just trying to eat my waffles

December 15, 2005

Nose In The Air Media

Today is a great day for freedom. i think it's entirely fitting that i have chosen this day to announce the biggest event in the blogosphere's short history. Today is the long awaited launch day for Nose In The Air Media.

What is Nose In The Air Media, you say? Perhaps you've noticed the new icon on my sidebar, under blogging affiliations. Go ahead and look. See it?

Nose In The Air Media is the brainchild of blogger annika, of annika's journal. That's me. i made the whole thing up. The editorial board consists of me. The graphics designer is me. i'm the CEO, CFO, COO, judge, jury and executioner. i do all the work and i get all the credit.

Here's what Nose In The Air Media is all about:

Nose In The Air Media is not a club.

You don't have to join Nose In The Air Media to be in Nose In The Air Media.

You don't have to be invited into Nose In The Air Media. Just like some other hoity-toity blogging cabals, you might find yourself waiting forever.

If you are reading this, and you want to be in, you're in.

And you'll want to be in. It's that cool.

You don't have to be a "big time" blogger to be in Nose In The Air Media.

You don't have to get linked by any "big time" bloggers to be in Nose In The Air Media.

You don't have to have been interviewed by Time Magazine to be in Nose In The Air Media.

You don't have to be remotely interesting to be in Nose In The Air Media.

You don't even have to have a blog to be in Nose In The Air Media.

You don't have to have a cool site design to be in Nose In The Air Media.

You don't have to be a conservative to be in Nose In The Air Media.

You don't have to be a liberal to be in Nose In The Air Media.

You don't have to be political to be in Nose In The Air Media.

You don't have to wear pajamas to be in Nose In The Air Media.

You don't have to wear anything.

Your front page can load in less than five minutes and you can still be in Nose In The Air Media.

You don't have to like annika's journal to be in Nose In The Air Media.

You don't have to link to annika's journal to be in Nose In The Air Media.

You don't even have to de-link annika's journal to be in Nose In The Air Media.

You don't have to have been mentioned in Hugh Hewitt's book to be in Nose In The Air Media.

You can have a crappy template and be in Nose In The Air Media.

You can say fuck on your blog and be in Nose In The Air Media.

Fuck fuck fuck fuck fucking fuck.

You don't have to be hot to be in Nose In The Air Media.

You don't have to pay dues to be in Nose In The Air Media.

You don't have to be high on the Ecosystem to be in Nose In The Air Media.

You don't even have to know what the Ecosystem is to be in Nose In The Air Media.

You don't have to care at all.

You can post about shit and still be in Nose In The Air Media.

No one is going to kick you out of Nose In The Air Media for hatin' on me.

You'll get no money for being in Nose In The Air Media.

In fact, there's absolutely no advantage to being in Nose In The Air Media.

We have no blogroll.

We have no bankroll.

You don't have to post any icons.

You don't have to link to any other members.

There aren't any other members anyway.

You don't have to take part in any carnivals.

You won't get bombarded by a kazillion spam emails.

You can post as much as you want, or as little as you want, if you join Nose In The Air Media.

You can join Nose In The Air Media, and then quit, and then join again, and then quit again, and then join again, and then quit again, as many times as you like.

There are no celebrities in Nose In The Air Media and being in Nose In The Air Media will not make you a celebrity.

In fact, you can be in Nose In The Air Media and still respond to e-mails from non-celebrities who read your blog. Your head won't even explode.

You don't have to have a clever name to be in Nose In The Air Media.

If you're in Nose In The Air Media, you won't be required to agree with everything that the famous big blogger of the week says.

On the other hand, the famous big blogger of the week won't ever link to you if you're in Nose In The Air Media, even though he or she reads you regularly. But then, they weren't linking to you anyway, so that's no big loss.

You don't have to be a member - of - a - discrete - interest - group - that's - usually - thought - of - as - left - leaning - whose - conservative - views - have - made - you - a - darling - of - the - big - bloggers, to be in Nose In The Air Media.

You don't have to be all overly serious and self-important to be in Nose In The Air Media.

You don't have to have a law degree to be in Nose In The Air Media.

You don't have to be a journalist to be in Nose In The Air Media.

You don't have to be any kind of jerk to be in Nose In The Air Media.

You don't have to be a nun or a minister to be in Nose In The Air Media.

You can smoke pot and be in Nose In The Air Media.

You can even blog about sex and be in Nose In The Air Media.

You don't have to have a paypal button to be in Nose In The Air Media.

You don't have to solicit money for projects that you promise to do, then forget all about the project, but keep the money anyway, to be in Nose In The Air Media.

You don't have to use a fake name to be in Nose In The Air Media.

It's okay to correspond with your visitors when you're in Nose In The Air Media.

It's okay to be one of the little people when you're in Nose In The Air Media.

Even when your blog is ranked higher on the Ecosystem than many so-called "big time" don't-bother-me-I'm-so-serious blogs, not that you care about that shit anyway because it's all bullshit, and you're not competitive in that way, except for just a little bit.

It's okay to hit a paragraph break every once in a while when you're in Nose In The Air Media.

It's not necessary to have a blog ad with a grainy picture of a guy doing isometric push-ups on your sidebar if you want to be in Nose In The Air Media.

You can actually read and comment at other people's blogs when you are in Nose In The Air Media.

In fact there are almost no rules for being in Nose In The Air Media.

You don't have to be great.

You don't have to be more popular.

You don't have to be more interesting.

You don't have to be funnier.

You don't have to be better than any other blogger out there.

In fact there's only one prerequisite for being in Nose In The Air Media.

You have to THINK you're better than everyone else.

And if you can do that, welcome. You're in.

Posted by: annika at 08:44 PM | Comments (29) | Add Comment
Post contains 1338 words, total size 7 kb.

1 Only I could have written it better.

Posted by: Scof at December 16, 2005 01:15 AM (RDouC)

2 Shit, annika, I've always known I was better than everybody, except for my father. I'm even better than you, except in the 'cute chick' department.

Posted by: Victor at December 16, 2005 06:04 AM (L3qPK)

3 Victor is ineligible to join because he does't think he is better than anyone else-he knows he is better.

Posted by: Jake at December 16, 2005 07:23 AM (r/5D/)

4 Joining the flame war against Pajamas Media?

Posted by: reagan80 at December 16, 2005 07:30 AM (K9tdw)

5 what's a pajamas media?

Posted by: annika at December 16, 2005 07:37 AM (nxq8n)

6 Annika Obviously exams are over and you have too much time on your hands. Go view these videos of the new Sony Robot. Amazing stuff. http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/QRIO/videoclip/

Posted by: Jake at December 16, 2005 08:15 AM (r/5D/)

7 "what's a pajamas media?" http://pajamasmedia.com/ A group of bloggers including Moxie has been bashing the new OSM venture lately. Some OSM members are feuding with the critics.... http://moxie.nu/moveabletype/archives/003424.php

Posted by: reagan80 at December 16, 2005 11:45 AM (K9tdw)

8 Thanks for the heads up Reagan, i just followed the links. wild stuff, i was so busy with finals, i had no idea this thing was so controversial. heh heh for the record, no one ever invited me. just so you know. Them grapes were sour anyway.

Posted by: annika at December 16, 2005 06:07 PM (rIVqV)

9 No problem, Annika. I posted a link to your N.I.T.A. logo and another link to this post at Moxie's. Hopefully, that won't attract more trolls here since Atrios linked her recently.....

Posted by: reagan80 at December 16, 2005 06:57 PM (K9tdw)

10 heh, heh...she said "fuck"...heh..heh

Posted by: Pursuit at December 16, 2005 07:09 PM (n/TNS)

11 Best critiqe i've seen so far is at Hog On Ice.

Posted by: annika at December 16, 2005 08:34 PM (aEcBH)

12 Hah! Finally found me a blogospheric home to call my own. Consider me joined!

Posted by: Desert Cat at December 16, 2005 11:10 PM (xdX36)

13 I will join NITA if you put my comment at the top of the list, so I am the first one to have read you post and joined. I HAVE to be ahead of Desert Cat at the very least.

Posted by: Billy Budd at December 17, 2005 06:25 AM (BtK0i)

14 I forgot......How much does this pay again?

Posted by: Billy Budd at December 17, 2005 06:27 AM (BtK0i)

15 OT: Annika, since you're interested in aviation: today is the 70th anniversary of the Douglas DC-3. The first flight took place exactly 32 years after the first flight of the Wright brothers at Kitty Hawk.

Posted by: David Foster at December 17, 2005 09:06 AM (7TmYw)

16 I'm looking forward to a self-referential essay on the importance of Nose In The Air Media in the evolution of the blogosphere. Kinda like when TV airs a special on Nielsen families. (I'd write the essay myself, but you know that I have more important things to do.)

Posted by: Ontario Emperor at December 18, 2005 12:10 PM (4sNu+)

17 This was the post that doesn't end Yes it goes on and on my friend Some people started reading it and not knowing what it was And they'll continue reading it forever just because...

Posted by: Mark at December 18, 2005 11:29 PM (KOJUV)

18 Beware of sticking your 'nose in the air' smoeone my take a dump on it........

Posted by: Wm H at December 19, 2005 09:11 AM (c59X1)

19 Only poseurs think they are better than everybody else. Those of us who really are better than everybody else know we are.

Posted by: MarkD at December 20, 2005 12:34 PM (oQofX)

20 What if I don't think I'm better than everyone else, but rather mroe humble than everyone else ?

Posted by: ch2 at December 22, 2005 06:51 AM (C/uoF)

21 I'm in the Axis of Asshole. I just joined your club, too. Does that make me a Pompous Asshole?

Posted by: Acidman at December 22, 2005 09:53 PM (tZcNR)

22 A club that only has rules about what you don't have to do? I'm in. Hell I'm so much better, those jealous big dogs are afraid to link to me.

Posted by: Libby at December 23, 2005 06:14 AM (DGO1F)

23 Think I'm better? Everyone KNOWS I'm better. Wait, maybe I mean "bigger"

Posted by: og at December 23, 2005 07:05 AM (ip7cG)

24 I've joined, quit, and re-joined 18 times so far today

Great fun!

Posted by: Misty at December 23, 2005 09:12 AM (YYX5i)

25 Nose in the Air Media revolutionizes new model marketing, bringing to bear fundamental technology with exciting innovations that maximize stream revenue through the dynamic convergence of the time tested and the next big thing. And if you put me on the Board, and how can I doubt that you will, you can be quoting the board member of a large and highly respected organization when you quote me.

Posted by: JS Narins at December 23, 2005 01:16 PM (L4z1p)

26 Annika, This was the first post of yours I ever read. I read some more. Please remove me from NITa media. Your nose is up the RNC's rear orifice.

Posted by: JS Narins at December 23, 2005 01:23 PM (L4z1p)

27 JS, I read more of your blog. You might try removing your ample nose from your own posterior, after you remove your head and shoulders, and when you can see what an insufferable and fact resistant tool you are, try to go get a clue. Of course, I can't imagine you doing that, it would require sanity and reason.

Posted by: og at December 23, 2005 02:10 PM (ip7cG)

28 I'm in...

Posted by: Circa Bellum at December 23, 2005 04:44 PM (NCmy7)

29 You mean I can just take the button and put it on my blog and link back to you? LOL

Posted by: Alabama Improper at June 24, 2006 08:35 PM (w29Gv)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

December 14, 2005

Wednesday Is Poetry Day

In honor of Peter Jackson's latest film, here is some ape poetry:

Teaching The Ape To Write Poems
by James Tate
They didn't have much trouble
teaching the ape to write poems:
first they strapped him into the chair,
then tied the pencil around his hand
(the paper had already been nailed down).
Then Dr. Bluespire leaned over his shoulder
and whispered into his ear:
"You look like a god sitting there.
Why don't you try writing something?"

Posted by: annika at 03:59 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 86 words, total size 1 kb.

December 13, 2005

The Media Is On The Side Of The Enemy, Update #1,439

This is beautiful.

Caught with their pants down again. You simply cannot trust the media to report the truth.

The media is on the side of the enemy.

Update: President Bush has now given four major speeches in recent weeks on the Iraq War. i see a new pattern emerging.

1. Democrats complain that Bush needs to explain his Iraq policy.

2. Republicans* admit Bush hasn't done a good job of explaining Iraq policy.

3. Bush explains Iraq policy in a major speech.

4. Media ignores major speech, but pulls one negative quote for headlines. ("30,000 civilians killed" or "Bush takes blame for faulty intel")

5. Go to #1, repeat cycle.

And in the meantime, everybody ignores the fact that Iraq continues to improve every day.
_______________

* myself included.

Posted by: annika at 04:04 PM | Comments (29) | Add Comment
Post contains 152 words, total size 1 kb.

1 There is no media bias. Just ask Dan Rather. You'd take his word for it, wouldn't you?

Posted by: Shelly at December 13, 2005 04:16 PM (6mUkl)

2 Right on annie, you're the best!

Posted by: Scof at December 13, 2005 05:02 PM (RDouC)

3 I was fortunate enough to see Bush's speech in its entirety, and the Q and A which followed. Bush kicked ass! He even used threatened Syria and Iran. Today I glanced at The Ft. Worth Star Telegram, and the front page was filled with dreck, including a story which could've been run on any day, but just HAPPENED to bump Bush's speech off the front page: "Iran-backed militia gains power in Iraq" Bush's speech rated a 1"x1" photo in the bottom right, directing me to an account of his speech on Page A15. The headline to the article on 15A: "About 30,000 Iraqis have died in the war, Bush says" The article, by Ron Hutchinson of Knight-Ridder, said nothing positive until the final sentence of the 5th paragraph: "Although the crowd of several hundred in Philadelphia's Park Hyatt Hotel seemed generally supportive, there were dissenters." Nice qualifier. I consider even the assertion in this sentence to be spin. On TV, a strong majority of the crowd seemed supportive. Paragraphs 6-11 covered the speech and the Q&A, then Rep. John Murtha made an appearance in paragraph 12&13. Paragraph 14&15 talked about the Iraqi elections. Typical MSM - shove Bush's outstanding performance under the rug. When OIF success becomes obvious, and the public figures out how badly they've been misled, their relationship to the MSM will be forever altered.

Posted by: gcotharn at December 13, 2005 09:33 PM (nD6Iu)

4 It is astounding that they have lied to our faces for so long, and now they just cannot understand why everyone is abandoning them for the alternate media. Here is a little secret that the libbies dont want discussed. A lot of them now get most of their news from Fox. The way I know this is that on any liberal blog they will go on and on about things that appeared on Fox the night before. They bitch about it but Fox has the best coverage so they watch.

Posted by: Kyle N at December 14, 2005 03:51 AM (5yVJK)

5 good point Kyle.

Posted by: annika at December 14, 2005 08:09 AM (b/90D)

6 And I had heard that they just read Annika's Journal and skip Fox...

Posted by: shelly at December 14, 2005 02:04 PM (6mUkl)

7 I certainly hope the REAL media is on the side of the brave and noble insurgents - I certainly am! Free Palestine!

Posted by: Kimmitt at December 14, 2005 03:14 PM (V2eAR)

8 Anni, You get twitier every day. There was no enemy in Iraq. We invaded and called the people who want us the fuck out the enemy and you have the audacity to split hairs with the MSM's depiction of 30,000 deaths? And, what? This sham democracy that's forming gives you a good feeling deep inside but 30,000 dead makes you angry because the MSM did not qualify that the Criminal said "citizens" which could include republican guard killed in their barracks, regular army slaughtered as they retreated, women, toddlers, infants, teenagers, elderly, and a host of others? This by you is a problem? Gosh, the enemy loving MSM chose not to listen clearly to our lying sack of shit commander and chief whilst he once again repeats his hollow pledges, purile simplifications about government, democracy and elections, the sorry state of the state of Iraq, the readiness of the "soldiers" we are training, and basically every other aspect of this criminal transgression against all that is decent and moral, and because the MSM has stopped buying this barrow of crap they are the "friends of our enemy" Would this have pleased you? DEAD Description 1,650 children between 5 and 7 1,125 men employed as shop keepers 2,500 stay at home moms 9,250 men and women over 65 27 men in american custody 7,345 women who held civil service jobs 5,345 children between 7-19 2,758 men fighting to repel occupation 30,000 total Your right I guess, anything other than this is a clear demonstration of liberal bias and deep unabashed love of our "enemy"

Posted by: strawman at December 14, 2005 04:16 PM (0ZdtC)

9 I went to hear Bush speak in Minneapolis last week. The new information I heard from his speech that Al Qaida has decided that Iraq is the battlefield where they plan to fight the US to the bitter end. He said he would rather fight them in Iraq than fight them on American soil. I agree. He spoke with no notes or teleprompter for 25 minutes. His eloquence surprised me.

Posted by: Jake at December 14, 2005 04:23 PM (r/5D/)

10 Strawman: 90% of the civilian casualties are from Al Qaida and Sunnis targeting women and children for execution with car bombs and suicide bombers. Bombers that are cheered on by the Democrats and their leadership. These bombers would have given up long ago if they had not had encouragement from the left. Your head butcher, Howard Dean and the bloodthirsty tribe he leads are more responsible for those vaporized children than the suicide bomber who pulls the trigger. At least the bomber does not live on to cheer the results as the Democrats do.

Posted by: Jake at December 14, 2005 04:38 PM (r/5D/)

11 Hey JAke, Who told you Al Qaida was going to fight to the bitter end in Iraq? I rest my case.

Posted by: strawman at December 14, 2005 04:55 PM (0ZdtC)

12 strawman: Al-Qaida No. 2 Ayman al-Zawahri has said that if Al Qaida loses in Iraq there goal of ruling the Middle East is lost. When President Bush and al-Zawahri say the same thing, I believe it.

Posted by: Jake at December 14, 2005 06:58 PM (r/5D/)

13 Jake, we all ignored the nut case from left field, and he went away with his crap for a while. Now that you have noticed his prattling and even worse, responded to it, is just like How Weird Dean and his merry gang of lost souls. You are encouraging him. Just ignore him and maybe he'll go away again.

Posted by: shelly at December 14, 2005 07:21 PM (6mUkl)

14 It's a waste of time to try converting us "Reich-whingers". Strawman would be better off finding women bloggers that share his views such as this one...... http://raymitheminx.blogspot.com/ She's bashed Bush on occasion and she often shows her T&A. I'm sure Tony Pierce's blog could hook him up with other similar links.

Posted by: reagan80 at December 14, 2005 07:56 PM (K9tdw)

15 I think Strawman's comments are great. I love Strawman, Air America, and all the other moonbats who promote the left's opinions. It shows how far off the deep end they have gone and actually helped the Republicans win the Presidency, House, Senate, and more governorships. Keep up the good work! Where can I make a donation to Air America?

Posted by: TheMan at December 15, 2005 07:04 AM (v/869)

16 Call Al Franken (if you can find him).

Posted by: shelly at December 15, 2005 07:07 AM (6mUkl)

17 > 3. Bush explains Iraq policy in a major speech. I've seen a number of speeches where his speechwriters employ the usual rhetorical tools that are simply intended to rally rather than inform. That's why you see a lot of; > 2. Republicans admit Bush hasn't done a good job of explaining Iraq policy. Now he has taken responsibility for the decision to go to war. Funny, I would have thought that was obvious from day one. I suppose that means that he is relieving Cheney from the pressure of having made that decision. There might be some who believe that the Administration did not steer the prewar Iraq intelligence analysis, but those 'some' are becoming a tiny, strident, increasingly bitter minority.

Posted by: will at December 15, 2005 08:09 AM (h7Ciu)

18 what percentage, do you think, is made up of folks who believe the administration did "steer prewar Iraq intelligence analysis" and don't have a problem with that?

Posted by: annika at December 15, 2005 08:57 AM (zAOEU)

19 Your question is a good one, but "steer" is not the best grounds for the question. Where there is no smoking gun, there are only educated guesses and probabilities. Bush looked at the available info and made his decision. Most of America has no problem with that. We voted him into office to do that very thing.

Posted by: gcotharn at December 15, 2005 10:11 AM (NS9sP)

20 The left complaint is really this: "Bush succeeded at leading us into war in Iraq." They are actually arguing that Bush was unfairly effective at the difficult task of moving the nation to war. They are arguing that the nation deserved for Bush to lay out the negatives more clearly, effectively undermining his goal of moving the nation to invasion. The left argument is illogical and laughable. Its also incorporates lies - especially the part where they morph Bush's assertion that we would definitely succeed in Iraq into an assertion that we would easily succeed. Bush could not move the nation to war w/o asserting that we would definitely succeed. That he said easily is a lie - although, by historical standards, we are succeeding easily. And that is not to take anything away from the incredible difficulty of the task. It is, instead, a compliment to our forces and our strength, and a compliment to the Iraqis for taking to democracy. That the Iraqis actually have taken to democracy - albeit an Iraqi style democracy that includes some violence - is the ultimate comment on Bush's correct strategic vision; and on his reading of the intelligence tea-leaves he was dealt.

Posted by: gcotharn at December 15, 2005 10:40 AM (NS9sP)

21 Recall the Senate voted 77-23 in Oct 2002 to authorize the President to attack Iraq. The House approved an identical resolution, 296-133 (the resolution became Public Law 107-243). If you have read the law (a big assumption I know for those who don't want facts to cloud their opinion), you would note the following section: "Whereas in Public Law 105Â–235 (August 14, 199

, Congress concluded that IraqÂ’s continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in Â‘Â‘material and unacceptable breach of its international obligationsÂ’Â’ and urged the Presi- dent Â‘Â‘to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligationsÂ’Â’" ** Note the date of 1998 - I'm waiting to hear how then Gov Bush et al manipulated the intelligence during the Clinton Administration so Congress would reach this conclusion ** Also, Congress was well aware the law authorized the use of force "section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution." "I believe we have an obligation to protect the United States by preventing him from getting these weapons and either using them himself or passing them or their components on to terrorists who share his destructive intent," said Gephardt, who helped draft the measure. From CommonDreams (hardly a supporter of Bush to say the least). "It should also be remembered that it was the Clinton administration, not the current administration, which first insisted-despite the lack of evidence-that Iraq had successfully concealed or re-launched its chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs. Clinton's fear-mongering around Iraqi WMDs began in 1997, several years after they had been successfully destroyed or rendered inoperable. Based upon the alleged Iraqi threat, Clinton ordered a massive four-day bombing campaign against Iraq in December 1998, forcing the evacuation of inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) and the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)." and "Clinton was egged on to take such unilateral military action by leading Senate Democratic leaders -- including then-Minority Leader Tom Daschle, John Kerry, Carl Levin, and others who signed a letter in October 1998 -- urging the president "to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspected Iraqi sites, to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Meanwhile, Clinton's Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was repeatedly making false statements regarding Iraq's supposed possession of WMDs, even justifying the enormous humanitarian toll from the U.S.-led economic sanctions on Iraq on the grounds that "Saddam Hussein has . . . chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction." and Even some prominent congressional Democrats who did not vote to authorize the invasion were willing to defend the Bush administration's WMD claims. When House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi appeared on NBC's Meet the Press in December 2002, she claimed: "Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There is no question about that." If you claim that the President "skewed" the intelligence, then why would the Administration allow the 2002 NIE, a primary source given the Congress to justify military action, to contain in the document a much stronger dissent within the intelligence community than any other NIE in history? Look at David Kay's testimony in 2004: "As leader of the effort of the Iraqi Survey Group, I spent most of my days not out in the field leading inspections. It's typically what you do at that level. I was trying to motivate, direct, find strategies. In the course of doing that, I had innumerable analysts who came to me in apology that the world that we were finding was not the world that they had thought existed and that they had estimated. Reality on the ground differed in advance. And never -- not in a single case -- was the explanation, "I was pressured to do this." The explanation was very often, "The limited data we had led one to reasonably conclude this. I now see that there's another explanation for it." And each case was different, but the conversations were sufficiently in depth and our relationship was sufficiently frank that I'm convinced that, at least to the analysts I dealt with, I did not come across a single one that felt it had been, in the military term, "inappropriate command influence" that led them to take that position. It was not that. It was the honest difficulty based on the intelligence that had -- the information that had been collected that led the analysts to that conclusion. And you know, almost in a perverse way, I wish it had been undue influence because we know how to correct that. " I'm waiting to see how the MSM media report the Iraqi elections. Had some peers send aerial photos showing long lines of Iraqis waiting to vote. Pretty remarkable considering that the whole time those folks were in line waiting, they were exposed targets for terrorists. Some Americans would see that line and think Â“What a hassle!Â” Iraqis see the line, get right in it, and think Â“What an opportunity!Â”

Posted by: Col Steve at December 15, 2005 11:36 AM (pj2h7)

22 Will, You see, Annika thinks that OBL might have gone to Iraq and conspired with SH to cause tons of grief for you and me here at home. SHe thinks this because a traitor she otherwise loaths and has repeatedly called a liar, RIchard Clark, wrote a memo suggesting this was a possibility. Annika, quivering in her boots, was grateful that Clark didn't suggest OBL would consider going back to SA and hooking up with his family since that would have precluded Bush from acting. He gets all whinny and cranky without Prince BAndar or a Bin Laden shoving a crude oil slathered dick up his ass. But,lo, out of the loop/in the loop, Clarke said "Iraq", Annika was pleased, and Bush could continue directing the Prince toward his magic walnut. "Push overs", Anni said, (or maybe that was just Bush giving Bandar a hint) "me and my sig could tear Saddam a new one in two or three days" she cried stomping an 8 x 10 of Rummy hugging Saddam, breaking the heel on a new pair of 600.00 dollar Choo's. Surely, she thought, Rummy will have no trouble with these Iraqi son's of bitches. He'll kill 50,000 with or so with precision bombing and the rest will throw flowers and swirl cognac in our honor. And most importantly Osama will be rendered toothless in a desert abattoir like beef trimmings to tallow. (its a little mixed up I know but you get the point.) How's it working out Annika? Smell any tallow yet? So far as I can tell, it worked out really well. Only a few of the dead Iraqi's are voting today, the country is thriving;plenty of fresh water and electricity, oils-a-pumping paying back America for all it's help, kids are back in all new refurbished schools they now call Madras's and the artifacts from the museums are being auctioned off by Christies to buy arms for those pesky insurgents. Oh, and George is having a tough time sitting still but at least he isn't bleeding. "The President reads tea leaves not books" nice bumper sticker. THe fact that quasi intelligent people like your selves still think it was just our dumbass anal ysts (not George thank you) at the myriad of over funded but understaffed intelligence agencies that got it wrong, is astounding. Dozens of people who work there have come foward to say just the opposite, that the cabal willfully rejected contrary to invasion intel and cherry picked or badgered people to re-evaluate. I know this don't bother our hostess but she has other- worldly ideas about morality. Anni, if Clark had said Osama was potentially heading for Pakistan (where, BTW,he most surely is) should have we have invaded prophylactically?

Posted by: strawman at December 15, 2005 03:13 PM (0ZdtC)

23 these days, i always suggest using a prophylactic whenever invading a new territory.

Posted by: annika at December 15, 2005 08:30 PM (7mM+j)

24 Ooops, bad experience I guess. It happens to the best of us.

Posted by: Casca at December 15, 2005 09:09 PM (amHxi)

25 Pakistan is kind of arid. No one wants to invade that.

Posted by: gcotharn at December 15, 2005 09:52 PM (NS9sP)

26 Iraq, conversely, has the lush and fertile crescent between the rivers. Invading Iraq is a natural act - sanctified by God.

Posted by: gcotharn at December 15, 2005 09:58 PM (NS9sP)

27 Col Steve: Please stop confusing our leftist friends with the facts. It tends to make their pitiful arguments even more more pitiful, and thus, they cannot even consider reconsideration. In the future, please stick to rumor and obfuscation, in order to leave them with a possibility of consideration. I mean, a good rumor beats the facts every time in their world. Just be thankful that when the chips are down, there are more of us than of them.

Posted by: shelly at December 15, 2005 10:17 PM (6mUkl)

28 "Iraq, conversely, has the lush and fertile crescent between the rivers. Invading Iraq is a natural act - sanctified by God." LMAO...that is so wrong.....

Posted by: reagan80 at December 15, 2005 10:30 PM (K9tdw)

29 Let's see, if raping and beating young Australian girls who do not cover their heads or their faces is sanctioned by God, maybe invading Iraq is as well.

Posted by: shelly at December 17, 2005 04:46 AM (6mUkl)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

December 12, 2005

MNF Prediction, Week 14

Atlanta at home vs. New Orleans. Atlanta favored by 10½. Atlanta will cover, no prob.

Posted by: annika at 01:35 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 23 words, total size 1 kb.

December 11, 2005

Speaking Of Endorsements

Here's proof that the smackdown Howard Dean received last week is doing some good:

So go easy on Howie, not only is he working hard to elect the next Republican Congress and President, he's a friend of annika's journal.

Posted by: annika at 08:51 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 45 words, total size 1 kb.

My Only Blog Award Endorsement

What the hell, i just found out that Clareified got nominated for Best Liberal Blog. i've been so busy with finals that i haven't even looked at the contest and i wasn't planning on voting for anybody this year. Sour grapes and all that.

But i'll make an exception for Dawn, and i urge every reader of annika's journal to go forth now and vote for Clareified!

More: As of this writing, my blog is #135 on the Ecosystem, just two places behind disgusting fatbody Oliver Wills. And i've done shit on this blog for the last year and a half, which should tell you something about fat Ollie, or the Ecosystem, or whatever.

Posted by: annika at 08:40 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 124 words, total size 1 kb.

Mike Wallace

An interesting interview with the one-time legend, now cranky drooler, Mike Wallace appeared in Thursday's Boston Globe. The irony of Wallace's answers to the first couple of questions was funny.

Q. President George W. Bush has declined to be interviewed by you. What would you ask him if you had the chance?
A. What in the world prepared you to be the commander in chief of the largest superpower in the world? In your background, Mr. President, you apparently were incurious. You didn't want to travel. You knew very little about the military. . . . The governor of Texas doesn't have the kind of power that some governors have. . . . Why do you think they nominated you? . . . Do you think that has anything to do with the fact that the country is so [expletive] up?

Gee, i wonder why the President turned down an interview.

My first thought was that most of these questions could have been more appropriately directed to President Clinton, or President Carter while they were busy [expletive]-ing up the country in ways that our current President is now trying to fix.

And then, after showing what a blatantly biased hack he is, Wallace had the nerve to wonder why nobody cares about tv news anymore.

The days of Walter Cronkite and Huntley and Brinkley are gone. People still do watch, but it doesn't have the clout that it used to have. I don't know what's going to happen or if there will be an evening news 10 years from now.

Totally clueless.

Then Wallace is asked who he admired the most, out of all the people he's ever interviewed.

Martin Luther King. . . . Despite the gratitude he felt for what Lyndon Johnson did about relations between the races, Martin had the guts during the Vietnam War to say this is the wrong war, the wrong time, the wrong place.

That's unbelievable. Read it again, because the quote really gives us an insight into Wallace's mind.

Look at the choice of words: "gratitude" and "what Lyndon Johnson did." Wallace doesn't admire Martin Luther King for King's Civil Rights accomplishments. He clearly thinks those were gifts from the "great white father," LBJ.

Wallace thinks the most admirable thing about King was his opposition to the Vietnam War!

i don't know how anyone can gloss over King's great achievements, what he did to bring real voting rights, end segregation and Jim Crow, and change the way Americans think about themselves, and then say duhh, I liked him cuz he was anti-war.

Go away Mike Wallace, you had your day. Now you're just irritating.

Posted by: annika at 10:54 AM | Comments (22) | Add Comment
Post contains 439 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Graditude? LBJ's Great Society destroyed black families, destroyed our cities, and brought nothing but despair, deprivation and death to black people. LBJ has gone to Hell because of the Great Society. Bill Moyers and Ramsey Clark will be there when they die for being a part of it. You can be sure that Martin Luther King himself blocked the gates of heaven when LBJ showed up.

Posted by: Jake at December 11, 2005 01:31 PM (r/5D/)

2 He's still alive? I hope his son hasn't inherited all of his views.

Posted by: reagan80 at December 11, 2005 02:51 PM (K9tdw)

3 And yet he, and the other clueless old crustaceans like Dan Rather, still insist that there is no bias, even when he blatantly displays it in this interview. The good thing is, in the words of Billy Bob Thorton, "I reckon the world will be soon quit of ya anyhow, uhhh huhhh."

Posted by: Kyle N at December 12, 2005 03:29 AM (g57xE)

4 Ah yes, the second most famous of my fellow Brookline High School alumni (class of 18what?); it's rather an understatement to say I like Conan O'Brien better.

Posted by: Dave J at December 12, 2005 07:37 AM (8XpMm)

5 Wallace's son has come out and said his dad is "losing it" and that there will be a competency hearing in the near future. LOL

Posted by: Ted at December 12, 2005 08:48 AM (blNMI)

6 Here's the Newsmax blurb: Breaking from NewsMax.com Chris Wallace: Mike Wallace Has 'Lost It' "Fox News Sunday" anchorman Chris Wallace says father Mike Wallace has "lost it" - after the legendary CBS newsman told the Boston Globe last week that the fact George Bush had been elected president shows America is "[expletive]-up." "He's lost it. The man has lost it. What can I say," the younger Wallace lamented to WRKO Boston radio host Howie Carr on Friday. "He's 87-years old and things have set in," the Fox anchor continued. "I mean, we're going to have a competence hearing pretty soon."

Posted by: shelly at December 12, 2005 10:28 AM (6mUkl)

7 I seriously admire MLK for risking his life. MLK said the most scared he ever was was during a protest march in a town just outside Chicago(can't remember the town name). I've seen video of this march, and you can see the fear on MLK's face, and in his body language. MLK went from that fearful experience, and pressed forward anyway - to a point where he knew the odds of his death were huge - Saddam judge odds. The night before he died, MLK basically predicted his own death, saying(paraphrasing from memory): "I may not get there(to the mountaintop) with you, but I'm not afraid to die." MLK was a giant. Its instructive that MLK's private life betrayed human frailty in several areas. We can see that no man is perfect, and man achieves greatness despite his imperfections. A useful lesson. I also think of it when I hear black "leaders" disparage America's founders as "slave owners", amongst other things.

Posted by: gcotharn at December 12, 2005 02:49 PM (Rhyyb)

8 rAYGUN, I think your fears of Chris Wallace inheriting his fatherÂ’s views are misplaced. Clearly Chris hasn't inherited his fatherÂ’s basic decency. I find it abhorrent that he would denigrate his dad on the air, true or not, such talk about ones parents should remain private. That his politics led him to these filial transgressions tells us a great deal about young Wallace. Ray, could you imagine yourself humiliating your dad on TV because he is getting old and posits views you disagree with? What must be wrong with this kid? I have never seen him but given that rage passes for intellect on his network it is not surprising he found a job there.

Posted by: strawman at December 13, 2005 02:14 PM (0ZdtC)

9 Strawman, Did you extend the same courtesies to Mel Gibson while his father was in the news?

Posted by: reagan80 at December 13, 2005 03:34 PM (K9tdw)

10 raY- I answered this but our host thought to excericse her high moral standards and delete it. She is very sensitive about certain things:not the deaths of innocents and our GI's when she thinks it will protect her sorry ass but insult her religious beliefs and she rips the page out of the book and burns it. I think she might do well in the new Iraq where it looks as if there will be some serious thought control concerning things religious. Ah, freedom, somtimes you die for it, sometimes it dies for you.

Posted by: strawman at December 16, 2005 07:15 AM (0ZdtC)

11 strawman, You expect the "freedom" to come on someone's blog and insult their religion? I'm glad annika saw fit to exercise her freedom and delete your post. Maybe you will learn how to properly communicate with an equal. Your previous commentt about Chris Wallace was dead on the money about his unfortunate disrespect for his father, although I'm not sure why you think that pit bull Mike Wallace was a paragon of basic decency. CBS hired Mike for his aggressiveness. I'm sure he has displayed basic decency often, but given the typical simplistic 60 Minutes good vs evil story lines he favored, I'd say his professional "standards" required him to allow his aggressiveness to override his basic decency on a regular basis. Basic decency would have required many more nuanced grey vs grey stories, rather than the pre-chewed yet hard-hitting habanero pablum 60 Minutes serves. Maybe Chris Wallace inherited a lot more than you think. Yours, Wince

Posted by: Wince and Nod at December 16, 2005 09:43 AM (oOm0R)

12 wINCE- MAybe he did. Like I said, I have never heard the younger Wallace say a word let alone report a story. My response was simply to a son's bad behavior. AS you have agreed it is/was deplorable. As for the elder, I watched my share of 60 min. episodes and like most people liked the black and white "expose the bad guys" premise. I don't have strong feeling about Mike one way or the other and what you say about his decisions to leave out the gray is most likely true. Gray does not make great TV. Producers are slaves to ratings points and not necessarily to truth. As for my supposed insults of my hosts religion. I don't in fact know anything about Annika's religion other than she seems to believe in god but I don't think she has expressed any opinion about Jesus. I think god was cleary left out of my post and Jesus was used more to skewer Mel than to defame the man himself. Not that defaming religious figures is a bad thing but it was not what occured in my post. Nor do I expect any "freedoms" here other than those extended by our host. Religions don't belong to people, people belong to them and do it by choice and therefore may, from time to time, be asked to defend that choice or listen to satire about it. Religion is not an inherited immutable trait. It is a choice-some make it some don't, some think it is precious some think it ridiculous.

Posted by: strawman at December 16, 2005 11:29 AM (0ZdtC)

13 "I have never seen him but given that rage passes for intellect on his network it is not surprising he found a job there." Fox News has never had to retract a major story. You silly libs can try to bad mouth Fox all you want, but it doesn't work. Fox's ratings continue to soar because people recognize even-handed journalism when they see it. After all, they have been forced to watch the blatantly left-wing blather since the days of that true American idiot, Walter Cronkite. The biggest distinction between Fox and its competitors is that when Fox programming is opinion-based, Fox doesn't try to hide the fact or pretend that they are being "neutral"----unlike say ABC, NBC, CNBC, CBS, PBS, NY Times, LA Times, etc, etc, etc. Anyway, Strawman, keep up the inane posts. And, please do continue to disregard fact and careful analysis. p.s It must have broken your socialist heart to see 11 million people experiencing freedom courtesey of George W. Bush. But then again your crew didn't want to fight the Nazis or the communists either. Why is it that the Left is constantly on the side of the enemy or waving a white flag?

Posted by: Blu at December 16, 2005 02:35 PM (V0cIv)

14 Hey Blu, Is that the same kind of freedom they experience in Texas where your freedom loving criminal, DeLAy gerrymandered the vote to disenfranchise thousands of people and win 6 R seats? Why did ALL the lawyers in Justice vote to have TEx ass repeal the redistricting? They said it violated the voting rights act in a state that has it's voting procedures monitored since it was a constant violator of voting rights and yet the political ass lickers that mr iraqi freedom appointed ruled in favor of the redistricting? Is that the kind of freedom the Iraqi's have in their future? The Republican kind? I pity their sorry asses if they do. I look forward to your evasion and obscuration you dumb fuck. America's democracy would dissapear if left in the hands of the bush team. But schmucks like you would revel in the outcome because it would mean your side won and the constitution be damned. And by the way, it was american communists who were the first Americans to fight Hitler:in Spain in 1936 you ignorant slug. Look it up - Lincoln Brigrade. The American communist party was always in the forefront of fighting fascism and the errosion of freedom in america. BTW, who was it that broke the back of the German army?

Posted by: strawman at December 16, 2005 03:42 PM (0ZdtC)

15 Bush = Hitler? Neo-Cons = Nazis? Hitler was part of the Right-wing of the Far Left..... http://jonjayray.net*firms.com/hitler.html Communists and Nazis are both Leftist groups. It isn't uncommon for Leftists to kill each other en masse over their minor differences: China vs. USSR, China vs. Vietnam, etc. Churchill was the only WW2 leader truly representative of the Right side of the political spectrum. NOTE: Remove the * and close the gap in "netfirms".

Posted by: reagan80 at December 16, 2005 04:01 PM (K9tdw)

16 Ray, I think you have lost your mind! Incoherent babel. Nazi's leftests? Bush=Chimp not nazi Get a grip and call me in the morning.

Posted by: strawman at December 16, 2005 04:41 PM (0ZdtC)

17 Communists fighting the erosion of freedom? How absolutely fucking Orwellian. Are you kidding me? Communists and communisim are responsible for the death of more human beings that any idealogy in human history. Hey, Strawman, maybe if you can get enough people into reeducation camps, your side might have a chance of winning an ideological battle. Your brothers in arms, the Khmer Rouge, loved this tactic. Hey, they were just fighting the erosion of freedom in Cambodia...right?

Posted by: blu at December 16, 2005 04:51 PM (V0cIv)

18 Blu, LAst chance. Read a book. What would you call the American COmmunists leadership in begining the fight to crush the spector of Nazi world domination? Simple question. Not to put too fine a point on terrible comparisons like most deaths cause in history, but I think if you look at all the carnage of WWII you might rethink your statement. Although nothing excuses any amounts of killing for any ideology and this makes the invasion of Iraq, the support of murderous dictators in South and Central America, the Spanish-American war, the invasion of Grenada, the invasion of Panama, the Dominican Invasion, and of course Vietnam look very similar to any number of occupations and supressions enacted by the Soviets. The only difference is we think we are justified and we thought the Soviets were not. Go figure. Capitalism's aggressive stance has, as long as you are keeping score, resulted in millions of deaths as well. Not numbers comprable to the Staninist era but plenty high and enough for you to keep your ignorant mouth closed since America is not a saintly presence on this planet. Just less black than others.

Posted by: strawman at December 17, 2005 09:18 AM (0ZdtC)

19 There is not currently nor has there ever been a specific Capitalist ideology that has as a matter of both principal and policy advocated the slaughter of innocents. The same cannot be said for Communism (see Lenin). Capitalism has led to the freedom of millions while simultaneously leading to a progressively higher standard of living, quality of life, and significantly longer life span. And are you kidding me about WWII? The Nazi's pale in comparison to the Communists of the 20th century. The numbers are not even close---even if you take the death count of both sides of WWII into account. The Communists spent an entire century murdering people by the millions all over the globe. It took the courage of liberal Capitalists to stop them. (I use "liberal" in its true form.) Regardless, the Nazi and the Communists are cut from the same cloth. Both ideologies lead to the same end: Totalitarianism. (See Hayek "The Road to Serfdom" or any of a number of economic and political historians.) A bit a trivia for ya, Strawman: The term "Nazi" is Bavarian slang for simpleton. Apropos when trying to have a factual dialogue with a Leftist.

Posted by: Blu at December 17, 2005 12:23 PM (V0cIv)

20 p.s. I should have noted that along with liberal Capitalists, Christianity also played a vital roll in wiping out the evil that is Communism. You ever wonder why Pope John Paul II and Ronald Reagan are heroes to the people of Eastern Europe? Meanwhile, you're crew celebrates and makes heroes out of murderers like Castro, Ortega, and Gorbachev. Our heroes say a lot about us: mine are Reagan, Churchill, and Pope John II (and I'm not even Catholic.) Liberators and lovers of freedom.

Posted by: Blu at December 17, 2005 12:32 PM (V0cIv)

21 Blu, Once again you don't answer the question but ramble on

Posted by: strawman at December 17, 2005 02:10 PM (0ZdtC)

22 Strawman, Actually, I don't ramble. My writing is fairly succinct. Your side may have disdain for the National Socialists, but the Left's tactics would make Goebbles proud. In fact, I often think that Michael Moore is Goebbles reincarnated. Both filthy, disgusting pigs filled with hate who artfully spread deception. But to your point: the American Communists fought against Fascism/Nazism not for any love of country or for Western values. Indeed, many were traitors and it's a shame that many, many more didnt' meet the fate of the Rosenberg's. As you well know--- because you are, after all, not dumb just willfully ignorant---the Nazi's/Fascists were killing Communists as fast as they could get their hands on them. Ironic that evil was killinig evil. So, I guess that I am forced to admit that it is in some ways heroric that they were willing to stand-up for what they believed in despite the fact that what they were standing up for was/is the most evil and deadly ideology the world has ever known.

Posted by: Blu at December 17, 2005 05:13 PM (V0cIv)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

December 10, 2005

Tookie Prediction

Arnold is supposed to announce his Tookie decision today. He's not given me any reason to believe that he won't wimp out. i predict clemency.

Update: i would like to apologize now to Tookie Williams for predicting clemency. i should have known that i was probably jinxing his chances with the way my predictions have gone this year.

i suppose he can add me to the list of "motherfuckers" he warned at the end of his trial in 1981:

After the jury read their guilty verdict Williams, according to transcripts, looked to jurors and mouthed: 'I'm going to get each and every one of you motherf------.'

Nice guy. Good riddance.

Posted by: annika at 08:39 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 112 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I disagree. I heard him talking about how he was looking at all the evidence, staying up late (midnight!), and really thinking about it. In short, he was setting up the base for "I thought about it, but there is no reason to overrule a court of law".

Posted by: Pursuit at December 10, 2005 09:39 AM (n/TNS)

2 If he wants to have ANY chance of reelection he'll execute Tookie. I think the key whether Maria will continue to sleep with him...

Posted by: Becker at December 10, 2005 12:43 PM (VjgFz)

3 I would fry him just to make sure I didnt have to sleep with Skeletor

Posted by: Kyle N at December 10, 2005 03:19 PM (QNul3)

4 For obvious reasons, Annie, I hope your fears prove true -- but I suspect that in the end, he won't grant clemency.

Posted by: Hugo at December 10, 2005 05:35 PM (Yu24L)

5 If he grants clemency, he will be hearing the term "girly man" applied to him forever. I cannot believe that he will do that, especially after the number of appeals thaqt have been denied.

Posted by: shelly at December 10, 2005 05:52 PM (6mUkl)

6 Mel Gibson for Governor!

Posted by: Thomas C. Wyld at December 11, 2005 02:45 AM (MpOzT)

7 Arnold has made his decision; he's just waiting to see if it is OK with Maria.

Posted by: shelly at December 11, 2005 07:52 AM (6mUkl)

8 El wrong-o! So what's your MNF pick?

Posted by: Victor at December 12, 2005 01:08 PM (L3qPK)

9 Well, Arnold finally made his decison known. I guess he won't need to borrow Maria's bra and panties this week after all. But, will Mike Farrell, Jamie Foxx or Snoop Doggy Dog ever talk to Arnold again? I hope not.

Posted by: shelly at December 12, 2005 01:12 PM (6mUkl)

10 Jamie Foxx is a great actor but a horrible racist. I heard him in a backstage video with the most hatefilled diatribe against whitey you would ever hear. I don't like double standards, I would not give a hoot in hell for a white racist, and I wont tolerate a black one either.

Posted by: Kyle N at December 12, 2005 02:55 PM (eKP3c)

11 Looks like everyone of those Mother F*ckers got Tookie, rather than the other way around. Bye-Bye Tookie, remember me to the Devil.

Posted by: shelly at December 13, 2005 03:31 AM (6mUkl)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

December 08, 2005

Sunday Morning On Thursday

Here's a quote worth thinking about:

Man nurtures the suspicion that God, at the end of the day, takes something away from his life, that God is a competitor who limits our freedom and that we will be fully human only when we will have set him aside . . . There emerges in us the suspicion that the person who doesn't sin at all is basically a boring person, that something is lacking in his life, the dramatic dimension of being autonomous, that the freedom to say 'no' belongs to real human beings.
Overcome the temptation of a mediocre life, made of compromises with evil.

Posted by: annika at 09:27 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 113 words, total size 1 kb.

A Great Disturbance In Paradise

Just when i was about to give up on boring old Brittany and start blogging about Lindsay full time, the rumors start up again.

By way of introduction, here's the no shit sherlock quote of the year:

Her mom is very clear about the fact that she doesn't think Kevin is right for Britney . . . And [she] even suggests that maybe she shouldn't have married him to begin with.

Ya think?!

So here we are, less than a year after the big wedding, and there's talk of a break-up.

Hard as that is to believe.

The marriage started off well. Brittany promising to pay for everything. Brittany buying Kevin a Ferrari. Brittany promising to help the child of Kevin's ex, whom he kicked to the curb when he found true love (and Brit's bank account). Kevin promising to help clean up after Bit-Bit more often. Brittany giving Kevin a hand-job in public. Ah, those were happy times.

Then came the thrilling news, after weeks of pointless denials that no one believed: Brittany was pregnant! And we all watched breathlessly as she went baby clothes shopping. We laughed adoringly while she "ate for two." We supported her, as i'm sure Kevin did, when she tried to quit smoking for the baby's sake. Then, when little SPF was born, like George Bailey we wept and prayed.

Wept and prayed.

i think i speak for all of us when i say i hoped things could have always stayed that perfect. After Brad and Jen, and Ben and Jen, and Renee and Ken, and Barbie and Ken, and Nick and Jess, and Paris², and Paris and Nicole, and ... i just don't know how many more celebrity break-ups i can take. But Kev and Brit, now that was one that was meant for the ages.

i mean, it was only two short weeks ago that we saw this happy scene: Kevin and Brittany strolling and waddling, respectively, out for a lovely day at a private beach.

But now we hear rumors of a great disturbance in paradise. As if dozens of Brittany fans suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.

Did Brittany throw Kevin out on his ass? Did she cut off Kevin's credit cards? Did Brittany's mom meet up with Kevin's ex, just to collect more dirt on the guilty guy? Did Kevin beg Brittany in Vegas to give him another chance. Did our girl hang tough. Did Kevin respond by saying: "Yo, least let me have the Ferrari back, bayatch." Did Brittany call him toxic? Did she throw his ring back, the one she paid for? Is it all over?

Nah, it was too good to be true.

Posted by: annika at 12:00 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 457 words, total size 4 kb.

December 07, 2005

Wednesday Is Poetry Day

i did a search for Pearl Harbor poetry and i came up with this one, by Walt McDonald, published in Valparaiso Poetry Review.

It's nice, but this next one, also by McDonald is really nice, and still timely.

The War In Bosnia
Under darkness of stars our son flies
over Bosnia, keeping watch over snow.
Apache gunships will be out tonight.
The moon on foreign snowfields highlights
bodies running under trees, friend or foe.
Under darkness of stars our son flies
with star scope and rockets and wide eyes
over war zones bitter enemies know.
Apache gunships will be out tonight.
What keeps a nation armed and justifies
air power is such a killing fieldÂ—we know,
but under darkness of stars our son flies.
In boots and parka, someone watches the skies
and owns disposable Stingers, and is cold.
Apache gunships will be out tonight.
I conjure God to stop him, warp his sights.
I stare with the prayer all fathers know.
Under darkness of stars our son flies.
Apache gunships will be out tonight.

Not to nitpick about this excellent poem, but wasn't there a controversy about the use of Apaches in Bosnia. As i recall, they trained and trained, and lost a few during manuevers, but never used them in combat.

Posted by: annika at 04:23 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 221 words, total size 1 kb.

December 06, 2005

Flux Capacitor... Fluxing

i took a mid-week study break this afternoon and saw Aeon Flux. This is an interesting movie to review because audience expectations can be all over the map. The original MTV cartoon has a cult following, so i imagine those viewers would be the most discerning. i liked the original cartoon, without being obsessed by it. i wanted to see it because i like sci-fi post-apocalyptic shit, especially with a kick-ass heroine. My boyfriend, of course, went along with the hope of seeing some t&a.

i would give Aeon Flux a solid three stars (liked it) on the Netflix five star scale. i wasn't expecting greatness, only coolness, which it delivered.

My first introduction to Charlize Theron was The Legend Of Bagger Vance, which i saw in a hotel room on free HBO. i still felt ripped off. She was horrible in that lemon of a movie. The second time i saw her she was partying with an apple, and the third time i saw her she was partying in orange.

But Charlize is a big star now, because she's won an Oscar. She deserves another nomination for having never blinked once during all 93 minutes of Aeon Flux. Nobody blinks in this movie, check it out, it's freaky.

The plot is this: Aeon Flux is a 25th century assassin, and part of a high-tech underground rebellion against a mildly oppressive government a la Logan's Run without the chanting crowds. She's sent on a mission to kill the head honcho, but once she gets there, she finds out that things are more complicated than they at first seemed. They never are in these types of movies. But thankfully the plot wasn't too convoluted for my finals-fatigued brain to follow.

There are at least two requisite bitch brawls, which aren't too bad, action wise. There's minimal reliance on sci-fi gadgetry, which i count as a good thing. The atmospherics can't quite match up to the original, but then the original is a cartoon. You have to inject some humanity into a live-action remake or it would be unwatchable. Still, i think this version captures enough of the original's dreamlike weirdness to satisfy most non-purists.

i wonder where the exteriors were shot. There's a nice balance between futuristic cold concrete and manicured gardens, so the background never looks too sterile. The climactic scene features gently falling cherry blossoms, which was a nice touch.

But my favorite part was the costumes. Chris didn't think there was enough skin, but i have only two words to say about the fashions: wedge heels. i think you know how i feel about this year's must-have boot. They're on my Xmas list. Charlize shows that you can run in them, snap a dude's neck like a twig in them, and still look good in a crouch. And she does do a lot of crouching, but why not, her ass was made to be in spandex.

Charlize spends most of the time in Aeon's signature black bodysuit, but her grand entrance is in a 25th century hooded leather suit that's too hot to describe, and the stills do not do it justice. She also wears a very svelte white number in one scene, that i like a lot. But above all else, it's the boots that make this movie, baby.

So, to sum up: i liked it. It's a little too short for me to recommend paying full price though. See it on matinee like i did, or wait for the DVD.

Posted by: annika at 10:24 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 590 words, total size 5 kb.

1 How is The Legend of Bagger Vance the first place you saw Charlize? How is it not The Devil's Advocate, or -- better -- Two Days in the Valley. (TDITV is the first place I saw her, and I remember thinking she was just about the hottest POA I had ever seen. Of course that was during my James Spader kick; most perhaps fewer people have seen that movie than I realize. But anyway, Charlize was in it, and I thought she was just about the hottest POA I'd ever seen at the time.)

Posted by: Matt at December 07, 2005 06:58 AM (10G2T)

2 Strike "most" from the preceding comment, along with everything from "and I remember" through the first use of "seen," inclusive. I did not edit well before posting.

Posted by: Matt at December 07, 2005 07:01 AM (10G2T)

3 i like the repitition. it adds emphasis to your thesis: that Charlize is the hottest POA you've ever seen. (at the time.)

Posted by: annika at December 07, 2005 07:40 AM (6x0dA)

4 I agree that the repetition works well in Matt's comment. I saw TDITV. The director didn't go far enough with the material. The movie needed to pull out the stops and really go for it - yet it pulled up short, and ended up flat and kinda sucky. It was the same with Charlize's sex scene (in that pantpantspanding white spandex catsuit) - coulda been one of the best sex scenes - but it didn't go far enough. The director needed to take the sex scene over the top - like the rest of the movie, and failed. Maybe the Hollywood suits interfered. Last thing on Charlize: she is a hell of an air-guitar player. She closes her eyes and strums ecstatically. It is a 5 second performance which is not to be missed.

Posted by: gcotharn at December 07, 2005 09:40 AM (Tn5JU)

5 Devil's Advocate...and of course Playboy. But wedge heels? Wedge heels are hideous! You'll never hear Manolo say wedge heels are super fantastic.

Posted by: Victor at December 07, 2005 10:20 AM (L3qPK)

6 Oh, by the way: "her ass was made to be in spandex." I couldn't agree more. And her twenty-one year-old ass looked even better in spandex in TDITV than her thirty year-old ass looks now. (You have no idea how long it took me to find that pic.)

Posted by: Matt at December 07, 2005 09:52 PM (I075S)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

December 04, 2005

U.C. Extracurriculars

At Berkeley, we had "the naked guy." Not to be outdone, U.C. Irvine can now boast about its "couple fucking in a professor's office."

Way to go aardvarks!*

Via Darleen.
_______________

* Or whatever they call themselves.

Posted by: annika at 08:46 AM | Comments (38) | Add Comment
Post contains 41 words, total size 1 kb.

1 This is unbelievable! When I lived and worked down in Irvine people were always hooking up in the office and the fucking went all the way to the top. The president was busted with his secretary on the kitchen table one Saturday. It was a fun place to work.

Posted by: d-rod at December 04, 2005 09:29 AM (raaYV)

2 Only in California.

Posted by: Mark at December 04, 2005 11:04 AM (Vg0tt)

3 I wouldn't want to live somewhere where it wasn't possible to fuck in the office. As for this guy and his site... what a pussy. Other people fucking in MY office is a different story. I'd have taken his license, after all, he knows where I live. I want to know where he lives. Actually, I have more stories than I can remember on this front... indoor fire escapes in public buildings make excellent fornicatoriums.

Posted by: Casca at December 04, 2005 01:41 PM (qBTBH)

4 Couldn't agree more with Casca's assessment: What a pussy! I like to think that I'd have had the presence of mind to say to the dude, "if you didn't bring enough to share, get out."

Posted by: Matt at December 04, 2005 03:57 PM (O2NXM)

5 Why take his license? Hell, I'd take hers.

Posted by: shelly at December 04, 2005 07:53 PM (6mUkl)

6 Suppose for a moment the couple had been guys? Would the professor then backed out quietly? Afterall, one must respect diversity on campus right?

Posted by: NOTR at December 04, 2005 09:03 PM (izx0t)

7 What if it had been 2 girls? Cue the waka waka guitar and lock the door behind you.

Posted by: annika at December 05, 2005 11:04 AM (zAOEU)

8 A couple of remarks in my defense: I didn't want to exacerbate an already awkward situation by casting them out into a public space. They deserved it, no doubt, but the students I had on the way also deserve to not have to deal with half-naked people scrambling to get dressed in public...esp. when the male student seemed enraged. What would have happened if I threw them out and he came at me? Would I take a swing at a student, even though I'd have every right to? Esp. when I know that just because, in a common sense way, I would have had every right to, I'm also smart enough to know that in a legal sense, I may not have. After all, that office isn't actually "mine" but the university's; could a lawyer have made the argument that the student had every right to use the facilities as I did, and that I therefore had no right to take a swing at him, &c. I don't know how plausible this is, but since the student didn't strike me as being all that bright, I knew that if I did anything drastic I'd probably have to fill out MOUNTAINS of forms, attend a few hearings which, even if they exonerated me, would involve time better spent doing other things, &c. With all of this running through my head, I opted for the action which would result in the least number of forms filled out (zero to date) and amount of time wasted. As for whether I'd react differently if it had been a same-sex couple, I can answer that one quickly enough: No. I wouldn't have. The only situation in which I imagine acting differently is if I had known the couple. Or if there had been toddlers in the room. I would've sheparded those toddlers out of there lickity-split. All children have the right to learn about porn from internet like we did.

Posted by: The "Pussy" in Question at December 05, 2005 01:21 PM (MOIDT)

9 Thanks for removing all doubt.

Posted by: Casca at December 05, 2005 02:51 PM (qBTBH)

10 Geez, the Internet has changed. Usedtabe you could call a guy a pussy on the Internet and he'd never even know. Now he follows a Technorati link or a trackback to its source and the next thing you know you're feelin' all guilty an' shit. Truth is, I don't actually know what I would've done under the circumstances. I do know that the male student's outrage would've outraged me, because I have a demonstrated tendency to react badly to unwarranted claims of right by wrongdoers attempting to paint me as the bad guy. (E.g., Neighbor A, who recently chastized me for merely asking Neighbor B if the barking of neighbor A's dog bothered Neighbor B as much as it bothered me. A and I were having a calm, reasonable discussion until he decided to express his outrage about that. Oops. There goes the adrenaline. Ah, shit ...) But that isn't necessarily a good thing. All-in-all, discretion is often the better part of valor. So I may've been a little quick with the name-calling. Sorry, dude. Annie, Re two chicks and a waka waka guitar: now I'm going to have to go to confession or something. And I went the weekend before last! Thanks a lot! ;-) (Not that I've ever had much trouble generating my own, er, impure thoughts.)

Posted by: Matt at December 05, 2005 03:10 PM (10G2T)

11 I was expecting that response from you, Casca. But damn, you're quick on the trigger.

Posted by: Matt at December 05, 2005 03:12 PM (10G2T)

12 Same thing happened at My wifes office building coupla years ago. We had several couples meeting in the parking lot to go to a party and someone points to a second story office, there are two bodies on a desk going after it. It was quite funny at the time. it really goes on a lot I'm sure. I always heard that the guys who get the most poon on the job (except for porn actors) is Cops.

Posted by: Kyle N at December 05, 2005 03:17 PM (sRVwT)

13 C'mon Matt, you're not that far from your tribal roots. You'd have told the trespasser to get the fuck out, all the while leering at the sperm recepticle. I'd guess that most guys with a hard-on are more prepared for flight than fight. Jeez, I have a great story of standing duty the first night the battalion returned from deployment, and the patriotic hoochie who offered to be the locomotive for bus fare. Truth is stranger than fiction. BTW, don't bother reading this guy's site. He really does squat to piss.

Posted by: Casca at December 05, 2005 03:19 PM (qBTBH)

14 Hey BTW, if you havent seen the Johnny Cash movie yet, It's the best thing I have seen in years. Oscar level performances for both Phoenix and Reese Diddlespoon.

Posted by: Kyle N at December 05, 2005 03:20 PM (sRVwT)

15 Let's just say, if you come to the beach on Coronado north of the Hotel Del, don't eat off the picnic table next to the lifeguard tower.

Posted by: Casca at December 05, 2005 03:24 PM (qBTBH)

16 Matt, not only am I quick... I'm accurate!

Posted by: Casca at December 05, 2005 03:27 PM (qBTBH)

17 Casca, no doubt you'd have been more manly, thrown their asses--which you'd then beat--out of the office and then wasted weeks of your life filling out forms; attending mandatory sessions with university approved sexual harassment and/or anger management counselors; standing in line at the unemployment office; &c. That certainly would have been the manly course of action. I chose the rational one because I have more productive things I could be doing and, to be frank, no real investment in having strangers think I'm masculine. That I'm comfortable with my masculinity says a lot about me, just as the fact that you're not comfortable with yours says a lot about you.

Posted by: Scott Eric Kaufman at December 05, 2005 03:56 PM (MOIDT)

18 Eeeeew, Casca. Of course, regarding office hijinx, longtime readers know i'm not the one to be throwing the first stone either.

Posted by: annika at December 05, 2005 03:57 PM (zAOEU)

19 Matt, thanks for that. I find it impossible to believe that some people advocate the hot-headed, potentially-litigious response over the clear-headed, eminently-rational one. Nevermind. I don't find it impossible at all: as you point out, if you're not in the position and don't have to face the consequences, it's easy to say what you would've done and spin your actions in whatever way you think flatters you the most. Exhibit #1: Casca.

Posted by: Scott Eric Kaufman at December 05, 2005 04:02 PM (MOIDT)

20 As one who has an office (so filthy that no sane people would wish to copulate in it), let me say that I would be fairly generous about letting the kids finish. I remember being young and desperate for a "place" in my day, and though I have no intention of offering my office for such purposes, I'm immensely sympathetic to the youngsters who simply felt the need and went in the first unlocked door.

Posted by: Hugo at December 05, 2005 04:26 PM (a64wL)

21 "I remember being young and desperate for a "place" in my day ..." Well, yeah. But it is college, after all. Don't they have dorm rooms? Good roommates have arrangements for this sort of thing. If not, isn't there an empty closet somewhere? (I mean, at least the janitor probably doesn't feel much sense of ownership toward his closet.) A rooftop? A quiet study room in the library that can be locked from the inside? Something besides someone else's office?!

Posted by: Matt at December 05, 2005 05:14 PM (nVlQX)

22 SEK, Casca, not comfortable with his masculinity? Gosh, I never noticed. THanks for the heads up. I just thought he was a dumbass x-soldier. Who knew he had any real masculinity to be anxious about although we know he's got plenty of the kind that came in the box with his uniform and gun.

Posted by: Strawman at December 05, 2005 05:17 PM (0ZdtC)

23 I don't know who Casca is, but if he's an ex-soldier, I respect him for putting his life where his principles are. You saying I don't respect the soldier because the person was a little too anxious to declare my lack and his implied excess of masculinity is preposterous. In my experience, a man who feels the urge to impugn another man's masculinity usually has issues with his own. If that's not the case here, then it's not the case. Don't know what else to say that I haven't already said. Except that I have this theory about people who snipe anonymously...

Posted by: Scott Eric Kaufman at December 05, 2005 05:37 PM (MOIDT)

24 Not the first time in these threads that Strawman's "arguments" have been declared preposterous. But he is not that anonymous since we know his name is Mike, he doesn't like bush and enjoys pretending to be gay.

Posted by: d-rod at December 05, 2005 07:26 PM (V+SkO)

25 Oh fuck that d-rod. Strawman's been blowing goats since he was knee-high to a grasshopper. As for all you manly wymin's studies community college professor wannabe's... I'm sorry that you don't have the stones to defend your own turf in a fashion that will deter any and all retribution. I simply have no desire to sit in another man's splooge, and will communicate that message with an appropriate level of force. I will not be run off from my cave by some punk full of spunk. Just keep telling yourself how secure you masculinity is, while you count up all the risks in life you've avoided. I'm sorry, but pussy is the best sobriquet, that I can dig up for you.

Posted by: Casca at December 05, 2005 07:47 PM (qBTBH)

26 This is one of the seminal subjects of what's wrong with our culture. We (neanderthals) make a big deal of how we turn young men into Marines, but the reality is that all we need to start with, is the guys who aren't afraid to get in a fight on the playground. It's that simple. Somewhere along the line of denigrating masculine virtue, we lost site of virtue altogether. We live in a society where being a man is against the law. Taking the downside into consideration is prudent. Hiding around the corner so that tresspassers may exit with dignity is nutless. As an old friend of mine used to say, "Cowards die a thousand deaths... " Heh, anyone notice how SEK threw up a strawman?

Posted by: Casca at December 05, 2005 08:02 PM (qBTBH)

27 Casca, I respect what you were willing to give up for your country, but you're a blowhard. I've known Marines--in fact, I've roomed with two since I've been in grad. school--and you know what? Neither of them thought any less of me for how I handled the situation. Both of them took the "finger the brass" attitude and applauded the way I avoided what would've entailed the involvement of officers in grunt disputes. If you think my attitude is what's wrong with our culture, take it up with your fellow Marines. Then there's the fact that I'm the occasion for you to repeat what's obviously a regularly scheduled diatribe. Blah blah blah, men can't be manly, blah blah blah. Wonderfully rehearsed, but it lacks the power it had the first couple hundred times you mouthed it. For example: Taking the downside into consideration is prudent. Hiding around the corner so that tresspassers may exit with dignity is nutless. Maybe. But I was also considering the feelings and well-being of my student, who shouldn't be subjected to the vitriol or violence this punk might've been capable of. Let's do a thought experiment: pretend that instead of a student, I was there with my child. If I had confronted the student and the student had turned violent, I would've endangered my child. I would not have acted prudently because I didn't have the interests of others in mind. Flip it back to what actually happened: I chose to duck around the corner because I wanted to avoid having a confrontation in front of my student. You can say that I shouldn't consider my student the same way I'd consider my child, but I take my responsibility as a teacher seriously and would no more want to endanger my student than I would my flesh-and-blood. Was that an irrational fear? Thankfully, I'll never know. Here's the thing: I'm a former baseball and soccer player who has, I admit, become a bit of a pussy since I had cancer and am not itching for a fight the way I used to. Before chemo I weighed in around 190 lbs. Now I'm around 140 lbs. I feel, how should I say it, not quite as strong as I used to be. But you know what? Fuck that. One stereotypical standard apply to all. I'm everything that's wrong with our culture blah blah blah. In all seriousness, if you are/were a Marine--something I'm taking on faith, because you never know what nut will claim combat experience when it suits his or her argument--you have my utmost respect and gratitude. You've done my country a service, and for that I can't heap enough praise on you. But if you honestly think that I'm what's wrong with our culture, you're an ideologue who can't see the facts for the dogma. I'd hate to think you're both, but I honestly don't know.

Posted by: Scott Eric Kaufman at December 05, 2005 08:38 PM (MOIDT)

28 It was nut cancer wasn't it. Can't they sew a marble in or something? LMFAO, you don't know how hard you've made me laugh. In any case, your writing sucks. It's all over the place, and weak. Fuck, I've been writing this for fifteen minutes and i'm still LMAO.

Posted by: Casca at December 05, 2005 08:54 PM (qBTBH)

29 25 other trackbacks on that post and the flamewar ends up here? What kind of luck is that?

Posted by: annika at December 05, 2005 09:08 PM (xdXob)

30 Shit, if you laugh at Marines and cancer survivors, you're lying about your service and don't deserve my respect. Simple as that.

Posted by: Scott Eric Kaufman at December 05, 2005 09:09 PM (MOIDT)

31 Annika, I didn't mean to start something here. I do think that my actions have been misrepresented by someone with an agenda, and I do feel obliged to refute the mischaracterizations since they are, well, mischaracterizations. If Casca would like to take his complaints elsewhere, I'd be more than happy to do so. Of course, I know what my courtesy will be construed as...

Posted by: Scott Eric Kaufman at December 05, 2005 09:13 PM (MOIDT)

32 Gawd you're pathetic, just crawl away and live in obscurity with your shame, AND your pathetic blog. Nobody at that estrogenfest will ever challenge you. NUTcancer, LMAO, how did I know? It's a gift.

Posted by: Casca at December 05, 2005 09:27 PM (qBTBH)

33 Casca, I'd come to your defense, but I think you are doing just fine without me. Only one question: Why go back to pussy, when "squats to piss" is just so much more graphic. Stay with a winner. LMFAO, too. Aren't you a little bit embarrassed to be playing with the little kids?

Posted by: shelly at December 05, 2005 09:28 PM (6mUkl)

34 At some point one does begin to feel guilty. Kind of like the Seahawks tonight.

Posted by: Casca at December 05, 2005 09:47 PM (qBTBH)

35 Casca, I protected my student, myself, and preserved the dignity of those who didn't deserve it--which, to some minds, is analogous to defending the freedom of liberals--whereas you have declared me a pussy. I'm sorry, but I know Marines and former Marines, and you lack the gravitas that characterizes them. If you were a Marine--a fact which becomes more dubious with every word you write--from what I know you'd be the "hero," i.e. the idiot there to kill Kill KILL and gets his buddies killed more often than he does anything constructive. That, or your'e a liar and weren't in the service. I'm more inclined to believe the latter, since all the "heroes" I've heard about died (and took half their squad with 'em) the second they entered a combat zone. So would you like to tell us how it is you survived, being that you're such a manly man? Oh, I almost forgot, you're still mocking Marines and cancer survivors. Not that Shelley has an opinion worth listening to, but I'd love to hear why you think you're so better than Marines and cancer survivors. If you respond to this challenge with another post calling me a "pussy," everyone will know you for the fraud you are. Respond to my specific claims and concerns or be branded a fool and coward. Simple as that. I know you're scared shitless to debate this on its merits, since all you have on your side is an inflated sense of your own self-worth, but I'd really love to see you try. Please, discredit the Corp and the people they've vowed to defend it. If you do, you're an unpatriotic hypocrite who would take arms against America if it was considered manly enough.

Posted by: Scott Eric Kaufman at December 05, 2005 09:54 PM (MOIDT)

36 SEK, in this situation your acts were cowardly. Now that doesn't preclude you from ever NOT being cowardly, but if you don't learn from the lesson... you probably will continue your downward spiral into a life where you'll never write your name in the snow. Also, as others have noted, you're a child. You're arguments are childish, and you badger like a woman so I'll throw the towel in and let you have your way. Aint gonna happen, not to some guy with no marbles in his sack.

Posted by: Casca at December 05, 2005 10:07 PM (qBTBH)

37 I offered a very specific challenge: refute what I said or be proved a liar. You chose to not refute what I said, so you've been proved a liar. If it ever snows in southern California, as a Southerner I assure you I'll piss my name in it...as well as my wife's, all my friends and everyone I've ever known. Besides, who else has said I'm a child? You're flinging straw at me with the hope it'll become a man. It won't. Let me repeat: I've known Marines. You strike me as a little shit who likes to claim he's a Marine because he's worked at Pizza Hut his entire adult life. Prove you're a Marine by words, actions or plaudits and you'll earn universal accolades. As it stands, you're all masculine talk and no action. In fact, according to thems that stand over my shoulder, I should call you out as a fraud who wants to hijack the authority of the Marines for his own personal gain. But you know what? Real Marines shit on posers like you. So deal or be dealt with. Tell me your name, rank and service or disappear into the night like every other crank who's lied about their service. Because, and I know you'll think me a pussy and possibly a fag for saying this, but I love anyone who puts on the uniform to defend my rights and my freedoms, and you seem like a spineless fuck who wants to piggyback on their sacrifice for your own personal gain. Sorry if I don't respect you, but there are actual heroes out there to pay tribute to...or what? Do you think your posturing is more important than their sacrifices? Please, enlighten me as to their worthlessness. I'll send them some emails. Sure, they're in Iraq, but I think they'd love to hear how much better you are than them. Again, I apologize for going on at length, but people I love are putting themselves on the line in Iraq, and this guy is sitting at home talking about how great he is. You'll have to pardon me if I don't think he's hot shit.

Posted by: Scott Eric Kaufman at December 05, 2005 10:37 PM (MOIDT)

38 Sorry, I'm not really susceptable to rhetorical trickeration. I'm sure that it works all day at UC Irvine, but among the travelled grownups of this world. It doesn't wash. This is all about your inability to stand up for yourself as anyone with gumption would. That girl wasn't crying when she left your office, she was laughing at your pairing of man-bag with your skirt and pumps.

Posted by: Casca at December 06, 2005 05:50 AM (qBTBH)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

December 03, 2005

Big Day In Rock & Roll History

Today is the 37th anniversary of Elvis Presley's 1968 Comeback Special, a legendary event in music history.

From NME.com:

By the mid-'60s, The King was washed-up, so his detractors claimed. The world was being wowed by the experimentalism of The Beatles, the Stones' dirty rock'n'roll, the string-drenched sonic onslaught of Phil Spector. Presley was a distant memory, an anachronism, remembered mainly for his decline from hip-swivelling slick-haired rock Adonis to slightly campy balladeer sleepwalking through a string of bad movies. Then, in 1968, after years absent from live performance, Elvis decided to put on a show in Las Vegas, go back to his musical roots, perform some rock'n'roll standards with a stripped-down band, recapture the raw energy that characterized his '50s heyday.
It should've been a disaster - like, who was this old nark with his bad hair and blues standards? But no! He gathered together a coterie of brilliant musicians, including ace guitarist James Burton, slung on a leather jacket and a six-string, and got up onstage and blew everyone away.
He kicked off with 'Blue Suede Shoes', went on to do 'The Wonder Of You' which stayed at Number One in the UK for six weeks, joked with the band, improvised, messed around, looked cool, and won millions of fans back. From then on, until his death in '77, he remained The King, and his crown was never threatened again.

Posted by: annika at 01:01 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 245 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Yes, and then his daughter married the queen of pop. That's why lions eat their young.

Posted by: Casca at December 03, 2005 02:23 PM (qBTBH)

2 "I'm caught in a trap I just can't walk out because I love you too much baby Oh, why can't you see what your doin to me when you don't believe a word I'm saying" Hey casca, What bowl do you think your Buckeyes will be going to? Will they play Notre Dame? Looks like my Longhorns will be in the big game vr's USC. I can't believe that Colorado din't even show up for that game 70 to 3 is just embarrassing. My other team LSU didn't look so good though. Oh well, can't win em all. ANNIKA, Idon't know how you felt about Johhny Cash, but if you haven't yet seen "Walk the Line" I highly recommend it. ciao

Posted by: Kyle N at December 03, 2005 09:10 PM (OkoO0)

3 Well Beemer just finished proving that he's a shitwit, and the Dawgs tromped those inbreds from Louisiana, so OSU should jump to the four spot in BCS with only one team in front of them that they haven't played. ND deservedly or not should jump to six, which makes them an auto BCS pick. By rule, Oregon is out of the running now. As I've said all along, it should be OSU/ND in the Fiesta. We'll be thumpin' Leprachauns for New Years, WOOHOO!

Posted by: Casca at December 03, 2005 09:28 PM (qBTBH)

4 {and the Dawgs tromped those inbreds from Louisiana,} Uhhm, like I guess there are no Inbreds in Georgia? Besides, Les Yards, er Les Miles looks too much like Al Bundy.

Posted by: Kyle N at December 03, 2005 10:19 PM (OkoO0)

5 I hope you do tromp the Golden Domers, but you got to admit, that Jeff Samardja is the most exciting White reciever since, er... well, can't really think of any other exciting white recievers.

Posted by: Kyle N at December 03, 2005 10:21 PM (OkoO0)

6 Elroy "Crazylegs" Hirsch?

Posted by: shelly at December 04, 2005 02:13 AM (6mUkl)

7 Michael Jackson?

Posted by: shelly at December 04, 2005 02:14 AM (6mUkl)

8 Doh!

Posted by: annika at December 04, 2005 09:50 AM (fzE9U)

9 Gonzalez who snagged the gamewinner against U of M? Samardja is incredible, so is ND's QB, but they haven't played a defense like Ohio State. They also don't have much of a defense. It'll be good to see the line.

Posted by: Casca at December 04, 2005 03:43 PM (qBTBH)

10 Lisa Marie was a sweet, quiet little girl. When she was five or six, she and my daughter were in school together and used to have play dates. Sometimes I'd drop her at Priscilla's, other times at Elvis' house. Priscilla always came out herself, Elvis always had someone else doing it. I always wondered how she made such a stupid mistake so as to marry that poor black boy who is going to die a rich white man. (I guess no one liked that "exciting white wide receiver" pun)

Posted by: shelly at December 04, 2005 08:01 PM (6mUkl)

11 Shit Shelly, you haven't heard her lately. Crass is the word that springs to mind. At least Elvis had some class with his redneck ways.

Posted by: Casca at December 04, 2005 09:37 PM (qBTBH)

12 i lol'd at it Shelly. btw, i saw Lisa Marie and Kirstie Ally once. They were so wasted! They ran into a bar just to use the bathroom, then ran out again. Everyone was like, "was that who we think it is?" Brush with fame i guess. And Kirstie really was enormous in real life.

Posted by: annika at December 04, 2005 09:49 PM (sdJCH)

13 Thanks Annie, I needed that. Casca, I HAVE heard her lately, that's why I shared her history. She was a darling little girl, quiet and shy, and my daughter was very outgoing and popular. Priscilla called constantly to make play dates, and my daughter liked playing with her. But even then (73-74-75) things were weird at Elvis' place. I guess parenting does pay off, one way or another.

Posted by: shelly at December 05, 2005 08:06 AM (6mUkl)

14 i wonder if she's gotten a chance to speak with her dad since he faked his own death and became a "Federal Agent at Large?"

Posted by: annika at December 05, 2005 11:07 AM (zAOEU)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

December 02, 2005

Put Yourself On The Map

Ok, so i joined the Frappr! bandwagon. Whatever, i'm a sheep. Put yourself on the map before this whole Frappr! craze blows over.

Posted by: annika at 08:21 PM | Comments (27) | Add Comment
Post contains 33 words, total size 1 kb.

1 BAAAAAAA

Posted by: Jake at December 02, 2005 09:05 PM (r/5D/)

2 OK, I know that you are interested in really important stuff like this and don't care a fig for the fact that one of the biggest games in college football is going on today. No, I don't mean Army-Navy. OK, Annie, you are always out on a limb, so I'm gonna join you with a prediction: It'll be a shoot out, but USC has more guns than anyone (especially when we bring the Referee, Umpire, Line Judge and Back Judge, plus the replay officals with us). I say USC will score in the 40's but UCLA will be in the high 20's, maybe 30's. The line is 21; I think it's just too many for this game, where nerves are raw and it's all on the line for both teams' bowling chances. Take the 21 and laugh at the suckers.

Posted by: shelly at December 03, 2005 05:58 AM (6mUkl)

3 OMG, WTF r u thinking? You have displeased the football gods, and you will be punished. Better go out in the yard and sacrifice a goat with your broadsword. If the neighbors say anything, tell them you're getting ready for a cookout.

Posted by: Casca at December 03, 2005 08:49 AM (qBTBH)

4 i'll take Navy, and UCLA plus the points.

Posted by: annika at December 03, 2005 09:14 AM (OwsdB)

5 Casa Because Annika insisted that I visit the Midway aircraft carrier I spent a week in Coronodo two weeks ago. Nice little city. I was very impressed with the Midway. It is one of the better restorations of military ships I have ever seen. I spoke with one of the volunteers, and he said that all ten planes were derelicts and were restored by volunteers-mostly retired Navy guys. He said the volunteers used their connections to get old parts from bases around the world. Some of them work 60 hours a week on the restoration projects. Only in America could this happen.

Posted by: Jake at December 03, 2005 11:36 AM (r/5D/)

6 Why do you come to me now, on this my daughter's wedding day? If you'd have come to me first, then the scum who gave you travel advice would be suffering this very moment. You're taking travel advice from Annika? Shoulda talked to me. Just kiddin', put the gun down. I hope you crossed the street, and went to the Aviation museum in Balboa park. It's the round building on the East side of I-5 just South of the I-94. There is a real live Catalina flying boat on a pedastol in the courtyard. They were built here in San Diego during WWII by Consolidated, and you can still see the ramps across the bay on North Island where they used to drive in and out of the water. Hopefully, you also had a cocktail in the skybar at the Hyatt, then drove up I-15 to the March Field aviation museum. It's the best collection outside of Wright-Pat, and the only reason Wright-Pat compares is because they raped the collection here. Nobody should visit San Diego without talking to Casca. Frankly the Midway puts me off because the charge vets fullboat price, and they put park benches on the end of the flight deck. They should be publicly pissed on.

Posted by: Casca at December 03, 2005 02:34 PM (qBTBH)

7 BTW, it's Casca you dumbass.

Posted by: Casca at December 03, 2005 02:35 PM (qBTBH)

8 Let's see besides the tiresome Keith Jackson... was there a single fucking penalty called on USC in the first half? It's hard to lose when the officials never call holding or PI on you, but the other team is fair game. Same thing for Texas, they were going to win anyway, but the officials turned it into an embarassment. Two on one just aint fair. BTW, I have a vested interest in both Texass and SUC winning. That way the buckeyes are at large BCS bowl picks.

Posted by: Casca at December 03, 2005 03:19 PM (qBTBH)

9 Sheesh. UCLA was overrated. this is why i don't gamble with real money.

Posted by: annika at December 03, 2005 05:50 PM (6QcjC)

10 Casca: I am not a dumbass, I am a smartass.

Posted by: Jake at December 03, 2005 06:10 PM (r/5D/)

11 That's right; I'm the dumbass. Not only did I bet UCLA and the points, I bet under 74. We;ll, at least I won an expensive dinner from one of my law partners and it will more than cover my losses. Annie, this limb is bery uncomfortable; how do you stand being on it every week? I'll wait for the line to come out, but if USC is less than 14 1/2, I'll lay the points on January 4. They are AWESOME, and, they showed their hidden D today as well.

Posted by: shelly at December 03, 2005 07:15 PM (6mUkl)

12 Jake, I'm sure that you'd like to be thought of as a smartass, yet it remains to be seen. UCLA is now as they've always been. Their shit is weak. They need a real coach to prepare them to win both mentally and physically. They have enough skill.

Posted by: Casca at December 03, 2005 08:01 PM (qBTBH)

13 AHHH! I posted my football stuff in the above Elvis thread, go read it I'm too lazy to repost.

Posted by: Kyle N at December 03, 2005 09:25 PM (OkoO0)

14 There's a reason we play the games, but I go by the gameday rules. Corso picks Texas over USC. That's enough right there to bet the farm on USC. Herbstreit observed that Texas' only quality win, a win they didn't deserve, was over Ohio State. The point being, that they've played nobody since week two. Sadly, the Rose bowl is all Trojans. Penn State? Wherever they go, they'll get tromped. They too got lucky to slip by Ohio State. The Buckeyes will stomp the Domers. All others are too low to mark.

Posted by: Casca at December 03, 2005 09:36 PM (qBTBH)

15 Annika, I am digging your blog. I see that you are interested in poetry. When you get a chance please visit www.fortunateadversity.blogspot.com. It will give an idea of the type of poetry I write and I would be interested in getting some feedback from you. Peace, Glenn

Posted by: Glenn North at December 03, 2005 11:36 PM (qA1tr)

16 Sadly? Sadly? What is sad about USC's success? We stole the game from ND fair and square. Fresno State, too. If they didn't like the officiating, they should have brought their own; they are too cheap to do that, relying on Football Jesus didn't do it this year. Charley Weis will not be the pushover for the Pussies that Casca thinks; the Pussies have a way of blowing important games with their stealth offense (viz. Texas, Penn State). Check the points before you bet that one. Sadly. Indeed. Piss off, Big Red.

Posted by: shelly at December 04, 2005 06:06 AM (6mUkl)

17 You are fucking high on something. What is it, khat, steroids, road rage? What's this "pussies" business? There are a handful of real defenses in the NCAA where they're going to really hit your ass. Ohio State has one. Texas has one. The entire PAC 10 doesn't. Now that I'm sober, I've reconsidered. If Mack Brown can put together a gameplan, Texas can win. It'll come down to coaching.

Posted by: Casca at December 04, 2005 03:29 PM (qBTBH)

18 Nah, Texas cannot win. They can get close, but the only way to beat SC is to outscore them. They will score 50 or more on Texas, just like everybody else. Ohio State may have a defense, they just can't find the end zone. Texas can, but not enough times against an improving SC defense. Reggie will pick up the hardware in New York and come back to prove it on January 4. USC is not about to let a third consecutive National Championship go down the drain. I don't blame you for drinking too much; hell, if I went to school in Columbus, I'd be drinking myself. So close, and yet so far.

Posted by: shelly at December 04, 2005 03:43 PM (6mUkl)

19 I just looked at the map. Helloooo Anna! And Betty! And Carolyn! And D-Rod! No, wait...

Posted by: gcotharn at December 04, 2005 04:21 PM (Tn5JU)

20 Casca's right; the Pussies and the Fighting Irish in the Fiesta Bowl. Will the offense remain hidden? Stay tuned.

Posted by: shelly at December 04, 2005 06:35 PM (6mUkl)

21 It's embarrassing to watch an old man addled by the destructive forces of mind altering drugs. Put down the pipe.

Posted by: Casca at December 04, 2005 09:40 PM (qBTBH)

22 BTW, considering all the free fashion advice one gets around here, and the garb of your users, shouldn't one make a stand against tie-dye? It was a really bad idea the first time it came around.

Posted by: Casca at December 05, 2005 06:39 AM (y9m6I)

23 Goes to show you, the best defense is still a strong offense.

Posted by: shelly at December 05, 2005 08:08 AM (6mUkl)

24 Put your pants back on, cowboy. It was just a costume. However, tie-dye is still fashionable up north here, especially in Berkeley and Bolinas.

Posted by: d-rod at December 05, 2005 09:33 AM (+8TyI)

25 I'm sure that it's popular in any venue where taste has taken a holiday.

Posted by: Casca at December 05, 2005 01:23 PM (y9m6I)

26 The City of Berkeley, and all that it contains, has never been affliated with the real world.

Posted by: shelly at December 05, 2005 03:53 PM (6mUkl)

27 Tie-dye makes a good target and stands out at ranges over 50-yds.

Posted by: -keith in mtn. view at December 08, 2005 12:36 PM (IaYRj)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

What The World Needs Now

Is more movies about a family with a zillion kids.

<sarc>Keep them coming please.</sarc>

Posted by: annika at 07:48 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 24 words, total size 1 kb.

Another Anti-MSM Post

Ten Marines were killed by a roadside bomb near Fallujah today. This is tragic, obviously, and i'm exasperated that we haven't killed all them fuckers yet. But really, it only takes a couple of lowlifes to plant these bombs, and how many are discovered and destroyed without killing anybody? Yet everytime the enemy gets lucky, the anti-war media (who are on the side of the enemy) use the event to hammer another wedge into our resolve.

Here, Reuters Foundation Alertnet (i'm not sure what that is, but their slogan seems to be "Alerting Humanitarians to Emergencies," whatever that means.) chose to highlight the latest casualties by celebrating some past terrorist successes in Iraq.

Surprise, people die in a war. Civilians die. Soldiers die. Marines die. It's how wars are fought and won and lost. i understand the political reasons for not focusing attention on enemy body counts. It wasn't really a good indicator in Vietnam either. But i do detect a little bit of glee in these left wing media outlets, whenever some of ours die. How about a little perspective? How about a list of the "Deadliest Incidents" for the terrorists since we began kicking their asses over there? That list would be much longer.

But since the media is on the side of the enemy, they wouldn't want to publicize anything that might hurt enemy morale, or boost our own.

Update: Not all of the media is on the side of the enemy. Thank goodness for the exceptions.

Via Sarah.

Posted by: annika at 09:41 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 258 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Last time i say a number of terrorists killed, it showed that we killed 40 of theirs to each one of our deaths.

Posted by: Jake at December 02, 2005 10:26 AM (r/5D/)

2 I like to remember the burden that Lincoln carried until July 4th 1863 when the Union won two major battles in one day, Gettysburg & Vicksburg. Until then all of the war news had been damned ugly for the yankees. As you know, Lincoln didn't think that he was going to win the election of 1864, and it was the overwhelming support of the Army that put him back in office.

Posted by: Casca at December 02, 2005 11:55 AM (y9m6I)

3 Don't kid yourself about the MSM being in some kind of deep woo-woo conspiracy. They just don't have the time. Last quarter Knight-Ridder implemented yet another 15% cutback on staffing in newsrooms. Next quarter, they're looking at a $350 mill cutback to please Wall Street while they try to unload their media properties. This, after years of already cutting staffs to the bone. Reporters no longer do any actual reporting. They don't have the time. They are churning out "content" (as opposed to news) as fast as they can or they are out the door. So whatever it is that appears in the MSM is something that came straight up from a news source ... in this case, from a Pentagon spokesman. Any detection of "glee" is on you - you don't have to try to call the families of the people killed to get a comment from them. Reporting on people dying is a lot like having to be the guy that comes to the house with the bible in hand to break the news to the next of kin. There's nothing gleeful about it. But it has to be done. The stories about the soldiers killed are the last notices that these men and women will get in this world. Would it be better to just ignore them, pretend that they don't even exist? How much of a Big Deal do you or do you not make about the ultimate sacrifice, the final price that American servicemen pay?

Posted by: Wordyeti at December 02, 2005 01:25 PM (4UTOj)

4 Wordyeti: Maybe there is no conspiracy, but the results are the same in the media because they have black listed conservatives for the last 25 years. Plus the media executives currently in power were all radicalized by the Vietnam War. This war made them hate Americans, America and the military. They only hired people who believed in advocacy journalism. Thus suppressing or distorting the news was acceptable as long as the end result brought the left to power. You say that the Wall Street is forcing these layoffs. No it is the customers that are forcing these layoffs. The customers are tired of having every page of the newspaper insulting their intelligence by engaging in news suppression and distortion. They are tired of seeing every news story looking like an editorial. Their contempt for media people is reflected in the polls as well as their refusal to buy a contemptible product. The people who work in the media have only themselves to blame. They put out a product that people were not stupid enough to buy. The free market has spoken, and it has kicked media in the ass to the applause of hundreds of millions of people.

Posted by: Jake at December 02, 2005 05:48 PM (r/5D/)

5 The reason Iraq War coverage is such crap has to do with a multitude of causes working together: pack journalism, entrenched bias, the generally low IQ of most journalists, laziness, cowardice, and lack of resources brought on by selling a mediocre product in an era of intense competition.

Posted by: annika at December 02, 2005 08:15 PM (7JUtv)

6 Nothing sexier than a smart blond.

Posted by: Casca at December 03, 2005 08:53 AM (qBTBH)

7 Annika, Not to disuade CASCA form his fantasies about you but sexy as you may be, it's you IQ that is in doubt when you suggest that the opponants of this criminal involvement in Iraq are rooting for the enemy (who ever that may be since Iraq was never actually the ememy until the MSM said it 10,000 times) Yours is a simplistic, unlearned approach to a difficult dilema. How do good, well meaning people-people who cherish this country and all that it has stood for, watch as their forces are sent to do unspeakable things (things you casually call fighting a war) to a country that, although run by a terribel dictator we loved for a while, are decent people cought in the cross hairs of a dimwitted mis-directed foreign policy administrated by liars, crooks and cluless neo-consertative ideologues whosw agenda has yet to be unearthed. You my dear would do well to stop the silly knee jerk conservative mouthing of the baseless underpinnings and biases against the media and smell the coffee, get serious about caring for our soldiers, our national security and stature. All are suffering with this policy and dumb belief that these "insurgents" are anything other than the by-product of our intervention.

Posted by: strawman at December 03, 2005 12:38 PM (0ZdtC)

8 Annika, You, my dear, would do well to stop mouthing your silly unprogressive views and go back to working in the kitchen while us liberal adults try to lead the nation to greatness and fight for your gender's rights, or you can at least wait in my bedroom to do something more...ahem...productive until you start re-affirming the proper views that we share, little lady. Remember, we're the ones that respect women and minorities the most.

Posted by: Spanky at December 03, 2005 09:45 PM (K9tdw)

9 Interesting note that never seems to be mentioned in the news: Major K in his blog notes this about US forces: "(We) have been asked to supervise or arbitrate at every level from neighborhood to national repeatedly... Whether Sunni, Shia or Kurd, the presence of Americans at neighborhood council meetings, disputes and detention facilities is not only favored, but is often greeted with a sigh of relief. The Iraqis know they will get fair treatment from us because ethnic group, tribal affiliation and political power do not weigh upon our measurement of justice. " http://strengthandhonor.typepad.com/captaink/2005/11/the_honest_brok.html He also notes: "This brings two things to mind. Firstly, the average Iraqi will often (not always) trust us more than other Iraqis outside of their family when it comes to fair and humane treatment. Secondly, for all of the people at home and in the media (my emphasis, not Major K's) that think we are such a widely hated and mistrusted "occupying force," I would like to know why they think the Iraqis hate their honest broker. Also, the troops have the same complaint Annika does about the news folks: "As one Marine put it, it's like if I spent $7.99 for a slice of pizza and the headlines the next day read, "Marine Out Eight Bucks!" http://media.nationalreview.com/082793.asp Wordyeti: In all due respect, no one's ever suggested that the media ignore US casualty reportage. Those are indeed important; we must konw what's happening. All many of us have asked for is balance and perspective, such as reportage of the successes, the safe areas (yes, they do exist), the Iraqis who do trust the US presence (see Major K's link above). That's all.

Posted by: E.M.H. at December 04, 2005 08:42 AM (Ynd4F)

10 Spanky, My dear boy, I think it is pretty weird that you suggest that I have transgressed some PC boundary or violated the feminist credo of my liberal masters by the use of the simply condescending "my dearÂ” while the men on this blog are sniffing around Annika's feet looking to dress her in Blahnik's, refer to themselves as "her bitch" (Mr. macho Casca) and I believe have affectionately called her "little lady" in the context of her shooting fetish and you have a problem with me? Let's also not forget that our hostess engages in a little painted toe wiggling of her own. Not for nothing, the fact that you choose to address this possible slight to our host, as we discuss the sickening slide into anarchy occurring in Iraq and the death of 10 more Marines is indicative of something far sicker in your core than my PC-lessness.

Posted by: strawman at December 04, 2005 11:08 AM (0ZdtC)

11 Hey, I'm not disagreeing with you. Iraq is a chaotic mess and we need to get out of there as soon as possible. It will also be good for our cause(which is ultimately good for America) when we can keep pointing at the epitome of the unprogressives' failure in Iraq for the next few decades of elections. No one will ever think about putting a conservative into nationally-elected office again when everyone sees terror attacks originating from Iraq on our soil. We will clean up the Repubs' mess and bring greatness to our fellow countrymen for generations. We will finally restore our nation's reputation and bring back the good feelings from overseas towards our country. It will be a wonderful world.

Posted by: Spanky at December 04, 2005 02:45 PM (K9tdw)

12 Sapnky, WOnderful world may be a bit of a stretch but I'll settle for throwing the scum out.

Posted by: strawman at December 05, 2005 11:18 AM (0ZdtC)

13 Send them bombs not boys. Kind of hard to have a road side attack on B-52.

Posted by: Eddythedancingbear at December 05, 2005 04:27 PM (6LC0Q)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Quotable Quote Of Today

Ken Wheaton:

[The] irony in all these death-penalty stories: A media that typically sees Born-Again Christians as suspect suddenly finds the Born-Again Christian a nobel [sic?] figure. Listen, I have no truck with Born-Agains and I hold them suspect as well, but I find this odd: Having blood on your hands is a forgivable offense; trying to hang the Ten Commandments in a public school makes you a threat to society.

Posted by: annika at 08:35 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 77 words, total size 1 kb.

Question 46

Has anyone ever used the "I'm Feeling Lucky" button on Google?

i haven't. But that's only because in all this excitement i can't remember if he fired six shots or only five.

Punk.

Posted by: annika at 08:14 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 37 words, total size 1 kb.

Apprentice Blogging

My money is on Randall. He's a team player, who knows when to lead, and when to play the supporting role. His past mistakes have not stuck to him. The chick, on the other hand, will always be remembered for her ill-advised loyalty to that loser friend of hers in one of the earlier episodes. She's good, but can Trump expect that she'll never make another judgment call like that?

It seems this season can't end soon enough for Trump. He axed two last night. Anybody know if the show's been picked up for another season? i think Trump's getting bored with it, like the show is one of his ex-wives.

Posted by: annika at 08:10 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 115 words, total size 1 kb.

182kb generated in CPU 0.0409, elapsed 0.1051 seconds.
79 queries taking 0.0775 seconds, 416 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy

Monthly Traffic

Pages: 28232
Files: 23
Bytes: 258.6M
CPU Time: 9:57
Queries: 1103359

Content

Posts: 2168
Comments: 17090

Feeds

December 15, 2005

December 14, 2005

December 13, 2005

December 12, 2005

December 11, 2005

December 10, 2005

December 08, 2005

December 07, 2005

December 06, 2005

December 04, 2005

December 03, 2005

December 02, 2005

Search Thingy

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Monthly Traffic

Content

Feeds