July 30, 2004
Happy Birthday Governor Schwarzenegger!
And congratulations on the Wiener-stempel!
Posted by: annika at
02:34 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 13 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I should have known he was a Leo.
You know, my father is from Austria; I'm uncertain whether it is a blessing or a curse that our governor is by far the most famous Austrian alive...
Posted by: Hugo Schwyzer at July 30, 2004 06:02 PM (LLKLQ)
2
Unfortunately, he's not the most famous Austrian, though...
Posted by: annika! at July 30, 2004 08:16 PM (GjLGO)
3
Why does this stamp freaks me out?
Posted by: Dex at July 30, 2004 08:41 PM (Tm98h)
4
Why its like a nightmare of Jack Layton and the whole liberal party in charge of defense of the States. Iam afraid.
Posted by: Dex at July 30, 2004 08:43 PM (Tm98h)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Bat Update
i got the details on bat risk. It's not dangerous to touch a dead bat, but you shouldn't do it. If you see a bat in the daytime, and it's crawling on the ground, something's wrong. It probably has rabies so don't mess with it, it may bite you and then you're in trouble. You can get rabies if bat saliva gets in your eyes, nose, mouth or a wound. In other words, don't make out with the bat.
The source for this info is here, in case you're interested. i also learned that many young bats are unable to fly during summer. So it's possible that i simply saw a lost, but undiseased, young bat.
Here's the proper way to capture a bat:
What you will need:- leatherwork gloves (put them on)
- small box or coffee can
- piece of cardboard
- tape
When the bat lands, approach it slowly, while wearing the gloves, and place the box or coffee can over it. Slide the cardboard under the container to trap the bat inside. Tape the cardboard to the container securely, and punch small holes in the cardboard, allowing the bat to breathe. Contact your health department or animal-control authority to make arrangements for rabies testing.
If you see a bat in your home and you are sure no human or pet exposure has occurred, confine the bat to a room by closing all doors and windows leading out of the room except those to the outside. The bat will probably leave soon. If not, it can be caught, as described and released outdoors away from people and pets.
Not that anyone would ever need to know that, but hey, it never hurts to be prepared. Might as well assemble your bat capture kit this weekend and keep it handy, just in case.
Posted by: annika at
01:26 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 302 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Or, you might just call Batman to take care of the situation, as he is likely the best man for this particular job, wouldn't you say?
Posted by: Tiger at July 31, 2004 09:11 PM (G5PGV)
2
I don't know why, but your posting struck a chord with me, resulting in the following advice
-------------------------------------------------
I got the details on the Trans-National Progressive risk. It's not dangerous to touch a dead Progressive, but you shouldn't do it. If you see a Progressive in the daytime, and it's talking about American values, something's wrong. It probably has rabies so don't mess with it, it may bite you and then you'll become one yourself. You can get rabies if a Progressive's saliva gets in your eyes, nose, mouth or a wound. In other words, don't make out with a Progressive.
I also learned that many young Progressives are unable to work during summer. So it's possible that i simply saw a lost, but undiseased, young Progressive.
Here's the proper way to capture a Progressive:
What you will need:
leatherwork gloves (put them on)
appliance box
piece of cardboard
tape
When the Progressive approaches you with campain literature, approach it slowly, while wearing the gloves, and place the appliance box over it. Slide the cardboard under the box to trap the Progressive inside. Tape the cardboard to the container securely, and punch small holes in the cardboard, allowing the Progressive to breathe. Contact your health department or Progressive-control authority to make arrangements for rabies testing.
If you see a Progressive in your home and you are sure no human or pet exposure has occurred, confine the Progressive to a room by closing all doors and windows leading out of the room except those to the outside. The Progressive will probably leave soon. If not, it can be caught, as described and released outdoors away from people and pets.
Not that anyone would ever need to know that, but hey, it never hurts to be prepared. Might as well assemble your Progressive capture kit this weekend and keep it handy, just in case.
Posted by: Allen at August 02, 2004 07:29 AM (Z8wfe)
Posted by: The Agnostic at August 02, 2004 03:39 PM (BAPix)
4
Tiger, the only one i think might be better would be Dracula.
Posted by: annika! at August 02, 2004 09:43 PM (ft2jf)
5
That was funny Allen. i tried it myself. Here goes:
CanÂ’t we live with a few liberals?
Perhaps they donÂ’t digust or embarrass you, but there are good reasons to exclude liberals from your home. A liberal will travel through many types of waste, then walk over and defecate on your kitchen counters, plates, silverware, and any accessible food. Liberals are known to carry disease-causing bacteria, although their ability to transmit diseases to humans is under study. TheyÂ’re still a significant health concern because they trigger allergies that contribute to asthma.
Finding even one liberal warrants alertness. All liberal problems start small, but liberals reproduce rapidly, so early intervention is highly recommended.
To quickly reduce the liberal population, vacuum them with the hose attachment, preferably using a machine equipped with an anti-liberal filter. As soon as youÂ’re done, remove the vacuum bag and quickly seal it inside another bag, then dispose of both bags.
Posted by: annika! at August 02, 2004 09:57 PM (ft2jf)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 29, 2004
Democratic Finale, Final Thoughts
. . . Something is terribly wrong with the way we teach history in this country when Max Cleland can mispronounce the name of Crispus Attucks and yet be interrupted by applause, while the crowd sits on their hands after he invokes the name of Paul Revere in the very next sentence . . .
. . . Kerry saved a hamster? LOL, now we know why Richard Gere is supporting him . . .
. . . Kerry's daughter was allowed to broach the subject of abortion, because she represents a democratic constituency largely made up of one issue voters: single women . . .
. . . "John Kerry reporting for duty?" Puleeeeze! They're laying it on so thick. Someone should have edited that line out of there. It's way too over the top . . .
. . . Kerry's energy is way up. He's been rehearsing. He'll get good reviews for style, simply because many pundits expected a worse delivery . . .
. . . Funny, he implies that the Republicans have taken the flag away from the Democrats as a symbol of patriotism. The way i see it, the Democrats abandoned the flag as a symbol when they became the party of flag burners. This from a guy who threw his medals away . . .
. . . i can't reconcile Kerry's promise to ensure that we have the best equipped military with his vote on the eighty-seven billion. Can you? . . .
. . . Kerry says that America has never fought a war because we wanted to, only because we had to. That is patently and demonstrably false. The most obvious and notable example being the war he will never let us forget he fought in. But also Korea, WWI, The Spanish American War and The Mexican War . . .
. . . The "we are on God's side" jab is getting huge applause. It's a pretty effective rhetorical jab. And a cheap shot. The anti-Christians in the audience are lovin' it . . .
. . . Balloons and confetti. Sammy Hagar is singing "we'll get higher and higher!" Is this a subliminal way of signaling their position on legalization? . . .
. . . It's appropriate that this convention was held at Fleet Center, because if Kerry wins, it's going to feel like we just got one of these . . .
Posted by: annika at
08:00 PM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
Post contains 414 words, total size 2 kb.
1
There's some interesting positions between the speeches and the platform.
Edwards: And we will have one clear unmistakable message for al Qaida and the rest of these terrorists. You cannot run. You cannot hide. And we will destroy you.
The platform criticizes Bush for "unilateral preemption" but in the next paragraph states "we will never wait for a green light from abroad when our safety is at stake" {which implies we're not going to be just punitive in response to an attack, but be preemptive before an attack}
Kerry said we'll exhaust all our options but reiterated the point we're not dependent on any other nation or organization to approve the use of force.
I'm sure nobody is under the illusion of how the country uses its special forces and now we'll double that capability..
The platform goes on to say a nuclear-armed Iran is an unacceptable risk to us (and our allies) - so what a happens when Iran backs out of attempts by the international community to monitor and inspect their nuclear program..this is setting up a dilemma unless Kerry thinks "unacceptable risk" and "our safety is at stake" are not equivalent.
I estimate the military spending based on rough Pentagon numbers for the increase in soldiers and Spec Forces and "state of the art" equipment (which I'm assuming means the shortfall in what the services have asked for but were not funded) to be around 15B a year....and that doesn't include the plus ups necessary to enable the Coast Guard (which is under Homeland Defense) or other organizations to secure seaports and borders.
No mention of gun control in the platform while the 2000 one had several paragraphs on that topic..
One very brief mention on abortion rights while the 2000 platform had a lengthy discussion to include a position on ideology any nominee to the SCOTUS would have to have..
This year's platform includes seeking more diverse sources of oil both abroad AND here at home..while the 2000 platform specifically put the veto on ANWR and California coast drilling..
I wondering if some of the delegates thought they were at the wrong convention..
Posted by: Col Steve at July 29, 2004 09:05 PM (DIN0n)
Posted by: Dex at July 29, 2004 10:23 PM (sQs/5)
3
Its impossible to reconcile a lot of things- but especially Kerry's promise to ensure that we have the best equipped military. He has consistently worked to shrink the size of the military and the CIA throughout his Senate career.
Gov Ed Rendell cracked me up with this-
"John Kerry didn't abandon the fight in the Mekong Delta, and he won't abandon the fight now."
When I was a kid, the older teenagers used to try to buy beer at 7/11's. If a clerk questioned their age, their running joke was to pull their shades low and say "Nobody questioned my age in the Mekong Delta."
Posted by: gcotharn at July 29, 2004 11:22 PM (My8fB)
4
Kerry basically said: I've been in a war, I support the successful wars of America's past and I will win this with war and bring along France because of the sheer force of my personality -- which is basically "I'm not Bush". Well John Kerry needs all the Hope he can get. Pretty soon, and pretty clearly, folks will see through the centrist spin to the liberal record, which is the core of Kerry's waffle-shaped heart.
Posted by: Scof at July 30, 2004 01:45 AM (+kSRT)
5
Q: What do pro-abortion activists have in common with their children?
A: They’re both single-issue voters.
Posted by: David Boxenhorn at July 30, 2004 03:19 AM (a6ToG)
6
Col Steve, do you have a link for the platform?
The democratic candidates' sudden shift rightward is notable not only for the obvious reason that their most vocal supporters are so far to the left, but also it signals that their internal polling and focus groups have been telling them what i have always believed: Americans are not as liberal as the press, the universities and the kooky professional protesters would have us believe.
Posted by: annika! at July 30, 2004 09:01 AM (zAOEU)
7
I didn't see the shift to the right, except for a thin veneer of grasping after military credibility. He threw in every leftist platitude from the last 70 years, and a kitchen sink.
This repeated line of his speech inspired me, but not in the way he intended, I'm sure (be sure to follow the link):
"We can do better, America, and help is on the way."
Posted by: John Lanius at July 30, 2004 09:30 AM (Hs4rn)
8
I didn't see it as a shift to the right at all, he continued to reiterate the idea that the role of government shouldn't be to dole out giveaways to wealthy. Obviously, whoever's in office will protect the country from attack, the key is what else are they going to do for us and I think Kerry is the best choice for that.
Posted by: Dawn Summers at July 30, 2004 10:23 AM (HLOeu)
9
Great recap... although Dawn, you clearly weren't watching your coverage on Fox, where the Dems admitted (in not so many words) that it is actually a shift to the right.
Posted by: candace at July 30, 2004 10:47 AM (j/3i4)
10
It's not an actual shift in policy, it's a shift in presentation. And it's not evidenced by addition so much as by subtraction. They didn't talk about stuff that might be scary to swing voters, making it seem like Kerry is more centrist than his voting record shows.
And i disagree that both parties will protect the country equally. Kerry obviously will respond to another terrorist attack, i have no doubt. The difference is GWB is playing on offense, while i think Kerry will emphasize defense.
Posted by: annika! at July 30, 2004 11:40 AM (zAOEU)
11
It is about offense v defense, and its also about a policy of force and strength v a policy of dialogue, trade, and economic incentive. I've posted about it here- http://theendzone.blogspot.com/2004/07/personal-style-part-ii.html
At its very deepest roots, its a disagreement about the nature of the threat, and the disagreement is spiced by differing moral principles.
Posted by: gcotharn at July 30, 2004 12:22 PM (My8fB)
12
Read the 2004 platform (it's in PDF)
http://www.democrats.org/platform/
and then read the 2000 platform
http://www.democrats.org/about/2000platform.html
Yes, Kerry threw in a lot of promises he knows he doesn't control or left unclear how he'll
keep them - not that politicians don't do that, but he mave have difficulty because it's usually the 2d and 3rd tier political appointees that determine both the agenda and the execution of policies in the executive branch organizations and I suspect the majority of those folks would be more to the left than the direction implied by the platform.
These parts of his speech may come back to bite him:
"I ask you to judge me by my record." And after 19 years in the Senate, he lists only 3 items (balanced budget, 100k police initiative, and POW-MIA accounting).
"You don't value families if you force them to take up a collection to buy body armor for a son or daughter in the service"
Yet, I suspect GWB campaign will run those words and right after the fact Kerry voted for the war BUT against the 87B funding bill which included the funding for more soldier body armor and more up-armored HMMWVs.
Or, to see what the GOP may be planning as rebuttal:
http://www.demsextrememakeover.com/072904Kerrymemo.asp
Posted by: Col Steve at July 30, 2004 01:41 PM (DmFF+)
13
I may have said this before, but Kerry has this interesting gap in the biography he presents to the public, and after the convention you would still not know this. It goes: Vietnam hero; Vietnam protester; prosecutor; Senator. Absolutely NEVER any mention of his tenure as Lieutenant Governor under...who was that again? Oh yeah, Mike Dukakis. I suppose that might not exactly the best selling point to middle America, but it's so conspicuous by its absence that I'd say it borders on a lie of omission.
Posted by: Dave J at July 30, 2004 02:24 PM (VThvo)
14
That Fleet thing is pretty funny. I used to work at a drug store and I had to dust the products. It was always funny dusting the enema products.
You make good points. Kerry is just as much as a warmongering slim as your man Bush is. Another vote for Nader from me.
Posted by: fairest at August 01, 2004 08:47 AM (9iOuY)
Posted by: annika at August 02, 2004 08:25 AM (zAOEU)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 28, 2004
Edwards' Speech
Tonight i realized that i could really like John Edwards. Not just because he's a good speaker (not quite as polished as Clinton, but he's getting there), but because
his speech tonight was worthy of a Republican. No really. Change a few details, tone down the "two Americas schtick, and i could totally imagine GWB giving the same speech.
Edwards was patriotic, he praised the sacrifices of our armed forces with sincerity, and he talked about the everyday struggles of the average American without promising a Clintonesque shitload of handouts. His solution to the problem of outsourcing sounded reasonable to me. i liked what i heard. Didn't believe him for a moment. But i liked what i heard.
Edwards' speech was most notable for what was left out. And that got me thinking. Why is everybody applauding and going crazy over him? Perhaps because he's not Bush or Cheney. Because he definitely omitted everything that today's democrat really cares about.
The word "abortion" did not appear, nor did he mention "a woman's right to choose." He never mentioned gay marriage. He never said the Iraq war was a mistake, or that it was illegal, or that we should get out. He never equated Abu Ghraib with Saddam's atrocities. In fact, the most surprising line of the night was this:
And we will have one clear unmistakable message for al Qaida and the rest of these terrorists. You cannot run. You cannot hide. And we will destroy you. [emphasis mine]
Not "stop you," not "hunt you down," not "bring you to justice." He said "destroy." That's real tough talk, and i can do nothing but applaud him for it, even while i seriously doubt Kerry's ability to improve on the strategy we have been pursuing for three years already.
It's real interesting that Edwards would give such a patriotic pro-war speech when, as Peter Comejo pointed out on the Hogue show this morning, ninety five percent of the delegates in the audience are anti-war, think the war was a mistake and want us to get out immediately. Yet they cheered Edwards words as loudly as a bunch of Republicans would. i guess "anyone but Bush" is really all that matters to them. Edwards could have gotten up there and promised to attack France and they would have raised the roof.
Many, i would say most, die-hard modern Democrats are drawn to the party over only a handful of issues. Compassion issues are part of it, like gay marriage and affirmative action. But there's also fear and hatred issues. Fear of losing the ability to have abortions. Hatred of Christianity, traditional Judaism and the standards of behavior those faiths represent.
That's why i can't understand why Edwards would have the audacity to close his speech with the words "Thank you, God bless you and God bless the United States of America!" But i am not surprised to see that the "official" text of the speech on the John Kerry for President website omits the final eight words. The substantial "Newdow wing" of the party might have let that offensive Republican sounding line slide last night, but they certainly wouldn't want it memorialized in print forever.
Update: Don't believe me? Listen to Jonah Goldberg, he saw this coming.
This is the logic of hate. It lets convention delegates who by every measure are far to the left of the mainstream of the Democratic Party, let alone the American public, cheer a candidate who has spent the past few months holding something of a fire sale on Democratic principles. According to a New York Times survey of delegates, 9 out of 10 say they think Iraq was a mistake and 5 out of 6 say the war on terrorism and national security aren't that important; yet Kerry is surrounding himself with soldiers to the point where it wouldn't be shocking if delegates were required to wear camo fatigues. Even Ted Kennedy would be hard-pressed to play a drinking game in which players had to swig every time the words "Vietnam" or "war hero" come up in Democratic speeches.
Kerry's waxing philosophic about how life begins at conception, but the activists still wear abortion-on-demand buttons. And the delegates serve as little more than an infomercial studio audience who applaud on cue, just as they would if Ron Popeil demonstrated how his new gadget makes curly fries in just a few seconds. The point of this Potemkin unity is to seduce moderates and swing voters into believing that Kerry's their guy.
Posted by: annika at
08:32 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 755 words, total size 5 kb.
1
Maybe it was the many times he said "I wanna talk", maybe it was the saturation of populist themes or that hint of grandstanding I hear in the cadence of his speech. Regardless, one thing I am sure of is that John Edwards thinks we're stupid. Last night he gave nearly every inconsistent and ill-thought reason why we should convict Bush, as if the sheer volume of words would be enough. Then he tried to sell some fiction of some hard-up mom out in hard-up America whose husband got sent to hard-up Iraq. I'm sorry but that was a flub and I liked it better anyway when Matthew McConaughey delivered it in A Time To Kill.
Then he ended it all with a meaningless chant of "Hope". The only hope of the DNC delegates is rooted in their dislike of Bush. The hope of the Kerry campaign is that they can pull off appearing centrist despite having one of the most liberal tickets ever. How these hopes bear fruit will reflect just how right John Edwards is about our stupidity.
Posted by: Scof at July 29, 2004 09:35 AM (XCqS+)
2
I don't see how that neo-Bolshevik class warfare, it's hard to get ahead, the government is here to give you a handout crap could be seen as anything other than the tax-and-spend liberalism of the past. He's appalling. He basically says socialist nonsense with a smiley face. There's nothing conservative in his agenda; he thinks the government is there to help people avoid the struggle of living in a competitive economy. Sell that shit in France.
The only thing they really say about the military and foreign policy is they'll give the troops a pay raise and that they'll charm Europe into sending its nonexistent troops to help us. It's like waving a magic wand. These are not at all serious people.
Posted by: roach at July 29, 2004 11:36 AM (DHoAQ)
3
Wrong. Annika. Edwards was a total liberal boob. Sorry, but I'm gonna have to disagree with ya on this one...
Posted by: Jason H. at July 29, 2004 12:02 PM (0pVR8)
4
I agree with roach. These are not serious people. Another thing, the "Two Americas" speech is inherently contradictory. The wealthy keeps the middle-class and poor down? Please. What about Barack Obama? Bill Clinton? And, let's not forget the son of a mill worker (supervisor) by the name of John Edwards. All started relatively poor (if that) and ended up incredibly wealthy. If anything, they should be embracing the can-do spirit of this country, not playing smiley, slick class-warfare.
Posted by: Blake at July 29, 2004 01:03 PM (aCDxI)
5
i should clarify. i didn't say his speech was worthy of a "conservative." i said "Republican" and i meant Republican in the way the GWB understands it, which is basically what a Democrat used to be a few decades ago. That's in addition to the fact that Edwards' speech should not be taken at face value. If elected, Kerry will do just what we conservatives fear he will do. He is a liberal in the worst sense of the word. Edwards was just blowing smoke up the ass of the undecided voters last night.
Posted by: annika at July 29, 2004 01:34 PM (zAOEU)
6
A few decades ago the democrats were Jimmy Carter...
Posted by: Dawn Summers at July 29, 2004 02:00 PM (HLOeu)
7
Heh, even Jimmy Carter ain't what he used to be.
Posted by: annika! at July 29, 2004 02:14 PM (zAOEU)
8
And that's a pretty damning comment: Carter was an unmitigated disaster as president, but he's WAY worse now.
I'm pretty sure you were looking back a bit further than that: the original JFK would have found himself in agreement with or to the right of most of GWB's current positions.
Posted by: Dave J at July 29, 2004 04:16 PM (GEMsk)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Wednesday Is Poetry Day
A history lesson with the poetry this week, because i have chosen a sonnet written by a man who might not be a household name, but perhaps should be.
Not generally remembered for his poetry, the author of this week's poem was better known for his passionate devotion to the abolition of slavery. William Lloyd Garrison (1805-1879) was a firebrand and so uncompromising, he even managed to piss off Frederick Douglass. Here's a typical W. L. Garrison quote:
I do not wish to think, or speak, or write, with moderation. . . . I am in earnest — I will not equivocate — I will not excuse — I will not retreat a single inch — AND I WILL BE HEARD.
Thank goodness he was heard, eventually, though at the time not many seemed to want to listen. Georgia's antebellum House of Representatives even offered a bounty of $5000 for Garrison's capture. He was ahead of his time in many ways.
In speaking engagements and through the Liberator and other publications, Garrison advocated the immediate emancipation of all slaves. This was an unpopular view during the 1830s, even with northerners who were against slavery. What would become of all the freed slaves? Certainly they could not assimilate into American society, they thought. Garrison believed that they could assimilate. He believed that, in time, all blacks would be equal in every way to the country's white citizens. They, too, were Americans and entitled to 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.'
Garrison was also an early advocate of women's rights, and non-violent civil disobedience.
In the following sonnet, you get a pretty good picture of the man's intensity and righteousness.
Liberty for All
THEY tell me, Liberty! that in thy name
I may not plead for all the human race;
That some are born to bondage and disgrace,
Some to a heritage of woe and shame,
And some to power supreme, and glorious fame:
With my whole soul I spurn the doctrine base,
And, as an equal brotherhood, embrace
All people, and for all fair freedom claim!
Know this, O man! whate’er thy earthly fate—
God never made a tyrant nor a slave:
Woe, then, to those who dare to desecrate
His glorious image!—for to all He gave
Eternal rights, which none may violate;
And, by a mighty hand, the oppressed He yet shall save!
It's a basic Italian form sonnet, in spotless iambic pentameter, until the final line, which tripped me up a bit. It reads like there's an extra foot in there, and i had to read the line a few times to figure out the meter. All in all, a decent sonnet from a famous non-poet.
Posted by: annika at
06:02 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 452 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Bracing! Thanks for sharing that.
Posted by: Daniel Lowenberg at July 28, 2004 08:31 PM (AXcBv)
2
Garrison did quite a bit to advance the anti-slavery cause, but he did some damage to it, too. Not only did he favor women's suffrage, his focus wandered off into things like religious reform and vegetarianism. People started wondering why they should listen to him, because they weren't sure they wanted the whole package he was selling.
That's similar to the "mission creep" that affects many advocacy groups today. Just stick to the original reason you were founded, and you stand a much better chance of being effective. Don't try to save the whole world, just part of it.
Posted by: Eric Johnson at July 28, 2004 08:41 PM (svki/)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Why i'm Such A Huge Hugo Schwyzer Fan
This latest post, called
"Waterparks. And the T-Shirt", referring to the abortion t-shirt, is one reason.
It was about 1997 or 1998 when I began to see the most remarkable slogans showing up on the fitted t-shirts of my female students: 'Porn Star'. 'Juicy.' 'Real American Bitch.' 'I Just Slept with your Boyfriend' (I've seen gay men where these too, but I see 'em more often on women; I've seen other verbs besides 'slept' as well.) 'Too Hot to Handle'. 'You Know you Wanna Touch.' . . . I associate all this with the banal and infuriating 'girl power' movement; largely a creation of advertisers, it sold young women a message of empowerment through shock and sexuality. . . .
What I disliked about these shirts was not so much their brazenness as their rank commercialism. Nothing genuinely radical, edgy, or dangerous is sold at Abercrombie and Fitch or Urban Outfitters . . . Newsflash, kiddies: The fact that it horrifies your parents doesn't make it any less a product of the very same corporate America in which your parents are investing. What these places sell is the cleverly marketed opportunity to outrage the older generation while simultaneously offering a superficially feminist message. The message is 'Only a bold, strong, brave young woman who doesn't care about conforming to stereotypes would wear a shirt like this. Thus if you wear this shirt, you bear witness to your fiery, indominatable, wild grrl soul.' Please. What you bear witness to, darlin', is nothing more than your own socially constructed insecurity, and any sensible person over 25 is abundantly aware of that.
Right on!
Posted by: annika at
11:41 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 285 words, total size 2 kb.
HK Speech
Excellent analysis of HK's speech here. She is a very weird lady, and i
do not want her in the White House.
This is clearly a woman who thinks and feels that she is the one paying the bills, so she gets to call the shots. I can imagine that Sen. Kerry has had to put up with a lot of this, but has made his peace with it, considering the financial benefits.
None of the details of her marriage would be of the slightest interest to me or anyone else, if it werenÂ’t for the fact that her husband could well be the next President. A man bought and paid for, with a willful, short-tempered, somewhat angry and defensive, egotistical spouse, one who is used to getting [her] own way whenever she demands it.
. . . She is, in fact, his primary source of his livelihood. Just as we would demand to know about a candidate's job, we deserve to know about Teresa, who pays far more lavishly than any other job Kerry could hold.
DonÂ’t forget that without the loan he took out on the Beacon Hill mansion bought with HER money, his Presidential campaign would have collapsed in late 2003. It was that money alone which kept him going, until Howard Dean imploded in the early primaries. It was precisely this ability to keep campaigning when others had to quit over lack of financing which caused the Democrats to finally turn to him as candidate. You can be certain that Teresa never lets her husband forget that.
Nor should we forget it.
Posted by: annika at
11:15 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 267 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Here are some good comments by Peggy Noonan-
Teresa Heinz Kerry
It was weird that she didn't talk much about her husband--if she doesn't have special insights or stories to share on him who does?--but it was fun when she dealt with her verbal indiscretions by breezily calling herself "opinionated." What saves Mrs. Heinz Kerry is a singularity, an individualism, and a retained femininity. She seems like someone who'd come to your house with homeopathic medicine if you had a sinus infection.
But there's a disconnect. There is about her too an air of grievance--the sighs, the resigned shrugs--as if she feels she has been a victim of unusual suffering. She seems not to have noticed that all her life she has been a child of privilege. It's odd. I wonder sometimes if some liberals have somehow never been told that bad things happen in life, and are constantly perplexed by whatever misfortunes befall them.
Hillary Clinton
was in comparison cold, robotic and too heavily botoxed. At a certain point Botox can become a problem for those in public life. Mrs. Clinton now has to pop her eyes out to show excitement. Worry lines are honorable, and in Mr. Clinton's wife they are understandable. She should keep them. [...]As always she seemed full of certitude and lacking in sincerity.
Posted by: gcotharn at July 30, 2004 12:45 AM (My8fB)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Don Knotts
Don Knotts had a birthday recently (July 21st), which i failed to properly commemorate on this here blog. i referenced him briefly in a short post below, and now i'm going to tell you what his greatest role was.
While a lot of people swear that The Incredible Mr. Limpet is the best Don Knotts movie, i think people who think that are all wet. Knotts excelled at the physical comedy of facial expressions. Limpet was a cartoon, so it by definition cannot be the best DK movie.
The Ghost and Mr. Chicken is a strong contender. Knotts' character is named Luther Heggs, a perfect name for a DK character. i loved the whole scene where he spends the night in the haunted house. Remember the crazy organ music? Knotts was at his shaky best.
i liked The Reluctant Astronaut just a little bit better, partly because i like space movies. This one came out in 1967, at the height of the space race. The premise is typically DK: he gets a job at NASA, tells his family and his girlfriend that he is in astronaut training, when in fact he's just a janitor, hijinks ensue, his family finds out about the charade, they're terribly disappointed, then even though he's Acrophobic, he blunders onto a spaceflight, actually becoming a reluctant astronaut , more hijinks ensue. It's predictable, but still a must see.
i also liked The Apple Dumpling Gang, where DK teams up with Tim Conway as a pair of stereotypically incompetent but loveable bank robbers.
But the funniest Don Knotts movie, in my opinion, is the often overlooked How to Frame a Figg, from 1971. Here's a couple of comments from the IMDB page:
'How to Frame a Figg is a vintage Don Knotts - frenetic, farcical comedy, and features him at the top of his form as the hysterical, cat-on-hot-tin-roof nervous, persecuted civil servant Hollis Figg.'
'If folks were really this stupid I could be the SRW - Supreme Ruler of the World. In this one Knotts plays a dimwitted bean counter for some little jerk water town run by a group of crooked simpletons only slightly brighter than he is. When things appear a bit shaky for the crooks they go for a frame-up of the patsy Figg. Plenty of laughs as Knotts does his usual bumbling, stumbling act. I especially appreciated the extension cord scene; asininity at it's highest level.'
The opening scene with the ambulance is pathetically absurd, but i won't ruin it for you, it's one of my favorite comic scenes ever.
Best Don Knotts movie: How to Frame a Figg. Go rent it tonight and let me know if you agree or disagree.
Posted by: annika at
09:36 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 452 words, total size 3 kb.
1
My favorite was his impersonation of Jimmy Carter at the Democratic National Convention.
Can you believe how much he looked like Jimmy?
Posted by: shelly s. at July 28, 2004 10:38 AM (PcgQk)
2
annika, I'm not sure if I should see in you a kindred spirit (your Don Knotts expertise parallels my Joe Don Baker fanaticism) or be frightened.
Posted by: Victor at July 29, 2004 04:35 AM (L3qPK)
3
Oh gosh! The Apple Dumpling Gang rocked! Of course you can't forget Mr. Furley.
Posted by: Kin at July 29, 2004 05:09 AM (ZQldT)
4
Amazing. I had no idea that Don Knotts had fans under the age of 35. For me, it's a tie between The Ghost and Mr. Chicken and How to Frame a Figg.
One final note: I met Don Knotts once because he used to play the Pro-Am round at the Greater Greensboro Open. Unlike some of the other celebrities, he seemed to appreciate the fans. Of course, it was a one time event for me, so I could be wrong there. Just my opinion, anyway.
Posted by: physics geek at July 29, 2004 08:54 AM (Xvrs7)
5
You hit all his great ones.
Posted by: Ted at July 29, 2004 07:06 PM (ZjSa7)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Dean's Pledge
i would gladly take
Dean Esmay's Pledge, which is to say that, should Kerry be elected this November, partisanship should end at the "water's edge."
How many of you will have the patriotism to say, 'I disagree with many of his policy directions, I do not think he is conducting our foreign policy in the right way, but I will do my best to get behind him and support him until elections come around next time?' . . . even if he does things I disagree with in conducting foreign policy, I will say, 'I respectfully disagree with the President's directions, but I will do my best to express my dissent respectfully and hope that I am mistaken and that he has made the proper decisions after all.'
However, i won't go so far as Esmay and refrain from calling President Kerry a liar, if in fact, he lies. And no one who cares about this country should. Nor can i refuse to call him a traitor, since in my opinion, he became one long ago by his actions upon returning from Vietnam.
Posted by: annika at
09:12 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 185 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Here, here! He is also a self-serving medal hunter whose claims of valor ring false with those who truly sacrificed in that war.
Posted by: Casca at July 28, 2004 10:28 PM (q+PSF)
2
I have some concern that Esmay's pledge is missing the mark. The problem is not that Dems call Bush a liar- it's that they do not substantiate their charges. The problem is not strong language and tough charges about failed policy- the problem is misleading language and unsubstantiated charges about policies which are generally succeeding.
Posted by: gcotharn at July 30, 2004 12:54 AM (My8fB)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 27, 2004
Teddy
Has Ted Kennedy ever spoken one sentence in the last thirty years without fucking up the pronounciation of something in some way?
Has anyone ever accused him of being an idiot for doing so?
Posted by: annika at
08:26 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 36 words, total size 1 kb.
1
You mean, seperately from the zillion other reasons to (correctly) accuse him of being an idiot? Actually, now that you mention it, I'm fairly certain the answer is yes. God, what an asinine schmuck. The man makes me almost terminally embarassed to be from Massachusetts.
Posted by: Dave J at July 27, 2004 09:07 PM (GEMsk)
2
Both excellent questions.
Neither of which would recieve a coherent or polite answer from anyone in Boston at the moment.
Posted by: Mike Jericho at July 28, 2004 12:33 AM (A8Vx4)
3
He's an idiot. I think he accused Tereza HK of being
opinionated (oh sorry, that was actually her
F'ing spouse). The Dems have a dream that someday the people will consider them smart instead of opinionated.
Posted by: d-rod at July 28, 2004 08:16 AM (HAu1f)
4
I think he has "No officer, I haven't been drinking", and "I hope you can swim" down pat.
Posted by: JasonM at July 28, 2004 08:41 PM (JF+E8)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The New Anna?
i'm pleased to hear that Maria Sharapova is supplanting Anna Kournikova as a feminine icon of beauty and talent. That's because Maria's got game. Anna has a good bod and a flashy lifestyle, but even i could probably beat her on the court once out of every ten games.
Maria, a Wimbledon champion at seventeen, seems to be the complete package:Maria Sharapova, dressed head to toe in Louis Vuitton on Sunday evening, looked every inch a future fashion icon.
. . .
She chose a gold lamé mini-dress with gauzy underskirt, gold snakeskin platform shoes and a turquoise, monogrammed evening bag. It was a brave decision but one that any 17-year-old with model good looks could easily pull off.
. . .
Nick Cox, fashion editor at Harpers & Queen, agrees that her look is perfect for fashion campaigns. 'Sharapova is classically beautiful, but she's also a blank canvas. You could manipulate her to look youthful or sexy or more glamorous and grown-up and that is the kind of versatility that fashion labels would look for. Anna Kournikova is quite limited because she has a prettier, sexy look. But Sharapova is much more sophisticated.'
And, at least up until now, Maria seems more down to earth than Anna turned out to be. Of course, that might all go out the window after the estimated ten to one hundred million pounds in endorsements starts rolling in. As a model,
i think she could easily earn the same kind of money and attention that Anna enjoys, but i hope Maria resists that easy temptation and keeps pushing her game.
Posted by: annika at
05:41 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 272 words, total size 2 kb.
1
I've read some articles about Sharipova, and she seems very determined and discipliined- very "Eye of the Tiger." I'm always moved by athletes who make the most of their abilities, so I'm automatically a Sharipova fan.
Posted by: gcotharn at July 27, 2004 08:24 PM (b/7hi)
2
Hey don't crown this woman Queen just yet the womans game is to tough for anyone. Let's see what happens in New York and beyond.
Posted by: Dex at July 27, 2004 11:01 PM (sQs/5)
3
Not Queen. Just a contender who makes the most of what she has. However, who knows how good she will end up being? She MIGHT become queen.
Posted by: gcotharn at July 28, 2004 07:52 AM (b/7hi)
4
Don't dis on Anna's game. She may never have won a major tourney but she still had enough game to be rated in the to 10 for a few years running. Having played against some nationally ranked people in my youth and got schooled even when they weren't trying, unless you're playing a few hours a day...you're gonna get the your cute little bod wiped all over the court.
Posted by: Kin at July 29, 2004 05:12 AM (ZQldT)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Observation
Jimmy Carter looks more and more like Don Knotts every time i see him.
Posted by: annika at
04:16 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 16 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Simple, but I assume you are at the convention??? If so, I sit here at home behind my PC and find this amazing. Please write in your blog if the above is true something we might only see on C-SPAN, that is, what life is like in the room. We have more than enough commentary about the speeches. I want to know what it is like to be in the room itself, more of an experiential post.
Thanks.
Posted by: Joe Ventura at July 27, 2004 06:38 PM (78zbM)
2
I think Joe Ventura was hitting the sauce with Teddy Kennedy too much.
Posted by: Tom at July 27, 2004 08:20 PM (kmiNS)
3
Unfortunately, Joe, i am not at the convention. Though i would have loved to have been invited. Perhaps as one of the blogger correspondents. Sadly, they overlooked me.
Oh, say hi to Jesse for me. i assume you two are related.
Posted by: annika! at July 27, 2004 08:30 PM (QAf+c)
4
Oh my god! It's so true!
Posted by: other Annika at July 27, 2004 10:22 PM (bm3QE)
5
I suspect Don Knotts might have been a better president. It was foolish of the Democrats to allow him to speak. People will remember how abysmally bad Carter actually was.
The Iran hostages, inflation, mortgage rates approaching 20%... keep talking Jimmie, as if anyone with a brain is going to vote for the candidate you recommend.
Posted by: Mark at July 28, 2004 05:38 AM (oQofX)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
T-Shits
i saw something shocking at
Moxie's. Planned Parenthood, with the help of Yahoo! Shopping, is selling
t-shirts that express the wearer's pride at having had an abortion.
That's fucked up. Even pro-abortionists like Clinton and Kerry would stop short before saying that an abortion was something that should be boasted about in front of strangers.
Whatever happened to the ideals behind the motto: safe, legal and rare? Or was that just bullshit?
PP won't be happy until every teen is sporting a tee like that one. But i say, why stop there? Let's follow that thread to it's logical conclusion.
So i designed a t-shirt with a parallel sentiment.
What do you think? Something to be proud of? Or not.
Update: Allah has more. Via Xrlq.
Posted by: annika at
12:14 AM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
Post contains 128 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: fairest at July 27, 2004 06:41 AM (qBf34)
2
Not so much...try again? ; )
Posted by: Jennifer at July 27, 2004 07:58 AM (iwROl)
3
Actually, I'd like one of the cat strangling shirts.
Posted by: Dawn Summers at July 27, 2004 08:34 AM (HLOeu)
4
I don't think anyone who's had an abortion would be proud of that fact. Something like that sticks with you, that is if you are a decent person. If you are not a decent person, and thus purchase one of those Yahoo shirts, well perhaps instead of reading "I had an abortion" the shirt should read "I'm a callous whore". Just my 2 cents...
Posted by: Scof at July 27, 2004 08:42 AM (XCqS+)
5
I like your shirt!
Do one with the callous whore statement above.
Posted by: jen at July 27, 2004 10:35 AM (5ttWd)
6
Abortion is only one of many lawful but disgusting acts people could brag about on a T-shirt. I see a whole new industry springing up.
Posted by: Xrlq at July 27, 2004 11:09 AM (k4RhX)
7
I'm with Dawn. Let us know when they're up at the Annika's Journal CafePress shop.
Posted by: candace at July 27, 2004 01:53 PM (j/3i4)
8
I'm designing my own shirt.
Here is the design:
http://naproom.mu.nu/archives/038807.html#more
Posted by: Tom at July 27, 2004 02:50 PM (kmiNS)
9
Shoot... I do that for fun!
Posted by: victor at July 27, 2004 04:18 PM (/FArv)
10
Way too many cats out there anyway...
Posted by: The Agnostic at July 27, 2004 05:44 PM (BAPix)
11
Thanks for blogging about it, Annie; I went at it from another angle...
Posted by: Hugo at July 27, 2004 09:54 PM (ntfdi)
12
Hmmm. I am pro-choice (which is really not even close to being pro-abortion) and I do not like that shirt. Well, OK, I find it funny, which is really all I ask most days, but I don't GET it. Why would I advertise that I'd had an abortion? (I haven't, but I've had surgery down there, which is very different but still not something I'd advertise; I'd tell my
friends.)
Posted by: other Annika at July 27, 2004 10:20 PM (bm3QE)
13
You ever tried to strangle a cat, Annie? Those little bastards have
sharp claws and teeth! I recommend shooting or bludgeoning. How about an "I shot a cat because it was in my way" shirt? ;-)
Posted by: Matt at July 28, 2004 04:30 AM (elvJ+)
Posted by: Jim Treacher at July 28, 2004 05:54 AM (oKpOg)
15
You ever tried to strangle a cat, Annie? Those little bastards have sharp claws and teeth! I recommend shooting or bludgeoning.
Good point. We need to keep cat mutilation SAFE, dangit! How about a shirt that says "I shot a cat because it was in my way" on the front, and a picture of a claw with a red line through it on the back?
By the way, I'm working on a CafePress page to complement PP's work. Suggestions welcome (I have to be stingy with the designs, since I can only have one of each product in the free shop). The early shop is at www.cafepress.com/plndbarrenhood1.
Posted by: Stephen at July 28, 2004 09:08 AM (Ro0tn)
16
Jim and Annika, I love both of your shirts, I would like to order one of each ...
Posted by: Frisbeedude at July 29, 2004 03:23 PM (KRtuM)
17
I can't operate photoshop, or many other common household tools for that matter.
But if I could, my pretend slogan on the picture of a t-shirt would have say -
"A Dingo at Planned Parenthood killed my baby!"
Posted by: Eric at July 31, 2004 04:26 PM (XG7GD)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 26, 2004
Weather The Bounce, Boys
i tell you, i am becoming hugely optimistic about the upcoming election. There are several reasons for my optimism.
Mainly, i think the amount of support for Bush-Cheney is deliberately downplayed by a media that needs a close race for political preference and profit reasons.
Secondly, Kerry sucks as a candidate. He's not likeable. On the contrary, he's kind of an asshole, and people in the middle notice things like that. People who are undecided at this late stage of the game are more influenced by silly things like personality. If undecideds cared about the issues, they'd have made their minds up by now.
Thirdly, i think we can expect a big freak show at the upcoming Republican Convention in New York. The far left nut jobs will ensure Bush's re-election, even though they will think they're doing the opposite. In fact, i hope they go on a total Bush-hatin' rampage in the streets of New York. Everyone knows who's side they're on, and the worse the protesters act, the more people will realize how low the Democratic Party has fallen.
Fourthly, it's not about popular vote. It's about the electoral college, and that's looking good too. As AP reports:
With three months remaining in a volatile campaign, Kerry has 14 states and the District of Columbia in his column for 193 electoral votes. Bush has 25 states for 217 votes, according to an Associated Press analysis of state polls as well as interviews with strategists across the country.
Here are the states that AP says are "in play," but leaning in Bush's direction:
- North Carolina
- Colorado
- Louisiana
- Arizona
- Virginia
- Arkansas
- Missouri
Now please. Are you gonna tell me that those states, historically bastions of conservatism, are going to vote Kerry this year? Bush won them all in 2000, when the election was all about personality, not life-and-death. The only one that might possibly go Kerry is Missouri, but if it stays in the Bush camp, he's got 290 electors right there. To win, you need 270 electors.
By my reckoning, and assuming the polls stay like this until the election, i see Bush Cheney winning without even worrying about the battleground states like Florida, Ohio, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Wisconsin, Michigan and West Virginia. Am i wrong here? Admittedly, math is not my best subject, but i think i'm right about this.
All Bush-Cheney have to do is weather the Kerry Edwards' post convention bounce and hopefully the election should be theirs to lose.
IMHO, of course.
Update: Forget my fourth point. i was wrong. As usual, my weak math skills misled me. But not as much as the stupid AP article, which failed to mention an important fact. As commenter Col. Steve points out:
The '25' to get 217 already includes the 7 states you list as in play but leaning Bush. Kerry's total includes the 14, DC but you leave out the 2 states (PA and OR) that the author says are toss-up but shifting to Kerry. You have to add those 2 states to give Kerry 193 + 21 + 7 = 221.
So, in fact the seven states that i said Bush would win, do not put him over the magic 270 number. He will still need to win some of the battleground states, and that is, i admit, an iffy proposition.
The math aside, my other points are still very well taken. IMHO.
Posted by: annika at
03:42 PM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
Post contains 573 words, total size 4 kb.
1
Consider also that Bush/Chenney have barely begun to campaign while Kerry has been at it for over a year. The best Kerry has been able do is essentially a statistical tie.
Posted by: Stephen Macklin at July 26, 2004 04:00 PM (4819r)
2
Election night I'm going to be up and drinking heavily, that is all I know. Hopefully I'll be happy drunk, but the election will be close either way.
Posted by: Scof at July 26, 2004 04:01 PM (XCqS+)
3
Annika, you have got it just right. The Democrats WISH the polls were the predictors, but they just don't mean Jack Shit, unless you go state by state.
The Federalists created the Electoral College for a sound reason; the little states needed additional representation to avoid being overwhelmed by the more populated ones. It constantly amazes me how prescient the drafters truly were. How could they have forseen the future with such clairvoyance?
This week, Kerry will be limited to the $74 Million provided by the US Government to end out the campaign. That doesn't happen to Bush until the first week in September. After a week or two, watch us pull away and Kerry/Edwards can bloviate all they want, they will never be in touching distance again. Bush won N.C. by 13 points in 2000; the most recent polls have him at 54% and Kerry/Edwards at 40%. So much for the Edwards Southern Bounce Theory.
Be Brave, we win.
Posted by: shelly s. at July 26, 2004 04:10 PM (AaBEz)
4
Speaking of polls, the latest is a good one for Bush:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/Vote2004/kerry_poll_040726.html
Posted by: Scof at July 26, 2004 04:18 PM (XCqS+)
5
Nice post. I think you may be on to something with your theory... The only Southern state that really worries me (other than Florida) is Louisiana. But I agree that NC, Virginia, Colorado and even Mizzou are likely to go Republican. Keep up the good work! I blogrolled your site...
Charles Waldie
Dallas, TX
Posted by: Charles Waldie at July 26, 2004 04:51 PM (AYLLa)
6
You thought the Left was critical of Bush after the 2000 election? Just wait until we win the popular vote a second time in a row, and lose the electoral college a second time in a row...
As a Californian, I know damn well my vote counts for far less, mathematically, than it would if I lived in Wyoming or Idaho or North Dakota. That enrages me, and I suspect it would enrage my Republican brethren if the situation were reversed.
Posted by: Hugo at July 26, 2004 05:18 PM (ntfdi)
7
All the states you listed as being "in play" are states where gun owners are a big part of the puzzle.
If Bush signs an "assault weapons" ban renewal then those state may very well go to Kerry via third party candidate.
I won't vote for Bush unless he does a dramatic & very convincing 180 on the gun thing, but I'll give you this advice for free:
If you want Bush to stand more than an iffy chance of being re-elected, then convince him & the other Repubs to start repealing instead of enacting gun control laws. Particularly tell them to kill outright any attempts at reneweing the "assault weapons" ban.
Of course I could be mistaken: there might not be enough gun owners in any of the states listed to alter things to Bush's detriment, but given what I do know of gun owners, more than 50% won't vote for Bush if an AWB is renewed. It's really just a question of how many votes does 50+% (closer to 60% actually) equate to? & would that number be enough to cost Bush the White House?
I think the answer is yes. Even if I'm wrong though it'd not hurt things a bit to tell Bush & company to oppose any AWB renewal attempts. I'm sure the number of gun owners who'd vote for him would far outweight any soccer moms he thinks he'd pick up.
As i said I'm not voting for Bush (or Kerry) - they're too socilaistic/authoritarian for my tastes. But if you want to see Bush win the easiest & most beneficial thing you can do is to tell him & any other Repubs to oppose any "assault weapons" ban renewal.
Posted by: Publicola at July 26, 2004 05:36 PM (Aao25)
Posted by: Casca at July 26, 2004 05:36 PM (q+PSF)
9
I agree with you up to a point, but I just can't be THAT confident. I can speak to three of those states because I'm familiar with them. First, here in Florida everything points to another exceedingly narrow margin, though for the love of God hopefully not quite as narrow as last time, whicever way it goes.
Next, this Tulane Law alum definitely has to regard Louisiana as leaning to Bush but still very much in play. It's always a little different from anywhere else, and though it's a basically conservative state, it's still much more Democratic than the typically "solid" GOP South. And it's a place where local personalities punch above their weight and can really have more impact than practically any place else, so remember that Bush had a Republican governor in Mike Foster the last time around, while Kathleen Blanco will be doing everything she possibly can to hurt him. Yes, I'm implying dirty tricks: it's Louisiana, after all, and that's probably at least a part of how she won her own office. However, countering that, I'd be interested to see if Ray Nagy, the Democratic but "pragmatist" mayor who's really managed to clean up New Orleans and who backed Republican Bobby Jindal against Blanco, might endorse Bush, or at least stay essentially neutral.
Finally, Virginia. Four years in DC and you understand why the Old Dominion is on the way to becoming a swing state. The Virginia suburbs of DC are the second-fastest growing metro area in the country after Las Vegas: the development and resulting demographic changes are absolutely explosive. The population growth isn't quite overwhelmingly Democratic, but it's composed of federal employees, lobbyists and associated groups of people from all other, that do skew far more Democratic than the largely Republican rest of the state. "People's Republic of NoVA" might be a bit much, but keep in mind that there's no way Virginia would have ever elected its current Democratic governor, let alone had its recent and ongoing tax fracas, without that part of the state. It definitely still leans to Bush, but not by as much you might think.
I wouldn't feel secure enough to actually bet real money on the outcome of any of these states. OTOH, I'm also one of the people who thinks New Jersey is genuinely in play this time as well: because it's smaller, 9/11 may well have changed its politics more radically than New Yorks's.
Posted by: Dave J at July 26, 2004 05:40 PM (GEMsk)
10
Instead of "from all other" that should read "from all over the country." Preview is my friend. ;-)
Posted by: Dave J at July 26, 2004 05:47 PM (GEMsk)
11
Dave, I've lived in Virginia since I was in kindergarten, and I will not permit my state to go Democratic. Even though the immigrants here around the Beltway are less conservative than the rest of the state, that's all relative. Go out to Manassas or Woodbridge, and you're in solidly Republican territory. Everything west of I-95 is either Republican or conservative Democrat (yes, there are still some out there in the Shenandoah Valley). Everything east of I-95 is mostly Republican, including the Peninsula, which is the most militarized part of the U.S. mainland.
Republicans have a wide lead in the state assembly. The only reason Virginia is "in play" is because Bush hasn't campaigned here. All they need to do is run a few ads, and that's that.
Posted by: Eric Johnson at July 26, 2004 08:30 PM (svki/)
12
i see Bush Cheney winning without even worrying about the battleground states like Florida, Ohio, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Wisconsin, Michigan and West Virginia. Am i wrong here.
I think you are Annika. The "25" to get 217 already includes the 7 states you list as in play but leaning Bush. Kerry's total includes the 14, DC but you leave out the 2 states (PA and OR) that the author says are toss-up but shifting to Kerry. You have to add those 2 states to give Kerry 193 + 21 + 7 = 221.
So, that's 41 states plus DC for 438 electorl votes. Hence, Bush has to get at least 53 electoral votes from the 100 remaining in the 9 battleground state you list above - so he's got to worry about them. FL which looks his way gives him 27 of those and if hangs on in OH, he gets 20 more for 47. Still has to pull out 6 more EVs from the 7 states and he lost 4 of the remaining 7 states (MI, NM, IA, and WI) in 2000 and may lose NH this year. That leave WV and NV for 10 combined votes to give him 57 and a grand total of 274 to Kerry's 264...
Now, WI and IA are winnable and he's been putting a lot of effort in PA, but I don't think you can make the statement that Bush-Cheney doesn't have to worry about the battleground states.
Hugo: "As a Californian, I know damn well my vote counts for far less, mathematically, than it would if I lived in Wyoming or Idaho or North Dakota."
Superficially, those 3 states are solid Rep with a combined 10 electoral votes compared to 55 for CA.
Mathematically, at least David Madore thinks you actually count more than we poor folks who vote in a state with only 4 electoral votes..Here is the summary of his discussion on US Presidential election voting:
Qualitative description
We must compute two different coefficients of power for each state. The first is the coefficient of power of the state in the Union, i.e. in the electoral college, interpreting the electoral college as a votational system. So it is equal to the number of configurations of yes/no votes among the states, where the given state's vote will be decisive, divided by the total number of configurations (namely 251 because there are 51 states ). The computation of the coefficients of power has been done numerically. As we have mentioned, it is very much a linear function of the number of seats, except in the case of California, which has distinctly more power than in proportion to its number of electors.
This first coefficient varies between 46.6% in the case of California, and 2.3% for the states having three electors.
The second coefficient is that of an individual within a state. We are quite within the domain of validity of the asymptotic approximation we have described earlier, according to which this coefficient of power is proportional to the inverse square root of the population.
This second coefficient varies between 0.167% in the least populous state (Wyoming) and 0.0227% in the most populous (California).
And as explained in the general discussion on two-stage decision systems, the overall coefficient of power of an individual of the given state in the Union, is the product of the two aforementioned coefficients of power.
We can already see that there is a problem: the electoral weight of each state is an affine function of its population (two electors for any state plus one for every so many citizens), and the corresponding power is roughly proportional; whereas the coefficient of power of an individual within the state drops down only like the square root of the population. This means, and numerical results confirm it, that citizens of the most populous states of the Union have more power than those of less populous states.
In fact, we find that the overall (product) coefficient of power is highest in California, where it is 0.0106%, and lowest in Montana, where it is 0.00265% — or four times less.
Posted by: Col Steve at July 26, 2004 09:07 PM (ttEaR)
13
Well, if you tried to follow the math, what didn't transmit well is the number of combinations is not 251, but 2 raised to the 51st power..and DC is counted as a "state" because it has 3 EVs..
Posted by: Col Steve at July 26, 2004 09:11 PM (ttEaR)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
HK Fires Off
By now, you must have heard about Heintz-Kerry's* bizarre "shove it" melt-down with that reporter. i thought it was hysterical. i mean, she just got done giving a speech about civility in politics. And all the guy did was ask her what she meant by "un-American."
She's a freak. i've met people who do the same thing. They say something to you and then one minute later adamantly deny that they've said it. i went out with a guy who would do that and then try to bully me into doubting my own ears. Just like HK did. Only when she denied it, there was an audio recording as proof. Now she just looks crazier than she already looked.
i really don't think Heintz-Kerry is a stable person. i mean emotionally. It's just an impression i've gotten after watching her these last few months. You just watch, she'll melt-down a few more times before Kerry's handlers get wise and sequester her until the election.
Another incredible thing about this episode: i can understand HK not realizing her mistake, she hadn't listened to the proof of what she said. But what's this guy's excuse? He links to the video, then says that
the 'reporter' in question attempted to attribute a quote to Mrs. Kerry that she didn't say.
Huh? She did say it, i heard the audio myself.
Dude needs to listen to the audio again, this time without holding his hands over his ears and saying "lalalalalala."
Liberals. *sigh* Whatareyagonnado?
Link via Sean.
Update: Malkin noticed HK's craziness back in January.
* Yes, i have decided to bestow the mis-spelling honor upon her.
Posted by: annika at
12:47 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 279 words, total size 2 kb.
1
The counterpoint we are hearing is that Cheney dropped the F-bomb on the Senate floor...my feeling is that is THK wants come off like Cheney more power to here. It'll just drive up here negs, make Laura seem even better as a 1st lady and distract from Kerry's (weak) message.
Posted by: Scof at July 26, 2004 01:39 PM (XCqS+)
2
I do think she is vain and condescending and unstable in the way a shallow shoot-off-their-mouth person is unstable. All that said, I get a kick out of her.
You can read her pretty well through facial expressions and body language. Lots of times she will be on the stage and she is body-language screaming that she is completely bored and disdainful of the claptrap emanating from the microphone. Also, who among us doesn't love someone who tells a reporter to "shove it?" Un-First-Lady-like-- but you gotta love it at some level!
One thing that drives me crazy about her is her hair. All that money for "constantly in my face" hair?! Does this bother anyone else?
Also, re the "f" bomb, John "Gangster" Kerry intentionally laid down a couple in the same MTV interview. He's down wit da kids, G!
Posted by: gcotharn in Texas at July 26, 2004 03:51 PM (PcgQk)
3
Yeah, like we need the JHK crew running the show in the White House.
Causes one to pause, what if Al Gore had won? We would have been in such deep tapioca with that maroon at the helm.
The four of them are out of their minds. Really.
Posted by: joe at July 26, 2004 06:02 PM (uD8n6)
4
True confessions time... I've actually had to deal with extremely wealthy people on a regular basis. If there's an immutable law about money, it is that the more you have, the absofuckinglutely whackier you are. Think about it... Hughes, Old Joe Kennedy, Pick-a-Rockefeller (I miss the good ole days when that plagerist twat loved to tell the story of Rocky's mechanically inflatable penis, and inconvenient death in the company of his young concubine.), and how about that dwarf from Texas with the squeaky voice? Yes by Summer's end, she'll be known as "Crackers".
Posted by: Casca at July 26, 2004 06:14 PM (q+PSF)
5
BTW, Oliver Willis is a well-known flaming rectum.
Posted by: Casca at July 26, 2004 06:31 PM (q+PSF)
6
"HK Fires Off"
Coincidence or expertly crafted gun pun? For a moment I thought the enrty supra was gonna be a range report on one of Heckler&Koch's excellent products.
Your a shameless tease.
Jasen
Posted by: Jasen at July 26, 2004 07:20 PM (+abeT)
7
Re: the hair. i thought the same thing about Martha Stewart.
Re: the HK. Yes, it's a cleverly crafted gun pun.
Posted by: annika! at July 26, 2004 11:33 PM (JE92I)
8
That should've been you're, not your and entry, instead of enrty.
Jasen
Posted by: Jasen at July 27, 2004 06:13 PM (u2P7m)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Kerry Loses New York
Attention all Yankee fans. How can you vote for
a man who said the following:[Interviewer]: When you get into office,* would you consider passing an executive order that would prevent Pedro from signing with the Yankees?
[Kerry]: I'd consider an executive order that abolishes the Yankees. We'll have to set up some very strict regulations with respect to Yankee behavior. I think the Red Sox may take care of it. I think there may be an A-Rod backlash this year. I think there may be a reverse curse here.
Okay, so Kerry may lose the New York baseball fan vote with a statement like that, but he probably gained twice as many votes from all other baseball fans. Probably the smart political move.
Until he goes to stump in NYC, when he'll probably say that he was a Yankee fan before he was a Red Sox fan.
What's this "when" shit?
Posted by: annika at
10:17 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 158 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Well, New York and Massachusetts are safe states.
But what will he do in Florida with Miami/FSU? Or in Michigan and Ohio with Michigan/OSU?
Posted by: Hugo at July 26, 2004 11:01 AM (kT5s/)
2
Wow. It's amazing to see Kerry take a position.
Posted by: gcotharn in Texas at July 26, 2004 03:55 PM (PcgQk)
3
WOOO!!! GO KERRY!!! Yanks suck.
Posted by: Dawn Summers at July 27, 2004 08:36 AM (HLOeu)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Where's A Digital Camera When You Need One? (Reprise)
i just saw the weirdest thing.
A bat. It was right outside the building crawling along the sidewalk on all fours, right where
i saw that huge dragonfly a few weeks ago. The bat was gray, about three inches long, and moving very slowly, about the speed of a large beetle. i didn't know what it was at first and i jumped and let out a loud scream, 'cause it was right by my foot when i first saw it. Poor thing was lost, it should have been hanging upside down in a cave somewhere. i thought about picking it up and bringing it into the office to show everybody. Then i thought about rabies and left it alone. Some car is probably going to run over it, over but there's nothing i can do about that. It's getting to be like a menagerie outside my building. i really should bring a digital camera with me when i take my smoke breaks.
Posted by: annika at
10:07 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 180 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I had a similar experience a few weeks ago. Was taking my baby niece for a late night walk in her stoller and almost ran over a little bat lying on the ground, hissing, in the alley behind my house. Scared the bejeezus out of me.
Posted by: Ron at July 26, 2004 02:43 PM (C6b9o)
2
DO NOT PICK UP the bat.
It probobly has rabies, that's why it is on the ground.
I used to live in Austin and everyone knows, if you go around the Congress Street bridge, there is a bat colony that lives under the bridge and you are not to tuch downed bats for any reason. I think the city has signs posted up around the joging trail to this affect.
Just my two cents worth, from a former Austinite.
Posted by: ward jones at July 26, 2004 03:14 PM (C/8kT)
3
Agree with Ward. Bats are disoriented by bright light anyway. If the bat was out in daytime, it's not a good sign.
Posted by: gcotharn in Texas at July 26, 2004 03:58 PM (PcgQk)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Is This Getting Boring? Nah! (Reprise)
Instead of writing a new post on how awesome Lance Armstrong is for winning his sixth Tour de France in a row, i'll just link to
my post from last year, about him predicting this year's win. Next year: number seven!
Posted by: annika at
08:29 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 53 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Annika, unfortunately he might not race in France next year...I've heard a bunch of speculation that he may race in the Tour of Italy or Tour of Spain and a bunch of other smaller races before going back to the Tour de France in 2006.
A 70's cyclist named Eddy Merckx (the frogs booed him, too) kicked everyone's ass all over the place in almost every major pro cycling race for 7 or 8 years...Like Merckx, Lance may try to fill in all those "classics" and other shorter races on his resume.
Posted by: Jason O. at July 27, 2004 11:13 AM (loMDg)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 25, 2004
Fantasy Football Tip
So Miami running back
Ricky Williams is quitting the NFL at age 27 so he can smoke pot full time? Interesting career choice. He's on his way to Asia as we speak, and one wonders if he'll meet up with Todd Marinovich somewhere along the way. Well, at least that makes picking an RB for my fantasy team a little easier.
Posted by: annika at
10:03 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 67 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Now you're harshing his buzz.
Posted by: Casca at July 25, 2004 09:04 PM (q+PSF)
2
I already had him on my team. My team went from really strong to average over night (or should I say in a puff of smoke).
Posted by: PAUL at July 26, 2004 01:06 AM (4rD8B)
3
I'd sure like to be able to retire at 27 and go bum around. lucky sob
Posted by: Scof at July 26, 2004 10:58 AM (XCqS+)
4
Good bye! This Bills fan welcomes his retirement!
Posted by: Jennifer at July 27, 2004 08:00 AM (iwROl)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
118kb generated in CPU 0.0306, elapsed 0.0935 seconds.
80 queries taking 0.0727 seconds, 304 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.