i'm into short blog entries today for some reason. Here's an analogy i thought up today:

Libertarians are to Republicans as Orange County is to Los Angeles.

Most people around the country think of Orange County as part of the Los Angeles area. Most people in Los Angeles think of Orange County as if it were part of Los Angeles. However, if you mention this to anyone from O.C., they'll insist adamantly that they're not from L.A., they don't like L.A., and they never go to L.A. unless it's absolutely unavoidable.

In the same way, Republicans like to think of Libertarians as kindred spirits. Non-Republicans also seem to lump the two together. But Libertarians usually get pissed if you call them conservative and they're often just as likely to rip Bush as any Democrat.

Posted by: annika at 04:50 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 138 words, total size 1 kb.

Rick alerts us to the dangers of too much Viagra.

Posted by: annika at 04:30 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 12 words, total size 1 kb.

i did my taxes last night at the very last minute, electronically. i have to give a ringing endorsement to the TurboTax online system, which is available through Yahoo! My taxes aren't overly complicated, but there were a few wrinkles last year, which made it impossible for me to file using the EZ form. Rather than strugle with the 1040, i just answered the very simple questions on TurboTax and it was a snap. Usually i have to race down to the main post office to mail my return before midnight, but this year i didn't even have to leave my desk. Add to that, the fact that i got a refund when last year i had to pay, and you can see why i'm a happy camper.

Posted by: annika at 04:07 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 134 words, total size 1 kb.

An essay about Diet Coke, by Sarah Hepola.

The first time I drank Diet Coke I was 10. It was summer in Kalamazoo, Michigan, and my older cousin worked at an arcade called Star World. In addition to the glories of 10-cent hotdog night, Star World offered employees free soda. I spent all summer amidst the the blinking lights and boinking machines of that place, sipping free Diet Cokes, which I drank instead of Coke because I wanted to lose weight, since I was in love with this tool named Andy, who ended up barfing all over himself in a bathroom one night at a party. After that, I was addicted to the stuff.

Posted by: annika at 03:55 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 143 words, total size 1 kb.

Courtesy Kevin's Wizbang and his fabulous Kerry Sloganator, here's my attempt:

Posted by: annika at 01:03 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 21 words, total size 1 kb.

It may be too early yet to gloat, but it's true. i heard about it on Larry Elder's show this afternoon and immediately tuned over to KBLA 1580 AM, where i heard a bunch of women praying in Spanish. Air America is definitely off the air in L.A. and Chicago. No telling when or if they'll be back.

After just two weeks of broadcasting, Air America Radio, the fledgling liberal talk-radio network featuring Al Franken and Janeane Garofalo, was pulled off the air Wednesday morning in Chicago and Los Angeles, the network's second- and third-largest markets, in a payment dispute that shows no sign of quick resolution.

Arthur Liu, owner of Multicultural Radio Broadcasting, which owns Air America affiliates WNTD-950 AM in Chicago and KBLA-1580 AM in Los Angeles, said Air America bounced a check and owes him more than $1 million. Air America and Multicultural had entered into a time brokerage agreement in which the network was essentially renting Multicultural's airtime, Liu said.

'They bounced a check today,' Liu said. 'It's a default. They have paid only a very small portion of what they owe us.' Liu declined to say how much Multicultural is owed, but did say he is holding $1 million in checks that Air America has asked the company not to cash.

Ooops, i wasn't going to gloat. Sorry.

Like any good liberal, Air America's executive vice president (a lawyer, no surprise) immediately filed a lawsuit.

Air America filed a complaint Wednesday in New York state Supreme Court charging Multicultural with breaching their contract and seeking an injunction forcing Air America back on the Chicago station. An Air America source said a separate lawsuit over the Los Angeles station is forthcoming.

. . .

According to Air America's suit, a Multicultural representative showed up at WNTD's offices Wednesday morning, kicked out Air America's lone staffer overseeing the network's feed to the station from New York and changed the locks on the doors.

Update: Ryan at soundfury has some good background. Link via Instapundit, who of course had a post about this hours ago.

Posted by: annika at 06:30 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 399 words, total size 3 kb.

i'm flattered to learn that i am now considered one of "the usual suspects."

Posted by: annika at 03:13 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 22 words, total size 1 kb.

i made these, but they sure would look good on your sidebar, i think.

(If you do take one, please copy it and load it on your own server so Pixy doesn't get mad at me for using up his bandwidth. Also, a link back here would be appreciated, but not required.)

Posted by: annika at 02:57 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 60 words, total size 1 kb.

i thought tonight might be an appropriate night to re-post my one and only baseball related sonnet:

More: The very prolific Scorebard says it in haiku.

Posted by: annika at 09:41 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 153 words, total size 1 kb.

i was so happy to see Phil Mickelson finally win a major, and in such an exciting way last Sunday. His family had a tough time last year, but he never whined about it or used it as an excuse for not winning. He seems like a really great guy.

And his favorite dish happens to be lobster ravioli. i love lobster ravioli, too. i had a great one in San Francisco last weekend. Here's a recipe i googled, from Emeril. i may give it a try someday when i'm feeling ambitious. With lobster meat, not live lobster, of course. i'm too squeamish to kill the poor things myself.

Posted by: annika at 07:24 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 115 words, total size 1 kb.

i'm listening to Attorney General Ashcroft's testimony as i type this. It's clear to me, after his opening statement, exactly why people hate and fear him so much. He's very good. The AG landed a number of effective shots in his statement, and i can't wait to hear how the opposition tries to deflect them. It's also clear that Dick Clark and Dr. Rice were the undercard and Ashcroft's is the heavyweight title match. i was that impressed.

Gotta go, Ben Vineste is on now, yakking about the PDB again.

. . .

WTF? Ben is asking about Ashcroft using a chartered jet? Slimeball. Why doesn't he ask if Ashcroft was the one who warned all the jews to stay out of the WTC on 9/11? Why doesn't he ask who planted the bomb in the Pentagon and made it look like a plane crash? Aaack!

. . .

Now the idiot commenter at NPR cuts in to assure his audience that they will "have a look at" Ascrofts answer to the sleazy chartered jet question after his testimony is over. Whaaat? Why the hell don't they "have a look at" Ashcroft's more serious and relevant accusations about Clinton's and Reno's eight year incompetence spree? Aaaack!

. . .

Why do the commisioners keep calling him General? He's not a general, he's an attorney general. The word "general" modifies the noun "attorney."

. . .

i'm unable to listen that closely because i am annoyingly distracted by the need to create a false impression of diligence in completing my job tasks.

. . .

It's now over, i didn't notice any effective counter-punches by the commisioners. Now the spinning begins.

Posted by: annika at 01:34 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 288 words, total size 2 kb.

1 I forgot that Ashcroft was testifying today. I've got to listen to it.

Posted by: La Shawn Barber at April 13, 2004 03:04 PM (tW8zw)

2 Annika, Go to Instapundit for what appears to be a conflict of interest involving one of the commission members--Jamie Gorelick, former deputy attorney general. This is the kind of shit--Gorelick's--is what will distract us from what's important--winning the terrorism war now. The Monday morning quarterbacking/after the fact analysis is an exercise in politicizing 9/11. Watch for further spin. And watch for dizzy spells.

Posted by: joe at April 13, 2004 03:53 PM (dprmZ)

3 "the need to create a false impression of diligence in completing my job tasks." When I've got a post to finish or a great article to read, well over the past 18 months of bloggin I've gotten pretty good at creating that false impression

Posted by: Scof at April 13, 2004 04:27 PM (XCqS+)

4 People very frequently address Attorneys General (both state and federal) as "General." It's one of my pet peeves, but such longstanding usage isn't going to change.

Posted by: Dave J at April 13, 2004 04:43 PM (VThvo)

5 Annika, the bombshell was that after a long build up about the "wall' that was built between criminal and terrorist investigations (to "preserve" testimony for prosecutions), the Clinton folks overdid it with memos that totally handcuffed terrorism investigators from getting info on real potential terrorism plots. Gorelick was mouthing denials to her fellow Commissioners, then, in a moment of high drama, Ashcroft stated that he had declassified the Memo and released it on the spot. Needless to say, Gorelick was both the author and her initials appeared on the document. There is now a building pressure for her to resign and testify to the Commission. The Memo cause Ben-Veniste to change course and ask Ashcroft about his refusing to fly regular commercial flights, to which Ashcroft replied that both he and his wife always fly regular commercial flights. Goelick was trying to get under the table, reminiscent of Teddy Kennedy during the Impeachment Hearings when Arlen Spector asked him "If the Senator from Massachusetts wishes to engage...?"

Posted by: shelly s. at April 17, 2004 05:57 AM (AaBEz)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

The troll comment i got this morning reminded me about something i've been thinking about since my visit to the State Capitol last weekend. It's an example to illustrate one difference between people on the left and people on the right.

i know i'm gonna be generalizing here, so save your breath. i'm aware that the majority of people on the left are not freakazoids who need to be locked up. There's some very decent and thoughtful lefties on my own blogroll, for instance. i also know there's some real whack-jobs on the right too, and in fact some of them actually have been locked up. (Right wing crazies tend to stay in jail though, instead of being offered tenure.)

Anyways, here's my observation. The great state of California has had thirty-eight governors in its history. Many are unknown. Some, however, are perhaps more famous:

• Hiram Johnson (the great reformer, who gave us the recall election);


• Leland Stanford (who gave us Stanford University, boooo);


• Earl Warren (later Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, disliked by liberals as well as conservatives);


• Ronald Reagan;


• Jerry Brown (Known as "governor moonbeam," he once dated Linda Rondstadt, wouldn't dare to swat a medfly, and appointed his former chauffer as Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court.* He's now the mayor of Oakland.


• Jerry's father Pat Brown (who gave us our freeways);


• Pete Wilson;


• Gray Davis;


• and of course, Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Can you guess which one?

No, it's not left leaning Jerry Brown's.

No, it's not that great judicial activist, Earl Warren's.

That's right, it's Ronald Reagan's.

Can you guess why his portrait, out of all thirty-eight governors, has to be protected by a layer of plexiglass? No, it's not UV light. Notice that Reagan's is hanging next to three other non-plexiglassed portaits.

The reason is that some asshole slashed Reagan's picture a few years ago. A left-wing-hater-nut-case. Some liberal fuck, with a head so filled with bitterness and so empty of common sense, that he or she thought vandalizing the portrait of one of our greatest presidents might be a good way to "raise people's consciousness."

Well, one might ask, if one of the governors' portraits was slashed why don't they encase all of them in plexiglass? Why not protect Jerry Brown's ugly abstract, or Earl Warren's distinguished visage on the second floor landing? Surely they're at risk of being slashed too?

No, you see only a conservative icon like Ronald Reagan can inspire such hatred and vitriol. Because he was, and still is, so loved, his portrait remains a target for the haters. And unfortunately, there seem to be a large number of lefties who have no problem being violent and destructive when they want to send their little hate messages. Conservatives might dislike Jerry Brown (especially conservatives living in Oakland these days), but they're not going to slash his picture.

Lefties like the one who vandalized Reagan's portrait, and the one who blew up all those SUV's in L.A. last year, and the professor who vandalized her own car, and the ones who screamed in my face as i walked to class during last year's anti-war demonstrations, and the ones who carry signs saying New York looks better without the World Trade Center, and the ones who smash the windows of Starbucks Coffee because it's a successful business, and the one's who go around saying that the terrorists in Iraq should kill more Americans, etc. etc.

Those are the ones you have to watch out for. Yah, maybe just as much as the far right wackos. They're both liable to blow something up, but only the left wing crazies will have the ACLU and the newspaper op-ed pages on their side after they get caught.

So when an idiot like this morning's troll says that he thinks conservatives should be "exterminated like vermin" and "need to be snuffed out of existence," how am i supposed to take that? Is it rhetorical hyperbole, or is the guy a real nutjob who needs to be monitored closely?

My point is this: in the cultural war that's been going on in this country for the last forty years, one side always seems to be more violent than the other, if not in deed then in rhetoric. i'm sure there's some psychological or sociological reason for that phenomenon, but i have no clue what it might be, nor at this point do i give a shit. i just think it's worth noting.

* In 1986, the late Justice Rose Bird became the first California Chief Justice to be voted out of office for being too liberal. Sounds familiar?

Update: Thanks to Blake for pointing out this example reported by Drudge, which further butresses my argument:

Campaign 2004 turns extreme in Florida with the placement of a newspaper ad calling for physical retribution against Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld!

"We should put this S.O.B. up against a wall and say 'This is one of our bad days,' and pull the trigger," the ad reads.

Posted by: annika at 06:04 PM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 974 words, total size 8 kb.

1 It may well be because they are cut from the same cloth as the Lenins and Stalins and Maos and Hitlers and Mussolinis of the world--political descendents of Jean Jacques Rosseau, who once wrote: "... every malefactor, by attacking social rights, becomes on forfeit a rebel and a traitor to his country; by violating its laws he ceases to be a member of it; he even makes war upon it. In such a case the preservation of the State is inconsistent with his own, and one or the other must perish; in putting the guilty to death, we slay not so much the citizen as an enemy." The "social rights" referred to here are the "rights" of the collective, not individual rights. In other words, those of us who stand astride the path of the relentless march of creeping socialism, who insist on the preservation of individual rights against their violation by an increasingly intrusive state, have made ourselves enemies of the state, and deserving of death. Rousseau is their founding father. Is it any surprise that his children espouse the same?

Posted by: Desert Cat at April 12, 2004 09:12 PM (c8BHE)

2 Regarding conservatives in Oakland, I don't think many dislike Jerry Brown. The far right (if they exist) and the far left probably dislike him equally, he is pro-business, pro-growth, tough on crime and high-profile. Generally I think people feel fairly lucky to have an ex-governor as a mayor and some (slow) progress is being made although his hands are tied in lots of ways.

Posted by: d-rod at April 12, 2004 09:27 PM (YKu7i)

3 Great post. So true.

Posted by: ginger at April 13, 2004 05:15 AM (eYQ9U)

4 D-Rod, check the crime statistics for Oakland, and see it they began to spike upward around the time of Jerry's first term. i believe they do. i'm not saying there's any correlation. (Okay, maybe i am.)

Posted by: annika at April 13, 2004 09:14 AM (zAOEU)

5 Great timing on this, Annika! Check out the headline on Drudge for another example to back up your observation.

Posted by: Blake at April 13, 2004 09:40 AM (AKSiu)

6 Annie, you're probably right that the overall crime rate went up early on. Murder rates went up - then down a lot, then back up (a lot). It would be interesting to chart that against some other variables. Didn't seem like the city sponsored "anti-war seminar" last year with Robert Sheer and various anti-Israeli speakers had much effect in educating the public about "peace".

Posted by: d-rod at April 13, 2004 10:18 AM (CSRmO)

7 I wish someone would put all Reich Whing scum-sucking vermin against walls and pull the trigger - repeatedly! All Reich Whing, bottom feeding, Hate Mongering, lowlifes should be squashed. Here are TRUE AMERICAN HEROES! http://users.lmi.net/zombie/sf_rally_april_10_2004/signs/

Posted by: Robert McClelland at April 13, 2004 10:48 AM (WwSqc)

8 Speaking of "bottom feeding hate mongers", McClelland, you're making a parody of yourself.

Posted by: Desert Cat at April 13, 2004 11:56 AM (sGeYL)

9 As a 6th generation Californian (on mom's side; Dad is from Austria, like Arnold), I share your appreciation for California history. I am sorry that Reagan's portrait requires protection; as a man of the left, I have no truck with those who attack symbols, unless they are Byzantine iconoclasts. But you know full well the right is capable of tough tactics. Think the violent halting of the recount in Miami in 2000. Forgot it? Go here: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/nov2000/riot-n29.shtml And/or here: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,89450,00.html Just one example of the fact that bad behavior is found among those who hold a variety of ideological views. Something that any student of history already, surely, knows, but something that we all conveniently ignore when we are structuring our arguments!

Posted by: Hugo at April 13, 2004 12:48 PM (LNc8S)

10 Robert McClelland, I'm not necessarily a right winger or conservative, but odds are you'd find my views more disturbing. In any case you'd probably lump me in with the right wingers because of a few shared views. So with that being said... Your shit talking is childish & impractical. First of all I doubt you have the intestinal fortitude to follow through with the actions you claim you desire. So instead you'll hope to inspire others with an actual backbone to do what you would have done. But your lack of courage aside, how exactly are you gonna crush people like me? How are you gonna place me up against a wall? Do you honestly think I'll just come along quietly because the arguments you use are so compelling? Think I'll submit myself to you & your mob for the good of the state? See you seem to forget that while people on the left/socialist side of the political spectrum tend to dislike firearms & push for prohibitions on them, people such as myself & a good portion of right wingers as you'd classify them tend to support not only the possession of firearms but practice with them. So in short if you or anyone else attempted to bust in my door or otherwise tried to place me up against a wall you'd discover a whole new connotation to the phrase "disproportionate force". It always cracks me up when the side of the political spectrum that usually preaches the need for gun control turns around & starts calling for violent retaliation against those with dissimilar views. Perhaps that's why gun control is such a priority for leftist/socialists - it's so hard to impress your view on people by force when those people are better armed & more proficient with said arms than you are. But please think about what you're saying. I know you're just talking shit & even if you had the means you'd lack the balls to follow through with it, but could you at least make your threats a bit more credible? BTW, with all your comparisons of the right wingers to that much reviled national socialist party of late, did you ever recall that it was the Nazi's (& the communists)who disarmed people & executed them for their political views? In essence your comparison is lacking & you make that more obvious (in addition to showing your hypocrisy) by advocating the same methods the Nazi's (& communists) used to stiffle & crush dissent. But should you ever feel the urge to start following through on your threats, feel free to make me the first one you attempt this on. I'm sure everything will get sorted out right then.

Posted by: Publicola at April 13, 2004 01:09 PM (Aao25)

11 Annika, Glad to help and thanks for the mention on your blog. Hugo, True, there is a lot of stupidity on both sides (especially with the heated 2000 election) but ask yourself something. Why is it that large protests are always from leftist groups and why do so many of them turn violent (anti-war protests, anti-globalization protests, etc.)? Do a little research and let me know how many "conservative" protests turn violent and compare the number to the leftist side. I'd bet anything the contrast is enormous. Annika's argument happens to be one of the reasons I moved from left to right about eight years ago. In fact, Annika, I think another good argument to make about the differences is the concept of trade-offs. Rather than go into it in detail, I'll just ask you if understand what I mean by this?

Posted by: Blake at April 13, 2004 01:26 PM (AKSiu)

12 Publicola, Since McClelland linked to the SF "remember Falluja" demonstration, he probably suscribes advocating domestic acts of terrorism similar to one of the speakkkers: "It's about time that we have an intifada in this country that change fundamentally the political dynamics in here. And we know every-- They're gonna say some Palestinian being too radical -- well, you haven't seen radicalism yet!" They aren't talking about targeting people who can defend themselves with guns. Some of these little bomb brats think taking out grandma and the kids would do just fine.

Posted by: d-rod at April 13, 2004 01:35 PM (CSRmO)

13 Blake, i don't.

Posted by: annika! at April 13, 2004 03:37 PM (zAOEU)

14 Well written Publicola! And should he manage to get past you, which I HIGHLY doubt, you will have a long list of people to help you out.

Posted by: budly at April 14, 2004 12:44 PM (6/1Z7)

15 Don't mess with Publicola or his good friend Garand!

Posted by: annika! at April 14, 2004 02:45 PM (zAOEU)

16 D-Rod, check the crime statistics for Oakland Okay sweetie, I did my homework assignment, not by googling but by talking to "sources close to the Man". First, he asked me if I wanted the "political" answer - I responded that I'd rather just hear the truth... So in general according to him then, dividing crime stats into violent vs. non-violent (the definitions of which may be questionable), the former has gone down while non-violent (theft,etc.)has gone up. He also said that when looking at a map, there is an "extremely high" correlation between where parolees are "located" and the areas where most crimes occur. I doubt that is the official "political" position one might hear about in the news. Can I have a gold star now?

Posted by: d-rod at April 15, 2004 09:54 AM (CSRmO)

17 Very intresting post. Amazing how liberal simpletons continually pine for differences and respect for "diversity" but get rather violent if (!)you DIAGREE with them on anything.

Posted by: Mark at April 16, 2004 05:26 PM (Vg0tt)

18 Just wanted to point out that Leland Stanford also drove in the golden spike that was the final bit of the connection of the trans-continental railroad. Other than that, I pretty much agree with you. Nothing like a far left wing fascist that thinks that everyone that does not agree with them is evil. That's a pretty fascit concept to me.

Posted by: Ben Skott at June 10, 2004 11:25 AM (ogcAP)

19 There are some nutcase left-wingers out there, but most of the anti-business people aren't left-wingers; they're anarchists. They get associated with the left because they have socialist economic leanings, but they are actually in favor of totalitarian governmental functions (though they really don't understand that.) Now they might be Leftists...But that is a different discussion entirely...

Posted by: flaime at June 10, 2004 03:18 PM (uKXhE)

20 A correction to the above: They are self-described anarchists.

Posted by: flaime at June 11, 2004 12:37 PM (Bax1+)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Where are all those assholes who, just a few months ago, were complaining that Halliburton was paying its employees too much for working in Iraq? Was Thomas Hamill getting paid too much?

Posted by: annika at 11:56 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 34 words, total size 1 kb.