February 07, 2004
Friday Night With annika In The Seventeenth Century Manner
This evening dined with Mr. Jason, and my lady Betty, and her gentleman, which occasioned our thinking and remarking upon the happy life that we live now, having we nothing to care for but ourselves. Mr. Jason treated me most nobly, procuring a great platter of ribbonned dough seasoned in the Sicilian manner, and many flagons of ale and a bottle of wine, which was of very great flavour.
All our discourse and others are of his excellency's election, and we begin to speak of it very freely, and of Mr. Dean's outcry and of Mr. Kerry, who does wish to renounce the parliament and reside at his excellency's manse, supplanting his excellency thereby. Strange how these people do now promise anything: to each pauper a station, to each guild a full purse of coin, to each gentleman wisened with years a vessel of chemist's physic. I pray God to keep me from being too much lifted up thereby.
After that we went forth onto the high street and looked to buy a pair of tanned boots of sorrel hue and belt and hose, and finding none, after that Mr. Jason and the other gentleman led us to Brittania Tavern in Saint Monica's Lane, where Mr. H— and Mr. S— were, and we drank a great deal more of ale, and malted whiskey, and outside smoked the tobacco weed, and they paid all.
From thence to the Yankee Doodle tavern, where standing at the door Miss D— comes by, with her gentleman, and the two of them appearing very fond and loving to the other, and filled with drink. It pleasing us to admit them into our companie, we entered the tavern thusly and much merry making and reverie did come to pass, whilst betimes our gentlemen made to wager after the carom of the billiard.
After that took leave of our friends, who each of them was very sorry to part with us and such, and returned by my lady's carriage to Brent's Wood, and disembarking at the mews, retired by a lift conveyance to our dwelling flat, wherein we sat and talked, and beheld the television device before repairing to our respective chambers.
While in the midst of my ablutions and preparation for the bedchamber, did rang out from the telephone apparatus the announcement of my gentleman's very presence at the vestibule of our dwelling abode, though he bade us farewell but three quarters of the hour past. Still sleepy with drink and attired for the night, yet i took the gentleman into my chambers upstairs, and there did we dally a great while, drinking a mild beverage and talking till the gentleman began to be most loving to me and kind, whereupon was sustained the Latin nulla puella negat, but happily.
Posted by: annika at
02:26 PM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
Post contains 482 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Your best yet, Annika. Pepys is proud. Do nice girls ever say no?
Posted by: Hugo at February 07, 2004 02:51 PM (R7IeP)
2
Right. OK. Fine.
But didya get any??????
to each gentleman wisened with years a vessel of chemist's physic.
Victorian Viagra! (Wonder if that'll have a hope in hell of getting through Pixy's Blacklist?)
Beautifully done.
Posted by: Light & Dark at February 07, 2004 09:15 PM (Hrm9v)
3
Bravo! Excellente tournure.
Kevin
Posted by: Kevin Kim at February 08, 2004 06:23 AM (WOf5M)
4
Actually, this version is somehow much more interesting than Peyps's.
Posted by: Matt Rustler at February 08, 2004 05:26 PM (of2d1)
Posted by: Matt Rustler at February 08, 2004 05:27 PM (of2d1)
6
thanks, my pepys. i mean peeps.
Posted by: annika! at February 08, 2004 06:02 PM (TGZxa)
7
Prithee m'lady understand how her beauty of posting device has left us in a most betimely state of awe!
Oh...and, hope the sex was great, too!
Posted by: Tuning Spork at February 08, 2004 06:31 PM (tN726)
8
A most delightful tale of merriment and mirth.
Posted by: Tiger at February 09, 2004 08:16 AM (qWgy0)
9
That is one of the best posts I have ever seen, on any blog.
How creative!!
Posted by: ginger at February 09, 2004 11:12 AM (WX5CY)
10
find 'em,
feed 'em,
fuck 'em,
forget 'em.
Posted by: JimmyCrackCorn at February 09, 2004 11:22 AM (/vawD)
11
nulla puella negat
1. "No young women says not"
2. "No young woman/girl refuses/denies [none/anything]"
3. "She refused me nothing"
Posted by: The Agnostic at February 09, 2004 04:27 PM (e09SV)
12
I don't know much about trackback, Annie, but I think yours may be malfunctioning. I linked to this post yesterday, but it's not showing up.
Posted by: Matt Rustler at February 09, 2004 09:17 PM (of2d1)
13
Ya know, letters to
Penthouse usually work better when they're written in English.
Posted by: Victor at February 10, 2004 10:46 AM (L3qPK)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 06, 2004
Happy Birthday President Reagan
This is one of my favorite pictures of Ronald Reagan. With the Statue in the background it's so allegorical, isn't it?
He was, and is, a truly great man.
Posted by: annika at
07:13 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 37 words, total size 1 kb.
Did You Know About This?
i just checked out CW's blog,
nosuchblog. He has a post about a disturbing occurrance that i hadn't heard about before. A Boeing 727 disappeared last year and no one knows where it is.
When last seen, the 727 was being taxied to the runway without clearance by a known airplane "repo man" from Miami named Ben Padilla.
Padilla? Shit, i hope it's no relation to the other . . .
Whew, apparently not.
There are actually a lot of jetliners out there being operated "on a shoestring" by various fly-by-night charter operators . . . . Occasionally the charter operators default on the lease, and the owners will send an airplane repo man to get the jet back.
. . .
But what makes this case unusual is the 727 never showed up anywhere in the world. Despite a concentrated search by the world's security services, there hasn't been a trace of the missing airplane since it took off from Luanda. What makes this case more interesting is the economics of old 727s. They generally aren't worth much. The cost of stealing one, flying it around the world, repainting, and refitting it is generally more than it is worth. You'd be better served to simply buy a nicer one close to where you are.
That's what makes me suspicious. i'm not generally a conspiracy nut, but a stolen jetliner sure would help a terrorist get around the flight 93 problem. Apparently, before this plane was taken, it had been refitted to hold extra fuel.
A big suspicion, because of the extra internal fuel, was that terrorists had procured the aircraft to use in a Sept 11-style attack. This is why just about everyone in the world was looking for this plane.
Be on the lookout,
they haven't found it yet.
Update: At Freedom of Thought, Claudia posted this e-mail, supposedly from Mr. Padilla's brother, and this update back in August.
Posted by: annika at
12:11 PM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 325 words, total size 2 kb.
1
They've already done an episode of the show "Threat Matrix" with this same storyline. I can't remember exactly how the episode reesolved the issue, but it's interesting to know where the plot originated...
Posted by: John at February 06, 2004 02:08 PM (7UPKM)
2
Checked ABC.com:
Season 1: Episode 6 - "In Plane Sight"
Air Date: 10/23/2003
The Team must work together in Africa and stateside in order to prevent an airliner filled with deadly nuclear waste from crashing into the East Coast of the United States.
...and for a BIG HOLLYWOOD SURPRISE ENDING: They were able to stop the terrorists in time! Whew - that was a close one!!!
Posted by: John at February 06, 2004 02:24 PM (7UPKM)
3
I couldn't find a link to a news story or a report anywhere in the post. Do you know what his source is? This is really strange, and especially that no on seems to be talking about it.
Posted by: Rob at February 06, 2004 03:02 PM (9j+QK)
4
Ben Padilla is not related to the terrorist suspect, Jose Padilla. Ben Padilla's brother and sister have been on Good Morning America, and have a web site soliciting information about what happened to their brother. They believe that the aircraft was hijacked while Ben was working on it in Angola, and their theory has as much merit as any. They said (and FAA records seem to support) that Ben Padilla was a highly qualified mechanic and engineer on the 727, but could not fly it, and the other man who boarded the plane with him was not a 727 pilot either. So, according to them, somebody else had to have flown it.
Posted by: CW at February 06, 2004 03:06 PM (ztBnS)
5
Rob: Try searchin the internet for "missing 727" - that turns up pages and pages of articles. I got a lot of my info from "AvWeb" (www.avweb.com).
Posted by: CW at February 06, 2004 03:11 PM (ztBnS)
6
Rob: Try searching the internet for "missing 727" - that turns up pages and pages of articles. I got a lot of my info from "AvWeb" (www.avweb.com).
Posted by: CW at February 06, 2004 03:11 PM (ztBnS)
7
John I watched that episode of Threat Matrix. I want that hour of my life back.
...folks go see Miracle this weekend. Nothing beats a hockey movie, except a patriotic hockey movie -- hear's hoping it's not too sappy!
Posted by: Scof at February 06, 2004 05:10 PM (Me9IN)
Posted by: Scof at February 06, 2004 05:12 PM (Me9IN)
9
Subject: Missing Boeing 727 Plane from Angola on May 25 2003.
Yes,
I am Joseph B. Padilla, SR.
I live in Pensacola, Florida - U.S.A.
I am the Brother of Ben Charles Padilla Jr.
He is suspected to be the Pilot of the Missing Boeing 727 Plane that left the Airport in Angola on May 25 2003.
I am tring to reach news organizations to help me locate anyone that has seen or heard anything about this missing plane or my brother.
I appeared on ABC's , Good Morning Amercia alone with my Sister Benita Padilla-Kirkland on June 19 2003 in hopes to get the story out and to Locate my brother.
We both also appeared on CNN's Morning show, American Morning on June 24 2003.
Can you please help me by broadcasting a story or by your website news or newspaper?
I have alot of information about the dissapearance of the plane and my brother.
You can contact me at : 850-944-9688 or either by e-mail -
padilla1956@cox.net
I hope that you will give me your help in hopes that someone seeing the story will either know something about the dissappearance of the plane and my brother or know someone that does.
Here is what I have so far about the story.
As in the begining as I told ABC News on The Good Morning America Show that I appeared on in New York, I thought that the Boeing 727 Plane had been sitting there in Angola for 14 months unattended to and not maintained.
Now, I have found out that My Brother, Ben Charles Padilla, Jr. had been in Angola for 2 months overseeing a crew of aircraft mechanics re-working the plane from one end to the other.
A B-Check was done and it was found to be fine.
I talked to the owner of the plane, Mr. Maury Joseph, which is also the owner of Aerospace Sales And Leasing in South Florida.
I too live in florida, Pensacola, Fl. and my brother too was born and raised here.
Maury Joseph told me that he was there in Angola two weeks before the disappearance to see how things were going with the re-build of the 727 and also talked to my brother 2 days before the plane became missing and he had sent my brother $43,000.00 for him to pay the fees to the airport there in Angola. My brother paid the airport and faxed Maury Joseph the reciept, This is what Maury Joseph told me this past friday night during our two and a half hour phone conversation.
My brother was also incharge of the hiring of a pilot and co-pilot. He was to be the Flight Engineer for the flight out of Angola for the repossession of the Boeing 727 plane.
My brother is not licensed to fly a 727 and never has flown an aircraft this large.
He is a Licensed Aircraft Mechanic, Flight Engineer, and Pilot of smaller airplanes.
I was told that he had took the plane out to the end of the runway and ran the engines up to check to see how they performed.
I feel that when my brother was checking the engines, someone was on the plane and hijacked him.
My brother isn't a criminal nor has never done any wrong doings.
Maury Joseph told me that he trusts my brother and doesn't believe the reports of my brother stealing the plane.
Maury Joseph also told me that he had talked to the Airport there in Angola and had found out that the control tower had radioed the 727 and told them as they were headed out to the runway to take off, that they didn't have clearance nor permission to take off and the tower never recieved a response from the 727.
I talked to my brother Ben Padilla, Jr. back in either Jan. or Feb. and we talked about the Sept. 11 2001 ordeal and he himself told me that if this sort of thing ever happend to him, that he would down the plane in a New York Second.
So, with that said I really believe my brother was hijacked and taken prisonier and held against his will and possibly was killed.
My mother had a heart attack on Mothers day and my brother was e-mailed about this and he responded to the e-mail he recieved from another brother of ours and told him that he would contact us as soon as he could and we haven't heard anything from him. So, that tells me that something isn't right since he would of contacted the family about our mother.
I have talked to the FBI and State Department in Washington, D.C. and all they are willing to tell me is that they have not found my brother nor the plane. So, I am tring to search for any information that I can get thru news organizations.
I find alot of stories on the internet and try to get any of the news organizations to run this story.
I also include a couple of pictures of my brother so incase anyone knows anything or has seen him before, to please contact me.
I am including in this e-mail 2 pictures of him incase you run this story inwhich I hope you do.
I would like to include my e-mail address and phone number incase some one reads or sees this that they can contact me.
My phone number is, 850-944-9688 and my e-mail address is, padilla1956@cox.net
Our family has already lost 2 siblings and can not bear to lose another one.
I would appreciate any help you can give me.
If you need any additional information, Please don't hesitate to contact me.
Thank you so much for your time.
Joseph B. Padilla, SR.
Posted by: Joseph B. Padillla, SR. at February 09, 2004 12:48 AM (J1FV5)
10
Hey. I posted on my site back in January that a plane that had crashed is believed to be the missing plane.
http://www.freedomofthought.com/archives/000671.html
One of the articles I cite is:
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/displayArticle.asp?col=§ion=middleeast&xfile=data/middleeast/2004/January/middleeast_January7.xml
It's one of those stories where you want to know the fate, but when you read it you hope that it isn't true. The article makes no mention of Ben Padilla and his fate, which is unfortunate as you know his family needs to know what has happened to him.
Posted by: Claudia at February 09, 2004 09:12 AM (UiCm4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 05, 2004
GWB's Airplane
Without entering the fray on the AWOL controversy, (You probably can guess where i come down on that one, anyway.) i wanted to shed some light on the plane George W. Bush learned to fly back in the day. Kind of a bookend to
my famous post on his fatherÂ’s plane (and this gives me an excuse to recycle that link yet again).
Truth be told, the F-102A was almost obsolete by the time George W. Bush began flying them. But in itÂ’s day, ConvairÂ’s Delta Dagger was pretty badass. It was billed as the first supersonic all weather fighter. It first flew in 1955 and began operational service about two years after the Korean armistice. Nine hundred and seventy-five were built by the Convair division of General Dynamics between 1955 and 1960. It was used sparingly in Vietnam. Later, some planes were sold to The Greek and Turkish air forces, and it flew during the Cyprus conflict of 1974.
It was big. If iÂ’m not mistaken, i think it was the biggest fighter weÂ’ve ever had. At over 68 feet long, it was almost six feet longer than the F-4E Phantom, which was no midget itself. But with only one engine, the Delta Dagger weighed half as much as an F-4.
The weight difference makes sense when you consider the mission of the F-102A. ItÂ’s kind of misleading to call it a fighter, because thatÂ’s a term that encompasses a wide variety of planes that were designed to do vastly different things. ItÂ’s more accurate to call the Delta Dagger an interceptor.
To understand the job of an interceptor, as opposed to a pure air superiority fighter, you have to remember what we were afraid of back in the Fifties and early Sixties. These were the early years of the Cold War, before intercontinental ballistic missiles. If a nuclear war happened, it would have been fought by long range bombers penetrating the enemyÂ’s homeland to drop bombs just like in World War II.
To defend against these long range bombers, the superpowers relied on early warning radar to detect an attack and interceptors to stop it. The idea was to shoot down the bombers as far away from the homeland as possible. Early warning radars needed to detect the bombers while they were still far enough away for the defending interceptors to take off and get within range.
Thus, speed was the one overwhelming requirement for a true interceptor. Maneuverability was not so important. These planes were like dragsters, not formula one cars. They needed to get within range of the bombers fast, so they could shoot them down before the bombers crossed into homeland territory or got near their targets. The Delta Dagger had no guns; interceptors werenÂ’t intended for dogfighting.
We had the Delta Dagger, and itÂ’s unbelievably fast successor, ConvairÂ’s F-106 Delta Dart. The Russians came up with the Yakovlev Yak-28 and the huge Tupolev Tu-28 Fiddler. Perhaps since it was the first of its kind, BushÂ’s Dagger was relatively slow compared to the Delta Dart and the Russian Fiddler. The DaggerÂ’s top speed was only 825 mph, while the Dart went 1,587 mph.
The strategy was for interceptor units to be ready to scramble on a momentÂ’s notice, in the event of a nuclear attack. They would race towards the incoming bombers and fire air-to-air missiles as soon as they came into missile range. i would guess that the range of an interceptor was important, but then the range of the air to air missiles would be added to the aircraft range.
i don't want to sound like iÂ’m minimizing the contributions of the brave pilots who flew the F-102A. Those men stood guard so my parents could sleep at night during a very dangerous period of the Cold War. Still, flying the F-102 was not the same as flying a Phantom over Vietnam. Interceptor pilots sort of pointed their plane in the right direction and stomped on the gas pedal. The radar automatically guided the plane into attack position and fired the missiles.
Thankfully, we never discovered whether interceptors would have been enough to stop a nuclear bomber attack. There was a period of time when military planners thought that the wave of the future would be faster and faster bombers. But that ended in the early 1970s when strategic planning had abandoned the idea of nuclear bombers penetrating enemy territory. The new method of nuclear war relied on inter-continental ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and submarine launched missiles. Obviously the interceptor was no defense against these newer strategic weapons. The nuclear missile made the long range bomber obsolete. And when the bomber was no longer needed, the interceptors became extinct too.
Although the Delta Dagger remained in service until 1974, the U.S. Air Force began moving its interceptors to National Guard units at the end of the sixties. So by the time George W. Bush graduated from his T-33A trainer into an F-102A at Ellington AFB, his unitÂ’s mission had already begun the transition from air defense on 24 hour alert status to pilot training.
ItÂ’s a tricky thing to try to place a value on one individualÂ’s service in the Armed Forces. Who am i to judge? i have a friend who has the seemingly cushy task of serving on the U.S.S. Harry S. Truman as an administrative clerk. Besides the fact that sheÂ’s sitting in a gigantic floating target, sheÂ’s doing a hell of a lot more to serve her country than i am doing, even if her duties are somewhat mundane. i would never denigrate her service, because she volunteered and every person in the military is there to protect me.
Obviously, flying an obsolete plane in a training squadron is different than driving a boat in the Mekong Delta. Still, they also serve who only stand and wait. Bush had the misfortune (or good fortune, depending on your perspective) of being born a few years too late for his chosen mission. We shouldnÂ’t hold it against him that he became an interceptor pilot at a time when that mission was winding down for reasons he probably was not aware of when he joined. If he had served in the 147th Fighter Interceptor Group a few years earlier, he would have been on the front lines of the Cold War, a far more important and potentially dangerous war than KerryÂ’s Vietnam. i donÂ’t think that lessens the value of his service to our country one bit.
Bonus trivia question: What is the plane in the picture doing?
Posted by: annika at
12:09 AM
| Comments (28)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1100 words, total size 7 kb.
1
"Bonus trivia question: What is the plane in the picture doing?"
You mean
other than from taking off?
Posted by: Matt at February 05, 2004 05:00 AM (of2d1)
2
The flaps appear to be in a landing position. So I think the bonus trivia answer is the plane is landing. (And though I am no Pilot or Aerospace Engineer, I believe the jet would have to take off with afterburners with the fuel tank configuration pictured. And since I don't see evidence of afterburners...)
Posted by: The Maximum Leader at February 05, 2004 05:51 AM (0PRJS)
3
i'd say landing as well, due to the deployed speed brakes and the AoA would be consistant with the landing flair of an intereceptor.
additionally, this plane might well be a trainer, target drone, or flight test model, as a combat varient would not have the high vis paint scheme.
arf
coyote
Posted by: coyote at February 05, 2004 08:17 AM (cfoFZ)
4
What is it doing? Wasting fossil fuels, oppressing the downtrodden, reinforcing the military-industrial complex, and going through the taxpayers' money at twice the speed of sound, Annika. What else could a good liberal like me answer? :-) Cheers.
Posted by: Hugo at February 05, 2004 08:46 AM (TGpyr)
5
I hope Kerry denigrates Bush's service. There are a whole lot of us who served in peacetime, many more than those who on the actual front lines. We'll be happy to tell Kerry how we feel.
I served 1980-84, in Europe, and while I was not in immediate danger, I served my country with honor. My Uncle flew EC-130s for the Pa. National Guard for 30 years. To imply that his service or any other Guard member's service was not real military service is a slap in their faces.
Posted by: albo at February 05, 2004 08:55 AM (ZPx7m)
6
Albo-
there are serious questions regarding the assertion that bush blew off his service that need to be answered. there is evidence that suggests that bush not only pulled strings to avoid active duty during wartime, but also failed to report for duty as ordered. i would love to see this addressed, as IF it is false, then i can rest a bit easier knowing that the president is not a spineless coward, and IF it is true, then to brand him as such and remove him from a position to put others in harms way.
i don't think ANYONE (other than active duty guys) would distinguish between AD / reserve / guard / etc.
as a person who has served both AD and reserve i can attest that there is some "ribbing" between the two, but when the bullets are flying around you, it boils down to the fact that all involved are indeed "brothers in arms"
arf
coyote
Posted by: coyote at February 05, 2004 10:04 AM (cfoFZ)
7
hehe Hugo, you slay me..
we used to call it:
"turning perfectly good fuel into perfectly loud noise"
arf
coyote
Posted by: coyote at February 05, 2004 10:06 AM (cfoFZ)
8
Coyote, those 'serious' questions have been answered - by no less an authority than the New York Times (among others). President Bush's time in the military was no different than many others in like circumstances. In fact he actually served more time than the minimum required, it was just spread out over a longer than minimum time. The reserves are funny that way, you see flexibility you don't get in the active duty side.
Posted by: Ted at February 05, 2004 10:20 AM (blNMI)
9
Aside from the use of the word 'homeland' (pet peeve) this is a nice piece of writing annika!, 'twas a good little history lesson you gave over lunch. now back to work...
Posted by: Scof at February 05, 2004 11:43 AM (Brlmf)
10
Congratulations Max and Coyote. The plane is
landing.
Too bad Rustler, you jumped the gun and missed the airbrakes.
Scof, i'm wasn't happy with that word choice, but i couldn't think of a word to describe both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R.'s territories that fit other than "homeland."
Posted by: annika! at February 05, 2004 01:19 PM (zAOEU)
11
Oh, and Coyote, i don't think the plane in the picture was a trainer - only one seat. Flight test model is a possibility. Probably not a drone since it's obviously landing and target drones didn't land. At least not in one piece. i doubt it's a tester, since it's someplace cold, by the look of the snow on the ground. Many interceptor squadrons were based up north, to guard against bombers coming over the north pole. Indeed, i've seen pics of the Daggers from Vietnam and they were painted camo. Since interceptors weren't really meant to encounter the enemy except at very long range, i don't think paint scheme mattered much. My guess is that the plane in the picture was in active service as an interceptor, although some smart person will probably recognize the markings and tell me i'm wrong.
Posted by: annika! at February 05, 2004 01:29 PM (zAOEU)
12
My beef with the Bush went AWOL stuff is that most of it is conjecture; the Alabama ANG guy said he doesn't remember Bush, but that doesn't prove anything; Generalis likely don't remember lots of random airmen that come through. FOIA requests show that he served the required number of days for his discharge, plus he had like 18 months active duty to earn his wings (longer, if I'm not mistaken than Gore's service).
I also think it's BS to say this was all about avoiding Vietnam. In 1968 when he signed up, the ANG wing he signed up for actually had units deployed in Vietnam, so it's not like it was a completely safe-ride.
Posted by: roach at February 05, 2004 04:16 PM (DHoAQ)
13
No, didn't miss it--just badly misinterpreted it! Shit happens.
Posted by: Matt at February 05, 2004 10:34 PM (of2d1)
14
This might be a National Guard aircraft. They tend to have their unit colors painted on the aircraft. In North Dakota, we used to see Fargo's "Happy Hooligans" all the time, black letters on a bright yellow band on the tail.
Posted by: Ted at February 06, 2004 06:30 AM (blNMI)
15
F-102A , tail no 561379, 317th Fighter Interceptor Squadron, landing, probably from a barrier combat air patrol (BARCAP) mission at Elmendorf AFB in 1958 or 1959.
The "Checkertail" identifies it as a 325th Fighter Group aircraft. The only F-102s operated by the 325th in Alaska belonged to the 317th FIS, which was assigned to Elmendorf between late 1957 and early 1960.
The orange paint was applied to interceptors operating in the arctic so they could be found if they went down in the snow.
Posted by: CW at February 06, 2004 09:23 AM (PGJkQ)
16
The orange paint initially made me think this was a PGM-102A "Pave Deuce" drone, landing in manned-operator mode, but -379 was not converted to a drone.
There is a slight possibility that this photograph could have been taken at Keflavik, Iceland, but the 317th never deployed there and the photo looks a little more like Elmendorf than Kef to me (especially if you look at the other photo on the internet of this same aircraft at the same time - the mountain range in the background looks like Alaska not Iceland).
This aircraft's sister-ship 561378 was "on the stick" at Kef as a static display for many years, but I still think this photo was in Alaska.
And by the way - those who say "President Bush went AWOL from the Air Guard" have absolutely no idea what they are talking about, and sound very ignorant.
Posted by: CW at February 06, 2004 09:46 AM (PGJkQ)
17
well CW, that intelligent and well documented argument has me convinced.
if you guys were not so damm paranoid maybe you would have read that 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.
anyway, there are enough other reasons to replace bush..
now here is a thought...
nominate some OTHER republican, this time a real centrist, and you'll get my attention and possibly a vote.
arf
coyote
Posted by: coyote at February 06, 2004 10:54 AM (cfoFZ)
18
Impressive, CW.
Rack him!
Posted by: annika at February 06, 2004 11:45 AM (zAOEU)
19
"AWOL" means "Absent Without Leave", and applies only to documented failure to appear at muster (or miss a ship's movement, or equivalent) while on active duty.
A Reservist (or Air Guard member) is not legally obligated to show up to "weekend drill" (Inactive Duty Training), or even to "Annual Training" (AT). Participation in both those activities, while on inactive duty (Ready Reserve) is entirely voluntary.
The only time a Reservist can be called "AWOL" is if he or she is mobilized for active duty (such as when being sent to Iraq) and doesn't show up.
Not showing up for weekend drill may be documented as either authorized absence (AA) or unauthorized (U). If you call your commander and say "I can't come, please give me an authorized absence", normally an AA will be given and the only penalty is that you do not receive pay or retirement credit for that weekend period. If you do not call, and simply do not show up, you can be given a "U". After a certain number of "U"'s, a Reservist, or Air Guard member, can be separated from the Reserve. Even "U"'s are not "AWOL", and are very common.
For example, if someone were sick, or posted overseas with a civilian job, and they either didn't coordinate where they were or someone didn't get the right word, they might get "U"'s for not showing up. They might even be transferred from the "Ready Reserve" to the "Standby Reserve" (as it was called at the time - it's now called the "Individual Ready Reserve"), which is sometimes referred to as being "separated". But once they came back, if the commander approved, they could be reinstated. THIS IS NOT WHAT HAPPENED IN BUSH's CASE.
I looked at what President Bush was doing from May 1972 until May 1973, the period when he was supposedly "AWOL". The record indicates that he was in Alabama, working on a political campaign, and that he requested to "drill" with a Guard unit at Maxwell AFB in Montgomery. That request was approved. RIGHT THERE it is established that his absence from the Texas Air Guard was authorized, and he didn't get "U"'s. Again, this is a common arrangement. I have done the same thing more than once in my own Reserve career.
Upon his return to Texas in May 1973, his commander in Texas had no record of his having completed drills in Alabama. THIS IS NOT UNUSUAL. He may or may not have actually had time to drill while in Alabama, and it really doesn't matter. If he had drilled in Alabama, there would be no way for the Texas Guard to know about it unless either he (Bush) or the Alabama Guard sent the forms to Texas. You can bet the Alabama Guard wouldn't have done so unless Bush stood over them supervising, because the clerks responsible for this function are notoriously lazy. And Bush wouldn't care unless he wanted to get the "retirement points" which he didn't because he didn't intend to spend a career in the Air Guard, and he wasn't getting paid anyway (not that he would have cared about the pay). IT WAS ALL VOLUNTARY IN ANY CASE.
The key fact, however, is that when he returned to Texas, he did 36 days of active duty, in effect "making up" the drills he missed while in Alabama, and discharging his responsibility for the year, even though he didn't really have to, and it didn't really matter.
So, anyone who says "Bush was AWOL" from the Texas Air Guard is ignorant, both of the official record in this case, and of how the Reserve and Guard work.
Posted by: CW at February 06, 2004 12:14 PM (PGJkQ)
20
nice CW,
but..here is a little quote from the texas code of military justice..
"§ 432.131. Absence Without Leave
A person subject to this chapter shall be punished as a court-martial directs if the person without authority:
(1) fails to go to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed;
(2) goes from that place; or
(3) absents himself or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty at which he is required to be at the time prescribed."
care to do the research this time rather than presenting anecdotal eveidence?
:-)
i love this game.
coyote
Posted by: coyote at February 06, 2004 12:31 PM (cfoFZ)
21
Because GWB obtained authorization to drill in Alabama, his absence from his Texas F-102 unit was explicitly authorized. Once in Alabama, whether he completed the drills or not, he was not AWOL from Texas. The key words in the TCMJ section on AWOL are "prescribed" and "required". He was not "prescribed" to drill at Ellington during the period May 72 until May 73, and he was not "required" to be there - no inactive duty Reservist or Guardsman is. No further research is required, and the evidence provided is widely documented on the internet, not anecdotal. (I got it from an anti-Bush site, actually, who didn't understand that what they were presenting exonerated, rather than indicted, the President of their accusations.)
Were you a military lawyer, you would know that the AWOL section of the UCMJ (or TCMJ, which is "assimilated" from the UCMJ) only applies to active duty. At no time during the period was GWB on active duty.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go to weekend drill.
Posted by: CW at February 06, 2004 01:02 PM (PGJkQ)
22
kudos to you cw, for showing up and honoring your commitments.
sounds like you are ok with people using loopholes to get over on the system.
as usual, im not convinced. can you show me some hard evidence that there are parts of the UCMJ / TCMJ that don't apply to members of the guard under certain circumstances?
when i was in the USMCR, orders were orders, and blowing them off had huge consequences.
arf.
coyote
Posted by: coyote at February 06, 2004 01:55 PM (cfoFZ)
23
All of the UCMJ applies to Reservists and Guard Members. I do not know Texas law, but I imagine the "assimilated" TCMJ applies to all members of the Texas National Guard and Texas Air National Guard. That's not the point.
The point is that GWB did not violate the AWOL section of either the UCMJ or TCMJ because the term "AWOL" does not apply to an inactive duty Reserve or Guard member not showing up for inactive duty drill. To be precise, that section can be applied to an inactive duty member - but only under specific circumstances. For example, if you were assigned to a guardpost while on weekend drill, and deserted that post, you could be charged as AWOL.
But ordinarily no one is "ordered" to show up for weekend drill. You could be, to be perfectly correct, but it is not normally done. In the case of GWB, he obtained authorization to be somewhere else. He never failed to show up anywhere he was "ordered" to be. That's not a loophole. That's how the system is supposed to work.
Reservists not showing up for drill weekend with their unit is an everyday occurance - that's why it's called "inactive duty". Every month I have several members of my command who don't show up, for various reasons, work commitments being the most common. Usually I know where they are. If what you say had any merit, I'd be charging all those people with being AWOL.
If the Texas Guard had wanted GWB to show up, for example if they were mobilized, they could have ordered him to do so, and charged him under the UCMJ if he didn't. That didn't happen, the record clearly shows it didn't happen, and to continually insinuate otherwise appears to be purely politically motivated and without factual merit.
By the way, given your interest in what GWB did in the National Guard, have you looked into John Kerry's duty status in 1970 and 1971?
I really have to hit the road now.
Posted by: CW at February 06, 2004 02:53 PM (ztBnS)
24
Well, I'm way late on this but I did think "landing"...not that I'll ever be able to prove that. It's enough to know I was right...even if I am the only one who will ever know it.
Posted by: Serenity at February 07, 2004 12:15 AM (nPqz7)
25
The whole Bush was AWOL meme is fatuous. It rests on the fact that a then-Colonel does not remember a First Lieutenant from thirty-odd years ago. People, the only way a Colonel would remember a First John thirty years later is if that Eltee screwed the pooch in such a spectacular fashion that the story is still being told after the fifth drink at the O club.
The key to survival for a JO is to stay off the Colonel's radar as much as possible. So it was in the Greek Phalanxes, the Roman Legions and the Air Guard.
Since Coyote wants documentation, here it is. I present to you one Honorable Discharge. Had Dubya not completed all requirements of his service he simply would not have gotten one. No matter that his Daddy was an obscure Congresscritter, had he not completed his service he would have gotten a different discharge, maybe a General or an Unsatisfactory but not an HD. It's that simple. No amount of alleged pull or conspiricy theories can get around the fact of that Honorable Discharge.
Posted by: Peter at February 07, 2004 05:38 PM (rZmE1)
26
I also know jack shit about aircraft, but I said landing just because taking off was so obvious that Annika wouldn't have asked. I did look to see if I could find control surfaces that would indicate 'up' or 'down' but don't even know enough to spot those. Airbrakes? Fuggeddaboudit. Then it did sink in that there was no afterburner flame, so went with landing as my final answer
I love reading stuff like this that teaches a bit about something about which I know
absolutely nothing. Thanks for a great read, Annika!
Posted by: Light & Dark at February 07, 2004 10:22 PM (Hrm9v)
27
Landing in reverse using magno-technology.
Posted by: David at April 26, 2004 05:21 AM (AaBEz)
28
Most definitely landing (air brakes), most definitely NOT Elmendorf,(no mountians or terrain even possibly coming close to AK) no "checkered flag" in AK,EVER) and who cares about AWOL, Bush WILL be re-elected
Posted by: XtremeAK at October 03, 2004 08:50 AM (KbXKA)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 04, 2004
Brilliant Satire
Once again, Frank J. has outdone himself. Read his satire of the
typical Democratic Underground.com comment thread, which can be used equally well with any topic.
Posted by: annika at
06:21 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 30 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Read my interesting comments about being a "spook" over at DU
My Spook Story
Posted by: Tom Bux at February 04, 2004 07:42 PM (cHZIb)
2
When did you move to MT? WHY AM I LAST TO KNOW THESE THINGS!
Posted by: Frank J. at February 04, 2004 07:43 PM (3TGV/)
Posted by: Susie at February 04, 2004 08:02 PM (0+cMc)
4
Frank, have you learned your lesson? Repeat after me: PP.MU.NU every day. : )
Posted by: annika! at February 04, 2004 10:39 PM (Z/+Xc)
5
Susie has a blog? I just thought it was some sort of script for randomly pinging posts.
Posted by: Frank J. at February 05, 2004 06:59 AM (F8juL)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Lincoln/Bush Parallel?
This piece at
Free Republic.com appealed to my love of historical irony so much, i am reprinting it in full here:
We must fact the fact that our Republican president was a DESERTER! He never even served in the REAL military. Instead he was in the Illinois state militia during the Blackhawk War and NEVER saw any combat. Captain Abraham Lincoln even admitted years later that the worst he suffered in the Blackhawk War was a bunch of mosquito bites. Not only that, even though Captain Abraham Lincoln mustered out of the militia on July 10, 1832, there is NO RECORD of a Captain Abraham Lincoln being in the militia (not a REAL army) from May 27, 1832 to July 10, 1832. One can only conclude, despite any facts to the contrary, that Abraham Lincoln was a DESERTER. At the very least he was AWOL.
Contrast that sad military record with that of our great Democrat, George McClellan who bravely faced down Quaker Guns outside Richmond, VA in 1862. McClellan, who is now running for president, is absolutely correct in his assertion that Lincoln is a miserable failure as a president especially since he did not seek the advice and consent from our European allies in the War of Rebellion. I look forward to a political campaign featuring a distinguished REGULAR military officer with a chest full of medals up against a Republican deserter who slacked off in the militia, not the REAL army. One candidate spent the war slacking off and suffering from nothing more than a bunch of mosquito bites and the other candidate is a genuine WAR HERO who did not desert.
This November the choice is yours. VOTE for the Democrat candidate WAR HERO....NOT the Republican deserter.
p.s. Did I mention that the Democrat candidate is a WAR HERO?
Note: the "Quaker Gun" reference is a bit obscure. Quaker Guns were logs painted to resemble cannons, which were placed by the defenders of Richmond to fool McLellan into believing he faced a stronger Confederate force than he actually did. McLellan took the bait and refused to move on the Confederate works, continually asking Lincoln for more men and more time. Until the Seven Days battles, when McLellan was whipped good by Robert E. Lee, cementing McLellan's reputation as a coward and Lee's as a genius. Read aboout it
here and
here.
Link thanks to Professor Hewitt.
Posted by: annika at
04:38 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 402 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Thanks for sharing. I would also direct you Instapundit for a review of the "literature"/ blogosphere for a complete report.
Plenty of links to folks who actually know the difference between active duty and the reserve/NG.
Posted by: joe at February 04, 2004 05:01 PM (teajw)
Posted by: annika! at February 04, 2004 05:08 PM (zAOEU)
3
Oh no, now you're inserting facts into the discussion.
Posted by: d-rod at February 04, 2004 06:21 PM (Wleyv)
4
Annika, my pleasure. Baldilocks nails it.
As a guy who went to grad school at UCSB/Pepperdine--your blog is a great vicarious connection to CA.
d-rod, don't you just hate it when the facts "will out."
Posted by: joe at February 04, 2004 07:04 PM (teajw)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 03, 2004
Errata
Because i'm big enough to admit it when i'm wrong, even if belatedly, i want to point out that the following statement was made in error:
What about Edwards and Kerry? In my crystal ball, the only question is whether Edwards and Kerry will endorse Dean or Clark after they drop out.
Brain fart.
In my own defense, i wrote that on January 16th, before Iowa, and nobody was giving Kerry or Edwards any chance back then. The media, with their far left goggles had fallen in love with Dean. Everyone else, including me, felt a temptation to accept the media's skewed judgement without question. In reality, the rank and file Democrat always had doubts about Dean, thus the "apparent" Kerry surge. i think media pundits and bloggers, on the left and the right, were hoodwinked by a little wishful thinking in regards to Dean. i can understand the traditional media falling for him and missing Kerry, but we bloggers are supposed to know better. We're the "new media" after all.
Posted by: annika at
07:37 PM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
Post contains 171 words, total size 1 kb.
1
What brain fart? Sounds like you're attempting to be perfect. We're not. The great thing is we're all entitled to an opinion.
That said, it's possible on some level we were hoping Dean would continue to lead the pack for own selfish general election reasons. (Easy Republican win.)
Kerry is a entirely different kettle of fish. Bottom line, his military record nonwithstanding, he's consistently exhibited neo-socialist leanings when it comes to military spending.
Posted by: joe at February 04, 2004 06:17 AM (CSq3X)
2
mighty big of ya Annie-
i too have been musing on why dean has fallen so hard from what we in blogsphere thought was the top of the heap.
last night when they started telling us in new mexico the results of the balloting, they started with the absentee and mail in votes that had already been counted. i was thinking that dean would have it, but kerry had that segment of the vote, followed closely by clark and then dean.
(we have a larger percentage of military in new mexico than many states, which explains the clark numbers.)
as i thought about it, i think that dean's fall looks bigger than it really is because of where we as bloggers sit in relation to the rest of the population. bloggers tend to get their information from the interweb-thingy and are closer to the technology. that same technology is the major vehicle for the dean campaign, so in essence dean APPEARED bigger than he really was to those of us who are writing / looking at this from this angle. because we are as you say, "the new media" people pay attention and give credence to what is said / written. all the hype about dean turned out to be just that, hype. in reality, dean's support has always been less than indicated by what we see on the web.
maybe it would have kept on had no one made such a big deal of the "scream".
truthfully. i didn't really care about the scream as much as i cared about the reaction TO the scream. as it turns out, it probably is for the best, as recent polls do indeed show that Kerry will be replacing bush come next january. and to me, it's all about beating bush. i think you will see the democratic party begin to rally around Kerry bcause as sad as it may seem, getting bush and friends out of power is indeed the priority of a great many americans.
arf!
coyote
Posted by: coyote at February 04, 2004 08:25 AM (cfoFZ)
3
Those polls, coyote, reflect the free media Kerry is enjoying since he is the new frontrunner. We have yet to see Bush et al. start an ad blitz with the almost 200 million they have. Since kerry doesn't have alot of money now, I'd expect an ad blitz soon so that way Bush can change voters perceptions of who kerry is (however crappy Bush's team is at winning the PR war over Iraq, they won't hesitate to act for his re-election). Also the media haven't yet started sniping/investigating kerry, what with his very liberal voting record and loathing of America during vietnam.
That doesn't mean this might not be a close election, regardless of who the president currently is, the country lately has been quite divided -- and the most predictable factor for what side you are on/going to vote for is church attendance. Conservatives not only see the liberal agenda as wrong, but a threat. And it is the same vice versa. With such strong divisions who can energize their base more? Well right now more people attend church & vote than those who don't (thank God) so I still think Bush will win, but as was pointed out on NPR this morning, Gore would've won the election in 2000 if he simply carried one more state -- and it did NOT have to be a southern state. Can Kerry duplicate his strategy with similar success? Even if he does, he will face a majority GOP congress that is pissed off that Bush is gone.
Posted by: Scof at February 04, 2004 11:29 AM (Brlmf)
4
Scof-
you do realize that Kerry actually went to vietnam and fought right?
ya there will be smearing and such, but bush will need to be very careful when his camp talks about military service etc..
i'd rather see a balance with the legislative branch and the whitehouse in different hands. that way niether side can push through crap and real debate has to take place. mind you, i don't see right as a huge threat, as long as there is a balance.
bush is NOT your mom and dad's republican, and his ilk represents something not before seen in american politics.
if you have read any of my previous writings, you might see that i'm not really anti-conservative, but i do think that the neo-conservative bunch is indeed bad for not only the usa, but the world in general.
in short, defeating bush will bring back a balance that while somewhat stifling, will help put our nation back on an even keel.
:-)
coyote
Posted by: coyote at February 04, 2004 11:45 AM (cfoFZ)
5
The Bush folks haven't even put on their flight jackets yet. The Dems nominee will be trounced with little effort because they aren't prepared for the real world.
Posted by: d-rod at February 04, 2004 12:07 PM (CSRmO)
6
d-rod-
i hope more of the bush camp think like you.
:-)
will make that victory party all that much sweeter.
arf.
btw.. i earned my wings and flight jacket the hard way, rather than just borrowing one from someone else.
grins
coyote
Posted by: coyote at February 04, 2004 12:26 PM (cfoFZ)
7
Annika, I've thought all along that Edwards was the dark horse of the group--although, to be fair, Kerry sure does look the part. ;-)
Posted by: Bernard at February 04, 2004 12:48 PM (v//Np)
8
As far as John Kerry's post-Vietnam activities, since I wasn't there I have to rely on the views of those who were. Such as this man:
http://www.jenmartinez.com/mt/archives/2004_02.php#000581
Maybe one day people will learn that their actions have consequences...intended AND otherwise.
Posted by: John at February 04, 2004 02:20 PM (7UPKM)
9
But what is Kerry going to do for the investor class? Getting my tax stuff together yesterday I realized Bush's ace-in-the-hole. Every family of moderate income is going to get $600 per child, plus a hefty refund simply from filling out their 1040 EZs. Think also of all the poor, single mothers with four kids -- $2,400 bucks with a letter from the president, just to drive the point that the GOP wants you to have extra $. For the rest -- sure, an average 2 child family isn't going to have their life change dramatically from $1,200 extra bucks. But folks are going to spend this money, which will help drive the DOW. 60% of Americans are now invested in the stock market, and I submit these folks vote too.
Posted by: Rezdog at February 04, 2004 02:40 PM (GvcCA)
10
rezdog-
nice handle by the way, i always like the canine types.
you bring up an interesting point, and one that might just help w keep his job. because people are more concerned with a $ now than a $ later, folks might just fall for this silly tax break hocus pocus. if the national debt continues such that it is, our kids will be paying out the nose just to make the intrest on the nations "note".. and their kids will have to pay down that debt as well.
so it's a suckers bet.
as for Kerry's stance post vietnam, sounds to me like he did his time in the jungle and had earned his right to an opinion on the matter.
unlike some others we know.
arf
coyote
Posted by: coyote at February 04, 2004 03:18 PM (cfoFZ)
11
'Yote, Kerry may have served, but he came to loathe the military after his service as he comments of 30 years ago show:
http://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/wfb200402040837.asp
The above is an excellent speech penned by William F. Buckly for an address at West Point taking Kerry on those few decades ago:
"If America is everything that John Kerry says it is, what is it appropriate for us to do? ...John Kerry's assault on this country did not rise fullblown in his mind, like Venus from the Cypriot Sea. It is the crystallization of an assault upon America which has been fostered over the years by an intellectual class given over to self-doubt and self-hatred, driven by a cultural disgust with the uses to which so many people put their freedom. The assault on the military, the many and subtle vibrations of which you feel as keenly as James Baldwin knows the inflections of racism, is an assault on the proposition that what we have, in America, is truly worth defending. The military is to be loved or despised according as it defends that which is beloved or perpetuates that which is despised. The root question has not risen to such a level of respectability as to work itself into the platform of a national political party, but it lurks in the rhetoric of the John Kerry...Is America worth it?"
Kerry was not trying to "argue that our commitment in Vietnam and our attempt to redeem it were tragically misconceived." rather that "it was less than the highest tribute to national motivation, to collective idealism, and to international rectitude."
With his ascension to the Democratic nomination quite certain, we can see now that a national party is coming ever closer to posing that question: Is American worth it? This coyote is what is radical, not Bush. Perhaps they think America really is worth it, but only if they can change nearly everything about it. Putting things in perspective if you think Bush is radical you must hate most of our history because it is that history which reflects largely conservative themes: the importance of family & duty to God & country as the popular themes in our culture (unlike the post 60's themes of if it feels good do it and a doctrine of tolerance)
Posted by: Scof at February 04, 2004 03:57 PM (Brlmf)
12
P.S. -- Everyone, whether they served or not, has a right to form an opinion on the matter. Just because one served doesn't give mean they:
(1) are exempt from criticism for holding an awfully stupid viewpoint and
(2) can make outrageous claims that "crimes (by US troops in Vietnam were) committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command."
Posted by: Scof at February 04, 2004 04:04 PM (Brlmf)
13
Scof, you are
too well read.
Posted by: annika! at February 04, 2004 04:54 PM (zAOEU)
14
so scof,
i guess what you are saying it that everything that the us did in vietnam was good and it was a great war that we should have taken part in?
my father was in vietnam and related many stories of the crap we pulled there.
he wasnt proud of his country for what we did there, but he did what he needed to do there because thats what his government wanted him to do.
many of us have done time in the service, and many of us dont often agree with our missions, but we do them anyway. when you are in the military, you do as you are told.
once out of the military, you can feel free to speak out against the brokers of power and the policy makers.
to me it again sounds like kerry did his duty, even though he didnt like it, and once done, had the courage to speak out against the policy makers that he did not agree with.
all this god and country talk is making me want to puke though.
worship whatever god you choose, but keep it the fuck away from my government.
arf
coyote
Posted by: coyote at February 04, 2004 05:07 PM (cfoFZ)
15
Ladies and gentleman,
I was a college student during Viet Nam era, '71-'75. Don't say it. Do the math.
Regardless, I had a skull full of mush and had no clue what we were really protesting against. (A lot of us didn't.) Had a high draft lottery number and wasn't drafted.
My take now on the that war--inherited a bad situation from the French, couldn't fight it as we might have.
My advice here is--get past it, and deal with the present. Given the choice, I'll take GWB at the helm of the war on terroism.
Kerry's past miliary spending voting record, and his neo-Socialist leanings are cause for worry.
Posted by: joe at February 04, 2004 07:22 PM (teajw)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 02, 2004
What i Did On MLK Day
i promised you news of my doings during my recent trip to Detroit. We didn't work on Martin Luther King Jr. Day, so our hosts gave us tickets to the
North American International Auto Show at the Cobo Center. Always thinking of you, my visitors, i took some photographs of the cars that really impressed me.
Outside it was freezing cold. i'm not used to it. i'm a Californian, my nordic blood notwithstanding. Snow is something that belongs in the mountains. You ski on it. You don't drive on it. 50° is about as cold as i want it to be outside. Not fucking 20°!
There were five of us. Paul and i were the two senior paralegals, Linda and Grace the two associates, and Patricia the temp paralegal. The other temp, Kathy, stayed in the hotel room nursing the flu, which she eventually passed on to the rest of us.
The convention center was a sea of people. On the day we were there, the attendance was 41,415! And at any given time, at least one of the five of us was lost. Someone was always lagging behind, gawking at a vehicle, or in Paul's case, gawking at a spokesmodel. We used up a lot of cellphone minutes just trying to keep track of each other. Here's a view of the bedlam that greeted us inside the Cobo center.
One of the first cars that caught our eye was this Lincoln convertible concept car. Everything is going retro these days, but i think Ford did a real nice job on this baby. A little stodgy for my taste, but cool nonetheless. One thing i really liked was the pale cream colored leather interior. It was almost bluish; i've never seen a color like it. The official pictures are here.
No one does retro like Jaguar, though.
The Pontiac Solstice will be available next year, so i was told. It looks great, but i remember how shitty the Fiero was. Hopefully Pontiac has learned their lesson.
About lunchtime we all went out to the concession stands and paid through the nose for some hot dogs and sodas, which they called "pop." There was some sort of rock band playing music in the arena and we hung out there while we ate. Unfortunately, being the only smoker in the group i had to duck outside and freeze my ass to keep my nicotine levels up. Paul was nice enough to accompany me and chase away any homeless dudes, while i smoked.
We all kidded Linda about getting a new car. She makes a shitload of money, but she's still driving the same car she had in law school. A beat up Corolla from the eighties! She doesn't want to get rid of it because it's paid for and it still runs great. But we made it our mission to select Linda's next car and then apply relentless pressure on her until she buys it. My pick was this thing:
Too bad it's only a concept car and not on the market yet. It's called the Subaru B9SC Roadster, it's a hybrid and it is phat! Official pics are here. The windshield is made of special glass that changes the tint like some sunglasses do. Confidentially, i think Linda needs to upgrade her image to something sportier. Maybe this car will be available for sale by the time her Toyota finally craps out on her.
Paul noted that Linda's style is, shall we say, simple, tasteful, conservative . . . maybe somewhat dowdy. i don't think she considered that a compliment. At any rate, Paul encouraged her to stay with what made her comfortable. His choice for Linda's next vehicle was the Chrysler 300. That didn't go over too well either. i didn't take a picture of it, but here's what it looks like. Contemporarily stodgy. A bit more mature than my friend would like to go.
i think we all agreed on Linda's future car when we saw the new BMW mini SUV. We fell in love with it. It's called the X3. i sat in it and it's wonderful. So comfy. i just love the seats in german cars.
i didn't take any pictures of the X3 because it was at that moment that i heard music and birds singing and a heavenly light shone down and i became dizzy with feelings of intense desire. i saw this vehicle:
Oh yes, my darlings. BMW has revived the 6 series. In convertible. i stood there slack jawed and repeated to myself, "yes . . . yes . . . yes . . . 645ci, you are mine, baby!" Sure i'll never be able to afford it without marrying rich. But lemme dream, okay? i would look so damn good driving along Sunset in that bitch with the top down at a ridiculously high rate of speed. i get all weak and tingly just thinking about it. Gaze at these official pics, if you will. It's simply gorgeous.
After they dragged me away from my new love, we all went back to the hotel to rest and get ready for the evening. We met up with some of the in-house people for our client, who drove us down to a place called Dave & Buster's, which is apparently a chain, although it was the first i'd heard of them. They make a very good desert with bananas and caramel sauce.
The place is like an adult video arcade. Paul was in heaven. i tried a few of the shooting games, but i really liked the airplane simulator, even though i kept crashing. We had fun even though we couldn't get rip-roaring drunk like we wanted. We tried to keep up appearances since we were with the client's employees and we had to work early the next day.
And that was how i spent my MLK day.
Posted by: annika at
10:33 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 996 words, total size 7 kb.
1
Ooh, I never thought I'd like auto shows but I shot a documentary on the Chicago Auto Show in film school and had a sweet sweet time. Of course those media passes are a magical thing; none of the car company reps wanted to miss a chance to tell us all about the next big thing.
And I saw Chris Chelios!
Posted by: lorie at February 03, 2004 12:26 PM (PPPwU)
2
ok..soooo I guess you don't want his face on a $20 bill?
Posted by: jim at February 03, 2004 01:39 PM (zE10C)
3
Autoweek is comparing the Pontiac Solstice to the Miata. So I don't think you have to worry about the Fiero fiasco.
Posted by: ken at February 04, 2004 10:39 AM (SSqFk)
4
I was going to say, if the Solstice drives the way it looks... no worries!
Posted by: Bernard at February 04, 2004 12:57 PM (v//Np)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
American Skankwoman Poem
Please don't think that i'm turning this into a Brittany Spears bashing site. (It's just that she's such an easy target.) i promise i'll take a break from mentioning her for a while, but i
can't not mention
this inspired poem by the Big Hominid, about the American Skankwoman.
Posted by: annika at
09:23 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 55 words, total size 1 kb.
Proof That These Stupid Quizillas Are Unscientific
She does wear her hair like me, though.
Innocent
What's your sexual appeal?
brought to you by Quizilla
Posted by: annika at
08:04 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 32 words, total size 1 kb.
1
It has to be the "act" part. ;>
Posted by: Desert Cat at February 02, 2004 09:45 PM (c8BHE)
2
You're a hentai dating sim character?
Heh. I got
Feminine.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at February 02, 2004 10:39 PM (kOqZ6)
3
It looks like she is picking her nose!
Posted by: ginger at February 03, 2004 07:48 AM (/Ov+I)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Happy Groundhog Day
"Rise and shine, campers, and don't forget your booties 'cause it's cooooold out there today!"
Ha ha. i love the movie. Bill Murray is the best. i laugh and cry and think, every time i see it.
"A thousand people, freezing their butts off, waiting to worship a rat."
Posted by: annika at
03:44 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 55 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: Ted at February 03, 2004 05:41 AM (blNMI)
2
Don't drive angry. DON'T drive angry!
Great movie.
Posted by: Budly at February 03, 2004 12:31 PM (6/1Z7)
3
I would love to see Bill snag that Oscar, even if it's
not for Ghostbusters
Posted by: Susie at February 04, 2004 01:08 PM (0+cMc)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 01, 2004
Another Nipple Related Post
This appears to be the week for me to blog about nipples, seen or unseen.
Kevin's Wizbang is the place to go for pictures of Janet Jackson's boob and what i now know is a "nipple shield," not a pastie or a piece of tape as some have suggested. That's fucking sick. And i say that as someone with a pierced tongue. Anybody who thought that Janet might be the only normal one in that family . . . think again.
Oh, by the way, i was named Wizbang's Blog of the Day. Thanks Kevin! (Let me know if that PayPal bribe didn't go through.)
And, in reference to my previous nipple related post, where Brant commented that he thought Brittany's nips were lower than normal due to a botched implant job, lookie here. Kin, posting at Jen's has the photographic proof, not only of the American Skankwoman's augmentation, but also of the below the equator orientation of her little nippies. Good work Kin!
Update: Ginger opines on Nip Slippage.
Posted by: annika at
11:37 PM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
Post contains 178 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I, ummm, don't feel comfortable hammering on other peoples' piercable bits. Some would say that my piercing is pretty icky, too.
Posted by: zombyboy at February 02, 2004 12:00 AM (X7Bhq)
2
Have you seen the site that traces Britney's evolution from A-cup to C (and maybe D) cup - and back again? Her boobies vary over time.
Maybe the girls got inflatable implants...
Posted by: Pixy Misa at February 02, 2004 06:06 AM (jtW2s)
3
So Annika, in honor of your nipple-blogging week, what are the odds of you posting a topless pic. You know not that I'm asking for gratuitous nudity or anything. I'm just thinking theme here, and what better way to get it going.. Just a suggestion..
I'm thinking logos, promotion, corporate sponsors.. 'Annika's boob week'.
I could be huge..
I'm gonna get banned now, huh?
Posted by: Rob at February 02, 2004 08:00 AM (QDVwP)
4
So Annika, in honor of your nipple-blogging week, what are the odds of you posting a topless pic. You know not that I'm asking for gratuitous nudity or anything. I'm just thinking theme here, and what better way to get it going.. Just a suggestion..
I'm thinking logos, promotion, corporate sponsors.. 'Annika's boob week'.
It could be huge..
I'm gonna get banned now, huh?
Posted by: Rob at February 02, 2004 08:01 AM (QDVwP)
5
A stupid comment, and it double posted. I suck.
Posted by: rob at February 02, 2004 08:02 AM (QDVwP)
6
In the immortal words of Patsy on
AbFab... "Accident, sweetie".
Posted by: d-rod at February 02, 2004 10:40 AM (CSRmO)
7
Three times is the charm?
Posted by: annika at February 02, 2004 11:04 AM (zAOEU)
8
Annie-
just curious, if you really get down to it, just how is it that a nipple shield is that much different than a spike through your tongue?
i asked my little sister why she got her tongue pierced and she said to me, "there is only ONE reason to do it, and if you don't know what that is, i'm not gonna tell ya"
body modification is a very personal thing, and many people do many seemingly odd things for reasons only known to them. does that really make them sick or perverted?
i'm not so sure.
i'd never judge you for that sort of thing (hell, i think it's sexy) but i think you might be exhibiting a bit of intolerance on this one.
i do still luv ya though
arf
coyote
arf
coyote
Posted by: coyote at February 02, 2004 11:09 AM (cfoFZ)
9
"
body modification is a very personal thing, and many people do many seemingly odd things for reasons only known to them. does that really make them sick or perverted?"
Not necessarily, but in the case any member of the Jacko family, the answer is yes.
Seriously 'Yote, i do have my preferences where body art is concerned. i pierced my tongue, my nose and my navel. But i wouldn't pierce my nips, too sensitive. i dated a couple of guys with pierced nips and i did find that a bit sexy. i dated guys with pierced tongues too. That was, um, different. About half of my friends have pierced tongues, too. What you see as intolerance is just a matter of aesthetic taste for me. A guy with a little ring on his nip is sexy, if he has the attitude to match, but i don't think lip rings are attractive in any circumstance. i'm ambivalent about eyebrow piercing on either sex. What's the point of that? i like tattoos, but i think a big hunkin sun tat on the tummy is ugly. i have no prob with nip piercing, per se, but attaching a shield is overdoing it, in my opinion. It makes me cringe to think what would happen if that material had gotten caught on one of the spikes when Justin pulled it off. Yeeoow.
Posted by: annika at February 02, 2004 03:35 PM (zAOEU)
10
ok Annie-
i must have just misread "That's fucking sick" and "Anyone who thought that Janet might the only normal one in that family... think again."
my bad.
;-)
coyote
Posted by: coyote at February 02, 2004 04:10 PM (cfoFZ)
11
Annika:
Did I call that or what?
Poor woman. You have to pity someone who spends all that money on a boob job and then her nips point not only down, but in different directions.
Posted by: Brant at February 02, 2004 05:31 PM (WfQGW)
12
I think I'm gonna follow Rob's lead and make this into a world wide effort.
Think of it as Girls Gone Wild:Spring Blog '04
Show your tits!
Posted by: Kin at February 04, 2004 11:22 AM (IDa3v)
13
Have you ever had a wardrobe malfunction, annika?
Posted by: d-rod at February 05, 2004 06:20 PM (GNk2j)
14
buy stock newsletter
from our secure server! get next day delivery free! and save over 70% on all of our popular brand name medications. Delete if you dont like it.
Posted by: order stock newsletter
at January 26, 2005 06:00 PM (MChdQ)
15
buy merchant account
from our secure server! get next day delivery free! and save over 70% on all of our popular brand name medications. Delete if you dont like it.
Posted by: order merchant account
at January 26, 2005 06:00 PM (MChdQ)
16
buy pharmacy
from our secure server! get next day delivery free! and save over 70% on all of our popular brand name medications. Delete if you dont like it.
Posted by: order pharmacy
at January 26, 2005 06:01 PM (MChdQ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Give Tony Some Love
Tony Pierce's new project,
Lick Magazine, was launched today at halftime of the [Most Excellent] Bowl. i read through it and hereby pronounce it to be
rad, very
rad.
Posted by: annika at
11:00 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 35 words, total size 1 kb.
1
thanks so much!
i didnt even think you knew i existed.
right on!!!
Posted by: tony at February 01, 2004 11:27 PM (OSvOb)
Posted by: annika! at February 01, 2004 11:42 PM (doUdg)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Did You Ever Doubt Me?
New England 32, Carolina 29. The Pats win by one field goal. i said they'd win by two. The Pats didn't cover the spread. i said they wouldn't. i told you to take the Panthers plus 7 points. i hope you did. Did you take the over? i should have told you about that too.
i am awesome!
It was actually a pretty good game, too. Good defensive play in the first half, big offensive plays in the second. i was cheering for both offenses in the fourth quarter, because i wanted my predictions to come true. My friends were looking at me funny.
When New England made that 2 point conversion, i thought i would have a push, but then Carolina tied it up and i knew i was golden. Didn't i point out that Vinatieri was going to be key? Yes, i did.
i am so awesome!
P.S. i missed the whole halftime tittie fest, since i was out on a beer run. i can't stand Janet anyway and Justin bugs me. Apparently, Zomby wasn't impressed. And Shae's blog has good coverage of the er, uncoverage.
i did catch the National Anthem and was gratified to see Beyonce sing it with grace and dignity, unlike her ass-shaking spectacular from last Fourth of July in front of General Grant's tomb.
Link thanks to Michele.
Posted by: annika at
07:39 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 235 words, total size 2 kb.
1
I think Yahoo may have it wrong; that move looked deliberate to me, and I
thought (although the camera was pretty far back) that she had her nipple covered with latex or something.
Posted by: Matt Rustler at February 01, 2004 08:23 PM (of2d1)
2
I am finished with my rant, so I thought I'd check out what you had to say about the halftime show.
The Houston paper has a pic that shows that she was wearing a flesh colored cloth over her mammary projectile. The CBS Sportline poll asking which moment is the most memorable called what happened a "wardrobe malfunction." Uh, yeah. How can something planned be a malfunction? I know so many kids who were watching that show. I am so disgusted. I thought Janet had more class than that.
She had said that she was going to have a special surpise guest at the show and I guess the surprise guest was her "exposed" breast.
Does Michael Jackson need his sibling to expose herself in front of millions of people right now? Is that helping his case?
Okay. I'm finished... I have to calm down and get to bed. I have to work tomorrow and a job interview Tuesday (yay!).
You didn't miss ANYTHING during the halftime show.
Posted by: Shae at February 01, 2004 09:10 PM (9lKAK)
3
Surprise, surprise, surprise... CBS says they knew nothing about the incident and Justin says it was an unfortunate accident. I looked at the picture again and really couldn't tell if anything besides her hand was covering herself, but still... I am interested in knowing, if it was a wardrobe malfunction, what WAS supposed to happen when he reached over there? How is it that he grabbed and pulled the fabric so hard that it ripped off -- and it was an accident?
Hmm... I'm sure this will get more interesting over the next few days... and look for a skit on Saturday Night Live soon.
Posted by: Shae at February 01, 2004 09:26 PM (9lKAK)
4
I'm following Annika for all my football betting needs next year. Do you do NHL, too?
As for "wardrobe malfunction", I call bullshit. That was planned, she had the tassle on, and it was simply meant to be controversial. I've already said my piece on my overall feeling on the subject, but to lie about it afterward is just pathetic.
Heh. Not that I have an opinion on the subject...
Posted by: zombyboy at February 01, 2004 09:42 PM (X7Bhq)
5
Yes, yes, the Jacksons are all freaks. I question how any of those poseurs ended up on stage in the first place. Now Toby Keith would have given us a powerful and emotional halftime instead of banality.
As for the game... One rarely sees such pathetic officiating in the NFL. The fix was in. If you don't believe me, TIVO back to the last NE TD, and watch the receiver as he comes off the line, grabs the DB and shoves him to the ground before running 25 yards down the field to make the catch. Pathetic.
Posted by: Casca at February 01, 2004 09:51 PM (RXTfP)
6
Ha ha Shae. "Mammary projectile" is a good one.
Zomby, i know about as much about hockey as i know about football.
Casca, if Toby Keith had been doing the halftime show, i might have stuck around for it.
Posted by: annika! at February 01, 2004 10:27 PM (doUdg)
7
This sort of thing is becoming more common for has-been stars. first the Britteny Madonna kiss now this. Their overwhelming lack of talent is not keeping them in the spotlight so they have to do something.
Posted by: Stephen Macklin at February 02, 2004 07:58 AM (UquFN)
8
hell. i didn't even know they were still playing football this time of year.
who was playing anyway?
:-)
arf
coyote
Posted by: coyote at February 02, 2004 03:42 PM (cfoFZ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Most Dangerous Bloggers Deck Of Cards
This is funny. i'm not in it thank goodness. Guess who is the Ace of Spades, though. Link thanks to
Kevin.
Posted by: annika at
01:23 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 33 words, total size 1 kb.
My [Most Excellent] Bowl Prediction
Many people have wondered why i haven't posted my prediction for today's [Most Excellent] Bowl game. (Okay, one person wondered.) So here it is.
Carolina Panthers vs. New England Patriots. Funny, neither team represents an actual state, just a large region. New England is favored by 7 points. The field is neutral of course, since the game is being played at Reliant Stadium in Houston. But i heard somewhere that Carolina has never practiced on artificial turf until this week. That sounds funny, but if it's true could it factor in somehow?
Friday, Rush Limbaugh said the game will be close. He picked the Patriots, but didn't think they'd cover the spread. That makes it very tempting for me to predict that the Patsies will cover.
It's really not that hard of a game to handicap, though. Tom Brady, besides being just about as adorable as any football player i've ever seen, can also show flashes of greatness on the field when it counts. And don't forget that NE has Vinatieri and [Most Excellent] Bowl experience on their side.
So, i say Carolina won't roll over, but New England will pull it out by six. Therefore, take the Panthers and the 7 points, if you get the chance.
Posted by: annika at
12:29 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 210 words, total size 2 kb.
Supermarine Spitfire
You gotta see this video of a Supermarine Spitfire in flight. It's hilarious.
"Fuck me!" LOL.
Just watch it.
Thanks for the link Matt. It's best viewed on a high speed connection. But if, like me, you are on dial up, just click the link to save it (right click: select target as . . .), then after it's downloaded it should run in the Windows Media Player without all those annoying pauses.
Posted by: annika at
11:03 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 77 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Airplanes are so f-ing cool . . .
Posted by: Matt at February 01, 2004 11:52 AM (of2d1)
2
Holy crap! I would've ducked, too. Great video.
Posted by: zombyboy at February 01, 2004 09:44 PM (X7Bhq)
Posted by: Stephany J at November 06, 2004 08:48 PM (WgEFB)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
127kb generated in CPU 0.0386, elapsed 0.1029 seconds.
74 queries taking 0.0766 seconds, 306 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.