just trying to eat my waffles

September 30, 2004

Debate One Deconstruction

Part of blogging for me is honesty. There's no room on my blog for spin, and i hope long time visitors know that about me. So it pains me to say that, in my opinion, President Bush was bad tonight. Not fatally bad, but still bad.

Sure, the president scored some points. His approach to North Korea clearly makes more sense than Kerry's. He was effective in highlighting Kerry's tendency to insult the same allies he says he wants to court. He was reassuring on continuing the all volunteer armed forces. And he struck the right tone when criticizing Putin.

But the president was also repetitive, hesitant, and defensive. He slouched, his ears seemed to stick out more than i remembered, and he pounded the podium too much, which i hate because Hillery does that too. He also missed numerous opportunites to point out major Kerry contradictions, passing them up in favor of repeating the same conclusory slogans.

Why didn't Bush list all the anti-military votes that Cheney reviewed in his convention speech? He should have hammered on Kerry's "87 billion" vote at least two more times. And it still boggles my mind why Bush can't or won't effectively explain the reason why we have to be on offense in the War on Terror (like Giuliani did so beautifully at the convention) and why Kerry's plan is solely and dangerously defensive.

(And why did the president have to buy into Kerry's "war should be the last resort" bullshit. After 9/11, the last resort is too late. Isn't that part of the Bush Doctrine? Yeah, yeah, i realize that Bush has to agree with that "last resort" line for political reasons, but in this new world of terrorist sleeper cells on our soil, i'd much rather have war be the third or fourth from the last resort.)

i cringed a number of times watching the president search for words. But i do that every time he speaks formally. He doesn't do that on the stump, so i can't understand his difficulty in debates, speeches and press conferences. The truth is that the president is just not the best spokesman for himself. In fact, i think i could have done a better job tonight than he did.

But tonight i also realized that this election is more of a battle of surrogates than any other election i can recall. The greatest vulnerabilities of both candidates are things that neither candidate can talk about.

Bush couldn't talk about Kerry's betrayal of this country while he was in uniform. He couldn't bring up the questions about Kerry's medals. He couldn't equate Kerry with the loony America-hating left that supports him. He couldn't put down Teresa.

Kerry couldn't accuse Bush of having been AWOL. He couldn't accuse Bush of being a religious fanatic, like so many of his supporters do. He couldn't call Bush evil, or Hitler, or even use the word "liar." And because Kerry still has to win over pro-war voters, he had to straddle the fence on Iraq.

Actually, i thought Kerry's reconciliation of his various Iraq policies was rhetorically pretty effective - at least on the surface. As i understand it, Kerry now says he is for the war, wants to win the war, but thinks that Bush is doing it all wrong and he'd do it better. The problem is, Kerry's new position still contradicts his many old positions, and maybe even some new ones too.

The blogosphere is already compiling a pretty good list of Kerry's contradictions. Right on Red names a few:

He said Saddam was a threat, but the war was a mistake, we shouldÂ’ve brought allies on board, but the allies we did bring were not enough. He said that he would never ask permission to defend the country, but then later said that any preemptive action must pass 'the global test'. He said he would increase troop strength but would decrease it in Iraq. He said that something must be done about Darfur, including possible deployment of some kind I suppose, but criticized the President for over-committing troops!

At any rate, i still think Bush could have done a better job of confronting Kerry on his record. Kerry sidestepped Bush's repeated "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" attacks. But i would have asked rhetorically why Kerry voted for the 2003 war, when we didn't have France and the UN on our side, yet he voted against the 1991 war, when the UN approved and the French contribution was considerable.*

As for Kerry's performance, i was impressed. If one ignores every contrary thing Kerry has said in the past, and his lackluster political career, and his demonstrated arrogance and unlikeability, you might almost think he looked presidential tonight. He certainly gave the impression that he was the more knowledgeable and relaxed candidate.

However, the biggest flaw in Kerry's perfomance to me was one that might not be obvious to the casual debate observer (by that i mean, those idiots who still, for some insane reason, have not yet made up their minds). It's one thing for Kerry to insist that he has a plan. But i still need to hear what that plan is. Kerry couldn't tell us. i guess you could call it the six million dollar man plan: "better, stronger, faster." But when Lehrer asked Kerry to be more specific, he wasn't.

The bottom line is this: Kerry didn't lose tonight. He stayed alive by exceeding expectations. Bush didn't lose tonight either. He kept Kerry alive by reminding us all that we should not have high expectations of Bush in a debate. i only hope people remember that debating skills are not necessarily reliable predictors of presidential leadership. And i expect Bush will watch the tape, cringe like the rest of us, hopefully work on his presentation, and show some improvement next time.

* In 1991 the French sent their 6th Armored Division and two regiments of Foreign Legionnaires (their only really badass troops), among other forces.

Posted by: annika at 08:44 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 1007 words, total size 6 kb.

1 Annie, I'm less pessimistic about Bush's perfomance tonight than you are. He stayed the course. He ummed and ahhed much more than Kerry did. He slouched. He stammered. He banged the podium. (So I heard driving from work at the beginning. So I saw later on TV when he visibly came to the word "nuclear" and froze.) Kerry sounded great on the radio. Kerry looked great on TV. He is the best polished turd I have seen in a long time. He flippered all over that debate. At one point he called Bush reckless for invading an Iraq lead by a non-threatening Saddam. Later, he called Saddam a threat. I'll leave the detailed fisking as an exercise for the experts. When asked to clarify why he in effect called Bush a liar, he said he never called him a liar, just that Bush "misled" the American people. "Let's talk about those Nigerian reports ..." It depends on what the meaning of "is" is. The arguments were "fake but accurate". The biggest sidesplitter in my mind was the notion that Kerry will be better at diplomacy -- at alliance building than W. Bush pointed out that 30 other countries signed up to the war in Iraq. Kerry's reply: they were either second bananas or Johnnie-come-lately's. Wow! So some British family or some Polish family or ... etc ... who just buried a cherished loved one can rest assured that the United States appreciates their loss. Oh, and then Kerry says he'll build a better coalition? Hard to do given that he already blew off Kalawi's speech to a JOINT SESSION OF CONGRESS. And then has Lockhart dissmiss Kalawi as, literally, a puppet. Some rhetoric from an alleged master diplomat! Need I even mention that the French and Germans have exlpicitly stated that they will never commit troops to Iraq. Even is Kerry is elected! --HH

Posted by: go 4 TLI (formerly HH in Hollywood) at September 30, 2004 11:28 PM (MngVr)

2 Annie: Your assessment is hypercritical. remember, the masses of people are trying to figure out WHO THEY TRUST and WHO THEY LIKE. John Kerry did nothing to win the trust of the people last night; nor did he do anything to make people like him. He is still the Boston Brahmin with the unmistakable air of a privileged class snob. He still pounds the podium also (but escapes your critical eye, while Bush gets it) with his hand and slips and uses the pointing finger despite his handlers' instructions to not use it, using his hands incessantly and keeping his hands clenched and showing the thumb. I wondered if he was Italian, he used them so much. But, Bush spoke to the people directly on several occassions, connecting solidly; Kerry never connected. These things take a few days to settle, but I'm betting that Kerry did not connect and the polls will not improve for him...if anything, he'll be lucky to stay where he is, in my opinion. Remember, he needed to knock it out of the park, while Nush just needed to make contact. Bush will still be at leat 5 or 6 ahead in the real polls, not the spinners' contests.

Posted by: shelly s. at October 01, 2004 01:09 AM (s6c4t)

3 I hate to say it, but I think Annika is correct on this one. Maybe I had higher expectations for the President, but I felt he didn't come back hard enough at Kerry. Frankly I wish he had taken some shots at Kerry. Bush had better be ready to unleash his ownership concept at the domestic policy debate. I think ironically, Bush might do best in the Town Hall debate.

Posted by: Ag at October 01, 2004 07:22 AM (AuGkz)

4 shrubs all done! we finaly got the goods on him! any reich wingers go here! i dare you!

Posted by: Um Yeah at October 01, 2004 07:49 AM (SZgv8)

5 LOL That's pretty funny. Huh? You were serious? I heard Senator Kerry admit that he shot a man in the back.

Posted by: Ted at October 01, 2004 08:11 AM (blNMI)

6 I'm pretty much with you on this, Annie. I expected some ums and ahs, because that's just the way Bush is. He's not as polished a speaker as Kerry is (and it is possible to be polished and still convey warmth and folksiness). He's not The Great Communicator. We know that. What bothered me was that, to my mind, he pulled his punches during several counterattacks that could have been more productive for him. Kerry seemed more in command of the facts, and only a couple of times did Bush challenge him on the facts. I hope Bush doesn't hold back like that on the domestic policy debate. I'm afraid that debate is going to play to to his weaknesses and Kerry's strengths, and Bush is going to need to be really on the ball to do an effective job. Most importantly, I think, he's got to be prepared to counter with hard, detailed facts when Kerry starts unloading propaganda about how bad the economy is, how "outsourcing" and free trade are hurting America, etc. What I saw tonight didn't fill me with confidence that he'll be able to do that effectively. (Of course to tell the truth, I'm not at all sure how much of our economic performance, good or bad, can be attributed to the president. It depends on such a huge variety of variables, many of which the president seems to have little or no influence over. But that's irrelevant for purposes of the debate, as long as a significant number of Americans think the president somehow controls the economy.) That said, let me say for the record that I don't think Bush blew it last night. I think he lost a little ground, but it wasn't a route.

Posted by: Matt at October 01, 2004 08:21 AM (SIlfx)

7 Our friend still isn't taking his antipsychotics, I see. That's OK. His defective psyche just provides additional justification for sending him to the camps. On that note, if any fellow VRWC members need the secret web address for the concentration camp guard and/or secret police job applications, please let me know. We start rounding up the lefties on January 21, 2005. Halliburton is already building the camps in secret desert locations, under the personal supervision of Reichsmarschall Cheney. The pay is really good and you get a plunder quota, too, so you can keep part of the assets of any lefties you arrest. The policy on the use of deadly force is extremely relaxed. It's a great deal.

Posted by: Matt at October 01, 2004 08:33 AM (SIlfx)

8 I largely concur with your analysis, Annika. Check my blog.

Posted by: roach at October 01, 2004 11:16 AM (DHoAQ)

9 I agree with you Anni, Bush didnÂ’t show nearly as well as I would have liked. Way too many UhÂ’s, UmÂ’s and too repetitive to my overly-sensitive, political-geek ears. Bush swallowed his tongue - and only barely recovered - at least three times and boy, CNBC and CNN wasted no time in rolling out those hi...erÂ…lowlights. And similar to you, I sat there thinking, Â“Man, I would absolutely cream Kerry in this debate.Â” (Of course every Sunday I think I can out-coach half the NFLÂ’s head coaches. The losing half.) I think Jim Geraghty over at Kerry Spot said it best, Â“Every time Kerry opened his mouth, conservatives thought of the eight different responses and attacks that they wanted to see, and Bush mostly didn't use them.Â” I would like to have seen Bush take the word Â“summitÂ” and that asinine Â“global testÂ” line and spin donuts with them on Kerry for the rest of the debate. I watched most of it twice (IÂ’m a glutton, I know) and it struck me that maybe the Bush camp didnÂ’t anticipate this format allowing for the type of exchanges that occurred. Or maybe they didnÂ’t think Cicero would leave the openings that he did Â– Bush genuinely seemed surprised at a few of the Kerry gaffes. In any event, for all his lows, I felt his highs were much higher than KerryÂ’s, and of an emotional nature that I think appeals to people. Kerry appeared polished and ***aaack*** presidential. But Bush connected, which is what he does best. Overall, a draw, I think.

Posted by: Kurt at October 01, 2004 11:27 AM (/7AX2)

10 Annie: Check with Rush today, he's on track. Yes, we all wished for a little more polished effort, but W made the points he needed to make, and Rush has counted over 50 wrong statements of fact by Kerry. Some of them big enough to drive a truck through, especially the "global" permission thing, Trebklinka instead of Lubyanka, etc.. If it were Bush, they'd say he was lying and misleading them, but Rush just calls it the way it is, mistakes of fact. Kerry is also walking the line with his base, 70% want him out of Iraq NOW. Those lines will run good in future commercials by the RNC. The market is up over 100 points, so the smart money says Bush is still way ahead. Put away the poison and wait for the Monday and Tuesday polls. Betcha we're still ahead by at least 5. The folks in the flyover states like straight talk, not Senatorial gobbledegook.

Posted by: shelly s. at October 01, 2004 12:06 PM (s6c4t)

11 Yeah, sKerry was smoother, but I really LIKE the fact that Bush is a WYSIWYG kind of guy. I know where he stands, I know he won't wobble and waver when the wind blows from a different direction. I can depend on him. I may not always agree with him - I think he's entirely too liberal on a number of issues - but I admire his staunchness, his honesty, and his steadfastness. And I admire his faith and the fact he is not ashamed of it! Elizabeth, the sinner and Perennial Student

Posted by: Elizabeth at October 01, 2004 01:13 PM (psR4n)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Keys To The Debate

It is a cliché, but worth repeating: A candidate can't win the election with a debate, but he can lose it. The only exception to that rule i can think of was Ronald Reagan, but he was exceptional in so many ways.

Tonight, watch for Kerry's zinger. i'd be very surprised if he didn't work in a Bentsenesque sound bite, hoping it will become water cooler talk tomorrow. He has to try, he's losing the election and his only chance to turn things around is to be aggressive.

But Kerry, and his team, are also desperate. And desparation breeds disorganization, which breeds failure. Look at Gore in 2000. Remember how he had a different persona for each debate? There was "sighing Al," and "friendly Al," and "macho Al." None of them worked, and he ended up looking silly, like he was trying too hard.

Bush needs to simply stick to his game plan and let Kerry self destruct. i hope Bush doesn't do anything out of character because he doesn't need to. He just needs to hammer the same points he's been hammering on the stump for the last month, and Kerry should start to come apart.

Look at the Superbowl Raiders of two years ago, if you like sports analogies. Or this week's Cowboys - Redskins game. Or any Muhammad Ali fight. When you got your opponent on the run, he tends to fuck up more.

You like war analogies? Patton knew this trick, as did Guderian. And Napoleon was a master of the rout. So was Schwarzkopf in 1991. But these men kicked ass by careful planning and a wise reliance on the incompetence and/or unpreparedness of their opponents.

Tomorrow, if all goes well, try to resist the temptation to boast that Bush won the debate. In presidential debates, it's the loser that matters. If Kerry looks silly, or arrogant, or desperate, or if he tells a whopping lie a la Al Gore, emphasize that aspect to your co-workers during your lunch break.

Keeping my fingers crossed.

Posted by: annika at 10:50 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 347 words, total size 2 kb.

1 What about the Raiders i did not get it?

Posted by: Dex at September 30, 2004 12:12 PM (Z0iXs)

2 Annie: You need not cross your fingers, because George W. Bush is nothing, if not consistant. You can count on him to stay the course, and be the same person tomorrow as he was yesterday and today. Bet the house on this; it is a surer thing than any Monday night football game you can think of.

Posted by: shelly s. at September 30, 2004 12:25 PM (s6c4t)

3 You've got a really good analogy about letting your opponent make mistakes, and then compound their mistakes. Bobby Knight and Bill Parcells coached at West Point during the same time period. They were enthusiastic young coaches, they became close friends, and they spent time discussing coaching philosophy. The cornerstone of their philosophy is to be fundamentally sound and not beat yourself-- let your opponents beat themselves. Mike Kryzewski coached with Knight, and invited Knight to speak to Duke before and NCAA Final. Knight's message: Don't let adrenaline induce you to make spectacular yet unaccustomed plays. Play within yourself. Do what you know you can do well. George Bush would be well advised to follow this dictum.

Posted by: gcotharn at September 30, 2004 01:45 PM (AaBEz)

4 A teacher in the Barpassers study course has a great piece of advice. He says "Don't go doing anything weird on the bar exam!" To Kerry I would say "Don't go doing anything weird in the debates." That was Al Gore's big mistake.

Posted by: Francine at September 30, 2004 02:01 PM (zAOEU)

5 Jeez you people are full of advice. My favorite aphorism is one from old BF "Be cherry about giving advice. A fool won't listen, and a wise man doesn't need it" Seems to me that we're going to watch a perfect example of it tonight. John Kerry's weakness is the weakness of the rich and stupid, hubris. He doesn't know HOW to take advice. W might be a lot of things, but one of them isn't stupid.

Posted by: Casca at September 30, 2004 05:57 PM (Y671w)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

September 29, 2004

Wednesday Is Poetry Day

No commentary is necessary on this one. It's just a really fine poem, by Alice Corbin Henderson (1881 - 1949). Enjoy:

Muy Vieja Mexicana
I've seen her pass with eyes upon the road --
An old bent woman in a bronze-black shawl,
With skin as dried and wrinkled as a mummy's,
As brown as a cigar-box, and her voice
Like the low vibrant strings of a guitar.
And I have fancied from the girls about
What she was at their age, what they will be
When they are old as she. But now she sits
And smokes away each night till dawn comes round,
Thinking, beside the pinyons' flame, of days
Long past and gone, when she was young -- content
To be no longer young, her epic done:
         For a woman has work and much to do,
         And it's good at the last to know it's through,
         And still have time to sit alone,
         To have some time you can call your own.
         It's good at the last to know your mind
         And travel the paths that you traveled blind,
         To see each turn and even make
         Trips in the byways you did not take --
         But that, `por Dios', is over and done,
         It's pleasanter now in the way we've come;
         It's good to smoke and none to say
         What's to be done on the coming day,
         No mouths to feed or coat to mend,
         And none to call till the last long end.
         Though one have sons and friends of one's own,
         It's better at last to live alone.
         For a man must think of food to buy,
         And a woman's thoughts may be wild and high;
         But when she is young she must curb her pride,
         And her heart is tamed for the child at her side.
         But when she is old her thoughts may go
         Wherever they will, and none to know.
         And night is the time to think and dream,
         And not to get up with the dawn's first gleam;
         Night is the time to laugh or weep,
         And when dawn comes it is time to sleep . . .
When it's all over and there's none to care,
I mean to be like her and take my share
Of comfort when the long day's done,
And smoke away the nights, and see the sun
Far off, a shrivelled orange in a sky gone black,
Through eyes that open inward and look back.

Posted by: annika at 04:39 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 417 words, total size 4 kb.

September 28, 2004

Lynx

Tony gives us the good news and the bad news about changes at The Tonight Show.

Dawn debriefs us on her visit to Panama.

Congratulations to The Physics Geek family on their new little physics geeklette!

Jen resists the siren call of the waffle king.

Thomas Galvin picked last night's MNF winner, and a few others, too.

Moxie, Paul, and Kin are among the many bloggers making fun of Kerry's latest attempt to become (his words not mine) the second black president. And Ann Althouse provides a historical perspective on this issue.

It's Victor's birthday today! If he and Nic decide to go out for dinner, who do you think will be picking up the check?

i have to agree with Professor Hewitt on the great tie controversy. That thing is butt ugly. (scroll down to see it)

Posted by: annika at 09:15 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 140 words, total size 2 kb.

September 27, 2004

Monday Night Football, Week Three

Tonight it's Dallas at the Redskins. Both teams are led by elite coaches trying to restore some former glory to their respective teams. Both teams have one and one records. The spread is 1.5 points, with Washington as the favorite. It sounds like a close one, but i need only one reason to pick Washington to cover the spread: Vinnie Testaverde sucks.

Update: Testaverde still sucks. Defense won that game. Like Dallas, i'm now 2 and 1 on Monday night. In Fantasy Football, DFMoore kicked my butt on the strength of Peyton Manning's performance Sunday, and i've now fallen to 2 and 1.

Posted by: annika at 07:48 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 113 words, total size 1 kb.

The Winner, Part 2

way to increase hits
hold a contest then withhold
ha ha the winner more...

Posted by: annika at 12:32 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 201 words, total size 1 kb.

September 24, 2004

Who Said It?

Update: The following post is apparently fake, and not so accurate either. Sorry.

Who said the following quote:

We know we can't count on the French. We know we can't count on the Russians . . . We know that Iraq is a danger to the United States, and we reserve the right to take pre-emptive action whenever we feel it's in our national interest.

If you guessed George W. Bush, you are wrong.

If you guessed Dick Cheney, you are wrong.

If you guessed Don Rumsfeld, you are wrong.

If you guessed Condi Rice, you are wrong.

If you guessed Colin Powell, you are wrong.

If you guessed Paul Wolfowitz, you are wrong.

In the words of THK, wrongk, wrongk, wrongk.

It was the Democratic candidate for president, John Kerry, who said it way back in 1997 on CNN's Crossfire.

You anti-war liberals, i've said it before, Nader is still your best option.

Via Powerline

Posted by: annika at 01:08 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 160 words, total size 1 kb.

The Winner

The winner of the Joe Don Baker Haiku contest is . . .

more...

Posted by: annika at 12:01 AM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 555 words, total size 4 kb.

September 23, 2004

Pimpin' For 300K

Brittany's not actually married, according to this NY Post article, which also contains details of her pre-nuptial agreement.

Spears' rep, Leslie Sloane Zelnick, who had thought the singer was officially married, told The Post:
'Her marriage is not technically legal. But as far as Britney and Kevin [Federline's] union is concerned, it is a marriage and they are married. The papers were filed, but because the wedding date was switched so quickly, they didn't come through, and the marriage hasn't become legal yet.'
Another source said when Â— and if Â— the papers do come through, Britney will not stage another white-dress wedding when she's officially and legally married next month.

Assuming they're still together, i would add.

Us Weekly said Spears' prenup caused the 'technical' delay, as Federline was 'unhappy with how much he stood to gain if the marriage dissolved.'
The prenup gives Federline only '$300,000 a year for exactly half the tenure of their marriage' Â— a pittance, considering Spears' $32 million bank account.

A pittance? Hell, for 300 grr, i'd marry the bitch.

This is the most deplorable clause, though:

'Britney shall have no financial obligation to contribute to the support of [Federline's] two children.'

She's got all that money, she stole the dad from those two innocent kids and their mother, and she won't even cough up a little child support?

American Skankwoman, is right.

Via Wind Rider.

Posted by: annika at 11:14 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 231 words, total size 2 kb.

1 This is the most deplorable clause, though: "'Britney shall have no financial obligation to contribute to the support of [Federline's] two children.' She's got all that money, she stole the dad from those two innocent kids and their mother, and she won't even cough up a little child support? American Skankwoman, is right." Man, you are on the money here! There's just some things you do. There's just some things that are right. Britney's actions reveal her objective: Instant gratification from a short fun marriage with a guy she thinks is hot; and her lack of values: Zero consideration for anyone else-- not even a now abandoned mother-- not even two children! Britney is a lost soul behaving like a pure c***. She is a sickening car wreck one cannot turn away from.

Posted by: gcotharn at September 23, 2004 11:44 AM (Pbs6a)

2 Normally, annika, I agree with your anti-Britney screeds, but I have to disagree with you on a few points here. First, she didn't "steal" anyone. Saying that he was "stolen" places the blame on Britney and absolves Kevin. Kevin left the mother of his children of his own volition. No one forced him at gun-point to do so. The responsibility for his choice and his children is primarily his. If Britney started seeing him while he was married (I don't know the actual details so I can't honestly say) then she is guilty of participating in adultery, but the primary responsibility is still his and his alone. Second, I think that you are completely wrong about the clause that you declare to be "deplorable." This is a pre-nup. As I understand the nature of pre-nuptual agreements, it applies only at such time as the marriage dissolves. This is not saying that she won't help him with the children while they are together. It isn't even saying that she won't help him with his children should they get a divorce. It simply states that she is not legally responsible for them in the event of a divorce. There is a world of difference between the two. My belief, having parents who divorced when I was young and who both later remarried, is that the step-parent does have responsibilites to the step-children during the marriage, and it would be deplorable for Britney to not live up to those responsibilities. An attempt to make her legally responsible for those children for the rest of her life if it turns out that he is only marrying her for her money would be equally deplorable.

Posted by: Jerry at September 23, 2004 12:14 PM (C34kV)

3 Jerry, This is a question of class and taste and principles and values. Britney Spears has millions of men willing to make fools of themselves in her service. She does not need to grandly swoop in on someone else's fledgling relationship- especially when kids are involved. And I don't want to hear "the fledgling relationship was struggling." EVERY SINGLE TIME someone wants to stray in a relationship, they justify it by saying the "relationship is struggling." "The relationship is struggling" is not an excuse for extracurricular play-around. Secondly, when you're worth tens of millions of dollars, and you've just swooped in on some idiot, and encouraged him to ditch the mother of his children, you set up a little trust fund to take care of the children. Its just the right thing to do. Britney gives away more than that in tip money. She spends more than that on salt rubs. Heck, she could cut down on charity donations for one year and set up a trust fund- I don't care- but she could stand to show the teensiest bit of class. You're not thinking about the millions of guys Britney could choose from, or the tens of millions of dollars she controls. Heck with legalities. She could legally protect herself and still show a bit of class. Some things are just the right things to do.

Posted by: gcotharn at September 23, 2004 02:58 PM (Pbs6a)

4 GC: I will not say that "the fledgling relationship was struggling" because, as my comments clearly indicate, I do not know the details of the relationship between Federline and his ex. You are wrong, however, in your assertion that "is a question of class and taste and principles and values." It is none of those things. It is a question of a pre-nuptual agreement. The main purpose of a pre-nup is to protect the material assets of each member of a marriage in the event of a divorce. As I pointed out very clearly in my comments, I agree that Britney has responsibilities to the children of her husband. Fulfilling those responsibilities will be the classy, tasteful, principled, values-based thing to do. None of this has any bearing on her legal responsibilities. Nothing in the pre-nup (based, of course, on the limited portionsof it quoted in the article) prevent her from doing any of the things that you suggested. Nothing in the article states or even implies that she won't. You are making brazen assumptions by implying that she will do nothing for those children. As to the question of Britney "swooping" in on Federline, I also clearly stated in my comments that she is likely guilty of participating in adultry and that this is immoral. The key issue, which you fail to even mention in your rebuttal, is that federline could have simply said "no." He has free will and the right to exercise it. The primary responsibility for the situation that his children are now in his his. He doesn't get absolved of all wrongdoing just because Britney has "has millions of men" and "tens of millions of dollars" at her disposal.

Posted by: Jerry at September 23, 2004 07:34 PM (97+nP)

5 Of COURSE the idiot dancer is responsible and culpable(I've got NOTHING against dancers. But I have seen photos of THIS dancer, and he is an idiot.) I don't care about the idiot. I can't believe I'm even writing another comment about the skank! Pretend you are Britney Spears. Would you use your fame and your millions to swoop in on this idiot, his children, and their mother? No. No. A thousand times no. You, Jerry/Britney, seem like a decent and sensible person. You would couple with another of your many admirers, and hope that the idiot could somehow find it within himself to forthrightly straighten out or get out of his relationship. Long odds, that. You would heed a more civilized code than Skankwoman, because you have more class, more sense, and more decency. Its true that skankwoman may quietly take care of the kids. However, nothing about her gives me confidence in that happening. I saw her using the one girl as a prop in a People Magazine cover. It turned my stomach.

Posted by: gcotharn at September 23, 2004 09:21 PM (Pbs6a)

6 GC: Then my original comment stands: 1) Federline is responsible for his own actions, not Britney, although she does have to take responsibility for her own bad behavior. 2) The "deplorable" clause in the pre-nup merely offers Britney a reasonable level of legal protection in the event that Federline is simply using her for her money and it does not, in any way, prevent her from meeting the responsibilities that she has to the family of her husband and nothing in the article either states or implies that she won't meet those responsibilities.

Posted by: Jerry at September 24, 2004 06:22 AM (C34kV)

7 annika's journal: we editorialize, you decide.

Posted by: annika at September 24, 2004 09:53 AM (zAOEU)

8 [rant] OK, a quick rundown. 1) Federline is the "baby daddy" to these two kids. He never married their mother. 2) Federline started f***ing Skankwoman while Shar Jackson was pregnant with his child. 3) Skankwoman started f***ing Federline while another woman was pregnant with his child. 4) Shar Jackson let herself get knocked up twice by a man to whom she wasn't married. 5) Shar Jackson apparently also has two children by at least one father other than Federline. 6) I can find no evidence that Jackson has ever been married. So, what does all this tell us: (a) Federline is a degenerate scumbag who knocks up women not his wife, doesn't marry them, and will stick his d*** in any available slut at any time -- including when another woman, already the mother of one of his children, is bearing his child. (b) Shar Jackson is at best guilty of very bad judgment, and at worst a stupid whore. (c) Skankwoman is a cheap, amoral slut, and stupid enough to marry a known philanderer. These people deserve each other. Federline deserves to have his $300K/year shoved up his a** a penny at a time. Hopefully, en route to that happy denouement he will (1) knock up Skankwoman; (2) f*** some nasty whore behind Skankwoman's back; (3) bring home an incurable (non-fatal), sexually transmitted disease -- herpes would be good -- and transmit it to Skankwoman; and (4) have his d*** shrivel up and fall off immediately after he infects Skankwoman. Skankwoman deserves to be impregnated, cheated on, infected, and divorced, and to have her career go down the sh**ter as well. Shar Jackson deserves to be cheated on by virtue of repeatedly displaying piss-poor judgment. The only innocent parties here are Jackson's kids. But I see no reason Spears should pay for them. Their idiot/whore mother and degenerate father chose to bring those kids into this world, and they should have to support them. In fact, I'd be much happier if both natural parents had to work themselves into early graves doing backbreaking work on a daily basis in order to support the results of their stupidity/irresponsibility. They shouldn't be able to pass the responsibility off on Daddy's wife, even if she is a dirty slut. [/rant]

Posted by: Matt at September 24, 2004 09:13 PM (eWM9Y)

9 Annie: Doncha think we've all wasted enough time on this person? Let's follow the Michael Jackson saga...at least justice should be coming to him a little more swiftly.

Posted by: shelly s. at September 25, 2004 01:00 AM (s6c4t)

10 I'm so weak. I swore I would lay off this comment thread, yet I'm coming back to it like an addict. I hate myself. But gimme the crackpipe. Imagine Federline is en flagrante delecto with Jackson. Skankwoman saunters in au natural, and purrs for Federline to come across the room and delecto a bit with a blond temptress. Federline, in the process of disengagement and redeployment, knocks two beautiful vases to the ground- shattering both into many pieces. Now, Federline knocked over and shattered those vases. Its HIS responsibility. It IS NOT Skankwoman's fault. It IS NOT her responsibility. But, the classy thing, the decent thing, is for Skankwoman to grab an extra broom and help sweep up the mess. I'm not advocating that Skankwoman show moral responsibility. I'm advocating that Skankwoman show some common decency. Since prenups have been instituted into this situation, its disingenious to say "This should be covered by prenup, but this other should not be covered by prenup." If you're going to bring prenup into the picture, go all the way. Skankwoman has a legal case that she's not responsible for the kids. If she was a waitress at Chile's, I would absolutely say she has a moral case that she's not responsible for the kids. But she's not a waitress at Chile's. When fortune smiles, the classy thing is to share a bit of your good fortune with others. To not do so is bad juju, bad karma, and just an all around lack of class. As soon as I sober up, I will never touch this intoxicating subject again. I swear.

Posted by: gcotharn at September 25, 2004 12:54 PM (AaBEz)

11 To all that's been said, I'd also add that anything in a prenuptial agreement relating to child support is likely to be held by a court to be unenforceable. Just as with custody, courts typically use the "best interests of the child" standard, and I'd expect there are plenty of statutes to govern this that would trump the prenup regardless.

Posted by: Dave J at September 29, 2004 10:37 AM (VThvo)

12 britney doesn't have to pay child support for the asshole's kids. it's the asshole's responsibility to pay child support. they are the jerk's kids, not hers. and britney didn't steal anyone, it was that fuckin' bastard who started dating her. kevin is so cheeky. he says the cash he will receive in case he and brit split is too little. he doesn't deserve even a penny.

Posted by: alazobbi at August 06, 2005 02:59 PM (aKIoq)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

September 22, 2004

No Poetry Today

No Poetry Today, but be sure to check out Poetry Thursday on Hugo's blog tomorrow.

Update: Victor the Rat has unilaterally decided to turn this into Joe Don Baker Haiku Day, which is such an absurd idea that i have to give it my hearty endorsement.

annika isn't celebrating Poetry Day today. In protest, I'm turning her comments into Joe Don Baker Haiku Day. Frequent annika commenter Scof has already submitted an excellent one that offers an insight into JDB that I hadn't realized before. I, of course, have submitted a couple and I'll do a couple more before the day is over.

i will judge all haikus submitted before 7:00 a.m. PDT tomorrow (for the benefit of my overseas visitors - Kevin Kim, that means you) and the winner gets a prize from my stash of highly coveted annika's journal merchandise!

Don't know who Joe Don Baker is? Click here.

Update: Deadline extended to 10:00 p.m. Thursday night.

Posted by: annika at 07:36 AM | Comments (32) | Add Comment
Post contains 163 words, total size 1 kb.

September 20, 2004

"Hi Mom, College Is Fun, And I Finally Found A Diet I Can Stick To!"

Is the following a joke, or is it serious? Probably both.

From a site called College Sex Advice comes this:

The Freshman Sex Diet
The dreaded Freshman Fifteen - those infamous extra pounds that new college arrivals inevitably pack on. This weight gain typically results from a diet of dorm food, pizza parties, keggers, and junk-food fueled all-nighters, coupled with reduced physical activity. Luckily there is a fun and easy solution that can keep you in shape - have sex!

Sounds reasonable? Wait, it gets better:

Sex is great exercise and it's more fun than going to the gym. Sex is good for your circulation, improves aerobic fitness by increasing heart rate and respiration, and exercises many major muscle groups. Each time you have sex, you burn between 100 to 300 calories per hour, depending on how vigorously you go at it. If you can't find a partner, don't worry; masturbation burns calories too.
To get the most fitness value out of sex, be sure to include lot of different activities in your session . . . To spot-tone problem areas of the body, here are some specific exercises you can do during sex. Your partner doesn't even need to know that you're working out while you screw. Try to avoid counting reps under your breath - it could spoil the mood.

Some PG rated examples: "Cowgirl Quad Lifts," the "Inner Thigh Scissors Squeeze," and "Missionary Push Ups." You get the picture.

Chilling in front of the TV is prime snacking time for lots of folks. Same goes for listening to music or watching movies. Next time you settle down in front of the tube, instead of reaching into that bag of chips, reach down your pants and spank the monkey or pet your kitty. If you're with friends, don't be shy; try to get them in on the act too.

Umm, Ohhh-kay . . .

My days at Cal were pretty wild, but i think any guy who tried that, even at Berkeley, would've gotten a different kind of beat-down pretty quickly, and often.

i don't know. Has college changed that much since i was a freshman?

Link via Life of Brian.

Posted by: annika at 11:07 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 388 words, total size 3 kb.

Ra^ther Caves

Now that CBS News and Dan Rather have accepted the obvious, i think its an excellent time to hit them with another round of e-mails calling for Rather's resignation. Throw Mapes in there too, for good measure.

In case you haven't seen it, here's the statement:

STATEMENT FROM DAN RATHER:
Last week, amid increasing questions about the authenticity of documents used in support of a 60 MINUTES WEDNESDAY story about President Bush's time in the Texas Air National Guard, CBS News vowed to re-examine the documents in questionÂ—and their sourceÂ—vigorously. And we promised that we would let the American public know what this examination turned up, whatever the outcome.
Now, after extensive additional interviews, I no longer have the confidence in these documents that would allow us to continue vouching for them journalistically. I find we have been misled on the key question of how our source for the documents came into possession of these papers. That, combined with some of the questions that have been raised in public and in the press, leads me to a point whereÂ—if I knew then what I know nowÂ—I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question.
But we did use the documents. We made a mistake in judgment, and for that I am sorry. It was an error that was made, however, in good faith and in the spirit of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of investigative reporting without fear or favoritism.
Please know that nothing is more important to us than people's trust in our ability and our commitment to report fairly and truthfully.

Contact CBS News by clicking here.

More: Why does it take "extensive additional interviews" (presumably referring to CBS's upcoming Burkett interview) for Rather and company to discern what anyone else can see, simply by looking at the documents for five minutes.

That's the problem with "journalists." They don't have the brainpower to understand technical issues (which the bloggers grasped immediately), so they rely on hearsay almost exclusively. They would make horrible lawyers.

He that liveth by hearsay, must perish by hearsay.

Send those e-mails, please.

Update: A rather amusing poem by Smallholder at Nakedvillainy.com.

Posted by: annika at 09:40 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 377 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Dan Rather certainly got snookered. Just goes to show that relying on your employees to figure things out for you can be disastrous if you are not paying attention. Does anybody have any evidence that he participated in this fraud, or do you think it was so obvious a fraud that he must have known? I've been writing letters to the White House asking Bush to resign, too. He either got really snookered by the intelligence community, otherwise know as his employees, or he was in on the fraud all along. Nothing he presented as evidence turned out to be true either! I guess I better start writing to CBS too, but I fear the same outcome as my letters to the WH. What to do!!

Posted by: mike at September 20, 2004 10:15 AM (0ZdtC)

2 Please do write to CBS, Mike. Your analogy is interesting, but unsound. You make the mistake of so many others, by focusing entirely on WMD as the justification for the war in Iraq. It's understandable that you would make that mistake, since the administration has done such a piss poor job of explaining why the Iraq War was necessary. But it's clear to me, and to anyone who had done the necessary analysis, that the War was and is justified as part of the "War on Terror." i've posted on this extensively, so i won't repeat my arguments in this comment. But i would add that Krauthammer's AEI speech is a good place to start your research, if you're really open-minded on the issue, which i doubt.

Posted by: annika! at September 20, 2004 10:43 AM (zAOEU)

3 If you read between the lines, you'll notice subliminal messages in the statement........ "It was an error that was made, however, in good faith and in the spirit of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of investigative reporting WITHOUT FEAR or FAVORITISM." Translation: ......in the spirit of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of courageously making reports that depict conservatives unfavorably. Now, where's my tin foil hat?

Posted by: reagan80 at September 20, 2004 11:48 AM (O7itv)

4 I tried to converse with folks on the Kerry blog and they kicked me off. They don't want to hear that the docs were fake.

Posted by: Paul at September 20, 2004 12:29 PM (9/Szu)

5 Yah Paul. It reminds me of the days before Clinton admitted to the Lewinsky thing, when everybody was saying they believed him. Then they all had egg on their faces after Clinton admitted it.

Posted by: annika! at September 20, 2004 12:44 PM (zAOEU)

6 Thank God for these media outlets (like this one), kicking butt and dispelling rumors. No longer can the mainstream media have a field day with their own liberal agenda. Oh well, have a good day. - Paul

Posted by: Paul at September 20, 2004 12:55 PM (9/Szu)

7 It's too bad CSI, I mean CBS, is keeping him on the air, this was a golden opportunity for them to shake things up. I'll send another email, I hope it does the job.

Posted by: Scof at September 20, 2004 02:09 PM (XCqS+)

8 I want DubYuh to do an interview with him, and when Dan gets snotty as he surely will, look him in the eye and say, "Dan, what did you know, and when did you know it?"

Posted by: Casca at September 20, 2004 06:49 PM (Y671w)

9 Let's see ... Rather used information he thought was accurate and reported on it. He was mistaken, the information was wrong. The potential damage-- possibily a slight blemish on President Bush. Now consider this. Bush used information he thought was accurate and acted on it. He was mistaken, the information was wrong. The potential damage-- tens of thousands of people are dead. So based on this logic shouldn't they both resign?

Posted by: thebigo at October 10, 2004 05:00 PM (IwZ9f)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Gimme A Quick Pick, Cash Value

Quickly, tonights game, Vikings at Eagles, McNabb and Owens vs. Culpepper and Moss, blah blah blah. The difference for me is Westbrook over Onterrio Smith, though the Vikings might have a better run defense. Spread is Eagles minus three. i think the Eagles will cover, go with Philly.

Update: Eagles over Minnesota, 27-16. Moss and Owens were roughly even in effectiveness. But Brian Westbrook rushed for 69 yards and caught for 69, including several big plays. Whereas Onterrio Smith only had 28 yards rushing.

Go ahead and say it: i fucking rock!

Update 2: Oops, i just checked out this weeks results for the Blogger's Bowl fantasy football league. My opponent this week is Victor's Rats of Chaos (what is it with that boy and rats?), and while i currently lead him by a hefty margin, Yahoo has not yet updated the stats and he has four Philly players on his team. He's predicting an additional 60 points based on McNabb and company's performance tonight.

As Charlie Brown would say: "Rats!"

Posted by: annika at 06:56 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 183 words, total size 1 kb.

Curious

Hey, she can have sex now!

Oh that's right, she already has.

Posted by: annika at 06:25 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 14 words, total size 1 kb.

1 We should start a pool on how long this thing is gonna last.

Posted by: Amy at September 20, 2004 08:03 AM (RpVKX)

2 Time to start a pool. These are my bets: First public spat: Election Week~ Nov. 2 First rumors of new husband's infidelity appearing in People Magazine: Jan. 20 Britney files for divorce: Feb 18 Britney does the traditional girl thing-- dump them after Valentines Day! Here's how I know I'm on the right track-- can't decide if my predictions are too cynical or too optimistic...

Posted by: gcotharn at September 20, 2004 08:47 AM (AaBEz)

3 The "traditional girl thing?" i won't ask.

Posted by: annika! at September 20, 2004 10:45 AM (zAOEU)

4 Well, since the traditional girl thing, when immediately followed by, "I won't ask," really means, "Tell me what that means if you ever want a day of peace for the rest of your life," I'll tell you what it means: 1. Boy figures out girl is ready to dump him. 2. Boy, simply because he doesn't like to lose at anything, plans big romantic expensive Valentine's Day thing that will surely guarantee he keeps her until that day he decides he's sick of her. 3. Girl, in the meantime, has been dropping hints she'll drop him, knowing boy will plan big romantic expensive Valentine's Day thing to try to guarantee he keeps her until that day he decides he's sick of her. 4. Boy spends a boatload of bucks on a rented limo, flowers, candy, dinner, wine, and theater tickets on Valentine's Day. 5. Girl order's sixteen lobsters and seven bottles of champagne at dinner, then dumps boy during intermission of play/musical/opera. 6. Boy leaves girl at theater, but she's already made arrangements to be picked up by a girlfriend after the show so she can show her girlfriend the pictures of the guy's face when his plan fell flat. Pictures show up on internet faster than a Britney Spears divorce. No, that's never happened to me, but I know two girls who've done similar things (I admit, one of the guys deserved it. Don't know the other guy, so I can't really say.).

Posted by: Victor at September 20, 2004 11:38 AM (L3qPK)

5 The spread between Christmas and V-day is the professional single guy's annual holiday... Only uncommitted, purely physical, stay in shape, sportfucking allowed. Amateurs, and the soon to be legally fucked, date during this traditional armistice of the sexes.

Posted by: Casca at September 20, 2004 06:59 PM (Y671w)

6 I knew that "traditional girl thing" would get some comments! I agree with Casca. I should stipulate that I'm talking about college students and early to mid 20's people, and I'm quite past that age. When I was that age, over Thanksgiving I would decide if I really wanted to stay in whatever relationship I was in, because it would mean Christmas gift AND probable Valentine's Hell. Per Casca, and lacking serious zhu-zhu for the girl, the smart play was to ditch her- really before Thanksgiving- which means you didn't have to put up with any of those cloying "I miss you so much" calls from your family's house while she was at her family's house. Every man with any sense thinks this way. I honestly can't remember this happening to me, but I've always thought girls would hang in there and ditch the guy soon after Valentine's Hell. That way she gets flowers sent to her office so she can show off in front of her girlfriends. And those flowers damn well better arrive before 10AM. I've sent flowers that arrived late afternoon, and I caught hell for it. That was a girl I thought I had a future with, and that incident was a factor in ditching her. Anyway, why would a girl ditch BEFORE Valentines? Valentines is "be a princess" day! Flowers, chocolate, champagne, good food, big production sex... hell, almost makes me want to put on a lacy thingy and let the guy do me! Almost. If I'm wrong about all this, you can let me know. But, as a general, loose rule, I've always thought there was a lot of this stuff going on- on both sides.

Posted by: gcotharn at September 20, 2004 09:46 PM (Pbs6a)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

September 17, 2004

Stupid And Ironic Comment Of The Week*

What do herpes, hurricanes**, crabgrass, Carrot Top, and commenter Robert McLelland have in common?

Nobody wants them, nobody likes them, they keep coming back, and they just . . . won't . . . fucking . . . go . . . away.

Usually i either delete McLelland's shit, or i fuck with it by translating it into French, then into German, then back into English and leave it there. Strangely, i find his comments make more sense after the Google translator has shredded them.

But Little Mac's latest comment, under my Fat Ollie Willis post, is going to stay right where it is, unaltered, (except for his link, which i deleted).

The comment is so deliciously ironic, i want everyone to see how Bush haters think:

Reich Whingers will do anything to get Dear Leader facsist re-selected to office for four more wars. . . .
ps. Don't think because I'm Canadian that I won't influence this election. I have absentee ballots from New York, Michigan and Florida from three different identities. On each I will loudly vote for John Fitzgerald Kerry (unless I decide to write in Osama). [emphasis mine]

i wonder if Mac is familiar with the psychological term "projection." Or maybe he's too dense to be aware of it.

i think this little anecdote is a perfect illustration of the message behind Professor Hugh Hewitt's excellent book: If It's Not Close, They Can't Cheat: Crushing the Democrats in Every Election and Why Your Life Depends on It

_______________

* No, i don't plan to make this a regular blog feature.
** of both the meteorological and football variety.

Posted by: annika at 06:33 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 283 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Annika, I suggest that you send his IP Address, e-mail, and other information to the FBI suggesting they investigate him for possible voter fraud.

Posted by: lawguy at September 17, 2004 07:23 PM (og7p8)

2 It's amazing to me that a human being took time out of their life to write that where at most .000000001% of humanity will see it. That's why need to get rid of democracy and establish rule by a council of philosopher kings (pks, or pricks). They can serve 4 year terms and the whole thing can be made into a reality show. Boy I can't wait for the episode where the slut prick tries to sleep with the hot all-american prick, who's in limbo because he's not sure if he can justify breaking up with his wife back home just for delicious poonany. And the gay prick will lament that he's lonely and he'll sit with all the girl pricks and have a heart-to-heart about it all. And they will all say "like" alot. It will get unbelievably high ratings because it is such an enjoyable way to commit collective suicide.

Posted by: Scof at September 17, 2004 09:48 PM (TfAlc)

3 Isn't Kerry's middle name Forbes, not Fitzgerald?

Posted by: Lori at September 18, 2004 08:56 AM (p2MsL)

4 Annika, why bother with these dopes? It is not possible to deal with irrational people, and anyone who does not understand that the only way to fight terrorism is to hunt it down and kill it whereever it lives seems pretty irrational to me. Otherwise, we wait for them to come and get us. It is no accident that we have been relatively free from futher incidents in the U.S.A. They are too busy hiding and covering up their sorry butts to launch anything like 911. Is that too hard to understand? No one likes war, but there are times when it simply has to happen and to not support our present policy seems alien to me, and apparently enough others to have GWB be at least 5 or 6 points up right now. I am one of those who believes the margin will widen, despite all evidence that it always seems to narrow at the end. If I'm right, the Democratic Party risks becoming the permanent minority. I guess we'll know in November, but the guys in Vegas have Bush at 2 to 1 right now. They are seldom wrong.

Posted by: shelly s. at September 18, 2004 11:13 AM (PcgQk)

5 He is not worthy.

Posted by: Casca at September 18, 2004 07:36 PM (Y671w)

6 you cant handel mclelind because he hands you your nazi ass every post! kerry will win 35 stats and dc!

Posted by: Um Yeah at September 19, 2004 06:35 AM (N81G+)

7 Hi Shelly, I think the reason the North Koreans have not nukked us is because we depolyed the ABM system in Alaska. I think the Martians have stayed away as well because the two rovers are putting cameras on them.

Posted by: mike at September 19, 2004 11:16 AM (0ZdtC)

8 Actually, the North Koreans haven't nuked us yet because we have more nukes than them and a better military while they have a pissant-sized country that would probably only require a couple nukes to make their territory uninhabitable for thousands of years. The ABM system wasn't meant to be a deterrent to war, but as a potential response to a war that has already begun.

Posted by: reagan80 at September 19, 2004 12:24 PM (hlMFQ)

9 Hi Ray gun, Irony, Ray, Irony. I know why they have not sent a rocket, that could not reach us, at us. ShellyS is convinced there were no terror attacks in the US because of the "war on Terror". You are a bright guy Ray, why don't you explain "proving a negative" to her.

Posted by: mike at September 19, 2004 01:53 PM (0ZdtC)

10 "kerry will win 35 stats and dc!" All 35 stats will probably be from the Red Sox's 1946 box scores, however. I'll believe D.C., though; people who'd elect Marion Berry a city councillor will vote for anybody.

Posted by: John "Akatukami" Braue at September 19, 2004 06:33 PM (p+ca8)

11 Middle name definitely Forbes. You and I agree about so little, Annika -- but we both hate the Miami Hurricanes, and the fact that Hurricane Ivan forces Cal to play after the Big Game. Go Bears Go!

Posted by: Hugo at September 19, 2004 06:42 PM (3Hy+w)

12 Mike, small, bitter and stupid is no way to go through life.

Posted by: Radical Redneck at September 20, 2004 03:49 AM (cSeNu)

13 I know why they have not sent a rocket, that could not reach us, at us. Um, what? We should not forget that we have PLENTY of US military installations ALL OVER the freaking PacRim.

Posted by: Amy at September 20, 2004 07:59 AM (RpVKX)

14 we've got a psycho of our own now, too. i feel your pain.

Posted by: candace at September 21, 2004 06:19 AM (uQH2i)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Extra Friday Poetry

Today is William Carlos Williams' birthday (1883 - 1963). i don't think you can make a list of the greatest American poets without including Williams. What i like so much about WCW was that he wasn't neurotic or mentally ill, he didn't commit suicide, he was like a normal guy who wrote great stuff. In fact, he was a practicing physician in Rutherford New Jersey and happily married. Here's a well-known fragment from one of his longer poems, which is so simple, but so good.

so much depends
upon
a red wheel
barrow
glazed with rain
water
beside the white
chickens.

And another, one of my favorites:

The Young Housewife
At ten AM the young housewife
moves about in negligee behind
the wooden walls of her husband's house.
I pass solitary in my car.
Then again she comes to the curb
to call the ice-man, fish-man, and stands
shy, uncorseted, tucking in
stray ends of hair, and I compare her
to a fallen leaf.
The noiseless wheels of my car
rush with a crackling sound over
dried leaves as I bow and pass smiling.

i like this one too:

The Term
A rumpled sheet
Of brown paper
About the length
And apparent bulk
Of a man was
Rolling with the
Wind slowly over
And over in
The street as
A car drove down
Upon it and
Crushed it to
The ground. Unlike
A man it rose
Again rolling
With the wind over
And over to be as
It was before.

Williams had this ability i envy so much. He was able to create a full picture of a moment in time with only a few words. It's like reading a Hopper painting.

Posted by: annika at 09:39 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 288 words, total size 2 kb.

1 When I was at school, junior year of high school that is, I did not like WCW and I think I still feel the same. I recall one day in particular from my English class, where each day someone had to read their 1-page "readers notebook" which they wrote in the night before. This day we started out with a vocabularly test. The format of these tests was to use multiple sentences with occassional blanks where you'd fill in the vocab word. Feeling mischeivious, I decided that some of the words in these sentences I did not know (in addition, obviously, to the words I was being tested on). So I piped up and asked Mr. Akers for the definition of one of the words. He asked if it was one of the words I was supposed to be tested on, and I said no because it wasn't. I asked for more definitions, but these times I actually asked for the words on the test -- and he told 'em to us! Folks around me were snickering, I was proud I was being a bit of rascal. Well I got away with that, but after the test Mr. Akers says, "Well since you were so inquisitive during the test, how 'bout we read your Reader's Notebook?" I suppose, subconciously, I wanted it to be read, but I pleaded for him to pick someone else. Finally we comprimised: he would read it for me. The first line set the tone as Mr. Akers smiled when he said it: "Well, if this is being read in front of the class than I guess I'm screwed." The sudden flush of laughter in the classroom was something to behold. But from there it just got worse. I made fun of what he was teaching us, saying I'd rather analyze episodes of "Mad About You". Then we got to some Breakfast table poem by WCW and I ripped into it as a piece of trash, child's play. Of course I ripped into it as best a junior in high school can, which did not impress Mr. Akers. He was quite upset with what I wrote and called it crap. After class I tried to be the first to get out the door but Mr. Akers told me to wait. Oddly enough this happened as I stood next to the door, so everyone in class looked at me as they passed by leaving. I got some thumb ups, and some looks of "who is this dork". In the end Mr. Akers told me I could do much better. I turned red from embarrassment as I am wont to do and that was that. Since then I have come to love poetry more than most things. Still, right now, I do not like WCW. It just seems pretentious the way he uses language.

Posted by: Scof at September 17, 2004 09:52 AM (XCqS+)

2 Wow, the red wheel barrow poem brings back so many memories.... Of high school (like Scof)...I remember our teacher asking us "what does this mean?" and everyone sitting around with these blank looks on their faces (myself included).

Posted by: Amy at September 17, 2004 10:29 AM (RpVKX)

3 If you can remember high school, you weren't really there. Thankfully, the copious use of alcohol has freed me from my keepers. Marshall Mathers can rhyme, why can't Williams? Good imagery, nice sentiments, pretentious, Gentleman's C.

Posted by: Casca at September 17, 2004 05:25 PM (Y671w)

4 If you can remember high school, you weren't really there. It seems like this should be a humorous statement but I don't find it so because I disagree with it. I enjoyed high school quite a bit, I made alot of good friends I still keep in touch with. Besides as cap'n of the Academic Decathlon team and VP of the Arizona Junior Classical League, I had the market cornered on all the hot nerd chicks.

Posted by: Scof at September 17, 2004 06:16 PM (TfAlc)

5 I've always liked William Carlos Williams, and am fond enough of your Hopper comparison that I wish I'd made it. Exactly so.

Posted by: Fox at September 19, 2004 10:03 PM (8jORs)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

September 16, 2004

ROTFL Moment Of The Week

Fat-lard-ass Ollie Willis* comes up with some doozies, but yesterday he farted out a real howler of a line:

John Kerry is a better leader, a better man, a better patriot than George Bush and everyone else on the left (and a few honest folks on the right) knows it.

Yah? In what freaking parallel universe, lard butt?

* For whom no amount of money would induce me to give a link.

Posted by: annika at 04:23 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 80 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Ollie is one of that breed of invincibly ignorant among us. The expression "dumber than dog-dirt" comes to mind. At some point the force or nature will surely catch up with him. If there is any justice, we're looking at a future Darwin Award winner!

Posted by: Casca at September 16, 2004 05:03 PM (q+PSF)

2 "* For whom no amount of money would induce me to give a link." And I thought I was the only one.

Posted by: physics geek at September 16, 2004 08:22 PM (l+JBQ)

3 hey if the left stops attacking bush and concentrats on the media, i would be fine with that

Posted by: cube at September 17, 2004 07:06 AM (nyNr0)

4 *that sentence should read. hey if the left stops attacking bush and concentrates on the issues i would be find with that. sorry

Posted by: cube at September 17, 2004 07:08 AM (nyNr0)

5 Yeah, and Dan Rather is a better journalist, a better man, and a better patriot than Edward R. Murrow

Posted by: DBrooks at September 17, 2004 07:11 AM (3J0hl)

6 OK, Rah-bert, since Bush "stole" the last election that justifies your attempt at voter fraud to defeat Bush. Nice logic....... You're fond of Osama, huh? That makes sense......You must be one of those Canadian dickheads that wants your socialist government to adopt Islamic(Get your burkha!) Sharia law so that Muslim men can legally perform misogyny against their spouses. Oh, and I bet you think we deserved the 9/11 attacks too. Am I right?

Posted by: reagan80 at September 17, 2004 01:03 PM (hlMFQ)

7 Careful, Robert. In your glorious People's Republik of Canada you could be prosecuted for hate speech for talking that kind of shit. But you guys really know what the fuck you're doing, eh!

Posted by: Matt at September 17, 2004 08:37 PM (eWM9Y)

8 Yeah, Robert, that First Amendment is a real pesky piece of writing, isn't it? Oh, I forgot, it only applies to left-wingnuts. Conservative voices (curiously identified as some sort of takeoff on the name of the former Secretary of Labor) don't deserve protection in Robert's world. Assclown...

Posted by: Patrick at September 18, 2004 06:24 PM (Qz3PY)

9 Ah C-mon, give RAH-BERT a break. He atleast acknowledges that to get Kerry elected it would take every Kerry supported 3 ballots from 3 differnt states for it to happen, and even then, maybe not!

Posted by: Cathy at September 19, 2004 02:42 PM (eCX0e)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Updated Thoughts On E-mailing CBS News

On Friday, i began my crusade to get people to e-mail CBS News and ask for Dan Rather's resignation. i also think it's a good idea to demand that CBS release the name of the person who gave them the forged memos.

The issues that arise from this scandal are too big and too far-reaching to ignore, and that is why i'm so passionate about this. Thank you for the sincere concern of those of you who e-mailed me, reminding me not to neglect the demands of my first year law courses. i know you are right. But i also know that i have built a small reservoir of goodwill among the few readers of this blog, and if i can multiply that goodwill for this important purpose, i see it as my duty to do so.

My own e-mails to CBS have evolved with the story, and as CBS's stonewalling has progressed. Here is my latest version, which i sent after reading CBS News President Andrew Heyward's long awaited, and anti-climactic press release:

I eagerly awaited CBS News President Andrew Heyward's press release regarding last week's 60 Minutes II program and the Killian memos. When the three sentence statement was finally released, I was left with the impression that CBS's news division is in disarray.
It is now beyond doubt that all of the memos disclosed by CBS News on the 60 Minutes II program are forgeries. It is also beyond doubt that Dan Rather, his producer and the staff of 60 Minutes II failed to exercise even the most rudimentary journalistic neutrality or judgment concerning the use of these forged memos.
Accordingly, I cannot see any reason for Dan Rather to remain employed as anchorman of the Evening News, or in any capacity at CBS. His continued evasions and denials contradict reality and reflect badly on your organization's public image.
Every day that Mr. Rather remains as the face of CBS News brings further lost credibility to your once great news department. Please forward this message to the appropriate person, as my request that Mr. Rather resign immediately.
In addition, there is no longer any reason to protect the identity of the person or persons who transmitted the forged documents to CBS News. In fact there is ample reason to disclose that information immediately.
I'm sure you will agree that manipulation of a presidential election through deceit and fraud is a serious matter. I'm sure you will also agree that CBS News should not appear to be tolerant of such acts, and certainly should not be seen as an abettor to fraud. Yet, unless CBS News discloses the name of the person or persons responsible for the forgeries, your organization will suffer a loss of prestige and credibility that may take generations to rebuild.

CBS is still entrenched. The emergence of the secretary will probably prevent Rather from being fired, which is unfortunate. But one thing is clear. CBS News has no intention of doing the right thing. They had plenty of chances to do that already, and they went in the opposite direction. i think their lawyers may have had something to do with that, and Rather probably begged them to give him one more chance to buttress his story. He outfoxed everyone with this latest coup, but it doesn't change the fact of his egregious breach of journalistic ethics. Nor does it absolve the mysterious forger of any wrongdoing.

Regardless of whether Rather resigns, or CBS discloses the forger, i remain convinced that people should continue to e-mail CBS News with their opinions. If there are Congressional hearings, someone is going to ask the CBS representatives how many complaints they received concerning this whole scandal. And i want their response to be as large a number as possible.

Contact CBS News by clicking here.

See also: Kevin at Wizbang has background on how CBS developed the National Guard story. And Val Prieto at Babalu Blog has a link for you to contact your local CBS affiliate too.

Posted by: annika at 12:24 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 681 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Be careful what you wish for. Every Democrat I talk to has no interest in any of this b.s. that distracts everybody (voters, press, bloggers) from the real issues that need to be addressed in this election. From everything I read it's the Republicans that stand to gain by the release of this memo. Be careful what you wish for. This could be very embarrassing for the G.O.P.!!

Posted by: Dave Diamond at September 16, 2004 05:58 AM (Bmhbf)

2 Dave Diamond, with a name like that you should go into the moives ....pron movies. I am just kidding. If CBS is baised and the souces of the memos would hurt the GOP, i would think that they would have been released a long time ago. So i have to conclude the oppiste of what you conculded, the release of the source can only hurt the democrats

Posted by: cube at September 16, 2004 07:30 AM (nyNr0)

3 Hey Annika, http://rathergate.com has a link to contact all of CBS' sponsors at once. FYI.

Posted by: Johnny Walker Red at September 16, 2004 11:57 AM (j5kv4)

4 I'm sorry, I misstated it - it's not the sponsors, it's the shareholders.

Posted by: Johnny Walker Red at September 16, 2004 12:02 PM (j5kv4)

5 Hey Dave Diamond, Oh contraire monfrair......ol' Hillary has something to gain from the Dems losing this election: she doesn't have to put on her sh*t-eating grin and smile for the next (potentially) 8 years while she supports other people running for the presidency

I know, conspiracy theory....the Clintons would never keep a secret.

Posted by: Pete at September 16, 2004 01:08 PM (wYmSF)

6 I emailed CBS and my local affiliate. Strangely enough, last night the local affiliate ran an editorial on Kerry and the Winter Soldier Investigation from a website www.newscentral.tv It's been so long since I watched anything on network tv that I was shocked that they ran a conservative piece.

Posted by: irishlass at September 16, 2004 08:17 PM (tlO6y)

7 Has anyone had a response from CBS? Me, neither. So I typed up a note, congratulating them on "finding proof of the President's dereliction of duty." Yes, I had my fingers and toes crossed while I typed that up because I recall seeing on another blog how notes of support are getting responses. The blog included a cut-and-paste of CBS's response. I'll let you know what happened.

Posted by: LCVRWC at September 17, 2004 05:52 AM (L3qPK)

8 That is a fantastic idea, LCVRWC! Let us know what happens.

Posted by: annika! at September 17, 2004 08:50 AM (zAOEU)

9 Your wisdom astute Deserves a tribute On source revelation We have a peroration On Nakedvillainy.com It won't take you long To laugh at amateur verse Of our Dan Rather curse Seriously, the poetry is bad but I think you'll be amused.

Posted by: smallholder at September 20, 2004 10:13 AM (EKkB8)

10 Actually, it is rather amusing.

Posted by: annika! at September 20, 2004 09:33 PM (mGLSq)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

September 15, 2004

The Secretary

Am i the only one who saw 60 Minutes II tonight?

i think CBS rushed the interview with the secretary onto the West Coast broadcasts only, because there's no word of it on any of the blogs i've checked.

She was probably well coached beforehand. She agreed with all the allegations raised by the forged memos, while at the same time denying their authenticity.

Her demeanor seemed credible, but i have to ask. With this lady out there, why did anyone feel the need to pull such a clumsy forgery stunt?

Score one point to CBS, apparently.

By the way, Rather was positively disgusting. He visibly sighed with relief after one of the secretary's statements. And he did his best to keep spinning this story in his favor.

So now we're supposed to forget about the forgery and talk about Bush? i ask again, if this lady was out there, why the forgery?

And despite the secretary's comment that Killian's son "wouldn't know nothin'" there's still the matter of Killian's wife and son.

Posted by: annika at 07:30 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 177 words, total size 1 kb.

1 yes, you are the only one.

Posted by: d-rod at September 15, 2004 07:47 PM (vOlam)

2 If CBS wanted to get at the truth, the why didn't they have Killian's wife and son on, as well as the secretary? Why haven't they interviewed experts who challenge the authenticity of the memos, as well as those who defend them? It seems to me that they have positioned themselves as stakeholders and participants in this issue, rather than as journalists reporting on it.

Posted by: David Foster at September 15, 2004 08:09 PM (XUtCY)

3 Chuckle, that's the drowning man bobbing for the second time. I couldn't possibly contrive prolonging such a weak stupid subject into sucking all of the media oxygen out of the campaigns. Folks, it aint gonna be close.

Posted by: Casca at September 15, 2004 08:41 PM (q+PSF)

4 Here's an obvious thing that is bugging me. The secretary is on the record(Houston Chronicle- I think) saying she used an Olympia typewriter, then switched to an IBM Selectric in the early 1970's. She DID NOT use an IBM Selectric Composer, which would've been neccessary to produce the proportional spacing. The IBM Selectric DID NOT produce proportional spacing. How long is Dan Rather going to play dumb? He's giving credence to the secretary's story about Colonel Killian's private thoughts, but not giving credence to her story about the typewriter she used??? I hope the Abilene Kinko's lead breaks this story wide open. I hope the FBI gets search warrants for Burkett's computer, and charges him with several felonies. Off with Dan Rather's head! I'm feeling carnivorous. VERY. Its time for real men to stand up and establish some Old Testament law and order- along with women who know how to stand up like men. Gary Cooper in High Noon. Wyatt Earp. Karen Seymour- the Martha Stewart prosecutor, and my home-girl from Ft. Worth Southwest High School. Karen Seymour knows how to establish law and order. We need Karen to take a bite out of Dan Rather's backside.

Posted by: gcotharn at September 15, 2004 11:25 PM (AaBEz)

5 I'm on the East coast and saw it, and thought it pathetic. Rather's somber, serious attitude as if this once and for all answered the question was ridiculous. What bothered me was his insistence that while "these" documents were forged, the assurance that there were "real" ones typed by the secretary that were "just like" them. What the hell does that mean? Why don't they produce those instead then? It was a farce. Even if the secretary is being truthful--which she "sounds" like she is, it's again, an undocumented, hearsay kind of thing that's being passed off as proof. To go to these lengths over a possible Bush military career of favoritism and laxness in both his following orders and the military's non-reaction to it (sounded like this kind of thing happens all the time, just pisses people off, but not disciplinary action) is silly.

Posted by: susan at September 16, 2004 12:55 AM (MgAjn)

6 For crying out loud, the woman is 86 years old and has a crystal clear memory of something that happened when she was about 50? My parents are in their mid 70's and sometimes can't remember what I told them last week. How much coaching did she get to "remember"? How much money did Rathergate operatives pay her or her family?

Posted by: Outlaw3 at September 16, 2004 07:29 AM (L9niM)

7 One other thing. If John Edwards can channel aborted fetuses, why can't Dan Rather channel dead TANG Colonels?

Posted by: Outlaw3 at September 16, 2004 07:31 AM (L9niM)

8 "while 'these' documents were forged, the assurance that there were 'real' ones typed by the secretary that were 'just like' them. . . . Why don't they produce those instead then?" i predict that CBS and Burkett will say the real ones were "sanitized" by Bush operatives, and don't exist anymore.

Posted by: annika! at September 16, 2004 07:36 AM (E4a1o)

9 Amazing how Rather delusionally believes doing that segment (i did reluctantly watch it later) in his best BabaWawa voice will absolve him in the eyes of his viewers. What hubris.

Posted by: d-rod at September 16, 2004 08:37 AM (BJJ8+)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Question

Which organization is in greater disarray at the moment: CBS News or the Kerry Campaign?

i realize it may be hard to distinguish between the two.

Now seems like an excellent time to e-mail CBS News again!

Posted by: annika at 03:27 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 39 words, total size 1 kb.

165kb generated in CPU 0.0361, elapsed 0.0985 seconds.
80 queries taking 0.0742 seconds, 394 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy

Monthly Traffic

Pages: 10166
Files: 19
Bytes: 119.0M
CPU Time: 4:30
Queries: 491070

Content

Posts: 2168
Comments: 17090

Feeds

September 30, 2004

September 29, 2004

September 28, 2004

September 27, 2004

September 24, 2004

September 23, 2004

September 22, 2004

September 20, 2004

September 17, 2004

September 16, 2004

September 15, 2004

Search Thingy

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Monthly Traffic

Content

Feeds