just trying to eat my waffles

October 31, 2004

Two Days Left

Yesterday i posted about al Qaqaa, one of three major issues that have been monopolizing the news during this last week before the election. The second major issue is bin Laden's videotaped message to America, and the third is the apparent "dead heat" as shown by the polls. Here's my take on issue number two.

Syphilitic Camel Monkey's Message To America

i think this latest video by Osama bin Laden is very unusual. As far as i know this is the first time he has directed an entire message to the American people. i've heard a lot of analysis about what exactly he was trying to accomplish, and i disagree with pretty much all that i've heard.

The radio and TV pundits i've heard seem to have missed two important points that are obvious to me. One, why did bin Laden send a videotaped message instead of attacking? To me, this was very much out of character for al Qaeda. Although there are still two days left (and i hope i'm not proven wrong), it seems logical to me that bin Laden chose to send a video message because he was unable to attack us.

If that's true, all the credit goes to our law enforcement, intelligence and military communities. i think the War on Terror, as it has been prosecuted so far, has done so much damage to al Qaeda that they simply have not been able to do to us what they did to Spain. i've no doubt that al Qaeda wanted to attack us before our election. Nor do i doubt that they misunderstand Americans so much that they probably thought an attack might achieve the same outcome. But instead we got this message from OBL.

The other thing the pundits seem to have misinterpreted is the intent of bin Laden's message. Most pundits insist on analyzing the message through the prism of this question: "Will the bin Laden video help George Bush or will it help John Kerry?" The question misses the point completely because it assumes that bin Laden has a preference for one candidate over the other. And here i will probably be departing from the Republican party line, but i don't think bin Laden gives a rat's ass who wins.

He said so himself:

Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or al Qaeda.

Why would bin Laden say this if he wanted Kerry to win, as the right argues, or if he wanted Bush to win, as the left contends? i don't believe bin Laden has a preference, but he wants whoever wins to know where he stands. He will continue to try to kill Americans as long as we don't do as he says. The final line is the key:

Your security is in your own hands, and each state that does not harm our security will remain safe.

George Bush is a known quantity to Osama bin Laden. If Bush is re-elected, bin Laden wants us to know that we should expect continued belligerence from al Qaeda. But bin Laden is also under the impression that much of this country is ready to reject Bush because people believe that a more dovish Kerry administration will make us more secure.* OBL's message is intended to remind those voters, and Kerry too, that rejecting Bush is not enough to keep us safe. In other words "dovishness" means nothing to OBL unless we do exactly as he says. Translated into plain language, bin Laden is saying:

If you people think you will be safer under a Kerry administration than with Bush, think again. The only thing that will keep you safe is for your leader, whoever he is, to do as I say.

That being, as i understand it, for America to 1) get out of every Islamic nation, and 2) abandon Israel to the wolves.

If Kerry wins, the world might see America withdraw from Iraq sooner than otherwise. And some have surmised that Kerry would indeed be less supportive of Israel, not because of al Qaeda, but to placate the Europeans and the U.N. But whatever happens, OBL probably won't be around to watch. Because much as i dislike Kerry, i'm still pretty certain that even with his "more sensitive" War on Terror, that Syphilitic Camel Monkey is gonna be toast.

(But Kerry's not going to win. And you'll see how confident i am about that tomorrow when i discuss issue number three: the polls.)
_______________

* If OBL really thinks John Kerry won't go after al Qaeda, he's mistaken. Although his national security policy is weak, misguided and wrong for America, Kerry is not dovish on getting OBL. But since so many of Kerry's supporters are hate-America cut-and-run wackos, it's easy to see where OBL might get that impression.

Posted by: annika at 09:13 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 803 words, total size 5 kb.

1 Annika, two quick things. 1. It was Chainee who first used the word sensitive with regard to prosecuting the war on terror. 2. Your jump from knowing OBL "wanted to attack us before the election" to "was unable to attack" to "it must be law enforcement" is a typical RW syllogism. No support. just a dangerous wish.

Posted by: mike at November 01, 2004 07:23 AM (0ZdtC)

2 Well, Mike, don't you think that OBL and AQ wanted to attack us at least once in the last 4 years? Or did you forget about Richard Reid, and Moussouai, and the intel from bin Alsheeb and Khalid Sheik Mohammad. Anyway, I do think the message is a sign of weakness for other reasons, not least that the threats of violence are now more conditional than they were in the past. My blog has a little thing on this too.

Posted by: Roach at November 01, 2004 10:06 AM (DHoAQ)

3 Annika: Americans are not the main target of this strategic communications effort, but the rest of the Arab/Muslim world. We are too quick to analyze things through our perspective - how he's trying to affect our elections. We are directly involved in the Iraq War and the Afghan War. The Arab and Islamic worlds see us as a cobelligerent with Israel in the Israeli and Palestinian conflict. Finally, we are involved in a struggle with Islamic extremists and terrorists of which Al Qaeda is only one element - one whose status has been falling. Post 9/11, OBL was the leading figure to reestablish the caliphate; now, given the rise of others such as Al-Zarkawi and Sunni insurgents in Iraq, he's fallen from that perch. Playing to the American audience, especially right before the election, is a certain way to get massive publicity (for cheap!) and reestablish his place in the "struggle." Give him credit, when else has an outside individual been able to weigh in so overtly and arrogantly into our elections? If you have spent some time in Arab countries, you know that Arab males, in general, make considerable efforts to enhance their own individual dignity. The status of many Arabs and preserving "face" is dependent upon the image they uphold in public. The public image is not necessarily the "facts"; facts are what you see, what you experience, what you want to see. Dwell not upon thy weariness, thy strength shall be according to the measure of thy desire." Arabic proverb

Posted by: Col Steve at November 01, 2004 12:12 PM (DmFF+)

4 Roach, "I don't know" is all I can say with assurity regarding what was on their mind(s). Anybody who says differently is guessing in the direction that serves their agenda. IMHO, if they wanted to cause some election day mayhem they could have without streching. This morning I was crossing the Brooklyn Bridge to enter Manhattan and found my self traveling behind a 12' Ford cube truck. Trucks are not allowed on this bridge. Police are stationed at both ends. You tell me if this is reflective of tight security. If OBL had called two Islamic martyrs in Paterson NJ and told them to cook up some pre election mayhem in NYC nothing on earth would have been able to stop them. They could do something as simple as buy a box of baking soda, put a couple of spoonfulls in 100 envelopes, write ANTHRAX in arabic on the out side and start riding subways leaving them behind at each stop. By Monday evening, Tuesday voting would be in jeopardy in NYC. You are never going to convince me that Annika's fallacious logic is a substitute for truth. It is however, a fine rendering of the mind set that has, as I have stated before, traded intellect for fear.

Posted by: mike at November 01, 2004 12:18 PM (0ZdtC)

5 You are baiting me Mike. Don't make me school you on logic. i know what a post hoc argument is, that's why i said "if." Although it is a favorite tactic of knee-jerk liberals, pointing out logical fallacies is not a substitute for proof.

Posted by: annika at November 01, 2004 01:35 PM (zAOEU)

6 Annika, I see only one 'IF". I see plenty of "i have no doubt" and "nor do I doubt" All sounds pretty emphatic to me. All seems pretty much unprovable. Unless you feel you have proved that he did not attack. Logic is no substitute for truth. I think he did not want to attack us and may or may not have been able to. I do, however, think that you are right when you say he does not care who wins. If he wanted either man to win he could have said many things that would have resulted in a voter shift. He did not. I am as confident that Kerry will win as you are that the dullard will. What odds are you giving?

Posted by: mike at November 01, 2004 02:13 PM (0ZdtC)

7 Don't move the goalposts, Mike. You accused me of asserting that the reason we haven't been attacked yet is "law enforcement." That's where my qualifier "if" comes in. Of course i know i can't prove that law enforcement is the reason we haven't been attacked. But it's a reasonable assumption to make. If i believe that theory A explains fact B, a counter argument that theory A does not prove fact B (which i concede) does not prove that theory A is incorrect. Nor does that counter-argument prove that theory C is correct. No one knows why we haven't been attacked yet. You say, somewhat contradictorily, that it's because "he did not want to attack us and may or may not have been able to." What is your evidence for that position? The argument that OBL wants to attack us is well supported by his statements to that effect, and in the historical record. As to my wager, put your blog up against mine. Oh that's right, trolls never have blogs. i wonder why that is.

Posted by: annika at November 01, 2004 02:37 PM (zAOEU)

8 I wonder too! I guess the intrinsic value of running (or does one own), a blog has escaped me. I have simply answered your public request for comments and for that selfless act I get plastered with a derogatory label! (Although Shreck has taken some of the sting out ?) Shall I only comment to blog owners who share my point of view? What other like asset can I put up against the value of your blog? I look to you for guidance.

Posted by: mike at November 02, 2004 08:38 AM (0ZdtC)

9 "Shall I only comment to blog owners who share my point of view?" Mike, there's no need to go elsewhere. i'd rather you stay here and share my point of view. lol.

Posted by: annika at November 02, 2004 02:11 PM (zAOEU)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

What Should i Have Been For Halloween?

You Should Be a Martini for Halloween!

What should you be for Halloween?

Well, since i'm not dressing up, i believe i'll just have a martini.

Posted by: annika at 11:37 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 40 words, total size 1 kb.

Halloween Greetings

Happy Halloween to everybody who dares to visit this blog.

SlagleRock has a holiday safety warning for all parents. When i was little, my parents took me around to malls for trick or treat, but even then, i rarely got to eat any candy. Halloween was mostly about the dress up for me.

Last night both myself and Matt Scofield had something to cheer about. Cal humiliated ASU by a score of 27 to nothing. (Matt's a Wildcat fan.) Cal is playing great. Too bad USC is too, but the Rose Bowl is a definite possibility for the Golden Bears this year. If it can't be Cal, i'd love to see USC and Auburn in the Orange Bowl because i think Auburn will spank the Trojans.

i'm not doing anything for Halloween this year. Since i took Saturday off, i need to study today. i had planned to go to the game with Francine and some other Cal friends, except i fucked up my ankle on Friday. i didn't want to walk on it yesterday, since Memorial Stadium requires so much hiking. Thankfully, it's feeling much better this morning.

Posted by: annika at 09:43 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 193 words, total size 1 kb.

October 30, 2004

Three Days Left And That's All They Got?

Three days left before the election, and i'm tired of all the nonsense. There are three huge stories that i have been too busy to comment on until now. Here's my take on one of them:

Al Ca-ca:

Who knows whether the explosives were there or not? i do know that the mainstream media and Kerry rushed to judgment on this story, when the facts were still hotly disputed. What do you expect? Kerry's losing, and the liberals are desperate for some kind of last minute surprise scandal that will keep them within the "cheater's margin" in a couple of battleground states.

Assuming the truth of the charge - that the explosives were there after our troops arrived and we somehow allowed them to be spirited away under our noses - i don't see that as the huge scandal the left seems to think it is. It's certainly not a reason to reject George Bush this Tuesday.

Mistakes happen in war. Nobody who's not been on the ground during offensive combat - least of all those effete nattering nabobs of negativity, the reporters - can truly understand what is called "the fog of war." Hell, i certainly don't. i only know it exists, and that's only from seven years of studying history and a lifetime of reading books and watching war movies.

In war, especially during fast moving offensive operations, there are no time outs. Not everything that you'd want to get done, actually gets done. Kerry ought to know this, since he's such a big military man. i'm not saying i believe the charges, i actually don't. Today's U.S. armed forces are the most professional in the history of the world. But even if the story were true, Kerry's criticism of George Bush for not sufficiently micromanaging this war makes me worry more about what he'd do at the reins.

Civil war example: Abraham Lincoln's military expertise was negligible when he took office. He was president during our worst war, our biggest crisis, when the actual existence of our country hung in the balance. Lincoln made plenty of mistakes as a wartime commander-in-chief. i can name a dozen off the top of my head. If John Kerry had been around back then, i can imagine the rhetoric:

Lincoln rushed to war without a plan for reconstruction!
He ignored the advice of General McClellan who said we needed more troops!*
He failed to provide the troops with the latest quick firing weapons!
He allowed General Lee to join the secession, and then he let General Lee escape when we had him in our grasp at Malvern Hill!

i could go on, but others have made the Civil War analogy before, so you get the idea.

The bottom line is that Lincoln won the war, and despite all the criticism leveled at him during the war, he's now widely considered our greatest president. And my point is, that like FDR and both George Bushs, Lincoln was a great wartime president because he did not micromanage the war.

By contrast, Confederate President Jefferson Davis was proud of his military background. After graduating from West Point, he served as a lieutenant in the cavalry with a modest record. After a short retirement and marriage,** Davis fought in the Mexican War where he was wounded and returned home as a hero. Later he served in the U.S. Senate*** and as Secretary of War.

Yet despite his military training and expertise, and arguably because of it, Jefferson Davis was a horrible wartime president. His micromanagement of the war cost the Confederacy too many brave and valuable soldiers, ensuring their defeat. Davis often rejected the advice of his generals, believing that his military background made him their equal. And his insistence on offensive Napoleonic tactics at a time when the rifle had made those tactics obsolete, increased casualties and lost the war for the South. Not that that's a bad thing mind you, but it's absolutely true.****

Back to our day. Kerry criticizes our President for not making sure that some bunkers on the tip of the spear were not secured and placed under guard as soon as we got there? Would Kerry have ordered that all offensive operations proceed only after every "i" was dotted and "t" crossed? i remember the ruckus in the media after the so-called "operational pause." You'd think we had lost the war, the way the media carried on about that. How many more "operational pauses" would there have been under a Kerry presidency?

Oh, that's right, none. Because it was the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time. Kerry would rather have left Saddam in control over all his explosives.
_______________

* McClellan, the only general i know of who managed to lose consistently when his force outnumbered the enemy's by almost two to one.

** Like Kerry, ambition might have led Jefferson Davis to marry "up." His first wife was the daughter of President Zachary Taylor.

*** Interestingly, Jefferson Davis was a Senator before he became a traitor, while John Kerry did it the other way around.

**** For more on how Davis's micromanagement of the war lost it for the South, i highly recommend this book.

Posted by: annika at 09:11 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 881 words, total size 5 kb.

1 Excellent points, Annie. I've been trying to explain this line of argument to a variety people since the story broke, with very limited success. Those who want to see this story as indicative of some broader failure of strategic thinking -- assuming it's true in the first place -- will continue to do so; logic has nothing to do with it. But it's good that you put it out there; with luck, it might persuade some of the very few people whose minds are open on the subject.

Posted by: Matt at October 30, 2004 12:55 PM (eWM9Y)

2 I suspect that most of the people who attack Bush for "inadequate planning," etc, are people who work in what are essentially "staff positions," in which they analyze, advise, pontificate, etc, but never have final responsibility for making decisions or getting things accomplished. I've got a post on this topic at: http://photoncourier.blogspot.com/2004_10_01_photoncourier_archive.html#109863391205599410

Posted by: David Foster at October 30, 2004 04:17 PM (XUtCY)

3 Well, I'm persuaded. 700 k lbs of explosives couldn't matter a wit to the BIG picture. It takes twice that amount to destroy a Humvee IÂ’ve been told. And I'm sure our troops, as Rudy G. said, are to blame, not the president, who shouldn't be micro managing the forces on the ground anyway. George understands that from his extensive reading about the civil war and the failure of Jefferson Davis. But maybe he sought advice from the weapons maven Conidium Rice; she has consistently shown great acumen when analyzing weapons systems, and she told him that these bunkers contained boxes that could only be used to hold pirate booty. She knew this how? Well, when she was writing her dissertation in the Hermitage reading room, she sat on a very similar box with the Cyrillic for Pyrite on the side. I sure would have believed her, sheÂ’s so smart! Out troops had encountered such crack Iraqi troops fighting trench and ditch to protect their country that had the spear veered more than a few feet or paused more than a few minutes, the strategic advantage would have been lost and our troops would have found themselves wading in the Red Sea and the stars and bars would have been flapping in the breeze. Good thing they secured NOTHING on the way to Bagdad, it could have been a debacle otherwise. Annika, your comparison of GB to Lincoln and Roosevelt is astonishing in its intellectual dishonesty. Those two men were educated, could read and write, make complete thoughts of longer than one sentence, etc. (well the up side is that no marble will be wasted building the GB library) To say they were great presidents because they won the war(s) by refusing to micro-manage is just simplistic drivel. GB couldnÂ’t micro manage taking a crap. He is dim, distant, disconnected and completely at the mercy of his advisors who DO have an agenda and it stinks. Not to mention that itÂ’s implementation is inept and shoddy and has resulted in the death of over a thousand brave young and not so young Americans who are indeed fighting the wrong war. Other presidents, other generals could have accomplished this occupation without the great loss of life by simply listening to those that did give this administration the proper advice. Fatal arrogance and hubris is the unending sin of these fools. Whether Saddam is in power or not is irrelevant. DID NOT MATTER. Was a bullshit story that you and so many others have swallowed50 million American have traded their intellect and freedom for a bucket of fear. I would restore Saddam to power in an instant if it would bring back the 1000 Americans who have died. GB will be defeated and America will be restored. The Middle East will continue to muddle along. Democracy will not, in our lifetimes take hold in the region. They are simply not as interested in Democracy as they are in other ways to run their lives. Religious dogma, corrupt business practices, a basic belief in the inferiority of women, a distain for Americas sexual liberation and a powerful fear it is headed their way. They do hate our freedom, just not the ones GB thinks

Posted by: mike at October 30, 2004 05:10 PM (0ZdtC)

4 In defense of McClellan, or at least of those who kept telling Lincoln that he was the best general in the North: McClellan was excellent at defense, and at training troops and at pulling a defeated army back together after some belligerent moron had nearkly wrecked it. No one could have done better at turning back Lee's first incursion into the North. He didn't dither while trying to count the enemy, instead he threw out the best defense he could muster, and it was more than good enough. But many other generals would have pursued Lee's army beyond Antietam. McClellan energetically saw the rebels off, and then turned back into a ditherer as soon as they were gone from Northern territory. He had to collect intelligence reports and plan the campaign in detail - and somehow he always concluded from the intelligence reports that the opposing forces were three times the size they actually were. This is how he managed to be defeated again and again by an army half the size - he thought they were stronger, would advance against them only if directly ordered to, and then would move very cautiously and be well-prepared for a retreat when Lee counterattacked. McClellan's heart just wasn't in the war. He would have been happy with a stalemate leading to an eventual recognition of Southern independence. On the other side, Lee felt duty-bound to side with his state, although he thought the war was unwinnable (Lee was a good military engineer, so he could do the math), and wasn't proud of killing men to defend slavery. Left up to the two of them, the war would have been a bloodless stalemate. But finally, Lincoln found two competent generals, Grant and Sherman, who understood that the North would win by a war of attrition, and were committed enough and bloody-minded enough to kill as many men as necessary. They weren't military geniuses or anywhere near the intellectual equals of Lee and McClellan, but they could deploy troops so they wouldn't be driven back by inferior forces, and they understood that trading 30,000 Union troops for 20,000 Confederates was a win for the Union - because their lost men would be replaced, while the Confederates could hardly even replace the shoes that were worn out when their troops marched to battle. They understood that getting outflanked (the Battle of the Wilderness), or even getting cut off from home completely (Sherman's march to the sea) wasn't a disaster if the opposing forces weren't strong enough to take advantage of it. And finally, Grant was very persistent as long as the plan could be made to work(Vicksburg), but when it really went haywire he could change plans instantly (Cold Harbor).

Posted by: markm at October 30, 2004 05:14 PM (5nK/L)

5 Great line from Lincoln, to McClellan: "If you're not using the army, I'd like to borrow it for a while." For whatever reason, though, the man did seem to have the affection of his troops.

Posted by: David Foster at October 30, 2004 05:19 PM (XUtCY)

6 Yep, that's all they've got, as our friend mike here has demonstrated. They've tried everything else, and I do mean everything.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at October 30, 2004 11:35 PM (+S1Ft)

7 "I would restore Saddam to power in an instant if it would bring back the 1000 Americans who have died." what a fucking idiotic statement.

Posted by: scof at October 31, 2004 12:40 AM (Oo2Oh)

8 Miss Annika, Davis a traitor? Surely, surely you mis-spoke. Davis had many faults, but disloyalty was not one of them. To break it down for you: the Confederacy was comprised of states that left the union. Left. Not as in the way California leans politically, but left as in removed themselves. Quit. Gone. Bye-bye. I know of nothing Davis did before secession that would have warranted such a slanderous accusation. After secession he was no longer obligated to allegiance to the union. During the War of Northern Aggression he was not engaging in treason or traitorous activity, he was simply trying to defend his country. And as for the South losing said war not being a bad thing - I disagree. Because of Lincoln's victory over the South & the Constitution he started the snowball which that other usurping bastard FDR picked up & turned our limited government into one limited only by the ambition of our politicians. As for McClellan's losing record, methinks you don't give enough credit to Lee. One of his many upstanding qualities was that he was a brilliant military strategust. Not perfect, but better than anyone that imperialist bastard had under him. Think of him as eloquence to Grant & Sherman's barbarity. But again I must protest the accusation that Davis was a traitor. Pick on Kerry all you wish (or all you have time for - there's a lot to pick on) but I'd ask you reconsider your unkind words about the last group of people to fight for their independence on American soil. Mike, I'm no fan of Bush, but saying that he is inferior to that usurping bastard & his ancestor in spirit (Lincoln & FDR, disrespectively) is not accurate. Bush merely supports some forms of socilaism. Fdr implemnted them. Bush takes for granted that the states are forever bound to the union, while Lincoln's ambition turned that injustice into reality. As much as I dislike Bush (though I admit I dislike Kerry even more - Bush does some things wrong but he's probably sincere while Kerry does things wrong out of a kind of selfishness) I wouldn't compare him to the bastard who put us all under the federal boot or the bastard who used that boot to rob us of our livelyhoods in the name of charity. So no, Bush isn't the equal of Lincoln or FDR - he'd have to do much worse for that to happen. Miss Annika (again), "Lee Takes Command" by Clifford Dowdey. Judging by the reviews listed for the book you linked I'd encourage you to pick up Dowdey's work. Not an all encompassing piece by any means, but it won't be filled with theories about celtic genetic/cultural causation for the South's military defeat.

Posted by: Publicola at October 31, 2004 01:09 AM (+nokQ)

9 I can tell you this, if a weapons Cache were found by US troops it wouldn't be left unguarded. We are required to provide armed security for small numbers of small arms, do you honestly think we'd leave tons of explosives unprotected? Kerry must think the American people are idiots and our military a joke to even push this rediculous idea. SlagleRock Out! Oh, and Happy Halloween!

Posted by: SlagleRock at October 31, 2004 11:08 AM (YbjOr)

10 Scof, Very clearly put. I wonder though if you have a clue as to what I meant.

Posted by: mike at November 01, 2004 06:43 AM (0ZdtC)

11 Annika - Perhaps some of the Russian Generals from the Winter War against Finland - but probably very few survived the wrath of Stalin. I take exception to McClellan being a brilliant strategist. A strategist connects ends - ways - means in a coherent manner. I disagree Little Mac would have been happy with a stalemate, but I do think he would have preferred a quick resolution that would have returned much of the landscape to pre-war conditions with perhaps only slight modifications that would have merely postponed conflict (although perhaps not civil war). Thus, McClellan had the end (take Richmond early), ways (attack on two fronts from the North and East), and means (Union Army which he had trained well - his forte was as a force developer, not employer). He was unlucky Confederate Gen Johnston got wounded early in the campaign (Johnston probably would have retreated to Richmond and dug in after the first failed attack). McClellan, though, showed little understanding of the integrated use of cavalry as reconnaissance, screening, and shaping elements and failed to press the narrow window he had to take Richmond because he lacked the daring to maneuver without his heavy artillery. And Little Mac actually had Lee's campaign plan for the invasion of MD and still could only manage a draw at Antietam. In defense though of another fellow West Point alum, Jeff Davis' picture still hangs in the halls of the Pentagon

Posted by: Col Steve at November 01, 2004 08:56 PM (0MJte)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

October 28, 2004

annieconversations: Publicola

annikagyrl: i'm here now with Publicola, who is one of my favorite bloggers, and also one of the oldest visitors to my blog. Hi Publicola...
more...

Posted by: annika at 10:00 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 3880 words, total size 28 kb.

1 So when Do I get an interview(just kidding) Being a Lawyer for Bush in a battleground state, I thought I would be in High demand for interviews. OH well. Lets hope we all do not see me on Fox News at 3:00 AM on Nov 3rd in front of the Lackawanna county courthouse in PA stating that "all we want is a fair legal count".... God HELP US ALL!

Posted by: lawguy at October 28, 2004 10:55 PM (03JsU)

2 Well, if Publicola (at 33) is one of your older readers, call me Methuselah at 37. Great interview -- serious and thoughtful. You haven't changed my mind one bit about guns, mind you, but you have entertained me.

Posted by: Hugo at October 29, 2004 09:08 AM (+5Isa)

3 My God, my mental image of Publicola has just been wrecked. Somehow it never crossed my mind that I'm older than him (only by a year, though). Publicola, I really wish I could get you and Tung Yin into a discussion of gun control and individual rights during your joint guest-blogging stint. (To see why, click here.) Finally, let me make this perfectly clear for the record: I have no intention of finding honest work. But I'd also point out that of the 55 delegates who attended the Constitutional Convention and produced the greatest political document in the history of mankind, 64% were lawyers or had legal training. (That's according to a Google search I just ran. I once counted them up for myself, and I think I came up with a similar number.) Of course, Publicola's response will no doubt be that the other 36% did pretty good work, considering all the damned lawyers they had to deal with . . .

Posted by: Matt at October 29, 2004 11:05 AM (SIlfx)

4 Hey, an interview via IM (I assume)! Nifty idea. I originally had Publicola pegged as another of us old farts. He doesn't exactly write like a young'n, you know. Someday, I'll just have to meet him.

Posted by: jed at October 29, 2004 09:32 PM (O3rGR)

5 Well, Hugo, if I'm pushing 39 in a month, who's older than Methuselah? One thing that bugged me: "The gist of it is they feel the war on Iraq was unwise & unconstitutional" Article I, Section 8: To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. Public Law 93-148 93rd Congress, H. J. Res. 542 November 7, 1973 (aka War Powers Resolution) stated: The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. and added SEC. 8. (a) Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred-- (1) from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before the date of the enactment of this joint resolution), including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution; The Public law (Iraq War Resolution) approved 77-23 in the Senate and 296-133 in the House stated: SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution. Unwise is often left to history (remember Reconstruction in the Civil War went 12 years - we didn't just all get along after Appomattox - and many would argue still don't 100+ years later)..but until someone challenges the constitutionality of the WP Resolution, throwing around "unconstitutional" is somewhat shaky.. And anyone who's been in parts of the Middle East knows that any kind of gun control laws in most of those countries is doomed to fail.. I'm not quite as hardcore as Publicola is, but he's right about the AWB. If you actually asked someone what the bill actually did, you tended to get either a blank look or "banned assualt weapons" answer. If you drilled one level down to ask if the rationale behind a bill that banned one rifle but not another rifle that looked and performed (the lethality)exactly the same except for a cosmetic feature such as a "grip that protrudes conspicuously" made sense, you'd find the conversation didn't tend to go much further. It's ironic that some feel sexual education in school serves a useful purpose to prevent the negative or unintended consequences of early sexual activity, but don't believe the same is true for firearms.

Posted by: Col Steve at October 29, 2004 10:00 PM (0MJte)

6 -I'm not sure you were actually interviewing the real Publicola. After the 3rd response with no mention of the Garand, I realized something was amiss and quit reading.

Posted by: Jasen at October 30, 2004 04:31 PM (qg/8Q)

7 I completely agree with Publicola, but I'm going to vote for Bush anyway. The only alternative to the GOP that I know of are the Libertarian folks, but I can't vote for Badnarik due to his almost Nader-esque views on Iraq and the War on Terror. I plan on getting an AR-15 someday, and I don't want those damned Leftist authoritarians to ban them in the near future. People should realize that giving the government a monopoly on firearms possession is a bad thing. If there is ever a riot in your city, then you are probably going to need a weapon to deter hordes of looters during the anarchy since the limited number of local cops are probably going to be busy performing riot control elsewhere instead of helping you. I once heard that the founding fathers gave us the second amendment so that we could overthrow or rebel against the government if it ever became tyrannical. I would love to see the Left try to explain why disarming the Jews in Germany before the Holocaust was a good thing. The Left should also realize that Ghandi- or MLK-styled peaceful protests don't always work to change government policies. They should ask the Chinese in 1989...... http://www.allposters.com/IMAGES/153/PP0893.jpg or the Iraqis a couple years ago. BTW, the M-1 Garand rules. One reason we kicked so much Nazi ass was because of its advantageous semi-automatic capability. The poor Nazis were stuck with near-obsolete bolt-action rifles. heheheh

Posted by: reagan80 at October 31, 2004 09:12 AM (hlMFQ)

8 Enjoyed your interview of Publicola very much. The insight is very interesting. I don't keep up with the blogs I enjoy enough. I found your link thru Pub. Hey I'm going to be 60 soon! And I enjopy you guys very much. I have to think I'm somewhat of an absolutist too, as I read Publicola. Thanks for the interview.

Posted by: HK Latham at January 29, 2005 09:10 AM (lQpOy)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Blog Future Feature Teaser 4.0

Since nobody wants to interview me, i've decided to institute a new blog feature, where i conduct fascinating interviews over Yahoo! Instant Messenger with some of my favorite bloggers. This new feature will be filed under the rubric "annieconversations." Get it? annie - conversations. annika - nversations? Cute huh?

First up is my recent interview with Munuvian iconoclast Publicola, which i'll try to have up later today. Stay tuned.

Posted by: annika at 09:18 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 79 words, total size 1 kb.

October 27, 2004

IM Conversation While Watching The Red Sox Win

annikagyrl: the curse is over
annikagyrl: the curse is over
annikagyrl: long live the curse
leaky: nah, they're still cursed
annikagyrl: lol
annikagyrl: yah?
leaky: John Kerry is from their state
annikagyrl: hahahaah

Posted by: annika at 08:45 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 49 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Yeah, but John Kerry's political career isn't going to last 86 years (thank God). And here I, as a Boston Republican, imagined that all the potential for people to annoyingly link the World Series and the election ended with the Astros losing the NLCS. Just wishful thinking, I guess. ;-) As for the Sox winning, I still don't think it's quite sunk in with me yet. It's just too unreal.

Posted by: Dave J at October 27, 2004 09:44 PM (GEMsk)

2 OK, here's the good news. Kerry and his Bosox (Name a player, John?)may have won the Fall Classic, but thousands of folks from St. Louis will now vote against the guy from Boston, throwing the state of Missouri to Bush.

Posted by: shelly s. at October 27, 2004 09:53 PM (fLlQ8)

3 I've waited 50 years for this. And it is very sweet, indeed. But the best part? The Universal Law of Karma Only one group of Boston idiots gets to win the big one in any given year. Thus, JF Kerry will have to postpone his inauguration for another, oh, 86 years. Now THAT rocks!

Posted by: John at October 27, 2004 10:33 PM (OmbAg)

4 heh, they did it. they fuckin did it. all the beers won't let it sink in yet.

Posted by: Scof at October 27, 2004 10:53 PM (xUQK8)

5 You've got it wrong, John. Good things happen in threes: 1. January: Patriots win the Super Bowl 2. October: Sox win the Series 3. November: Kerry wins the presidency. And need I add Massachusetts becoming the first state to legalize gay marriage? No question, the entire state is truly blessed this year.

Posted by: Hugo at October 28, 2004 08:11 AM (yv3nF)

6 Hugo, You contradict yourself! If they come in threes, they don't come in fours. Pick the one you want to drop... obviously--unless you're Mr. Peabody--you can't take the Sox victory. Your choice? Is that your final answer?

Posted by: John at October 28, 2004 03:27 PM (OmbAg)

7 The gay marriage event wasn't part of a victory in single event, like an election or a series or a superbowl. Rather, it was the inevitable outcome of a series of processes. It didn't count as one of my three great victories of '04 -- merely as a reminder of the blessedness of Mass. this year...

Posted by: Hugo at October 28, 2004 04:10 PM (+5Isa)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Today Is Poetry Wednesday

A fun poem about drinking, by British poet John Masefield (1878-1967).

Captain Stratton's Fancy
Oh some are fond of red wine, and some are fond of white,
And some are all for dancing by the pale moonlight;
But rum alone's the tipple, and the heart's delight
Of the old bold mate of Henry Morgan.
Oh some are fond of Spanish wine, and some are fond of French,
And some'll swallow tay and stuff fit only for a wench;
But I'm for right Jamaica till I roll beneath the bench,
Says the old bold mate of Henry Morgan.
Oh some are for the lily, and some are for the rose,
But I am for the sugar-cane that in Jamaica grows;
For it's that that makes the bonny drink to warm my copper nose,
Says the old bold mate of Henry Morgan.
Oh some are fond of fiddles, and a song well sung,
And some are all for music for to lilt upon the tongue;
But mouths were made for tankards, and for sucking at the bung,
Says the old bold mate of Henry Morgan.
Oh some are fond of dancing, and some are fond of dice,
And some are all for red lips, and pretty lasses' eyes;
But a right Jamaica puncheon is a finer prize
To the old bold mate of Henry Morgan.
Oh some that's good and godly ones they hold that it's a sin
To troll the jolly bowl around, and let the dollars spin;
But I'm for toleration and for drinking at an inn,
Says the old bold mate of Henry Morgan.
Oh some are sad and wretched folk that go in silken suits,
And there's a mort of wicked rogues that live in good reputes;
So I'm for drinking honestly, and dying in my boots,
Like an old bold mate of Henry Morgan.

Sucking at the bung? Not sure i'm down with that image, lol.

Posted by: annika at 08:36 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 327 words, total size 2 kb.

More Evidence Of The Liberals' Tendency To Violence

Forget those guys throwing pies at Ann Coulter, (which, as my crim law professor will tell you, is both an assault and a battery), forget Elizabeth Edwards tacit approval of rioting as blackmail, SOMEONE TRIED TO KILL KATHERINE HARRIS.

i have no evidence to support this theory, but i blame the lying, hateful, disgusting, race-baiting video, which has been circulating on the internet (which i will not link to), and which demonizes Katherine Harris so severely that it literally made me wince.

And this creep, true to liberal form, says he was merely exercising his right to political expression.

Posted by: annika at 07:03 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 115 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Unfortunately, liberals don't have a monopoly on that sort of thing.

Posted by: Xrlq at October 27, 2004 09:27 PM (6DLYC)

2 BTW, is there anything actually known about this man's politics? And, it appears he was not trying to kill her, since he turned away away and did not even hit her. It would seem that if he were trying to kill her he could have. Not that that would be a loss, mind you, but why call it something it is not? Oh, I forgot, it suits your purpose and really, then, what has the truth to do with it? http://www.ericblumrich.com/gta.html See why she should have gone to jail rather than become a congressperson.

Posted by: mike at October 28, 2004 03:11 PM (0ZdtC)

3 "...which, as my crim law professor will tell you, is both an assault and a battery..." I don't remember: did they hit? It wouldn't be a battery if they missed. Speaking of assault, Mike, yes, he's a Dem (shocker, I know) and has properly been charged with aggravated assault. "I didn't intend to kill you" gets you out of attempted murder, but not out of being a serious felon. Whether it's a car or a gun, pointing a deadly weapon at someone to scare them by threatening their life is hardly just (in his own words) "political expression."

Posted by: Dave J at October 28, 2004 03:19 PM (VThvo)

4 Mike, i don't know if you are a long time visitor or not. But i hope people who come here have noticed my commitment to scrupulous intellectual honesty. If i make a mistake, i will acknowledge it. And i hope i never make a false statement simply to "suit my purpose." (humorous posts excepted, of course) Driving a cadillac into a crowd of people satisfies the elements of Attempted Murder. The word "attempt" is synonymous with "try," therefore i am correct in saying that the asshole "tried to kill Katherine Harris." It's still attempted murder even if you argue that, since he swerved at the last minute, he did not intend to kill anyone. The "intent" element of the crime is satisfied by his "reckless disregard" for human life when he drove a car over the curb, at a crowd of people. The DA apparently made a tactical decision not to charge Attempted Murder, but that doesn't mean his act doesn't fit the legal definition.

Posted by: annika at October 28, 2004 04:10 PM (zAOEU)

5 Hmmmmm...a quick search of the case law by this non-criminal Florida attorney finds that you are, indeed, correct: under the facts of this case, it does appear that the State Attorney could indeed have charged Attempted Second-Degree Murder. See Brown v. State, 790 So.2d 389 (Fla. 2000); Gentry v. State, 437 So.2d 1097 (Fla. 1983). Nonetheless, I personally find Justice Harding's dissent in Brown vastly more convincing: the Florida Supreme Court's jurisprudence on criminal attempt seems to be all over the place, holding inconsistently that it is both a general intent crime and a specific intent crime; moreover, he finds the overwhelming majority of jurisdictions treat attempt as a specific intent crime, with only Colorado joining Florida, and Colorado at least conceding that it is at variance with most of the country. Harding explains why "general intent attempted murder" is logically impossible: "An attempt, by nature, is a failure to accomplish what one intended to do. Attempt means to try; it means an effort to bring about a desired result." Keys v. State, 104 Nev. 736, 766 P.2d 270, 273 (198

. The concept of attempt seems necessarily to involve the notion of an intended consequence, for when one attempts to do something one is endeavoring or trying to do it. Hence, an attempt requires a desired, or at least an intended, consequence. Paul H. Robinson & Jane A. Grall, Element Analysis in Defining Criminal Liability: The Model Penal Code and Beyond, 35 Stan. L. Rev. 681, 747 n.290 (1983). The nature of an attempt, then, is that it requires a specific intent. ... here is a substantial distinction between a completed crime and an attempt. In a case involving a completed crime, the State is punishing a defendant for conduct which was carried out to completion. In contrast, in a case involving an attempt, an inchoate crime, there is no completed offense, so the State is punishing a defendant for conduct preparatory to the offense coupled with the intent to commit such an offense. Unlike the completed offense, mere preparatory conduct without any intent should not be enough to establish an attempt. Therefore, based on the reasons stated above, I would recede from Gentry and conclude that all attempt crimes require a specific intent to commit the underlying offense... ... Murder is a result-oriented crime which cannot be proven without first establishing the "result element" that a person is dead. In light of the conclusion that attempt is a specific intent crime, it follows that a person cannot be convicted of attempted murder if that person did not intend the result of death. It is not enough that the defendant simply intended certain conduct without also intending the result (i.e., although a defendant may have intended to fire a gun at a house, if the defendant did not intend to kill, this should not amount to an attempted murder). See, e.g., [United States v. Roa, 12 M.J. 210, 212] ("Appellate defense counsel have suggested that the government's theory would produce some anomalous results.... [A]n accused who had fired into [a large] crowd with no intent to kill anyone but with a wanton disregard for human life and had injured no one could, under the government's theory, be convicted of a separate attempt to murder every person in the crowd.").

Posted by: Dave J at October 28, 2004 06:00 PM (GEMsk)

6 Interesting. But i hasten to remind you that the quoted language is a dissent, and therefore it is not law. Furthermore, this is the exact same Florida Supreme Court that screwed up the 2000 election. And in fact, there's a pretty glaring misspelled word in the 3rd paragraph of the Brown opinion, which does nothing to change my low regard for that particular court. Anyways, i read the case, and while the dissent does seem persuasive, it does not address the issue as i see it: whether depraved heart or reckless disregard is sufficient to establish intent for the crime of attempted murder. i hold that it is, whether the crime be classified as one of specific intent or one of general intent. In the context of attempt, the distinction between specific intent crimes and general intent crimes, according to the dissent, is that in general intent crimes the state has to prove intent to do the crime only, while under the standard of specific intent, the state would also have to prove intent to commit the overt act in furtherance of the attempt. So as you can see, the Brown court was not asked to decide whether depraved heart or reckless disregard satisfies the mens rea element for the crime of attempted murder. Bottom line: i'm still right.

Posted by: annika at October 28, 2004 06:54 PM (CDVJq)

7 Believe me, you don't have any need to convince me of the shortcomings of the Florida Supreme Court; I've been dealing with their nonsense practically nonstop for the past three years. In fact, you probably have NO idea just how bad they are and, yes, Harding was practically in Gore's pocket throughout the 2000 election debacle, which was hardly one of their most egregious fuckups. The House was getting ready to impeach most of them over Armstrong v. Harris, 773 So.2d 7 (Fla. 2000), when the whole recount mess conveniently (for the justices) intervened. By the time that was all over, the legislators were all either too exhausted to deal with it or had just forgotten about it. Don't even get me started on how term limits undercut separation of powers in favor of the judiciary. I agreed with you, of course, Brown is the law in Florida and thus a defendant can be charged here with "attempted second-degree murder," despite the fact that that still makes no logical sense to me, and would also appear to never be distinguishable from aggravated assault. But when you say you're right, I expect that would vary from one jurisdiction to the next.

Posted by: Dave J at October 28, 2004 08:05 PM (GEMsk)

8 Annika, I was not truly looking for the legal definition of attempted murder; since you said in your lead in that "someone tried to kill KH" I was more interested in what he was thinking about (assassination?) and why you thought he was tiring to kill her. Not whether a prosecutor would be able to make the case for attempted murder. Without any information to contradict his statement confessing to wanting only to scare her, I still maintain that we/you cannot say with certainty "someone tried to kill KH." Also, in my cursory reading about the event, I did not see where he mentioned exercising his right to free speech?

Posted by: mike at October 29, 2004 03:34 PM (0ZdtC)

9 Mike, i think it's freakin hilarious that you can say attempted murder is not the same as "trying to kill someone." Seriously, that's very funny. Did you type that with a straight face. Only a liberal would say something like that. And only a liberal would be "more interested in what he was thinking about" than in the criminal act itself. One of the reasons why i'm not a liberal. Oh, and read the link again. (For pete's sake, it's only five paragraphs long.) In paragraph four you'll find the quote: "I was exercising my political expression."

Posted by: annika! at October 29, 2004 05:46 PM (rJOua)

10 Hi Annika, Well, yes I did miss the fact he said he was exercising his right to political expression. My apologies. But, I am not particularly interested in the ravings of a fellow who does not seem to have his head on straight. I think you have hit an important issue that divides what we loosely refer to as the liberal way of thinking from the conservative. The mind set that will execute children and the mentally deficient. The mind set that views compassion as the joke Bush played to help win the 2000 election. It is what I see as a rigid mind, a law and order perspective that treats all acts as defined by law equally v. a mind set that is interested in motivation and circumstance before determining punishment. The former, the mind set that came up with the Rockefeller drug package in NY or is against removing the federal sentencing guidelines. I recognize that this man can be charged with attempted murder as can an enraged, disenfranchised voter who enters KH's house armed with a length of rebar. He whacks her once and only refrains from killing her because his back goes out and he falls writhing to the floor. I am not an attorney, but I suspect that the charge, ignoring the B&E, is the same as the driver who swerved to miss hitting her. Are they deserving of the same penalty? And did they both try to kill KH? BTW, why did you assume that the car driver was a liberal? And why do you assume it take a race baiting video of KH to make one wince? I winced the first time I saw her. A woman who's psychological damage was worn plainly around her eyes.

Posted by: mike at October 30, 2004 09:33 AM (0ZdtC)

11 "I recognize that this man can be charged with attempted murder as can an enraged, disenfranchised voter who enters KH's house armed with a length of rebar." The latter has specific intent to kill. That makes it attempted first degree murder rather than attempted second degree murder. "I am not an attorney, but I suspect that the charge, ignoring the B&E, is the same as the driver who swerved to miss hitting her." No, see above. Moreover, that's not just breaking & entering: it's first-degree burglary. See Fla. Stat. Ã‚Â§ 810.02(2)(a). "Are they deserving of the same penalty?" No, since they didn't commit the same crime.

Posted by: Dave J at October 30, 2004 11:51 AM (GEMsk)

12 Joanne Jacobs has a less serious example of knee-jerk liberalism turning into violence on a college campus: A part-time instructor at Fort Lewis College in Colorado kicked the leg of a student wearing a College Republicans sweat shirt at an off-campus restaurant. According to student Mark O'Donnell, his assailant, Maria Spero, then said "she should have kicked me harder and higher." Spero, a visiting instructor of modern languages, apologized to O'Donnell in a letter dated Oct. 29. "I acted entirely inappropriately by kicking you, giving vent to a thoughtless knee-jerk political reaction that should never have happened," she wrote. "Before the incident, I did not know you and that you are a Fort Lewis student."

Posted by: markm at October 30, 2004 05:30 PM (5nK/L)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Fash-ism Tutorial For The Maximum Leader

The Maximum Leader had a really cute post yesterday, where he confessed to a certain confusion regarding my Fash-ism shoe poll on the sidebar.

Something has been bothering your Maximum Leader for WEEKS now about Annika's site. That damned Fash-ism poll near the top of the sidebar. What the hell are some of those things?
Your Maximum Leader knows they are all footwear. He understands basic pumps and boots. But what for the love of your Maximum Leader are: Mary Janes, d'Orsay pumps, t-straps (which sound quite sexy btw), peep toes, slingbacks, strappy sandals (which sound sexy in a granola-crunchy-Greatful-Dead-chicka way), kitten slides, and mules (which don't sound sexy at all).
. . .
So your Maximum Leader asks you... What are these other things?
Your Maximum Leader will inquire of Annika as well. But he is befuddled.

Well, for the last word on women's fashion, especially footwear, i should refer all inquiries to the girls at Candied Ginger, who are the real experts. But, i thought that i might be able to help Maximum Leader out in my own way, with the following tutorial, complete with visual aids. i was unable to find enough examples solely from my own closet, since it's a complete mess, and half of my shoes are still back at my parents (including a very fine example of the t-strap pump). At any rate, what i didn't have, i googled. So read on, and learn, dear Maximum Leader: more...

Posted by: annika at 12:03 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 629 words, total size 6 kb.

1 You know I love this post!!! I have a pair of peep toe D'orsay pumps that are so cute. If I'm not feeling lazy later, I'll take a picture of them and post it to add to your collection here.

Posted by: ginger at October 27, 2004 03:40 AM (Otp/6)

2 You are the greatest. Thanks. I should print this out and keep it for reference later. And allow me to presume that is not your butt in the g-string... If it is, I'll definately print the post...

Posted by: The Maximum Leader at October 27, 2004 03:50 PM (zHoql)

3 So, does the term "f- me pumps" refer to any one particular subset of pumps as shown above, or does it refer generally to any and all pump variants?

Posted by: Matt at October 27, 2004 05:58 PM (eWM9Y)

4 Ignorance is the only reason that I can think of for your basic pump not ranking higher in this survey. BTW, as you know, this is NOT a poll.

Posted by: Casca at October 27, 2004 06:05 PM (cdv3B)

5 wow. thanks for this. it's amazing how much you think you know about shoes until something like this comes along. i had never even heard of a d'Orsay pump.

Posted by: Jessica at October 28, 2004 08:47 AM (yfsWy)

6 Oh, this was fun! I've always *hated* heels in shoes, except when wearing boots, but this reminded me of the "girly" pleasures in life.... Alas, I can no longer wear heels of any sort due to metal in my ankle, and therefore cannot wear short, chic skirts above the knee (that's OK - I like longer skirts or classy slacks anyway...) Thanks for the reminder that fashion can be fun!

Posted by: Romeocat at October 28, 2004 04:08 PM (Gllye)

7 In my own metrosexual way, I've always thought I knew my way around women's feet and what they put on them. I learned a lot. Thanks. And I have no idea where g-string comes from either, even after researching on the web for a pleasant quarter of an hour.

Posted by: Hugo at October 29, 2004 04:01 PM (+5Isa)

8 Ho Ho! Hugo. You scamp!

Posted by: annika! at October 29, 2004 05:57 PM (rJOua)

9 Hugo, I found some references concluding that the term descended from an Indian (if you prefer, "Native American") term for a type of loincloth. See here, here, here, and here.

Posted by: Matt at October 29, 2004 05:59 PM (eWM9Y)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

October 26, 2004

Pop Historian Shows Astounding Lack Of Smarts

Robert Dallek is a popular Democratic leaning historian. Perhaps you've seen his toothy grin on TV. i own his thick tome on LBJ, but haven't gotten around to reading it yet. In a column for USA Today, he presents a pretty good recap of electoral history, while exhibiting an astounding lack of analytical ability.

If voters pay as close attention to a president's record as I think they do, Bush will likely sink on Nov. 2. Like Taft, Bush is vulnerable to charges of being in the pockets of corporate interests. Like Hoover, he has presided over an administration that has lost jobs. Not since the Great Depression has any other president had to run on a record of shrinking rather than expanding employment. However mindful he has been about the economic causes of his father's defeat, Bush does not seem well positioned to avoid his father's political fate.

Repeat after me Bob: "Bush will win re-election. Bush will win re-election." If you start saying it now, you may get used to the idea before it happens next week.

Dallek conveniently cherry-picks his analogies to justify his own wishful thinking, and reveals his typical liberal Democrat myopia:

Like Ford, who unrealistically denied Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, and Carter, who could not manage to rescue American hostages from Tehran or control rising oil prices, Bush's blundering policy in Iraq, alienation of so many other governments and peoples around the globe, and uncertain formula for dealing with terrorists raise doubts about his stewardship of foreign policy, which can work to deny him a second term.

Comparing Bush to Ford or Carter is simply bad historical analysis. Ford lost because of his predecessor, not because of anything he said at the debate. And Carter ran this country's economy into the ground and made the US an international laughing stock. Like it or not, while the US may have lost a few friends around the world under Bush, no one can say we're not respected in a Machiavellian sense. That's just fine with me, and i suspect it's fine with the majority of American voters too.

i also thought it was funny how Dallek ended his column by hedging his historical bet, with this bit of prospective sour-grapes:

That a president with so questionable a record is still running a competitive race is a little startling. If Bush wins the election, it would seem to represent the triumph of spin politics.

Funny, i might say the same thing if Kerry wins. But since Kerry is not going to win, i won't have to, lol.

Posted by: annika at 11:00 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 439 words, total size 3 kb.

1 As someone who worked as a "reader" for one of his classes at UCLA (where he taught in the early '90s), I don't think "pop historian" is fair. Everyone agrees that his biographies of LBJ are the standard in the business. He is a first-rate scholar and was a marvelous teacher. However, first-rate scholars can long for public acclaim, and in pursuit of that acclaim, often do "dumb down" their message. He's a fine, fine man -- and his written scholarship is far more substantive than his op-ed columns and his tv pronouncements.

Posted by: Hugo at October 26, 2004 12:10 PM (+5Isa)

2 Hugo, you're forgetting Robert A. Caro, who has written a Proustian three volumes on the life of LBJ -- and he hasn't even started on the presidential years yet! Caro's work is the standard not only in LBJ scholarship, but arguably sets a standard for all historical biography. i saw him speak on CSPAN and he is amazing. Someday i plan to read his multi-volume biography, though it may take me a year to do it, because i'm fascinated by LBJ. (i've already read Beschloss's stuff, which is very interesting too.) Anyways, i've no doubt Dallek's a good guy, though wrong about the election. Since i haven't read either, i can't comment on their disagreements regarding the LBJ legacy. Still, the #1 LBJ scolar today is clearly Caro, based on the depth of his work on the subject.

Posted by: annika at October 26, 2004 01:48 PM (zAOEU)

3 Caro's LBJ tomes are amazing Â– well-researched, thorough, reasonable, and wonderfully written. I've never been a big fan of LBJ (and still aren't), but after reading Caro's first volume I became obsessed about learning everything I can about this contradictory historical figure. I'm in Austin, so I'm tempted to go down to the LBJ Presidential Library every so often to tell Caro -- in the kindest, gentlest way, of course -- to hurry his slow methodical ass up and not pull a William Manchester on us!

Posted by: Todd at October 26, 2004 03:21 PM (OPYfK)

4 Or a Dostoevsky.

Posted by: annika at October 26, 2004 04:17 PM (zAOEU)

5 Well, you've got me on Caro. I've never read him, largely because as someone who isn't an Americanist, I felt that one bio of LBJ was sufficient for me. (Now, if we're talking Edward III, that's a different story). And I picked Dallek because I had worked for him, and trusted his scholarship -- and liked his politics.

Posted by: Hugo at October 26, 2004 05:08 PM (+5Isa)

6 LBJ? LBJ!!? Who gives a fuck, really. Teddy Roosevelt's bio by Edmund Morris, now there's a biography to get deep with. What a life. He did more before he was 25 than LBJ can account for, I'll tell ya what.

Posted by: Scof at October 26, 2004 08:10 PM (9lWXc)

7 If biographies are what you like, then Otto Pflanze's "Bismarck and the Development of Germany" Is the best you can get!

Posted by: lawguy at October 26, 2004 10:32 PM (Z+r8N)

8 Sort of what has happened to Paul Krugman. Biographical discussions aside, what he leaves out is a discussion that, given his "analysis", the competitiveness of the race also must reflect either poorly on the public perception of Senator Kerry's qualification to be President or on the quality of his campaign.

Posted by: Col Steve at October 26, 2004 11:14 PM (0MJte)

9 Caro is an honest historian, but let me save you the weeks it would take to read the three volume set. LBJ was the kind of turd who'd make Clinton smell good. Truth is D presidential candidates pretend to be JFK, while they're really LBJ. When he became President in 1963, LBJ had a personal fortune of over $10 million, and had never worked outside the public sector. His cover story was that Lady Bird had inherited. Well, she did, about $20K with which she bought a radio station, while Lyndon was the Chairman of the FCC oversight committee. If you wanted something from Lyndon, you bought advertising.

Posted by: Casca at October 27, 2004 06:16 PM (cdv3B)

10 I'm glad Hugo stuck up for Dallek. Although like Annika, I' dissing his analysis on the election. Didn't such a fine historian ever hear of Harry Truman? Truman was a wildly unpopular President in November, 1948, but managed a big win against a complacent Tom Dewey. The economy at that time was in the toilet, the Sovs were on the march, and Truman was still seen as a water boy for Missouri political interests. And yet, he pulled it off with room to spare. By the way...lots of good historical biographies out there...how about Fleming's three volume bio of George Washington?

Posted by: superhawk at October 28, 2004 03:23 PM (+7VNs)

11 superhawk: Of course, Truman had a real loser for an opponent. But not as bad as Kerry...

Posted by: markm at October 30, 2004 05:37 PM (5nK/L)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Mad About Bush

[i thought Helen Hunt got killed at the Pyongyang Peace Conference. Apparently not.]

What really pisses me off about the new Helen Hunt political TV spot is the arrogant assumption that all single women are lock-step liberals. i can tell you, we are not.

However, i do agree that "We can make the difference. We are the difference." In fact, i think the unholy alliance of media-entertainment-academic elites may be surprised at the difference we make, when women voters help deliver the election to George W. Bush next week. Perhaps very surprised.

While i still think that overall, Kerry will win a majority of the female vote, i don't think it will be by the Clintonian margins Democrats took for granted in the 90's. The Christian Science Monitor noted in September:

Democrats have long held an edge among women voters, a slight majority of the electorate, and grown to count on them to offset the Republicans' persistent advantage among men. Traditionally, women have given extra care to issues that favor Democrats, such as healthcare, education, and Social Security. Now, the war on terror - and the way Bush is playing it - appears to have shifted that calculation somewhat.
'Bush is trying to reassure them on healthcare and education, saying those things are important, but really it's security,' says Democratic pollster Celinda Lake. 'Women give him a 23-point advantage on security, and that's what's really driving their vote.'

Time Magazine originally had the female vote split evenly before the first debate, then gave Kerry a dubious 14 point post debate bounce among women. A swing like that doesn't seem credible to me, and i'm inclined to believe that the final result will show a pretty striking gain for the GOP among women voters. If anyone has more up-to-date polling info, feel free to let me know in the comments.

Posted by: annika at 12:51 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 300 words, total size 2 kb.

October 25, 2004

Monday Night Football Pick

As a Raider fan (which is tough to be this year), i hate having to pick Denver for tonight's Broncos vs. Bengals game. i'm looking for a way to justify not doing it.

The Broncos are playing in Cincinnati, and are favored by seven points on the road. They have a five and one record, as opposed to the Bengals' one and four record. Jake Plummer's been decent, with ten touchdowns and an 87.4 rating.

Contrast that with Carson Palmer's stats: four TDs against eight interceptions, with a 59.6 rating. He sucks. But you should already know that, since he went to USC.

So, basically, there is no good reason for me to pick the Bengals tonight. But i will anyway, and hope that Denver wins by less than seven points.

Update: Cincinnati actually created the ilusion of a good team tonight, i was surprised. With tonight's Bengals win, i improved my record to 3 and 3 on the year. (Last week was my bye week, due to the computer glich.)

Posted by: annika at 01:36 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 179 words, total size 1 kb.

October 24, 2004

Half-Wit, That's All I Ever Heard...
Half-Wit, How I Love To Hate The Word

From Drudge:

Only a couple hundred came out to see Cher Friday night at Miami Beach's CROBAR disco, but that did not stop the legendary diva from issuing an election warning against Republican control.
. . .
Cher warned moveon.org clubgoers to fight Bush, before 'it's too late':
'All the gay guys, all my friends, all my gay friends, you guys you have got to vote, alright? Because it would only be a matter of time before you guys would be so screwed, I cannot tell you. Because, you know, the people, like, in the very right wing of this party, of these Republicans, the very very right wing, the Jerry Falwell element, if they get any more power, you guys are going to be living in some state by yourselves. So, I hate scare tactics, but I really believe that that's true.'

Actually i'm a fan of Cher's, but that's just fucking stupid. She really believes that that's true?

i never thought i'd hear a celebrity say something more idiotic than Cameroon Diaz telling Ofrah Winfrey's audience "If you think that rape should be legal, then don't vote," but Cher's comment comes pretty close.

Posted by: annika at 08:51 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 221 words, total size 2 kb.

1 I am reminded of Elvis Presley's classic response to a reporter who asked him his opinion as to whether or not we should be in Vietnam; he said "Lady, I'm just an entertainer." Cameron, Cher, San, Alec, Barbra and a host of other intellectual midgets would be well advised to emulate The King.

Posted by: shelly s. at October 24, 2004 12:14 PM (fLlQ8)

2 Of course, (the activity referred to by Ms Diaz) *was* legal in Saddam's Iraq, when perpetrated by an agent of the government (or also, probably, by Saddam and his sons out for their kind of fun) I don't remember a whole lot of complaints from Hollywood about that situation, though.... The reason for the euphemism is that the comment-screener objected to the word that means (the activity referred to by Ms Diaz) What moron writes the decision rules for these programs?

Posted by: David Foster at October 24, 2004 12:32 PM (DYjwl)

3 Perhaps you don't remember when Sonny Bono, the dipshit's ex, was elected to congress in 1994, thank you Hillary. You certainly don't remember when she dumped him fifteen years earlier. Sonny was the brains of the act. A music industry exec, he made her a star, and when she didn't need him, she kicked him to the curb. Well, when he became a star in the political world, the dipshit just couldn't keep her mouth shut. Sonny was a classy guy, and recognized the top when he reached it a second time. I recall an interviewer asking him what he thought about dipshit's comment, "Sonny has always been the love of my life". Sonny said, "What can I say? She left me fifteen years ago. I have a beautiful wife, and two lovely children." In any case, this whacked-out attention whore, and senior citizen is a walking talking geekshow. The end will not be pretty.

Posted by: Casca at October 24, 2004 07:16 PM (cdv3B)

4 Casca, well put. Simply put, and as Bugs Bunny would say, "What a maroon!"

Posted by: joe at October 25, 2004 04:43 AM (lIZAx)

5 Look, celebs making stupid comments about the government is far preferable to stupid celebs actually IN government: Arnie, Sonny, etc. The majority of American are obviously stupid enough to both take political guidance from entertainers and then elect 'em. This idiocy does a lot to explain why Bush still has a chance of winning this election. I only hope that somehow people wake up and punt Bush's rich ass out of office before he has a chance to further screw up the US. Kerry went to war, fought, learned something, and has done a tremendous amount for the US in his career. Bush avoided the war, got rich on bad business deals, got appointed by the supreme court and has done more to screw up America than any other president. You and your children are going to be paying for the first four Bush years for a very long time; don't screw it up even more with another four years of deficit spending to finance the rich, bizzare wars that take our eyes off the real problems (Bin Laden is still running around; islamic fundamentalism is stronger than ever, especially in Iraq, thanks to Bush), etc. etc. I don't think Bush is a moron, but he's bad news, vote Kerry.

Posted by: risk at October 25, 2004 11:41 AM (SHmUd)

6 i'm voting for George W. Bush. And you spelled bizarre wrong.

Posted by: annika at October 25, 2004 12:53 PM (zAOEU)

7 risk, you're a fucking idiot. Buy a vowel.

Posted by: Casca at October 25, 2004 03:36 PM (cdv3B)

8 Risk: Don't buy a vowel; just go away. But, befor eyuo do, tear up your ballot. You lack the I.Q. to vote.

Posted by: shelly s. at October 25, 2004 08:19 PM (fLlQ8)

9 I wonder what Cher would look like without eyelids. Kevin

Posted by: Kevin Kim at October 26, 2004 08:03 AM (4uHYC)

10 That story about Cher & her pathetic turnout is second only to idiot-extraordinaire Rosie O'dumbass and her rally of 38 fellow freaks. Here The closer we get to Nov2, the faster the libs will self-destruct.

Posted by: Smacky at October 28, 2004 12:30 AM (cyWwe)

11 Hey Shelby you fucking iggnoramus, you spelled "u" wrong you pittyful dolt, what reason could I have now to lissen to any of your arguments, you stupit, you. If you had any self esteem you would teer up your voter regasstration card. Yous to stupit to vote for Mr. Brush.

Posted by: mikke at October 28, 2004 03:32 PM (0ZdtC)

12 Thank for this great post, i like what you read Menu Board. Thumbs up, and keep it going!Thanks for sharing Iâ€™ll email my friends about this too LED Billboard. This is a really good read for me, Must admit that you are one of the best bloggers I ever saw Led Signboard.Thanks for posting this informative article LED writing board. I look forward to more updates and will be returning.Cheers!

Posted by: Advertising signs at January 21, 2011 03:56 AM (zpIH7)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

October 23, 2004

Shameless Pandering

Here's the very first paragraph you will find on the homepage of the official Kerry website today, which i found insulting:

John Kerry will strengthen and expand the middle class and help working women by strengthening the economy. In todayÂ’s economy, too many hard-working women are falling further and further behind. Instead of offering help, George Bush has turned his back, broken his promises and in some cases, taken no action at all.

This is one reason why Democrats make me queasy. It's never about Americans. It's always about classifications.

Wouldn't strengthening the economy help all Americans, not just "working women?" And wouldn't strengthening the economy help non-working women too? You know, the kind Kerry's wife insulted the other day?

This type of pandering, supposedly directed at me, is a complete turn off. Someone in the campaign reads a poll that says Kerry needs more points from the "working women" category, and so they take out their economy template and plug the words "working women" into it.

i'm sorry, but i don't buy it. i know that a Kerry administration would lose jobs by increasing the minimum wage and increasing taxes on the entrepreneurial class that creates jobs. And i plan to be looking for a job in about three years, just when the effects of a Kerry economic downturn will take effect.

So i don't appreciate the shameless pandering, as if women were all idiots who got all goose pimply, saying: "Oooh Kerry just mentioned our interest group! Isn't he the dreamiest?"

Posted by: annika at 10:25 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 255 words, total size 2 kb.

1 So why is half the country buying this stuff?

Posted by: mark at October 23, 2004 11:03 AM (AO+Ri)

2 It's one of the things that scares me most about Kerry and the kind of thinking he represents...these are people with no concept of America as anything other than a collection of interest groups. It reminds me of the old cartoon showing two guys in a rowboat...as the stern goes down, the guy in the bow says, "Why should I worry? My end's not sinking." It also reminds me of some of the really dysfunctional teams that have appeared on The Apprentice, in which every possible issue--how to price cleaning products, for example--becomes merely a hammer for one person to beat another over the head with. Such teams tend not to be real successful...

Posted by: David Foster at October 23, 2004 02:58 PM (DYjwl)

3 Good. You're back. Jason Austin, Texas

Posted by: Jason H at October 23, 2004 06:07 PM (RMRNe)

4 Kerry keeps talking about the shrinking middle class. He is correct it is actually shrinking. But the reason the middle class is shrinking is that so many are moving into the upper middle class or the upper class. The Democrats put women and blacks in the same category. That is, you cannot succeed in life without government help. It is racism and sexism at its worst.

Posted by: jake at October 23, 2004 07:25 PM (h4tU8)

5 (So i don't appreciate the shameless pandering, as if women were all idiots who got all goose pimply, saying: "Oooh Kerry just mentioned our interest group! Isn't he the dreamiest?") Alas, for the majority of that demographic, it's true.

Posted by: Casca at October 24, 2004 09:58 AM (cdv3B)

6 "This is one reason why Democrats make me queasy. It's never about Americans. It's always about classifications." Verily, thats the only way they can get anyone behind thir flimsy policies. They make people think that they either are being shit-on by someone, or that they deserve something that someone else has. So, naturally, they appeal to all the gluts and neurotics. Nice blog. Keep fightin'.

Posted by: Smacky at October 28, 2004 12:38 AM (cyWwe)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Krauthammer Piece

Charles Krauthammer's latest op-ed contains this thought provoking paragraph:

John Kerry says he wants to 'rejoin the community of nations.' There is no issue on which the United States more consistently fails the global test of international consensus than Israel. In July, the U.N. General Assembly declared Israel's defensive fence illegal by a vote of 150 to 6. In defending Israel, America stood almost alone.

What are Kerry's plans regarding American support for Israel? Krauthammer has a theory, and it's not very comforting.

Hat tip to commenter Shelly.

Posted by: annika at 10:03 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 90 words, total size 1 kb.

October 22, 2004

Annika With The Tongue

Then there's this:

'My friends always said I had an incredibly long tongue - I could make lots of money with it one day,' said Annika.

*coughs*

'I'm just proud that now people everywhere can read about me and my tongue,' she said.

Well, yah. That goes without saying.

'On my first day at school I had to stick my tongue out for everyone.'

But it was worth it, i guess.

Just so you know, different Annika . . .

Via You're Ugly.

Posted by: annika at 02:22 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 86 words, total size 1 kb.

Good Company

Sarah Bernhardt: actress, poet, playwright
Brian Boitano: athlete
Catherine Deneuve: beauty
Joan Fontaine: "Rebecca"
Annette Funicello: Mouseketeer
Jeff Goldblum: fly
Curly Howard: Comedian with a capital C
Alan Ladd, Jr.: mogul
Timothy Leary: shaman
Franz Liszt, virtuoso: maestro
Christopher Lloyd: time traveller, cab driver, klingon
Tony Pierce: celebrity blogger, and deservedly so
Tony Roberts: Woody Allen foil
Shaggy: Jamaican, reggae singer, USMC, Desert Storm veteran
N.C. Wyeth: artist, illustrator

All were born on this date.

Just my way of saying Happy Birthday, Tony!

Posted by: annika at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 87 words, total size 1 kb.

October 20, 2004

Two Twins Separated At Birth? Or One Shapeshifter?

Red Sox owner John Henry . . .

. . . and Odo from Deep Space Nine.

It's eerie.

Update: i'm not the only one who's quick with the Sox-Sci-Fi gag.

Posted by: annika at 06:45 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 47 words, total size 1 kb.

Time Out For Cynicism

i'd like to take time out from my ongoing coverage of Election-Fest 2004 to submit the following Statement of Undisputed Facts.

If George W. Bush wins, the left will spend the next four years complaining, they will remain as obstructionist as ever, and they will blame everything on Bush.
If John Kerry wins, the left will spend the next four years complaining, they will remain as obstructionist as ever, and they will blame everything on the Republican congress.

We now return you to our regularly scheduled election coverage.

Posted by: annika at 03:41 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 94 words, total size 1 kb.

144kb generated in CPU 0.0346, elapsed 0.0933 seconds.
79 queries taking 0.0683 seconds, 327 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy

Monthly Traffic

Pages: 8870
Files: 45
Bytes: 98.2M
CPU Time: 3:42
Queries: 548005

Content

Posts: 2168
Comments: 17090

Feeds

October 31, 2004

October 30, 2004

October 28, 2004

October 27, 2004

October 26, 2004

October 25, 2004

October 24, 2004

October 23, 2004

October 22, 2004

October 20, 2004

Search Thingy

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Monthly Traffic

Content

Feeds