October 20, 2004
Wednesday Is Poetry Day
The following poem, by beat poet Gary Snyder, was posted on the inside of a bus i rode this weekend. (The whole "Poetry in Motion" idea is the best thing to happen to public transportation since Wells Fargo invented the stage coach, in my opinion.) i liked it so much, i decided to make it this week's selection:
Why Log Truck Drivers Rise
Earlier Than Students Of Zen
In the high seat, before-dawn dark,
Polished hubs gleam
And the shiny diesel stack
Warms and flutters
Up the Tyler Road grade
To the logging on Poorman creek.
Thirty miles of dust.
There is no other life.
This poem was one of those discoveries where i found myself saying "Yesss, that's it! That's how i want to do it."
It's short, it's not cryptic, and it takes me someplace new in the space of a few lines.
i love the way the little details create a scene that's instantly recognizable, though not overly familiar. Did you notice how the visual picture of the the fluttering diesel stack makes you hear the growl of the truck's engine, without the poet even mentioning the sound?
Writing about poetry is like describing wine. It's so hard to find the right words and the end result always seems meaningless, compared to the original.
Posted by: annika at
11:16 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 225 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Amen, sister! Great choice, and I do understand the frustration of never finding the words you know are just hiding, just out of reach...
Posted by: Hugo at October 20, 2004 10:20 PM (osqa6)
2
"The whole "Poetry in Motion" idea is the best thing to happen to public transportation since Wells Fargo invented the stage coach, in my opinion."
SHIT! And I thought it was the MIle-High Club!!
Posted by: Casca at October 21, 2004 07:34 PM (Y671w)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Gavin Newsom: Sex Symbol
Not much to add to this story. It's pretty freakin' funny as is:
Kimberly Guilfoyle Newsom took the stage at Thursday night's big Empire State Pride Agenda fund-raiser.
Guilfoyle Newsom was a last-minute sub for her husband at the gay rights event, which drew 1,100 guests. By all accounts, Guilfoyle Newsom -- who lives in New York and is a regular on Court TV -- gave an inspired speech.
But what really brought the house down was when she started talking about her hubby.
'I know that many of you wanted to see my husband and some of you had questions out there,' Guilfoyle Newsom said.
'Is he hot? Yeah.
'Is he hung? Yeah.
'Is he (she waved her hand to suggest bisexual)? Not unless you can give a better (she mimicked eating a banana) than me,' Guilfoyle Newsom said.
Clinton and Starr, what hast thou wrought?
From SFGate.
Update: Here, Bill and Gavin seem to disagree on what the definition of "hung" is.
Posted by: annika at
10:20 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 170 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Just when I thought Tereza was the only spousal dingbat in politics.........
Posted by: reagan80 at October 20, 2004 01:00 PM (hlMFQ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 19, 2004
Back Online
Things i've learned after not blogging for over a week:
- The electromagnetic pulse weapon is real.
- The EMP weapon is dangerous.
- It must not be allowed to fall into the wrong hands.
(Okay, there is no EMP device. i just fucked up somehow. Don't even ask.)
After not blogging for over a week, i was also surprised to find that:
- My head did not explode.
- The sun still came up in the morning.
- The Red Sox still found a way to blow it in the post-season.
Oops, maybe my lack of blogging did have a tiny effect on the space-time continuum.
Posted by: annika at
09:21 PM
| Comments (22)
| Add Comment
Post contains 101 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Very glad to see you are back!
Posted by: Daniel at October 19, 2004 09:32 PM (8U+JH)
2
Whaddya mean, blow it? They're
tied 3-3 with the Yanks now. After that, I can almost forgive them for beating out my Angels in the first round. Almost.
Posted by: Xrlq at October 19, 2004 10:11 PM (6DLYC)
3
"The Red Sox still found a way to blow it in the post-season."
Uh, not. Go Sox!!! :-)
Posted by: Dave J at October 19, 2004 10:14 PM (GEMsk)
4
ah yes, but i have a feeling the sun will come up a little brighter tomorrow because you're back. we missed you so much! i started to check a little too often. i didn't realize lack of annika would send me so quickly into withdrawal.
Posted by: candace at October 19, 2004 10:31 PM (1Fs2q)
5
ditto, ditto, ditto - Go Sox!!!
Posted by: d-rod at October 19, 2004 11:06 PM (2ky5M)
6
Yes, it's good to be back. i need to re-calibrate my subtlety meter though.
Xrlq and Dave J: sorry, i was trying to be subtle, perhaps too subtle. You see, they didn't blow it, so the space-time continuum is, well, oh, never mind.
Posted by: annika at October 19, 2004 11:07 PM (CN0in)
7
It's nice to be missed...but nicer to come back.
Hope you got some studying done in the blackout. We are looking for you to edit the Law Review.
Posted by: shelly s. at October 20, 2004 01:54 AM (s6c4t)
8
Hey, I would like to see the underdog win over the Yanks myself, but at least I have one consolation if the Sox lose.........Steinbrenner is pro-Bush.
Posted by: reagan80 at October 20, 2004 04:21 AM (hlMFQ)
Posted by: ginger at October 20, 2004 04:37 AM (Otp/6)
10
Miss Annika,
I'm very glad your back, as no one on the web gives me what you do: Gratuitous Sox talk
Posted by: Publicoa at October 20, 2004 05:40 AM (dZUTp)
11
I was starting to get worried - good to see you back!
Posted by: Lorie at October 20, 2004 06:32 AM (PPPwU)
12
I had to see what candy was ravin bout.
Posted by: Lisa at October 20, 2004 08:33 AM (6VDyk)
13
Oh, heavens to murgatroid, I missed ya.
Posted by: Hugo at October 20, 2004 09:52 AM (6T6+1)
14
SHEWWWWWWWW!
We wuz worried about choo, Miz Annika! (I was beginning to think it was something I said/didn't say. Then I slapped myself because you know, even *I know I ain't THAT important.
Anyway, where was I? Oh. DOLLY DON'T EVER GO AWAY AGAAAAAINNNN...
Posted by: Margi at October 20, 2004 10:16 AM (MAdsZ)
15
ahhhhhhhhhhhhnnika!
Posted by: gcotharn at October 20, 2004 12:04 PM (D2Obq)
16
Ah. Did you mean to insinuate that the Red Sox are so inept that failed even to fail?
Posted by: Xrlq at October 20, 2004 01:21 PM (3AgfD)
17
Don't jump to any conclusions...
http://www.tfd.chalmers.se/~valeri/EMP.html
Posted by: CW at October 20, 2004 08:49 PM (LbgIn)
18
Nice to see you back, Annie! Old Skool and I were exchanging e-mails just today, speculating about what was going on. The leading theory was that after your "butt cleavage" post your super double-secret blogger identity had somehow been compromised at the law school, and you'd decided to pull the plug. Glad we were wrong.
Posted by: Matt at October 20, 2004 09:10 PM (eWM9Y)
19
Ha! my law school is so full of leftwingnuts, i would be very surprised if anyone would read my rightwingnut blog anyways.
Posted by: annika! at October 20, 2004 09:29 PM (FR+UV)
20
Annika!
I missed you! I looked mornfully as often as I could. Now life is good again.
Posted by: Chuck at October 21, 2004 06:58 PM (qYJRO)
21
Believe it or not, one tires of looking at porn 24/7.
Posted by: Casca at October 21, 2004 07:46 PM (Y671w)
22
You're alive! You're alive! I sent out emails, Ted asked at Munuvia, and the two of use were about to send out search rats and rocket drones!
In the event The Worst had happened, I would've kept Poetry Day alive, but I don't think you would've like it. Don't ever leave again.
Posted by: Victor at October 22, 2004 07:57 AM (L3qPK)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 11, 2004
The Fantasy Footballer's Dilemma
"Yaaah, go Chris Brown!"
seconds later:
"Yaaah, c'mon Favre!"
i am the John Kerry of football fans.
Posted by: annika at
06:20 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 25 words, total size 1 kb.
1
If Tennessee wins and the total points scored is 53 points or more, I win my office pool this week and emerge from my jealously guarded cellar. So I'm rooting for both offenses, just the Titans a little more. I'm such a slut ...
Posted by: Go 4 TLI (formerly HH in Hollywood) at October 11, 2004 08:03 PM (Ymz1O)
2
Did I say the Titans bye 10, boy was i wrong. he he
Posted by: Dex at October 11, 2004 09:34 PM (XlMU/)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Football Update
Snooze Button Dreams is killing me in Fantasy Football this week. (Good luck on the interview, Jim.) The Raiders sucked again on Sunday. And Saturday, Cal outplayed USC and still lost. Very depressing.
Hey, at least the Niners beat the lowly Cardinals.
Regarding Monday Night Football, i need Chris Brown of the Titans to have a stellar game for my fantasy team. But i actually think that Green Bay will win this one. Green Bay is favored by three points and they're at home.
This is actually a pretty tough game to pick (i'm 2 and 2 on the year with my predictions). Both teams' quarterbacks are hurting, but how can you bet against a Favre led team on Monday Night? Although i also read that Green Bay's center is out, and the replacement is not as good. But i don't know if that's just bad or really bad. (i actually didn't even know what a nosetackle was until Casca told me. i thought nose tackle was when you hung a snap swivel off your nostril piercing.*)
The hardest question for me is, will the Packers cover the spread? i have a sense that the game might be close, but i know that as soon as i say the Packers won't cover, they will. That just seems to be my luck lately. So i'll pick the Packers minus three points.
Update: Chris Brown: 148 yards + 2 TDs. Will it be enough to overtake Snooze Button Dreams though? i'll find out tomorrow. Re: my MNF predictions this year, i don't want to talk about it.
* Ba-dum-bump. That's a little fishing humor for y'all.
Posted by: annika at
07:33 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 278 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Sunday was terrible with the Raiders but Monday nite have to go with the Titans over all physical and mean when they show up. Green Bay offense good but the defense to vanilla. Titans bye 10
Posted by: Dex at October 11, 2004 09:49 AM (XlMU/)
2
Rough loss, annika, especially since it seems Jim isn't paying attention and didn't notice one of his players had a bye and two others didn't play. I lost, too...Philly's bye killed me.
Posted by: Victor at October 11, 2004 09:54 AM (L3qPK)
3
And what really irks me is that i had a chance to trade Trent Green for Edgerrin James before the season started, but i turned it down because i didn't trust Edgerrin's knee. What a bonehead move that was.
Posted by: annika at October 11, 2004 11:26 AM (zAOEU)
4
Jeez, oh well. I'm counting on Brown tonight too, but all I need are 4 pts out of him. After watching the Pack against Indie, I couldn't pick them over anyone. That first quarter was one of the most stupid exhibitions of coaching EVER in the NFL. The Defensive Coordinator had to get burned FOUR times before he changed his gameplan.
Posted by: Casca at October 11, 2004 01:26 PM (Y671w)
5
Annie,
Odd thing about your blog today and yesterday. When I open the main page, it's blank. I had to tool through your archives to get to this page. Just an FYI in case you hadn't heard.
Posted by: physics geek at October 14, 2004 10:05 AM (Xvrs7)
6
Hello folks nice blog youre running
Posted by: lolita at January 19, 2005 05:48 PM (yM4u5)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 09, 2004
Beautiful Asymmetry
These two quotes from John Kerry at last night's debate are so beautiful, all i can do is sit back and admire them.
Quote 1:
He's trying to attack me. He wants you to believe that I can't be president. And he's trying to make you believe it because he wants you to think I change my mind. Well, let me tell you straight up: I've never changed my mind about Iraq. I do believe Saddam Hussein was a threat. I always believed he was a threat. Believed it in 1998 when Clinton was president. I wanted to give Clinton the power to use force if necessary.
Quote 2:
I don't think you can just rely on U.N. sanctions [to contain Iran], Randee. But you're absolutely correct, it is a threat, it's a huge threat. And what's interesting is, it's a threat that has grown while the president has been preoccupied with Iraq, where there wasn't a threat.
Kinda takes your breath away don't it?
Via Paul at Wizbang.
Posted by: annika at
06:14 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 169 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I admire Kerry's resolve too.
I held the same position for over 22 minutes. A new record for him.
Posted by: jake at October 09, 2004 10:29 PM (h4tU8)
Posted by: Casca at October 10, 2004 06:33 AM (Y671w)
3
He's always held those positions, both for and against. So, you see, it's true. He's NEVER changed his mind. He's ALWAYS been on BOTH sides.
That's why he could shoot a fleeing man in the back, and burn a village in Vietnam, put himself in for undeserved medals, then pretend to discard them for the values of his higher self. What a man... war hero, and peacenik. I find him revolting, and believe that the majority of American voters will too.
Posted by: Casca at October 10, 2004 06:38 AM (Y671w)
Posted by: Christopher Blosser at October 10, 2004 08:39 PM (tqj0U)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 08, 2004
Presidential Debate Notes 2.0
i wanna do this without listening to any of the TV pundits, so my opinion won't be tainted. Which means that i may end up modifying my opinions later after i've taken in the insights of people wiser than i am. Plus, we finished another couple of bottles of that chianti, and i'm on my second glass of Port. So waaatchout!
more...
Posted by: annika at
08:44 PM
| Comments (21)
| Add Comment
Post contains 868 words, total size 6 kb.
1
Nicely said. i agree.
You write all of this after 3 bottles of wine. I am impressed.
Posted by: jake at October 08, 2004 09:31 PM (h4tU8)
2
I think the domestic policy points for Bush (I agree with your point) should be a real concern for the Kerry camp going into the domestic policy debate. I'm sure they thought they had that one in the bag.
Posted by: Kevin at October 08, 2004 09:45 PM (pXwPO)
3
Annika, the Fact is, though Bush gets high marks for foreign policy, it is not his strong point. Kerry has spent his whole life studying foreign policy. Bush was the Governor of a state(though as large as some countries) and always focused on domestic issues. The only reason Bush has received high marks for FP was his Moral clarity and His team! Bush provides the vision the team fills in the rest. On domestic, Bush dealt With them first hand as Gov, he as more experience in that area. That is why I always though the FP parts of the debate would be Bush's weakest and domestics would be his strongest! Kerry really does not have the intellectual foundation in domestic issues like Bush. Bush is more comfortable discussing domestic issues than FP issues. Remember Cheney was chosen for His FP experience to balance out the ticket in 2000!
Posted by: lawguy at October 08, 2004 09:59 PM (LaG4i)
4
i can't disagree with your analysis, lawguy.
Posted by: annika! at October 08, 2004 10:03 PM (Tsclf)
5
Kerry is a one-trick pony, and his bluster is wearing thin.
Posted by: Casca at October 08, 2004 10:23 PM (Y671w)
6
Gibson owns you repuke cunt!
Posted by: Um Yeah at October 08, 2004 10:44 PM (tBOCg)
7
Bush won on everything. I'am bias about America and I don't think Kerry truly believe in the USA no matter what he says. He don't believe in the troops can get the job done, Kerry thinks France and the UN knows what is best and that is all I need to know about the guy, serious does Kerry really seems to be for the country someone answer that one.
Posted by: Dex at October 08, 2004 10:49 PM (rTD+p)
8
Annika:
I tended to see it the same way - the President let Kerry off the hook on the FP side and Kerry was on the defensive/backtracking on the Dom side.
I also fail to see why the President's advisor don't hammer home the point that all the "conditions" Kerry faults the President for in 2002/3 about going to war were satisfied in 1990/1 and he voted against that resolution while he voted for one in 2002.
Also, if "intelligence" is so important to Kerry, why doesn't the President do the 1-2 punch about his votes on the intelligence budget as well as Kerry's attendance at Intelligence committee meetings?
The last question was dumb, but I suspect Kerry thinks the abortion and stem cell questions were slanted against him. Did he tap dance when the President hit him with the votes on parental notification and partial birth?
If I were advising the President, I'd get him to reinforce the point that security underpins everything. He should look the people in the eye and tell them "you know that if you're not safe in your homes, neighborhood, or schools, then your family and your community won't function" - the same is true for the nation." And then have him rattle off "Beirut, TWA, PAN-AM, Berlin disco, Somalia, NYC WTC 93, USS Coles, African embassies, etc..and say our response to those events were tepid and emboldened our enemies that resulted in 9/11...and we're not going back..(which could bring in Kerry's comment about "sensitive", global test, etc..)
I'd really wish someone would ask Kerry exaxtly WHICH countries not in the coalition he expects to join us as a result of his "summit." Having just had a chance to talk with some of my peers at NATO, they are terrified of the prospect of Kerry actually having to "name names." They love the current position of being anti-Bush, but actually fear a Kerry victory - they don't want to participate and Bush gives them an out.
Kerry is now officially on record about taxes, tort reform (wow, did he try to say that fast so nobody heard him), and budget deficit reduction. If he wins, the Rep nominee in 2008 will already have his/her commercials teed up.
I'm also waiting to hear if any mentions the people chosen were almost all white except for the one black woman (maybe I dozed off, but I don't recall any other non-white questioner)..
Posted by: Col Steve at October 08, 2004 11:52 PM (koO9j)
9
Um Yeah: All right! Way to convince conservatives that liberals are rational and not as blinded by anger as they're made out to be!
Congrats,
Kevin
Posted by: Kevin Kim at October 09, 2004 03:39 AM (mu2fq)
10
Kerry looked like an idiot and couldn't stop lying. If Bush owns a timber company, I own fucking General Electric.
Crush Kerry!
Posted by: d-rod at October 09, 2004 07:23 AM (Btejk)
11
I thought that the final question was intended to mean "what are the worst 3 decisions that *you* have ever made," where "you" means Bush or Kerry, as applicable. Kerry chose to interpret it in terms of Bush's decisions, not his own.
Posted by: David Foster at October 09, 2004 07:59 AM (XUtCY)
12
Just checked the transcript, and I guess my interpretation of the question was wrong. I must have been thinking about how the question *should* have been asked.
Posted by: David Foster at October 09, 2004 08:03 AM (XUtCY)
13
Col. Steve, as usual, you make several excellent points. Not the least of which is that our reluctant "allies" really don't want to participate and Bush gives them an out.
Kerry wants us to believe that the force of his personality alone will bring the "allies" to the table. Yet this is a man who is so pompous and unlikeable, that his campaign is hard pressed to find any friends in the Senate, or even going way back to college. People don't like this man one-on-one. As a rule, people like Bush once they meet him. Which underscores the point. Personality is important in diplomacy, but it is not magic. Personality can't make a nation act against what it percieves as its own self interest. And our supposed "allies" still feel that it is not in their self interest to get involved in "America's war." How's Kerry going to change their minds?
And Kerry's "plan" that he referred to dozens of times, consists of these two points only (check the transcript): he will bring the allies to the table, and he will train the Iraqi security forces
faster! So we're supposed to trust him on the basis of those two slim promises?
And what if our "allies" just say no, which they undoubtedly will? i'm not voting for a man who believes the Iraq War has been conducted "all wrong," but his only plan to fix it amounts to training the Iraqis faster.
Posted by: annika! at October 09, 2004 08:15 AM (qP4HR)
14
Kerry is basically arguing that we should elect him because of his diplomatic abilities; ie, his personal selling skills. If I were interviewing someone for an important sales job--and if he were claiming that he could get us into accounts that had previously not been obtainable--I would want to know:
a)What is your previous experience in closing major sales?
b)What ideas do you have for *specifically* how you will sell these accounts? What "benefits" arguments will you make that we have not already made? How will you work the internal politics within these prospects in order to develop advocacy for our products?
Kerry has provided no answers to the above questions.
Posted by: David Foster at October 09, 2004 09:37 AM (XUtCY)
15
whats the differance between a fresh masive peanutt shit and a KKKonservitive?
theres less nuts in the shit and its a hole lot warmer!
BUSH LIED PEOPLE DIED!
Posted by: Um Yeah at October 09, 2004 10:38 AM (B4DzP)
16
Um Yeah, it's funny you mentioned the KKK. If Robert Byrd ever goes against the Demonicrat party line, the media might find out that he was in the Klan or something.........
It's also funny that you brought up massive peanut shit. I'm sure Carter had excreted plenty of those while in office........http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/jc39.html
If my man wins this election, I gotta new slogan.........KERRY TRIED, VOTERS DENIED
Posted by: reagan80 at October 09, 2004 11:47 AM (hlMFQ)
17
AWESOME! CLICK ON MY NAME!
Next time we'll get alot more!
ULULULULULULULULULULULULULULULU
Posted by: Barney Gumble at October 09, 2004 12:41 PM (NJAlF)
18
WTF?!?!
Is Barney G. saying that he's joyous that the "evil joos" were killed in Egypt? Is he saying that he's a terrorist and that he's gonna kill more next time? If that's the case, I hope this happens to you, Mr Grumble..........
http://www.badassmofo.com/funstuff/video/donkey.mpg
Posted by: reagan80 at October 09, 2004 04:49 PM (hlMFQ)
19
Annika...I've linked this, with additional commentary on the Truman thing.
Posted by: David Foster at October 09, 2004 05:30 PM (XUtCY)
20
I don't think Kerry actually believes he can create a larger or stronger coalition, and I don't think he cares at all about that. His position is where it is because that's what his core support wants to hear.
He says whatever he thinks the listener wants to hear. Why should this particular instance be any different?
Posted by: Ted at October 10, 2004 06:47 PM (ZjSa7)
21
Here's one mistake Bush could and should have owned up to: agreeing to a debate moderated by Charles Gibson.
Posted by: Xrlq at October 11, 2004 02:46 PM (b/34x)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Style Fucking Matters
(my open letter to the President)
Dear President Bush,
Have you seen the latest Electoral College map? i took the liberty of turning it into a gif file so i could highlight some important areas of concern for me, and i hope, for you too.
more...
Posted by: annika at
03:34 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 920 words, total size 5 kb.
1
He doesn't seem to be taking your advice. :-(
Posted by: Dave J at October 08, 2004 06:32 PM (GEMsk)
2
Annie:
I am so glad that I do not try cases anymore; if you can be half as good as this letter, you will be in such great demand you'll have trouble taking vacations.
I only hope that The President got to read your blog.
Posted by: shelly s. at October 08, 2004 07:14 PM (s6c4t)
3
Bush kicked ass tonight. You should be happy.
Posted by: jake at October 08, 2004 08:10 PM (h4tU8)
Posted by: candace at October 10, 2004 09:18 PM (AIQSK)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 07, 2004
Pre-Apprentice Dinner Menu
i cooked tonight, and there were two requirements: be done in time to watch
The Apprentice, and include the four major food groups. Those food groups being 1) meat, 2) bread, 3) vegetables and 4) alcohol. My roommates don't get enough veggies.
i accomplished this task with the following menu:
- meat stuffed tortellini with my own sauce (leftover)
- Brussels sprouts with mustard-horseradish cream sauce (non-fat)
- crusty romano cheese sourdough rolls
- $5 chianti
Oh sure, at first my roommates turned up their nose at the sight of the Brussels sprouts. But afterwards all three of them pronounced my side dish to be: "okay," which i will translate as a high compliment.
The $5 bottle of chianti was indeed a hit, though.
Posted by: annika at
07:43 PM
| Comments (14)
| Add Comment
Post contains 124 words, total size 1 kb.
1
So, how did you like the show?
Posted by: David Foster at October 07, 2004 08:14 PM (XUtCY)
2
If your roommates said that the Brussels sprouts were ok, your mustard-horseradish cream sauce must be strong enough to take paint off walls.
Posted by: jake at October 07, 2004 08:35 PM (h4tU8)
3
Yah, but it's non-fat.
And Pamela got jobbed.
Posted by: annika at October 07, 2004 09:24 PM (FaOOJ)
4
I love $5 chianti. But those Brussel Sprouts -- girl, you are demented. I don't understand why anyone would consume them voluntarily, even after smothering them in sauce.
Posted by: ginger at October 08, 2004 03:58 AM (Otp/6)
5
Brussel Sprouts... Yummm... I love Brussel Sprouts. But hardly ever eat them as the rest of my family can't stand them.
If you get a second, e-mail me the horseradish sauce receipe. Sounds great.
And to close... When isn't $5 Chianti a hit?
Posted by: The Maximum Leader at October 08, 2004 06:17 AM (jmfvP)
6
Oh, gross. You did *NOT* serve your roommates Brussels sprouts, did you? That is sooo disgusting.
What's next? Liver? Sweetbreads? Calves brains? Coors?
Posted by: victor at October 08, 2004 06:41 AM (L3qPK)
7
I can't think of chianti without thinking of fava beans.
Posted by: Francine at October 08, 2004 09:05 AM (zAOEU)
8
i got the recipe out of Betty Crocker but made my own changes to make it non fat.
First steam or boil the brussels sprouts for ten minutes.
Spray Pam on a non stick skillet, brown a quarter of chopped onion lightly.
in a mixing bowl mix a tblsp of stone ground mustard, a tblsp of horseradish, a half cup of soy milk, a clove of minced garlic, two tblsps of flour a couple of pinches of pepper and a pinch of salt. Mix until the flour's not lumpy.
Then pour the mix into the skillet and simmer until thickened. You can either pour the sauce over the cooked brussels sprouts or dump the sprouts into the sauce, toss and serve.
Posted by: annika! at October 08, 2004 10:31 AM (zAOEU)
9
Changing the subject--check your roster. Your TE is out for the next game.
I'd tell Jim two of his players are out and a third has a bye this week, but he's a Marthat Stewart fan.
Posted by: Victor at October 08, 2004 11:00 AM (L3qPK)
10
Gabbiano is always a good choice, moving up their ranks a few dollars doesn't hurt either, but I have a hard time telling $40 Chianti from $14 - Chianti's supposed to be cheap anyhow, that's its nature.
Posted by: keith in mtn. view at October 08, 2004 11:03 AM (04TFv)
11
Chuh, you oughta try it with MY sauce!
Yeah, I'm a perv. Wanna make something of it?
Posted by: Casca at October 08, 2004 03:46 PM (Y671w)
12
Where'd you get Gabbiano for $5? I think I paid eight or nine bucks the last time I went to the local discount wine warehouse. Not only did I enjoy the wine, but my kids like the knight on the front of the bottle.
Posted by: Eric Johnson at October 09, 2004 07:35 PM (94qKy)
13
Bel Air market. For $5.99, actually. I saw it was over $10 or $11 at Albertson's recently, so that's a pretty good deal.
Posted by: annika at October 11, 2004 11:36 AM (zAOEU)
14
Hmm. I thought things were more expensive in California, but I double-checked here in my local Safeway in Virginia, and it's $9.49. Lucky girl!
Posted by: Eric Johnson at October 21, 2004 07:36 PM (84Org)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 06, 2004
Wednesday Is Poetry Day
How different is this war we are fighting now. Compared to wars of the distant past.
Thomas Hardy (1840-192
writes about a once universal irony among soldiers:
'Had he and I but met
By some old ancient inn,
We should have sat us down to wet
Right many a nipperkin!
'But ranged as infantry,
And staring face to face,
I shot at him as he at me,
And killed him in his place.
'I shot him dead because --
Because he was my foe,
Just so: my foe of course he was;
That's clear enough; although
'He thought he'd 'list, perhaps,
Off-hand like -- just as I --
Was out of work -- had sold his traps --
No other reason why.
'Yes; quaint and curious war is!
You shoot a fellow down
You'd treat if met where any bar is,
Or help to half-a-crown.'
In this current war of ours, i doubt you'd find many on our side who'd share Hardy's poignant sentiment.
Posted by: annika at
07:44 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 172 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Nah, these guys are whack jobs. Like the little soldierette prison guard said, "The fuck women for children, and boys for fun".
Posted by: Casca at October 06, 2004 09:55 PM (Y671w)
2
Indeed, the cultural gulf is wider with our current enemy than before. I remember reading this poem in high school in a discussion of the Cold War (which was of course still ongoing), and talking about the humanity of Russian soldiers...
Thanks.
Posted by: Hugo at October 07, 2004 07:14 AM (cbb3w)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Law Students Can Be So Competitive
If you had been in the cafeteria today, you might have overheard a conversation that went something like this:
"Hey Quan, where've you been?"
"Oh . . . uh . . . hi Annika."
"i haven't seen you in, like, weeks. Where'd you go? i thought you quit after the test or something."
"No . . . uh . . . I just moved seats."
"You did? What for?"
"Umm."
"Didn't you like sitting behind me?"
"Well . . . uh . . . to be honest . . .uh . . . I had to move."
"Oh come on. What, did i smell bad?"
"No . . . uh . . . no it's just . . . uhh . . . "
"You're fucking kidding me. Quan? You're kidding, right?"
". . . uhhh no it's not . . ."
"Please tell me you're fucking shitting me. Aren't you Quan? i really smell bad?"
"No . . . uh . . . you see it's . . . uhhh . . ."
"What the fuck? Just tell me!"
"It's . . . uh whenever you wore those uh blue warm-up pants . . . it got . . . uh . . . kinda distracting uhh . . . 'cause I could see your uh . . . your . . . uhh . . ."
"Oh . . . well . . . uh . . . sorry about that . . . uh . . . Quan . . . i uhh . . . "
"No problem, Annika. Don't worry about it."
The lesson to be learned from that little vignette is this: When the professor grades on a curve, consider converting butt cleavage into extra points.
Posted by: annika at
06:51 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 304 words, total size 2 kb.
1
You have no idea how familiar that story sounds. Back in first-year torts . . .
But it'd be really nice if you could fix all the " " stuff. It'd make the post a lot easier to read.
Posted by: Matt at October 06, 2004 08:55 PM (eWM9Y)
2
What was supposed to be inside those quotes was "& n b s p" (without the spaces).
Posted by: Matt at October 06, 2004 08:56 PM (eWM9Y)
3
Quan is clearly the slave of his masturbatory fantasies.
Posted by: Casca at October 06, 2004 09:59 PM (Y671w)
4
"Quan is clearly the slave of his masturbatory fantasies."
yea blame the guy for this god given hormones.
not blame the woman for sexual harrasment....
Posted by: cube at October 07, 2004 07:23 AM (nyNr0)
5
Poor Quan.
But it's still funny.
Posted by: ken at October 07, 2004 03:37 PM (xD5ND)
6
Um, isn't there a problem with the plan due to blind grading?
I have to admit, I'd probably would have been in Quan's situation, but for having OC standards while going to school in SF.
Posted by: Tony at October 07, 2004 06:14 PM (tjFjH)
7
Aha, Tony, see the beauty of the plan is that it doesn't involve the professor at all. The key is to distract the competition in order to lower the curve and thus move one's self up in rank comparatively. And theoretically, of course.
Posted by: annika! at October 07, 2004 08:00 PM (Gy1zC)
8
How deliciously devious of you.
Posted by: Tony at October 08, 2004 10:08 AM (QwFky)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
New Political Blog
RightViews.com is only a week old, and it looks like it may be a pretty good group blog.
Here's an excerpt from OJ's first post, which echoes my own thoughts (while watching that a-hole Keith Olberman the other night).
Why no one in the media is holding these politicians accountable for inconsistencies and in some cases absolute contradictions is beyond me. Clearly the media is traditionally liberal but these extremes are bordering on misrepresentation. Turning a blind eye, the Media is misleading the public by not reporting the whole story and as a result, is knowingly censuring the truth as it relates to the forum. Someone needs to hold the Left responsible for what they are saying.
That someone is the blogosphere, OJ. Welcome, and good luck with your new blog.
Posted by: annika at
06:21 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 135 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Thank you for your kind words Annika. We hope that your readers will like our content!
OJ
Posted by: OJ at October 07, 2004 01:06 PM (kcQMV)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
How Does He Do It?
Bill Whittle posted yet another gem.
Teaser:
[W]eÂ’ll look at what both men said, and through a very specific filter: not their Aggregate Presidentiality, or their respective Molar Charm Ratio. WeÂ’re going to look at what both men believe in respect to deterrence: whether their positions increase or decrease the likelihood of further attacks on the US.
. . .
And all of this rage and fury and spitting and tearing up of signs, all of these insults and spinmeisters and forgeries and all the rest, seem to come down to the fact that about half the country thinks you deter this sort of thing by being nice, while the other half thinks you deter this by being mean.
ItÂ’s really just that simple.
. . .
And although we can not run an experiment to look into the alternate futures to glean the best result, to determine the relative benefits of being nice or being mean – for those, ultimately, are the choices, believe it or not – we can at least look back to see which seems to have produced the best results in the laboratory of history.
Thus begins another intellectual journey, Whittle style. Set aside a couple of hours and read it all the way through.
Posted by: annika at
06:11 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 218 words, total size 1 kb.
October 05, 2004
Notes On The Vice Presidential Debate
i live blogged the debate on my crappy laptop. i don't think i'll be doing that again. It's too hard to watch and type at the same time. Here's my notes:
more...
Posted by: annika at
11:18 PM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
Post contains 2212 words, total size 13 kb.
1
A valuable read, Annika. Thanks.
Kevin
Posted by: Kevin Kim at October 06, 2004 12:04 AM (7rEaY)
2
"Who gets to keep the notes they scribble afterwards? The Smithsonian? The National Archives? It's not like they're going to need them after it's over, but the notes are historically valuable."
My guess would be the Commission on Presidential Debates, the non-governmental, non-partisan body that's sponsored these things since 1988.
"The gay marriage issue. Cheney says the issue is judges. i wish he would say the words: full faith and credit clause."
Well, unlike Edwards, who has no excuse whatsoever, Cheney's not a lawyer, so I don't think you could really expect him to get into the details.
"And how does the federal government impose such a tort control plan on a federal system? i dont understand it."
To a far lesser extent than most politicians who support tort reform seem to think, but primarily I would guess by expanding the diversity jurisdiction of the federal courts, especially in the context of class actions.
Posted by: Dave J at October 06, 2004 07:45 AM (VThvo)
3
i didnt know what diversity jurisdiction was until a few weeks ago.
Posted by: annika at October 06, 2004 07:53 AM (yHmot)
4
Annie,
Yeah, that liveblogging stuff is hard, isn't it? I tried, but did a terrible job.
"And how does the federal government impose such a tort control plan on a federal system? i dont understand it."
Presumably the same way they do lots of other things that they probably have no business doing under a federal system: They call it a commerce issue and pass a statute that directly regulates the field. That'd be my guess, anyway, but maybe they're more subtle than that. (I doubt it, but who knows?)
I was heartened to note that Cheney at least seems
aware of the concept of federalism, even if he conveniently ignores it in the tort reform context. ("Traditionally, that's been an issue for the states. States have regulated marriage, if you will. That would be my preference.") Some of my colleagues think federalism is too metaphysical a point to raise in a national debate, and that it will turn most voters off. They may be right, but it warmed my heart anyway. Sadly, though, Bush doesn't seem to have much respect for federalism. (Neither, of course, does Kerry.) This is one of my biggest complaints against W.
Posted by: Matt at October 06, 2004 08:47 AM (SIlfx)
5
I enjoyed your perspective.
A personal aside: Because of his personal story and his cute kids, I would like to like John Edwards, but I do not. He is all about cleverness and none about substance. He is insincere sincerity. He is cotton candy. He promotes class warfare for his benefit, with nary a thought of the nation's benefit-- this is detestable-- John Edwards is actually being part of the problem when he does this. He is being part of the problem with his cleverness masking his lack of substance.
My group of XXL men friends is much different than we would've been 30 years ago. We are more "sensitive." We don't yell at the Little Leaguers we coach, and we talk about stuff our fathers never would've touched. But one thing has not changed: a cotton-candy ass poser like John Edwards gets no respect from us. Neither I nor a single one of my friends like this guy.
Posted by: gcotharn at October 06, 2004 09:08 AM (hoo48)
6
Something else. Cotton-candy ass is not that effing clever! If he was that effing clever, me and every friend I have would not see through his bullshit with such ease.
The media infatuation with Edwards has an underlying theme: "Edwards is so good at fooling the rubes." That pretty much says it all about the media, and about Edwards.
Posted by: gcotharn at October 06, 2004 09:14 AM (hoo48)
Posted by: Amy at October 06, 2004 09:33 AM (RpVKX)
8
Wow Amy, that was a big screw up! Yuck, Soros.
Thanks for the great work, annie.
Posted by: d-rod at October 06, 2004 09:59 AM (CSRmO)
9
"Vice presidential debates decide nothing, but this year, Cheney went a long way to reassure Republicans after Bush's dismal perfirmance last Thursday."
what would you base your decsion on if you were an undecided voter. The VP debates? maybe.
you could try to expand you knowledge of the entire ticket by looking at the VP debates, or by doing more research.
Basically, the VP debates could decide a few people's minds.
Posted by: cubicle at October 06, 2004 11:39 AM (nyNr0)
10
"i didnt know what diversity jurisdiction was until a few weeks ago."
Heh, Civ Pro's the "insider" class, now isn't it? The one that most separates lawyers from laypeople, I mean, more so than the substantive subjects.
"Presumably the same way they do lots of other things that they probably have no business doing under a federal system: They call it a commerce issue and pass a statute that directly regulates the field."
But with respect to this area, then you'd almost certainly just have a federal statute sitting alongside preexisting state law, since you're just not going to see Congress preempt whole swathes of the general law of torts even if the courts were to let them get away with it: hence, that would still not make much difference, since plaintiffs could sue under either state or federal law or both, and state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over federal questions unless Congress specifically excludes them.
The reason I said I expected an expansion of the diversity jurisdiction of the federal courts to be the key to any federal tort reform is that Congress legitimately has much greater leeway to do things there than its (essentially non-existent) power re: the state courts. Because the federal constitution establishes only the US Supreme Court, Congress as the creator of the lower federal courts has the last word on their rules of procedure (I could go into snore-inducing detail on the 1934 Rules Enabling Act, but I'll spare you), so anything with respect to, just for example, limitations on attorney fees or punitive damage awards could at least be argued to be procedural even with respect to state-law tort claims. Moreover, at a practical level, the jury pool for a federal district court even in the same state's going to be much larger and less hospitable than in some notoriously plaintiff-friendly rural county where those of Senator Edwards' ilk typically go shopping for clients.
And Congress does have the power to do this: the US Constitution allows for "partial diversity," i.e., federal courts hearing state-law cases where at least one party differs in citizenship from the party or parties opposite, but Congress has never authorized this, never expanded federal jurisdiction to the maximum scope allowed. The statutory diversity jurisdiction of the federal courts has been the same since the Judiciary Act of 1789: "total diversity," wherein all the parties on one side must differ in citizenship from all the parties opposite. This makes it VERY easy for a plaintiff's attorney to keep a case in state court if wanted, simply by finding just one client who's a resident of the same state as any of the defendants and/or naming as a defendant a party from the same state as a plaintiff.
Posted by: Dave J at October 06, 2004 11:40 AM (VThvo)
11
Nice, Dave.
While we're at it, anyone wanna help me on the scintillating subject of the difference between rules vs. statutory class action?
Just kidding, of course! That would drive away all visitors.
Posted by: annika at October 06, 2004 11:49 AM (zAOEU)
12
Scintillating indeed, at least compared to what I'm working on now. ;-) But that's NFPC (Not For Public Consumption) until it's finished and published--not that you'd likely have much idea what it was about anyway until you're well into Property next semester. Or is that a first-semester class for you? I know different schools vary the first-year curriculum somewhat.
Great job on this, BTW: an insightful but also fun read.
Posted by: Dave J at October 06, 2004 12:48 PM (VThvo)
13
Annie,
Wanna know a dirty little secret? . . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
Even now I don't understand the difference between "rules" and "statutory" class actions! I don't think I ever really did. You should try to learn it, though -- it may be on the exam! (And if you figure it out, let me know. I'm not interested enough to research it myself at this point. The odds that I'll ever end up litigating a class action are roughly the same as the odds that God will give me two stone tablets to take down to the Israelites.)
Dave,
You might be interested in
this.
Fair enough, but why fiddle with diversity jurisdiction?
Posted by: Matt at October 06, 2004 01:16 PM (SIlfx)
14
Matt, thanks for that. As staff of a state legislature, it strikes me as a useful if rather disturbing read: I'm a supporter of tort reform, but still. Congress couldn't get rid of jury trials in the federal courts and, while the Seventh Amendment doesn't apply to the states, as far as I know every state constitution has an analogous provision, so for the feds to step and abolish civil jury trials in the state courts for specific causes of action, while CRS may be correct in saying it's not strictly unconstitutional per current US Supreme Court case law, still seems blatantly contrary to the principles underlying those constitutional provisions, an overly-convenient end-run around them.
I don't think we even discussed class actions in my Civ Pro class. The professor was too obsessively interested in diversity jurisdiction. ;-) Why fiddle with it? I'm not actually sure that I would, just that if Congress did seriously pursue tort reform, it might be a means to do so without raising as many of the federalism concerns as some other proposals do.
Posted by: Dave J at October 06, 2004 02:01 PM (VThvo)
15
Nicely done, Annika. I enjoyed reading your thoughts.
Posted by: Margi at October 06, 2004 02:40 PM (MAdsZ)
16
I don't know if the VP's couldn't direct questions to each other. Besides I really doubt that Bush could back out of the last two debates and save face. His failures of his administration and his failed debate would make it look real bad if he dropped them. So, truthfully Kerry and Edwards don't really have to follow the rules. Then again Bush broke the rules when he went to war. I just want to know what is Bush afraid of, that he had to write up so many rules, and didn't want to talk to the 9-11 commision. I seriously think he is hiding something that still hasn't come out yet. Think Watergate.
Posted by: Sean Carter at October 06, 2004 03:17 PM (T+5Co)
17
The "new" annika doesn't get involved in comment debates.
oh what the hell...
Sean said:
I really doubt that Bush could back out of the last two debates and save face. His failures of his administration and his failed debate would make it look real bad if he dropped them.What are you smoking dude? Has any rational person suggested that Bush back out of the last two debates?
And i simply can't follow the logic which leads you to conclude that "
truthfully Kerry and Edwards don't really have to follow the rules." Oh i get it, they're democrats and the rules never apply to democrats. (See recent disputed elections in FL, NJ, MO, CA etc.)
I just want to know what is Bush afraid of, that he had to write up so many rulesThe rules were agreed upon by both campaigns. You could just as easily ask what Kerry is afraid of, since his campaign agreed to the rules.
I seriously think [Bush]
is hiding something that still hasn't come out yet.Actually, i know what Bush is hiding "that still hasn't come out yet":
it's yo momma!
Posted by: annika! at October 06, 2004 05:40 PM (txBoO)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
i Can't Wait To See This One
Brittany is busy
writing a letter to her fans.
[Spears] has worked so hard on her letter that she says, she 'feels like I'm at Harvard.'
i can't wait to see
which of the 26 she will pick.
Posted by: annika at
10:29 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 50 words, total size 1 kb.
1
She's just following the Madonna career path, as viewed through her inbred redneck roots.
Posted by: Casca at October 05, 2004 04:17 PM (Y671w)
2
Madonna doesn't have redneck roots, but I guess you could consider her inbred with this funky combination........Her father is Italian, her mother was French-Canadian.
What was he thinking?
Posted by: reagan80 at October 05, 2004 07:02 PM (hlMFQ)
3
Casca, calling someone from Kenner a redneck would be worn as a badge of pride. Britney, OTOH, is white trash. The two can overlap, but they're not the same thing.
Posted by: Dave J at October 05, 2004 07:36 PM (GEMsk)
4
Oy vey. Too funny, Annika!
Posted by: Margi at October 06, 2004 02:28 PM (MAdsZ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 02, 2004
Monday Night Football Pick
No posting this weekend, so i'm giving you my Monday Night Football pick early. The upcoming game is between the surprisingly sucky Kansas City Chiefs and the Baltimore Ravens, at Baltimore. According to USA Today, the oddsmakers have Baltimore favored by 4½ to 6 points.
After last weeks pick, i'm hesitant to go with the favorite again. (An SI.com poll says the Chiefs are the most likely 0-3 to bag a win this week.) But Kansas City's offense seems really disorganized this year,* and MNF or not, i don't see them solving their problems against the Baltimore defense.
i'd be comfortable picking Baltimore minus five points.
* Although, statistics-wise, Baltimore's doesn't seem much different, and their QB is even worse than Trent Green has been. But the Ravens appear to have a better run defense, which they'll certainly need against Priest Holmes, and a better pass defense.
Posted by: annika at
06:29 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 155 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Passion for the Raiders may cloud my judgement so hating the Chiefs and Ravens for good reason, umm go with the chiefs because the Ravens offense is not that good besides the running back.
Posted by: Dex at October 02, 2004 12:46 PM (eEvJi)
2
remember great O versus great D cancels out sucky O.
Posted by: Dex at October 02, 2004 12:49 PM (eEvJi)
3
I hope you had the VCR set, because Cal is crushing Oregon State in the first half. Clearly there is no concept of defense in the PAC-10. Beat the snot out of USC next week, and we'll go for a Cal vs Ohio State matchup in the BCS. The Trojans' feet are made of clay.
Posted by: Casca at October 02, 2004 02:36 PM (Y671w)
4
I am SOOOOOOOOOO ashamed.
Posted by: Casca at October 02, 2004 10:07 PM (Y671w)
Posted by: annika! at October 04, 2004 09:38 PM (byCte)
6
Well i tried to school ya annika, you will learn in time grasshopper.
Posted by: Dex at October 04, 2004 10:31 PM (eEvJi)
7
I think you're blocking, annika. How do you *really* feel?
Rested, I'm sure. At least you're on the left coast, when MNF starts at dinnertime and ends before bedtime. Try staying up on the right coast to watch your hometeam play when the game ends 4 1/2 hours before the alarm goes off.
If I want to watch the 'Skins play on Monday night, I take Tuesday off.
Posted by: Victor at October 05, 2004 04:51 AM (L3qPK)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 01, 2004
Debate One Deconstruction - Substance
Last night John Kerry said "The president just talked about Iraq as a center of the war on terror. Iraq was not even close to the center of the war on terror before the president invaded it."
If Kerry thinks Afghanistan is the real center of the War on Terror, it occurs to me that Iraq is just on the other side of Iran. Maybe that's not close enough for Kerry, but i think Iraq is definitely in the right neighborhood. And that's why Iraq is so important.
Kerry also said: ". . . I would not take my eye off of the goal: Osama bin Laden. Unfortunately, he escaped in the mountains of Tora Bora."
If you examine Kerry's insistence on finding Osama as the real goal of the War on Terror, you'll see the central flaw in his thinking. He still looks at this conflict as a law enforcement and containment problem. i believe most Americans realize we can't play that game anymore, just as most Europeans think that the law enforcement model is the only possible solution.
Europeans think that way because they lack the military strength for any alternative strategy. We don't suffer from that limitation. We can fix the problem of terrorism with a real long term solution. Our might allows us to do what the Europeans cannot. Like Bush said, it's hard work, but it's not an impossible task for Americans.
But Kerry thinks like a European; we all know that. He's an internationalist at the core, and always has been. Despite his hawkish double-talk, he mistrusts the use of American power the same way Europeans do. We - and i mean you and i - can't afford to mistrust our own power. The stakes are too high now.
Why? Because our enemy wants to kill us.
This is a new kind of war. Our enemy isn't like Imperial Japan in WWII. They don't want access to oil so they can create a new Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere.
Our new enemy's goal is much simpler: They want all Americans to die.
Capturing Osama will not solve the problem of terrorism. The bad guys will still have the capability and the desire to kill Americans, with or without Osama. John Kerry must not win because if he is elected, we will lose our focus on the real goal of the War on Terror.
The real focus is long term. It is the transformation of the Islamic world. The only way - the only way - we can stop this enemy is to change the societies in which they live into free and democratic societies.
If the Islamic world does not change, we will be forever on defense in the War on Terror. Bringing democracy and freedom to Iraq is the first step in a long term strategy to protect America from future 9/11s. That's what i mean by being on offense.
John Kerry and his followers miss that very important point. They would have us abandon Bush's strategic goal and substitute the short term tactical goal of hunting down the sick and probably dying Osama bin Ladin. Not that we shouldn't bring him to justice, but it won't solve the problem of terrorism. Bush's strategy is designed to be a permanent solution.
Hugh Hewitt wrote:
Would the many terrorist attacks since 9/11 in Bali, Madrid, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Beslan and elsewhere have occurred had the United States focused all of its efforts on Afghanistan? Yes. Would Zarqawi still be roaming freely throughout Iraq and the middle east, building his parallel networks? Yes. Would killing Osama at Tora Bora have stopped the Islamist fanatics around the globe? No.
John Kerry does not understand the enemy. He does not understand the war we are in, or how it must be waged. He doesn't understand the reason Libya disarmed. He doesn't get what's going on at all.
Kerry calls Iraq the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time? Sorry Kerry, President Bush was right (even when he flubbed the line) when he said "It's not a grand diversion, this is an essential that we get it right."
One more point. Despite Kerry's occasional hawkishness, don't forget that something like seventy percent of Kerry's support comes from the ant-war left. That's a big umbrella that contains few reasonable people, and a lot of kooks. We cannot allow Kerry to open the government up to this anti-American fifth column, which he will undoubtedly do. Remember, he was one of them once.
Posted by: annika at
04:55 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 764 words, total size 4 kb.
1
Kerry may talk about Afghanistan, but...I remember that, before the Afghan war started, very large numbers of leftists were against it, using terms like "genocide" (to refer to what the Americans were about to do, not what the Taliban was already doing.) As you point out, these people are a key part of Kerry's base. Would a Kerry administration, had it been in power, do what needed to be done in Afghanistan? I think it's highly questionable.
Posted by: David Foster at October 01, 2004 08:56 PM (XUtCY)
2
I tend to think that even a Kerry Administration would have done the right thing in Afghanistan, more or less. I say more or less because the knee-jerk political reaction may have been to immediately fire a few missiles to blow up a few empty tents and hit a camel in the
ass, rather than to take our time and do the job right.
Posted by: Xrlq at October 01, 2004 11:54 PM (6DLYC)
3
my question is when do the country fully commit to the war effort. This must be done I think.
Posted by: Dex at October 02, 2004 12:53 PM (eEvJi)
4
All his life up to 2002, Kerry has shown himself to be a pacifist.
Under no circumstance, will Kerry use the military. He was very consistent up until he started his campaign.
In 2003 Kerry started his war talk so that he would have a chance to be elected. Since then Kerry has vacillated between being a warlord and a pacifist-hence the flip-flopping. This week he is a pacifist-his true self.
Posted by: Jake at October 02, 2004 02:29 PM (h4tU8)
5
What's the problem here?
I feel so much safer with the thought that if North Korea or Iran threatens us, President Kerry will call a summit to solve the problem. Those guys will cave in when he brings out his spitballs and protesters.
Don't you all feel warm and fuzzy at that prospect? He can also talk them to death; wait until he unloads the Senatespeak and reverts to his Boston Brahmin nasal superior accent. They'll line up to surrender.
Posted by: shelly s. at October 03, 2004 01:24 PM (s6c4t)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
102kb generated in CPU 0.0527, elapsed 0.1318 seconds.
76 queries taking 0.0977 seconds, 311 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.