As you may know, i am participating in Blogger Bowl 2004, a Yahoo! Fantasy Football league started by Nick at Patriot Paradox. My team's first game is a big one, this weekend against Ted of Rocket Jones and his Rockets.

i'm gonna beat Ted like a drum. Like me, he's a Raider fan, and his wide receiver corps is heavy on the Raiders. He's got Jerry Rice and Jerry Porter, to go along with St. Louis' #2 option, Isaac Bruce. Now i love the Raiders, and Rice may be my favorite player ever, but i think my receivers, Marvin Harrison, Chad Johnson and Justin McCareins are gonna lead annika's journal to an easy victory this week.

Here's my team:

• Quarterback - Matt Hasselbeck, Seattle Seahawks


• Wide Receiver - Marvin Harrison, Indianapolis Colts


• Wide Receiver - Chad Johnson, Cincinnati Bengals


• Wide Receiver - Justin McCareins, New York Jets


• Running Back - Clinton Portis, Washington Redskins


• Running Back - Chris Brown, Tennessee Titans


• Tight End - Kellen Winslow, Cleveland Browns


• Kicker - Matt Stover, Baltimore Ravens


• Team Defense - Philadelphia Eagles

i had originally drafted the future hall of famer, Morten Anderson of Kansas City. Not only is he one of the greatest kickers of all time, but we were both born in Copenhagen, so i had to have him on my team. Now i find out that KC cut him on Friday, so i had to scramble to find a replacement! i can't believe they cut him. Sure he's 44, but he was still effective, i thought. Now, if Stover gets hurt i'm in trouble at kicker.

It would be nice if i could post a link to the league like i did with my baseball team, so you all could watch our progress. But i tested the link and apparently Yahoo! won't let you look at it unless you're a member of that league, for some dumb reason.

Anyways, season starts for real on Thursday and i can't wait.

Hey Ted: "We want the ball and we're going to score!" Ha ha! : )

Posted by: annika at 08:42 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 373 words, total size 2 kb.

1 How many teams are in your league? Its difficult to assess your team without knowing the size of the league, although, Marvin Harrison and Clinton Portis would be stars on any team. I loved it when Hassleback said that line in Green Bay.

Posted by: gcotharn at September 06, 2004 10:15 PM (PcgQk)

2 ten teams

Posted by: annika! at September 06, 2004 11:01 PM (8hdHW)

3 Annika, Why don't they just give you the league title right now! You have made great choices. Ted is TOAST! Seriously, you HAVE made good choices. Let us know how you do. Also, why do you have to be a lawyer? I'm with Shakespere, "First,let's kill all the lawyers." Not you, of course. But come'on, one of the biggest problems with our society is the overabundance of lawyers. Enough of my rant. Much love, Steve

Posted by: Steve Edge at September 07, 2004 12:37 AM (qv+uf)

4 Very strong team Annika. I think you'll be pleased with Chris Brown as well.

Posted by: Kurt at September 07, 2004 11:01 AM (/7AX2)

5 With Eddie George (who i also drafted) out of the picture, i too expect a big year for Chris Brown.

Posted by: annika! at September 07, 2004 11:34 AM (zAOEU)

6 Is that this weekend? Gee, I was looking forward to week 2. You know, the *real* start of my season.

Posted by: Ted at September 07, 2004 01:15 PM (ZjSa7)

7 Minnesota picked up Anderson today, so you can still have him. Also, call me a geek if you like, but typically receivers that switch teams in the off-season don't do well the following year. So good luck with McCareins.....hopefully for your sake, you'll be able to tell me how wrong I was after you win the league.

Posted by: Budly at September 07, 2004 02:58 PM (lkxZc)

8 Just another reason to love her... She drafted a Buckeye!!! I took him too. It's a do or die year for Eddie, and I think he'll do.

Posted by: Casca at September 07, 2004 04:46 PM (q+PSF)

9 i re-signed Anderson today. In a domed stadium, and with Minnesota's offense, he'll be awesome.

Posted by: annika! at September 08, 2004 09:17 AM (zAOEU)

10 your all shit!!! ameircan football sucks, englsih football rules, i mean if you type football in on google images all you get is english football so fuck off ameircan football, the only football is football!!!!

Posted by: lol at June 01, 2005 08:45 AM (F1nba)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

OLDCATMAN does it again.

Check out The Mafia Lives.

Posted by: annika at 10:26 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 17 words, total size 1 kb.

Bryon at Slings and Arrows is absolutely right when he attrubutes the Bush convention bounce to three things: Swiftboat Veterans for Truth, the wacky protesters, and the Republican Party's forward looking message.

First the Swiftboat ads. Bryon says:

[T]he effect was less a result of people changing their position on Kerry than it was about the Kerry camp's reaction. Kerry went to ground, the media went to ground, everyone went to ground -- except, of course the blogosphere and certain radio personalities. By the time the story filtered into the mainstream media almost every reader already had a sense for it. Whether or not it was the case, the story already felt like a cover-up. And 'cover-up' is not a phrase anyone like to have associated with a presidential candidate.

On the effect of the protesters, Bryon and i are on the same page.

Millions of Americans woke up late, or returned from church on Sunday morning to be greated electronically to images of hundreds of thousands of wacky protesters. . . . Pictures such as these have a markedly greater effect on one's impressions of the goings-on than any verbal commentary. Add to that 900 arrests on a single day and almost two thousand over the four day period of the convention. When viewers see protesters breaking into and disrupting the convention, and even storming the set of Hardball they come to one conclusion: 'I might not be in love with the current president, but the last thing I want is to give these protesters more control over my country.'

And on the Republican Party's superior forward looking message, Bryon contrasts the two conventions thusly:

Almosot every DNC speech looked backwards at Vietnam -- a war thirty years in our past about which most of us would much rather not be reminded. . . . Of all the speakers, the DNC only had one, Barak Obama, who gave any hope for the future of the party -- and he almost sounded Republican at many points in his speech.

Contrast that to the RNC convention. Rudy Guliani, John McCain, Arnold Schwarzenegger. None of these men have yet reached the zenith of their political career. Each has bright moments both behind and before them. Each inspire hope and vision for America and the youth and vigor to accomplish it. . . . Each was hopeful and excited about America.

People may criticize the Zell Miller speech, but in retrospect, it seems to have worked. It wasn't a liability, because of the protesters outside, and three years of over the top rhetoric by the entertainment and academic elites. Zell Miller spoke to the "silent majority" who is tired of the America hating that has been going on unchallenged in this country for too long.

Do i think the "bounce" will hold until November? Barring any intervening events, a trumped-up scandal or another terrorist attack for instance, yes i do. But on the other hand, there's nothing i trust less than a desperate Democrat about to lose an election. There's no telling what they have up their sleeve.

Posted by: annika at 11:54 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 756 words, total size 5 kb.

Left wing media bias. Facts=anything they want to believe. Doesn't matter if it's a complete and bald-faced lie. Nor if it's a lie that can easily be caught and exposed.

SpinSwimming Link via Speed of Thought.

More: Hindrocket has more. The AP reporter who filed the false story was wearing earplugs?

Posted by: annika at 08:56 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 57 words, total size 1 kb.

With Brittany, Brittany, Spears-mint Gum!

What could possibly bump up the value of some pieces to the $14,000 range?

Maybe some chunks have a higher amount of tobacco residue than the other pieces? Or a higher percentage of cum content, measured in parts per billion?

Posted by: annika at 10:52 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 57 words, total size 1 kb.

Keep former President Bill Clinton in your prayers today. My dad went through two quadruple bypasses, and while they seem to be routine these days, they're never without risk.

Posted by: annika at 10:43 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 35 words, total size 1 kb.

Cafepress has changed the style of t-shirt they use for their shops. Now you can buy an annika's journal white t-shirt in the fabulous new Hanes Authentic Tagless Tee style! Also available in classy ash gray for a more subdued look.

With these new t-shirts by Cafepress, my merchandise is flying off the shelves as fast as it ever has!

Really.

Anyways, i hope this ringing semi-endorsement will help boost my sales.

Posted by: annika at 06:35 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 80 words, total size 1 kb.

i don't quite know what to make of tonight's keynote speech by Zell Miller. Needless to say, as a Republican, i loved it. i was floored. i was amazed at his zeal, his guts and the guts of the RNC who allowed him to let loose like that. If you missed it, you missed one of the great partisan political speeches of all time. I wish i had taped it.

But as an amateur pundit, student and observer of politics, i'm perplexed. The Republican leadership hinted at a new "kick Kerry when he's down" strategy on Monday night. There were some definite moments in Giuliani's speech that we would call "defining the opposition," and the Democrats would call "negative attacks." But Giuliani delivered the blows with his signature humor and good-naturedness.

Tonight however, and i'm trying to be fair here, Senator Miller's tone matched the anger and vehemence i've been hearing from the left ever since Florida. Part of me wants to say "it's about time the Republicans got some balls and started hitting back." In that sense, if the Democrats are upset by what Zell Miller did, they have Michael More to blame. They had it coming. Senator Miller not only kicked Kerry's ass, he bitch-slapped the entire America-hating left.

A prime example:

[N]othing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators.

Tell that to the one-half of Europe that was freed because Franklin Roosevelt led an army of liberators, not occupiers.

Tell that to the lower half of the Korean Peninsula that is free because Dwight Eisenhower commanded an army of liberators, not occupiers.

Tell that to the half a billion men, women and children who are free today from the Baltics to the Crimea, from Poland to Siberia, because Ronald Reagan rebuilt a military of liberators, not occupiers.

It is not their patriotism—it is their judgment that has been so sorely lacking. They claimed Carter’s pacifism would lead to peace.

They were wrong.

They claimed ReaganÂ’s defense buildup would lead to war.

They were wrong.

Another part of me is reminded that it wasn't a Republican who delivered tonight's scathing keynote. Perhaps because no Republican knows how to fight like that. We are wimps when it comes to the political knife fight. Always have been.

The gamble, as i put my pundit hat back on, is that such strong words, however true, will backfire as they are dissected and spun by the Kerry-leaning media tomorrow. Aaron Brown, interviewing Joe Klein after the convention adjourned, seemed to wonder the same thing. Klein responded that he'd never seen two more divergent strategies from the parties in a presidential race. The Democrats deliberately underplayed at their convention, and it seems the Republicans have decided to overplay.

The conventional wisdom (pun intended) has always been to play to the center at the nominating convention. This late in the game, it's not the time to solidify your base. That's why i gasped a bit when Mike Reagan brought up the A word earlier in the night. But of course you'd have to wire his mouth shut to keep Mike Reagan from speaking his mind, God bless him.

i'm scared though, not because i think the middle 20% was watching, i don't. If they had been, i think they would have enjoyed Zell Miller's show. i'm scared because they're going to hear about the speech through the filter of Chris Matthew and Greta Van Susternernen and the rest of the left leaning media "analysts" who just don't get it.

Speaking of Matthew, i caught the entire interview with Zell Miller afterwards, where the senator challenged that blowhard to a duel, literally. i haven't laughed so hard in ages. Miller was well aware of what Matthew had done to Michelle Malkin, and he clearly was not going to fall for that shit. It was awesome.

So getting back to my punditry, i don't know whether it was a wise move by the Republicans to go so negative tonight, even though i loved it. i'm well aware of the difference between preaching to the choir and converting the undecided.

On the other hand, there's something to be said for setting the record straight on such a big stage. And after enduring four years of irrational Bush hatred it feels good to hear someone finally take the gloves off. Maybe such straight talk on a national platform is the perfect way to counter the unholy left-wing alliance of media, academia and Hollywood and their constant stream of bile.

Only time will tell, and the next eight weeks promise to be the most fascinating political stretch run in my lifetime. And after 2000, that's saying a lot.

Update: The lefty spin has begun, and the talking points are too predictable: Zell Miller is evil. Zell miller is crazy. Zell Miller is Pat Buchanan.

Daily Kos:

Why does he look like he's looking for babies to eat? That's Cheney's job.

Wow, I never thought Zell would be able to improve on the original German version of Pat Buchanan's '92 speech, but he did.

The sight of a rambling old man screaming hate while being cheered on by the party of Bush is doing our job for us.

Then you see Zell Miller, his face rigid with anger, his eyes blazing with years of frustration as his Dixiecrat vision became slowly eclipsed among the Democrats. Remember who this man is: once a proud supporter of racial segregation, a man who lambasted LBJ for selling his soul to the negroes. His speech tonight was in this vein, a classic Dixiecrat speech, jammed with bald lies, straw men, and hateful rhetoric.

i'd be intersted to know if Andie thinks he's more or less of a racist than Sheets Bird.

Bunch of fucking cry-baby liars.

Posted by: annika at 08:42 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 1043 words, total size 6 kb.

1 Please explain negative when talking about how you voted in the senate,maybe iam not smart enough to figure this out but somebody explain this.

Posted by: Dex at September 02, 2004 12:09 AM (nLVch)

2 I think that Zell's speech was exactly what the undecided needed to hear. Although he was angry, it was a controlled anger. I think there are many habitual Democrats who don't realize just how strange their party has become, and the only way to tell them is...just to tell them straight out.

Posted by: David Foster at September 02, 2004 06:38 AM (XUtCY)

3 The whole Pat Buchanan '92 thing is revisionist history. Bush got a big bounce after that convention. He was hurt because he alienated his base with tax increases. If this Bush loses alienating his base will be the same reason--with amnesty, spending, etc.--but will be attributed to Miller's wonderful speech. I have my take on it at my blog.

Posted by: roach at September 02, 2004 08:52 AM (DHoAQ)

4 You're half right Roach. Buchanan didn't lose the '92 election for Bush -- Perot did.

Posted by: annika at September 02, 2004 08:57 AM (zAOEU)

5 Don't worry so much. The MSM will not be able to spin away the D in front of Miller's name. People can not watch that speech and wonder why Republicans are so angry. They must ask themselves why a Democrat is so angry at his own party. If it's one thing the frustrating "undecided voters" love it's when someone is big enough to cross party lines for what he believes in. It's almost the entire reason why so many love John McCain.

Posted by: Me at September 02, 2004 09:27 AM (axk5u)

6 The Dems have always been the party of emotional reaction. They need that to stir up the often-opposing inter-factional rivalry of their own constituency. Sometimes its the only thing that unifies them at any given moment. Hearing Zell last night, I was firstly amazed & impressed. I sat up and hung on every word. Second, on reflection, I think it was completely in the Dem tradition of emotional delivery- even if it wasn't in the typical lockstep of Dem Dogma. And that is exactly what the Dems fear: The emotion-based division of their base. That's their own turf.

Posted by: urthshu at September 02, 2004 10:20 AM (kL+PA)

7 Zell Miller's speech was full of angry rhetoric, empty bluster and nothing else. It has been shown that people are prone to making the worst decisions when theyre angry or emotionally charged. Thank goodness Zell isn't leading the fight against terrorism -- he'll take us all down the toilet. Bill Clinton summed it up for me when he said "Strength and wisdom are not opposing values." I guess some of us prefer ideology over genuine analysis and deliberation. Those of us will also prefer Bush over Kerry. Interestingly enough, with all the talk about terrorism, 9/11 etc in the last couple of days, not a single speaker has uttered the phrase "weapons of mass destruction" or talked about a certain Osama Bin Laden. Then again, why talk about bin Laden? Hasn't the administration shown the links between 9/11 and Iraq ?! ;-)

Posted by: Aanand Krishnan at September 02, 2004 11:28 AM (rtxgE)

8 The hell with the undecided. This is a speech that Republicans needed to hear after two years of left-wing propaganda from the media. “Remember who this man is: once a proud supporter of racial segregation, a man who lambasted LBJ for selling his soul to the negroes”. Remember who this man is: Zell Miller is a Democrat and Democrats are flawed people.

Posted by: Jake at September 02, 2004 11:36 AM (h4tU8)

9 Actually G.H.W. Bush lost in '92 cause he alienated his base through his failure on the "no new taxes" promise & through his executive order that forbade the import of certain firearms he deemed to be "assault weapons". Those two things in combination caused the support he needed to either stay home or vote third party. It's not that Perot stole his votes; it's more like Bush drove his base (enough of it to matter) away from voting for him. G.W. Bush is treading the same path, albeit he's using slightly different steps. But I digest. Miller is an old southerner. Nothing can be more terrible & beautiful at the same time than an eloquent southerner who's pissed off. (& if you think Miller did a good job, you should have seen it if a southern woman had been in his position) The theory is that some southerners just cannot bring themselves to join the party that caused Sherman & the rest of those bastards to do what they did to us no matter how much they agree with the party's current platform. I'd assume this applies to Miller to some degree or another. But being southern, even reconstructed southern, means that the racist card will be played early & often despite any lack of actual merit in the claim. As for Miller challenging Matthew to a duel, I don't doubt it. Hell, I'd even put money on Miller; them old southerners may be a bit ragged, but they can make up for a lack of youthful energy by sheer cussedness. Miss Annika, you got to see one of the rare things in politics; a member of the opposing party who is more idealogically grounded in conservative ideas than most people in the GOP. Think Bush agrees with Miller about the repeal of the 17th amendment? Or Miller's healthy respect for the Constitution in general (& the 2nd amendment specifically)? That'd be a resounding "hell no", but Bush will use him as an example of how Bush if a better candidate than Kerry. Miller's very presence should shame Bush into repenting of his quasi-socialist ways, but it won't. Miller is a conservative. Bush is merely a Republican. Do you see the difference? (& by no means is Miller perfect, but in certain veyr important areas he represents conservatism better than most in the Republican party.) Oh, as for Atrios, et al... I wonder how effeminate their excuses would be if Miller took exception to their remarks & called them out? Miller may be up there in years, but I'd lay down good Confederate money on him agin Atrios, Kos, & the rest of those socialized punks even if Miller took them on as a group. (I realize dueling is illegal but I've felt for a while this is a mistake. More duels = less baseless libel & slander. )

Posted by: Publicola at September 02, 2004 12:26 PM (Aao25)

10 What a fun speech! Different voters look for different reasons to go to the polls on election day. Oddly, Democratic Zell's speech was designed for a section of the Republican base- to give them a reason to go to the polls and not stay home. I wonder about the reaction of the Soccer Moms- anyone have thoughts?

Posted by: gcotharn at September 02, 2004 02:18 PM (AaBEz)

11 Soccer moms aren't that impoertant to the repubs. Here's why: Soccer moms aren't going to vote for Bush no matter how left he leans or how much he alienates his base for their sake. It.Just.Won't.Happen. However there has been a conversion amongst the soccer moms - the term for them is security moms. In essence it's a soccer mom who has realized that the purpose of goverment is national defense as opposed to wealth redistribution. (I speak generally; don't take from this that there's a complete conversion but rather it's a shift in priorities). Those will respond positively to Miller's speech, but then again they were not really part of Kerry's base (anymore) so it's not likely to do anything other than reassure them that abandoning Kerry is best for all concerned. Now don't misunderstand - I think Bush & the Repubs could be doing much, much more for national security w/o endangering our Rights. In fact showing more respect for our Rights would increase dramatically the amount of security we have here at home. But the newly converted (as in since 2001) security moms aren't typically politically aware enough to see beyond the two party system or push for more than the party line. In other words, they see only two options & will go with the one they seem more confident in to protect their kids instead of exploring the idea that they are the only ones really responsible for their & their family's safety. So soccer moms really won't be swayed & someone should imprint that in reverse on a clue bat for the repubs to use on themselves. However the security moms are a growing faction coming out of the of soccer moms group & they won't be scared away by a tough stance on national defense.

Posted by: Publicola at September 02, 2004 03:22 PM (Aao25)

12 I'm not sure "soccer moms" is a particularly useful analytical category. Consider: --soccer mom #1 is an executive at a technology company, raised by parents who were small businesspeople --soccer mom #2 is a stay-at-home mother, Jewish and with a strong committment to Israel --soccer mom #3 is a lawyer in private practice --soccer mom #4 is a screenwriter, raised by parents who were leftist academics What exactly is the reason for thinking that these people would all vote as part of a bloc? Does the condition of (a)being female, and (b)having kids of a certain age trump the whole range of factors including profession, family background, and religion?

Posted by: David Foster at September 02, 2004 03:41 PM (XUtCY)

13 The results are in: Bush 52, Kerry 41 and Nader 3. This too will pass, and at the end, it will narrow. But, is it better than the other alternative? About 60 days out is a serious period. The tendency is to go into a "prevent defense". I have said, for a long time, that a "prevent defense" prevents winning. I hope not. Spending a hour plus with that genius ("Boy Genius" is what GWB calls him) Karl Rove in New York has convinced me that we will not be cocky or stupid. But things happen. Kerry will shake up his team. I pray that James Carville does not come aboard, because he is the only one they have that is a good as Karl. We will see the softer side of Bush soon, I think. By the way, "Boy Genius" has another nickname as well, reserved for when things go wrong, it is "Turd Blossom". I pray I do not hear that particular name again out of GWB's mouth until after January.

Posted by: shelly s. at September 04, 2004 07:08 PM (AaBEz)

14 It is my impression that the Bush campaign, having waited this long to start going after Kerry full throttle (up to now they've relied on surrogates), they will not go into a prevent defense mode. Especially now that they have momentum.

Posted by: annika! at September 05, 2004 09:03 AM (yTcW/)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Remember the Russian people in your prayers today. Even if they haven't been with us as much as i'd like, they are a people of incredible strength and they stand on the front lines of this war too.

Posted by: annika at 09:26 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 44 words, total size 1 kb.

Amazing. CNN and Larry King just broadcast the tepid beginning of Michael Steele's speech before the RNC. And (so predictable it shouldn't surprise me) when he got into the middle of his speech and started to hammer on Kerry's record, CNN cut to a floor reporter who had nothing to say.

Yet there's no media bias.

CNN is pulling their oar on the Kerry rowboat with such incredible enthusiasm, they don't even notice that the boat's sinking. And it's taking them with it as it goes down.

In this vein, please, please read Professor Reynold's latest Tech Central Station column, if you are at all interested in the impact of blogging and the new media. i think he hits the nail right on the head.

The rise of the blogosphere is revealing the old media as an emperor with no clothes, which must get its act together or be crushed. Professional journalists are lazy, uneducated hacks, as i've said so many times before. When they have to compete with superb "amateurs" like Reynolds, Volokh, Hinderaker et al., Hewitt, Ed Morrissey, Wretchard, etc.* they can only lose.

Professional journalists simply can't match the top bloggers' ability to research and articulate the news at the speed of light. In the world of the new media, amateurs produce like professionals and the professionals are exposed as amateurs.

Reynolds quotes Hinderaker:

A bunch of amateurs, no matter how smart and enthusiastic, could never outperform professional neurosurgeons, because they lack the specialized training and experience necessary for that field. But what qualifications, exactly, does it take to be a journalist? What can they do that we can't? Nothing. Generally speaking, they don't know any more about primary data and raw sources of information than we do-- often less. Their general knowledge is often inadequate. Their superior resources should allow them to carry out investigations far beyond what we amateurs can do. But the reality is that the mainstream media rarely use those resources. Too many journalists are bored, biased and lazy.

Update: David Boxenhorn points out more strengths inherent in the new media.

Who would you trust more to give you the right answer? Four million randomly chosen people, or your buddies in the newsroom who were all chosen because the boss likes the way they think? The blogosphere has the characteristics of wise crowds, as set down by James Surowiecki:

1. Divesity of opinion – each person should have some private information, even if it’s just an eccentric interpretation of the facts.


2. Independence – people’s opinions are not determined by the opinions of those around them.


3. Decentralization – people are able to specialize and draw on local knowledge.


4. Aggregation – some mechanism exists for turning private judgments into collective decision.

Even if the mainstream media weren’t ingrown and biased, you would find that the blogs win – always.

* Yes, in spite of his few successes, i most intentionally omitted Andruw Sullivan, who is an intellectually dishonest, self-promoting shill.

Posted by: annika at 07:00 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 550 words, total size 4 kb.

1 It would be interesting to know the SAT scores of those who major in journalism. My guess would be higher than education majors, but lower than most other subjects. We can't declare victory yet, though. The proportion of the population that reads blogs is still probably only 5% or so...a very influential 5%, but still far fewer than the people who get their news and opinions from the MSM.

Posted by: David Foster at August 31, 2004 09:04 PM (XUtCY)

2 Very well said, Annika

Posted by: jake at August 31, 2004 10:12 PM (h4tU8)

3 Funny, I came to the same conclusion about Sullivan about a year ago. He is ultimately a one issue guy who won't admit it to himself. The intellectual contortions that result make him not worth my time.

Posted by: Mark at September 01, 2004 05:45 AM (oQofX)

4 David, I happen to be good friends with a journalism major who was National Honor Society in HS and is quite intelligent & literate, so be careful about generalizations. As it is, she works as a technical writer and jokes that her degree is really in grammar.

Posted by: Victor at September 01, 2004 06:11 AM (L3qPK)

5 Excellent post! And Sullivan is a shill!

Posted by: Scof at September 01, 2004 07:44 AM (XCqS+)

6 "...i most intentionally omitted Andruw Sullivan, who is an intellectually dishonest, self-promoting shill." He became a one trick political pony a long time ago, and a hypocritical one at that. I actually don't mind single issue voters(okay, some of them are nuts). What does piss me off is when they claim NOT to be a single issue voter, just like Sullivan.

Posted by: physics geek at September 01, 2004 08:12 AM (Xvrs7)

7 I think the decline of the Old Media can also be traced, at least in part, to the moment that journalism stopped being a trade and started being an academic discipline. A hundred years ago, most journalists openly wore their politics on their sleeves, but they also went out and worked hard getting stories: they had no sense of entitlement. By contrast, modern hacks, as the secular priestly class they aspire to be, have been spoon-fed for generations with a mix of largely useless jargon-filled "communications theory" and self-important "journalists will save the world" political propaganda.

Posted by: Dave J at September 01, 2004 08:36 AM (VThvo)

8 Victor...of course there are exceptions. But is it coincidental that she works as a tech writer instead of a journalist...or is she just too smart to do journalism as it is now done?

Posted by: David Foster at September 01, 2004 09:12 AM (XUtCY)

9 Gawd u r so fucking right on.

Posted by: Casca at September 01, 2004 04:34 PM (q+PSF)

10 Should have seen the shithead editor of the NYT on Washington Journal this morning with Brian Lamb. What a fucking buffoon. He wasn't even capable of following the questions. His major at university... English Lit.

Posted by: Casca at September 01, 2004 04:43 PM (q+PSF)

11 "Link via Instapundit." Isn't that ironic when you could have gotten it from your own blogroll. Guess that's the strength of the Internet.

Posted by: NZB at September 02, 2004 05:29 AM (7Ucg1)

12 Fair question, David: She works as a technical writer because the pay is better, and has never worked as a journalist. She's liberal but practical

Posted by: Victor at September 02, 2004 07:00 AM (L3qPK)

13 As one who benefits from ongoing sharing of information, the blogoshere is just another example of evolution in action. There was a need for wide ranging, informed opinion and the dissemination of multiple sources of news. The current waddling excuse of "mainstream" news media will continue on for a time and will be slowly but inexorably replaced. By what? I don't know but that isn't important (at least not to me).

Posted by: Kelly at September 03, 2004 01:02 PM (kuGVj)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

The "old media" tomorrow will be saying that the Republicans went "negative" on the first night of the convention.

To that i say: "yesssssss!"

Politics is not a knitting club.

The Democrats are upset because a few delegates are wearing band-aids to mock Kerry's purple heart wounds. They want the RNC to crack down on this "inexcusable" behavior.

i say okay. Just as soon as the DNC cracks down on the "Bush=Hitler" signs outside. And the "Bush=Evil" signs inside MSG.

Until then, why not enjoy a nice cup of STFU, MacAuliffe.*

After Giuliani's rousing, albeit long-ass speech, Mara Liason* commented on the Michael More* moment in John McCain's equally good speech. She didn't like it. She said it was "a gift" to More and out of character for McCain.

i thought it was great, and i bet a lot of people agree with me.

So Mara, how about a nice cup of STFU for you, too.

Giuliani's speech was as if someone had translated Charles Krauthammer's address to the American Enterprise Institute into language that could resonate with the common man. And i was glad he did. It was the meat of his speech and he articulated the pro-war argument better than i've heard anyone in the administration explain it. Too bad the networks didn't cover it.

Terrorism did not start on September 11, 2001. It had been festering for many years.

And the world had created a response to it that allowed it to succeed. The attack on the Israeli team at the Munich Olympics was in 1972. And the pattern had already begun.

The three surviving terrorists were arrested and within two months released by the German government.

Action like this became the rule, not the exception. Terrorists came to learn they could attack and often not face consequences.

In 1985, terrorists attacked the Achille Lauro and murdered an American citizen who was in a wheelchair, Leon Klinghoffer.

They marked him for murder solely because he was Jewish.

Some of those terrorists were released and some of the remaining terrorists allowed to escape by the Italian government because of fear of reprisals.

So terrorists learned they could intimidate the world community and too often the response, particularly in Europe, was 'accommodation, appeasement and compromise.'

And worse the terrorists also learned that their cause would be taken more seriously, almost in direct proportion to the barbarity of the attack.

Terrorist acts became a ticket to the international bargaining table.

How else to explain Yasser Arafat winning the Nobel Peace Prize when he was supporting a terrorist plague in the Middle East that undermined any chance of peace?

Before September 11, we were living with an unrealistic view of the world much like our observing Europe appease Hitler or trying to accommodate ourselves to peaceful coexistence with the Soviet Union through mutually assured destruction.

President Bush decided that we could no longer be just on defense against global terrorism but we must also be on offense.

i think it was a good night for us Republicans.

* Nota bene for those new visitors out there: intentionally misspelled.

Posted by: annika at 09:27 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 561 words, total size 4 kb.

1 You picked my favorite part of Rudy's speech. Well done.

Posted by: jake at August 30, 2004 10:04 PM (h4tU8)

2 I'm almost afraid to ask, but STFU?

Posted by: wobots at August 31, 2004 06:49 AM (djVNl)

3 anyone?

Posted by: annika! at August 31, 2004 07:27 AM (4RhLb)

4 Shut The F*** Up!

Posted by: Matt at August 31, 2004 07:55 AM (CF/QI)

5 I thought it was some sort of anti-mammalian thing that meant "Stop The Ferret Underworld". I did find it ironic that, after all his efforts (along with Feingold & others) to stifle speech McCain then gives one. & Guiliani...he speaks of the neccesity for defenidng ourselves against terrorists but did nothing to help the people of his city defend themselves against common street thugs. (i.e. his support of civilian disarmament). McCain, Guiliani, & Krauthammer are pro-war but anti-personal self defense. I would hope they are the exceptions but odds are they are typical of what's to come from the GOP unless it changes in a hurry. At least there'll be one real conservative who has some respect for the Right to Arms (as opposed to republican) at the convention. Unfortunately he's a democrat.

Posted by: Publicola at August 31, 2004 02:33 PM (Aao25)

6 I hope the GOP stays loyal to the NRA's cause, otherwise I'll have to vote Libertarian. Anyway, I found a link at some other blog that you might find amusing: http://blogmosis.com/pwguest/anarch_attack.mpeg It's a video of the anti-RNC mutants in NYC getting into fisticuffs with some of the Protest Warriors.

Posted by: reagan80 at August 31, 2004 02:58 PM (hlMFQ)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

C-Span is showing the freakshow in New York right now, and i am lovin' it.

There's so much anger and unfocused rage, it's funny. Whenever the C-Span dude asks anyone to explain themself, they invariably have nothing to say. It's like "err . . . agenda . . . um . . . Ashcroft . . . err . . . I just want Bush out . . . err . . ."

To be fair, there's a lot of normal touristy looking types in the crowd, but 80% or 90% of the signs and t-shirts contain some type of obscenity or insult, which negates any normalcy that a t-shirt and shorts might convey.

No suits and ties, though. The idiot who suggested that idea at DU must never have been to NYC in August.

And what's with all the drummers?

One guy was in complete hysterics, shouting at a group of Bush supporters: "YOU ARE THE THREAT TO THIS COUNTRY, NOT AL-QAEDA, YOU ARE THE AL-QAEDA!"

Oh yeah, that's the way to convert any swing voters watching on TV to your side. They're the people sitting at home, in Springfield or Dubuque or Orlando, shaking their heads and thinking: "That's not me . . . I don't want any part of that."

Keep it up freaks. Keep it up! Like i said, i am lovin' it.

Posted by: annika at 10:46 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 235 words, total size 1 kb.

The RNC Blogging has begun. Follow it here.

Posted by: annika at 09:27 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 14 words, total size 1 kb.

Well, i made it through the first week of school. i have three new best friends too. Mr. Black, Mr. Emanuel and Mr. Gilbert. These three guys have been so nice and supportive throughout the whole week, and as i fought through each impulse to cry, simply lay down and cry, these three boys waited patiently until i was ready to return and continue working. i think i love them.

But for tonight, i'm going to catch up with some old friends i've been neglecting: Mr. Jack and Mr. Coke.

Tomorrow, i may hear from Mr. Puke.

Posted by: annika at 07:29 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 105 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Wow, I didn't even crack a Black's until I was a second year. It appears you are ahead of the curve.

Posted by: Tiger at August 27, 2004 08:05 PM (G5PGV)

2 GOUGE OUT MY EYES PLEASE! About an hour ago I was walking up Fifth Ave in Midtown Manhattan. I noticed this strange looking creature looking into one of the store windows. As I got closer I saw he had on a huge "Fuck Bush" shirt. As I got even closer I noticed he was staring in at the mannequins, and beating off! Yes, the left brought in only the finest quality individuals to protest! Now I'm off to scrub my eyes with steel wool! (Annie, did you send him my way to get back for the Ted Rall mails?)

Posted by: Radical Redneck at August 27, 2004 10:47 PM (n2hZV)

3 Annika: So now you begin to see what it is like having to learn to think in a new language. Don't worry, after a while, it'll seem like you've known it all your life. But don't ever fall into the trap of talking like a lawyer,like John Kerry, who gives lawyers a bad name. And, stay away from lawyers at parties; they don't want to discuss law school cases, most of which they have forgotten, as will you. By the way, about your friends; stay close to them, and in about three years, they'll introduce you to their good friend, Mr. Green. You are liable to really fall in love with him.

Posted by: shelly s. at August 28, 2004 02:58 AM (My8fB)

4 Some people will tell you that study aids are a bad idea. I disagree. That said, I never used them regularly during the semester -- mostly around exam time, and to fill in blanks and help me with organizing my outlines. My personal advice: Begin outlining early, and do it consistently. (This is much harder than it sounds, in my experience.) I never used study groups because it was a practical impossibility for me. But if you can commit the time, a lot of people strongly recommend it.

Posted by: Matt at August 28, 2004 09:03 AM (eWM9Y)

5 I'm with Matt on this: study aids can become a crutch and a hindrance during the semester, but more useful during exams. That said, if you really don't know the meaning of a term, trying to glean it all from the cases rather than quickly looking it up in Black's is probably unnecessary masochism even for a law student. ;-) But, of course, while it sounds a bit like touchy-feely PC bullshit, different people really do learn in different ways, so I'm sure you'll take all of our advice with a justified grain of salt.

Posted by: Dave J at August 28, 2004 09:20 AM (GEMsk)

6 Study guides are great. I found the best to be the Examples and Explanations series...it's not just outlines -- it's summaries of the topics, and then questions. When I first started law school, I was given the advice to work through the entire E&E (written by Joseph Glannon) for Civ Pro, and I will get an A in that class. I did, and I did. Every law student loves Glannon!

Posted by: ginger at August 28, 2004 12:15 PM (Otp/6)

7 I'm not sure if anyone has told her this yet, but I know a good lawyer nickname that should intimidate her opponents, "The Annikonda." She will put the squeeze on her opposition.

Posted by: reagan80 at August 28, 2004 12:45 PM (hlMFQ)

8 It doesn't surprise me that, since your commentors have been mainly lawyers, this has been over looked. Perhaps it's seen as morally acceptable in the profession (which would explain a lot)... But your first week of law school has you going out to get (ahem) jacked up on (double ahem) coke???? I can only assume this is a result of the kinds of people your assoiating with now & possibly a side effect of your pro-reptillian stance. I miss the sweet, innocent miss Annika. Hopefully she's not gone forever.

Posted by: Publicola at August 28, 2004 12:53 PM (Aao25)

9 I agree with Ginger - get all the Examples & Explanations books - they do a great job of getting you set with the concepts. The Civ. Pro. by Glannon is great (although weak on discovery). The Blum on Contracts is good. If you are using Dukemenier and Krier as the casbook on property, then Gilbert is the best, since it is written by Dukemenier.

Posted by: OS at August 29, 2004 03:46 AM (aPNMH)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

It was so funny listening to Bob Costas talking about the Greek island of Lesbos tonight on the Olympics broadcast. He totally skipped over the one question that had half of America giggling. i can imagine all the Beavis and Butthead imitations going on in living rooms across the country: "huh-huh... he said lesbos... huh-huh."

Yes, strictly speaking, a lesbian is what you call someone from Lesbos. So how did that word become transformed into a gay moniker? And what does that have to do with poetry day? Read on:

The most famous lesbian of all was the classical Greek poetess Sappho, who lived in the seventh century B.C. She ran a school for girls on Lesbos that was sort of the artistic hippie commune of its day. She was such a revered poet that people called her "the tenth muse."

Sappho wrote a series of beautiful lyric poetry that survives only in fragments. It was written on stone tablets, which broke over the years and many of the pieces are missing. The only thing left of much of Sappho's work is a line here and a line there, leaving only glimpses of some romantic and evocative poetry, now lost forever.

Some of Sappho's poem fragments have been interpreted as evidence that she was indeed a lesbian, in both senses of the word. Thus the modern meaning of "lesbian." Although there is still some dispute about whether Sappho really liked girls or whether it was more of a sisterly thing she was writing about.

Sappho's poems have consistently resisted translation into English in a way that reveals their beauty to the non-Greek speaker. Or so i'm told. i took Latin, not Greek in high school, so i'll just have to take the poetry scholars' word for it.

Mary Barnard's recent translation is very nice, although i'm not sure how faithful it is to the original. Today's poem is an especially pretty translation by Barnard, which seems to be from a more intact fragment.

Yes, Atthis, you may be sure

          Even in Sardis
Anactoria will think often of us
of the life we shared here,

          when you seemed
the Goddess incarnate
to her and your singing
          pleased her best

Now among Lydian women she in her
turn stands first as the red-
fingered moon rising at sunset takes

precedence over stars around her;
her light spreads equally
on the salt sea and fields thick with bloom

Delicious dew pours down to freshen
roses, delicate thyme,
and blossoming sweet clover; she wanders

aimlessly, thinking of gentle
Atthis, her heart hanging
heavy with longing in her little breast

She shouts aloud, Come! we know it;
thousand-eared night repeats that cry
across the sea shining between us

Posted by: annika at 10:09 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 508 words, total size 4 kb.

During my extended blog hiatus, it may seem like i'm gone, but i wont be, really. There may even be some mysterious annika sightings now and then.

Posted by: annika at 11:23 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 37 words, total size 1 kb.

Here is a lovely, alliterative, difficult, and very spiritual poem by one-time Golden Bear, Archibald Randolph Ammons.

The City Limits

When you consider the radiance, that it does not withhold
itself but pours its abundance without selection into every
nook and cranny not overhung or hidden; when you consider

that birds' bones make no awful noise against the light but
lie low in the light as in a high testimony; when you consider
the radiance, that it will look into the guiltiest

swervings of the weaving heart and bear itself upon them,
not flinching into disguise or darkening; when you consider
the abundance of such resource as illuminates the glow-blue

bodies and gold-skeined wings of flies swarming the dumped
guts of a natural slaughter or the coil of shit and in no
way winces from its storms of generosity; when you consider

that air or vacuum, snow or shale, squid or wolf, rose or lichen,
each is accepted into as much light as it will take, then
the heart moves roomier, the man stands and looks about, the

leaf does not increase itself above the grass, and the dark
work of the deepest cells is of a tune with May bushes
and fear lit by the breadth of such calmly turns to praise.

This poem's message is definitely spiritual and contemplative. Whether it's also a religious metaphor is up to the reader. For me it is, but i can just as easily see how it wouldn't be for some.

Here's a short bio of the poet, who died in February, 2001.

Posted by: annika at 05:50 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 340 words, total size 2 kb.

So you know, blogging might be light this week and almost non-existent starting next Monday. Yesterday was the first day of orientation week. Classes start on the 23rd.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

My plan is to post weekly if at all possible, in the style of Anne...straight from the hip (quantity-wise, of course. i could never hope to match her quality-wise).

i'll still try to check in on my regular blog reading, because it's a pleasure i just can't give up that easily.

Besides, i need to taunt Rocket Jones mercilessly some more.

Posted by: annika at 12:30 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 100 words, total size 1 kb.

i am officially big-time. Gennie of Dizzy-girl notified me that i got quoted on the Democratic Underground cranksite. Here's the post:

What a rightwing blog says about protests of Republican Convention

'We can expect a big freak show at the upcoming Republican Convention in New York. The far left nut jobs will ensure Bush's re-election, even though they will think they're doing the opposite. In fact, i hope they go on a total Bush-hatin' rampage in the streets of New York. Everyone knows who's side they're on, and the worse the protesters act, the more people will realize how low the Democratic Party has fallen.'

-The rightwing blog, Annika's Journal, July 26, 2004

-------------------------------------------------------

If you go, please wear business clothing (suit and tie for a man)
and please don't block traffic.

I'm expecting the police to taser and club peaceful protestors, and I hope things stay calm.

To paraphrase David Crosby: Let your freak flag fly baby!

Posted by: annika at 11:42 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 233 words, total size 2 kb.

You ever get those crazy IMs from people you don't know who just want to chat? i do. Mostly i just ignore them, but sometimes it's fun to mess with them. Here's an example:

expletivedeleted: hi sexy
annikagyrl: hi
expletivedeleted: how's you
annikagyrl: fine
expletivedeleted: so you live in LA ?
annikagyrl: no, sacramento
expletivedeleted: ah, moved since updating your profile then
annikagyrl: yah
expletivedeleted: so how's sac town
annikagyrl: fixing it now
expletivedeleted: how so
expletivedeleted: oh, nevermind
expletivedeleted: what do you do for kicks up there?
annikagyrl: not much
annikagyrl: its pretty boring
expletivedeleted: so i hear
expletivedeleted: i have friends up there
annikagyrl: where do you live
expletivedeleted: san diego
expletivedeleted: i'm martin
expletivedeleted: and i am assuming that you are annika
annikagyrl: are you the martin from san diego?
expletivedeleted: well, i am one of probably many
annikagyrl: i know you
expletivedeleted: how do you know me
annikagyrl: kindergarten
annikagyrl: remember?
expletivedeleted: you teach kindergarten?
annikagyrl: no we went to kindergarten toghethe
expletivedeleted: really now?
annikagyrl: i cant believe you dont remember me
expletivedeleted: have we spoke online before and you were under a different name?
annikagyrl: no you sat in front of me
expletivedeleted: where?
annikagyrl: in front of you
expletivedeleted: so what was our teacher's name?
annikagyrl: oh god, i don't remember
annikagyrl: started with an l
expletivedeleted: no it was a B
annikagyrl: b started with a b
annikagyrl: baum somehting or other
expletivedeleted: it was Brown
annikagyrl: brown yah thats it
annikagyrl: remember i used to shoot spit wads at you
expletivedeleted: you didnt go to kindergarten with me
annikagyrl: no im just fuckin with ya dude
expletivedeleted: of course you are
annikagyrl: i do that to everybody
annikagyrl: some people believe it tho
expletivedeleted: not me
annikagyrl: yes, that is why i do not like you
expletivedeleted: ah
expletivedeleted: hostility
annikagyrl: yes
expletivedeleted: why's that
annikagyrl: i dont know

annikagyrl: say something funny

annikagyrl: lol
expletivedeleted: fear the lords who are secret among us
expletivedeleted: the lords are w/ in us
annikagyrl: that is funny
expletivedeleted: born of sloth and cowardice
annikagyrl: i cant believe how funny you are
expletivedeleted: see, perhaps i am good for something
annikagyrl: what is that, the bible, or jrr tolkien?
expletivedeleted: nah, just a thought
annikagyrl: thets fuckin hilarious dude

expletivedeleted: your name is annika then?
annikagyrl: yes
expletivedeleted: and have you always lived in california?
annikagyrl: yes
expletivedeleted: married? children?
annikagyrl:: nope
expletivedeleted: well, so what are your interests
expletivedeleted: ?
expletivedeleted: you there?
expletivedeleted: hello
expletivedeleted: cmon

Posted by: annika at 09:54 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 442 words, total size 6 kb.

1 That's hilarious. How on earth does someone just randomly IM you?

Posted by: Neil Uchitel at August 15, 2004 12:40 PM (Q+NnP)

2 Neil, On certain messenger programs there's a list of people who are online. You usually have the option of logging on so as not to appear on these lists but most people just log on & ignore any unsolicited IM's. On certain messenger services there are a fair number of people who send messages to anyone if they find that person's profile page interesting whether they appear to be online or not. Mainly it's young guys look for some kind of internet hook up, but I have received IM's from people who just thought some aspect of my profile was interesting enough to comment on (though this mainly happened back in the days I hung out in a Star Wars specific place) Miss Annika, I dunno. Personally I shy away from unsolicited IM's (sending & receiving) but there are a lot of people who don't. I'm afraid that your attempts to rebuff the guy might have intrigued him. There's probably some kid walking around the streets walking around Diego with baggy pants & a cap on sideways telling his pals about this hot chic & the totally dope rap he threw on her & how well it worked cause she was talking some mad inawindows. But be forewarned - if you continue any sort of online relationship with this person I have a feeling it would quickly devolve into the following: http://www.b0g.org/wsnm/news.php?artc=4599&s=e3e04398cf433b09abb0c1f249daac97

Posted by: Publicola at August 15, 2004 01:33 PM (Aao25)

3 I think the IMer was 8 years old and his mother told him he had to do his homework.

Posted by: Jake at August 15, 2004 05:45 PM (h4tU8)

4 I use to have ICQ, IM, all that stuff. But I got tired of the unsolicited chats. Total freaks dwell amongst us. But your conversation was funny!!

Posted by: Brent at August 16, 2004 05:57 AM (w+y2e)

5 Sorry Annika, but I just don't see the fun in spending that much time harassing an idiot. Worse yet, my spending the time reading the dialogue. School must not have started yet, as if it had, you'd not be wasting time on stuff like this.

Posted by: shelly s. at August 16, 2004 05:42 PM (b/7hi)

6 Leave him an email addy :-)

Posted by: urthshu at August 16, 2004 06:16 PM (kL+PA)

7 Publicola, I have got to say, that stuff you linked was actually so funny it was physically painful.

Posted by: Dave J at August 16, 2004 09:15 PM (GEMsk)

8 Maybe that guy saw the Fash-ism photo album and has a foot fetish. Phear teh pheetphiles.......

Posted by: reagan80 at August 18, 2004 09:48 AM (Wc43W)

9 banal

Posted by: Casca at August 18, 2004 06:52 PM (q+PSF)

10 Chatting up an idiot like that would be like going out into the garage and sorting nuts, bolts and screws for me when I am stressed. It's mindless and easy to do and sometimes you just gotta do it to unwind. It was pretty funny. Thanks for sharing. btw - I am also in Sac. Hi neighbor!

Posted by: Bonfire7 at August 20, 2004 07:39 PM (Ij50v)

11 Haven't stopped by in a while, but I see you're in Sac-Town now. How interesting. You will soon know be begging to go back to LA for more reans than missing your family. Your Sacto-brother in Arms, -Black Glenn

Posted by: glenn at August 22, 2004 01:31 PM (EPZd0)

Hide Comments | Add Comment