Hugh Hewitt asks:

Given all the hits Huckabee has taken in the last four days, the question becomes: Where will the folks who drop him move their allegiances?

1. How can Romney fans expect their guy to win the nomination, let alone the general election, when he's going backwards in the polls? In what possible spin universe is a slip from third to fifth in the national polling a good sign for the Romney campaign?

2. Why should I believe that Romney will catch fire once America gets to know him when three weeks ago nobody knew who Huckabee was and they both used the same forum to introduce themselves to us, i.e. the debates? Isn't it time to admit that Romney just isn't able to sell himself to Republicans?

3. If Romney can't sell himself to Republicans, even with the right message, how can we expect him to win the middle third of voters, the independents, whose votes win and lose elections?

4. How is it that Romney, the management genius, can spend so much time and money in Iowa and yet be in a statistical tie with a guy who's spent next to nothing, whose campaign team is supposedly third rate, and who's supposedly not even a real conservative?

5. When will Romney fans stop crying about "religious bigotry" and admit the real reason Romney is such a dud: The Slick Factor?

Romney is in trouble. And no, I don't believe religious bigotry has anything to do with his apparent collapse. Sure, there's people out there who won't vote for a Mormon just because he's a Mormon, but I can't believe they're more than a handful. I certainly haven't met any. I have much more faith in the goodness and good sense of the majority of Republican voters than those who are so quick to ignore Romney's obvious lack of appeal and pin the blame on some non-existent anti-Mormon hysteria.

If Romney still aspires to be anything beyond a one term governor he's going to have to do more than tell us his views on "religious liberty." I don't really care about his opinion on that subject. What I care about is this: can Romney present himself as anything other than the consultant robot he's been in every debate I've seen so far.

We know Romney can buy and sell corporations. Can he sell himself? So far the answer has been a definite no. He says the right things, he's right on the issues, but nobody's buying it. Like Hillary, he's got a perception problem. But unlike Hillary there are still a lot of people, like myself, who are open to being convinced. Romney just needs to figure out how to sound genuine, instead of an overly focus-grouped consultant's idea of what a conservative candidate should sound like.

It's important that Romney figure this out, and soon, because he may just be our only hope. As much as I love Rudy, I have serious doubts about his electability, because there are just too many vulnerabilities in his past. And I'm sure Hillary's team has already mapped out their narrative against Rudy for next fall. They'll leak a scandal a week to their buddies at the New York Times and CNN. It won't matter if the scandals are real or imagined, as long as they reinforce the narrative they will have created. Tough as Rudy is, I don't know if he can survive the onslaught that's waiting for him.

Romney's squeaky clean image, in theory, should immunize him from any Clintonian Swift Boat strategy. Hopefully Romney can learn how to fight back against the Hillary machine without committing the Lazio error, and without curling up into a ball like he did when McCain dressed him down the other night. But the most important thing Romney needs to do is figure out how to make himself likable, and he needs to do that now.

Posted by: annika at 07:31 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 683 words, total size 4 kb.

All the buzz this morning on talk radio and the blogs is about the planted questioners from last night's debate. I'm not as outraged at the individual questions — a question is a question — as I am at the fact that they were all designed to perpetuate a Democratic stereotype of Republicans and conservatives. And not only that, since the planted questioners all came from the activist left, yet were only identified by CNN as ordinary citizens, they gave the false impression that ordinary Americans are united against conservative principles. That's simply not true; eight years of Republican presidency prove that it is not.

Questions designed to place the candidates on the defensive have their place, but such questions are fundamentally unfair when the background of the questioner is hidden, and especially when the same tactic is not used against the Democrats in their own debates. Bryan at Hot Air said it:

Last time, the debate was for Democrats and the plants were all Democrats. This time, the debate was for RepublicansÂ…but the plants were still all Democrats.

Posted by: annika at 07:53 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 186 words, total size 1 kb.

First off, I pray that the candidates of both parties have the guts never to allow this format ever again. But I know they won't. The format is worse than a joke, it's destructive. Just look at the type of people asking the questions and ask yourself how many people you know in your everyday life who are that weird.

Somebody at CNN chose these questions and that person was not a friend of the Republican party or conservatives in general. It seemed many of the questons were specifically chosen to portray conservatives in a bad light. I certainly saw nothing like that during the Democratic YouTube debate. But not only that, there were too many irrelevant and undignified moments. There is no excuse for Yankees/Red Sox questions or confederate flag questions or questions about biblical inerrancy in a presidential debate during wartime. That said, I do have some impressions of how the candidates did.

I've been a Romney skeptic since I first began hearing about him. It's not that I'm dead set against him, I just want the guy to prove himself to me. I've listened closely to him and he fails to sell himself every time. Up until now I've had trouble putting my finger on why. But tonight I realized that the man just doesn't come across genuine. Every time he gets a hard question he dodges it by saying he'll consult the appropriate people when he's president. I know that's what presidents do, they consult advisers, but when I hear a candidate say it I have to wonder if he has any core beliefs that he can draw upon.

The most famous example of this Romney dodge was when he said he'd consult "the lawyers" before deciding if he would get congressional approval before responding militarily. Just about the worst thing he could have said. Tonight Romney did it twice. On the torture question he said he'd consult McCain, but McCain would have none of it. And looking at Romney's face, I could tell he was embarrassed. I disagree with McCain on the torture issue, but I loved the way he called Romney out on his Hillaryesque refusal to commit to anything. The third time Romney played the "I'll consult" card was on the "don't ask don't tell" question, and it drew boos.

I'm still willing to be persuaded by Romney, because I'm afraid he might be the only winning option against Hillary. But he's not convincing me to feel good about that. The one thing I like about Giuliani the most is that when he says something I can feel his conviction. And that's exactly what Romney is lacking. To my ears, Romney seems passionless and convictionless, even while he's saying the right things. I know it's a perception problem, and maybe I should listen more to what he says rather than how he says it. But a perception problem is an electability problem too. So there's your reason Romney's way behind in the national polls. I'm not the only one who has trouble believing in him.

Regarding the other candidates, I thought Thompson did really well. And I'm the biggest Thompson basher out there. I wish Anderson Cooper had granted him the amount of time his second place position deserved. I'm willing to be convinced by Thompson too, though running him against Hillary would be 1996 all over again.

Giuliani was Giuliani. I know his story, I like him, I don't think he hurt himself tonight. In contrast to Romney citing Bill Cosby, Giuliani's answer to the black on black violence question was spot on. Giuliani reduced black on black violence by reducing violent crime, drastically. Even Romney had to admit that Rudy got results.

Paul has no business being in these debates. He's not a Republican and he's only a distraction who wastes minutes that should go to the real candidates. Everybody knows that, but the media hates Republicans so much I wouldn't be surprised if they invited Paul to participate in the general election debates.

Huckabee's answer on the Bible question was excellent, but he is a preacher.* I'm still leaning Huckabee, but the guy who really rose in my opinion was Duncan Hunter. He's good on all my issues as far as I could tell. No chance to win, but he may be the most solid conservative on the stage. McCain, as always, was great on Iraq and the War on Terror. I'm glad he reminded people that he was the only one who was right on Rumsfeld and the new Petraeus strategy. Tancredo was bumbling and innefectual, as always.

Did anybody miss Brownback, Gilmore or Tommy Thompson? I didn't.

Update: Iowa and Florida Polling shows Huckabee the clear winner.

Also, some good stuff at The Scratching Post, including shoes!
_______________

* Giuliani's rambling answer came close to an approximation of liberal Catholic doctrine as I was taught by Jesuits. The actual Catholic doctrine is codified in the Catechism as follows:

The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."

Still, the Christian faith is not a "religion of the book." Christianity is the religion of the "Word" of God, a word which is "not a written and mute word, but the Word which is incarnate and living". If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."
[emphasis added]

Posted by: annika at 07:17 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 1052 words, total size 6 kb.

1 It is so awesome to have you back! I totally agree with you on the bible comment. Wishy washy folks can go f#ck themselves I know what I believe and nothing will convince me otherwise.

Posted by: Andy at November 28, 2007 09:31 PM (P8ZAx)

2 Well, it certainly seems like you are back...

Posted by: Nigel at November 28, 2007 09:33 PM (wearR)

3 Haul out the holly We're getting home so we can start to celebrate Fill up the stockings We may be rushing things but we can hardly wait now For we need a little Annika, right this very minute Candles in the window, carols at the spinet Yes we need a little Annika, right this very minute It hasn't snowed a single flurry Annie, we're all in a hurry Haul out the holly Turn on the brightest string of lights we've ever seen Slice up the fruitcake It's time we hung some tinsel on that evergreen bough For we need a little music, need a little laughter Need a little singing ringing through the rafter Yes we need a little snappy happy ever after We need a little Annika now! Welcome home. By the way, did you pass the bar?

Posted by: Kosher Hedgehog at November 28, 2007 11:07 PM (4Bv8X)

4 that should be a hannika song lol!

Posted by: annika at November 29, 2007 03:45 AM (7jE/A)

5 Hannika?? Oh, boo! Boooooooo!

Posted by: ElMondoHummus at November 29, 2007 06:30 AM (xHyDY)

6 Thanks for the link! I missed the question about the Confederate flag. I sure do wish I'd seen that. As a Republican, that question has been bothering me for a long time. I've been on the fence between Fred Thompson and Rudy waiting to hear what they had to say about the Confederate flag.

Posted by: K T Cat at November 30, 2007 10:59 AM (/3yde)

7 You guys know I'm kidding about the Confederate flag, right?

Posted by: K T Cat at November 30, 2007 11:00 AM (/3yde)

8 Okay, there's a lot there to respond to. First, I hope to Christ that the GOP cuts out this whiny "the media and Democrats are mean to us" bullshit soon. Politics is ugly and Republicans haven't exactly won the White House 9 of the last 14 times by sending flowers, chocolates and feelings of love. If having some homo general sprung on you during a primary debate that no one but sexless geeks like us are paying attention to gets you all weepy, God help you in the general. In case anyone missed the history, the Clintons play to win! Romney is nothing but a haircut. Anybody can beat that manicured ghoul. Christ, Romney's dad ran for president on the platform that he was brainwashed by the American military. Anything you need to know about Mitt can be learned from George. Big John McCain made Romney look like what he is, a blowdried idiot. However, Giuliani just looks desperate and sad when he goes after Mitt if only because the two of them believed exactly the same things until about 10 months ago. Which brings me to my next point: Romney and Giuliani are both whores. It's very hard to paint a Clinton as being fast and loose with their fundamental beliefs when you're even more so. Huckabee is interesting in that he embraces all of the things that make both Republicans AND Democrats unelectable. While I find the combination of Marxism and evengelical Christianity interesting, if he were nominated it would be much more like 1936 than '96. If nothing else, Dole won more than three states and I doubt that Huckabee could be Alf Landon. As to the format, YouTube isn't going anywhere. It's going to the same as those stupid fucking Town Hall debates, where the stupid rule the day. Having said that, look at the last election before the town hall format: 1988. The big issues then? The death penalty and the pledge of Alligeience. Two things that the Office of the President has nothing at all to do with. Read the Bush/Dukakis debate transcripts. That's pretty much all you got. And that was when trivial shit like the collapse of the Soviet Union was underway. Dumb topics like the Confederate flag and what color the candidates Glock is are important because idiot voters make them important. And television ratings are determined almost exclusively by retards. The first televised debate was in 1960. That election was determined almost entirely by Nixon's sweaty upper lip. So you got the Bay of Pigs and a near-miss on a nuclear war. Feel better? TV debates should be destroyed in their entirety. Fuck! I just realized that I should've saved this for my own stupid blog. I'm such an asshole.

Posted by: skippystalin at November 30, 2007 09:58 PM (TUjSW)

9 Speaking of Hannika, here's a treat for all of you. One of my all time favorites, Tom Lehrer (R.I.P.) singing "Hannukah in Santa Monica"... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZUgr1zh878

Posted by: Shelly at December 12, 2007 05:04 AM (wearR)

10 BTW: Skippy, yes you are. Immigration and Terror will carry this next election. Bet on it.

Posted by: shelly at December 12, 2007 05:05 AM (wearR)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

A Republican YouTube debate? Whose brain farted and came up with that idea. Oh well, welcome to politics, 21st Century style.

Answer: Yes, and yes. Hey, I didn't make the rules.

Answer: I think, or rather, I feel that earmarks should be limited to one per ear, and only in the earlobe. I agree with the questioner that many young people today abuse earmarks excessively. For instance, this latest trend of punching a huge hole in your ear and sticking a pvc tube or a toilet paper roll inside has got to stop.

Answer: You are an idiot. Here's why. 1. Iraq was a debacle, but things are slowly improving. Despite almost four years of incompetence, Bush may just pull a rabbit out of a hat there. 2. Gonzalez didn't fire as many U.S. Attorneys as Clinton. Would you have supported Clinton's impeachment for firing all 93 U.S. Attorneys? I didn't think so. 3. Katrina was a hurricane. Or do you believe that George Bush controls the weather? 4. Abu Ghraib? The only problem I have with what went on at Abu Ghraib, which was not torture by the way, is that some idiot went and took pictures of it. 5. Walter Reed was a bad scandal, but it's being corrected, and nobody seriously thinks the neglect that went on there was official policy. As for Bush being the worst president in U.S. history, the jury is out on that one. I'm still hopeful that historians will rank him somewhere above Carter, but I'm not putting money down on it yet.

Answer: No. That's why I spent 23 years in school, so I don't have to anymore. And I can drive this.

Answer: You are one scary looking dude. It's ironic that you ask about school shootings, because if I ever found myself in a class with you, I'd drop that class so fast it'd make your strange and oddly proportioned head spin. Tell your parents they are idiots.

Answer: What? I didn't catch the last part of your question. I think it was about video game violence. Personally I love violent video games. Especially those war shoot-em-ups like Medal Of Honor and SOCOM, or jet fighter games like Ace Combat. I kick ass at them too. I wish I could make out the last part of your question, sorry.

Answer: I'm sorry. You used the phrase "cruel and dangerous abortions." I think its ironic, because you're so obviously scared that a change in abortion law might cause you to have to be more careful when you're slutting around Huntington Beach. But when I think of cruel and dangerous abortions, I think not of ignorant girls like you, but of the millions of victims of abortion who never had the chance to protest the cruel and dangerous way their lives were snuffed out.

Answer: You're absolutely right Carmen. I would give you the option to take a portion of the money that would normally go into Al Gore's "lock box" and invest it yourself, so nobody can take it away from you and you'd get a much better rate of return than you would if you relied on government to take care of you. I don't believe anyone should ever rely on government to take care of them. The Democrats want you to rely on government because it perpetuates their power over you. But remember, government is usually the problem, and never the solution.

Answer: I love that thing you did with the lid! That was classic! What are you cooking there? I bet it's good. Judging by your waistline you are probably a pretty good cook. Anyways, to answer your question, we got to have an embassy, come on. We can't build an embassy? Where do you want the ambassador and his people to stay, in a hotel? Be realistic, now.

Answer: First of all, thank you Dr. Hawking for that question. I'm a big fan of yours, and like many Americans I thoroughly enjoyed reading the first chapter of A Brief History Of Time. To answer your question, I agree we could all be nicer to our political opponents. Paying them compliments is a good start. I'll pick Senator Dodd, if you don't mind. Senator Dodd, you have a spectacularly thick and full head of hair. It's so much nicer than Senator Biden's failed implant job.

That felt good. I can do more. I'm not back, by the way.

Posted by: annika at 07:42 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 783 words, total size 8 kb.

1 I'm feeling such a mix of emotions after this post, I have to go eat an entire box of croutons. Are you sure you're not back?

Posted by: Preston Taylor Holmes at November 28, 2007 03:54 AM (b6+qN)

2 You need to throw your hat in the ring, girl.

Posted by: Gordon at November 28, 2007 05:49 AM (NIvR3)

3 "A Republican YouTube debate? Whose brain farted and came up with that idea." It's an attempt to be "hip" and "with it", dreamed up by some political hack with no clue about being either, who dreams up silly attempts to mimic that behavior but is blind to the irony that active attempts at such result in nothing more than stultified parodies of what he's/she's aspiring to be. And when the Democratic version of this comes around, just add some 4 letter language, be more hyperbolic, and remind folks why the current incarnation of modern political liberalism as practiced by sheltered, shallow, collegiate-thinking but real-world clueless hacks lends itself more to bumper-sticker philosophy and facile sloganeering than it does substantive thought or pragmatic solution-finding, in stark contradiction to the older style, more intellectual Patrick Moynahan sort of liberalism that even I as a conservative could respect. Otherwise, same answer. You know, opening questions up to You Tube is worse than a stage actor soliciting the Peanut Gallery. It's an act begging for response from the superficial, unthinking, knee-jerk portion of the population. No matter how many rational, thinking people rush to use You Tube for the first time, they'll find that space already occupied by the same geniuses who post bathroom humor, idiotic screeds, or dumbass conspiracy theories. If they're looking for substantive questions with real thought, and not just the postcards and sound-bite talking points version of true political thought, they've gone to the wrong place. On the other hand, those sheltered, shallow, collegiate-thinking but real-world clueless Democratic hacks surrounding the candidates should feel right at home there. "But remember, government is usually the problem, and never the solution." With that one line, Anni's shown more substance and belief in reality than even most current Republican office holders, let alone Obama, Clinton, or any of the other cardboard cutout, cliché-ridden Democrat candidates display. The principle of government as a blunt tool, not a surgical knife, seems to have been forgotten by too many today.

Posted by: ElMondoHummus at November 28, 2007 06:28 AM (xHyDY)

4 Hehheh... You see, with Cas not being around, someone's gotta pick up the bile quotient. Anyone wanna lend a hand? Yes, I know my syllable-to-word ratio is higher than his ever was, but I'm only trying to replicate the level, not the form. Damn, I miss him. Where the hell is he?

Posted by: ElMondoHummus at November 28, 2007 06:30 AM (xHyDY)

5 nice Mondo! hey don't you know I stole that line from Reagan!

Posted by: annika at November 28, 2007 07:26 AM (i+Wwa)

6 No, I didn't recognize it. But it sounds like something he'd say. It's good advice to take; too many people don't stop and think about that, and only see government as something to enable their wishes (well intentioned or no). Anyway, my "blunt tool" statement was stolen from George Will (although I think his line was actually "blunt instrument"), so we're both sorta in the thieving mood today.

Posted by: ElMondoHummus at November 28, 2007 09:22 PM (UNQLe)

7 But remember, government is usually the problem, and never the solution. Anarchist.

Posted by: Ramsay Glaser at November 29, 2007 01:51 AM (U13vA)

8 These things are not only a prime example of why the average citizen shouldn't participate in debates, they are perfect in explaining why they shouldn't be allowed to fucking vote in the first place.

Posted by: skippystalin at November 30, 2007 10:12 PM (TUjSW)

9 So I wonder if the dude wearing a Chicago t-shirt is from U of C.... It would explain so much.

Posted by: The Law Fairy at December 05, 2007 11:40 PM (njcvI)

10 Flock! The flocking law fairy got here before me? I'm ashamed.

Posted by: Casca at December 11, 2007 12:48 PM (xGZ+b)

11 Iraq a debacle? My dear, war is a messy business, and like the rest of life, imperfect. Gallipoli was a debacle. Iraq's perceived jumble was the price of doing business. We couldn't have got them where they are today without going through the messy part.

Posted by: Casca at December 11, 2007 12:50 PM (xGZ+b)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

The new bumper sticker for people who can't go five friggin' minutes without pimpin' their third place guy.

Posted by: annika at 07:57 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 20 words, total size 1 kb.

1 If you're back, I'll celebrate!

Posted by: ElMondoHummus at November 27, 2007 12:11 PM (xHyDY)

2 Are you back?

Posted by: Andy at November 27, 2007 06:01 PM (P8ZAx)

3 Someone go kick Casca and Shelly awake. Me, I'll admit to being here because I was too damn lazy to delete this entry from my RSS reader. What's your excuse?

Posted by: elmondohummus at November 27, 2007 08:07 PM (UNQLe)

4 I still don't know what an RSS reader is...

Posted by: annika at November 27, 2007 08:11 PM (mzyb2)

5 Puhleeze tell us you are back! Screw it...I'm blog rolling you anyway. Don't let us down!

Posted by: Nigel at November 27, 2007 10:14 PM (wearR)

6 RSS reader aka "aggregator" aka "feed aggregator" aka "news reader" or a whole lotta other crap: "... is client software or a Web application which aggregates syndicated web content such as news headlines, blogs, podcasts, and vlogs in a single location for easy viewing." (Source: Wikipedia article) Or in other words, it's a program where you can centralize a lot of blogs and other sites that can be accessed through RSS, ATOM, or similar protocols. I personally like Sharpreader myself. Anyway, that "what's your excuse" line was a fun poke at Andy. I don't care what Anni's excuse is, just as long as she's back for even a little while.

Posted by: ElMondoHummus at November 28, 2007 05:33 AM (xHyDY)

7 I have been checking once every few days hoping you would come back and it's very cool that you have!

Posted by: Andy at November 28, 2007 09:26 PM (P8ZAx)

8 I'd been checking every few days and took off about a week. It's good to see you back.

Posted by: physics geek at December 03, 2007 07:17 AM (MT22W)

9 I have a life. I only check once a month.

Posted by: Casca at December 11, 2007 12:52 PM (xGZ+b)

10 I have a life, too. But Casca has invaded it by letting on that you are back. How could you do this without lettig us know? I have to re-order my world again.

Posted by: shelly at December 11, 2007 04:53 PM (wearR)

11 Casca let me know, otherwise I'd still be mooning away waiting for you. How could you start up again and not tell your pals??? Is that any way to run a blog?

Posted by: Shelly at December 11, 2007 04:54 PM (wearR)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Gigantic rock concerts are good for hearing crappy live renditions of old songs, seeing the backs of a lot of people's heads, getting wasted and dehydrated, and later on wearing a t-shirt so you can say how fun it all was.

But if they couldn't even get Kerry elected, how can they be expected to save the world?

Daltrey and Geldof, veterans of just about every big charity concert in history, apparently believe as I do.

THE WHO's ROGER DALTRY has blasted the big Wembley gig Gore is organising to raise awareness of global warming.

The huge concert - which features performances from the likes of MADONNA and RED HOT CHILI PEPPERS - is taking place at Wembley on July 7 and in other countries around the world.

But Roger, who played with U2 at Live Aid and Live8, reckons the whole thing is a waste of time.

Speaking exclusively to Bizarre, Roger said: "Bo***cks to that! The last thing the planet needs is a rock concert.

"I can't believe it. Let's burn even more fuel.

"We have problems with global warming, but the questions and the answers are so huge I don't know what a rock concert's ever going to do to help.

"Everybody on this planet at the moment, unless they are living in the deepest rainforest in Brazil, knows about climate change.”

The rocker, who used to sing about my g-generation, added: "My answer is to burn all the f***ing oil as quick as possible and then the politicians will have to find a solution.”

Here's what Geldof said:

Roger's comments come hot on the heels of SIR BOB GELDOFÂ’s equally scathing views.

Last week the Live Aid hero lashed out, saying: "Why is Gore actually organising them? To make us aware of the greenhouse effect?

"Everybody's known about that problem for years. We are all f***ing conscious of global warming."

Again Roger complains that unlike the original Live Aid in 1985, where the money went directly to famine relief, the follow-up 20 years later had no achievable aims.

Roger moaned: "What did we really achieve at Live 8? We got loads of platitudes and no action.

"Who were we kidding there?"

h/t Cranky

Posted by: annika at 08:53 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 457 words, total size 3 kb.

...how can we expect her to make the life-or-death decisions concerning national security?

Hillary wants you to pick a song for her.

Update: I just realized there's a write in spot at the bottom of Hillary's voting list. Go stuff the ballot box with The Bitch Is Back!

h/t 6MB

Posted by: annika at 10:33 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 68 words, total size 1 kb.

From Orson Scott Card's* recent column, "Civilization Watch," on the global warming debate:

How many thousands do you want to spend this year on preventing global warming? And after you find out that there's no proof that humans even cause it, or that it's even a bad thing, how many thousands do you want to spend "just in case"?

Two thousand? Surely you can afford two thousand. What about five thousand?

You're not writing your check. I guess you're not such a true believer after all.

[GW advocate and columnist Andrew] Brod also ignores the fact that the British government report was issued in support of policy changes that are, by any rational standard, pathetic. The changes they are making are ludicrously inadequate to change the levels of greenhouse gases to any significant degree. Given that the results will be near zero, any costs, however divided, might seem exorbitant.

Brod likens this to insurance, but it is not. Insurance is designed to pay you money after a loss. It does not prevent a loss. The valid comparison is to protection money: Somebody comes to you and demands you pay money "or you might have a fire." You pay the money so that they won't burn you out of business.

That's what the global-warming protection racket is about: Hey, we can't prove anything is actually happening, but look how many people we've got to agree with us! You'd better make a whole bunch of sacrifices which, by coincidence, exactly coincide with the political agenda of the anti-Western anti-industrial religion of ecodeism -- or global warming will get you!

At the most basic metaphysical level, we are all ignorant of the future. I can predict that the earth will continue to revolve as it did today, and thus the sun will come up tomorrow. But to a metaphysical certainty, I have no idea whether I will be proven correct until it happens. If I look out my window, I can't even say for certain that the earth is spinning, or even that it is round. For those facts, I rely on the scientific consensus and my blind faith in the research and observations of others. I have enough confidence in those observations that I don't worry if they are wrong.

But global warming predictions are not based on observations. They can't be, because no one can observe the future. Therefore, when I make a judgment that global warming science is right or wrong, metaphysically speaking, I have no idea what the truth is. Whatever my opinion is, it can only be based on the observations of others, since I have not done the research. But the important point is that nobody has made the relevant observations necessary for proof. Not even the scientists. The data cannot be collected or observed, since the data does not yet exist.

For hundreds of years, Newton's laws were considered to be truth for two simple reasons. First, they accurately described the observed motion of objects and second, they accurately predicted the motion of objects as observed in the future. Based on the technology that existed to detect the necessary proof, Newton's laws were reliable.

Now, of course, we know that Newton's laws are wrong — or at least incomplete. Einstein has superceded them. Only advances in technology have allowed us to see that descriptions of reality based on Newton's work could only approximate reality. Newton gets us close enough for most purposes, but metaphysically speaking, it is not truth.

Yet for hundreds of years, Newton's laws were indistinguishable from the accepted version of reality. (Einstein blew a hole in that by showing us that reality itself is relative.) But the point I'm trying to make is that scientific consensus does not equal truth — even if the scientific consensus, as with pre-Einsteinian physics, conforms to observed reality and appears to predict future observed reality. Global warming theory, since it seeks to predict catastrophes that are far off in the future, doesn't even have those things going for it.†

h/t protein wisdom
_______________

* A science fiction writer. I read his most famous book Ender's Game, and thought it was creepy and over-rated.

† Which is not to say that GW science is wrong, only that we can not presently know whether it's right or wrong. This is why there's such an emphasis on "consensus." But the media, who don't understand the scientific method, continue to misrepresent "consensus" as truth, when in fact it is not. Without the ability to obtain proof, consensus is about the best people can do, but it is still something short of proof.

Posted by: annika at 10:29 AM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 826 words, total size 5 kb.

I feel the need to disabuse you all of the myth that is Fred Thompson.

Fred Thompson is not the savior. Repeat. Fred Thompson is not the savior. He does not ride a white stallion. He does not wear a white hat. Thus, he can not ride to the rescue of a Republican party that has lost its way. Stop expecting him to.

I'm not convinced that Fred Thompson will enter the presidential race. Neither am I convinced that if he runs he will win the nomination. He's currently polling third. Third is not first. Third is third. And right now that means he's in the low teens. Despite the fact that a lot of otherwise reasonable people think he's a viable candidate, polling in the teens does not indicate a huge groundswell of support.

I think a lot of people are projecting their own hopes on Fred, unreasonably. Sure, none of the top candidates are perfect conservatives. Sure, George W. Bush has been a disappointment for those of us who idolize Ronald Reagan. But wishing Fred Thompson is another Ronald Reagan does not make him so. And wishing Fred Thompson is another Ronald Reagan does not make him electable.

I've accepted this fact and you should too: We will not see another Ronald Reagan in our lifetime. The best we can hope for is that our presidents try to emulate him, but they will never duplicate him. The man was that great.

Please also remember the following (those of you who know a lot about Reagan should already know this): Reagan was a great man and a great president because above all, he was a great thinker. He thought big things, and he thought about them all his life. Before he entered politics he had his own idea of how the world should work. When he entered public life he put his ideas into practice. But make no mistake, the thinking part came first.

Fred Thompson has it exactly backwards, and too many people are forgetting that. Reagan left acting to enter public service. Fred Thompson left public service to become an actor. That should tell you something about their comparative priorities.

And don't tell me people aren't attracted to Thompson in large part because he is an actor. I'm sure the theory is that his acting experience should give him the ability to connect to the average voter. Reagan was an actor and he was "the great communicator." Therefore all actors who run for office should make great communicators. It sounds silly when you say it out loud because it is silly.

"But," you say, "Fred Thompson agrees with me on all the issues." Yah well, so do I. Why don't you write my name in? Being right on the issues is not enough, and never has been. Running for president is a huge, difficult job and I don't think Fred has what it takes to win.

First, you gotta have the right contacts, and lots of them. What contacts does Fred have? Contacts get you donors, and volunteers, who in turn get you money. You need a lot of money to run for president, and this time around you need a lot more than during past elections because the big states have all moved their primaries up front. Name recognition is not enough.

You still need money because you have to pay big staffs, and consultants, and they all have to travel, and you have to buy ads and computers and cell phones and pay rent on offices in fifty states, and spend your money on countless other expenses that eat it up like crazy. At this late date, Thompson's rivals have too big a head start.

Besides that, all the most experienced consultants are spoken for. Who's going to guide Thompson's campaign? Will he have to settle for some amateur? If you think these things don't matter, you're dreaming. Bush got half his contacts from family and business connections. The other half Karl Rove brought with him.

I'll always remember something I heard Phil Jackson say to his team in a huddle during one of their losing playoff runs. "I know you guys want to win, wanting to win is not enough." I know lots of people want Thompson to win, but it's not enough. He has to have the resources, the money, the people, the contacts, the ideas and the fire in the belly. I don't see him having any of that stuff. All I see is a relatively likeable conservative, who's been flattered way too much for anyone's good.

And as for qualifications, I have as much executive experience as Fred Thompson. What has he ever run in his life? A few months ago I explained one reason why I prefer candidates with executive experience over former legislators.

Theoretically, executives must work in the real world where results are expected. Therefore, they should be more results oriented. Legislators on the other hand, work in a world of theoretical projections, possibilities and imaginary outcomes. When they fuck up, they're rarely held to account because they simply blame the other party, the executive, or both.

"But, he's got a great speaking voice..." Okay. He does have a pleasant baritone. But if that's all it takes to get your vote, why stop at baritone? Why not draft a bass? If vocal timbre is all it takes to be president, we should have had a President Thurl Ravenscroft!

Technorati: fred thompson

Posted by: annika at 07:03 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 1011 words, total size 6 kb.

On one issue, I am not a "big tent" Republican. I don't think there should be room for pro-abortion candidates in the Republican party. But I think abortion is a great moral evil, so it follows that I don't think there should pro-abortion candidates in the Democratic party either. Nevertheless, I don't live in a perfect world. Much as I am confounded by his illogical position on the abortion issue, Rudy Giuliani is still the front-runner for my party's nomination.

But the same can't be said of Mitt Romney, who even after getting rave reviews for his debate performance last Thursday night, still remains mired in fourth place. Gallup even has him losing ground after the debate.

What's the difference between Romney and Giuliani? Both have flip-flopped on abortion. (So did I, by the way. Although I came over from the dark side much earlier than Romney, who "says" he switched in 2004). Giuliani donated to Planned Parenthood three times. Romney's wife donated $150 only once, back in 1994.

Both men supposedly have an impressive record of accomplishments. Rudy's is better known to me. He fixed an unfixable city, I watched him do it. Romney did something or other with the Olympics and as far as I know he was a successful governor of Massachussets.

One might say it's anti-Mormon prejudice. It might be, there certainly is some of that going on. But I don't think that explains all of it. I personally don't have any problem with Romney's religion, yet I don't like him at all. What's up with that?

I think one reason I don't like him is that he polls so badly, and I badly want to win. Would I like him better if he were a stronger candidate? Perhaps. I'm open to voting for Romney in the primary (which is more than I can say for Rudy or McCain), if Romney could somehow prove that he can beat Hillary, but so far he hasn't proven that.

Then there's the intangible slickness factor. Romney seems slick. I'll admit that's a silly reason not to vote for somebody, but I doubt I'm the only one who has noticed it about him. I also doubt I'm the only one who's slick-averse after eight years of Clinton. Would America vote for slick over shrew? I don't know. But I do know Romney's got a lot of work to do if he's going to get my vote.

For now, I'm leaning towards Mike Huckabee. He impressed me* during last week's debate, although he's not good on tax policy from what I understand. He has zero chance in hell of winning the nomination and Hillary would crush him like a bug anyway. But I always vote my conscience in the primary, and save my pragmatism for the general.
_______________

* And a lot of people.

Posted by: annika at 03:57 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 479 words, total size 3 kb.

Just out of curiosity:

Posted by: annika at 02:23 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 21 words, total size 1 kb.

Memo to Republican candidates: here's one way to get Hillary's goat. Be polite. That was what Rick Lazio got wrong, when he did his famous "space invading" gesture during the 2000 NY senate race.

For more than two hours, France's presidential front-runner needled his challenger during a debate Wednesday, wrapping it in a veneer of chivalry and always addressing her as "Madame."

Finally, Segolene Royal snapped. The woman seeking to become France's first female president erupted in anger toward the end of the prime-time duel with conservative Nicolas Sarkozy.

It was surprising -- and potentially damaging -- that Royal, not Sarkozy, proved quick to anger. During their bitter election campaign, the Socialist has sought to portray her conservative rival as too unstable, too brutal, to lead the nuclear-armed nation.

In front of millions of television viewers, Sarkozy turned the tables. Royal got furious when he started talking about disabled children, saying he was "playing" with the issue. "I am very angry," she said.

"You become unhinged very easily, Madame," Sarkozy said. "To be president of the republic, one must be calm. . . . I don't know why Mrs. Royal, who's usually calm, has lost her calm."

Hey does anybody speak French? I think this is the video.

By the way, I know nothing about French politics, except that Royal is a hottie, and she's a socialist. Sarkozy, I remember, got in trouble during the recent "youth" riots for stating the obvious: that the rioters were thugs.

Posted by: annika at 11:58 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 252 words, total size 2 kb.

Does Romney want to be president or not? Because naming Battlefield Earth as his favorite novel was probably not the best choice he could have made. It's not enough that he has that "Mormon problem," now he's got to add a "Scientology problem" to it.

Posted by: annika at 06:33 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 49 words, total size 1 kb.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Unity of command is essential.

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

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

• Control external borders immediately.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

via Hot Air

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Couric and CBS were a bad fit from the start.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hide Comments | Add Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6 Most successful thread hijack, evah!

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

7 you guys slay me :-D

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

8 nvm annika

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hide Comments | Add Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dun-dun-dun duuuunnnh!

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

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

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