The deal is in. Via NRO:

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS

We respect the diligent, conscientious efforts, to date, rendered to the Senate by Majority Leader Frist and Democratic Leader Reid. This memorandum confirms an understanding among the signatories, based upon mutual trust and confidence, related to pending and future judicial nominations in the 109th Congress.

This memorandum is in two parts. Part I relates to the currently pending judicial nominees; Part II relates to subsequent individual nominations to be made by the President and to be acted upon by the SenateÂ’s Judiciary Committee.

We have agreed to the following:

Part I: Commitments on Pending Judicial Nominations

A. Votes for Certain Nominees. We will vote to invoke cloture on the following judicial nominees: Janice Rogers Brown (D.C. Circuit), William Pryor (11th Circuit), and Priscilla Owen (5th Circuit).

B. Status of Other Nominees. Signatories make no commitment to vote for or against cloture on the following judicial nominees: William Myers (9th Circuit) and Henry Saad (6th Circuit).

Part II: Commitments for Future Nominations

A. Future Nominations. Signatories will exercise their responsibilities under the Advice and Consent Clause of the United States Constitution in good faith. Nominees should only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances, and each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist.

B. Rules Changes. In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement, we commit to oppose the rules changes in the 109th Congress, which we understand to be any amendment to or interpretation of the Rules of the Senate that would force a vote on a judicial nomination by means other than unanimous consent or Rule XXII.

We believe that, under Article II, Section 2, of the United States Constitution, the word “Advice” speaks to consultation between the Senate and the President with regard to the use of the President’s power to make nominations. We encourage the Executive branch of government to consult with members of the Senate, both Democratic and Republican, prior to submitting a judicial nomination to the Senate for consideration.

Such a return to the early practices of our government may well serve to reduce the rancor that unfortunately accompanies the advice and consent process in the Senate.

We firmly believe this agreement is consistent with the traditions of the United States Senate that we as Senators seek to uphold.

i'm not overjoyed at the compromise, but i'll have to live with it. What choice do i have? Last time i checked, i am not a United States Senator.

So this is a deal that allows the Democrats to save face, while still giving the Republicans a vote on some of the nominees. Or, it's just as accurate to say that it allows the Republicans to save face while still allowing the Democrats the option to filibuster in the future.

In the world of civil litigation, lawyers say it's a good settlement when both sides are unhappy. But there's another rule in negotiating settlements: "Never negotiate away your leverage in exchange for "goodwill."*

If there's one thing plaintiffs attorneys and Democrats have in common (besides John Edwards) it's that you can't trust a single one of them to act in good faith. Like Sam Gompers, they want only one thing: "more." And they're absolutely shameless about getting it. We saw that in the way guys like Harry Reid completely flip-flopped on the issue of floor votes for judicial nominees.

That's why the most troublesome part of the deal for me is this clause:

Nominees should only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances, and each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist.

That's the biggest problem with the deal. It takes the issue of constitutionality off the table. The true-believers have a right to be angry on that point. By conceding to the minority a power to block majority will on judicial nominees, the Republicans have conceded the constitutionality of that procedural tactic. They caved in on the very principle that brought about this entire crisis. And for what? A bit of goodwill. A promise to be good from now on.

Ha! That's worth about two dead flies.

Why would Senate Republicans negotiate away all their leverage by giving up the nuclear option in exchange for a promise? Because they are suckers? Because they love Senate tradition more than they love the Constitution? Or because the Republican Senate leadership is just plain bad at their job?

As i mentioned before, my ideal solution would have been to do away with all filibusters on all issues. Why the hell should one half of the legislature have that stupid rule when the other house does very well without it? The filibuster is almost never used for a noble purpose.

i agree with the late Tip O'Neill, who was wrong about so many things. But he was on the right track when he wrote:

Thanks to television, the House of Representatives is now recognized as the dominant branch of Congress,. [sic] In 1986, the Senate brought in TV cameras as well. But the senators ramble on for hours, whereas our members can speak for only five minutes, apart from "special orders" at the end of the day, and a few other exceptions. Unlike the rules of the House, those of the Senate allow for unlimited debate and unrestricted amendments. Now that the Senate is on television, the prestige of the House should continue to increase."
[Thomas P. O'Neill, Man of the House, p. 290, Random House, 1987]

More outrage: see Professor H; Three Knockdown Rule; i can't disagree with Patterico's prediction; Spoons has a riddle; and Mark Nicodemo agrees that the Senate Republicans are inept; and Nikita Demosthenes calls them out by name.
_______________

* Okay, i don't know if that's really a negotiating rule, i just made it up. But it should be.

[Cross-posted at A Western Heart.]

Posted by: annika at 06:14 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 1109 words, total size 8 kb.

Doug TenNapel made a provocative statement, which happens to be a pretty good summary of what i believe on the subject.

First of all, let me state that I'm Pro-Life and Pro-Abortion. . . . But the only instance where I think abortion is moral would be when two human lives are likely to die and if one life is aborted so that only one will die, then abortion is a moral act.

And on a related theme, Michelle Malkin asks if abortion is funny. Some people think so.

Posted by: annika at 09:45 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 121 words, total size 1 kb.

Celebrity blogger and annika's journal visitor, Hugh Hewitt, spent the major portion of his radio show today talking about the Pepsico middle finger controversy. Here's the professor's summary:

The President and CFO of Pepsico gave a speech at Columbia Business School's commencement. In the speech, Indra Nooyi compared the fingers of the hand to different parts of the world. The United States got the middle finger. What a surprise! How courageous for Ms. Nooyi, how daring, and such soaring rhetoric.

As the longest of the fingers, [the United States] really stands out. The middle finger anchors every function that the hand performs and is the key to all of the fingers working together efficiently and effectively. This is a really good thing, and has given the U.S. a leg-up in global business since the end of World War I.

However, if used inappropriately --just like the U.S. itself-- the middle finger can convey a negative message and get us in trouble. You know what I'm talking about. In fact, I suspect you're hoping that I'll demonstrate what I mean. And trust me, I'm not looking for volunteers to model.

Discretion being the better part of valor...I think I'll pass.

What is most crucial to my analogy of the five fingers as the five major continents, is that each of us in the U.S. --the long middle finger-- must be careful that when we extend our arm in either a business or political sense, we take pains to assure we are giving a hand...not the finger. Sometimes this is very difficult. Because the U.S. --the middle finger-- sticks out so much, we can send the wrong message unintentionally.

Unfortunately, I think this is how the rest of the world looks at the U.S. right now. Not as a part of the hand --giving strength and purpose to the rest of the fingers-- but, instead, scratching our nose and sending a far different signal.

Following my remarks to the graduating class of Columbia University's Business School in New York City, I have come to realize that my words and examples about America unintentionally depicted our country negatively and hurt people. I appreciate the honest comments that have been shared with me since then, and am deeply sorry for offending anyone. I love America unshakably - without hesitation - and am extremely grateful for the opportunities and support our great nation has always provided me.

Over the years I've witnessed and advised others how a thoughtless gesture or comment can hurt good, caring people. Regrettably, I've proven my own point. I made a mistake and, again, I'm very sorry.

i believe in American exceptionalism. i don't think America needs to be more humble. If my country has ever flipped anyone off in the past, that's something i want to see more of. Look at the scoreboard. Was America "scratching its nose" with the middle finger when we saved the world from tyranny three times in one century? Like the song says, fuck yeah! Was it arrogance when our fifth president declared "hands off this hemisphere" to the superpowers of his day? Or when T.R. said "let's build that fucking canal!" (paraphrasing). Or when Jack promised we'd walk on the moon within the decade? Sure it was. And so what?

Egypt of the Pharaohs. Imperial Rome. Spain in the siglo de oro. Napoleon's France. Victoria's Great Britain. Name a superpower in history that hasn't been arrogant. You can't. Name a superpower that's done as much good in the world as America has in the last two centuries? You can't do that either.

We are different. We are better. And i'm sick and tired of our own people getting on a public stage and telling us we should bow and beg and be meek in front of the rest of the world. When was that ever an American trait? i hope it never is.

So let the America-haters and the timid intellectuals whine. Call me a jingoist, i won't be offended. i'm proud to be a flag waving, middle finger sticking, American.

p.s. All real Americans drink Coke anyways.

Posted by: annika at 06:01 PM | Comments (48) | Add Comment
Post contains 778 words, total size 5 kb.

1 Hell fucking yeah! Standing applause for Annika! Brilliant...simply brilliant. I think I'll post my own middle-finger salute tonight, and link to your brilliant rant.

Posted by: Robbie at May 19, 2005 08:03 PM (htx4h)

2 LOVED IT!!!

Posted by: d-rod at May 19, 2005 08:11 PM (BnwMH)

3 Ok, I've posted my own graphical response to Pepsi. I've dubbed my post: Annie's Meme: Giving Pepsi the Finger.

Posted by: Robbie at May 19, 2005 08:42 PM (htx4h)

4 i'm not sure what else you can do to earn the big fat smile i have on my face. i'm gonna go have a coke and keep on smilin...

Posted by: scof at May 19, 2005 10:04 PM (x8hF4)

5 Well of course you're right. I thought we all understood that. As for this culturally illiterate third world mutherfuckette whom we've taken to our breast, how else to remind people that Michael Jackson was once a Pepsi flack.

Posted by: Casca at May 19, 2005 11:10 PM (qBTBH)

6 If America is so bad, why is she here? This country isn't heaven. No place is. They aren't sneaking across the border to get to wherever she came from. That pretty much says it all.

Posted by: Mark at May 20, 2005 04:26 AM (oQofX)

7 For a bunch of toughguys you're a sensitive lot. My God, it was a speech asking international businesspeople to be respectful of other cultures- for the sake of their _businesses_ as well as their country. What's next- an analysis of the political meaning of the latest Star Wars? For the record, this was also part of the speech: “As the longest of fingers it really stands out. The middle finger anchors every function that the hand performs and is the key to all of the fingers working together efficiently and effectively. This is really a good thing, and has given the U.S. a leg-up in global business since the end of World War I” “This land we call home is a most-loving, and ever-giving nation- a “promised land” that we love in return” I guess the next act in the 'sky is falling' culture wars has begun: cue tape on Fox News' round-the-clock coverage on this woman that none of us had ever heard of a week ago.

Posted by: Preston at May 20, 2005 06:41 AM (wkfsI)

8 FUCK YEAH!! Totally agree with you Annika. "i'm proud to be a flag waving, middle finger sticking, American." New tagline for my e-mail, if ya don't mind me borrowing it.

Posted by: Joe from jersey at May 20, 2005 07:32 AM (dO3Ek)

9 Annie: We just need to give the finger back to her, apology or no. I say, begin a boycott against Pepsi and pass the word around the web: When they dump Indra Nooyi, the boycott is off, otherwise we keep it in effect and cause it to spread. She has a right to speak her mind, and we have a right to spend our dollars. If she loses her job, well, I'll apologize, that ought to make her feel better. No one has mentioned this in the posts, so I will: She is one of the "Blame America First Crowd"; if they don't like living and working here, they can live and work somewhere else where the govenment is not so objectionable. I suggest she try Iran; she'd look better in a burhka anyway.

Posted by: shelly at May 20, 2005 07:57 AM (pO1tP)

10 this finger. http://www.francesucks.com/

Posted by: louielouie at May 20, 2005 09:21 AM (i7mWl)

11 You can tell liberals are ultra-tolerant because they only dominate 95% of the media, and with no sense of shame, attack the lone network that gives time to conservative views. That's "tolerance" alright.

Posted by: mark at May 20, 2005 10:49 AM (Hk4wN)

12 Love the finger! Preston - I'm sooo happy the Pepsi lady pointed out that it is ok for America to be exceptional. Thank God she cleared that up! This is a good time to whip out one of my favorite quotes of the last few years - from Mona Charen: "Is it really arrogance to believe that the system and the culture we've inherited is superior to others? Or is it ingratitude to deny it?" Also, here's the words to "America, Fuck Yeah!": http://theendzone.blogspot.com/2004/11/life-imitates-art-team-america-aids.html That song might be good for a Wed poetry day.

Posted by: gcotharn at May 20, 2005 10:55 AM (OxYc+)

13 I hope Mrs. Falcon doesn't read this because I was twitterpated by that post.

Posted by: goldfalcon at May 20, 2005 12:01 PM (LCCTJ)

14 Not that I am a fan of giving the middle finger, I wholeheartedly agree with you Annika! We'll kiss the world's butt when we are on our knees, but not before then!

Posted by: javaslinger at May 20, 2005 02:46 PM (BK2EC)

15 Annie, you're a goddess. And you're absolute right about Coke.

Posted by: Matt at May 20, 2005 06:18 PM (vQvTM)

16 Shit! Absolutely right. Explanation for my stumbly fingers, here.

Posted by: Matt at May 20, 2005 06:21 PM (vQvTM)

17 Fuck yeah! We should be proud, being all "we're so sorry for having a system that allows us to become rich and powerful" is a bunch of crap. We worked damn hard as a nation to get where we are and we shouldn't apologize. It would be like Lance Armstrong apologizing for kicking ass in the Tour De France. This is right up there with those shirts that apologize for being American in ten languages. If you want to do crap like that go to one of those ten countries and stay there. My family immigrated here legally in the 1930's from Norway and I'm damn proud of what we have acheived, and I'm damn proud of my country. So if they want to think of us as giving them the bird then so be it because in a way we are and I'm glad we are doing it.

Posted by: Andy at May 20, 2005 09:44 PM (l04c2)

18 you had me, then you lost me, then you had me, then you lost me. to answer your question, Jesus was a superpower who wasnt arrogant. or if thats too highbrow for your supporters, think about it this way, name a guy youve met with a huge... uh... advantage think about how much more you respect him when he doesnt shove it in the faces of others who werent so blessed. walk softly with your big - finger, ms annika. regards from your diet pepsi drinking, C2 swigging pal down here in intellectual yet untimid LA

Posted by: tony at May 21, 2005 12:03 AM (84E1F)

19 Tony, I don't think your Jesus analogy gets you very far. The rest of the world considers it arrogant that we do what we believe needs to be done, even when most of them consider it to be wrong, scandalous, shocking or what-have-you. Well, so did Jesus. From eating with the tax collectors and prostitutes to cleansing the temple, He always did what He knew to be right -- regardless of what anyone else thought. Even his own disciples rarely understood his actions and teachings at first. He didn't let that stop him. Nowhere in the Bible do you see Jesus bowing and scraping to his disciples, saying, "you're right; in the future I'll tone it down. It was wrong of me to shock your sensibilities." If the disciples failed to understand him, if they found his actions scandalous, it was up to them -- not Jesus -- to change. Of course Jesus had the advantage of being God, and therefore conclusively right in all He did. But the point is that there's nothing arrogant about doing what's right, even when it puts you in the minority. (If there were, we'd have to conclude that Jesus was indeed arrogant.) I believe this country is right about most of the things it does that so greatly upset so many people. That being the case, I cannot bring myself to care if the rest of the world is too foolish, craven or corrupt to see that we are right. Like the disciples, they're the ones who need to adjust. Of course, unlike Jesus, we don't have the luxury of knowing to a certainty that we're right. He didn't make mistakes; we have, and will. But we're right a lot more often than we're wrong, so I'm willing to live with that risk.

Posted by: Matt at May 21, 2005 06:53 AM (vQvTM)

20 I would humbly dispute the contention that Jesus never made mistakes. Mistakes can be of omission as well as commision and after all He was human too. He could have been clearer in denouncing say the death penalty against homosexuals as proscribed in the OT and made clarifications to many texts which could have saved millions of innocent lives later and avoided religious atrocities like the Inquisition. This place was pretty messed up when Popes ruled the world.

Posted by: d-rod at May 21, 2005 09:05 AM (/ga2e)

21 Jesus is not responsible for what the Popes did. As far as the Inquisition, I think he covered it by saying "Love your neighbor as yourself" and "Judge not, let ye be judged." Do you need any more clarification than that?

Posted by: javaslinger at May 21, 2005 10:50 AM (BK2EC)

22 Yeah probably, since Jesus was not the first person to pronounce these ideals - Buddha and Lao-tse were saying these things 500 years earlier. But if popes are not followers of Jesus, who is?

Posted by: d-rod at May 21, 2005 12:51 PM (WnsbM)

23 Just because you profess to be a follower of Jesus and do things in his name does not mean you are a true follower. Because of free will, God cannot be responsible for man's actions. This is one thing I have had a problem with the Catholic church; that the Pope viewed as almost devine and infallible. They may profess to be followers, but one way to know what is in a man's heart is to see how he acts. "By their fruit ye shall know them." Christ warned of many that would come in his name and do things in his name, but he stated that they would be judged accordingly on judgement day. Like anything in life, you gotta walk the walk, not just talk the talk. To be more on topic, Christ was (and still is) a superpower, but his mission was not to dominate the world, but to save it. Being a Diety is a definite advantage in this area. Men on the other hand have limited options. As far as being arrogant, I think that it is justified, only if you can back it up. Christ could back it up, but he chose not to. He would have never connected with his disciples, or the poor, if he had projected such an attitude. And concerning the advantage, Tony; most guys big enough to push others around aren't exactly loaded for bear, if you get my drift. Whenever I hear a guy bragging about having a big winkie, I automatically think he is lying anyway. If you got it, you don't have to brag. If you are worried about this, I would suggest you have some inferiority issues to deal with. Ever hear of good things coming in small packages?

Posted by: javaslinger at May 21, 2005 01:38 PM (BK2EC)

24 You know I was informed by a rather smart lady that its not that Pope is divine/infallible in whatever he does, its just when he makes pronouncements on doctrine. ...as far as d-rod's comments, well its clear he doesn't have a grasp of christianity, which of course distorts one's view of humanity as well. Not to be mean about it, it's just he doesn't understand, and I don't know that a comment box is the place to remedy that...but what the hell, i'm bored and its too hot to go outside, so we'll see

Posted by: scof at May 21, 2005 04:46 PM (x8hF4)

25 java, You said, "This is one thing I have had a problem with the Catholic church; that the Pope viewed as almost devine and infallible." Let me clarify. Divine - no. Infallible - yes. But only (1) in his teachings; (2) on matters of faith and morals; and (3) under narrow circumstances. There is absolutely no question, in Catholic teaching or elsewhere, that the Pope is a man and thus fully capable of all sorts of terrible sins, just like any other man. However, we also believe that he is Christ's direct representative on Earth, and Catholics therefore believe (or at least many believe, and the Church teaches) that the Pope commands great obedience and respect even when he is badly flawed. By the way, I generally agree that "one way to know what is in a man's heart is to see how he acts." However, the fact that a man sins -- even badly -- does not mean he is not a Christian. It means he's human. Even devout Christians sin. Remember: Peter denied Jesus three times before the cock crowed -- and this after following Him and witnessing his miracles first-hand. All I'm saying is that I think it's rather tricky to judge who is or isn't a follower of Christ based on outward appearances.

Posted by: Matt at May 21, 2005 04:49 PM (vQvTM)

26 What does Jesus have to do with Pepsico official trash talking the USA? He doesn't drink Pepsi or give anyone the finger, let alone the USA. He's not stupid enough to want to be nuked by Rummy. One crucifixion ought to be enough for anyone.

Posted by: shelly at May 22, 2005 01:56 AM (pO1tP)

27 With you on the Coke. On the historical side, America is indeed exceptional, but not entirely unique. Rome and Great Britain cared for their empires in a way other powers have not. On the other hand, they were empires, where America's empire is freedom itself. Um, on yet another hand, Britain left democracy behind in almost every place it once ruled.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at May 22, 2005 03:25 AM (+S1Ft)

28 As someone in the field of religious studies, I'm often amazed at how theological discussions spring up in the strangest places, like beautiful nipples suddenly hardening in a grocery checkout line. Yes... that's how this discussion makes me feel. Pardon me, now, while I fondle myself. Kevin

Posted by: Kevin Kim at May 22, 2005 05:38 AM (1PcL3)

29 You might try hanging out at the freezer aisle, if that kind of thing turns you on. ; -)

Posted by: annika at May 22, 2005 07:47 AM (YARSC)

30 I'll stand by my point that Jesus made mistakes. For Christsakes, He had to choose twelve disciples to spread the Gospel, and one of them not only turned out to be a dud, but an enemy. And consider what we know about Him as a teenager - NOTHING. He surely made a few mistakes then as well, but unfortunately none of us will ever know because there is no historical record of the most important teenage being ever to have visited this planet. I grieve about the untold numbers of innocent women who died in agony, which found justification in Biblical quotes on witches as well as the highest authorities on the moral teaching of Jesus at the time. That was Hell then. Was Jesus himself culpable in any way? Possible.

Posted by: d-rod at May 22, 2005 08:43 AM (JWdx+)

31 A, Yeah, I can imagine hanging in the frozen food aisle all day. Kevin Dynamite. With my luck, my own nipples would be blue and ready to fall off before I saw a chick with headlights. South Korea, of course, is the WORST country for nipple-age. Women here don't show much skin and are only beginning to discover body-hugging clothing. And you can forget about ever seeing a braless woman. Such a creature exists only in Korean folklore. Alas. On the bright side, it does mean that any little exposure of skin becomes something of a major event for starved senses calibrated to Western standards. I'm always happy to see a bare midriff, for example... and then there's Miss Panties, about whom I blogged. Kevin Dirty Old man

Posted by: Kevin Kim at May 22, 2005 10:06 AM (1PcL3)

32 whoa -- stumbled on this site by accident. what the hell is happening to people these days? annika - lighten up. i think even you would admit that anyone who thinks they're better than everyone else has, er, a problem. no?

Posted by: remotedevice at May 22, 2005 12:34 PM (ZME2x)

33 "...anyone who thinks they're better than everyone else has, er, a problem. no?" Only if they're wrong.

Posted by: Dave J at May 22, 2005 09:05 PM (CYpG7)

34 No. i would not admit that.

Posted by: annika at May 22, 2005 09:56 PM (VyMzn)

35 Remote, I think the point was that the Stranger From a Strange Land who went abroad and insulted the natives was her... Talk about putting your foot in it. Nobody needs that crap from a hypocrite, especially not at their college graduation.

Posted by: Mark at May 23, 2005 04:36 AM (oQofX)

36 Mark, She's an American. If certain Republicans are salivating at the idea of Ahnold being *President of the United States* after 30 or so years is it really out of bounds for an American citizen who has been here 35 years to as recent graduates not to be jackasses when they go to foreign countries?

Posted by: Preston at May 23, 2005 05:56 AM (wkfsI)

37 It's the anti-American assumptions that drive it all "preston". she's not asking us "gee be nice when you travel" (as if college grads are so stupid not to perhaps already grasp this) she's saying be humble because your country sucks and everyone else thinks so. but whatever, that has been made abundantly clear, you still disagree. So as these comments have ranged from middle fingers to Coke to Christ, I shall hopefully end this thread thusly: if you disagree with me, you're a nazi.

Posted by: scof at May 23, 2005 11:10 AM (7z8ua)

38 I don't see how the speech was inspirational at a commencement. Provocative? Fuck yeah! Inspirational? Highly suspect! My .02 cents Although this country's history is replete with arrogance on a multitude of issues, there *MUST* be a reason why people flock to our shores, ostensibly for a better life, for better opportunities, et al. And if we're going to spiral out of control about "Superpowers," anyone here jazzed about "The Fabulous Four," due out in theaters soon?

Posted by: NuggetMaven at May 23, 2005 12:30 PM (DP5IG)

39 PS: oh G-d, someone just used the n-to the a-to the z-to the i word. Good use of hyperbole!

Posted by: NuggetMaven at May 23, 2005 12:31 PM (DP5IG)

40 I think you have said something very important in this,"I believe in American exceptionalism." I really do think that is something that many do not want to forgive us. It offends many to see American Individualism celebrated. Yet, we know it makes us what we are, and has supported the ideals of freedom and progress.

Posted by: ilona at May 23, 2005 12:43 PM (hiW10)

41 Ok- if you want to argue that her warning against mocking the plumbing in Third World countries was a critique of US foreign policy: was the strategy implemented after WWII of maintaining strategic alliances to contain and defeat communism worth scrapping? Was it unsuccessful? Did it undermine 'who we are'? Nugget: "there *MUST* be a reason why people flock to our shores" Yeah, I'm surprised that so many people have difficulty distinguishing US foreign policy and domesestic freedom. Clearly the US has _sometimes_ been a force for democracy and freedom worldwide and _sometimes_ it has been a force for oppression: it depends what suits our national interest- or more typically economic interests. Like Athens and Great Britain before us we have democracy on our shores yet an agressive foreign policy that does not always adhere to our democratic ideals. For Ms. Nooyi to state the obvious does not mean she doesn't love her country, fer crying out loud.

Posted by: Preston at May 23, 2005 01:50 PM (wkfsI)

42 Speaking of oppression... I'm amused at our history. The Puritans came here for religious freedom, however, they only supported religious freedom as it related to the Puritans. The Native Americans, or the Anglicans, Huguenots, and all the other groups that followed immediately? Yer on yer own. Oppressive? Darn tootin'. The United States, much like a single human being, is made up of many different components. If we were to all dwell upon one or two aspects of it (either human or the US, take your pick), and dwell ONLY on those two aspects of it (say for argument's sake oppression/slavery and colonization/globalization), we would essentially be throwing the baby out with the bathwater to discount every other positive thing which makes up these United States.

Posted by: NuggetMaven at May 23, 2005 03:15 PM (DP5IG)

43 Annika, Nice ring you got there. Hehe.

Posted by: Mark Nicodemo at May 23, 2005 05:51 PM (Vg0tt)

44 Like Athens and Great Britain before us we have democracy on our shores... C'mon, Preston! GB had a monarchy when we kicked their rear, and Athens was some freaky kinda precursor to democracy, using a lottery to determine who got to help make decisions.

Posted by: Victor at May 24, 2005 01:29 PM (Sx8zO)

45 It's not good enough for us to be democratic- we have to have invented it now?

Posted by: Preston at May 24, 2005 02:46 PM (wkfsI)

46 My name is annika 2 that is sooooooooooooo kool!!! when is ur b-day?

Posted by: Annika Schick at May 29, 2005 03:46 PM (ywZa8)

47 I think someone is confusing secularism for democracy. Believe it or not, this is a secularist country--despite what Dubya and his theocrat thugs want us (middle of the road-to-liberals) to believe.

Posted by: NuggetMaven at June 02, 2005 12:31 PM (DP5IG)

48 Wow, your a moron! You do know that song is a parody of bushies cronies? Dumb dumb

Posted by: chris mankey at September 23, 2005 09:38 AM (LvGqD)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

If i hear someone use the phrase "up-or-down-vote" one more time, i think i'm going to scream. Is there any other kind of vote?

[Well, i guess in England it's a left or right vote. But still...]

Posted by: annika at 10:25 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 28 words, total size 1 kb.

i don't live in L.A. anymore (though i hope to return after i graduate), but i'm apparently still on the voter list down there. Which is why i've received an email from none other than the next mayor of Los Angeles, Antonio Villaraigosa.

i've never received an email from a major politician before, it's kind of exciting. Here is what Tony (if i may call him that) wrote to me.

Dear Annika,

I love Los Angeles. It has already given me so much -- a strong education, a loving family, a lifelong career in public service.

That's why I have set out an ambitious new vision for LA, because I believe the Mayor must have a plan for the future. I want to build more schools for our children and reduce classroom sizes. I want to make Los Angeles safer and greener. I want to create better jobs for our workers, provide better health care and more affordable housing for our families, and develop a 21st Century transportation system for all of us.

I know this has been a tough and negative campaign, but I pledge on my first day in office to begin to bring our city together for real, positive change.

Los Angeles deserves a better Mayor. Someone with big dreams, bold ideas, and an ambitious vision for the future -- a strong leader with a proven record of accomplishment who will roll up his sleeves and work hard to fix our city's problems, large and small.

As Mayor, I pledge to work with you and all of our neighbors to build a better Los Angeles. But I need your help to do it.

I ask your vote on Tuesday, May 17th!

To make our city a better place, we must restore the people's trust in Los Angeles city government. After four long years of waste, fraud, and scandal, I am committed to cleaning house at City Hall and putting an end to the 'pay-to-play' system under Jim Hahn. Because let's be clear: Honesty and ethics at City Hall start at the top, with the Mayor.

I am proud to have received the endorsements of [blah blah blah...].

But today, I am asking you for the most important endorsement of all: your vote.

If you agree that we can and must do better in Los Angeles, I ask for your vote on Tuesday.

It's time to get Los Angeles back on the right track. And I am committed to doing just that. I pledge to you that I will work to bring all residents of our city together and solve the tough problems we face.

But I can't do it alone. I'm going to need your help, along with hundreds of thousands of our friends and neighbors, to get the job done. And it all starts on Election Day.

I look forward to working with you to build a better Los Angeles!

Sincerely,

Antonio Villaraigosa

i hope he'll be a good mayor. L.A. has big big problems challenges, but it is a great town. i notice that transportation is at the end of the list in paragraph three, almost like it was an afterthought. To my mind, light rail should be the priority for the next mayor. Incredibly, nowhere in the email was there any mention of illegal immigration, a subject that seems to be on everybody's lips these days. Progress on that issue would take care of half the other problems he mentioned in that second paragraph.

Anyways, i hope the coronation goes well.

Posted by: annika at 06:39 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 632 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Nice to hear support for public transportation from the right side of the aisle... It's clear that LA will grind to a halt one day if they don't get on the bandwagon. (I'm not advocating bandwagons as public transportation though...)

Posted by: Preston at May 16, 2005 07:04 PM (+jnzE)

2 Unfortunately, it's often the left that's holding up a sensible light rail solution in L.A. The "bus-rider's union??!" environmentalists, slow growth people, plaintiff's lawyers, and NIMBYs.

Posted by: annika at May 16, 2005 07:12 PM (Sq19q)

3 Hell if you got rid of the illegals, the trans problem would solve itself. I think this is priceless, in a couple months California's three biggest cities will all have fucktards as Mayors. V in LA, that simpering asshole in SF, and the old burnout hippy union whore Donnay Frye in SD. I'm comforted by the knowledge that the electorate of these cities did NOT vote for dubyah.

Posted by: Casca at May 16, 2005 09:51 PM (qBTBH)

4 I disagree - L.A.'s problems won't be solved by light rail or any oter mass transit program. The problem with L.A. (& to varying degrees the rest of the state & country) are ideaological not material. Look at any of those "problems" the mayoral candidate seeks to address & then think of a non govcernmental solution for them. Now not all are best served by the private sector, but that's the problem - everyone thinks government is a problem solver. In general government is a problem creator. We could debate the merits of any public transportation system or this specific one but that'd just be adressing a symptom, not the problem. Ditto with everythign else except the governmental corruption thing. & let's be honest - in the closest thing to a welfare state we have in this country there's not going to be an end to corruption. BTW, if he wants to make L.A. safer then I assume he's going to be rolling back some of the assinine gun control laws they have there & then push for cutting back the state level gun control? Anyway, the problem is th emindset of the people. Till that cna be adressed then anything else will only be a temporary fix. & no place has that problem completely under control, but L.A. & Cali seem to be worse off than the rest of the nation (well with certain exceptions, such as D.C., Chicago, NY, Mass. etc...)

Posted by: publicola at May 17, 2005 01:15 AM (DQj8i)

5 publicola: "We could debate the merits of any public transportation system or this specific one but that'd just be adressing a symptom, not the problem." What's the problem? annika: That's interesting. But I wouldn't classify NIMBY's as liberal. I don't know any thing about the Bus Rider's Union- why would they slow down mass transit?

Posted by: Preston at May 17, 2005 07:33 AM (wkfsI)

6 "fucktards"????? merriam-webster comes up empty.............. don't sugar coat it Casca....tell us what you really think.

Posted by: louielouie at May 17, 2005 09:59 AM (i7mWl)

7 Hell if you think he'll do anything that will in any way shape or form discourage illegal immigration you are nuts. If anything he will do everything he can to make LA the most illegal immigrant friendly town in the US!

Posted by: Skippy at May 17, 2005 11:04 AM (v3xUb)

8 that's what i'm afraid of

Posted by: annika at May 17, 2005 09:27 PM (oCGrt)

9 I haven't really followed the election in Los Angeles - heck, I've barely followed the mayoral election in Ontario. In fact, I'm writing this at 10:33 in the evening; polls presumably closed 2 1/2 hours ago, and I haven't made an effort to see who actually won. I'll do my homework in a moment. I would think that both candidates would try to avoid mentioning illegal immigration at all costs. Candidates try to be all things to all people, and any mention of illegal immigration, pro or con, is bound to anger somebody.

Posted by: Ontario Emperor at May 17, 2005 10:34 PM (ukBYg)

10 OK, I did my homework. From the Daily Breeze: Updated, 10:28 p.m. Bruising runoff between two Democrats is a rematch of the 2001 election, in which Hahn rallied to win.... Los Angeles Mayor James Hahn and Councilman Antonio Villaraigosa were locked in a close race tonight as the incumbent struggled to hold onto his job and his opponent sought to become the city's first Hispanic mayor since the 19th century. With 228 of 1,599 precincts reporting, along with about 120,000 absentee ballots, Villaraigosa had a lead of 56 to 44 percent. Villaraigosa had 90,660 votes, compared to Hahn's 72,024. Here's a live link to city election results.

Posted by: Ontario Emperor at May 17, 2005 10:38 PM (ukBYg)

11 Close race? Did that fool at the Breeze say "close race"? A "close race" is when it is 50.2 to 49.8%. The numbers I am seeing are like 58.6 to 41.4%. Where I come from, that's an "old fashioned whupping". So much for Jimmy Hahn and his sleazy, anti-hispanic buzzword campaign. Live by the sword, die by the sword. And so much for Bill Carrick and Kam Kuwata and Bill Wardlaw and their sleazy, down and dirty mudlinging campaigns. In this one, the best man won... As my grandson says "Antonio rules; Jummy drools".

Posted by: shelly at May 18, 2005 01:44 AM (pO1tP)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

CNN has a new partner in the ranks of journalistic infamy. Both news organizations have blood on their hands.

When i heard about this story, the first thing i thought was "even if it's true, why on earth would they publish that story?"

i admit that's an untenable position to take. Freedom of the press and all that rot. But true or not, the story was going to cost lives. Newsweek had to know that. Did that fact present even a minor speed bump to their rush to embarrass the hated United States?

Apparently not, since Newsweek has now apologized for publishing a lie.

Newsweek magazine on Sunday said it may have erred in a May 9 report that said U.S. interrogators desecrated the Koran at Guantanamo Bay, and apologized to victims of deadly violence sparked by the article.

The weekly news magazine said in its May 23 edition that the original source of the allegation was not sure where he saw the assertion that at least one copy of the Koran was flushed down a toilet in an attempt to get detainees to talk.

'We regret that we got any part of our story wrong, and extend our sympathies to victims of the violence and to the U.S. soldiers caught in its midst,' Editor Mark Whitaker wrote in the magazine's latest issue, due to appear on U.S. newsstands on Monday.

The report has sparked angry and violent protests across the Muslim world from Afghanistan, where 16 were killed and more than 100 injured, to Pakistan to Indonesia to Gaza.

On Sunday, Afghan Muslim clerics threatened to call for a holy war against the United States in three days unless it handed over the interrogators in question.

Biased journalism is not just annoying, not just wrong, not just unethical, sometimes it gets people killed.

Update: i shouldn't have complimented Fox News. Even they're sloppy. Reporting on the story this afternoon, Chris Wallace said that Newsweek's source had said he saw the alleged flushing incident, but then backed away from his story. Not true. The source actually told Newsweek's Michael Isakoff that the incident would be mentioned in an upcoming written report by military investigators. The source never saw any incident. He only saw a reference to an allegation of an incident in a report investigating a bunch of alleged incidents. As it turned out, the incident didn't make it into the final report. No matter, Newsweek went ahead with the story. Somewhere, Mary Mapes is probably smiling.

[cross-posted at A Western Heart]

Posted by: annika at 12:28 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 435 words, total size 3 kb.

i'm perplexed.

How can Voinovich justify his opposition to Bolton by saying Bolton lacks "common decency" on the one hand -- then say he's met Bolton, likes Bolton, and that he believes Bolton is a "decent" man?

Just curious.

Posted by: annika at 12:00 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 43 words, total size 1 kb.