i'm considering removing the calendar from the sidebar. i never use it. I'm curious about whether any of you find it useful, and if so how. Either on your own blog or when visiting other MT blogs. Similarly, if you never use it, i'd like to know that too.

Update: The tribe has spoken. Kiss it goodbye.

Posted by: annika at 07:20 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 61 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I never use it either on my own blog or yours. Let's dump it.

Posted by: d-rod at February 18, 2004 08:37 PM (xHDde)

2 what calendar? :-) coyote

Posted by: coyote at February 18, 2004 09:06 PM (cfoFZ)

3 Yeah, as far as I can see it's cute but completely useless.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at February 18, 2004 10:01 PM (kOqZ6)

4 I use mine to see what day it is, and I use other people's if I want to see what they posted on a particular day. But I suspect I am in the minority...

Posted by: Susie at February 18, 2004 11:06 PM (0+cMc)

5 You're right, there is a calandar there. How about that.

Posted by: Steve S. at February 19, 2004 01:22 AM (PDLvk)

6 The only real use I've found for it is when you click on a specific day it brings up those posts. Handy if you're looking for something that you remember from a few days or a week ago. I don't use it often.

Posted by: Ted at February 19, 2004 08:21 AM (blNMI)

7 Useless. Folks can just use the archives. I left it off when I came over to MT.

Posted by: Hugo at February 19, 2004 08:24 AM (gGPcB)

8 *giggles @ Steve* I'd have to agree with Susie and Ted... It's not that much of a minority... 3/8

Posted by: Cherry at February 19, 2004 10:40 PM (i7dMY)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Check out this "Humorous Political Party Quiz to Test If You're an Archconservative, Leftwing Wacko, Antigovernment Libertine or a Commie Sympathizer," to which i was alerted through the magic of e-mail.

Posted by: annika at 09:51 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 37 words, total size 1 kb.

A couple of good requiems for Howard Dean can be found here:

Danny O'Brien applies the five Kübler-Ross stages of Death to Howard Dean's campaign. Nice Job, D.

Matt at Blackfive goes Elton John on Howie. Pretty classic, Matt.

Posted by: annika at 04:45 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 47 words, total size 1 kb.

Howard Dean is the Dan Jansen of American politics. Remember Dan Jansen, the speed skater? He was supposed to win every race, but he kept falling down. He wouldn't quit, though.

Posted by: annika at 02:15 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 35 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Yeah, except Dan Jansen actually won something at the end.

Posted by: glenn at February 17, 2004 03:26 PM (JWs/7)

2 How about another Dan, Dan O'Brien of the Reebok "Dan vs. Dave" ad fiasco?

Posted by: Scof at February 17, 2004 04:59 PM (Me9IN)

3 Dan O'Brien also eventually won the gold (1996) as well as three world championships. He also held the world record for a while.

Posted by: Kurt at February 18, 2004 11:14 AM (/7AX2)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Sometimes Kerry has simultaneous flashbacks to fighting in Vietnam and being a Vietnam War protestor, causing him to spit on himself.

Thanks, Frank.

Posted by: annika at 12:05 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 55 words, total size 1 kb.

i did a cheesy thing. Maybe you've seen the new link on the sidebar. i opened up my own cafepress.com page. i know, i know, but it was so fun to design the stuff.

i didn't mention it until now because i was waiting for my annika's journal coffee mug to arrive. Now that i've seen the product, i am impressed. The mug came out much better than i had expected.

So now the annika's journal shop is open for business. Hey, if Kylie Minogue can sell panties with her lips all over them, i can offer you a mug to put your own lips on.

(Does this mean we'll be seeing Old Skool or Matt wearing the Kylie panties anytime soon?)

Posted by: annika at 11:22 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 128 words, total size 1 kb.

1 ??? Not hardly! Well, not me, at least! I can't speak for OS, but I've never seen any indication that he might be into that sort of thing.

Posted by: Matt at February 17, 2004 06:35 AM (of2d1)

2 This mug would be even better with your smiling visage.

Posted by: Ehecatl at February 17, 2004 09:02 AM (+Jc3U)

3 you're so vain, you probably think this mug is about you... ;p ...mean nothing by it, just have the song stuck in my head from the morning drive to work...

Posted by: Scof at February 17, 2004 10:53 AM (Me9IN)

4 Seeing stuff with my name on it is so confusing! It all looks great, though. I may just have to get a coffee mug with our name on it.

Posted by: the other Annika at February 18, 2004 11:47 AM (pXYHz)

5 sellout! now seriously, i was looking but i could not find the annie panties.. are they ona hidden page or something? ;-) coyote

Posted by: coyote at February 18, 2004 01:27 PM (cfoFZ)

6 "Nulla puella negat" indeed -- and such a brazen display... will wonders never cease?

Posted by: Hugo at February 18, 2004 03:33 PM (gGPcB)

7 No Coyote, they're on me! And they're not for sale. ; )

Posted by: annika! at February 18, 2004 04:12 PM (zAOEU)

8 lol @ Scof lol we make all that sort of stuff at work Jigsaws too even That mousepad is a ripoff!!!

Posted by: Cherry at February 19, 2004 10:46 PM (i7dMY)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Question: Is there any difference between what Mayor Gavin Newsom is doing and what Judge Roy Moore did?

Answer: Yes. One is pursuing a liberal goal and will be hailed as a hero, while the other pursued a conservative goal and has been condemned to a lifetime of obloquy.

Update: Does Rush Limbaugh read my blog? He'd never admit it if he did. But he made the above point almost word for word during his third hour today.

Update 2: It never fails. Just when i think i've had an original thought, within a day or two i find out some other blogger has thought of it first. Ouch, just when i was starting to think i was all that.

Looks like Rod Dreher at The Corner made the Moore/Newsom connection a few hours before i did. i guess this means Rush probably didn't steal the idea from me.

Crap.

DAMN YOU BLOGOSPHERE!

DAMN You to hell.

Posted by: annika at 02:49 PM | Comments (35) | Add Comment
Post contains 161 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Too simple, Annika. Christians in the south are not historically disenfranchised. They have not been denied the opportunity to participate in society's rituals; indeed, they (we, frankly) are the architects of those rituals. Roy Moore was not trying to extend freedom or liberty to a marginalized and oppressed sector of society, as Newsom is. Look, I am not an ACLU member any longer, larger because I am troubled by the ridiculous heights to which the so-called war of separation has climbed between church and state. I have no problem with the Ten Commandments in a courthouse. But to compare the "oppression" of southern evangelicals to that of gays and lesbians is a little too pat. But I still dig ya. Cheers Hugo

Posted by: Hugo at February 16, 2004 06:38 PM (KX71Q)

2 Oops, I meant largely, not larger.

Posted by: Hugo at February 16, 2004 06:48 PM (KX71Q)

3 Whoa, it's not just southern evangelicals who are being oppressed by an overly secular culture. All religious people have had their First Amendment rights of free exercise trampled in the last thirty years by over-zealous promotion of the non-existent "separation" clause. If Moore's methods were wrong, so are Newsom's, regardless of the validity of their respective goals. And if Newsom's methods are good, then so were Moore's. Hugo, you know i'm supportive of Newsom's goals,just as i supported the point that Moore was trying to make. i find the inconsistency of reactions worth noting, though. It points out how so many people identify with their own political camps that they don't see thir own hipocracy.

Posted by: annika at February 16, 2004 07:00 PM (L6fDZ)

4 oops, (sp. error): hypocrisy

Posted by: annika! at February 16, 2004 07:04 PM (L6fDZ)

5 I, for one, can appreciate the irony of Annika's observation. Hugo's remark that Annika's analysis is "too simple" reminds me of a canard, famously invoked by Mario Cuomo prior to the 2000 Presidential election, that "liberals write with fine points, conservatives write crayons." In that regard, Hugo writes in fine point and attributes to Annika a comparison she never makes, of "southern evangelicals" (which I suppose are a breed apart from, say, "Pacific Northwest evangelicals") to homosexuals.

Posted by: Daniel Lowenberg at February 16, 2004 07:21 PM (JT0TG)

6 I don't understand what Hugo means when he comments that Christians in the South have not been historically disenfranchised. Gays and Lesbians in San Francisco also have not been historically disenfranchised, at least not in the last 35 years or so. While I agree that Judge Moore had no right to defy the law by putting up a plaque of the 10 commandments, and ignoring court orders to remove it, I would argue that the damage to the rule of law (and these gay couples) done by Mayor Newsom and the SF County Clerk is much potentially much worse. SF is creating hundreds of marriages of doubtful validity each day. Imagine that five years from now, one of these gay marriages breaks up, perhaps while the couple is living in another State? Will both spouses have equal parental rights? Will community property division of earnings apply? Will one or the other putative spouse be able to remarry in other States without a divorce? If the California Supreme Court in the interim invalidates these marriages, will the couple be treated as subject to California's civil partnership statute, even though these couples have not registered under that statute? It would take a crystal ball to answer those serious legal questions. But why worry about practical consequences of ignoring the rule of law? Long live anarchy, long live San Francisco!

Posted by: Ralph at February 16, 2004 07:43 PM (GNnTw)

7 I am not denying that there are noticeable similarities. When I mean "disenfranchised", I mean (broadly speaking) denied the same right to participate in society that others enjoy. Southern evangelicals (I am related to a few) have never had their right to worship freely seriously abridged. Even in SF, gays and lesbians have - or had, depending on the legitimacy of Gavin's actions -- no more legal standing than they do in Topeka or Ottumwa or my beloved Charlottesville. They have been denied what some of us (we can all disagree civilly, I am confident) consider to be a basic right -- to marry the person whom they love. Newsom and Moore, like many others before them, are engaged in civil disobedience at a high level. I honor men and women who are willing to place moral principle ahead of the law (in the King/Gandhi/Mandela tradition), especially when they are willing to forego greater successes as a result. Newsom has perhaps irrevocably damaged his political hopes beyond SF; Moore has been removed as chief justice. They do have definite similarities -- but that does not make the issues for which they struggle interchangeable, and it does not make one a hypocrite for supporting the extension of a basic human right to an oppressed class on the one hand, while on the other being vaguely unimpressed by the desire to place a large stone monument in a public place. I don't see how they are comparable. I'd like to think I am more often "hipocritical" anyway... a guy likes to feel he's "with it" in his inconsistencies! Cheers H

Posted by: Hugo at February 16, 2004 09:10 PM (wxFAo)

8 Actually the rule of law is not being broken in either case - at least not in the sense it was intended, The concept of the Rule of Law is simply that the rulers are not permitted to do things that the masses aren't. I often hear people speak of the Rule of Law as if it were to encourage obedience by the individuals, but if such a concept were needed then governments wouldn't have so much force backing them, now would they? Whether you agree with it in principle or not, I fail to see anything morally wrong about a government allowing or simply not interfering with a freedom or privilege of the people. Likewise I see nothing wrong about another government official defying his bosses because he feels their dictates conflict with the law. But now here's something ot gnaw on for a while - for those of you who agree that civil disobedience is acceptable when faced with a law that conflicts with a higher law (& the conflict involves the Rights &/or freedoms of the people), then would you condemn someone who committed civil disobedience with a firearm? Not using it, but merely possessing it in defiance of a law that conflicts with a constitutional protection of the Right to Arms. In other words, would you honestly look at me as someone engaged in civil disobedience if I carried an M1 garand on my shoulder as I walked through downtown San Fransico? Or if I carried concealed without a permit despite laws to the contrary? Or would that be different & I would merely be a criminal? & I must point out that gun owners, especially absolutists such as myself, have been openly villified & persecuted much more than any religious group or group defined by sexual orientation - at least in this country within the last 20 years or so. One last thing: it's been bothering me & I was hoping one of y'all could 'splain things...The Mayor of San fran is more or less allowing gays & lesbians to marry right? Well why would a gay man want to marry a lesbian? Is it some kind of reverse-reverse role thing?

Posted by: Publicola at February 16, 2004 09:22 PM (Aao25)

9 Hugo, which right has been denied to homosexuals but not to heterosexuals? Life, speech, religion, keeping and bearing arms, trial by jury, not being cruelly or unusually punished? If you mean to claim marriage is a RIGHT, please point out WHERE is legally defined as such.

Posted by: Eric Sivula at February 16, 2004 09:46 PM (vnQ02)

10 I suspect Hugo means the right to marry. What's the basis for that asserted right? The Supreme Court, of course: "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men." Loving v. Virginia, 381 U.S. 1, 11 (1967). I'd add that I'm pretty much indifferent to the issue of gay marriage: the state's seal of approval on a "marriage" has nothing to do with its validity--by which I mean whether it is or is a valid sacrament. I tend to think the state should get out of the marriage business altogether, and leave it to contract law and personal religious belief. That said, I don't think Annie's comparison is by any means too pat. One government official rejects the judgment of the legislature, while another rejects the judgment of the Supreme Court. Both may be "right" in some metaphysical sense, but in practical terms both are ultimately usurping what are traditionally understood to be the prerogatives of some other governmental institutiton. If you're an anarchist like Publicola, that's not a big deal; otherwise, though, it's a rather sticky problem. On the one hand, if we claim it's never legitimate for anyone to reject authority then the Declaration if Independence and the war that followed it become rather problematic. If we claim it's always legitimate for folks to reject authority whenever they feel like it, well . . . we're Publicola! The middle ground -- where the vast majority of Americans instinctively live -- is I think, a highly subjective place.

Posted by: Matt Rustler at February 16, 2004 10:59 PM (of2d1)

11 I’m confused with that gay–lesbian thing too, Publicola. But while absolutist anarchists are justifiably marginalized in high-density areas, relativists have been prevailing politically for over a generation based on superior organizational skills. Personally, I wouldn’t condemn anyone for carrying a firearm, but it just wouldn’t be a proper fashion statement on the Frisco “street” (unless maybe accompanied with a pink costume at a pride parade).

Posted by: d-rod at February 17, 2004 12:01 AM (8vXLJ)

12 Hugo did indeed mean to refer to Loving v. Virginia -- of course, most strict constructionists don't like the way that case "found" a right to marry anymore than they like the way that Roe, or Brown, or Planned Parenthood v. Casey, or even my beloved Lawrence v. Texas "found" rights. Who, pray tell, is the evangelical equivalent in recent American history of Matthew Shephard? How often are young Christian men attacked on the streets for their faith? In Nigeria, yes. In the Sudan, yes. But not on the streets of the cities of America. I simply think folks need to draw more concrete distinctions.

Posted by: Hugo at February 17, 2004 08:19 AM (gGPcB)

13 "Newsom and Moore, like many others before them, are engaged in civil disobedience at a high level. I honor men and women who are willing to place moral principle ahead of the law..." Want to engage in civil disobedience? Do so as a private citizen, not using the coercive powers of your own public office and the taxpayers' money to fund your political agenda. Regardless of where one stands on the underlying issues, that way lies anarchy. If you're an anarchist, fine, but even most people who disagree on practically everything else are not. The real point to be made--indeed, to shouted from the rafters in the hope that there might be some audience left willing to listen--is that Moore's and Newsom's methods are essentially the same, and the fact their respective supporters will, on the off-chance that they're ever confronted with this conundrum, deny it to the hilt, surely speaks volumes about the (lack of) any honesty or even critical thought at the far poles of the political spectrum. They are both engaged in the assertion of a Nietzschean will to power, in the face of which they regard the rule of law as, at best, just another rhetorical point to be used or discarded as appears convenient at any given moment.

Posted by: Dave J at February 17, 2004 12:24 PM (VThvo)

14 It's a pretty weak analogy, comparable only in that presumably the Mayor of SF takes an oath similar to the judicial oath of Judge Moore. Of course, Judge Moore is far more constrained in action than the Mayor, who is, I suppose, an executive and thus empowered with enforcing the law, rather than interpreting it. I also suspect that the Mayor is not at present violating the order of a court of competent jurisdiction.

Posted by: Scipio at February 17, 2004 01:15 PM (14dkq)

15 Scipio, the Mayor of San Fransisco is not empowered to begin handing out marriage liscenses to people who do not fit the CA criteria. Period. Thus he is violating his oath to uphold the laws of CA. Not to mention, that by ordering city clerks to take money to issue marriage liscenses to gay couples, Mr. Newscom is engaging in fraud. And no, Hugo, I do not believe in 'discovered' rights, especially considering that those who 'discover' them often then try to interpret explicit rights (religion, firearms) out of the Constitution. I am a strict Constitutionalist - if you want another right in the Bill, just get it past Congress and 38 states. The process amy not be easy, but it is simple.

Posted by: Eric Sivula at February 17, 2004 07:22 PM (vnQ02)

16 I, on a slight tangent, would like to ask if Matt Rustler genuinely thinks Publicola's comment smacks of anarchy, or was this a inter-personal joke? I have no cause to champion Publicola, as I'm certain he himself is perfectly capable of the task, and futher I know not his thoughts or intent.I, however, read nothing anarchical in his comment. I believe Publicola holds the U.S. Constitution in the highest regard, and the Constitution is, in fact, the supreme LAW of the U.S.. Lest someone forget, the Constitution is a charter between the people ( through their state legislature ) and the federal government. That charter outlines restrictions on the federal government's power and a narrow scope of tasks deligated to it. It represents the absolute maximum infringements, considered a sufferable expediant, the people would grant the feds. These hard boundaries were, and remain, a requisite for the people to submit themselves to a federal form of government. Any law: local, state or federal, which violates the charter represents a breach and need not be abided. This position has been affirmed by the courts. No person or authority has any legal grounds to violate the provisions of the Constitution. Therefore, Publicola has every right, in the context of legality and morality, to carry (bear) his Garand, peacably, in public. Those who attempt to abrogate his right are the anarchists, they seek to undermine the highest law in existence. If you wish to stop him (legally) simply ammend the Constitution then, if your successful, I'll tender no further protest. Jasen W.

Posted by: Jasen W. at February 17, 2004 08:09 PM (x5yeK)

17 Answer: Yes, there is a difference. For you see, at the time of the writing of that article, Mayor Newsom had not been ordered by any agency to stop what he was doing. The injunction hadn't gone through, and he is at liberty to continue until ordered otherwise. Roy Moore, on the other hand, ignored not one but several orders from federal courts to stop what he was doing. Therein lies the primary difference. The other difference, of course, is that Newsom seems to understand that there are other things to worry about in this country than who is putting their dicks into whom, whereas Moore wants to rule over his penny-ante dictatorship with an iron fist, according to his antiquated and quite silly theology, allowing his personal convictions to interfere with his sworn duties - that of being an impartial judge of the law. A judge that disobeys the very foundation and highest law of the land, whenever it suits his own personal views, has no place to make judgements upon others' disregard for the law. What was that his hero Jesus said? Let he who is without sin...? Fire away, Judge Moore, for clearly ignoring the law is perfectly okay for you, but not for anyone who steps into your courtroom.

Posted by: kitten at February 18, 2004 12:50 AM (Te0H+)

18 Nothing really to add, here, but man on manischewitz do I love watching a good debate! Carry on, folks!

Posted by: victor at February 18, 2004 06:48 AM (L3qPK)

19 I find Annies statement about the religious rights of people being trampled by the "over-zealous promotion of the non-existent "separation" clause somewhat funny. i suppose if it's YOUR religion that makes the rules, all is fine with allowing religion to comingle with the government. but alas, that same separation is really what PROTECTS you and YOUR religion of choice from the will of the OTHER religion. people on occasion point to the bible and say this or that should be the law. the bible itself can be interpreted SO MANY WAYS thats it would be impossible to reconsile each and every this or that. and we are not even considering other religious texts here. allowing one religion of take any sort of control of the government defies one the the most sacred concepts of the constitution, the ability to to practice the religion of choice without fear of persecution. here is one area where the framers of the constitution said to hell with majority rule, and by excluding the (any) church from the government they accomplish these two things.. separation of majority rule and religious choice; and the ability to guarantee that an even an individual can practice the religion of his or her choice. all this BS about gays should not be allowed to do this or that has it's base in religion.. someone somewhere has interpreted a book (that has been excluded from law of the land) and decided that they want to infringe of the rights of others by virtue of what is in this book. tell me.. why is it that you care if homosexuals are allowed to be married? think about that question for a few moments.. chances are your answer will have some religious component.. or "god forbid" you deem their behaviours "un-natural". what does hurt to give gay people the right to be married? think for a moment how you would feel if heterosexuals were the minority, or that the chuch of the sadomasochistic ass whoopin was the church trying to get their "version" of what god says written into the law of the land. my point is: separation of church and state protects YOUR right to believe however you choose, it does so by making sure that you cannot force your beliefs no matter how "right" you think they may be on another person. /off soapbox coyote

Posted by: coyote at February 18, 2004 12:51 PM (cfoFZ)

20 Can we just get on our knees and pray that the lawyers making millions from legal actions and disputes arising from this case get paid in monopoly money?

Posted by: d-rod at February 18, 2004 01:21 PM (CSRmO)

21 well said d-rod arf coyote

Posted by: coyote at February 18, 2004 01:22 PM (cfoFZ)

22 A noble speech, coyote. But it doesn't change the fact that the phrase "separation of church and state" is not in the constitution. And ask anyone from Sweden or Great Britain, e.g., if they feel their rights have been trampled by their own state religions. For god's sakes, the head of state in GB is also the head of their official state religion. i believe the dangers that separatist adherents point to are completely exagerrated. Maybe 100 years ago there was reason to think that the 10 Commandments in a public courthouse might infringe on the rights of non-believers. But back then, there were far more examples of the type of lack of separation that the ACLU & others are up in arms about today. And we survived. So much so that the 9th Cir. has outlawed the Pledge of Allegiance. Yes, the establishment clause should be followed. But i don't believe that means that we should exclude all religious expression from public life. To do so would violate the free exercise clause. Nothing in the constitution says that one clause trumps the other. i'm just arguing that the pendulum has swung too far in the direction of the establishment clause and we need to regain some sort of balance. The next logical step for the ACLU types is to remove "In God We Trust" from our money. It's inevitable, but really, what harm has that phrase caused in the last 200 years? And just in case you misunderstood me up above: i am and have always been, in favor of gay marriage, as are many religious people. i tend to confuse people when i say that, because they automatically think that a religious conservative must necessarily be against such a thing.

Posted by: annika! at February 18, 2004 04:33 PM (zAOEU)

23 nicely put Annie, i'd like to respond to a couple of points you make; i see establishment as prohibiting the "enabling" of religion and free exercise as the prohibition of "restricting" an indivdual's religious rights. Both of the primary authors of the bill of rights, Jefferson and Madison advocated the "wall of separation" and while i must agree with you that there is no indication that establishment trumps free exercise, i will suggest that in the landmark cases of Everson v Board of Education and Engel v Vitale, the courts have held that indeed establishment trumps exercise. even the seemingly detrimental case of Zorach v Clauson actually only allows for free exercise only outside of a public schools context. i'd also like to add that when free exercise begins to impeed another person's right to their own faith, it's an obvious choice as to which might prevail. as for the ACLU's position, i agree that sometimes they tend to "get medevil" on short notice, i believe that some of this reactionary behaviour may well come from a solid distrust of the current administration. while the idea of making the pledge illegal seems even to me to be a waste of time, i'm certain that the aclu is terrified (as am i) that the president will use any precedent he can to manipulate the faithful into supporting him. that means making promises to begin federal funding of faith based initiative (obvious establishment issues) to doing all he can to stir up a proposed amendment that would allow the comingling of religious views and the law of the land. this is a slippery slope that could very quickly destroy the united states as we know it. by allowing christianity (or any religion) to gain a foothold in the government, we would unleash a jeanie who would never return to it's bottle. i do not think that establishment and free exercise are mutually exclusive, but rather impart a "double whammy" of sorts where one pick up where the other leaves off. all of our basic rights are tempered by that thin line of where they actually cause harm to someone else. could it be that when it really comes down to the brass tacks of it all, ones religious rights should cease outside of their own personal space? and would that not satisfy the truely faithful? points to ponder coyote

Posted by: coyote at February 18, 2004 05:32 PM (cfoFZ)

24 ps.. let's do a little check on the protestants and the catholics over in merry old england and ireland. i'm not sure that fire has yet gone out.. :-) arf coyote

Posted by: coyote at February 18, 2004 05:36 PM (cfoFZ)

25 Well, if we're going to drag the constitution into the scuffle, I have a question. The 1A states CONGRESS shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Does this leave the state and local governments the necessary latitude, to officially sanction any, all or no religion? If government must be entangled in business of marriage, I'd prefer it occur at the state or local level. It seems clear the constitution was constructed to allow most legislative activity to happen at these lower levels. Leaving the power near the base provides the most freedom and reduces the risk of wide spread obuse. If some states wish to permit homosexual marriage, legalize weed or narcotics, or declare religious allegiance to Minerva, let it be so. People who object, could move to a political region were such acts are forbidden. And, likewise, if Cedric and Bob get hitched in New York they should be free to enjoy all the benefits granted by their respective government, but if they decide to pack up their armoire and doilies, and head to Utah they should be prepared to alter their arrangement accordingly. This allows us all to have a choice, and the competing microcosms will produce systems which fail or succeed according to the virtues they espouse. Wait, this sounds a little to much like capitalism and individual liberty, this wouldn't work.

Posted by: J.W. at February 18, 2004 05:40 PM (64vpC)

26 As usual, Coyote, we probably agree on about 50% of the things we disagree about. (if that makes sense) My hasty response to some of your points: If i'm not mistaken, Jefferson was in Paris at the time of the Constitution and BofR's drafting and his influence on those documents was minimal. You are correct about his involvement in the origin of the separation of church and state idea. It was one of TJ's most cherished ideals. But again, it's not in the Const. Maybe if TJ had been around, it would have been. i don't know anything about the cases you cite, so i can't comment on them. You said, "i see establishment as prohibiting the 'enabling' of religion and free exercise as the prohibition of 'restricting' an indivdual's religious rights." i think a plain reading of the 1st Amd is a better way to look at it. Thus i would say (somewhat obviously): "i see establishment as prohibiting the 'establishment' of religion and free exercise as the prohibition of 'restrictions' on an indivdual's 'free exercise' of his or her religion." Enabling and establishing are two different actions. i, too, am wary of the faith based initiative. i actually do think it runs afoul of the establishment clause, even as a free exercise hawk. Also, why would a religious institution want government money and all the strings that are attached to it. Government money has already messed up many a Jesuit college. i do not view the troubles in northern ireland as religious, so much as "tribal." The parties are defined by their religions (and history and geography) but neither sides' religion advocates the type of violence we've seen there until lately.

Posted by: annika! at February 18, 2004 05:59 PM (zAOEU)

27 Sorry folks, I meant to say, "reduces the chance of wide spread abuse." Not obtuse, obuse or whatever. Damn it, stupid, stupid..... I'm sofa king wee todd did, so sofa-king wee-todd-did. I'm sure there are more, but alas I'm tired of proofing my own drivel. Perhaps I'll read it again, later, and fisk it myself. A thousand apologies to the gracious hostess and her estemeed guests. Jasen

Posted by: J.W. at February 18, 2004 06:00 PM (64vpC)

28 Two comments, J.W. First, i believe that you would have been correct about the establishment clause only restricting the federal government, up until the 14th Amendment was ratified. It is true that the B of R did not apply to the states until after the adoption of the 14th and then certain Supreme Court cases which incorporated some (though not all) of those rights and made them applicable to the states. It's been a while since i took Constitutional History, so i don't recall whether the religion clauses were included in those rights that were incorporated to the states through the 14th Amd. Second, the "Full Faith and Credit" clause of the constitution requires that acts by one state be recognized in all states. That's why gay marriage only has to pass in one state for it to be legal in all. The constitution requires it. So if Cedric and Bob get hitched in NY, Utah has to recognize them as legally married.

Posted by: annika! at February 18, 2004 06:09 PM (zAOEU)

29 Annie darrling- you are correct in that TJ was in Paris at the the time of the writing of the BoR. He wrote Madison, stressing that there needed to be amendments made to include individual liberties. his missive "Natural Rights" was the basis of the document mostly penned by James Madison. as a native virginian and a graduate of TJ's fine university, i must know these things.. :-) coyote

Posted by: coyote at February 18, 2004 06:18 PM (cfoFZ)

30 The University of Virginia. i totally wanted to go there.

Posted by: annika! at February 18, 2004 06:56 PM (lyN7m)

31 Annika, You're, no doubt, correct in your response to my question. Could anyone bother to tell me from which section of the 14th the S.C.O.T.U.S. can derive an opinion demanding blanket recognition, between states, of certain state laws. If it's the clause pertaining to the abrogation of privileges or imunities, I would be forced to argue that the abscence of a law that sanctions a type of marriage or religion in Nevada fails to conflict with the presence of such law Florida. The conditions aren't the same.If Iowa initiates a living wage statute setting the lowest scale at 26.50/h, is a guy in Idaho making 23.75/h being deprived of a privilege,or denied equal protection. If such an interpretation is taken, we have thousands of conflicting codes, ordinances, and statutes; additionally we've lost all semblances of a federation. I've read the 14th several times, and although I'm certainly no jurist, given the context of it's ratification, I assume it implied states had no power to ignore or subvert federal laws (which were to be applied in a universal manner). Futher states had to inforce their own laws equally among it's residents (to preempt, unsuccessfully, disenfranchisement of the negro populace). Any expanded interpretations seem to undermine the entire structure and intent of the federal system. With much humility, J.W.

Posted by: J.W. at February 18, 2004 08:46 PM (+abeT)

32 TJ was in Paris. But Madison did not write the bill of Rights out of benevolence. It was the anti-federalists who insisted on that as a condition of ratifiction. If you glance at the federalist papers you'll see madison & hamilton arguing against a bill of rights. If TJ would have been around odds are he'd have been arguing against the constitution. & considering the way it's been used I can't say I wouldn't be on his side. wasn't it Lee (that'd be Richard Henry) who said of the constitution, "I smell a rat"? But as for the BOR, in most instances it was only seen as applying to the feds. I know of at least one case (Nunn v Georgia if I recall) where a state court held the BOR as applicable to the states as well. But probably the majority of court cases held the opposite view. The 14th applied the BOR to the states, but the courts, through their BS called incorporation, repealed the 14th in part by claiming that only the rights they chose would be applicable to the states. I could go on for weeks, but let's just say I think they were out to lunch for the intitial decision & we've all been out to lunch by even giving it serious thought. as for the 1rst amendment, ya see the idea was to keep government from endorsing or condoning a religion. By religion they meant a sect or subset of christainity, but the wording plainly makes no differences between any religion. & this is proper. Government should nto endorse any religion. But neither should it oppose any religion, as has been the arguments of late. Now w/o fully embracing my anarchist leaning (I'll have to chat with Matt about that) I will say that any action which forces the government to decide between individual & group must be resolved in favor of the individual. But then again a resolvable action should not merely be someone taking offense at a sign or a person's appearance. It must cause actually harm - not merely psychological harm that could be avoided by merely ignoring the offending item or person. ( yes I'm in a rush & know that's a very broad statement). So what it comes down to is that government may not, according to the first amendment force or require someone to hold a particular religious view. But neither can it restrain someone's exercise of their religious view so long as the practice does not interfere with the equal Rights of another. & since there is no right to be free from offense, I would have to say that the ten commandments, or the torah, or the bible, or the epic of gilgamesh cannot be abrred from a public building because someone might glance its way & take offense. Neither can the state force people to read any of the aforementioned or even look upon them, but there's a distinction between something being at a certain, prominent place & forcing someone to stare at it. So Moore's situation is comparable to Newsom in that both are fighting their next highest level of authority because of something they view as being forbidden for government to prohibit. Where they differ is that Newsom's situation not specifically enumerated, nor is their a question of whether or not the state of cali has authority over him, as Moore could easily argue that SCOTUS has no jurisdiction over a state supreme court - only federal courts. Also Newsom's case is one where the free act of individuals causes offense to others, whereas with Moose his act has causes offense in others. No material harm has been done in either case. & coyote, first lesson of reading case law is that while it may establish a binding precedent on lower courts, that does not make it logical, just or even constitutional. look at the 9th's view of the 2nd amendment for a good example of a binding precedent that's conflicting w/ the constitution.

Posted by: Publicola at February 18, 2004 09:01 PM (Aao25)

33 Okay, one last question Annika. Is it true the entire BofR originally only applied to the federal government? I just assumed this to be true of the 1st, because it addresses the Congress directly. The rest seem deliberately general and intent upon protecting the rights of the citizens. I beleive the document was drafted to be anything, save ambiguos. If it identifies a specific entity, to the exclusion of another; that was a calculated act. Years of cumulative effort produced those few articles. We've probably exceeded it's word count in evening. The framers chose their words far more carefully than I, so I try to take them literally. I guess the courts don't always see it in that light. J.W.

Posted by: J.W. at February 18, 2004 09:20 PM (+abeT)

34 Jasen, i found this encyclopedia discussion on the Fourteenth which confirms that the religion clauses were indeed incorporated to apply to the states through the fourteenth amendment. i re-read the BofR and i see what you mean that only the 1st seems to mention congress. i'm only going off of what i remember from my Con History classes, but i think i am correct in saying that the BofR did not apply to the states until after the 14th Amd, and then only partially. You asked: "from which section of the 14th the S.C.O.T.U.S. can derive an opinion demanding blanket recognition, between states, of certain state laws." This is actually from the aforementioned Full Faith and Credit clause, which is found in the original constitution at Article IV, Section I: "Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof." Thus, the FF&C clause does not require other states to enact the laws of other states, such as the living wage example you gave. It only requires each state to recognize as valid the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings" of another state, such as marriage, criminal convictions, titles to property, etc.

Posted by: annika! at February 19, 2004 01:38 AM (UD345)

35 Annika, thanks for doing my homework; I read the Bartleby page. It should have been obvious, to me, that the public acts portion of the FF&C clause applied to marriage. I'm not well read in these areas, yet I thought I had a basic understanding of the intent of the framers. I truely can't reconcile many of the courts decisions, they often appear to undermine the very core of a federal system. It may seem complicated, but I feel many divisive issues would be better dealt with at the state level. On these topics, many of the opposing sides harbor potentially violent passions, both sides feel as though the other is foisting their beliefs upon them. Although I'm somewhat ambivilent on the gay marriage issue, it does seem the group attempting to change established definitions (man & a woman, to woman & a woman, man & a man, men & men, or whatever) shouldn't expect society to spin on a whim or on a few clever protest placards. Polygamist had an established historical point of standing, and they lost the debate convincingly. I'm finished with this, thanks again J.W.

Posted by: J.W. at February 19, 2004 06:39 PM (4f7rZ)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

i watched the democrats debate each other for three minutes and i had to turn it off. Never mind the lies and demagoguery, they offended me by their ignorance of history.

On the eve of Presidents Day, John Edwards said that three of our great wartime presidents had no military experience: Woodrow Wilson, FDR and Abraham Lincoln. Wrong. Abraham Lincoln was a captain in the Illinois militia during the Blackhawk War of 1832. He volunteered and served 90 days, which may seem short, but the war only lasted four months.

John Kerry, who's whole candidacy revolves around his military experience, said that Vietnam was our nation's longest war. Wrong. Vietnam was 1961 to 1975, fourteen years. Some historians date The Plains Indian Wars from the 1854 Grattan Massacre to Sitting Bull's surrender in 1881. That's twenty-seven years. Other historians might even extend it nine more years to 1890 and the Battle of Wounded Knee.

Other things bothered me too. i loved how Kerry said: "There's only one thing wrong with the Patriot Act. Two words: John Ashcroft." Well, i wonder how Mr. Kerry can explain why he voted for it then, since John Ashcroft was Attorney General at the time.

Then there's the tired old line about how the prescription drug benefit is only a way to give tax money to the drug companies and the HMOs. Somebody please explain to me how else that program is supposed to work. Instead of the money coming from the elderly, now it comes from the government. Somebody has to pay for the drugs. Did they expect the pharmaceutical companies to give the stuff away for free?

Update: Another excellent point at Blather Review.

Posted by: annika at 01:18 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 293 words, total size 2 kb.

Did you see the recent Gallup poll, which says that Republicans are more likely to be in love than Democrats? Who knew? i guess for the Dems, it's all about the sex.

As for myself, well, gee, i don't know. A few months ago i would have said no, definitely no. Now, i'm not too sure. Last night, a bit more was added to the yes side of my romance ledger by yours truly's significant other.

First thing we did was catch a matinee showing of The Return of the King. That was by my request. i wanted to see it one more time before the Oscars. It was my first time seeing it with Jason, and i promised myself i would not cry during the final act. But i did, silly sentimental me. i sobbed as usual. It was embarrassing; i got J's shoulder all wet.

Afterwards, we ate at an Italian place in Pasadena, which was way too crowded even though it was still early. We had a nice dinner and exchanged gifts. He gave me a bracelet, which is just beautiful. The gems aren't real of course, but i don't mind. i can't help it if my birthstones are so expensive. i bought him a fountain pen.

Afterwards, we strolled through Old Pasadena. We went into a cigar store just for the smell, and almost bought a couple of stogies. i resisted the temptation to go into Barnes & Noble. We walked through the Banana Republic and the Pottery Barn, and all the while we kept each other laughing with witty repartee.

We arrived at another overcrowded bar that i wanted to go into. We looked at the line outside and Jason said, "this sucks, I have a better idea." He led me back to his car but refused to tell me where we were going. Finally i realized why he wanted to have our Valentine's date in Pasadena: he'd bought tickets to the Pasadena Jazz Institute's Coltrane tribute. What a surprise! Jason's not a jazz fan, but he must have noticed the stack of Coltrane CDs in my room. That was so thoughtful of him. i enjoyed the show a lot. i hope J did too, but i'm afraid some of that music can be an acquired taste.

There was a little bit of juvenile hand holding and giggling too, which can be fun. Jason is actually a very charming, decent and nice guy. My opinion of him when we first met wasn't awful, but i did think he was something of a player. Now that we know each other better, i see him differently and i'm impressed. So all in all i had a very romantic time yesterday. Definitely one of my nicer Valentine's Days. After Colby and Tommy and Pete, i think deserve a nice one.

Posted by: annika at 01:12 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 478 words, total size 3 kb.

Happy Valentine's Day to all of you, my wonderful visitors! May Cupid be good to you all. Don't eat too much chocolate.

Love, annie.

Posted by: annika at 01:40 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 30 words, total size 1 kb.

Remember when President Clinton decided, soon after the Lewinsky scandal broke, that admitting the truth might hurt him, so he told Dick Morris "I guess we'll just have to win then."

It looks like Kerry has decided to do the same thing. i really can't blame him. i mean, Clinton did win in the end, didn't he? The country lost, but Clinton beat the rap.

Via brainstorming, this Reuters story:

U.S. Democratic presidential front-runner John Kerry on Friday denied a report that he had had an extramarital affair with a young woman.

Asked about the report by Internet Web site operator Matt Drudge, Kerry told reporters on his campaign: 'I just deny it categorically. It's rumor. It's untrue. Period.'

After denying the report, Kerry added: 'And that's the last time I intend to.'

Drudge, who broke the Monica Lewinsky scandal involving former President Bill Clinton, on Thursday said Kerry had had a two-year relationship, beginning in early 2001, with a young woman who had since left the country.

Emperor Misha still has the best take on this whole sad mess:

[W]e won't know the truth until Jean-Pierre Kerry stops 'stonewalling' and releases all the records of every single sexual encounter he's had for the last 30 years complete with DNA samples, pictures and audio recordings, not to mention affidavits from his partners, notarized and in triplicate. Until then, we must assume he's guilty. Isn't that how it goes nowadays?

Posted by: annika at 07:56 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 261 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Pretty much. Can you say double standard? I know I can.

Posted by: joe at February 13, 2004 08:59 PM (a9Ugz)

2 Thanks, Annika, I appreciate it very much. You're really too kind

Posted by: Emperor Misha I at February 13, 2004 10:40 PM (CP9wX)

3 HAPPY VALENTINE'S DAY... HOPE YOU HAVE A GOOD ONE... ^_^

Posted by: maizzy at February 14, 2004 07:19 AM (B5FT5)

4 eh Annie? even Drudge has backed away from that story as unsupported.. i'd love to see a post about ashcroft trying to get into the medical records of women who have had abortions... hint hint... :-) coyote

Posted by: coyote at February 14, 2004 07:57 AM (cfoFZ)

5 i'd like to see it completely resolved, with facts.. so the farking thing can be put to bed. it KEEPS coming up, because it seems that there is evidence to support both arguments. Nicely put 'yote. I'm sure you'll be in favor of of a full inquiry to put this rumor on John F***n' Kerry to bed. Anyway, I really don't care (really don't, really don't care) as long as he didn't commit perjury and lie to Congress about it. Happy Valentines Day to all you sweet gals out there.

Posted by: d-rod at February 14, 2004 10:08 AM (s6c4t)

6 Hey Coyote, got a link on Drudge backing away from the report? i'd like to see it.

Posted by: annie at February 14, 2004 11:12 AM (kn0NS)

7 "Minor detail spoils media's fun over Kerry sex allegation: 'Nobody has been able to confirm that it was true'..." on the drudge front page..left side second from top d-rod- you mistakenly assume (yet again) that i defend any of clinton's actions. as far as i've been able to tell, clinton no longer has much to say about the destiny of this country, and it therefore, no longer a factor. and don't throw stones about lying to congress.. bush does it all the time. the allegations against Kerry are pure rumor, and i for one would love to see it put to bed. matters not to me though, as i see it, any of the folks with their hats in the ring are lessor criminals than w. and when it really boils down to the simmering crap that it is, we really are only picking the lessor of the evils aren't we? arf coyote

Posted by: coyote at February 14, 2004 12:12 PM (cfoFZ)

8 You mistakingly assume that I "assumed" things about you, coyote. I see the rumors about Kerry as somewhat irrelevant compared to the fact that he doesn't have a plan to protect Americans from terrorism and essentially wants to convert the war on terror into a police action. He even refered to the Wahhabi strain of Islam as "Wasabis" and didn't know that he had a Hezbollah-sympathizing propaganda machine on his mailing list. Bush is a genius compared to this guy.

Posted by: d-rod at February 15, 2004 09:15 AM (iUfVb)

9 "Bush is a genius compared to this guy." thats just frightening.. maybe we best find a candiate with a brain to to run against bush, thereby removing any remote chance that bush may appear centiant. :-) coyote

Posted by: coyote at February 15, 2004 09:40 PM (cfoFZ)

10 Politics can get pretty stoopid sometimes.

Posted by: d-rod at February 15, 2004 10:38 PM (BkjKY)

11 i went away for a fews days and this story seems to have vanished.. whats up with that? arf coyote

Posted by: coyote at February 18, 2004 04:24 PM (cfoFZ)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

i think it may be a sign of something when my blog makes the periodic table of elements. A sign of what, i don't know. But apparently i have a new elemental symbol: Na. It's on the Humbug blogroll which takes the form of a Periodic Table.

Now on the one hand, i should be flattered that i'm to be found where Einsteinium or Fermium might normally be on the real table. Bottom row of the actinide series, which would make me one of the rare earths. That sounds flattering, except Humbug has labelled that row the "obscuroid series," which doesn't sound too good.

There's no indication of my atomic number, so i'm calling "100," because it's such a nice round number.

Scorebard has a pretty cool design going, too. i like the tab navigation and i dig the baseball poetry.

Posted by: annika at 07:36 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 145 words, total size 1 kb.

. . . die so stark in Bestehen sich wähnen.

This new Kerry scandal allegation just hit my ears. My first thought is that it doesn't matter, we've been through presidential candidate sex scandals before and we're beyond that now.

On the other hand, since we've been through it already, why would we want to go through it again? No matter what side of the Starr/Clinton fight you were on, you have to agree that it hamstrung the former president during his second term, making him largely innefective in office. That's arguably not good no matter what party you are from.

The Kerry news is cited as the reason Clark stepped back from endorsing Kerry and why Dean has not yet pulled out.

. . . Fast schäm' ich mich, mit ihnen zu schaffen.

i also heard on Medved's show that the new Kerry scandal arose from an investigation done by former Gore and Clark advisor Chris Lehane. i suggested earlier that Lehane's backbiting tactics would come back to haunt the Democrats, and that appears to now be the case. Although i'm skeptical whether this scandal will have legs, i'm also hopeful that it will indeed hasten them to their end.

Update: So far, outside the blogosphere, nobody but Drudge and talk radio will touch this story yet.

Update 2: It's simply hilarious how the old media refuses to mention this story. Do they really think they can ignore the blogosphere? Their arrogance is amazing.

On CNN, Aaron Brown went through tomorrow's newspaper front pages from around the world. He skipped the National Enquirer's, of course, even though i seem to remember him holding up the Weekly World News in the past.

It's not that CNN is reluctant to go with the story because they don't want to publish unconfirmed scurrilous rumors. No, it can't be that, because while i was watching and waiting for someone to mention the Kerry story, i saw them promote an upcoming interview segment dealing with the scurrilous and unsubstantiated rumor that Bush paid for some chick's abortion.

It reminds me of how the L.A. Times published every thin rumor they could about Schwarzenegger, while ignoring the story about Davis's physical and verbal abuse of his female staffers. It all depends on who's side the subject of the rumor is on.

Lou Dobbs pointed to the following curiously timed poll question for tonight's audience: "Do you believe that personal and private matters should be left entirely out of presidential politics?" ("No" is winning by almost two to one.) It's interesting that this sort of subtle push poll question would come out tonight.

Even Bill O'Reilly wouldn't discuss the story, although he made mention of certain "rumors circulating on the internet," in order to instruct his guest not to talk about them. Well, we all know how Bill feels about the blogosphere. His Talking Points was a plea to leave the past alone in presidential campaigning. Presumably, that would leave Bill open to talk about Kerry's present affair, if and when he and the rest of the old media deign to pronounce the subject "newsworthy."

Update 3: Question to the old media: If we don't deserve to know about Kerry's sexual habits because it's just about sex and it's irrelevant, then why the 24 hour wall to wall coverage of Janet's boob? Last i heard, Janet was not trying to be elected leader of the free world.

Posted by: annika at 01:50 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 587 words, total size 4 kb.

As i was walking through the lobby just now, Norman smiled at me and said "hey you." i smiled and said "hi," and kept walking. Then he said, "what's going on?" i said, "huh?" and kept walking. i had a stack of papers in my hand because, as usual, i was busy working. i don't have time to stand at the receptionist desk and shoot the shit, like he apparently has time to do. Then he asked, "are you ignoring me?" My response to that question was to ignore him and keep walking.

i feel like everybody in the firm knows he likes me and half of them think we're some sort of item, which boggles my mind. Enough with the knowing smiles, already. What has he been saying to them? i know i sound like a bitch, but it is becoming increasingly more difficult not to be rude.

Posted by: annika at 12:36 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 153 words, total size 1 kb.

Read this letter to the editor published in the Washington Times, written by Col. William Campenni (ret.), who served in the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron, Texas Air National Guard from 1970 to 1971. It hits all the points and i must say, it confirms some of what i wrote in my F-102 post of February 5, 2004.

The key quotes, from my point of view are this one:

The mission of the 147th Fighter Group and its subordinate 111th FIS, Texas ANG, and the airplane it possessed, the F-102, was air defense. It was focused on defending the continental United States from Soviet nuclear bombers. The F-102 could not drop bombs and would have been useless in Vietnam. A pilot program using ANG volunteer pilots in F-102s (called Palace Alert) was scrapped quickly after the airplane proved to be unsuitable to the war effort. Ironically, Lt. Bush did inquire about this program but was advised by an ANG supervisor (Maj. Maurice Udell, retired) that he did not have the desired experience (500 hours) at the time and that the program was winding down and not accepting more volunteers.

The Bush critics do not comprehend the dangers of fighter aviation at any time or place, in Vietnam or at home, when they say other such pilots were risking their lives or even dying while Lt. Bush was in Texas. Our Texas ANG unit lost several planes right there in Houston during Lt. Bush's tenure, with fatalities. Just strapping on one of those obsolescing F-102s was risking one's life.

[T]he Kerrys, Moores and McAuliffes are casting a terrible slander on those who served in the Guard, then and now. . . . In the Cold War, the air defense of the United States was borne primarily by the Air National Guard, by such people as Lt. Bush and me and a lot of others. Six of those with whom I served in those years never made their 30th birthdays because they died in crashes flying air-defense missions.

While most of America was sleeping and Mr. Kerry was playing antiwar games with Hanoi Jane Fonda, we were answering 3 a.m. scrambles for who knows what inbound threat over the Canadian subarctic, the cold North Atlantic and the shark-filled Gulf of Mexico.

Posted by: annika at 11:19 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 392 words, total size 3 kb.

i heard on the news that Microsoft has a new patch that will cure some sort of security flaw in the computer that might allow someone to access and take control of my computer! They said it was critical to update with the patch and that it should be done immediately.

That sounded pretty scary and the fact that they were so vague about the vulnerability made me think that there were bad people out there actively looking for foolish computer users who hadn't downloaded the patch "immediately."

So i went to the Microsoft site and downloaded the thing. It went okay, but they didn't warn me that it would take all fucking night to load! i asked my dad the other day when he thought computers might be perfected and he said "when there's no more Microsoft."

Posted by: annika at 01:22 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 142 words, total size 1 kb.

Homo Sapiens Gigantostalkersaurus Rex. King of the giant stalking lizards.

Dude, you're huge. Dude, i can smell your b.o. Dude, your farts fucking linger twenty minutes after you leave the room.

Dude, stop bothering me while i'm trying to work. Dude, if you stand by my cubicle and want to "just say hi," and i refuse to make eye contact, and i keep typing while you talk about total bullshit, which i don't care about, that means i'm busy. There's a good chance that it also means i don't like you.

No, i don't like you like you either.

Dude, i know Valentine's day is coming up. Don't even think about it. If you slither anywhere near me on that day, i'll hurt you.

More: The thing that really creeps me out about Gigantostalkersaurus Rex, now that i think of it, is a little story he told me when he first started working here. This was back when everybody was being polite to the new temp, before he earned his nickname Norman. As in Norman Bates.

i had the misfortune of standing at the copier waiting for Norman to finish with a copy job one morning and we got on the subject of hiking. i like to hike. Seems Norman also likes to hike. i told him about a recent excursion i'd made up north of S.F., and how beautiful the country was up there.

That's when he shared the fact that he likes to go hiking alone. He also shared how much he loves frogs. At that moment i thought to myself: how interesting, because you resemble a frog so terribly much.

One time, when Norman was hiking in the hills all by himself he spied a muddy waterhole populated by a couple of his favorite ribbity friends. He was so happy to see them, he told me, that he "tore off all his clothes and jumped right in the mud with the frogs!"

i shit you not. The freak actually said that to me. i still can't figure out why anyone would admit that, but he did.

At that moment i decided to illuminate the "Warning, Weirdo Alert" siren in my head and take evasive manuevers. Picking up my own copy job, i made some excuse about needing to check my phone messages or something and retreated the fuck outta there.

That was about three months ago. i've been avoiding him ever since, but unfortunately he seems to think i'm playing hard to get.

Blech! Blech!

Posted by: annika at 12:09 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 426 words, total size 2 kb.

Two Houston middle school students caught in flagrante delicto.

There were five students total in the classroom at the time. They were in a class that was supposed to be under constant adult supervision, but when the teacher left, two of those students allegedly started doing something that has no place inside a school.

. . .

When an adult finally came back, two kids were allegedly having oral sex.

. . .

'They should punish, whatever they need to do, as far as the person that's involved in the situation,' said parent Patricia Western. 'That's outrageÂ… Very outraged that it would take place in a school.'

Posted by: annika at 02:38 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 130 words, total size 1 kb.

1 nicely done Annie.. btw, how come no reaction to the meet the press interview of w? love ya coyote

Posted by: coyote at February 09, 2004 09:33 AM (cfoFZ)

2 Maybe I'm missing the point you're trying to make. The big deal is that there's acceptable behavior based on where you're at, and that wasn't it. At best it was poor judgement on the kid's part.

Posted by: Ted at February 09, 2004 09:59 AM (blNMI)

3 Sorry Ted, i agree with you. i should have used the [sarcasm][/sarcasm] tags. Coyote, i didn't see the interview as i didn't pay attention to the news this weekend.

Posted by: annika! at February 09, 2004 10:11 AM (zAOEU)

4 What's wrong with these rutting humanoids? That's what the stalls in the Ladies Room are for.

Posted by: Radical Redneck at February 09, 2004 12:35 PM (CAJPz)

5 I'm usually not that dense. Uh, don't ask my wife...

Posted by: Ted at February 10, 2004 07:43 AM (blNMI)

6 No one just "has" oral sex. I would bet the farm that the boy was not "pleasuring" the girl. What the rage for oral sex among young kids is really about is an exploitation of young girls who are taught that to keep boys around, they need to be ready to offer them pleasure any time, any where. If it were genuinely loving and reciprocal, I would have less of a problem with it, but as I said, the mortgage more or less could be bet on it being neither.

Posted by: Hugo at February 10, 2004 08:59 AM (gGPcB)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Fail me once, shame on you.

Fail me twice, shame on me.

Fail me forty-seven times, shame on the California Bar examiners . . .

Would you hire this lawyer?

And what does this idiot intend to do now?

He wants to challenge laws denying ex-felons the right to vote. He hopes to file a class-action suit in the next six months.

Posted by: annika at 01:18 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 76 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Well, considering the volume of Cali's constitution, one would reasonably assume the laws are not any more direct or condesnsed. So I can't really say I find it hard to believe that, especially over a few decades, that the laws would grow enough to keep someone from passing the bar. However while I cn understand not having complete trust in the guy (even though he did finally pass)the case he plans to launch has more merit than you think. The theory I'm going with is that once you've served your time there shouldn't be any restriction of Rights. After all, if they trust you enough to let you back into society, then what excuse do they have for treating you as a second or third class citizen?

Posted by: Publicola at February 09, 2004 06:28 AM (Aao25)

2 Call me old fashioned, but i don't want ex-cons voting.

Posted by: annika! at February 09, 2004 10:13 AM (zAOEU)

3 Yeah, I can see it now: DEMOCRATS PANDERING FOR THE EX-CON VOTE!!! Dean: "When I was governor, our inmates only served 43% of their sentences." Kerry: "George W. Bush is out of touch with today's middle class prisoners. I served in Vietnam, so I understand EVERYTHING!" etc. etc...

Posted by: John at February 09, 2004 10:53 AM (7UPKM)

4 okay Old Fashioned (shoulda seen that one coming)... Here's the deal - if a person commits a crime & srves his/her sentence, then why wouldn't you want them to vote? Hell, if you're that bothered by criminals voting then we should disband the legislature (just cause they ain't been busted yet doesn't mean they're not guilty) The other side is that we shouldn't be releasing people into society whom we distrust with the exercise of their Rights. & what the tough on crime folks often forget is that any felony conviction will cause a denial of certain Rights. Ya don't have to set foot inside a jail, do probabtion, etc... If you get time served or a fine but it's a conviction, then adios Rights. & that applies to non-violent crimes, which I believe comprise the majority of convictions. In my world I see it all the time. The statist bastards at the BATF have a real high conviction rate & the vast majority of convictions are for non-violent "crimes". A paperwork error can literally cost you several grand, 5 to 10 years out your life & a denial of Rights. Now of course I'm all for disbanding those tax agents with delusions of granduere along with the elimination of most of the "laws" they enforce, but I still see no justification for denying someone their Rights after they have paid their debt to society. & think about the federal & state congressional votes on certain laws (i.e. banning plastic guns even though they don't exist, not impeaching Clinton despite the blatent dishonesty he showed, etc...)& you're actually worried about someone who just took a multi-year time out voting? what's the worst that could happen- they'll vote dishonest politicians into office? lol But I will agree that there are too many damn lawyers - which is the inevitable by-product of too many damn laws.

Posted by: Publicola at February 09, 2004 05:29 PM (Aao25)

5 Publicola, i just took a walk into our library to count the volumes of the California Code. Forget it. That would take me five or ten minutes. They cover two walls. So i decided just to count the books containing the ever growing California Constitution. Four volumes, along with three more volumes of annotations. Wow.

Posted by: annika! at February 09, 2004 06:22 PM (zAOEU)

6 Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law', because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual. —Thomas Jefferson It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood . . . James Madison Kinda spooky isn't it? BTW, lately have I urged you to abandon Cali like the sinking socialist cesspool it is ?

Posted by: Publicola at February 09, 2004 10:14 PM (Aao25)

7 Not to worry, ex-cons don't and won't vote in any significant numbers ever. Funny thing about this guy. I once worked in the commercial real estate business, one of our tenants was a "lawyer" who used to smoke pot in his office all the time. I mean you could smell it in the hall. I raised his rent to the market rate, and the fucker skipped on three months worth of rent.

Posted by: Casca at February 10, 2004 12:28 AM (BRVtJ)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Seriously, wonderfully, deliciously, off the fucking deep end, insane.

Posted by: annika at 10:37 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 17 words, total size 1 kb.