that would be a trick!
Posted by: annika at February 11, 2006 08:34 AM (hr7o7)
3
I just had a scary thought. Munich 1972. Hope not.
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at February 12, 2006 09:15 PM (62+YC)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
So I'm In Law School Because... Why?
Oh yeah,
the money Arthur, the money.
Guest blogger Drobbski, at Clareified:
There are basically three types of partners: the successful, the hungry, and the failing. Although their motivations differ, they are all mean in one way, shape, or form.
The successful partner has a book of busines that is way too large to manage, so she is stretched so thin she doesn't have time for family or work.
So she is mean.
The hungry partner doesn't yet have his book of business, and strives to get it. He is more concerned with self-promotion and client development then billable work. He needs associates willing to put in the non-billable time that does the associate no good. He can't get the support he needs.
So he is mean.
The failing partner does not have enough business and efforts to find more fail. He is hoping to hold on a while longer working on other partners' matters, and he is bitter about it. So he is mean.
See? I told you.
Partners are mean.
It's a rule.
P.S. Shelly, I know you're the exception.
Posted by: annika at
06:29 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 194 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Sure, but was it ever thus?
Successful lawyers are so because they devote a lot of themselves to their practice. They do not work 9 to 5, rather, they work when they need to complete what is before them and provide confidence and good service to their clients. Sometimes 15 or more hours a day. That'll get you lean and mean.
They build a trust in their clients that if getting the desired result means missing a trip to Europe, or a night with your family, or a long planned visit to your folks, you still will take the time to finish the job, and prevail. Your family and other life will suffer. That'll get you mean, too.
Your reputation follows you everywhere, and the best advertising in the world is a client who has found a lawyer he or she can actually trust. Soon, you'll represent all of their friends and associates. Then you'll be so busy you'll have even less time for your family and friends. That'll get you mean, too.
Lastly, here's a little test for you, Annie. I'll bet you have a "dream car", one that you are going to buy with your starting bonus, or as soon as you are settled in your practice and have your residence set up and can afford a new car.
Take a drive one night after 7:30 P.M. to any large private office building where lawyers work. Look around at the cars. Then tell me how many old chevys or cheap Japanese imports you find versus Porsches, Jags, Caddies, MBZ's, etc. The car you drive is just a symbol, but a pretty reliable one, don't you think?
I rest my case.
Posted by: shelly at February 11, 2006 05:17 AM (BJYNn)
2
I think that I told you before you launched on this endeavor, that I knew very few happy practicing attorneys. That's what comes of robbing widows and orphans, or bandying with those who engage in
tedious arguments of insidious intent.
The upside is all of the opportunities in business for those with a JD.
Posted by: Casca at February 11, 2006 09:10 AM (2gORp)
3
Annika's going to be an ice queen in the near future? OH NOES!!!!
Posted by: reagan80 at February 11, 2006 03:57 PM (K9tdw)
4
Annika:
Yet another reason to get the hell out of the law profession before it's too late.
Posted by: Mark at February 12, 2006 08:32 PM (Vg0tt)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 09, 2006
Most Weirdest iTunes Purchase Ever
I bought Jerry Reed's "Eastbound And Down" yesterday. Hey, it was only .99 cents. Well, it was running through my head all day for some unknown reason and and it's actually a pretty catchy tune.
My brother used to drive a truck and he went through this whole Smokey And The Bandit obsession a few years back. One of the stupidest movies ever, but somehow entertaining in a campy sort of way.
On the same automotive theme, does anyone know about car batteries? I needed a jump start yesterday for about the third time in the last few months. I always seem to leave the lights on more often when I'm super busy and stressed out like I have been. I suppose I could just not be super busy, but then I would end up homeless and destitute, so that's not a good option.
Anyways, I remember hearing about some kind of special battery for people like me, which is like two batteries in one: a normal battery and a smaller emergency battery so you can jump start yourself if needed. Has anyone else heard of this? I checked Sears' site, but it seems they don't offer this kind of thing in their Diehard selection. If this kind of battery exists, it would really help me out, since it doesn't look like I'm ever going to rid myself of the habit of leaving the lights on.
Oh and by the way, my car does have an automatic light turner-offer. The problem is you have to actually open the door and get out of the car for it to work. The trouble is, I run the batteries down while I'm actually sitting in the car; I don't get out. This happens because I sometimes sit in there drinking my coffee and studying before class. Embarrassing.
Posted by: annika at
09:07 AM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
Post contains 314 words, total size 2 kb.
1
When I was in school, for 1 year (both fall and spring semesters) I passed by a car that always had the lights on. Every morning (except Tuesdays in spring when I didn't have a morning class) I turned their lights off for them--fortunate they left the door open. I left them a note at the end of the semester, saying I wasn't coming back next year and they might want to start turning off their lights. Suppose I could have done it after the third or fourth time, but I kind of enjoyed turning off their lights for them.
You could always get out of the car and study in the library or someplace else. Or get to school just before class (though I suppose parking is at a premium there).
Posted by: Victor at February 09, 2006 09:41 AM (L3qPK)
2
There used to be a few batteries like that, but I haven't seen one in a while. They're a little more complicated than you'd think. Basically, it was two batteries in one, with a manual switch that allowed the driver to switch from one battery to another. One problem was that when you drained one, and then turned to the other, you had to remember to switch back to the drained one to re-charge it. The other problem was that the batteries were either too big to fit in the OEM space, or did not have enough cranking power.
This isn't exactly what you're talking about, but if you don't have one already there's this:
Jumpstart
There are other versions out there too, but this one also serves as an air compressor for a flat tire, has a work light if you're stuck somewhere at night, and can even re-charge your cell phone or other accessory. Basically, they're good to have in a car, but great in case of any emergency.
Posted by: Trevor at February 09, 2006 09:59 AM (RwZxT)
3
are you sure thats all your doing in the car?
Honestly, it sounds like the problem is the light "turner-offer", thats whats causing the lights to be on in the first place.
My suggestion is: go manual. Only turn lights on at night when it's dark. Forgettig to turn the lights off won't be much of an issue either, because it is easy to see your lights were left on in the darkness of night!
Posted by: jimi at February 09, 2006 10:55 AM (FRjNx)
4
My dad used to carry little business cards with the message "You left your lights on" and leave them on people's windshields. That's his sense of humor.
Posted by: annika at February 09, 2006 10:57 AM (zAOEU)
5
This does sound like a user deficiency issue, but just to be safe, maybe you best take it in and have the battery tested to see if it is taking a full charge. Also have them test the alternator, which may be a problem, as well as the voltage regulator. Most batteries are around $100.00 installed.
Go to Pep Boys, or one of those places; they sell devices that will give you one good jump start.
Or better yet, buy a pair of really heavy duty jumper cables and a very short skirt. When the battery is dead, put on the skirt and stand in the roadway holding the cables and a sign that says "Help". This is the only sure-fire way to get this done quickly.
Posted by: shelly at February 09, 2006 11:11 AM (BJYNn)
6
Sheesh, what you need is a keeper. Go with the jumper cables for twenty bucks. Any hetro male will do the dirty work for you.
If you're battery is dead because you left your lights on, then the battery is OK. If the battery is dead any other time, then there's something wrong with it. I once had a battery with a bad cell. It was impossible to diagnose without taking it in to a garage and having each cell tested. It worked about 99% of the time, but the 1% was a deal breaker.
Posted by: Casca at February 09, 2006 12:42 PM (y9m6I)
7
All OEM batterys go dead (will not hold a charge) in 3-5 years
See "http://www.brandsonsale.xxx/porjumstarba.html" for portable jump battery -- can also be found localy at most large stores with Auto sections
Note: would not take .com hence .xxx
Posted by: Mike at February 09, 2006 12:59 PM (y4Ivx)
8
i have a chevy s-10 with that auto lights feature.
When i have my emergency break on it turns off the lights.
shine a light on the sensor (had to do this once for a living drive through nativity scence, god bless the bible belt)
Or.....open the door then shut it, that should turn off the lights.
Posted by: cube at February 09, 2006 02:14 PM (nyNr0)
9
Jetta, right?
When I'm in mine and am going to sit in it for some time, I turn it off, put on the e-brake and then I also take the key remote and click the "lock" button -- this makes the lights inside go off immediately.
Of course, you have to remember to unlock the car when you decide to step out or else it will sound the horn and then people will think you are breaking into your car.
Posted by: Amy Bo Bamy at February 09, 2006 03:12 PM (Wz2Gp)
10
Who knew batteries could generate this much discussion?
That Jumpstart device that Trevor linked to works like a champ. They keep one at the front desk of my office building. I once left my lights on at work, and found the battery dead when I tried to leave that night. And I mean D-E-A-D; when I put the key in the ignition and turned it, there was not the slightest hint of
any current flowing through that vehicle. The Jumpstart fired 'er up on the first try. I don't know how long it'll hold a charge, but it's certainly very portable.
As far as the short skirt, long cables approach, I don't like having to count on strangers for help. I'd be even less of a fan if it were my wife or one of my daughters who needed the help. Those situatons probably work out fine in 999 out of 1,000 cases, but it's that 0.1% that worries me. There's a lot to be said for self-sufficiency.
Posted by: Matt at February 09, 2006 07:35 PM (5P4d+)
11
I carry a Xantrex Powerpack 400. It can give you jump, inflate your tires, and provide an emergency light. It works so well I bought one for my husbands truck. VERY reassurring to have in your around. It can even provide emergency power at home. We used them often during the three hurricanes in 2004 when we were out of electricity for weeks. It costs about $130 and is well worth the peace of mind they provide.
Posted by: Janette at February 10, 2006 11:35 AM (OcgcA)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 08, 2006
Memo To Sound Board Operator At The Grammys
You suck.
(One of many examples: Sly's first public appearance in 13 years and you'd think they might have shown the man more respect. Or didn't you think people would want to hear the vocals?)
Update: See pictures of Sly's sweet hairdo at Tony's.
Posted by: annika at
11:31 PM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
Post contains 60 words, total size 1 kb.
1
The Napa Valley Wine Growers Association was in San Diego last night. I was abed and asleep by 2230, yet woke at 0530 still buzzed, and I didn't even try ALL of the wines. Of course, I must have tried fifty or so. Even with my faulty memory, two are memorable St Supery "Elu" served by the lovely Tina whom I kept calling Tracy, and the '02 Cab by Rutherford which had an almost buttery finish. In truth, I only tasted one wine that didn't belong. BTW, hot chicks outnumbered guys ten to one.
Posted by: Casca at February 09, 2006 06:55 AM (y9m6I)
2
I missed the show. Were any of the performances good/memorable? I know everbody made a big deal about Sly, but SF-based 70's funk isn't my genre of choice.
Posted by: Blu at February 09, 2006 07:35 AM (AMG/2)
3
The Sly presentation was the one on which my son-in-law was working; can't wait to talk to him to find out what really happened.
I'm guesing that Sly didn't like the mixer/soundboard any more than Annie did, and voted with his feet...
Posted by: shelly at February 09, 2006 08:20 AM (BJYNn)
4
So I'm not the only one who thinks he walked off the stage in disgust.
Posted by: annika at February 09, 2006 08:30 AM (IQFJZ)
5
OK, he says "Nobody knows".
But, he said that it was a big plus that after 19 years he actually made a public appearance. It certainly is the "buzz" today, and the proof will be how many of his current records/dvds sell this week.
They are in the stores, so go get one...
Posted by: shelly at February 09, 2006 08:31 AM (BJYNn)
6
I started watching the beginning of it but as soon as some 47 year old gap-tooted slut showed up prancing around in some 70's era Lycra outfit, I had to change the channel and vomit.
Posted by: Blake at February 09, 2006 08:37 AM (1B44J)
7
It's a big show, others had sound issues but they worked through it...my guess is Sly's internal sound board is shot.
Posted by: jimi at February 09, 2006 11:01 AM (BN/Fu)
8
Well, my son-in-law said thathe was talking to members of The Family after and they said "That's just Sly...".
You tell me what that means.
Posted by: shelly at February 09, 2006 11:13 AM (BJYNn)
9
It means that he's an asshole.
Posted by: Casca at February 09, 2006 12:47 PM (y9m6I)
10
Years ago, Johnny Cash appeared on the Grammys and sang some inane song with the chorus "The Grammy award is a mighty fine award."
And he was off key.
Rest in peace.
As for Sly, the whole reception puzzles me. This is a guy who was notorious for not showing up for his concerts, and now that he shows up for the first time in decades he's a hero?
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at February 10, 2006 01:05 PM (FPdMX)
11
"It means that he's an asshole." Well, Duh.
C'mon, Casca, was that ever in question? Jeez, just a LOOK at him tells you everything.
Except, that shit sells to those idiots. Go figure.
Posted by: shelly at February 10, 2006 03:33 PM (BJYNn)
12
I like Sly's classic Doug Pinnick look.
Posted by: TBinSTL at February 10, 2006 06:48 PM (bYmT0)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Poetry Wednesday: Verne
Today is Jules Verne's birthday. Here is a translation of one of his poems. Warning: it's a sad one.
Greenland Song
Dark Is the sky,
The sun sinks wearily;
My trembling heart, with sorrow filled,
Aches drearily !
My sweet child at my songs is smiling still,
While at his tender heart the icicles lie chill.
Child of my dreams I
Thy love doth cheer me;
The cruel biting frost I brave
But to be near thee!
Ah me, Ah me, could these hot tears of mine
But melt the icicles around that heart of thine!
Could we once more
Meet heart to heart,
Thy little hands close clasped in mine,
No more to part.
Then on thy chill heart rays from heaven above
Should fall, and softly melt it with the warmth of love!
Posted by: annika at
11:17 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 141 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Now, Annie, this is almost maudlin -- it's a bit sophomoric, don't you think? I mean, it's Jules Verne, but the imagery isn't exactly original...
I'm being cantankerous, sorry. I love your poem selections, but I'll gripe from time to time. More Burns, sister! And more of YOUR poetry!
Posted by: Hugo at February 09, 2006 03:11 PM (Yu24L)
2
Really, Hugo. On the man's birthday you gotta call him sophmoric! It's a good thing he's dead.
; )
I, too, thought that this poem was somewhat Poe-esque in tone without any of Poe's genius.
Posted by: annika at February 09, 2006 04:51 PM (zAOEU)
3
Annika, that's a devastating line of yours... see? You're a better writer than Verne!
Posted by: Hugo at February 10, 2006 09:23 AM (Yu24L)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 05, 2006
Dannebrog Again

With all the flag burning going on, I think it's appropriate to refer once again to my old old Dannebrog post. Click here.
Posted by: annika at
10:19 AM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I was hoping that it was a holiday requiring copious consumption of alcohol. Not to worry, it's Super Sunday! I say let ALL women under fifty go topless!
Posted by: Casca at February 05, 2006 11:24 AM (2gORp)
2
As an American of Danish/Norweigian descent, I'm curious. Where in the hell does one buy Danish flags on short notice to burn in Gaza or Amman. If I wanted to burn a Yemeni flag tomorrow, I seriously doubt I could find one in first-world San Francisco, much less dozens of them. Are 'flags of the world stores' ubiquitious in these Arab hellholes? Or is it possible that these protests are not spontaneous?
Love your poetry selections.
Fred Jacobsen
San Francisco
Posted by: Fred Jacobsen at February 05, 2006 03:25 PM (mxWDl)
3
The Danish are a marvelous nation. During the Nazi occupation in WWII, the masses of the Danish people risked their lives to save Danish Jews and smuggle them over to safety in Sweden. Those same national traits of loving kindness and tolerance caused the Danes to admit some 200,000 Moslem immigrants from Islamic countries to Denmark, to a life of freedom and material comfort they never could have found in an Islamic country. As a reward, Denmark's flag is trampled and her embassies are burned.
Long live Denmark! May her people find the courage to defend their freedom and culture against Moslem invaders.
Posted by: Ralphy Boy at February 05, 2006 08:24 PM (/jK1/)
4
HEY ANNIKA, Betty Friedan is dead. that reminds me of a joke. Why does my wife wear white?
So she blends in with the other kitchen appliances.
Posted by: Kyle N at February 05, 2006 08:56 PM (+xN+u)
5
In reaction to the trampling & burning of their country's proud symbol, I say the Danish need to start repopulating their country. To that end please sign me up for a visit, i wouldn't mind a dane dame.
Posted by: Scof at February 06, 2006 04:37 PM (36uSz)
6
Why take the time to go to Denmark when you can just fly to Sacramento?
Easy to pick her out; she's the one with the hot shoes and correct fashion togs...
Posted by: shelly at February 06, 2006 08:38 PM (BJYNn)
7
bloggers make good tourists, i guess
Posted by: Scof at February 06, 2006 09:59 PM (36uSz)
8
Obviously you haven't heard: "And crossing the channel, one can not say much, of the French or the Spanish, the DANISH or Dutch. The Germans are German, the Russians are red, and the Greeks and Italians eat garlic in bed. The ENGLISH, the ENGLISH, the ENGLISH are best! I wouldn't give tuppence for all of the rest.
It's not that they're wicked, or naturally bad. It's knowing they're foreign, that makes them so mad.
Posted by: Casca at February 07, 2006 06:14 AM (y9m6I)
9
Good one, Casca. Haven't heard that Flanders and Swann ditty for years.
Posted by: shelly at February 08, 2006 03:16 AM (BJYNn)
10
Regarding Danish flags in Gaza, I heard something on the radio about a guy there who sells flags for all sorts of burnings - don't know when he started stocking up on Danish flags, or why he decided to do so. He buys his Danish flags from the Far East, but he actually buys his Israeli flags from Israel.
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at February 10, 2006 01:08 PM (FPdMX)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
What? Was Hugh G. Rection Unavalable?

I looked all over my favorite humorous blogger sites and I couldn't find anyone who took a shot at the obvious joke. I guess everybody's too busy blogging about the cartoon rioting I blogged about ages ago, although I didn't get any awards for having done so. Do I have to do everything? Well here goes.

HOUSE GOP GETS BOEHNER
Despite stiff opposition, House Republicans selected Ohio Representative John Boehner as Majority Leader on Friday.
"This appointment might be hard-on his family, but Boehner's a real stand-up guy," said one observer. "He always seems to rise to the occasion."
Others were more skeptical. "Woody make a good leader? It's hard to say," said one deflated opponent.
Boehner was visibly excited about his new job. "I'm so pumped up right now, i can barely contain myself," he said. "I look forward to coming to work and plugging away until I'm exhausted."
Posted by: annika at
09:00 AM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
Post contains 162 words, total size 1 kb.
1
"Deflated opponent"? LMAO!
Still, I wish Shadegg would've gotten the job instead.
Posted by: reagan80 at February 05, 2006 11:10 AM (K9tdw)
2
Well, as a former Ohio State Republican Committeeman, I can reliably inform you that he was ALWAYS known as Boner. He's one of the true believers who was with Newt at the creation. He's perfect for the job. I loved Chis Wallace's "Dean Martin" comparison.
Posted by: Casca at February 05, 2006 11:46 AM (2gORp)
3
huhhh...uhhhhuuhh... You said Boner!
/damm I miss Beavis and Butthead, greatest mind knumbing garbage ever.
Posted by: Kyle N at February 05, 2006 08:23 PM (+xN+u)
4
Wow, did you really call him a dickhead?...
Posted by: will at February 06, 2006 04:48 AM (GzvlQ)
Posted by: tim at February 06, 2006 06:55 AM (cqZXM)
6
My personal favorite was "Boehner smokes Blunt."
Posted by: the Pirate at February 06, 2006 01:18 PM (0ZKi5)
7
Good stuff, although I might have tried to work "throbbing with excitement" or "spurted ahead of the admittedly flaccid competition" into the piece. But that's just me.
Posted by: physics geek at February 06, 2006 03:55 PM (auFn9)
8
Oh Annika, your post left this queen's bratwurst harder than diamonds in the Yukon. With the selection of Beautiful Boehner, now homosexuals of America have no excuse not to not stand up with the Boehner and punch holes for all Republicans from now on!
Oh my! The things I'd do with a video camera, Mitt Romney, the Boehner, and a tube of KY!
Oh honey...
Posted by: Jermaine St. Pierre II at February 06, 2006 03:55 PM (Vg0tt)
9
How do these folks find this blog?
Posted by: shelly at February 06, 2006 08:46 PM (BJYNn)
Posted by: annika at February 07, 2006 10:59 AM (IPTAn)
11
Why does Boehner always throw up in those rubber bags?
Posted by: Radical Redneck at February 09, 2006 07:38 AM (Hn8NG)
12
I predict a renewed emphasis on tracking Osama back to his cave.
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at February 10, 2006 01:10 PM (FPdMX)
13
http://dickarmy.ytmnd.com
Posted by: reagan80 at February 11, 2006 03:48 PM (K9tdw)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
133kb generated in CPU 0.0482, elapsed 0.1187 seconds.
80 queries taking 0.0844 seconds, 370 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.