Am i the only one who sees ABC's new weekly Hillary propaganda show for what it is? They even have a fake blog to promote the thing.

Apparently President Allen is supposed to be an Independent, who was picked for VP to balance out a Republican ticket. The fake blog describes her as a "centrist." The plan is clear: get middle-of-the-roaders used to the idea of a female president in time for Hillary's run.

i won't watch that show with Emelio Estevez as president. But i'm a big fan of both Geena Davis and Donald Sutherland, so i'll have to give this propaganda reel a chance tomorrow night. Hopefully it won't be too sickening.

Posted by: annika at 07:40 PM | Comments (53) | Add Comment
Post contains 124 words, total size 1 kb.

It was still one of the most difficult things to watch in the history of tv news. But the finger pointing it spawned needs to be revised.

Posted by: annika at 01:56 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 33 words, total size 1 kb.

"The purpose of union activism used to be to protect the worker. But now, the primary purpose of unions has become the weakening various target institutions.

"The Democratic party has become nothing more than a such a union, which chooses as its target the United States of America."

Posted by: annika at 10:02 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 64 words, total size 1 kb.

Here's two questions i've been wondering about. i bow to your expertise, so please leave any thoughts you might have in the comments.

1. In the event of an extended period of civil unrest, when finding ammunition might become an issue, is it better to have a gun that shoots a common caliber of ammunition like 9mm, or is it better to have something that will use a less common caliber. Think of a donut shop. Normally, you'll always be able to get glazed donuts, but after the morning rush, maybe all you'd find are those disgusting brown crullers that nobody likes.

2. In the city, is it a good idea to advertise gun ownership with a sticker or say, posting a particularly good silhouette in your garage? Would this cause bad people to stay away, or would they simply watch more carefully for their chance to break in and try to steal your gun when you're out?

i will be blogging lightly for the next few days, but i'll check in to read. In the meantime, don't forget to give what you can for hurricane relief.

Posted by: annika at 08:21 AM | Comments (47) | Add Comment
Post contains 197 words, total size 1 kb.

American hostage Roy Hallums is free! Details at Jawa Report.

Posted by: annika at 08:17 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 14 words, total size 1 kb.

It's a delicate subject, and i try not to write much about it. A white person always runs the risk of being called a racist, no matter what they say. Usually it happens when white people say that charges of racism are exagerrated or without merit. In the case of this post, i should be safe, because i plan to be the one making the charges.

i've noticed a special kind of subtle bigotry, very cleverly disguised. The folks who exhibit this new bigotry probably don't even realize their bias, and they'd probably deny it vehemently. The purveyors of the new bigotry that i'm talking about are mostly in the media and the academy.

A more obvious example that has gotten play recently is the infamous looting/finding controversy that arose from the troubles in New Orleans.

[T]wo news service photographs . . . showed persons wading through chest-deep water in the New Orleans area with supplies taken from grocery stores. Many viewers noticed the seeming disparity of the darker-skinned subject's being described in the accompanying caption as 'looting a grocery store,' while the lighter-skinned subjects were described as 'finding bread and soda from a local grocery store.'

Still, i've noticed another type of more subtle bigotry lately. It's the condescending "some of my best friends are black" kind of bigotry that Time magazine showed, when they called Kanye West the "smartest man in pop music," and put him on the cover of their magazine.

Besides trying to show how hip they were, Time magazine's editors were also asking for approval with their backhanded compliment. Translated, what they meant to say was: "Look how non-racist we are. See, we think a black man can be smart too." Never mind that they picked a complete moron for their cover, as we saw last Friday. (And i'm making a totally non-partisan, objective observation. If articulation counts for anything, as the anti-Bush crowd continually tells us, Kanye is as dumb as a stump.)

A more obvious example to me is the way people in the media and academia so often refer to Martin Luther King, Jr. as Dr. King. When was the last time you heard a white guy with a Ph.D. referred to as Doctor so-and-so. You never hear anyone say Dr. Woodrow Wilson, for instance, and he was president of Princeton. Or how about Dr. Einstein? Or even Dr. Gingrich?

But you always hear people say "Doctor" King, which sounds so condescending. First of all there should be no question about MLK's intellect (and save your plagiarism comments for someone else. Just read "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" if you want proof.) But just like with Time Magazine and Kanye West, it's another way of saying "See, we think black people can be smart too."

It's not a question of respect. It's patronizing. MLK may have earned the right to have been called by his title, but i've yet to meet the Ph.D. who likes being called "doctor" outside of a formal lecture auditorium. In fact, King's friends called him Mike. i liked it better when the media called him Reverend, but of course now that's taboo because it implies that he might have believed in God.

But that's another kind of bigotry for another post.

Posted by: annika at 10:15 PM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 611 words, total size 4 kb.

1 I am an American bigot. Not against any person of pallor or color, or even ethnic background. It is against the "takers" who prey on those who produce and work for what they have.

Posted by: NOTR at September 06, 2005 10:21 PM (izx0t)

2 Excellent point: being patronizing is damned racist. Outside the KKK, or that Black Muslim Preacher of Hate who's name I can't recall right now, there's hardly anyone more racist than a patronizing white liberal - unless it's a black liberal racistly accusing political conservatives of being racist. The media's patronization constantly shows up in what they ignore in black newsmakers - such as when I watched Al Sharpton call Republicans racists during a Democratic Presidential debate, and John Kerry stood behind Shapton with a silly grin and clapped for Sharpton's blatantly racist comment. If you're a black media darling, you can be the village idiot and they will patronizingly ignore it. You can be a corrupt corporate blackmailer(Jesse Jackson) who hugs America's enemies, and the media will patronizingly never call you a spotlight chasing fool. I believe it's actual racism. I believe the media is figuratively patting the simple pickaninnies on their heads - as in: 'Who can expect such simple people to be held to adult standards of conduct?' It's insulting, and I feel certain many black people are insulted by it also. I must point out that I don't think your examples are the best. Snopes reports this quote from the AFP reporter who snapped the photo of the couple who "found" food(quoting from memory): "A convenience store was flooded, and it's inventory was floating in the street. I saw the couple, and assumed they had found the items floating before picking them up." Second: I think, maybe, in the 1960's, many people were proud to say "Dr. Martin Luther King". It was a different time and a different nation. I seem to recall hearing many people say "Dr. Martin Luther King" with quite a bit of pride in their voices. Maybe the "Dr." part of the title was a partial source of that pride. Just a thought. I'd like to hear more on this from someone who remembers that time.

Posted by: gcotharn at September 06, 2005 10:47 PM (M7kiy)

3 You mean "The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan"? Racist? Nah. Check the dictionary; his picture is next to the word "bigot".

Posted by: shelly at September 07, 2005 02:59 AM (ywZa8)

4 When I was about twelve and just beginning to develop some political awareness, I somehow became aware of the stereotype that conservatives are racists and liberals tend to be paragons of egalitarian tolerance. (At the time, I'd probably have used "Democrats" instead of "liberals," and "Republicans" instead of "conservatives.") This bothered me a little. I knew my dad was a strong Republican, but I also knew he was no racist. I wondered why he'd want to support such people, so I asked him about it. That was my introduction to the concept of "the soft bigotry of low expectations," which I think largely explains the phenomena you mention, and many that you don't. ("A black man with a Ph.D.? Wow! Be sure to call him 'doctor.' A black man who seems really smart [to us]? Astounding! Let's do a cover feature on him! Affirmative action? How else are the poor, benighted, helpless blacks going to compete with white folks?") Of course there are conservatives and libertarians who are genuinely racist, and there are liberals who genuinely believe that affirmative action is a moral imperative as a sort of penance for the evils of slavery and as a tool for eliminating racism. But in general, over the years I've come to believe that "the soft bigotry of low expectations" is something a great many liberals are guilty of, and that the philosophy that every person should be allowed to stand on their own feet, and succeed or fail without meddling from government, is about as egalitarian an idea as there is.

Posted by: Matt at September 07, 2005 04:06 AM (Ur3KC)

5 I will go a little farther Matt, I am a libertarian but I believe Affirmative Action was necessary for a period of time. Not because I believe blacks are incapable but this country needed to "jump start" many blacks into the middle class in the sixties and seventies. The bad think about affirmative action was that it should have had a time limit. Now you have many black people who, I think, due to liberalism actually doubt their own ability to "make it" without government help. That is the sad legacy of soft bigotry.

Posted by: Kyle N at September 07, 2005 05:18 AM (BLSv+)

6 "Smartest man in pop music"......hmmmmm, isn't that like being the best hockey player in Ecuador?

Posted by: Pursuit at September 07, 2005 08:02 AM (n/TNS)

7 Captain of the Jamaican Olympic Bobsled Team. Come to think of it, he's pretty smart; gets a free trip to the Olymics and all the fun at the Village. Strike my comment;this guy IS smart.

Posted by: shelly at September 07, 2005 08:17 AM (6krEN)

8 Annie: Regarding the looting, we apparently haven't been told the whole story. (Imagine that.) http://marknicodemo.mu.nu/archives/116529.php

Posted by: Mark at September 07, 2005 10:40 AM (Vg0tt)

9 Joseph Heller observed in Catch 22 that we all have concentric circles of loyalty that expand outwardly from ourselves to our family, friends, community, etc... Part of the human condition is that we all love ourselves above others. Call it whatever you like. It wasn't until we tried to legislate equality, that the race-baters came to the fore, and the black man was driven from his home by the do-gooder welfare state, and the pop culture hung the face of pimp on him. Now "Art" follows the culture as teens take on the trappings of the characature, and every woman is a "ho". At least the end of Western Civilization is interesting.

Posted by: Casca at September 07, 2005 10:52 AM (qBTBH)

10 Thanks for taking up my slack, Mark. I got that link via e-mail yesterday and was planning to post it here, because it ties in nicely with Annie's subject. But I got busy, one thing led to another, and that was it.

Posted by: Matt at September 07, 2005 01:16 PM (10G2T)

11 My pleasure Matt.

Posted by: Mark at September 07, 2005 01:50 PM (Vg0tt)

12 With regard to the picture of the "white" people shown in the picture in question, the "finders" as opposed to the "looters", there was a write up by the photographer. He said that HE labeled the folks as "finders" because they were among a large group of people, both black and white, in an area where groceries had literally floated out of a nearby store. The people found the food floating on the water as they walked thru the area. They did not enter a store, did not break any windows, they just scooped some food out of the water as it floated by.

Posted by: mbecker908 at September 07, 2005 04:22 PM (Nlp5A)

13 I did think of a white PhD who used the term "Dr." - Dr. Henry Kissinger. I am unfamiliar with the black pastorate, so I don't know how many black preachers with PhD's referred to themselves as "Dr." I'm trying to think of a white pastor with a PhD, but I can't think of one - wait, I just remembered Dr. Gene Scott. So the "doctor" thing may be occupational, and have nothing to do with race. Further study is required.

Posted by: Ontario Emperor at September 07, 2005 04:51 PM (bGyIu)

14 I recall an interview with Ice-T conducted by a white, female, British journalist. On the topic of the rampant misogyny of his lyrics, she said something to him along the lines of "I think you're much too smart to be this sexist". Then he proved her wrong by pimp-slappin' her for patronising him (well, at least that's how I wish he had responded).

Posted by: kennteoh at September 07, 2005 09:57 PM (WJ7Rm)

15 Great post incidentally - such laboured reference to positive attributes only betrays the fact that the writer/speaker expected them to be absent. "Smart" also constitutes such slight praise that it insults. Being praised as the "smartest" rapper is akin to receiving plaudits for being "the most competent" instrumentalist around.

Posted by: kennteoh at September 07, 2005 10:05 PM (WJ7Rm)

16 Laura Ingraham was playing cuts from Elijah whats-his-face of the Congressional Black Caucus yesterday, and bumped out with the theme from the old Monkees TV show. You know, "Heh heh, we're the Monkees... " lmfao

Posted by: Casca at September 08, 2005 07:35 AM (qBTBH)

17 Actually, a fair number of Ph.D.s like to be called Dr. off campus. I don't usually use it, but my wife will sometimes use it when she gives someone my name. If you read Slate, there was a "Dear Prudence" column about this a few months ago. But just to show you I'm even-handed, there is some question about whether King really earned his title. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr._-_authorship_issues Personal to Casca: It wasn't the welfare state that drove the black man from his home. It was the slave traders.

Posted by: Pericles at September 09, 2005 12:48 PM (EpPuP)

18 Personal to Pericles: The slave traders were a fortunate happening for the generations which came after slavery ended. My evidence is that we never saw a large - or even a medium - migration of U.S. citizens moving to Africa. Given this, I find your slave trader reference to be disingenious.

Posted by: gcotharn at September 09, 2005 02:18 PM (ywZa8)

19 In regards to this asshole Kanye West; I personally do not agree with a lot of what our president does and/or says, but I certainly think that it was beyond bad taste for this alleged entertainer to use the platform of aid and assistance to those devastated by this hurricane to spout this offensive, disrespectful diatribe against our president during this incredibly sad time. Plain and simple.....Kanye West is an asshole!

Posted by: Walter Alderete at September 10, 2005 09:18 AM (5KnIk)

20 There may be some truth in what you say, but the lack of a migration back doesn't prove it. The children of slaves would have been going back to a continent where they didn't fit any more, in terms of language, culture, religion, etc. Where would they have lived---with tribes that their ancestors had been taken from generations earlier. African-Americans I talked to who have gone back to Africa have said that they are definitely regarded as Americans there, not as Africans. Anyway, I was only responding to Casca's innane point about blacks having been deprived of their homes by welfare. Whatever negative consequences welfare may have had for the black community, and I know about the Moynihan Report, it didn't rob anyone of their homes. Given that s/he finds humor in the juxtaposition of a black face and the word "monkey," I think we know where Casca is coming from. I've heard conservatives complain that liberals are too quick to call them racists, and that may be true, but when the shoe really DOES fit...

Posted by: Pericles at September 11, 2005 05:11 PM (EpPuP)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Finally.

Thank God for the U.S. Military. The politicians and the bureaucrats can go to hell.

Posted by: annika at 09:09 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 18 words, total size 1 kb.

A real American hero, twenty year old Jabbar Gibson, who took it upon himself to grab the keys to a school bus and drive a busload of folks 13 hours to safety.

Gibson drove the bus from the flooded Crescent City, picking up stranded people, some of them infants, along the way. Some of those on board had been in the Superdome, among those who were supposed to be evacuated to Houston on more than 400 buses Wednesday and today. They couldn't wait.

The group of mostly teenagers and young adults pooled what little money they had to buy diapers for the babies and fuel for the bus.

. . .

'I feel good to get out of New Orleans,' said Demetrius Henderson, who got off the bus with his wife and three children. Many of those around him alternated between excited, cranky and nervous, clutching suitcases or plastic garbage bags of clothes.

They looked as bedraggled as their grueling ride would suggest: 13 hours on the commandeered bus driven by a 20-year-old man. Watching bodies float by as they tried to escape the drowning city. Picking up people along the way. Three stops for fuel. Chugging into Reliant Park, only to be told initially that they could not spend the night.

. . .

After arriving at the Astrodome at about 10:30 p.m., however, they initially were refused entry by Reliant officials who said the aging landmark was reserved for the 23,000 people being evacuated from the Louisiana Superdome.

'Now, we don't have nowhere to go' Gibson said. 'We heard the Astrodome was open for people from New Orleans. We ain't ate right, we ain't slept right. They don't want to give us no help. They don't want to let us in.'

. . .

After about 20 minutes of confusion and consternation, Red Cross officials announced that the group of about 50 to 70 evacuees would be allowed into the Astrodome.

From the Houston Chronicle.

Posted by: annika at 07:34 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 338 words, total size 2 kb.

This morning, President Bush gave what has to be his worst speech ever. And that's saying something. i've consistently criticized the president for his maddening inarticulateness, and today he said exactly the wrong things in exactly the wrong tone.

i understand the general rule of thumb in a situation like this. Presidents usually try to remain optimistic, and sound upbeat yet determined. That was exactly the type of approach that worked the week of 9/11. But after the horror of the last four days, the time for the standard speech template is over.

Bush's tone needed to recognize the reality of the situation on the ground now. The folks in the hell that was once New Orleans don't really give a flying fuck about Trent Lott's porch. They're not thinking about the rebuilding effort or whether the city will ever "be great again." They're worried about water, food, and whether they're going to get raped or killed when the sun goes down tonight.

In short, they're worried about survival, and they're understandably pissed at the government. Instead of recognizing that, the president tried to blow smoke up their collective asses. He should have let them know he was as impatient for results as they are.

Here's the lowpoint of that awful speech.

We've got a lot of rebuilding to do. First, we're going to save lives and stabilize the situation. And then we're going to help these communities rebuild. The good news is -- and it's hard for some to see it now -- that out of this chaos is going to come a fantastic Gulf Coast, like it was before. Out of the rubbles of Trent Lott's house -- he's lost his entire house -- there's going to be a fantastic house. And I'm looking forward to sitting on the porch. (Laughter.)

Again, I want to thank you all for -- and, Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job. The FEMA Director is working 24 -- (applause) -- they're working 24 hours a day.

Again, my attitude is, if it's not going exactly right, we're going to make it go exactly right. If there's problems, we're going to address the problems. And that's what I've come down to assure people of. And again, I want to thank everybody.

And just so you know, i'm a huge Bush fan.

Posted by: annika at 02:44 PM | Comments (31) | Add Comment
Post contains 474 words, total size 3 kb.

1 I understand what you are saying. I think that this has caused Bush to loose all support he once had. He is now a true Lame Duck and will get nothing else done. Bush could have been a truely great president. He did the right thing in going to war and getting the economy moving with tax cuts. But, the runaway spending, the errors in Iraq, particularly going in with too few troops, and the situation on the border. These have caused too much weariness among his defenders. Now this very lackluster performance in the greatest single tradgedy in the history of the USA, its all over for him. The only good thing is he will still probably get John Roberts into the court.

Posted by: Kyle at September 02, 2005 02:54 PM (WzAM+)

2 Annika, I think you should know the dog of my childhood was named Brownie, and my parents made him sleep outside in a dog house. But seriously, you are quite right about the tone he struck-dimissive of the tragedy and offering a shuck and a smile to people starving to death. As you know I am a giant fan of this president and his usual erudite, always prepared oratory, but this speech sounds like a real winner. I am only sorry that I can't vote for him a fourth time. Maybe I can vote for Brownie.

Posted by: Strawman at September 02, 2005 02:59 PM (0ZdtC)

3 i'm not that pessimistic yet. Bush can still turn this Katrina disaster around, but he has to get results. Not pay lip service, he has to just "git 'er done." If that means heads need to roll in the bureacracy, do it.

Posted by: annie at September 02, 2005 03:00 PM (yRmC2)

4 Strawman, you do have a sense of humor. Who'd have thunk it?

Posted by: annie at September 02, 2005 03:02 PM (yRmC2)

5 Annika, Yup, an angry funny guy. It is the best combination. BTW, since Kyle mentioned John Roberts, I just want to say, with out revealing the connection, but it is very close to JR, that I am comfortable with him as a Supreme court judge. I hope That scares the shit out of you.

Posted by: Strawman at September 02, 2005 03:15 PM (0ZdtC)

6 it doesn't Strawman. Maybe you ain't such a bad guy after all. After i smack you in the nose with that spitball, how about i buy you a beer?

Posted by: annika at September 02, 2005 03:20 PM (yRmC2)

7 "The Horror"? More like the depravity of the thugs of New Orleans. Every year in Detroit they do the same things, burn houses, kill people. If you wish to be offended, be offended with those at fault. I know she's not much, but LA does have a Governor, state and local coppers, and National Guard troops at the beck and call of the Gov, and no they're not all in Iraq. Then there is the cartoonish Mayor who has turned out to be the anti-Guliani, and a police force that has lived up to its rep of worst in the nation. Finally we have the dregs of the citizenry themselves who refused to leave when ordered out, and now flail helplessly in the welter of their gore, and the MSM groupthink that insists on a hollywood ending to banal reality. Sorry folks, things don't work that way.

Posted by: Casca at September 02, 2005 03:31 PM (qBTBH)

8 "Then there is the cartoonish Mayor who has turned out to be the anti-Guliani" I kinda liked Nagin as a mayor before this disaster happened. Blame it on my ignorance of local politics. Anyway, at least he was a hell of a lot better than Moriale. "Finally we have the dregs of the citizenry themselves who refused to leave when ordered out, and now flail helplessly in the welter of their gore" My uncle is thinking about selling his home in New Orleans when he gets the chance. He says that he loathes the "trash"(dregs) that has been building up in the city for all these years. He doesn't want to raise his kids there with all those looting, murderous bastards still around.

Posted by: reagan80 at September 02, 2005 04:08 PM (gBFkV)

9 Bush's speech was definitely lacking to say the least. This doesn't mean that he's to fault for a response many people feel is slow. Let's face it, most of the work is in other people's hands, but a good speech could have done wonders. If Bush is actually directing the response, then FEMA and the National Guard are not doing their job. Bush's only job is to reassure the people that they will be taken care of. Just because they made the mistake of staying behind doesn't mean we should leave them to fend for themselves. In addition to some reassurance, I'd have liked a speech that would have spelled out the required punishment for those that have fueled the anarchy. In the rubble of the WTC, Bush stated clearly who was going to be held responsible for that disaster. I miss that guy.

Posted by: Trevor at September 02, 2005 04:44 PM (GtBBB)

10 "I kinda liked Nagin as a mayor before this disaster happened." Not having lived in New Orleans once he took office, I mostly heard good things about him. At leasst the fact that he endorsed Jindal over Blanco for governor seemed to be a positive sign of ending business as usual. "Anyway, at least he was a hell of a lot better than Moriale." Now THERE'S a backhanded compliment. Marc "my top priority is putting my name on every trash can in the city" Morial was (and still is) a fucking joke. Or do you mean his father, who I gather was smarter and therefore able to be even MORE corrupt?

Posted by: Dave J at September 02, 2005 08:39 PM (8XpMm)

11 Annie, Not one word on the utter negligence of the City of New Orleans, its Mayor, and Louisiana? They knew for HOW MANY years that this exact tragedy could occur? But it's all the fault of Bush's speaking ability and the feds'?

Posted by: Mark at September 03, 2005 02:34 AM (7xNjY)

12 Mark, I don't think anyone was saying that the situation in NO was Bush's fault. What was being said was that the federal response wasn't as cool as it could have been (which would have been claimed no matter how good it was, as was pointed out) but that Bush's speech didn't help the perception of the feds doing things right. If your family was attacked & the police responded ten minutes after they were called & then the chief of police said at a press conference how they were working to catch the guys & the cops responding did a bang up job & the family took the brutal assault like champs all the while intermingling some jokes into the conference you'd be livid. That wouldn't be saying that the assault was the fault of the police; it'd just be saying the police chief made a bad situation worse by careless & unthoughtful remarks. & that's what the criticism of Bush's speech is. It's not assigning blame for the fed's actions. It's assigning blame for some rather unwelcome talk. He tried to paint a rosey picture (relatively speaking) instead of delivering the straight talk that was expected of him. Pesonally I'm still trying to find the spot in the constitution that allows for any federal funds to be spent on any sort of disaster recovery (as they're talking about) & I'm iffy on using federal resources for non-martial purposes like refugee evacuation. So I hold the feds blameless for any inactivity (& consequently blame them for exceeding the constitution where they aren't directly authorized to act) but most people don't share my views & they expect some accountability from the feds. Bush's speech does not ease those folks' concerns over whether or not the feds "care" or are doing all they can. It makes them think that he's covering up a bad performance by the feds, which doesn't help if you were already wondering whether the performance was bad or not.

Posted by: Publicola at September 03, 2005 04:57 AM (vC8Ev)

13 Mark, You don't seem to have too swift a grasp of how things get done in this country. The city has no resources that could attend to the levies, it is purely the domain of the Army Core of Engineers and for the Bush budgets they were allotted very little money. In fact in all the Bush budgets, congress increased the amount over the Bush proposal for the levies. So much is the fault of Bush's speech patterns and ignorance but, I agree, probably not the slow response to this disaster. He did, however, offer nothing in his remarks yesterday except his hesitant grin, disingenuous facial expressions which border on tics, a few staged hugs and his overarching allegiance to the hurricaneÂ’s maker. More evidence of intelligent design no doubt. I demand that the Stork Theory of Babies (STB) taught in public schools. Hey Pub, Why is it that the constitution is involved in the saving of American lives? Your parochial attachment to the Big Doc. is astounding. Raygun, You get dumber and more vile each time I read you. You also, I expected no lees, seem to be another big hearted guy with just the right sensitivity toward his fellow Americans. Go crawl back under your rock you racist pig and try to figure out how you would transport your sack of shit self 300 miles north with out a car, bus fare ( or no busses running), two kids under 5 and your infirm mom and no family support in another location. YouÂ’re a smart engineering student, IÂ’m sure you can solve this tiny little problem.

Posted by: Strawman at September 03, 2005 10:40 AM (0ZdtC)

14 Strawman (if that is your real alias) The constitution created the federal government & assigned certain functions to it. It also made clear that unless those functions were specifically mentioned that the federal government could not perform them. If the federal government is wanted to perform funcions that the constitution did not give it the power to do then it must be amended. When the federal government does what we consider to be good things despite its lacking the constitutional authority to do so it weakens the limits on the constitution, which makes it easier for the federal government to do bad things. Here is a brief glimpse into Madison's view of federal action regarding benevolent causes. Here is another post from the same blogger that speculates that by unconstitutionally subsidizing the risk of living in disaster prone areas the federal government may be making the problem worse (i.e. people don't have as much discouragement to live in those areas). It is not only potentially harmful in the short term but potentially very dangerous in the long term when the federal government starts living beyond its constitutional means. I know you subscribe to the "living constitution" pipedream, but even you must surely realize that when the plain text of a paper is ignored or twisted & convulsed to wring whatever meaning you wish out of it that text becomes worthless & to no effect. If you tell your kids in January that they have ot be in by 7 p.m. but constantly don't chastise them when they come in at 8 p.m. or 9 p.m. then by August you shouldn't be surprised if they don't take your restrictions seriously. Same with a constitution; if we do not hold the government to it when we think we might recieve benefit from it then how are we supposed to hold the government to it when it means to do us harm? & in Reagan80's defense, you're a bit quick to be jumping to conclusions of racism. Orleans is a real nice place to visit, but it's also fairly dangerous. A lot of that has to do with an entitlement/dependence mentality that is prevelant in a lot of large cities. Having a corrupt local government (& especially police force) doesn't help. There's a lot of crime & there are a lot of people committing those crimes. No mention was made of the race of the criminals, but you did imply that Reagn80's comments were racist. Now since Reagan80 only mentioned the "trash (dregs)" & "looting, murderous bastards" & he did not ascribe an ethnicity to them. However since you implied his remarks were racist it would be fair to assume that when he mentioned the "trash (dregs)" & "looting, murderous bastards" you did ascribe race to them. I'd say that would make it more likely that you have some racial prejudices than Reagan80 (or his uncle). when someone mentions "criminals" I don't think they're talking about black folks, or white folks, or hispanic folks. I just think they're talking about criminals. if you automatically assume they're talking about a certain racial group, then that's an indicaation that you have some stuff you need to work out. & as for who is to blame - any city that depends on a system to keep it from eing flooded does have the resources to keep that machinery going. But because of constitutionally questionable policies they abrogated their responsibility to the feds. If you arbitrarily say that I'm responsible for th esafety of your house then you cannot go pointing the finger at me when that safety is compromised. If the Army COE hadn't been assigned the responsibility then either New Oreleans would have squeezed the money & resources out of the cities budget or they would have let it sink & moved on. A is the mre likely course of action. & just for the helluvit it had nothing to do with the budget allocated - the levies were designed to contain a certain amount of water. That amount of water was exceeded. It would have taken building levees capable of conatining a larger amount of water, which was not a topic of discussion in the last several decades. You just can't realistically say that money was holding them back, when the levees functioned as they were supposed to. They underestimated the outcome of a storm as big as Katrina & no amount of cash would have helped as long as they set their sights on a lesser amount of water from a storm. Still, it falls on a city & possibly a state to ake preperations for that sort of thing. I simply cannot find a constitutional mandate for the feds to assume any responsibility whatsoever.

Posted by: Publicola at September 03, 2005 01:22 PM (vC8Ev)

15 Oh & Strawman, since you're not frightened to the point of being armed, tell me how would you protect your sack of shit self, 2 kids under 5 & your infirmed mom from the looters/rapists/thugs that seem to be so rampant in New Orleans? You're an expert in social interaction, I'm sure you'll be able to explain your magyver-ish solution so even I, the scaredy cat that I am, can understand.

Posted by: Publicola at September 03, 2005 01:26 PM (vC8Ev)

16 Pub, I'll wait for Ragun to tell me how, he is a very smart fellow, engineer, you know. Also, you gotta get some brevity, I don't have time to read all your hot air.

Posted by: Strawman at September 03, 2005 01:42 PM (0ZdtC)

17 Pub: The federal government's response becomes less crucial in proportion to how well the levee problem is handled in advance. New Orleans was well aware of the possibility of this exact scenario for a long time. To reduce the destruction of a city into barbs against the President and the federal response while (1) a hundred thousand citizens ignored evacuation orders and (2) decades of negligence went unaccounted for strikes me as unfair.

Posted by: Mark at September 04, 2005 01:58 AM (qI3ib)

18 Strawman, I understand. It must be time consuming enough to spout your own hot air. Get back to me when you have time to actually discuss your excercises in multi-synapse firing. Mark, I don't think the feds should take blame for their inactions. I think they should take blame for their actions that were not authorized by the constitution, but that's a seperate issue. If Bush would have either kept his mouth shut or talked like he had some sense then it wouldn't be being discussed, let alone misunderstood. I don't think anyone here is trying to blame bush for doing a poor job (although that could be argued - it's just not being argued in this post). Bush is getting reamed not for the fed's response, but for the poor quality of his speech. No matter how much the feds were or weren't doing, his speech was counter-productive to say the least.

Posted by: Publicola at September 04, 2005 05:58 AM (vC8Ev)

19 Thanks, Publicola. "You also, I expected no lees, seem to be another big hearted guy with just the right sensitivity toward his fellow Americans." You want to judge me, Strawman? Here's a checklist of all my relatives on my mother's side of the family that live in the Metairie area of N.O.-- - 1 uncle, his wife, 2 kids - 1 uncle, his wife, 2 kids - 2 grandparents - 1 uncle - 1 uncle That's 5 of my family's households in the N.O. area that could possibly be flooded or looted now. Since they all made it out of there safely and they're related to me, then I guess they aren't worthy of your sensitivity either. BTW, I've also been living in N.O. since Fall 2003, douchebag. "Go crawl back under your rock you racist pig and try to figure out how you would transport your sack of shit self 300 miles north with out a car, bus fare ( or no busses running), two kids under 5 and your infirm mom and no family support in another location." Not all of the people that stayed behind were poor innocent folks. There were quite a few career criminals(thugs) out there that chose to stay behind to take advantage of the post-Katrina chaos.

Posted by: reagan80 at September 04, 2005 06:57 AM (PNElP)

20 "Finally we have the dregs of the citizenry themselves who refused to leave when ordered out" Casca......... You are one ignorant fool. How can you be so demeaning and uncaring of another human being? Many of these dregs of the citizenry had no way of moving themselves out of harms way. We, as people have a obligatory right to help whomever, regardless of their social background or ethnicity. In fact, most of the comments on this page disgust me. You all are for pro-life, but when that life becomes reality, you are for letting that life go by the wayside. LetÂ’s hear it for the Christian Right!!!!

Posted by: alnino at September 04, 2005 09:44 PM (esYGy)

21 Ragun (I cajunized it now that I know where you hail from), Other than telling me of the good fortune of your relatives, who obviously had resources, you did not answer my question but made another specious comment to the effect that some remained behind and willfully entered this hell on earth because it made for good stealing. You are truly an idiot.

Posted by: Strawman at September 05, 2005 10:54 AM (0ZdtC)

22 Hey Pub, Do you call the remark -"nobody could have guessed the levee's would break"- poor quality or just plain stupid? EVERYBODY knew the levee's could and very well might break and or be overcome. Bush speaks poorly, always has, very poor command of the English language, (that is the price one pays for not reading) but the real problem is he lies with alacrity. Congratulating Brown for FEMA's response? There was no response. That would be like giving the medal of freedom to George Tenant for his exemplary work preventing the 911 attack. Oh, wait a minute, he did do that didn't he. What a schmuck.

Posted by: Strawman at September 05, 2005 02:02 PM (0ZdtC)

23 Annika, Only if it is a Brooklyn Lager and you promise to leave your Sig on the West coast.

Posted by: Strawman at September 05, 2005 02:06 PM (0ZdtC)

24 Strawman, Bush said some unwise things. But you misunderstand the nature of FEMA. They're not first repsonders - they're long temr responders. Figure in 3 to 4 days minimum before FEMA gets rolling. I didn't dig Bush's speech & I don't dig Bush, but I'm pretty sure it's for very different reasons than you. Alnino - "obligatory right"??? Please. Elaborate. I'm wanting to hear this. Last I heard a right was discretional - you could excercise it or not. Never heard of one that was madatory, let alone one that was based on the pretense of altruism. & I assume you're of the philosophy which claims we owe a duty to support every life we're capable of? In other words you'd be cool with abortion, but once the baby is viable you'd insist on supporting it from cradle to grave despite its own capabilities &/or actualities? Or rather, have everyone else support it for you? Strawman again - speaking of not answering questions - well you'll have to forgive me. Apperently my fear is acting up & that interferes with my reading & I just couldn't seem to make out how you said you'd provide for you & yourn's protection in a NO type enviroment since you're so not afraid of firearms that you wouldn't own one? Miss Annika, Never trust a man who gets demanding about gifts & insists you meet him unarmed.

Posted by: Publicola at September 06, 2005 04:08 AM (vC8Ev)

25 Oh, Pub, She can go armed, just not a German gun, I'm Jewish you know. As for you other request, I really can't tell you how I would have protected my family, far too hypothetical a question, whereas my question to Raygun is very reality based. The roads, buses, and such were pretty predictable as compared to a violent looter or two or ten armed or not in groups or not, encountered or not. You just want to bang the drum head of fear, your favorite motivation.

Posted by: Strawman at September 06, 2005 04:37 PM (0ZdtC)

26 Moxie's favorite troll: Sorry, I can't answer that question. You can't either so it doesn't matter. "Other than telling me of the good fortune of your relatives, WHO OBVIOUSLY HAD RESOURCES" Yeah, my stretched Hummer limousine awaits..... Publicola: You've dignified his posts enough with your responses. Quit while you are miles ahead. You can enjoy some of Strawman's(a.k.a. Mike) classic posts here on Annie's blog: http://blog.mu.nu/cgi/splorp.cgi?entry_id=56018 Here's a sample: "How many saw the video from a battle earlier this year shown on CNN of an Iraqi writhing in the street wounded, when a GI laughs, pumps two more rounds into him and his buddies let out a few whoops and they all laugh. He tells a reporter a minute later "These guys are dead now, ya know, that's a good feeling. LetÂ’s do it again." Your army, not mine. Rubes and rednecks with guns. How do we rationalize the Apache pilots from the first gulf war yakking to each other over the radio as they play a video game of "rocket into truck" They were hovering and shooting rockets into trucks filled with retreating Iraqi soldiers. That's murder too or if you do it with a weapon "system" is it just cowardice or a war crime?" Before I go, I'll leave this parting thought for y'all to ponder: [Plus, can you imagine the outcry if the president had somehow forced a bunch of black people from their homes under the guise of a "mandatory evacuation"?]

Posted by: reagan80 at September 06, 2005 05:42 PM (71XrV)

27 What a bizarre country you guys live in! From the outside it's unbelievable that your "modern nation" is a disaster zone down south. We had a flood here last year. It was no big thing, but then, we don't all have guns left, right and centre. Looking at your State and Federal system - it's shocking. What's all this about a constitution that is not flexible? Are you really suggesting that those that are unable to move or require help should just die? And your "Fema" organisation - you said it takes 3 to 4 days to react. IS THAT REALLY GOOD ENOUGH? Do any of you have any idea that 10,000 people have died? You seem to be too busy firing cheap shots at each other not to have thought about the human tragedy. Get over your narrow minded issues. Forget politics, race, religion, mayors, right to life, etc. Focus on the raw issue. Then progress will follow. You can ask your questions and post your appalling snipes later. From abroad, this seems to be the scandal: USA knew that a storm was coming. Your government knew it was coming. Fema knew it was coming. Yet not much happened for days. So the city is 6 metres under water, next to the ocean, with poor (under financed) defences. Are you really that shocked that this happened? Bush is a shocker. He's done too little too late. You guys must be so red faced when ever he opens his mouth. He gives us Europeans a good laugh. So go on - throw your cheap shots at me too! It's fun watching you guys bitch all day!!

Posted by: Bob The Builder at September 06, 2005 06:14 PM (Xbt/8)

28 For anyone who wants to take a crack at Bob's condescening post, his IP address reveals that he is from England. No wonder he kept a secret.

Posted by: annika at September 06, 2005 06:57 PM (aTy6U)

29 Publicola I misspoke by saying an obligitory right (hell W misspeaks all of the time)... I should of said an obligitory duty. I was wrong in my wording but not my intent. As far as abortion, personally I feel that it is wrong. I fell that every life is important, but I also feel that freedom of choice is provided to us in the Constitution. And politics aside, YES we have an obligation to take care of all in need. Isn't that what W and the Christian Right read in their bibles? Hmmmmm, a sense a bit of hypocrasy coming out of DC these days.

Posted by: alnino at September 06, 2005 08:36 PM (esYGy)

30 At the risk of igniting a new thread, i have to ask out of curiosity, alnino: why do you feel that abortion is wrong? you may respond to me by email if you like.

Posted by: annika at September 06, 2005 08:48 PM (CHFQA)

31 Anni, What is there about Bob's post that is debatable? His observations about the pre- knowledge of the storm and the lack of preparedness are self evident. No debate necessary. Response was slow. I really don't know who to blame exactly but there is NO DOUBT the response could have been and should have better if someone was awake at the switch. Do I think if it had been Simi Valley that flooded and the folks on the roof had white faces and little blonde kids that the response would have been faster and more earnest-Yes. You only have to look at the press coverage of the missing children in this country. WHen did you ever see a TV or print news story of a missing black child that lasted more than a day? Racisim is institutionalized and runs very deep in America. RAYGUN, I stand by those two posts. In fact I showed the tape of those two event to someone yesterday. Turned her stomach and broke her heart. "Our soldiers did that" she exclaimed. "disgusting, I had no idea" It is making her think twice about the good people of Iraq and our president the Butcher of Crawford-war criminal. I know there are some bad people in Iraq but do you think killing 10000 good people- women and children, and decimating a society was the best way to get at them? Would you like me to email you the clips?

Posted by: Strawman at September 07, 2005 04:35 PM (0ZdtC)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Here's some advice from Confederate Yankee on what we now know should be an essential item in every disaster readiness kit.

Linky thanks to the ever-vigilant Publicola.

Posted by: annika at 02:08 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 41 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I vote for the shotgun. Nothing scares a human more than facing a shotgun ready to go off. Consequently, you will probably not have to pull the trigger. The other advantage of a shotgun is that it is hard to miss when you do pull the trigger. I use a 1oz 00 buckshot shell. Some may think that shell is too small, but I don't want to remodel the house after I pull the trigger.

Posted by: Jake at September 02, 2005 02:29 PM (r/5D/)

2 See, you better believe I will be the new owner of a firearm in the near future. Possibly a lady S&W revolver. Still thinking... A friend accused me of being "too fearful" and told me "guns are not the answer" but you know what? Fear is what keeps humans alive. And I'd rather have a gun and not need it, than not have a gun and need one. Oh well.

Posted by: Amy Bo Bamy at September 02, 2005 02:29 PM (kxatG)

3 i'm totally with you Amy. i never thought i'd want a gun either. i did grow up in the Bay Area after all. But now, after hearing the horror stories of lawlessness that can happen, i'm thinking differently. You know the same thing could happen in California when the "big one" occurs. People keep saying the "big one" is coming, and everytime we have a big earthquake, the experts say it was big but it's not the "big one." Which is really scary.

Posted by: annika at September 02, 2005 02:56 PM (yRmC2)

4 When I moved out of my dad's house to start my first real job in the city, he gave me three things: a Mossberg 12 gauge, a box full of various ammo, and a handshake. If there's one thing that I would add to Confederate Yankee's post is the consideration of location. If you live in an apartment building or heavily developed area, then you need to consider where a shot might go if you happen to miss. A pistol can be loaded with hydro-shock (or similar) ammo that will mushroom in a sheetrock wall as easily as it will in a would-be looter. A shotgun will blow a large hole in that same wall, but won't keep going like a rifle bullet will. I'd recommend a shotgun over a pistol simply because you need to stay in better practice with a pistol to be as effective with it. We'd all love to go to the range regularly, but that's not always practical. With some good initial practice, anyone can be effective with a shotgun without shooting regularly.

Posted by: Trevor at September 02, 2005 02:58 PM (GtBBB)

5 Amy, I've seen the repsonse you sai dyour friend had before. The best & most snarky way to reply is that guns are the answer; they've just not understood the question. Trevor, Hydrashoks or any other hollowpoint will act just like full metal jacket ammo when they hit sheetrock. They rely on fluidic materials to initiate expansion & sheet rock isn't thick enough or damp enough to initiate expansion - least not in any meaningful sense. There are frangible projectiles out there - it's just hollowpoints aren't them. & I could nit pick CY's post (which I will eventually - good naturedly of course - us gun nuts have to stick together even when internecine conflicts arise) but his advice is prety solid as is. He's not really worried about over pentration (i.e. going through walls) simply cause the main concern is to stop whoever is attacking you. What he speaks of isn't the usual aprtment dweller consideration where over pentration should be considered. & it's practical to go to a range. It may not be convenient but it's very damn practical. If you're in some place that it's not, then move. Shooting is like any other skill; you need to practice it periodically to maintain your skill level. & miss Annika - yw for the linky thanks (damn that sounds almost kinky) but Cali has many, many things to be scared of. Did I ever tell you how bad the gun control laws were out there...? But then again I'm just a fear peddlar & not to be taken seriously lol

Posted by: Publicola at September 02, 2005 05:35 PM (vC8Ev)

6 Cola, I'm not saying a sheetrock wall will stop a hydrashok (thanks for the spelling correction btw,) only that it reduces the projectile's ability to pentrate subsequent targets, hopefully rendering it less than lethal to anyone not placed directly on the other side. My point is that a shotgun's lower muzzle velocity offers better safety while allowing for less practice. While I agree with Kim Du Toit's notion of a Nation of Rifleman, I'm doubtful that it will become ubiquitous. You don't have to convince me of the usefullness. I specifically bought a a large tract of land on which I'm building a home so that I can practice at my convenience. I'm lucky, but most folks aren't. I'd rather they learn the basics of shotgun work than give up on regular pistol practice when they find they can't fit it into their daily grind.

Posted by: Trevor at September 02, 2005 07:30 PM (GtBBB)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

First, read The Anchoress every day. Here's an excerpt from her post yesterday.

The sad people who sit around like self-gratifying monkeys, constantly working their hate, working it and working it, are longing for release - for an orgasm that can only occur upon the utter political, personal and (for some) physical destruction of a human being named George W. Bush. Until they have that destruction, and that orgasm, nothing else matters. Nothing. And nothing can be seen by them, except through the prism of that hateful desire.

. . .

Hate tends to consume the hater, and I read some of the remarks some folks are making and think…are you so in love with your hate that you cannot let it go long enough to say 'let us band together and put politics aside, for now…' because this really is not the time to drive political daggers - it is not the time to try to figure out if the traditionally Democratic leadership in this state or that contributed to a city’s unpreparedness and vulnerability. It is not the time to sit and seethe with resentment or guffaw in anticipatory glee about how 'this will sink the Repugs in ‘06!'

Trivia question: Name a disaster of any magnitude in which the government has not been criticized for responding too slowly. Hell, we had a building fire in Sacramento a few weeks back and the news for the next few days was all about why the local fire department took too long to arrive.

It's not just that state, local and federal agencies have been incompetent. The scope of the disaster would have made even a perfectly planned response seem incompetent. By way of thought experiment, here's a small example. Where are the busses to evacuate people from the Superdome? Flooded, by the hundreds in a parking lot. Why can't we fix them? All the mechanics are gone and there's no electricity. Why can't we get enough busses there from outside? Roads are flooded and destroyed. What looks like an adequate number of busses suddenly is inadequate as word gets out that busses are coming and even more people flock to the Superdome.

Another important lesson: the idea of a citizen militia as originally envisioned by the writers of the Second Amendment is not, repeat NOT, outdated.

Posted by: annika at 07:55 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 494 words, total size 3 kb.

1 You need to seriously refine your writing. It is so overwrought and unseemingly. Have you considered an essay class at the local community college?

Posted by: rextilleon at September 02, 2005 08:09 AM (fNfZ0)

2 You will pay dearly for that, Rex.

Posted by: reagan80 at September 02, 2005 08:16 AM (+eJCK)

3 One thing that is obvious to me is that there were a large number of people who, for a variety of reasons, did not or could not evacuate. This is not an unexpected disaster and it appears that the community of New Orleans had either inadequate or no plans on how to evacuate and shelter those who could not do so for themselves.

Posted by: shug at September 02, 2005 09:04 AM (U7X+u)

4 Excellent Annika. The same hate that drives the left in America is the same hate that drove the left to execute 80,000,000 people in other countries. That hate is a frightening thing. Just think how the people suffer in countries are where the government runs everything. We are getting a taste through Katrina what life in those countries is like. A life of desperation, despair and death.

Posted by: Jake at September 02, 2005 09:05 AM (r/5D/)

5 Uh, Rex. Refine your own writing. It's unseemly, not unseemingly. Have you considered going back to high school for remedial English classes? It just never ceases to amaze how people feel the need to make snide remarks on personal blogs.

Posted by: Blake at September 02, 2005 09:11 AM (SyBXi)

6 Hell yeah the idea of a citizen militia is not outdated -- what's unfortunate is that it took an event like this for me to realize it. Right now I am not entirely opposed to the idea of going out and buying myself a shotgun. I understand that people are hurt, lost, feeling desperate, and frustrated but it amazes me the magnitude in which there is a complete and utter disregard for the law; and the harm that is being directed toward those who are doing their best to HELP. Or maybe I just don't understand.

Posted by: Amy Bo Bamy at September 02, 2005 10:50 AM (kxatG)

7 rex, didn't you see the title of the post? i did it in a rush... if you have trouble understanding my writing, it's usually better the more time i have to proofread and edit. However, i don't think i need to go back and take a remedial english course. i have one graduate degree and im working on another. my verbal SAT was at the top of the scale. Same for my LSAT. so don't worry about me, i should be teaching an essay writing class.

Posted by: annika at September 02, 2005 01:18 PM (zAOEU)

8 To: Annika Yes, the idea of a militia should be revived. To: Amy Bo Bamy May I recommend a Remington Model 870 12 gauge loaded with 00 buckshot?

Posted by: The Angle of Repose at September 02, 2005 01:44 PM (FNfV2)

9 Amy, If I rad right you're in Tx but ame from Hawaii? Purchasing a firearm in Texas involves minimal hassle but it's always better to have one & learn how to use it well before you need it. Hawaii though - it's one of the worst states for gun owners. A permit is required for any firearm; the issuing authority has arbitrary discretion over issuance; a one year epiration date for long guns permits; a 10 day expiration day for handgun permits; a minimum 14 dy wait for a permit to be issued once you apply; complete registration of all firearms; carrying is technical possible with a license but problematic at best, etc... I mention this cause Hawaii, being an island (chain) is much more likely to go through something like NO has than say Texas. So if you have family or friends still there or you ever think about heading back you might wanna try to get some of those laws changed. Rex, When the adults are through commenting, raise your hand & we'll get to you soon. really. we mean that. Miss Annika, You're one of the best writers I've seen. You shouldn't even take comments like Rex's seriously. But libertarians are only right about one thing? I think at least two; the point you mentioned & private actors (i.e. charities like the Salvation Army) are more effective at helping individuals than government is. I'll grant it's debatable to some extent & government can perform necessry roles, but if it weren't for the private actors think of how much worse things could be.

Posted by: Publicola at September 02, 2005 02:24 PM (vC8Ev)

10 Many of today's "progressives" seem to be capable of only two emotions: anger and resentment. Recent decades of leadership--by journalists, professors, and Democratic politicians--have instructed people that the proper response to any problem is *not* to think coherently about how to fix it, or to empathize with the victims, or to do something which actually helps--rather, it's to express one's rage.

Posted by: David Foster at September 02, 2005 02:55 PM (7TmYw)

11 "Where are the busses to evacuate people from the Superdome?" In the midst of all the fucking water, that people would still think ground transporation--and ground trasportation ONLY--is the best way to get large numbers of people out continues to strike me as something bordering on insane. Instead of dealing with flooded/destroyed/unstable roads, bridges and causeways into a city accessible only by a few choke points even at the best of times, um, the river's less than two miles straight down Canal Street from the Superdome.

Posted by: Dave J at September 02, 2005 08:28 PM (8XpMm)

12 "It's ironic that the very people who didn't trust the government when it told them to evacuate before the storm hit are now living in hell because they are waiting for the government to come and save them." Excellent point, Annika.

Posted by: Mark at September 03, 2005 02:44 AM (7xNjY)

13 "To: Amy Bo Bamy May I recommend a Remington Model 870 12 gauge loaded with 00 buckshot?" Or a mossberg? (in the same gague and ammo) Those two shotguns are the top selling. http://www.mossberg.com/

Posted by: cube at September 06, 2005 07:55 AM (nyNr0)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

i just read one of the dumbest things i've read in a while. "Lack Of Mandate On Iraq Haunts Bush," by Ron Elving, NPR's "supervising senior Washington editor." Knowledge of history or political science seems not to be a pre-requisite for his job. On the contrary, the ability to produce a slanted argument from out one's butthole looks like an asset.

While the premise―Bush's lack of a mandate on the Iraq War―is reasonable enough, the op-ed piece went downhill soon after the byline. Elving's theory, no doubt taught to impressionable young minds when he was a professor at Georgetown's Graduate Public Policy Institute, is that "the scope of [a president's] plans must be matched by the breadth of [his] support.

Elving calls this the Rule of Proportionate Mandate. i cannot find any mention of such a rule in my own library, but never mind. It seems reasonable when applied to republics such as ours. That is, as long as one ignores the historical exceptions to the so-called rule. The plans of Lincoln, FDR, Truman and even Churchill are the most obvious examples.

But this quote here is a real doozie:

Before invading Iraq, the administration of President Bush needed the broad backing of three constituencies: the Iraqi people, the international community and the American public. In each case, the administration heard just enough of what it wanted to hear to conclude it had sufficient support. In each case, it was wrong. [emphasis added]

Wow. This guy was teaching graduate students? In D.C. no less. That's scary.

Elving goes on to re-state the tired old canard that the "Coalition of the Willing" was really a disguise for unilateral action. Never mind the much debated question of whether the over 48 countries who initially signed on to help us were "window dressing" or not. Since when has the commander-in-chief been prohibited from exercising the war powers unilaterally? There is no such requirement in Constitutional law or history. Let's be clear. A president has never been required to seek "the broad backing of the international community." That's complete hogwash. i'll agree that international support is nice to have, but true leadership does not find it necessary before acting.

Then Elving says that support for the war has never been an overwhelming majority such "as in the case of Pearl Harbor or the invasion of Afghanistan." Again, hogwash. In January 2004, for example, 65% of Americans polled by the Pew Research Center thought that the war in Iraq was the "right decision," versus only 30% who thought it was the "wrong decision." Note that support for the war continued to lead by 20 points or more even when Bush's approval rating dipped below his disapproval rating a few months later, according to Pew.

Elving might rightly point out that previous support for the war has eroded today,* but for him to say that it never existed is a lie, and he should know better.

[cross-posted at A Western Heart]
_______________

* In my opinion, this is thanks to a combination of consistent media negativity and consistently inept public relations at the White House.

Posted by: annika at 11:32 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 558 words, total size 4 kb.

What is happening in New Orleans and the Gulf Coast is awful. i had no idea this storm's aftermath would be so severe. And it looks like only the beginning.

i watched Fox News this morning and Shepard Smith was saying that his crew was planning to leave. He thought that by staying, they would be taking resources away from the victims. i think that's a mistake.

This is one case where the media can do more good by covering the story as much as possible. Yah, i never thought i'd say that either. This disaster looks worse than anything i've ever imagined. It needs to be reported, so people can help with donations or in any way they can.

My suggestion to the media would be to spend money. Make the crews self sufficient and join in the relief effort. Fuck the rule against becoming part of the story, they never follow that rule anyway. They should bring bottled water. They should also continue to keep emergency workers informed about what they see or people who need rescuing.

Update: Journalist and Louisiana expat Ken Wheaton has much more.

Posted by: annika at 07:04 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 193 words, total size 1 kb.

For those in Southern California interested in lending support, the Crawford Texas Caravan in support of our troops is heading your way.

On Tuesday at 3:05pm, we will be arriving in Burbank at KFI studio, 3400 W. Olive Avenue to appear on the John and Ken Show.

On Wednesday at 8:00am, we will be arriving in San Diego at KOGO studio, 9660 Granite Ridge Drive, San Diego to appear live on the Roger Hedgecock Show. Roger will be broadcasting from the parking lot so our supporters can join him during the broadcast.

PLEASE - if you are anywhere near where our caravan will be, we NEED you to make plans to meet us at the caravan stops... and if possible join the caravan for part of the way.

Posted by: annika at 08:05 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 146 words, total size 1 kb.

The next time i hear someone say that Iraqi women were better off when Saddam was in power, i'm going to scream. Why are so many people saying that? Do they all get the same stupidity newsletter?

Listen up. When the son of a country's leader goes around town picking out women, who are then abducted, raped, and their husbands killed, that is not a situation that any sane person should characterize as "better off."

Posted by: annika at 10:22 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 87 words, total size 1 kb.

Way to go, Bob.

Posted by: annika at 10:44 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 10 words, total size 1 kb.

i won't tippy-toe around the subject of Mrs. Sheehan. She disgusts me. i think she's wrong to do what she's doing and i think she should stop. i don't think she deserves the respect that everybody in the media, including supposed right-wing attack dogs like Bill O'Reilly, Hannity and others. The people she's allied herself with are dishonest and anti-American.

Mrs. Sheehan should stop what she's doing because she is going to get more soldiers and marines killed. She is asking the President to surrender. Let's call it what it is. She is asking for the surrender of the United States. She's asking us to declare defeat. And that is not going to happen. Not with this president. Given that we are not going to surrender, her continued protest will result in more deaths.

Thanks to the breathless coverage her anti-war allies in the media have given Mrs. Sheehan, the enemy is getting the impression that they can win if they can only kill more U.S. troops in the sneaky, cowardly way they've been using. People like Sheehan and her fawning fans hate this country, and they would love to see another Vietnam style defeat because they think America deserves defeat. i think that's evil.

If Sheehan really wants the troops to come home, she should be doing everything she can to break the will of the enemy, so our men and women can do their jobs and get out of there as soon as possible. Instead she's fueling the enemy's impression that they are breaking our will. And if her actions lengthen this "occupation" (as she so tellingly calls it) one day longer than necessary, any extra blood spilled is on her hands.

So i'm not going to tip-toe around the subject of Mrs. Sheehan just because of her son's sacrifice in a noble cause that i believe will keep me safe. No, Mrs. Sheehan is deluded and as long as she's helping the enemy, whether intentionally or not, to her i say Fuck You.

Sheehan wants to know what the "noble cause" is that her son died for. i wonder where the American spirit went, which was articulated so well by Robert Kennedy when he said: "Some people see things as they are and say why? I dream things that never were and say why not?"

The noble cause is a free, democratic and prosperous Iraq. That's the thing that never was, and we should all be asking "why not?" If only Sheehan and her fans could put aside their Bush hatred, their shame at being American, and ask themselves: if we could only be successful in Iraq, wouldn't that be a good thing? And if the answer is yes, shouldn't we all do whatever it takes to achieve that goal?

How could anyone say that surrendering to the terrorists would be better than standing up to them? The thing is, while most Americans are growing tired of this war, we do not want to surrender. That's a question the polls are not asking. "Do you want to surrender to the terrorists?" If the polls were phrased that way, you'd see a much different picture than the anti-war crowd wants you to believe.

i just don't get these people who have so little faith in the power of Americans to achieve what they set out to do. We can be successful in Iraq. i have no doubt of it. If they think the goal of a free and democratic country in the heart of the middle east would be a bad thing, that's different. But who could say such a thing? And if they were to admit that success in Iraq would be a good thing, then get on board and help make it happen.

[cross-posted at A Western Heart]

Required reading: You simply must read Varifrank's essay on Sheehan. To excerpt it would not do it justice, so please read the whole thing. It's a fine piece of writing.

Posted by: annika at 06:57 PM | Comments (59) | Add Comment
Post contains 659 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Two-quick thoughts: 1.) The MSM can't manage to find any heroes in Iraq, yet they sure as hell can turn a hero's mother into a noble dissenter. 2.) I'm making a prediction that some lefty nutjob will link this as evidence of the hate on the right. Can you do me a favor, and just answer with this: STOP TRYING TO SILENCE MY DISSENT! BECAUSE OF THE HYPOCRISY! (I'm hoping that this will start a series of paranoid delusions on all the lefty sites in which they'll insist that you're actually Jeff Goldstein.)

Posted by: Trevor at August 11, 2005 07:25 PM (GtBBB)

2 Excellent, Excellent, Excellent. This is the best writing I have seen on this subject.

Posted by: Jake at August 11, 2005 08:17 PM (r/5D/)

3 I hope we all remember this woman in a few years when the situation has stabilised in Iraq. Then we can come back on the lefties and say: You see, you were all wrong, you protested against giving people freedom, and you even put a poor stupid woman up to pissing on her own son's bravery and sacrifice.

Posted by: Kyle at August 12, 2005 03:47 AM (4t42C)

4 Annika, I read your blog every morning and you have not let me down. You hit the nail on the head with this one. You have never been a pansy and will make the bar proud when you finish internship. calvin

Posted by: Calvin at August 12, 2005 04:33 AM (5fFEd)

5 Well said. Would we have ever heard of Casey, were it not for his mother's embrace of the anti-war nuts?

Posted by: Pursuit at August 12, 2005 04:53 AM (n/TNS)

6 I'm going to make the 1.5 hour drive up to Crawford this aftennoon (I live in Austin). I'm going to print this post and hand it out to all the protestors. I might even pick a sentence or two and use it for my large counter-protest poster.

Posted by: Robbie at August 12, 2005 07:07 AM (lbWbV)

7 "If they think the goal of a free and democratic country in the heart of the middle east would be a bad thing, that's different. But who could say such a thing?" Many on the left might not say such a thing openly, but they think it. Specifically, they think nothing could be worse for Iraq than to become a country resembling in any way the United States. I've seen snide comments about bringing McDonald's and Wal-Mart to Iraq, as if that would be worse than Saddam's torture chambers and rape rooms.

Posted by: David Foster at August 12, 2005 07:08 AM (7TmYw)

8 Yes, hurry up and pass the bar; we need at least a couple more clear thinkers to go with the overwhelming passel of knee-jerk libs. As to Mrs. Casey; I was gratified to hear that this morning the rest of the family publicly rebuked her and said that she was desecrating the memory of her beloved son and that they deeply regretted HER actions. They further said she was taking advantage of her son's death to glorify herself and promote her own self and views. Good for them; shame on her. Incidentally, I have it first hand, from Karl Rove, that each time Bush goes to any city, he meets, totally privately, with family of deceased and gravely wounded servicemen and servicewomen. He will not allow reporters or photographers to report on any such meetings, but Karl said that he leaves each meeting deeply affected. When the issue arises about the deaths and wounded, Bush has said to him things like "You don't have to hug these people and feel their pain, I do" and "I am conscious of each and every decison I make that causes pain so to many" (or, something quite close to this). This cannot be an exact quote, as there were a few people there, and taking notes would have been gauche, but it was stirring to hear this, and I know it is true.

Posted by: shelly at August 12, 2005 07:09 AM (6mUkl)

9 This President has taken more shit in time of war than any President since Lincoln, who only became popular after he got shot. I feel 50% sympathy for Cindy and 51% total contempt.

Posted by: ps at August 12, 2005 08:00 AM (rJQZO)

10 Good to see you haven't lost the fastball, Annika.

Posted by: Jason O. at August 12, 2005 08:27 AM (2CAKL)

11 Tomorrow, unless she has Secret Service protection, Cindy Sheehan will come face to face with a certain Marine Mom we know. She is going to Crawford to make the point that Ms. Sheehan does not represent the vast majority of military families. I know Linda. Cindy doesn't stand a chance.

Posted by: Becker at August 12, 2005 08:33 AM (Nlp5A)

12 Well done. I'm with Jason: this was a four-seamer, right down the pipe. Don't give 'em unearned respect. Babe Ruth is dead.

Posted by: gcotharn at August 12, 2005 09:02 AM (rkq1p)

13 Way to go, Robbie. Wish I could be there with you.

Posted by: d-rod at August 12, 2005 09:11 AM (xmskQ)

14 We are not a conscript military. Everyone who wears the uniform does so of their own free will. Her son, a true American hero, volunteered into an all volunteer military to defend his country. Her son died doing what he chose to do. His sacrifice is being desecrated by his own mother. While I grieve for her loss, she needs to be bitch slapped for demeaning her son's sacrifice and the sacrifices of all our Fallen. In this age of up your ass media this continued spewing of giving up is beyond disgraceful. Our deployed Warriors deserve the peace of mind that comes with the knowledge that they have the support of this country and that we are in it to win it. Nothing less is acceptable.

Posted by: Theresa at August 12, 2005 01:49 PM (nDaxF)

15 She's a misguided and angry woman who is seeking someone to blame over the loss of her son. While I sympathize with any parent who loses their child to war, I find her self-righteous posturing to be much aid and comfort to the enemy. Least surprising of all is the mainstream media, which conveniently ignores the steadfast focus of families who still believe in this cause, while falling over itself to bow down toward this angry Mom.

Posted by: Mark at August 12, 2005 02:55 PM (Vg0tt)

16 thanks for the props. i take it you guys didn't like the Button blogging?

Posted by: annika at August 12, 2005 04:24 PM (ntxd4)

17 I love you anni, but Verifrank has the bests I've seen: http://varifrank.com/archives/2005/08/the_call.php

Posted by: Casca at August 12, 2005 06:01 PM (5BNB0)

18 Well, Casca, I was about to ask you if you would trade a great sexy, super intelligent woman for some single piece of wordsmithing, but I decided to read the piece first. The link didn't work, but I just went to the home site. The man can write. And, I emphacize more than most, having lost a stepson, and the virtual company of my wife, his mother, for the better part of four years. I lived the same agony, emptiness, and depression that he described so artfully, and I do understnd some of what this woman is feeling. But, she is a fraud. Her own family has rebuked her (see my comments earlier) and I now hear she is running for Congress. On her dead son. Pitiful. Shameful. It's close, but I am sticking with Annie. She has a lot more potential to develop, anyway.

Posted by: shelly at August 12, 2005 06:39 PM (6mUkl)

19 I don't know... I simply cannot make myself to say anything bad about this woman. Negative, yes, but bad, no. She's deeply, deeply hurt, and people do irrational things when dealing with the death of a family member. I'm appalled at how she's choosing to deal with her grief, but for some odd reason, I can't generate any anger or outrage at her actions. I'm more saddened by them. Though I disagree with what she says and does, I can almost understand her actions, and I admit, I'm having a difficult time bringing myself to condemn them. But the vultures that circle her, feeding her lines and falsely appearing to provide solace in exchange for leaching the authority she provides as the mother of a dead soldier... those people I can feel angry about. It's like she's only important to them now, after her son has died. Where were they when her son was still alive and merely suffering the heat & fear of serving in a hostile, dangerous war zone. And where are they for the soldiers still alive? "We support our troops, let's bring them home"? How do you "support" someone by campaigning against what they stand for, what they've sacrificed for up till now, and what they're trying to accomplish for the future? Campaigning for them to come home now is like saying: "Oh, you were a pawn in this whole game, and all your hard work ridding Iraq of a murderous dictator, building schools and hospitals, and fighting those violent remnants of a vicious twisted ideology that threatens Iraq is nothing in comparison to us stopping Bush." It seems as though the soldiers are only important to the war protestors as objects to act on as per their worldview. Not as independently thinking human beings themselves who by virtue of their collective service and sacrifice have just as much right call for the US to see things through as Mrs. sheenan has to call for a withdrawl. And also have as much right as anyone to say "Let us finish the job", as many milbloggers have said (in so many words). Where will those activists be when Mrs. Sheenan's no longer important to them?

Posted by: E.M.H. at August 12, 2005 07:03 PM (Ynd4F)

20 The decent thing to do when one comes across another at their worst is to avert the gaze. Let us speak of her no more.

Posted by: Casca at August 12, 2005 09:05 PM (qBTBH)

21 The opposite of love is not hate. It is apathy. Next thread, please.

Posted by: shelly at August 13, 2005 05:55 AM (6mUkl)

22 Nothing this administration used as a justification to go to war was true. It was all deception - no WMDs - no connection to 9/11 - no tons of bio weapons - no long range UMVs - no aluminum tubes for nukes - no mobile weapon labs - no yellow cake - no nuke program - no cooperation with Al Qeada - no flower&candy reception - no mass graves - no Iraqi oil money paying all the bills. No truth - it was all lies; lies used to sell us on an illegal, and ill-advised, war. Despite an amazing military and extremely dedicated soldiers, we are failing to meet our goals in this war. Both the new goals, that whole 'democracy' ploy, and the real goals we had for going to war - long-term control of the oil, permanent military bases, and the 'love us or we will stomp you' message for the neighbors - all seem to be failing. In addition, the insurgency is stronger today than ever - because as far as they can tell, they are defending their homes and national resources from foreign invaders. We are about to start scrapping the bottom of the barrel to find new recruits - because all the smart ones are leaving. Our military will be left in tatters - filled with only the most dedicated, the most desperate and the most ignorant our country has to offer. The war was a mistake. We are not making the world safer, we are not making things better in Iraq, we flushed our credibility down the toilet, and our economy will soon be following. The neo-cons bought their own propaganda, and fired/shunned any that tried to tell them anything they didn't want to hear or believe. When told that we would need more troops - early retirement. When told that it could cost hundreds of bilions - You're Fired! When confronted with a growing insurgency - they claim they are 'in their last throes'. They still lie - you still believe - and soldiers die almost every day. The question you need to answer is: How many soldiers will you stand by and allow to die in order to defend the president's lies?

Posted by: Mr Mike at August 15, 2005 02:27 AM (wR4hA)

23 Mr. Mike, you're a cowardly jackass and a liar. Spew your propaganda on your own blog.

Posted by: annika at August 15, 2005 08:36 AM (Hw5xJ)

24 If the war is such a noble cause, why aren't all of the pro-war bloggers, such as yourself, reporting for duty? Why haven't we invaded any countries in Africa? There are thousands being killed everyday by corrupt governments. They need democracy too, right? Why Iraq??

Posted by: ruby at August 15, 2005 10:38 AM (+bPcD)

25 That argument is old and fallacious and no one here buys it anyway. but even if it were valid, it works both ways. if the US is so evil and the war is so wrong, why aren't all the anti-war trolls, like yourself, over in pakistan training for the "resistance?"

Posted by: annika at August 15, 2005 10:54 AM (zAOEU)

26 I never said the US is so evil nor did I say the war was wrong. But you sure were quick to pounce and twist my words, weren't you? Interesting points, but I noticed mostly that you didn't answer the questions. That, in itself, speaks volumes. By the way "anti-war" generally means Peace, not "training for resistance" which would imply fighting a war.

Posted by: ruby at August 15, 2005 11:20 AM (+bPcD)

27 huh? your comment implied that you disagree with the assertion that the war is "such a noble cause." perhaps you should explain your contradiction so i can ridicule you more properly.

Posted by: annika at August 15, 2005 01:18 PM (ujWJ+)

28 >>Mr. Mike, you're a cowardly jackass and a liar. Spew your propaganda on your own blog. Ah, if only wishing made it so. Please point out my lies. Please point out what I said that is not true. You can't, because everything I said is true. You would, but deep down you know that there is no way you can actually defend your misguided beliefs against someone that knows what they are talking about. Come on - show me your courage - stand up for your beliefs. (ps - there is one thing that I got wrong - can you find it? or do you really have NO idea what has gone on in Iraq?)

Posted by: Mr Mike at August 15, 2005 04:35 PM (wR4hA)

29 >>if the US is so evil and the war is so wrong, why aren't all the anti-war trolls, like yourself, over in pakistan training for the "resistance?" It is this simplistic black&white worlds view that gets you in trouble. "If the US is so Evil"? What kinda bullshit is that? There are individuals that have done evil things from their position of power within the US government. There are corporations and organizations based in the US that have done evil things as well. This does not make all of the US evil. It means that DECENT Americans should be paying attention and trying to prevent evil from being done in their name. Pop Quiz: Who created Al Qeada? Answer: the CIA and, indirectly, every American that paid taxes in the early 80's. The war is wrong, and the war was a mistake. Does that mean I want to go and kill soldiers? That I want to go and kill my niece and nephew (both are currently serving in Iraq)? Of course not. Such thinking lacks logic. What you are doing, even though I doubt you realize it, is to take the opinions of those that you disagree with and distort them to their extremes. You do this becasue you are unable to argue against what they are actually saying, so you must lie about what they mean, and then argue with your own lies. It is much easier to argue against your own lies, ain't it? Why do you think you do this? Could it be that you lack the courage to defend the propaganda the YOU seem to have been tricked into accepting at face value? How many soldiers will die while you struggle to face facts?

Posted by: Mr. Mike at August 15, 2005 04:41 PM (wR4hA)

30 i don't argue with nitwits like you because its pointless. Saying that i "lack courage" don't make it so. it's you that don't have the courage to start your own blog, and put your ideas out there every single day for people to challenge, agree with, make fun of, whatever. just like i'm letting you do right now. Don't tell me i'm unable to argue against people like you, i've been doing it on the main page for almost two and a half years. Trolls like you don't even have the guts to put your own e-mail address in the comment form. What are you scared of? Every one of you trolls is exactly the same: no blog & a fake email. As for your comments, they're so full of lies and distortions, i don't have the patience to go through it all. When you say something as crazy as "no mass graves" you signal to me that no amount of reasoning will be possible. You're not the first troll to come by here. It doesn't matter what i say in response. It would be a collosal waste of time for me to get into it with you. You'll argue semantics where you can; dodge where you can't; cite propaganda as fact, and hope i'll just get tired of arguing. Then you win. Well, i'm not gonna play. If you really wanna know what annika thinks, its all there for you to read. But i suspect you don't care, and you won't be convinced anyway, so why do you bother even coming here? All i can say is i'm so glad people like you are not running this country. In fact, i should thank God every day for that. Our government isn't perfect, but you my friend are so whacked out, it's off the chart.

Posted by: annika at August 15, 2005 06:28 PM (Ia5Nr)

31 To RUBY and Mr. MIKE and "anti-War" warriors: The lack of war does not mean that peace exists. Had Bush and Company not invaded Iraq and attacked global terror head on, do you truly believe that "peace" would exist? Do you suspect that al Queda and its sub groups would be suddenly content? Of course not. The only peace that you are concerned with is your own peace of mind. Mr. Mike and Ruby: please check my site. On the left column is nearly two dozen links on WMDs found in Iraq, WMD producing equipment, WMDs materials and small and large quantities moved out of Iraq, etc. You have not been paying attention. I have. Perhaps you wanted a signed telegram from Mr. Saddam Hussein admitting to his WMD program? You and the rest of the anti-war brigade are tragically uninformed.

Posted by: Mark at August 15, 2005 07:57 PM (Vg0tt)

32 Mark! What a marvelous resource you've gathered -- ThanQ! Mike -- Really? And who created Wahabbism and the New Islamic resurgence? How about the Pan Arab movement? Yes, we, in the form of the CIA, supported some Islamic folk fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan -- to both our benefits. I think Usama binLaden [kurac na batini] declaring war on the US was *not* of CIA making. The CIA was, I believe, not the originator of the term "America - the Great Satan." Not exactly **nuance** but perhaps a touch more complex, factually, than your 'arguments.' There is no way to know -- perhaps for years -- whether or not the Iraq war was 'a mistake.' But we're there now; to leave would be a recreation of a sin to rival that which we created when we cut and ran from Viet Nam [for many of the same 'reasons' you mention... hmmm...] leaving Pol Pot to slaughter 2-3 million people [some for the 'sin' of wearing glasses.] The fact is that we have freed 25 million people from a murdering dictator only slightly less psycho than Stalin. That's not too bad. We're giving them support and a chance at creating a free society -- free of rape rooms, disappearings and burkas. Not so dusty, either. Or is it that 'those little brown people' are unimportant and not worth our time and effort?

Posted by: Claire at August 15, 2005 08:59 PM (l1oyw)

33 "By the way "anti-war" generally means Peace, not "training for resistance" which would imply fighting a war." At certain points, like this point in time, antiwar means supporting the resistance. "With us or against us" has a resonance many don't quite yet grasp. Silence during a lynching doesn't mean one is a pacifist, just a coward.

Posted by: Jane at August 15, 2005 09:07 PM (ywZa8)

34 Ruby sez Why haven't we invaded any countries in Africa? There are thousands being killed everyday by corrupt governments. They need democracy too, right? Why Iraq?? Is this is where you really want to go with the meme that no action should be taken anywhere unless all action is taken everywhere? Why NOT Iraq?

Posted by: Darleen at August 15, 2005 10:46 PM (FgfaV)

35 Ruby also sez If the war is such a noble cause, why aren't all of the pro-war bloggers, such as yourself, reporting for duty? Yes, Ruby, as we all know the military is just rife with Leftists, Libs and Dems who voted overwhelmingly for Kerry. What was that? They DIDN't? How can that be when the definition of a "chickenhawk" is a NeoConXtianZionistChimpyMcHitler lover who NEVER joins the military?

Posted by: Darleen at August 15, 2005 10:49 PM (FgfaV)

36 Some of us are too old to join the military, and then even if we weren't too old, some of us have chronic health problems preventing us from joining the military. So we don't join the military. And I have to admit, in my youth, I was stupid, and was a lefty. I got over that as soon as I had to support myself (that is within a year of being out of college.) So I didn't enlist when I was young - or try for Officer's Training. Today I wish I could have. But none of this is to the point. The entire population who supported WWI did not join up. Were women even recruited for anything in WWI? And in WWII - and I think in all wars - there are reserved classes of people they don't want in service. People who build airplanes for example were not sent to Germany in 1942, they were kept busy building airplanes. It has never been the case, and it is not the case now, that in order to support the military one must join the military. To suggest that, is to show a complete misunderstanding of the relationship between the military and the civilian population in a democratic republic.

Posted by: Zendo Deb at August 15, 2005 11:32 PM (S417T)

37 JANE says: "At certain points, like this point in time, antiwar means supporting the resistance. "With us or against us" has a resonance many don't quite yet grasp. Silence during a lynching doesn't mean one is a pacifist, just a coward." Well then, since W. and Dick both dodged the draft, that makes them qualified cowards, your definition! Something I alreay knew, but thanks for clarifying! Also, I'm hardly being silent, therefore could not be called a coward. Protesting against the war doesn't make one against the troops--it's against the WAR. CLAIRE says: "...to leave would be a recreation of a sin to rival that which we created when we cut and ran from Viet Nam...leaving Pol Pot to slaughter 2-3 million people." Claire, I LIVED in Cambodia in 2003-2004, so I'm going to correct you. In 1969 the US government started a secret program of bombing Cambodia, killing over 250,000--most of whom were not Communist but simply poor peasants. These aerial assaults actually helped the Khmer Rouge with recruitments. The US bankrolled the war propping up the Lon Nol government against the Khmer Rouge. In addition, the US government and military personnel invented 'phantom soldiers' and pocketed their pay or sold weapons to the enemy. Our government made a fortune in Cambodia all while fighting the Vietcong. We didn't stop bombing until August 1973. Phnom Penh surrendered to the Khmer Rouge on April 17, 1975, that's TWO weeks before the fall of Saigon. China, particularly Beijing, supported the Khmer Rouge after the US pulled out. The Vietnamese were fighting AGAINST Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. Pol Pot was fervently ANTI-Vietnamese as they were his greatest enemy. The VIETNAMESE invasion overthrowing the Khmer Rouge on Jan. 7, 1979 is what sent Pol Pot fleeing. Pol Pot fled to an armed compound in Thailand where the USA and China once again protected him, he rebuilt his shattered forces and continued to call the shots. During the mid-1980s the USA gave more than $15 million a year in aid to the 'non-communist' factions of the Khmer Rouge-dominated coalition as part of its campaign to harass and islolate Hanoi. The USA also helped the Khmer Rouge retain its seat at the UN assembly in NYC. When Vietnam formally withdrew in Sept. 1989, the Khmer Rouge dominated the opposition coalition, civil war broke out and thousands continued to die. There were rumors that Pol Pot would be brought to Phnom Penh to face international justice. It never happened and he managed to evade justice with his death in April 1998. Only then were free elections held and peace came to Cambodia for the first time in 30 years. The fact that we 'quit' Vietnam did not empower the Khmer Rouge as the USA ontinued to aid them. It DID empower the Vietnamese resistance to Pol Pot and eventually toppled his government. If it weren't for the Vietnamese, his terror would have continued and millions more would have perished. Am I suggesting that we quit Iraq? Yes, I am. We are killing thousands of innocent people and we are not 'winning' anything. We captured SH, now let the Iraqis have their country, not our foreign occupation--lest we have another 30 years.

Posted by: ruby at August 16, 2005 07:52 AM (+bPcD)

38 I see we're dealing with the literal-atti, here. Squabbling around about the beginning of the war, swinging the flaccid and long disproved DU/DNC memes of "chickenhawk" "draft dodgers" [see: Clinton] "no WMDs" is not actually of any use whatsoever. [Allow me to be clear: Those claims have been proven FALSE; move on.] That is not "protesting war" -- it's simply creating dissent and discontent and demonstrating a lack of comprehension of even the broadest strokes of the current situation; never mind nuance. "ruby" - since you felt the need to shout that you LIVED there, your apprehension of history must be utterly correct, disjointed as its presentation was here. Nevertheless, those whom you call "insurgents" or "minutemen" are not "innocent people." They kidnap, torture and saw off heads. They blow up Iraqi children -- on purpose. They want to force Iraq to adopt strict Sharia law; yannow, the whole burkas, stoning women in the street, jizya tax, kill the infidel, surrender to the mullahs thing. And have you ever noticed that America is the only nation who, when we completely vanquish an enemy, we set them free. The "foreign occupation/imperialism" meme is also *ahem* FALSE. Helping them back to their feet ain't always easy [see Marshall Plan] but it is beneficial -- yes to US, too. Abandoning the Iraqi people after promising our help in setting up their new nation would be reprehensible. Or do you think 'those little brown people' aren't worth our time or trouble?

Posted by: Claire at August 16, 2005 09:22 AM (l1oyw)

39 Wow. I've just finished reading through the majority of these posts and amazed and saddened by the overwhelming hatred fueled by ignorance people have for anti-war ideology. Ruby, thank you for that insightful history of the US presence in Cambodia. Unfortunately, most people aren't aware of those atrocities, mostly due to Kissinger's brilliant image and extreme measures to keep the truth from surfacing. I think what's happening in Iraq can be likened to what's happened historically in Ecuador, Guatemala, Indonesia, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. Basically, the US decides it's in their economic interests to appropriate resources from another country, and if negotiations don't work, then we move on to military action to secure those resources. Just consider the coup we staged in Chile that led to the assassination of the democratically elected Allende, followed by and the US supported dictator Pinochet, who proceeded to torture, oppress, rape and murder his people over the next 20 years. We operate under the guise of offering 'freedom' and 'democracy', two very valid and wonderful ideals, to establish infrastructures in these countries to support a Western way of life (In Chile, it was to secure copper for companies like PepsiCo -- in Iraq, the resource is obviously oil). The countries, under the promise of having these freedoms and modern way of life, agree to contract the work to build their infrastructures (water, electricity, sewage, shopping areas, manufacturing plants, etc.) to huge US consulting/engineering firms and consequently incur HUGE amounts of debt. This is convenient for the US, naturally, to use as leverage in the long run when the countries ultimately fail to meet the stipulations of repayment. It's our way of securing those resources -- either through instating our own puppet government or placing a country so far in debt their economy will never be sovereign apart from the US. It's more than just Wal-Marts and McDonalds, guys. And that, I posit, is terrorism. I love the United States, but I think we've made some decisions that are historically horrifying. Most people can't see beyond their patriotism to question our past to see if we're repeating our mistakes, because somehow asking questions and considering the evidence is scary and unsettling, and more importantly, unpatriotic. Republicans are known for their fiscal conservatism. Honestly, if it weren't for the possibility of utterly exploiting and controlling Iraq's economy, why would we be there?

Posted by: sophia at August 16, 2005 09:43 AM (xXv9S)

40 Sort of off the subject but, Sophia, allow me to say that after reading your diatribe i had a Berkeley flashback that was not too pleasant. Comparing what we are doing in Iraq to what happened in Chile betrays a cynicism that is too deeply ingrained for rational discussion. It's funny how conservatives are always accused of blindly following our icons. But your rant makes me wonder if we had the same professors in undergrad. Still i learned, with some difficulty at Cal, that my professors were often wrong and that many of them were motivated by deep hatred of anything traditional. The equation goes like this: "US did wrong in Chile, therefore everything US does is suspect." That kind of world view doesn't allow anyone to accept the kind of sea change in active diplomacy represented by those "evil" neocons, of which i count myself one. There are dozens of valid reasons to be doing what we're doing in Iraq. i know you are aware of them. You simply disagree with them, where i don't. But don't act like there are no other reasons besides "the oil." i said it before and i'll continue saying it over and over. Thank God people like you are not in charge.

Posted by: annika at August 16, 2005 10:12 AM (zAOEU)

41 "Honestly, if it weren't for the possibility of utterly exploiting and controlling Iraq's economy, why would we be there?" That failure of imagination is why this discussion becomes so difficult.

Posted by: Claire at August 16, 2005 10:18 AM (l1oyw)

42 CLAIRE: The correct spelling is literati, and thank you for the compliment. I am. From your disdain of the term and the lack of questions answered, clearly you are not. As for, "those whom you call "insurgents" or "minutemen" are not "innocent people," I'm afraid you've got me mixed up with someone else as I've not said anything comparable to this. I believe that if a foreigner were to present false facts about the USA, Claire, you as an American, might come forth with the correct answers if you indeed could present them. However, you lack historical knowledge and you only seem to be clear on 'talking points' and regurgitating opinions. There's nothing wrong with that, but try not to confuse them with facts and real answers. We must look at the past in order to face the future.

Posted by: ruby at August 16, 2005 10:22 AM (+bPcD)

43 Annika, why does talking about the past become too cynical for rational discussion? As an aside, I used to be a staunch Republican, and still hold on to many conservative ideologies. But thanks for taking a personal swing at me there at the end -- just adds fuel to the fire! I just wonder how issuing a low blow like that qualify as a healthy debate. My rationale isn't "US did wrong in Chile, therefore everything US does is suspect", as you so simplistically stated. I chose to limit my post to one example due to the size and scope of this forum, but listed other countries in which we've carried out similar agendas. Claire, I'm sorry you lament the failure of my imagination and blame it for causing a difficult discussion. It's not really a good discussion if you sit around regurgitating other people's ideas and thoughts, is it? I encourage everyone to read the following page, which outlines specifically the US's objectives in Iraq as related to the drafting of a new Iraqi constitution. Bon apetit! http://www.twf.org/News/Y2003/0916-Constitution.html To sum up: "The drafting of the constitution is a pretext for exploiting Iraq's national wealth, providing oil and water to Israel, and maintaining control of the energy resources of the Middle East."

Posted by: Sophia at August 16, 2005 02:08 PM (8rbQv)

44 Another good article from TIME, this one written in 2003: http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/iracrudqs.htm I don't think I need to get creative about reasons other than oil.

Posted by: sophia at August 16, 2005 02:22 PM (8rbQv)

45 Annika, Take you silly sig, go to Iraq and install some freedom, OK? You simpleton. Your arguments are jingoistic puerile claptrap. Are you ten years old? America has never been successful in these ventures, never. We have killed hundreds of thousands in Central America, South America, Southeast Asia, Africa, in an imperialist attempt to open markets to our goods and services. That is all that matters, markets. Not some silly notion of freedoms. Iraq is about to formulate a "constitution" which you, my dear, would slit your wrists rather than abide. Whether Ms. Sheehan's position will result in more or fewer deaths of Americans in Iraq is conjecture whereas the position of GB will certainly result in more not fewer American deaths as well as Iraqi deaths and provide NO, repeat NO security at home. You decide your preference you silly child. Until you shed blood for this shithole of an adventure, shut your mouth, you chicken shit with a pistol, hypocritical bag of wind.

Posted by: Strawman at August 16, 2005 04:43 PM (0ZdtC)

46 Sophia, could you please point out the low blow, i can't find it. Perhaps my low blow detector is out of whack after reading Strawman's lovely post.

Posted by: annika at August 16, 2005 08:39 PM (DxI5A)

47 oh by the way, Strawman, if you're so against what the US is doing to Iraq, why don't you go over there, join the insurgency, and shed your own blood to stop this "shithole of an adventure" as you call it. That tiresome "chickenhawk" argument works both ways. And as for your insults, i'd love for you to meet me and tell me that shit to my face you fucking piece of shit.

Posted by: annika at August 16, 2005 08:43 PM (DxI5A)

48 >Saying that i "lack courage" don't make it so. And yet claiming that those that support Sheehan are 'Anti-American' somehow makes that true? Can you see the double standard? >Every one of you trolls is exactly the same: no blog & a fake email. Sorry, too many death threats from those that share your views. Many people get far too worked up about what is going on, which is understandable, but some feel that the best way to handle opposing opinions is to resort to violence. With so much at stake, like our families' lives, the emotions run high. I am not willing to make it easy for the psychopaths. I am sure you understand. >When you say something as crazy as "no mass graves" you signal to me that no amount of reasoning will be possible. Excellent - that was the thing that was not 100% true. I realized after I posted that it was inaccurate hyperbole, but what can ya do. We were told that we would find mass graves for hundreds of thousands - but instead, what we found were graves containing a few thousand - mostly filled with the Shias that had believed us when we told them to rise up after the first gulf war - you know, the ones we stood by and watched get slaughtered rather than raise a finger to stop it. All we found were the graves of those that we helped killed, and those left over from the Iran-Iraq war. The 6-figure mass graves were a lie. They did not exist. Except as part of the campaign to trick us into supporting the war. You can show otherwise? No - you can't, because it simply isn't true. and btw - I am more than willing to concede when I am wrong. It happens, and I am glad to revise any notions that are proven wrong. Go ahead, show me where I am mistaken. I am happy to consider any factual reference - and will even do the research on my own. My family and loved ones are important enough to me that I am not willing to just sit on my ass and swallow the official lies. >cite propaganda as fact If you are unable to show ANYTHING to suggest what I am saying is not true, perhaps it isn't propaganda. Ever consider that? >so why do you bother even coming here Because you decided to throw around the term 'Anti-American' to describe those that hold different opinions than your own. Since you seem to feel comfortable making such uninformed and un-American slurs, I figured that I should make an effort to let you know that your misguided loyalties are a betrayal of this country and all the American stands for. You have been tricked. You have been betrayed. The sooner you wise up, the better the chances are for my family members to return alive from Iraq. We have already lost the war - it is now a political holding action as the GOP tries to figure out how to extricate themselves from this disaster. I say it again - you made the anti-American charges - have the guts to defend them... Or the decency to apologize for such offensive remarks.

Posted by: Mr. Mike at August 16, 2005 08:55 PM (wR4hA)

49 >You and the rest of the anti-war brigade are tragically uninformed. Sorry Mark, but your sad little collection of stories only support my basic arguement - the threat of Saddam and Iraq was over-blown, and the case against him include many out-right lies. As impressed as I am with your collection of 'stories', I have to point out that many of them either: use only 'unnamed officials' as a source, are NewsMax articles (no-credibility), contain alot of 'may have', 'might have been' language, or reference a few crumbs left over from when Saddam did have a serious WMD program - a decade previous. My favorite: (Missing Iraq Weapons Concern U.N.) He said the missing material can be used for legitimate purposes. "However, they can also be utilized for prohibited purposes if in a good state of repair." - Demetrius Perricos. So, at some point during the massive looting, equipment that could have been used for 'prohibited' purposes (assuming it was in good repair) vanished about the same time that truckloads of scrap were being hauled to Syria. Wow, what a freaking SLAM-DUNK! Overall, it goes shows that you can find what you want. I tend to put more faith in the stories that have multiple, trackable sources, but you do what works for ya. I do not contest that Saddam was evil, or that he had an insane obsession with weapons - of all sorts. What I am saying is that he was contained as a threat, and that launching an illegal, uni-lateral war was a huge HUGE mistake. In order to sell that war, this administration KNOWINGLY lied to the American people. There were better ways to handle the situation - the most viable of which did involve attacking - but with international support. I am not opposed to war, just a STUPID STUPID war that pisses away the lives of our soldiers. In order to cover up their deception, the administration committed TREASON. You support that? This Administration has fked this war up 6 ways to sunday from the word go. Can you possible deny this? Or do you think the military and republican critics are secretly America haters as well? Do you think the general that said 'the wagons are coming of this thing' is secretly French? Within 1 week of Bremer taking over, we had lost the war. Sad but true. They lied to us - and they knew it: Part of the evidence was based on the testimony of an in-law of Saddams that had fled Iraq. He confirmed the WMD programs, and also confirmed their destruction. We only heard the first half of the story. The second half was buried to keep us from hearing about it. Powell testified to the UN about the 'Tons' of bio-logical agents that we knew he had produced (thanks to the in-law above) in the early '90s, and that since there was no proof that they had been destroyed, this was evidence that he still had them. Yet almost every agent he mentioned had a shelf life of less than 5 years. It was not physically possible for materials to still be used as weapons - IMPOSSIBLE! - yet the leaders of our country didn't seem to know that? No, they knew, but figured few of us would know. They were right. As the Downing street memos show (did you read those in your quest to pay attention?) there was an effort to find a justification to go to war. Shortly after these memos were written, the administration began a complete full court press on the propaganda. One strategy was to feed false stories to the press (a few of which are in your left-hand column btw) and then use those stories as 'objective' references while doing the punditry circuit. Media whores like Judith Miller and NewsMax played an all-to-willing role in printing the administration lies without much, if any, to verify them. And to anyone 'paying attention', it should be clear by now that the war has not made us safer, it has only swelled the ranks of those willing to attack us. Our economy is head into the toilet, and our military is weakening. None of the goals of the war will be met 0 the real goals, not the BS ones they keep you distracted with. We will not maintain control of the oil, we will not get permanent bases, and the 'show of force' has devolved into a 'display of weakness'. We have failed. Time to act like an adult and admit it, so we can start looking for some way out of this freaking mess. But thank GOD we found that 10 year old shell with Sarin in it. I am sure the 100,000 plus humans killed in the effort know that their deaths were not in vain. Jackass.

Posted by: Mr Mike at August 16, 2005 09:48 PM (wR4hA)

50 "US did wrong in Chile, therefore everything US does is suspect." Try, the US did wrong in Chile, Iran, Iraq, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Syria, Indonesia, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Haiti, Ecuador, Dominican Republic, Zaire, Nicaragua, Panama and El Salvador - following the same basic pattern of seeking to use government power to open up and exploit other nations. Therefore, most foreign intervention by the US is suspect. Like I said already, it is easy to argue with your own distortions, harder to argue against the facts. If you have any questions on how we screwed around with, or screwed over, any of the above countries, please let me know - I will be glad to educate in painfully tedious detail. Or I guess I could summarize to keep it less rambling than most of my posts. Your choice. >There are dozens of valid reasons to be doing what we're doing in Iraq. i know you are aware of them. You simply disagree with them, where i don't. But don't act like there are no other reasons besides "the oil." I agree. I would LOVE to see Iraq as a free democracy. I feel no remorse for the death of any islamic that attacks women to keep them down. Saddam was a Stalinist, and an outright bastard - no qualms about seeing him killed. I have a long history of sympathizing with the Kurds, and I do not forgive what Saddam did to them - with help from the US and Donald Rumsfeld I might add. There are aspects of what we are doing that _could_ be for the better - if they weren't so poisoned by the real reasons we are there. There are indeed a variety of reasons why people supported the war that had little do do with oil. However, our leaders primary motivation was oil and all the associated cash and power that controlling those spigots brought. Oil is the SINGLE reason that we launched the war. All of the other valid reasons did not tip the decision scale, oil did. Without the oil, we would have found other ways to deal with the problem. How familiar are you with Peak Oil? Your support of a hopeless war is killing our soldiers. For your sake, I wish you could see that, I really do. I hope that at some point you see a blatant distortion or distraction that opens your eyes. That is how I got to where I am - I got to see the wizard behind the curtain in the Gulf War, and nothing was the same again. Direct personal confirmation of the evil our 'leaders' are capable of really does wonders to your ability to blindly follow along. I hope you have a similar epiphany. I really do. But for now, you can just apologize for the foul 'Anti-American' slurs and be done with me.

Posted by: Mr Mike at August 16, 2005 10:33 PM (wR4hA)

51 Mike, i don't mind you hanging around. If you are too scared to get your own blog, feel free. i sympathize with your aversion to getting threatened by email, but i get that too and i'm still here. Anyways, since school started for me yesterday i don't have a lot of free time to rehash old arguments, fun as that might be. So let's cut to the chase. Pretend i've taken the time to rebut each of your conclusory statements (which you call facts) complete with appropriate links and footnotes etc. Then i'll pretend that you have poo-pooed my rebuttals one by one as i know you are ready to do, criticizing each one in turn by attacking my sources, then offering counter-sources for your own points of view which i find just as suspect. Then lets each pretend to lose patience and resort to name calling. Lastly, we can pretend that each of us has beaten the other in this battle of wits. And i'll go back to right wing blogging just the same as i always have, and you'll find some other comment section to haunt and another blogger to torment. Nothing solved. We can't convince each other. It's a metaphysical impossibility. The only thing i can say, and i hate to keep repeating myself, but it really is the bottom line to all of this nonsense: i'm so so glad people like you are not in charge. Really i am. Maybe after '08 you will come back here and laugh at my present arrogance (and i'll admit there's a chance you'll be able to) but for now, let me laugh at you. Hahahahaha! i'm so so glad people like you are not in charge.

Posted by: annika at August 16, 2005 11:27 PM (SXvV5)

52 I'm glad I visited this blog, even though it eventually devolved to namecalling and mockery. Mr. Mike, I'm so glad there are people like you who have the capacity to think critically. I just wonder how long the US can last in its current position of world power, insatiable in its appetite for consumption and Manifest Destiny conquests. Just look at the rise and fall of the Roman, Ottoman, British empires, as well as the Incan, Aztec, Mayan, Iriquois, Eqyptian, Spanish, Portuguese, French, German, Russian, Chinese, and Japanese cultures (just to name a few in history). We'll go out with a fight, yes, and it ain't gonna be pretty because the majority of us are willing to lie to ourselves about issues such as the real reason the US is currently war.

Posted by: sophia at August 17, 2005 09:48 AM (xXv9S)

53 Annika, I love bloggers who chide others with opinions for not having their own blog. Your choice to devote time to this solipsistic adventure does not make you saintly or brave, insightful or prescient, just a gal with a little too much time on her hands and too little imagination. I would be happy to say to your face what I have said in my posts, no problem. My email is real, my web site tells you where I am 70 hours a week, and I would just as soon spit in your eye for your foul rendition of America the Beautiful than call you well deserved names. You revel in and spread hate, are inured to violence and despair suffered by others in the pursuit of bullshit. Ask the 50k or so dead IraqiÂ’s how they liked voting or how they like freedom or how their children are doing in school, and if they have dropped their plans to attack America, or how well those 75mm aluminum tubes worked in their centrifuges, and on and fucking on. No end to the killing, pain, lies and bullshit. No end to the inarticulate pandering of our president. You, Annika, hate him to your brown roots. You cannot admit it since he seems to be pursuing a course of death, destruction and immorality (fav. causes of yours) but in your heart you know he is an uneducated ass incapable of an original thought. This man who sat staring into space while his country was under attack and waited for instructions. The arrogant, angry, alcoholic, browbeaten youngest son, the runt of a family of thieves and connivers is leading you to the new crusades. Onward Christian soldiers! Oh, but you my dear Anni are staying home, out of harms way, right? I know, I know, blogging is dangerous too! Nasty emails, low blows, foul and thoughtless arguments hurled at you, such perseverance, such pluck, you are a marvel. Your concept of AmericaÂ’s roll in the present and future of human affairs reeks of your shallow, compassionless, callow and entitled youth. Where have you been? Have you seen any of this world outside an all inclusive resort? Why don't you volunteer at your local VA and get close to the shattered men and women and taste the human tragedy and despair caused by forcing America's vision of freedom on the unwilling and disinterested. Or go to equatorial Africa and watch children die of curable malaria. Watch and remember how we are spending a billion a week pacifying Iraq. All better options for you and Mr. Sig than going to Iraq and pissing down the neck of the country we have raped and desecrated to an extent beyond SaddamÂ’s wildest nightmares. He is chuckling under his breath watching this classic enactment of an old Orwellian theme-Kill for Peace! Elections are still rigged and fucked-with in our country, citizens are denied the vote with bogus lists concocted by political hacks who are rewarded with runs for the senate, Congressman are in bed with lobbyists, lobbyists will fuck anything that moves, credit card companies are protected (bankruptcy bill) and allowed to commit usury, decent health care is unavailable to 10Â’s of millions, men like Clarence Thomas get appointed to the supreme court, there is still debate as to whether or not the right to privacy exists, (only because it is the argument upon which a womanÂ’s right to choose is based) otherwise you fascisti would roll around in it like rooting pigs, oil companies report the greatest earnings in their history and Americans are told the $3.00 dollar price at the pump is a true reflection of market forces. Our educational system is ranked 10th from the bottom of the first world and we have the balls to think that we are qualified to be installers of "freedom", "democracy" & capitalism elsewhere? Hubris and ignorance abound in you and your leaders. A band of Islamo-fascist SaudiÂ’s wack New York and the best the Bushites could do was to ruin Iraq and fertilize the poppy fields of Afghanistan? Just donÂ’t get me started, OK? As for the argument about your cowardice for not taking your Sig and shooting up Iraq and my not supporting the insurgency: well Anni, I want America to do the right thing, I do not want to kill America, you silly girl.

Posted by: Strawman at August 17, 2005 07:22 PM (0ZdtC)

54 i hope you're not married. if you are, go seek help. Please, because your condescending passive aggressive rage bullshit can't be pleasant to your wife. Or are you as lonely sad and hateful as you sound? Tell me where you wanna meet. i'd love for you to spit in my eye. i'd love for you to try.

Posted by: annika at August 17, 2005 08:25 PM (+oyaL)

55 Annika, Can you make it to the Teluride general store at noon on Sept 11? Bring your Sig I'll bring my sister to beat the crap out of you. I don't hit; women, children or dogs. My sister though is very tough and way mean. I am a fellow who is very angry at the people who are leading this incredable nation down the toilet. They have PROVED themselves to be a duplicitus bunch of ideologues and liars. COmpassionless, twisted sadists who are on "mission from god" to quote the Blues Brothers. It bothers me. GO figure? You are part of the problem. You deny the reality of the mis-adventure in Iraq, are comfortable with the current condition and the lies that brought it about don't really matter to you. It got America where you think we should be. You get all weepy about the rape, torture, repression of Saddam and ignore the rape, torture, oppression of 50 other governments on earth, (including our own) many of which the US gives aid and trade. This seems not to be a problem in your world maybe it shouldn't be in mine either but it is. As is the killing of the Iraqi people in a vain and desparate attempt to save them. So I don't really try to engage you Annika, for you are lost in a dream about the Kingdom of American where all is well. It is more fun to taunt and hurl invective at you. You are like a snarling republican yard dog on a short chain running toward every passing truth and trying unsucessfully to bite it's head off. America is suffering greatly right now and not from the islamo-fascist threat,which is real, but more so from the facisisti of the religious right and their attempts to Christianize America with the help of our sanctimounious toady president and his cabal of handlers. So please don't be worrying none about my wife, she's fine, my kid too. Worry about a great country that is blundering down a path to ruination and despair following a smirking dullard with a ring in his nose. And please worry about the families of those slain in this futile crusade, they are dying for nothing: That's the crime here and that is all that matters. Certainly not me and you.

Posted by: Strawman at August 18, 2005 12:50 PM (0ZdtC)

56 Sounds great, but don't worry about the sig, i don't have one. We'll use Zell Miller rules for this duel. Spitballs at ten paces. i used to be pretty good at throwing spitwads, i'll hit you and your sister right in the forehead and make you cry.

Posted by: annika at August 18, 2005 06:37 PM (wFDFq)

57 Annika, Won't be hard to make me cry. I cannot answer for my sister. I see such pain and wasting of lives, as do you, each and every day. I am older and have seen so much more than you it is a wonder I have tears left. My lottery number was 98 in 1970. In fact my cousin died this year in a VA hospital, legless, from complications, mental and physical that he suffered in Vietnam. The tragedy of war can take many many years to destroy lives. I really donÂ’t understand a person like you, bright, semi-educated, loqatious, a little too angry and brittle but seemingly full of life and promise yet, IMHO, blind to the evil purposes of this Whitehouse and the religious right. You can tell GW is a dope as easily as Newton understood the apple, yet you excuse it and the lies for what? The sweet taste of revenge? The belief that unless we secure the oil China will gain the upper hand? A belief that all the dead have made us safer? That someday there will be no young Islamic man or woman lining up to receive backpacks of explosives? That the absence of a connection between Iraq and 911 is irrelevant? That there was NO OTHER WAY to destabilize Saddam and bring a freer, safer government to Iraq? That all the harping on the imminent threat of Saddam was just bad intel and not a bunch of boobs punting? That we are in an epic struggle and Iraq is now the locus of Islamic fundamentalism even though Saddam killed the clerics who tried to interfere with his basically secular government? Annika it is just so ludicrous and transparent I wonder what inner psychopathy of yours constricts your otherwise sharp vision of reality. This shall end my intrusion.

Posted by: Strawman at August 18, 2005 08:07 PM (0ZdtC)

58 take care, Strawman.

Posted by: annika at August 19, 2005 06:49 AM (Y6q67)

59 I'm sorry you feel as if pride is more important than blood.

Posted by: Seth Maloney at October 28, 2005 09:58 AM (C0F8D)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Doug Tennapel has it right.

America has too many Democrats and Anti-Israel Presbyterians to help Israel, so they will be forced to do what the UN and Europe can't do...they will take out Iran's nuclear facilities with a pre-emptive attack. The Muslim street will erupt, which will suit the hated Iran leadership just fine, changing their status from hated regime to just martyr overnight.

Israel is surrounded by radical Muslims where part of their religion is to force Zionist monkeys and Christian pigs into submission. When these religions get nuclear bombs Israel will be history. Is Israel safer now that they are withdrawing from occupied territory? Hell no. Because this was never about Israeli occupation...it's about an Islamic desire for genocide.

Posted by: annika at 03:00 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 230 words, total size 1 kb.

Iran is run by lying, murderous, lunatics, and they're going to get the bomb.

But i'm glad the media is focused on what's important. Namely the Hyatte capture and the Natalie Holloway investigation.

There's no need for me to reiterate what a job Greta Van Susternerneren is doing on the Holloway story night after night after night.

And thank God Rita Cosby is on the scene of the Hyatte capture press conference to ask the crucial question: "Was he in shackles?"

Do i even need to acknowledge the dogged reporting of Aaron Brown, who will stop at nothing to find out when, when, when did the police get the tip that the Hyattes were holed up in that motel?

And no, Aaron won't be satisfied with an estimate, he wants the exact time and it doesn't matter how many ways he has to phrase the same question in order to elicit that critical information.

That's Emmy winning stuff there.

And that's information that really impacts my life.

Posted by: annika at 07:47 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 171 words, total size 1 kb.

Radical Redneck alerted me to this story about child abuse going on in Santa Cruz.

While most summer camps get kids out of the house and give parents a break, a group called Art in Action is nurturing the next Michael Moore . . .

Art in ActionÂ’s 'art and empowerment' camp is being held at the Quaker Center nestled in the redwoods of Ben Lomond. Campers at the 10-day retreat attend workshops on cultural activism, nonviolent action and alternative media.

'The reality is that the media is not actually showing whatÂ’s really going on in Iraq,' said Jouse Bustos, 19, of central Los Angeles. 'By doing this mural, IÂ’m showing whatÂ’s going on.'

Bustos is one of 25 young people attending the camp. For 10 days, they learn to say 'no' to military recruiting, racism and war, and 'yes' to eco-justice, community and love.

Campers spend their time making banners, writing poetry and choreographing dances that represent a vision of 'positive alternatives to the madness of war and oppression.'

'Art is the best way to communicate social messages,' said camp founder Alli Chalabi-Starr, who grew up in Santa Cruz but now lives in San Francisco.

Here's an example of the type of social message that's acceptable at this camp:

Some [campers] glue together pieces of newspaper that will become the giant puppet unveiled Thursday night — the divided face of a Muslim woman and woman of color from the United States.

Stamped across the face will be an American flag, said camp co-founder Maryam Roberts of San Francisco.

The face 'represents silence forced upon both women by their governments,' Roberts said. 'There is a feeling of silence.'

Instead, people like this thrive in the United States, where their message is heard loud and clear wherever they want to spew it forth, from the office of the California Attorney General to the streets of Manhattan. That's not censorship.

On the other hand, i just made a piece of protest art myself. It's a work intended to shake up the establishment and challenge the oppressive orthodoxy of California's ruling elites. i'll sell it to you cheap for $750, which also happens to be the per person cost of that stupid protest camp. It's suitable for framing and i'm calling it "Piss Boxer."

i wonder how many art galleries i can find anywhere who would be willing to exhibit it?

Posted by: annika at 11:25 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 578 words, total size 4 kb.