Allow me to recommend two essential articles from Armed Forces Journal that I think are necessary reading for those of us not on the fringes, who strive to understand rather than shout slogans back and forth. I find little to disagree with in either piece.

The first is "A Failure In Generalship," by Lt. Col. Paul Yingling. Colonel Yingling places blame squarely on Rumsfeld and his generals, for the failure to achieve our goals in Iraq.

The intellectual and moral failures common to America's general officer corps in Vietnam and Iraq constitute a crisis in American generalship. Any explanation that fixes culpability on individuals is insufficient. No one leader, civilian or military, caused failure in Vietnam or Iraq. Different military and civilian leaders in the two conflicts produced similar results. In both conflicts, the general officer corps designed to advise policymakers, prepare forces and conduct operations failed to perform its intended functions. To understand how the U.S. could face defeat at the hands of a weaker insurgent enemy for the second time in a generation, we must look at the structural influences that produce our general officer corps.

In the case of Iraq, we had an unusual tendency towards inertia that can only be blamed on Bush and Rumsfeld's management styles. Whether you want to call it admirable loyalty or excessive stubbornness, neither Bush nor the SecDef were willing to change horses when necessary to get results. Of what other successful wartime administration can this be said? Not Lincoln's, not FDR's, not Truman's.

To be fair, one reason for this President's inertia was the withering and omnipresent criticism from the left, whether by Democrats or internationally. Bush, rightly or wrongly, made the decision that sticking to his original plan and personnel was better than adapting midstream to the changing situation on the battlefield. His enemies so vehemently accused him of being wrong, that he overcompensated in an effort to prove that he was right.

I don't give Bush a pass on this. It's no excuse to say that he did what he did because the left made him do it. It's the commander-in-chief's job to husband the souls of those men and women serving our country as wisely as possible. I'll grant him the best of intentions; I know the President feels every loss of life personally and deeply. But, good intentions are not enough. As I've said many times before, what we need is results, and the responsibility for getting results lies ultimately with the president. If Franks, Casey and Abizaid were not getting the job done — and I don't think they were — Bush should have been quick with the hook. (Bush knows baseball; he should have taken a lesson from old Sparky Anderson.)

The essential constraint that the entire war team missed is the constraint of time and patience. In a democracy, this constraint is strict and onerous, especially now in our hyper-political environment where the opposing party turns every issue into a power-play. Time and patience are part of the battlefield, and Bush's advisors were negligent in failing to stress that fact. Success in Iraq, if it was/is to be had, must be had quickly, with sufficient force and resources to get it quickly. Unfortunately, Bush and Company acted like they had all day long. Instead, time has now nearly run out.

The second article, by Lt. Col. Ralph Peters (ret.), is called "Wanted: Occupation Doctrine." His point of view is decidedly Machiavellian, but in a good way. Peters catalogues some lessons we should take heed of when planning for the next counterinsurgency campaign.

Consider just a few essential rules for successful occupations — all of which we violated in Iraq:

• Plan for the worst case. Pleasant surprises are better than ugly ones.

• All else flows from security. Martial law, even if imposed under a less-provocative name, must be declared immediately — it's far easier to loosen restrictions later on than to tighten them in the wake of anarchy. This is one aspect of a general principle: Take the pain up front.

• Unity of command is essential.

• The occupier's troop strength should be perceived as overwhelming and his forces ever-present.

• Key military leaders, staff officers, intelligence personnel and vital civilian advisers must be committed to initial tours of duty of not less than two years for the sake of continuity.

• Control external borders immediately.

• Don't isolate troops and their leaders from the local population.

• Whenever possible, existing host-country institutions should be retained and co-opted. After formal warfare ends, don't disband organizations you can use to your advantage.

• Give local opinion-makers a stake in your success, avoid penalizing midlevel and low-level officials (except war criminals), and get young men off the streets and into jobs.

• Don't make development promises you can't keep, and war-game reconstruction efforts to test their necessity, viability and indirect costs (an occupation must not turn into a looting orgy for U.S. or allied contractors).

• Devolve responsibility onto local leaders as quickly as possible — while retaining ultimate authority.

• Do not empower returned expatriates until you are certain they have robust local support.

• The purpose of cultural understanding is to facilitate the mission, not to paralyze our operations. Establish immediately that violent actors and seditious demagogues will not be permitted to hide behind cultural or religious symbols.

• Establish flexible guidelines for the expenditure of funds by tactical commanders and for issuing local reconstruction contracts. Peacetime accountability requirements do not work under occupation conditions and attempts to satisfy them only play into the hands of the domestic political opposition in the U.S. while crippling our efforts in the zone of occupation.

• Rigorously control private security forces, domestic or foreign. In lieu of a functioning state, we must have a monopoly on violence.

In the article, Peters uses the word "occupation," but he doesn't apologize for it.

The first step in formulating usable doctrine is to sweep aside the politically correct myths that have appeared about occupations. Occupations are military activities. Period. An Army general must be in charge, at least until the security environment can be declared benign with full confidence. Historically, the occupations that worked — often brilliantly, as in the Philippines, Germany and Japan — were run by generals, not diplomats. This is another mission the Army doesn't want, but no other organization has the wherewithal to do it.

Consider the prevailing claim that an occupation is a team effort involving all relevant branches of government: The problem is that the rest of the team doesn't show up. The State Department, as ambitious for power as it is incompetent to wield it, insists that it should have the lead in any occupation, yet has neither the leadership and management expertise, the institutional resources nor the personnel required (among the many State-induced debacles in Iraq, look at its appetite for developing Iraqi police forces and its total failure to deliver).

The military is the default occupier, since its personnel can be ordered into hostile environments for unlimited periods; State and other agencies rely on volunteers and, in Iraq, the volunteers have not been forthcoming — even when the tours for junior diplomats were limited to a useless 90 days and dire warnings were issued about the importance of Iraq duty to careers.

Posted by: annika at 03:42 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 1385 words, total size 9 kb.

According to TMZ. Good news, I guess, but why don't they just cancel The View? While she was there it was easy to blame Rosie, but the show sucked long before she arrived.

Rosie hasn't announced yet, but how much you wanna bet she's going to spin it as "her decision," to "pursue other interests," blah blah blah. It won't be the fact that nobody likes a bully and she's a bully.

Rosie is the left's equivalent of Michael Savage — a loud, bigoted, egotistical, ignorant clown. The only reason Rosie gets away with it on tv and Savage is relegated to after-hours radio is that tv execs agree with Rosie's bullshit.

via Hot Air

Update: Rosie said, "my needs for the future just didn't dovetail with what ABC was able to offer me."

I was close. She just left out the "blah blah blah" part.

Posted by: annika at 07:23 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 160 words, total size 1 kb.

From The Philadelphia Enquirer, rumor has it that Kiki Couric, "an expensive, unfixable mistake," may get the boot next year.

[T]he former star of NBC's Today has failed to move the Nielsen needle on No. 3 Evening News since her debut seven months ago.

In a bottom-line business like television, that's a cardinal sin. Already-low morale in the news division is dropping, says a veteran correspondent there.

"It's a disaster. Everybody knows it's not working. CBS may not cut her loose, but I guarantee you, somebody's thinking about it. We're all hunkered down, waiting for the other shoe to drop."

Seven correspondents, producers and executives at CBS and other networks interviewed for this story spoke on condition of anonymity, given the sensitive nature of the Couric situation.

Couric and CBS were a bad fit from the start.

"From the moment she walked in here, she held herself above everybody else," says a CBS staffer. "We had to live up to her standards. . . . CBS has never dealt in this realm of celebrity before."

Media experts predict Couric's ratings won't improve anytime soon, given that news viewers tend to be older and averse to change.

Couric, 50, draws fewer viewers than did avuncular "interim" anchor Bob Schieffer, 20 years her senior. Much of the feature-oriented format she debuted with is gone, as is her first executive producer, Rome Hartman.

"The broadcast is an abject failure, by any measure," says Rich Hanley, director of graduate programs at the School of Communications at Quinnipiac University.

"They gambled that viewers wanted a softer, less-dramatic presentation of the news, and they lost. It's not fair to blame Couric for everything, but she's certainly the centerpiece and deserves a fair share."

CBS Evening News this season averages 7.319 million total viewers, down 5 percent from the same period a year ago, according to Nielsen Media Research.

Couric's viewership has dropped nearly 30 percent since her Sept. 5 premiere week, when she averaged an inflated 10.2 million viewers and led CBS News to its first Nielsen win since June 2001.

Have you watched Couric lately? Talk about deer in the headlights, she makes Kathleen Blanco look like the embodiment of "confidence" by comparison.

Posted by: annika at 02:42 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 400 words, total size 3 kb.

Remember a few posts ago, I quoted from a prescient op-ed by VT grad student Bradford Wiles, published eight months ago?

Well, somebody did track Wiles down for his comment on this week's horrific event. Here's what he said:

On Tuesday, Wiles stood by that opinion in the wake of this week's massacre, telling Cybercast News Service that "the only way to stop someone with a gun is somebody else with a gun."

"The entire campus was a place where someone knew they could inflict the most damage with the least amount of armed resistance, and that's what you get with gun control," Wiles said. "If you let people like myself carry a gun legally ... then you have the possibility of stemming the tide."

Wiles, who wasn't near the campus buildings where Monday's shootings took place, said he doesn't believe an armed student could have prevented all of the bloodshed. But, he added, "even if just one person is not shot by that gunman because somebody had their legally licensed concealed firearm on them, isn't that enough?"

Posted by: annika at 06:37 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 187 words, total size 1 kb.

In pursuit of $ensationalism and the almighty ratings point, NBC proves that there is no longer any such thing as responsible media. Oh, Brian Williams made a big show about "not wanting to make Cho into a hero," even while holding up the pictures Cho intended to cement himself into the popular mythology.

NBC should have shredded the entire package immediately, not even handed it to the police, just burnt it as surely as Cho is burning in hell right now. Do they really think there aren't future sickos who will idolize Cho and memorize every word in his multimedia manifesto? Do they really think there's any possible journalistic justification that outweighs the virtual gaurantee that someone will idolize and imitate Cho the same way Cho idolized and imitated the Columbine murderers? Do they not understand that publishing the pictures and airing the video only gives the next mass murderer something to outdo?

Fucking assholes! But when the next mass murderer cryptically references the VT killer in his manifesto, you won't hear NBC or their ilk pointing the finger at themselves for creating the "cult of Cho." No, next time it will be "lax gun laws" all over again, and "easy availability of weapons," and "the incredible firepower of the nine millimeter," and "the NRA lobbyists," etc.

Posted by: annika at 07:25 PM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 235 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I was equally upset with NBC, but while watching the video I couldn't help the fact that I was waiting the entire time for him to say, "Tina, come get your food." I'm a bad, bad man.

Posted by: Frank at April 19, 2007 06:17 AM (YHZAl)

2 Annika, It can't be helped, nor do I think the suppression or release of his grandiosity makes any difference. Whether the next shooter makes a VT reference or a Columbine is irrelevant. The anger/rage/sadness whatever you want to call it, which motivates this horrible response is not dependent upon precedent otherwise there would never have been a first. It takes no priming of the pump for this type of disordered personality to recognize who his oppressors are and victims will be. The previous incidents may give him better ideas for enacting his particular attack but don't be fooled into thinking that they incite him or without them he will be powerless to act. People are resourceful they will, if there is not a blueprint available, always draw their own.

Posted by: Strawman at April 19, 2007 07:32 AM (9ySL4)

3 Strawman, there is truth in what you say. The next time may be inevitable, but I still think NBC was wrong to provide the extra inspiration. "It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!" How long until we see t-shirts with Cho's two fisted pose on it?

Posted by: annika at April 19, 2007 07:55 AM (WfR6S)

4 Annika, Quoting the bible at me is always an effective tool of persuasion. I certainly don't want anybody influenced or inspired but neither do I want to live in a society where the fourth estate self censures so as not to inspire someone having a psychotic episode. Freedom and the free exchange of ideas does not come without a price. I would not want to be the one telling the parents of a dead student that, but it is true. But, I hope never to see the T shirt. BTW, have you ever seen a pro Columbine T? I

Posted by: Strawman at April 19, 2007 10:27 AM (9ySL4)

5 I actually kinda lean towards releasing it, even though I definitely hear the argument for keeping the "multimedia manifesto" (read: pics & web cam shots) under wraps. An obviously sick guy like Cho apparently isn't hard to spot; it looks like several people spotted him as whacked on several occasions. So it's not like you'll watch his videos and go, "Ohhh.... so that's what a guy who's about to kill 32 people acts like... hmmm." On the other hand, I do think that you'd get some sort of awareness of the themes and nuances of his persona that might help you keep alert to more subtle manifestations of problems in people around you. Like, say, posting pictures of Sir Connery a few too many times (reagan) or defending the social "choices" of "loners" who stay at home on the computer too much and get no love from the ladies (mark). Bottom line: yeah, information can be harmful, but if it's true, it always tells you something about reality that you might be able to apply in other situations. Maybe the best idea would be to delay the release so that it wouldn't be so terribly exciting to any potential shooters.

Posted by: taxlawmax at April 19, 2007 11:11 AM (dLe9c)

6 The system failed the victims. They waited for the authorities to react. That would be the same authorities who recognized that this guy was nuts. The system couldn't expel the guy from school, or involuntarily treat him for his mental disorder, or even allow the fact that he was dangerous to be flagged when he purchased his guns. Do you really believe some sort of new gun law is going to protect you from the 200 million firearms already in the country? Not to mention the fact that worse mass murders have been done with airplanes, fertilizer, and gasoline? If somebody credibly threatens your life, the authorities can't protect you. They do stand ready to prosecute your killer. Be careful out there.

Posted by: MarkD at April 19, 2007 12:47 PM (5vbH6)

7 I endorse your entire statement and I feel and reflect your rage again the media that profits from this never-ending abuse of reason. Harry Reid announces today that the war is lost. The media fails to shout him down. Nancy Pelosi snuggles up to Syria's chief terrorist in furthering the Democrats' Alternative Foreign Policy. The media fails to shout her down. An imp from Hell kills innocents, and the media rewards his evil with immortality and by channeling cries from tender hearts seeking to understand this sad, angry young Korean. Years ago, an actor, Raymond Massey, playing the role of John Brown announced just before being hanged for his crimes at Harper's Ferry, VA that he, Brown, understood that this quilty country will have to pay for its sins, in the movie - for permitting slavery to exist and persist, with rivers of blood. I am quite certain that now this guilty country will have to pay for its sins, its irreconcilable divisions politically and culturally, with the effusion of blood. I suspect that the events at VTech this week are the start of that process.

Posted by: RobS at April 19, 2007 02:03 PM (JzBne)

8 RobS. What ar you talking About? VT and this guilty country's sins? You are correct that this country is guilty of sins, but currently they are against the people of Iraq and the majority of the blood in the rivers is Iraqi. We morn the loss of 31 people this week, killed for no reason. Each day for the last 5 years, 30 or more people die in Iraq for nearly the same reason as those in VT. An insightless appraisal of a complex problem and the pointless, criminal violent spasm that passes for a solution to a deranged morally compromised man. The only thing that I look forward to is the day George Bush wakes up one morning, has a moment of clarity and blows his head off. At least Mr. Cho knew what to do with himself after committing his atrocity unfortunately I can't say the same for George.

Posted by: Strawman at April 19, 2007 02:38 PM (9ySL4)

9 Strawman: You have some problems with your thought process.

Posted by: RobS at April 19, 2007 03:06 PM (vkrRz)

10 "Like, say, posting pictures of Sir Connery a few too many times (reagan)" I'm surprised that nobody has accused me of turning Japanese based on the bulk of my links over the past few weeks.

Posted by: reagan80 at April 19, 2007 06:54 PM (fO04l)

11 Robs, Calling the situation in Iraq a war certainly speaks volumes about to the problems your thought processes. We are not at war. We are attempting to conquer a country that did not attack us, threaten us, or have any interest in doing so. A fairly civilized country, secular for the most part, bulwark against spread of Islamist governments, more western than every country around them, with civil treatment and opportunities for women, good infrastructure, good cash flow and so forth. We have wreaked havoc upon them, displaced millions, stimulated ethnic violence that is spiraling out of control, allowed fundamentalist Islam to gain a foothold, ruined the infrastructure, killed possibly a hundred thousand or more civilians and on and on. And you tell me I have a problem thinking? You think the media did not shout down Reid because maybe what he said is true? We are toast. Iraq is toast. No good will come of it and the bad will continue getting worse. Put 500K soldiers in there and all you will have is more casualties and bombings. They put a fucking bomb in the parliament for ChristÂ’s sake. What the hell are you seeing fella that tells you this is going to come to a good conclusion? What the hell are you seeing that makes you feel safer as a result of this carnage? How do you excuse all the lies you were told about the reasons for and the progress of this debacle, from the cost to the WMD threat, to the bill being paid for with oil revenue? What conflict in history can you point to that lends credence to your belief that this operation has a chance of success?

Posted by: Strawman at April 20, 2007 09:49 AM (9ySL4)

12 You are correct that this country is guilty of sins, but currently they are against the people of Iraq and the majority of the blood in the rivers is Iraqi. We morn the loss of 31 people this week, killed for no reason. Each day for the last 5 years, 30 or more people die in Iraq for nearly the same reason as those in VT. This comparison is asinine.

Posted by: Mark at April 20, 2007 10:36 AM (2MrBP)

13 RobS was correct indeed. Boy was he. We have wreaked havoc upon them, displaced millions, stimulated ethnic violence that is spiraling out of control, allowed fundamentalist Islam to gain a foothold, ruined the infrastructure, killed possibly a hundred thousand or more civilians and on and on. Permit me to shake you out of your "blame America first" mentality. "We" have not done these things. Try focusing on those who have committed 99% of the violence in IRaq. And make sure not to let one accomplishment penetrate your thinking, assuming you are aware of the accomplishments that have already occurred. And there are many. You think the media did not shout down Reid because maybe what he said is true? Reid is an irresponsible and reckless man and his statements provide aid and comfort to the enemy. We are toast. Iraq is toast. No good will come of it and the bad will continue getting worse. How positive can you get. Straw, we already are familiar with your longing for the defeat of your nation, and that it is a convenient means of bringing the military home. Consequences be damned. For a person who has expressed concern about our international reputation, you aren't so concerned when openly saying We are toast. Iraq is toast. No good will come of it and the bad will continue getting worse. Announcing to the world our defeat. Yes that will help our reputation abroad. During WWII, a common expression was "Loose Lips Can Sink Ships." Now we have "Iraq is lost."

Posted by: Mark at April 20, 2007 10:49 AM (2MrBP)

14 Straw, "A fairly civilized country, secular for the most part, bulwark against spread of Islamist governments, more western than every country around them, with civil treatment and opportunities for women, good infrastructure, good cash flow and so forth." Your statement is inane. It's not even close to accurate. Who do you think your audience is? Nearly every word in it is inaccurate or misleading. If you want to argue that the war isn't going well that is fine and, partly, accurate; but don't insult those of us with 3-digit IQs with such a ridiculous, bullshit assessment of pre-war Iraq.

Posted by: blu at April 20, 2007 12:42 PM (pXoDI)

15 Mark, Our reputation abroad has nowhere to go but up. Bush is a laughing stock and we his flunkies and victims. The incredulity that is universally expressed around the world is how the fuck did a country that is supposed to be comprised of mostly educated people allow a pandering, ignorant schmuck to be president. TWICE. The first time the consensus is he lost but our third world election process, coupled with voter suppression, willful confusion of the elderly and a partisan supreme court inserted the dummy into office. The second election is the one that really has them scratching their heads.

Posted by: Strawman at April 20, 2007 12:52 PM (9ySL4)

16 "Straw, we already are familiar with your longing for the defeat of your nation" That's why you should not waste your time responding to him. We got the point already. Instead of viewing the Iraq expedition as a benevolent nation-building campaign gone FUBAR, he views our military's mission as evil. Of course, he desired our military's failure since he deemed the goals unjust from the start. We already know about his hostility towards private military contractors, so it is hard to believe that he doesn't harbor such feelings for our troops just because they are lower-paid gov't employees.

Posted by: reagan80 at April 20, 2007 12:57 PM (fO04l)

17 Blu, It ain't a war. Lets call it by its name. Invasion. And "not going well" is what we say when somebody returns to the hospital with an infection in a wound. WHen they come back and their entire body is on fire we use other phrases.

Posted by: Strawman at April 20, 2007 12:59 PM (9ySL4)

18 Ragun, You dumb ass, How is it that you can't parse the difference between hoping for our military defeat and hoping for a common sense decision that protects our soldiers and limits the damage to Iraq in this immoral invasion. Yes. I don't agree with the goals. No, that does not mean 911 made me happy, or I love OSB, or any other selfserving bullshit idea you dribble down your chin. This is a tragedy of enormous proportion and has caused needless pain and suffering for millions of people. Do not belittle it with your stupid school yard associations and cackling.

Posted by: Strawman at April 20, 2007 01:09 PM (9ySL4)

19 "the consensus is he lost..." Ahhh, no its not. He won every valid recount - as the Left-wings rags, The New York Times and The WAPO pointed out in their investigations. The only people who think he lost are people like you, Straw - conspiratorial nutters, who never have proof but always have opinions. And, please, no more nonsense about voter supression - there is absolutely ZERO evidence of that conspiracy theory. (And, yes, I read the BS AP "story" released yesterday about the administration's policy about actually caring about illegal voting. Yet another MSM hit-piece masquarading as journalism. You'll notice when reading the article closely that the administration has not done a single thing illegal, but the writer attempts to manipulate the reader into thinking there is something actually sinister going on when somebody wants to implement a policy insisting that a person proves he is who he says he is when voting. Yeah, you can't cash a check without ID, but go ahead and fucking vote all you want. And, of course, if its a Democrat there is a good chance that person is voting more than once.)

Posted by: blu at April 20, 2007 01:44 PM (pXoDI)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I still think she'll win the nomination, but clearly Senator Clinton is in a dogfight. The RealClearPolitics average has her leading Bronco Bomber by only 6 points!

Update: More at Wizbang. Hillary's favorable/unfavorable rating is in freefall too.

Posted by: annika at 09:14 AM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 46 words, total size 1 kb.

1 hay.... I like your blog... cool design, simple but complicated. nice ________________ THING IS ________________ i saw that lindsay letter u've snet to her... what was the response? what happent? who sent it, for who , to who??? i didnt get a point ... think is i just whant to contact her somehow, im not some kind of a freaky fan or something , i just what to tell her my opinion about her work, and her as a person, i realy like her on some special way. i would like to be a some kind of a pen friend with her and that kinda stuff if you get me... i just whant to tell her what i mean _____________ btw that thing with lindsay email is good thing for your blog... if anyone's looking for her mail trough google he is gona be linked to here for sure... Like your blog, visit my ( soon im gona make oen on english language ;P) plz respond Byeeeee Darkie

Posted by: Darkie at April 18, 2007 09:59 AM (CospR)

2 ROTFL! stop it Radical Redneck! you're killin me.

Posted by: annika at April 18, 2007 10:10 AM (zAOEU)

3 http://www.google.hr/search?q=darkie91+blog&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US fficial&client=firefox-a

Posted by: Darkie at April 18, 2007 10:14 AM (CospR)

4 Oh i have been saddened by the distence between us lindsay and i long to feel yor touch like romeo asking wher juliette was i ask can it ever bee i feel like when my dog ran away - lonely w/o u liek a teen band i wana becom famous Theirs no place like a place with u i want to bathe in yor luv like a flower constantly releasing it's scent this is my feeling for you whn i cryed out yor name at yor window Why dont you love me I said i feel it beautifully write me lindsay write me

Posted by: ElMon... er... some teenybopper... at April 18, 2007 10:47 AM (xHyDY)

5 hehe... Hey Annika, what makes you think you'll have to stop blogging just cuz you're taking the Cali Bar? C'mon, it's not that bad. At least give us 'till the standard "I'll get serious about BarBri when July 1 rolls around" grace period.

Posted by: taxlawmax at April 18, 2007 10:50 AM (dLe9c)

6 Most successful thread hijack, evah!

Posted by: ElMondoHummus at April 18, 2007 10:50 AM (xHyDY)

7 you guys slay me :-D

Posted by: annika at April 18, 2007 11:42 AM (zAOEU)

8 nvm annika

Posted by: Darkie at April 18, 2007 11:45 AM (CospR)

9 TaxLawMax, Our only hope is that the power of Sean Connery will compel Annika to keep this place running.

Posted by: reagan80 at April 18, 2007 04:22 PM (fO04l)

10 Reagan, I'm beginning to think you've got a thing for Sean.

Posted by: taxlawmax at April 18, 2007 08:40 PM (P5vpr)

11 Taxlawmax has a point, Annika. I blogged while I studied for the Cal bar, and turned out mostly okay for it. Granted, pretty much everything I blogged about was bar exam-related. Which probably bored some of my readers. Or like. Most of them. Erm. Probably almost all. Hm. Maybe it's not such a great idea after all.

Posted by: The Law Fairy at April 18, 2007 09:13 PM (sfW9u)

12 That's definitely the worst part about studying for the bar. Your head becomes so grossly bloated with legal morsels that you can't help but spew them out even when, say, your wife tries to gag you every time you get that "holy shit! I actually remember something from BarBri about that!" look.

Posted by: taxlawmax at April 18, 2007 10:35 PM (P5vpr)

13 I have it on good authority that reagan80 isn't really into those of the phallic gender. His perceived homo-ness is merely a facade to lull women into a false sense of security at clubs. I heard that once he gets close enough, he will then proceed to dry hump some poor bitch's elbow before being forcefully ejected from the premises. Ladies, wear long sleeves.

Posted by: Spanky at April 19, 2007 07:53 AM (fO04l)

14 anybody ever see Zardoz? four words: Connery in high heels...

Posted by: annika at April 19, 2007 10:39 AM (zAOEU)

15 Connery in high heels? Geez, and I thought seeing Terrence Stamp in drag was too much.

Posted by: ElMondoHummus at April 19, 2007 11:48 AM (xHyDY)

16 Me? A closet queen? What gives you that idea? Speaking of Queen, they did the theme song to a flick that he starred in, The Highlander, and might I add that he looked absolutely fabulous wearing that ear ring. Boy, I sure do enjoy a good movie with guys impaling each other. To answer Annika's question, I barely remember seeing a portion of ZARDOZ on the TBS channel back when I was in pre-school or something. In fact, she has brought back some of my lost childhood memories because, back then, I thought it starred a young Burt Reynolds. That movie kind of freaked me out at the time, but today it makes me laugh my fucking ass off. That is pure gold! Thanks, Annie!

Posted by: reagan80 at April 19, 2007 06:10 PM (fO04l)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Here are some more random thoughts on the shooting, which occurred to me throughout the day.

The touchy-feely methods of preventing this type of violence failed miserably yesterday. For instance, one oft-cited preventive measure is for faculty members to watch for signs of a troubled loner with possible violent tendencies, then send him to counseling. This was done in Cho's case, by one of his English professors, to no avail.

After Columbine there was no end to the re-education and awareness-raising on the dangers of bullying. Kids were taught not to make fun of outcasts, but to be nice to them. Again, in Cho's case, members of his peer group tried to befriend the loner during sophomore year. One said they invited him to lunch, tried to get him to laugh and come out of his "funk." Again, this was done, to no avail. He apparently did laugh during the lunch, but it didn't change anything.

Time Magazine, perhaps the most ridiculously out-of-touch major news source in America today, professes to know "how to make campuses safer." Frikkin joke. Here's the best they came up with:

Some schools like Princeton train professors how to spot signs of depression, and access to mental-health services is a big part of preventive efforts on many campuses. Students, faculty and staff are encouraged to tell someone if they see suspicious or troubling activity. Says Gene Burton, public safety director at Ball State University: "You need to get everyone on board." But as colleges and universities learned on Monday, it often takes a tragedy to expose just how many weaknesses there are in the system.

More: OMG, not to be outdone, CNN is just about as clueless as Time Magazine. No wonder they're joined at the hip.

Watch this video, which contains the absolutely hilarious warning that a semi-automatic handgun can fire bullets "as fast as you can pull the trigger!"

Dun-dun-dun duuuunnnh!

If anyone knows of a gun on the market that does not shoot bullets "as fast as you can pull the trigger," please let me know. I will make sure I don't have any of the manufacturer's stock in my portfolio.

Update: The anti-American New York Times reports that "officers also found several knives on Mr. ChoÂ’s body." Will there be calls for stricter knife control? It's not unheard of.

Posted by: annika at 07:36 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 411 words, total size 3 kb.

The point has been made over and over again, and I'm sure I don't need to mention it on this blog, but I'll do it anyway.

It's ironic that some people who are criticizing the school for its response to the initial shootings this morning are the same people who will be calling for tighter gun control in the future.

If we learned anything from Katrina, it's the same thing we learned again today:

You cannot rely on the government to protect you from every harm!

In a land where the citizenry is unarmed, the government is the only thing that stands between a criminal and his victim. Thus, the one thing these types of shooters know is that all they need to do is outsmart the government in order to accomplish their evil.

Government, specifically the police, do certain things well, but preventing random acts of violence is not one of them. They can only respond after the fact. And the difference between that first 911 call and the arrival of SWAT (usually after the shooter has killed himself) today was measured in 32 innocent lives.

So when people ask "why didn't the school officials shut down the school right away?" the answer is, "well, I guess they fucked up." (Even though on a campus the size of Virginia Tech, I'm not sure that was practical, or that it would have even prevented the tragedy. Who's to say he wouldn't have found some other populated place to go on his rampage?)

Yes, government fucks up sometimes. Recognize this reality. Embrace it. Own it. Because the sooner we realize that government cannot gaurantee our safety, the sooner we'll stop willingly handing away our right to protect ourselves.

More: KG at Crusader Rabbit has a partial list of recent school shootings worldwide. And John Hawkins correctly identifies the deadliest school mass murder in U.S. history, the 1927 Bath School bombing.

Still more: I wonder if anyone in the MSM will contact VT grad student Bradford B. Wiles, just to see if his opinion has changed any by the events of today. My guess would be no on both counts.

Mr. Giles wrote the following in an op-ed published last August, after he had been evacuated from a campus building in the previous on-campus incident.

I am licensed to carry a concealed handgun in the commonwealth of Virginia, and do so on a regular basis. However, because I am a Virginia Tech student, I am prohibited from carrying at school because of Virginia Tech's student policy, which makes possession of a handgun an expellable offense, but not a prosecutable crime.

I had entrusted my safety, and the safety of others to the police. In light of this, there are a few things I wish to point out.

First, I never want to have my safety fully in the hands of anyone else, including the police.

Second, I considered bringing my gun with me to campus, but did not due to the obvious risk of losing my graduate career, which is ridiculous because had I been shot and killed, there would have been no graduate career for me anyway.

Third, and most important, I am trained and able to carry a concealed handgun almost anywhere in Virginia and other states that have reciprocity with Virginia, but cannot carry where I spend more time than anywhere else because, somehow, I become a threat to others when I cross from the town of Blacksburg onto Virginia Tech's campus.

Of all of the emotions and thoughts that were running through my head that morning, the most overwhelming one was of helplessness.

h/t Dymphna at Gates of Vienna

Update: Anti-American AP reports the following:

Two law enforcement officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because the information had not been announced, said Cho's fingerprints were found on the guns used in both shootings. The serial numbers on the two weapons had been filed off, the officials said.

One law enforcement official said Cho's backpack contained a receipt for a March purchase of a Glock 9 mm pistol.

Must-read: Publicola deconstructs the incident in his inimitable way.

[I]t has been preached from every rooftop of every school that resistance is bad. We even had a politician proposing using books as bullet proof shields as a solution to school violence. Not too long ago a teacher in Texas was "re-assigned" because he dared teach his students to fight back even if unarmed. For a number of reasons political & cultural we simply do not on the whole wish to face the idea that violence is an acceptable option in any situation.

That, & not the school's reaction (or lack thereof) contributed to the deaths & injuries at VT. [links omitted]

Posted by: annika at 09:27 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 943 words, total size 6 kb.

1 Bingo. Just changed a few minds at my office as we were all watching the headlines on the cafeteria TV... I muttered, "imagine if just two students in that classroom were carrying..."

Posted by: taxlawmax at April 17, 2007 06:44 AM (dLe9c)

2 Sean Connery and I approve Annika's message.

Posted by: reagan80 at April 17, 2007 06:53 AM (fO04l)

3 Ex law enforcement officer - forgot if he was FBI or some other branch - was being interviewed on MSNBC yesterday. I was going nuts when the reporter was asking some really dumb questions ('How fast can this (reloading of a pistol) happen?' 'Well, we trained our agents to reload within a couple of seconds, it's possible for anyone to reload a gun quickly...' (note: paraphrase; I don't have the transcript in front of me))... but then the reporter opened the question up to the idea of gun control, and the man came out and clearly stated that his experience taught him that gun control laws only keep weapons out of law abiding citizens hands (I remember he came out and said "I'm for lawful gun ownership", and the context was clear that he didn't mean for hunting or target shooting at a range). He went on about how his experience, talking about how only lawful people turned in guns in gun buyback programs, and how criminals were the first to ignore those programs. In the end, it turned out to be a great interview. And even better, when the ex-officer/agent said what he did, the interviewer didn't try to steer him away from his claims. She kept the normal gun control rhetoric out of it, which is something I haven't seen for a long, long time.

Posted by: ElMondoHummus at April 17, 2007 07:00 AM (xHyDY)

4 They just announced that the shooter was a South Korean on a student visa studying English. Oh man, do I know this story. ROK's coming to the states to study English are usually on a year long party. Then they have to go home, and explain why they don't know how to speak English. Can't wait to hear Kevin's side of this.

Posted by: Casca at April 17, 2007 07:03 AM (Y7t14)

5 I didn't know the 2nd Amendment applied to non-citizens either.

Posted by: reagan80 at April 17, 2007 07:47 AM (fO04l)

6 "(Even though on a campus the size of Virginia Tech, I'm not sure that was practical, or that it would have even prevented the tragedy. Who's to say he wouldn't have found some other populated place to go on his rampage?)" The university administration has blood on its hands. After the initial shootings around 7AM, the university was well aware that an armed man who had just committed two murders was still at large. And their solution was a mass e-mail. True, perhaps shutting down the campus would have achieved little or nothing, but to have left everything functioning as normal seemed like the concern was more on P.R. and less the safety of VT students.

Posted by: Mark at April 17, 2007 08:01 AM (2MrBP)

7 I wouldn't jump to conclusions on that either way. It looks like they had reason to believe that the first shootings related to a "domestic" dispute. Would you say that the police were negligent if they didn't shut down scores of blocks or an entire city every time a guy shoots his girlfriend (or vice versa) in a private house? You could argue, however, that the university assumed total responsibility for student safety because it closed off avenues of self-protection (no carrying) and purported to provide a safe environment for the members of the school community (lame security guards? Tech police?). I'm not sure if I buy that either, though.

Posted by: taxlawmax at April 17, 2007 08:09 AM (dLe9c)

8 Casca, I'm about to head off to bed (13-hour difference between Seoul and DC), but I can say this: an email from a friend of mine said that one Korean anchor's reaction to the killings was to say something like, "We hope this doesn't lead to racism." In other words, the ethnic/national angle is more important than the brute fact that thirty-two people were slaughtered. No "our hearts go out to the victims," no "we are all Americans now," but "uh-oh, they gonna be hatin' on Koreans." I conjectured to a friend that Korean Netizen chatter will include some "those fucking Americans deserved this" remarks from the Kornazi end of the spectrum. Such remarks won't represent the majority opinion, but they won't be a tiny minority, either. There will be a lot more such histrionic navel-gazing in the Korean media in the days to come as questions about "face" and "race" will surface. (Not that such questions are ever far from the surface in a society like South Korea's.) Be sure to check out places like The Marmot's Hole (this post in particular) for up-to-the-minute blogging on this and other Korean issues. Those guys never sleep, and their comments sections are pretty wild. The place gets over 2000 unique visits a day, so you know how it is. Kevin PS: Don't be shy about checking my blog on occasion, too, though to be honest, I'm about blogged out on this. For now, anyway. PPS: The guy was a Korean national, but has been living in the States since he was 3. I guess this means his note (the contents of which I'd like to know) was likely in English. Burn in hell, Cho.

Posted by: Kevin Kim at April 17, 2007 09:10 AM (1PcL3)

9 I love Korea, the people and the culture, and I couldn't say that about any other country in Asia. Cho won't change that. Pass the kimchae my brutha.

Posted by: Casca at April 17, 2007 09:24 AM (Y7t14)

10 Brilliant post, Annika! Rush is doing a magnificent job breaking this event down this morning from the perspective of how the MSM/Left - after all, they are really part of the same entity - is trying to politicize a single event by a crazed, evil lunatic, attempting to treat it as a microcosm of America. As we should have expected, some Lefty nutter in the House is already blaming, you guessed it, Bush. Between the MSM's handling and the Left's reaction to Duke, Imus, and VT, it is becoming even more obvious how far these people will go to politicize any event, using whatever ready-to-use template is available. Can't wait to hear Rosie's take on this.....

Posted by: blu at April 17, 2007 09:42 AM (pXoDI)

11 It was a domestic dispute; he was in her place at 7:15 A.M.; what does that tell us? Then, he went home and picked up the other artillery and ammo. He set out to deal with her, (maybe with her and the guy he blew away) but changed his plan after he killed them. So, why are the idiots calling for resignations for the Chief of Police and the President of VT? HOw far will this Imus crap go? Damn, why not blame the girl for blowing him off? Does anybody ever think that the perp is the bad guy anymore???

Posted by: shelly at April 17, 2007 11:32 AM (h/YdH)

12 No one's discussing the obvious solution - if you eliminate students from the universities, you won't have these problems. There's one parallel between Virginia Tech and 9/11. In both cases, a horrible event occurred, and no one (or very few people) conceived that the terrible event could occur a second time. The strategy of multiple nearly-simultaneous attacks, whether performed by a lone gunman or by an organization, has become very deadly. Yet are we now obligated to assume that this will always occur? I don't think so.

Posted by: Ontario Emperor at April 17, 2007 12:02 PM (xJ+oA)

13 good point Shelly. i tend to doubt that the dude was there so early because he had spent the night. From everything i've heard today about him, he seems like too much of a loser. i think he probably went there early to catch the girl with her guy. and the fact that he bought so many extra clips tends to indicate premeditation for the mass killing later. it was all planned.

Posted by: annika at April 17, 2007 01:55 PM (zAOEU)

14 Notice the "alleged" shooter is from C(r)apitalist South Korea and "supposedly" perpetrated this horror in Adoph Chimpler's C(r)apitalist America. Do you ever see North Koreans perpetrating atrocities like this? This PROVES Socialism is SUPERIOR!

Posted by: isitstinky at April 18, 2007 02:17 PM (xVizk)

15 Straw, Are you posting under a different name?

Posted by: Blu at April 18, 2007 03:58 PM (pXoDI)

16 For once, I agree with you. I guess I am not a liberal who is anti-gun.

Posted by: Dan at April 21, 2007 01:23 AM (xr6Q4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

What do you think? Will the Don Imus auto da fe, recently concluded, have the unintended result of making it easier to execute Rosie O'Donald when she makes her inevitable next outrageous statement?

In other words, is the threshold of firable offenses now so low that Rosie will no longer be able to get away with the shit she's been pulling for months on The View?

Or does the Imus controversy have no relevance to Rosie, since the culturally designated Torquemadas, Sharpton and Jackson, are unlikely to be offended by anything Rosie might say?

Posted by: annika at 04:32 PM | Comments (23) | Add Comment
Post contains 104 words, total size 1 kb.

If you're like me, who waits impatiently for each great essay by Bill Whittle to come out, wait no more. The newest one is up! In it, Bill hits upon the motivation I've always suspected was the driving force behind the popularity of conspiracy theories: self-esteem. Or rather, the lack of it.

[M]ost normal people do not look at life from within a pit of failure and despair. Our lives are measured by small successes -- like raising children, serving in the military, doing volunteer work at your church – or just doing the right thing in a thousand small but important ways, like returning money if someone makes you too much change.

These are simply the small, ordinary milestones of a life of value. They give you a sense of identity.

But if I didn’t have that sense of identity rooted in my own small achievements, I wonder how likely it would have been for me to grab onto that sense of sudden empowerment, of being an initiate in some arcane club of hidden wisdom. I wonder what might have happened to me if being the Holder of Secret Knowledge had been my only source of self-esteem…the one redeeming landmark in a life of isolation and failure. Indeed, I wonder what power such a worldview would have over me if I could believe that behind the scenes lurked vast and unknowable dark forces – forces that could topple a president and perhaps even explain why a person of my deep, vast and bountiful talents was not doing a whole lot better in life?

To paraphrase Penn Jillette of Penn & Teller, "and where did you do your hard hitting data research... in your ass?"

Posted by: annika at 07:07 PM | Comments (23) | Add Comment
Post contains 362 words, total size 2 kb.

Now that the Duke Lacrosse thing is over, I think it's an appropriate time to review what did not happen in Durham. So here's Mary Katharine Ham to remind us, in a video she did way back in December.

Posted by: annika at 03:35 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 55 words, total size 1 kb.

The latest LA Times/Bloomberg poll on the Iraq War contains a real surprise, which might explain why nobody is reporting it. The poll is dated April 5th through April 9th. The key question is this:

Generally speaking, do you think setting a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq hurts or helps U.S. troops serving in Iraq right now, or doesn't it affect the troops one way or the other?

Hurts: 50%
Helps: 27%
No Effect: 15%
Unsure: 8%

So much for Americans supporting the troops, if you believe the poll.

Predictably, the only news story I found on Google that even mentions the poll is selective in its coverage — i.e. they're incredibly biased. Here's the link. As of this writing, E&P completely failed to mention the first question I highlighted above, instead focusing on the second question. That's not just biased reporting, it's fucking propaganda.

Posted by: annika at 12:00 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 250 words, total size 2 kb.

I have a somewhat different take on the whole Imus debacle. I've always thought he was totally overrated and I never understood his appeal or influence. Happily, living in California, I don't have to listen to him.

However, I think the huge uproar surrounding Imus's recent unfunny racial jokes, his subsequent apologies, public bitchslapping and two week suspension have shown us just how far we've come as a society that is unwilling to tolerate such insensitivity.

It is right and just that Imus be brought low, a-hole that he is.

I also firmly believe that this controversy has brought us closer to that glorious day, which will occur soon and possibly within our lifetimes, when no one will ever be insulted ever again. By anyone. At any time. In any way.

Hallelujah!

Update: It's official. Wikipedia now refers to "Imus in the Morning" in the past tense.

Posted by: annika at 05:47 PM | Comments (21) | Add Comment
Post contains 153 words, total size 1 kb.

Captain Ed asks the rhetorical question on a lot of conservatives' lips these days:

[H]ow can we expect these [Democrat] candidates to face off against America's enemies when they can't bring themselves to face Fox?

Posted by: annika at 08:49 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 52 words, total size 1 kb.

Here's Kiki Couric on today's anniversary of the American entry into World War I.

Did you catch that?

Listening between the lines, Kiki's message is this: If not for advances in modern medicine, over 413,000 Americans would have died fighting the Iraq war.

Am I reading too much into it? If it was anybody else, I might be, but this is the anti-American CBS News.

Posted by: annika at 06:17 PM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 71 words, total size 1 kb.

1 What she meant to say was "If it were not for the aliens and their mind control device, I would be a pushy soccor mom, getting into a pissing match with another hausfrau at the Peoria PTA."

Posted by: kyle N at April 06, 2007 07:10 PM (7k0iG)

2 The video is no longer available! Conspiracy!!!!

Posted by: Otto at April 06, 2007 08:27 PM (czVLs)

3 There are few members of the media that make me cringe with revulsion more than Ms. Katie Couric. She could be reading "Green Eggs and Ham" -- it wouldn't matter.

Posted by: Mark at April 06, 2007 10:31 PM (viPPu)

4 Jeez, she reads like the smart bitch in a high school English class. Since when was the "A" in fatalities long? On the upside, I just got off the phone with Casca II. He called on the satphone from a wadi in the western desert. It was good to hear his voice. Technology is great!

Posted by: Casca at April 06, 2007 11:44 PM (2gORp)

5 If he's really your son, it would be Casca, Jr. Small distinction, but worth mentioning. Please give him my thanks, and those of all of us, (except that fool who keeps butting in), for being there and defending us all, even the fool.

Posted by: shelly at April 07, 2007 05:39 AM (4hKsD)

6 I second Shelly's motion. I hope him and his comrades remain safe for the duration of their stay.

Posted by: reagan80 at April 07, 2007 07:49 AM (I0gpu)

7 Lol, well since he's about five inches taller than me, I've always suspected his mother's fidelity. The rub is that his mind works a lot like my own. In any case, since I'm not a legalistic sort, I'll continue to call him any damn thing I want. It was an interesting conversation. We talked tactics a bit. I asked him about his ability to displace, so as not to become a fixed target, and to emphasize the need to be thinking about that, and he replied, "I've got very little else to think about, and all day to think about it." LOL He's on a grand adventure, and he knows it. Any man worth his salt would trade places with him in a heartbeat. I'll pass on your good wishes.

Posted by: Casca at April 07, 2007 08:16 AM (2gORp)

8 Kasca, Despite what you or Shelly may think I wish him a safe return. I may not agree that he is defending me or you from a real threat or that his commander in chief is competent but he is a soldier and doing his job takes courage and committment.

Posted by: strawman at April 07, 2007 12:27 PM (9ySL4)

9 Oozing infected cunt drippings: see above: Straw - you didn't tell me you got married!

Posted by: Radical Redneck at April 08, 2007 02:18 AM (32BJr)

10 Special thanks to you and your son Casca.

Posted by: Mike C. at April 08, 2007 05:30 AM (2nDll)

11 Hey Red, DOn't worry, after we get move in proper and all and the kid comes we'll get you a nice new leather collar and a life coach.

Posted by: strawman at April 08, 2007 09:57 AM (9ySL4)

12 Straw is especially bitter on Easter because the Jew came back. Good Friday is the ultimate liberal blueballing!

Posted by: Radical Redneck at April 08, 2007 01:42 PM (G0EXJ)

13 we'll get you a nice new leather collar and a life coach. What the fuck is a life coach? Is that some kind of PC government makework job to inculcate loathing of America, heteros and self? I'm surrounded by a zillion of those every day and it hasn't yet, nor will it ever work. Speaking of weddings Straw, when is your Daddy #1 going to make an honest man out of Daddy #2?

Posted by: Radical Redneck at April 08, 2007 05:29 PM (cOyko)

14 Thank you to your son, Casca. My son-in-law just got back from 14 months in Iraq. We owe them and their families a huge debt.

Posted by: MarkD at April 09, 2007 05:42 AM (5vbH6)

15 Thanks Mark. Whew, fourteen months, that's brutal.

Posted by: Casca at April 09, 2007 06:28 AM (Y7t14)

16 Red, It is, if Hillary is elected, going to be a new cabinet level position; Secretary of Life, right down the hall from the office of the Secretary of Peace. They may need an ugly mutt to pace in the front yard so you may have a job opportunity with medical bene's

Posted by: strawman at April 09, 2007 06:35 AM (9ySL4)

17 Seconds and Amen's to everyone's hopes for your son's safety, Cas. BTW, is he a Marine, or is he army? Figured the overbearing influence of his paterfamilias might predispose him to life as a leatherneck, but then again, maybe he's all about blazing his own path and needling his old man about it. 'Specially given that dig 'bout his mom ("Yeah, pop, but funny thing is, I'm the same height as the mailman..."). Hehe... All kidding aside, kudos and blessings to him and his immediate leadership, who I'm certain are equal to the task of leading fine young soldiers and Marines.

Posted by: ElMondoHummus at April 09, 2007 10:10 AM (xHyDY)

18 They may need an ugly mutt to pace in the front yard No thanks. Either of your wives (from the picture above) are more than qualified. right down the hall from the office of the Secretary of Peace. Got news for you genius - there already is a Secretary of Peace. It's called the Secretary of Defense, or the War Department. Your desperate wet dream of a weak, surrendering and defeatist America will never happen.

Posted by: Radical Redneck at April 09, 2007 01:04 PM (fWJN4)

19 El, We're coming up on the 25th anniversary of his mother deficating him upon a table in the delivery room at Camp Pendleton. Nine months earlier, the deed having been committed at Quantico, MCB. It truly was in his blood. I tried to wave him off, but we're from a line strong with the need to burn our own fingers.

Posted by: Casca at April 10, 2007 06:49 AM (Y7t14)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I am in complete agreement with Jim Geraghty on the Pelosi head-scarf non-controversy.

I enjoy whacking around Nancy Pelosi as much as the next guy, but as far as I can tell, the photos of her in a headscarf are all of her while visiting a mosque. . . . There are a million and one reasons to object to Pelosi, but wearing the headscarf while in the mosque isn't one of them. It's akin to dressing appropriately while visiting a church, or a man wearing a yarmulke in a synagogue. It's something you do when you're a guest. It's not submission, it's respect.

Posted by: annika at 09:38 AM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 257 words, total size 2 kb.

When I heard crazy Rosie O'Donald shooting off her ignorant bullshit about WTC Building 7, I was reminded of my trip to Ground Zero in July 2003.

As my friend and I walked around the site, we saw a guy standing next to a sign with a bunch of literature. He kept talking about how the WTC was really made up of seven buildings, not just the towers. I thought, "How nice, he's not political at all, he just wants to give people a little history while they tour the site." He kept repeating the exact times that the buildings came down with special emphasis on Building 7. I thought that was odd, but it wasn't until recently that I remembered him and realized that he was a friggin Truther, defiling the scene with his craziness.

On the video I shot, you can't really see him until the very end. In the last frame, I think he's to the right of center, half hidden behind the dude in the white shirt.

Posted by: annika at 08:43 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 187 words, total size 1 kb.

I suppose we should all be happy that the crisis over the kidnapped Royal Marines looks like it's coming to a peaceful end. But something doesn't feel right about the way this thing has turned out.

I mean, Britain was patrolling the Gulf for a reason, right? And whether the Marines were kidnapped outside of Iranian waters or inside, the Iranians have quite forcefully demonstrated their power to win a showdown, anytime, anywhere.

The British could have won this confrontation, gaining the marines' release, without showing the world what a bunch of groveling patsies they've become. But instead, they've given the world another reason for a false hope: that you can deal with the Iranians as long as you avoid making them mad.

And don't think I'm letting President Bush off lightly in my scorn. Sure he talked tough while it was the Brits in captivity. But this administration has done nothing except pusue diplomatic impotence, while the Iranians built more centrifuges, and yanked our chains. Where is the Iranian Lech Walensa? Where is the Iranian Solidarity movement? Does anyone think the Iron Curtain fell on its own? We pushed it over. Reagan pushed it over. The means he used weren't always open and obvious, but by this time in Reagan's second term, we could see the effects. I've been hearing about Iranian dissidents and how sick the people are of the mullahs for years now. If that's so true, we should be seeing some actual dissent over there, demonstrations, labor strikes. Again I ask, where are President Bush and Secretary Rice on this issue?

Great Britain just made the likelihood of eventual military confrontation between Iran and the West more likely. What are we doing to prevent it by toppling the dictatorship before that happens?

Update: A comment by Cruiser at The Belmont Club made the following very cogent point:

We always hear that acting aggressively towards Iran shores-up the hardliners. This is an good example of why the opposite can be true.

Update 2: In 2005, after the London bombings, I asked, "Where is this Britiain?" I'm now sure of the answer. It no longer exists. Blair has made a mockery of James Thomson's stirring poem, and it should never be sung again, except in sarcasm.

Yes the Britain of Lord Nelson is dead. And so is the Britain of Lord Churchill who, in 1940, said:

[B]e the ordeal sharp or long, or both, we shall seek no terms, we shall tolerate no parley; we may show mercy—we shall ask for none.

Posted by: annika at 09:11 AM | Comments (23) | Add Comment
Post contains 442 words, total size 3 kb.

John McCain just lost his first primary this season: the "fundraising primary."

Sen. John McCain today announced a disappointing $12.5 million fundraising total for the first three months of 2007.

The total, which would have been impressive in past election cycles, finds McCain trailing GOP rivals Mitt Romney and Rudolph Giuliani in the crucial early money sweepstakes.

Romney, the former Massachusetts governor who has struggled in the national polls, reported $23 million in primary election contributions, including more than $2 million of his own money. The Federal Election Commission allows candidates to collect money for their primary and general election campaigns simultaneously.

Giuliani, the Republican frontrunner in national surveys, took in more than $15 million in primary cash, including more than $10 million last month. He also transferred about $2 million from another campaign account for a total of $17 million.

Memo to Senator McCain: The mainstream media is not a constituency. You pissed off the wrong people with your Gang of 14 - anti-free speech - dumbing down the definition of "torture" - Democrats are people too, views. Money flows to candidates that can win the nomination. You can't win. It's time to leave the field to Giuliani and Romney and stop sucking up attention that should be going to the legitimate candidates.

Posted by: annika at 01:28 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 233 words, total size 2 kb.