The Israeli poet Yehuda Amichai (1924 - 2000) is the most widely translated Hebrew poet since King David. He was born in Würzburg, Germany and emigrated to Jerusalem in the thirties. He enlisted in the British Army and later fought as a commando in the Negev Desert during the 1948 War of Independence.

New Republic literary editor Leon Wieseltier described Amichai's work this way: "Perhaps the most remarkable thing about Yehuda Amichai is his composure. From a life cluttered with ancient torments, with the collective memory of his people's pains and the personal recollection of his own, he calmly extracts the essences, and leaves the rest for laughter. These are elementary poems by an elementary man."

This one, i love:

A Man In His Life

A man doesn't have time in his life
to have time for everything.
He doesn't have seasons enough to have
a season for every purpose. Ecclesiastes
Was wrong about that.

A man needs to love and to hate at the same moment,
to laugh and cry with the same eyes,
with the same hands to throw stones and to gather them,
to make love in war and war in love.
And to hate and forgive and remember and forget,
to arrange and confuse, to eat and to digest
what history
takes years and years to do.

A man doesn't have time.
When he loses he seeks, when he finds
he forgets, when he forgets he loves, when he loves
he begins to forget.

And his soul is seasoned, his soul
is very professional.
Only his body remains forever
an amateur. It tries and it misses,
gets muddled, doesn't learn a thing,
drunk and blind in its pleasures
and its pains.

He will die as figs die in autumn,
Shriveled and full of himself and sweet,
the leaves growing dry on the ground,
the bare branches pointing to the place
where there's time for everything.

Posted by: annika at 12:11 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 329 words, total size 2 kb.

Teaching Math in 1950: A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price. What is his profit?

Teaching Math in 1960: A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price, or $80. What is his profit?

Teaching Math in 1970: A logger exchanges a set "L" of lumber for a set "M" of money. The cardinality of set "M" is 100. Each element is worth one dollar. Make 100 dots representing the elements of set "M." Set "C," the cost of production, contains 20 fewer points than set "M." Represent set "C" as a subset of set "M" and answer the following question: What is the cardinality of the set "P" of profits?

Teaching Math in 1980: A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80 and his profit is $20. Your assignment: Underline the number 20.

Teaching Math in 1990: By cutting down beautiful forest trees, the logger makes $20. What do you think of this way of making a living? Topic for class participation after answering the question: How did the forest birds and squirrels feel as the logger cut down the trees? There are no wrong answers.

Teaching Math in 2000: A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $120. How does Arthur Andersen determine that his profit is $60?

[Hard Law Firms, Soft Law Schools, 83 N.C. L. Rev. 667, fn. 12]

Posted by: annika at 12:29 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 247 words, total size 1 kb.

Happy ANZAC Day to all my visitors from Australia and New Zealand! ANZAC stands for Australia New Zealand Army Corps, the colonial force that was sent to support the empire during WWI, most notably at the infamous battle of Gallipoli. The holiday mirrors our own Memorial Day.

James at A Western Heart posts about his great grandfather, a gunnery officer on H.M.S. Good Hope, the British flagship that went down on 1 November 1914 at the battle of Coronel. The opposing German force contained the original S.M.S. Scharnhorst and Gneisenau (not their more famous WWII namesakes). Scharnhorst hit Good Hope with her third salvo, and the older ship's magazine exploded twenty minutes later. All hands were lost.

A summary of Coronel is here.

Posted by: annika at 09:28 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 127 words, total size 1 kb.

If you're too lazy to watch an entire boxing match, The Contender is the show for you, because they edit out all the clinches and just show the punching. If you're still too lazy, you can just go to Stop The Bleating, and read the recap.

Posted by: annika at 06:50 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 50 words, total size 1 kb.

...but that's no reason to jump to any conclusions.

Posted by: annika at 07:54 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 19 words, total size 1 kb.

From the trustworthy old BBC.

Posted by: annika at 12:59 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 11 words, total size 1 kb.

Apparently, journalism schools are now teaching their students that when they don't know something, just make shit up.

Listening to KCRA Channel 3's morning newscast in Sacramento, i was appalled to hear the news bimbo say that the Pope was given his "ring and woman's shawl" at this morning's installment ceremony.

It's called a stole, you idiot! Not common knowledge certainly, but a few seconds of research would have helped you avoid sounding like a complete ass.

"Woman's shawl?" Why not just say "shawl" if you didn't know what it was? If you're gonna make shit up, why not just say they gave him a ceremonial cigar too? Or that they passed around the ceremonial beer at mass?

i tell ya. It's near impossible to watch the news anymore.

Update: Okay, maybe i mis-heard it. She might have said "woolen" shawl. But still. How about a little enunciation?

Update 2: A little more than a few seconds of research revealed that i was wrong too. The stole is more properly called a Pallium, and Benedict spoke about its significance in this morning's homily.

The first symbol is the Pallium, woven in pure wool, which will be placed on my shoulders. This ancient sign, which the Bishops of Rome have worn since the fourth century, may be considered an image of the yoke of Christ, which the Bishop of this City, the Servant of the Servants of God, takes upon his shoulders. Gods yoke is Gods will, which we accept. And this will does not weigh down on us, oppressing us and taking away our freedom. To know what God wants, to know where the path of life is found this was Israel's joy, this was her great privilege. It is also our joy: Gods will does not alienate us, it purifies us even if this can be painful and so it leads us to ourselves. In this way, we serve not only him, but the salvation of the whole world, of all history.

The symbolism of the Pallium is even more concrete: the lambs wool is meant to represent the lost, sick or weak sheep which the shepherd places on his shoulders and carries to the waters of life. For the Fathers of the Church, the parable of the lost sheep, which the shepherd seeks in the desert, was an image of the mystery of Christ and the Church. The human race every one of us is the sheep lost in the desert which no longer knows the way. The Son of God will not let this happen; he cannot abandon humanity in so wretched a condition. He leaps to his feet and abandons the glory of heaven, in order to go in search of the sheep and pursue it, all the way to the Cross. He takes it upon his shoulders and carries our humanity; he carries us all he is the good shepherd who lays down his life for the sheep. What the Pallium indicates first and foremost is that we are all carried by Christ. But at the same time it invites us to carry one another. Hence the Pallium becomes a symbol of the shepherds mission, of which the Second Reading and the Gospel speak.

. . .

One of the basic characteristics of a shepherd must be to love the people entrusted to him, even as he loves Christ whom he serves. 'Feed my sheep,' says Christ to Peter, and now, at this moment, he says it to me as well. Feeding means loving, and loving also means being ready to suffer. Loving means giving the sheep what is truly good, the nourishment of Gods truth, of Gods word, the nourishment of his presence, which he gives us in the Blessed Sacrament. My dear friends at this moment I can only say: pray for me, that I may learn to love the Lord more and more. Pray for me, that I may learn to love his flock more and more in other words, you, the holy Church, each one of you and all of you together. Pray for me, that I may not flee for fear of the wolves. Let us pray for one another, that the Lord will carry us and that we will learn to carry one another.

I greet with great joy and gratitude all of you gathered here. . . . With great affection I also greet all those who have been reborn in the sacrament of Baptism but are not yet in full communion with us; and you, my brothers and sisters of the Jewish people, to whom we are joined by a great shared spiritual heritage, one rooted in God's irrevocable promises. Finally, like a wave gathering force, my thoughts go out to all men and women of today, to believers and nonbelievers alike.

Posted by: annika at 09:50 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 831 words, total size 5 kb.

Doug TenNapel analogizes a recent VDH column about the War on Terror with the current Senate filibuster fight.

Check it out. i think it's pretty brilliant.

And was that Doug's voice i heard on Friday's Hugh Hewitt show? If so, Doug, why didn't you use that opportunity to plug my blog? i thought we were friends.

Note to anyone calling any talk radio show in the future: plug my blog!

More: Re: the filibuster fight, i think the best pithy argument i've heard to date came from Zell Miller last night on Hannity and Colmes. i can't remember his exact words, so i'll re-state the argument in my own.

Question: How many votes does it take to confirm a judicial nominee in the Senate? Answer fifty-one.

Question: How many votes does it take to defeat a judicial nominee in the Senate? Answer forty-one.

Does that make any sense at all?

If you ask me, the filibuster rule is stupid and should be done away with in toto.

Posted by: annika at 12:00 PM | Comments (28) | Add Comment
Post contains 173 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Be careful of what you wish for- I think it's fair to say that the filibuster has historically more frequently been a tool of conservatives than of liberals.

Posted by: Preston at April 23, 2005 01:09 PM (pm/Ll)

2 ??? When? The R's don't have the stones to pull the trigger when they HAVE the votes. The last major use I can remember is Dixiecrat Senators, dat be u Head Kleagal Bird, blocking equal rights legislation in the 1960's. Before that, let's see, keeping the world safe for slave holders?

Posted by: Casca at April 23, 2005 05:07 PM (cdv3B)

3 Uh yeah, the Civil Rights bills and the nomination of Abe Fortas appointment to Supreme Court , opposition to Wilson' s war preparations and the ban on semi-automatic weapons at gun shows come to mind. You'd think if it were a matter of principle the two parties could agree to an end of the filibuster in say 2008 or later- when the beneficiaries of such a change would be unknown. But the everchanging 'blue slip' rules and the disintegrating ethics process in the House suggests that just maybe this isn't a matter of principle but simply a naked power grab.

Posted by: Preston at April 23, 2005 08:07 PM (pm/Ll)

4 I'm hoping that they haven't waited too long. This is about the Supreme Court, you know. Delay works in the favor of the Dem's. The longer they can put these CA votes off, the better it is for them.

Posted by: shelly at April 23, 2005 09:29 PM (pO1tP)

5 Shelly: What do you mean? Annika: What did Zell Miller say about the process of never allowing the nominees to leave the committee? Is it fair for 10 Senators to be able to vote down a nominee? Should we dismantle the Judiciary Committee?

Posted by: Preston at April 24, 2005 05:47 AM (pm/Ll)

6 Get a grip Preston. It is all about power, and fair is where you buy cotton candy. Principle? Grow up. BTW, you make the argument that the F-bomb has disproportionately helped R's, then cling to examples that illustrate the opposite, or are you confused about who is a liberal/conservative?

Posted by: Casca at April 24, 2005 07:22 AM (cdv3B)

7 My, my- calm, reasoned argument! Can we put that quote on the door of the RNC headquarters: "Principle? Grow up." It certainly makes the hypocrisies of the Republican Party make sense. Actually, I made the case that the filibuster has been used to support _conservative_ causes. You know as well as I that conservativism was well entrenched within the Democratic party before the ideological polarization after Nixon's 'Southern Strategy'. It is irrelevant to the current filibuster debate that Byrd was a segregationist- he has repeatedly renounced his earlier position as a mistake and now chooses to caucus with the party that 90% of African Americans vote for. To pretend that Strom Thurmond- by joining the 'Party of Lincoln' somehow was absolved of the same stain is to have an interesting view of the history of American political parties.

Posted by: Preston at April 24, 2005 07:44 AM (pm/Ll)

8 I have to return to this... If you think it is simply about power not principle- why on earth are you interested in politics? Unless you are writing from your K Street office that power is pretty unlikely to headed your way. In reality the power is used by Tom DeLay to help Jack Abramoff and then for Abramoff to help DeLay. This is satisfactory to you? If so, I have to assume you were not one of those so-called 'morals' voters. I also have to assume that you believe that the whole 'Contract with America' focus on Congressional ethics was just something concocted for the sheeple. You might also be comfortable with the notion that the Whitewater investigation was simply a pretext to engage in a permanent taxpayer funded campaign against the President. It's all about the power after all... Now, if we could just get Stalin to run for President in 2008... He know how to keep 'em in line.

Posted by: Preston at April 24, 2005 08:55 AM (pm/Ll)

9 the only time i ever saw anyone on capitol hill who was motivated by principle, i was watching a frank capra movie. Anyways, no. Zell Miller didn't mention the use of committee votes to block a nominee. That could be abused too. But there's no filibuster in the committee rules, and they use a simple majority vote. Sounds fair to me. If a nominee makes it through committee, the Senate should be given a chance to debate and vote. The filibuster rule as it's currently written, doesn't allow either.

Posted by: annie at April 24, 2005 09:15 AM (dRptT)

10 "Ma, ma, some Republican stole half my hog! How do you know it was a Republican? If it was a Democrat the whole thing'd be gone." Actually, the power quote is on Howard Dean's door. Have you ever seen anyone dance so hard for the booboisie? The roots of the Republican party are in abolition, and the roots of the Democrats in tyranny. That is why it took a bloody war, the greatest in our history, and a hundred years to pry the fingers of slavery from the throat of the South. Those fingers belonged to Democrats. The entire philosophy of the D's today is one of power and hanging on to it. It is the unholy alliance of union thugs, liberal theocrats, and government tit-suckers that keeps them alive. It is a flawed strategy. Decentralization of information creates a more powerful citizenry, and that is why the Republicans are ascendant. You sir are fucked. I recommend reconsidering your shiboleths should you desire any happiness and peace in life.

Posted by: Casca at April 24, 2005 10:59 AM (cdv3B)

11 Wow, you really presume to know what makes me happy? Maybe it's just listening to your potty mouth... Yeah, the Democrats are the party of tyranny- that was exactly what Jefferson was all about, if you squint your eyes really hard. There's no question that you can lay the blame of Jim Crow at the feet of the Democratic Party. However, it's obscenely intellectually dishonest to ignore that the _people_ responsible for Jim Crow eventually found their ways to the Republican Party. I don't know what booboisie means. I'm not one of the kool kids but I'm willing to listen if you're patient. In my understanding, the philosophy of the Democratic Party is to provide for the shared sacrifice and security of every member of society understanding that the market is the most efficient generator of wealth yet government is often required to fill in gaps. I guess we've got a lot to learn from Tom DeLay and his cronies about how the world really is.

Posted by: Preston at April 24, 2005 11:58 AM (pm/Ll)

12 Annie: The filibuster debate seems to ignore the blue slip rules which suddenly grew expansively when the Republicans took the Senate in 1994 and then suddenly grew less permissive when George Bush won in 2000. To pretend that the Democrats are pioneering legislative tactics to thwart extreme judicial nominees is hogwash. I suppose anyone is free to have an ultimately cynical view of politics- but what is the motivation of individuals to be involved if they understand that the 'party of fiscal responsibility' is liable to run up 2 trillion dollars in debt if it is suddenly politically advantageous? That's not a rhetorical question.

Posted by: Preston at April 24, 2005 12:05 PM (pm/Ll)

13 Well that's a little off the subject, but i'm not happy about the spending spree either.

Posted by: annie at April 24, 2005 12:13 PM (dRptT)

14 Ok- then how about the 'party of judicial restraint' and the 'party of state's rights' crafting late-night legislation in order to supercede the rulings of the Florida State Courts. Come to think of it... I guess you're right: it is about power, not principle.

Posted by: Preston at April 24, 2005 12:23 PM (pm/Ll)

15 Preston, your understanding of reality is perverted. It takes a certain lack of logic to reach a conclusion that is 180 out from reality. "it's obscenely intellectually dishonest to ignore that the _people_ responsible for Jim Crow eventually found their ways to the Republican Party." If so, perhaps after recanting. 100 years of institutionalized Southern racism supported by the foundation of the D's, and now they're all Replublicans eh? To the extent this is true, and I don't think it is, I'd say that the social order has acheived balance in the past fifty years, since that racist Eisenhower sent the 101st to Little Rock. Segregation was made illegal in the last half of the 20th century, so taken away from the D's as a populist issue in the South. Once that happened, they had to use other issues popular in the South like national defense, where they couldn't win. The further we move from institutionalized racism, the more diminished the role of Democrats in the South. Coinkydink? I don't think so.

Posted by: Casca at April 24, 2005 12:45 PM (cdv3B)

16 Do you really believe what you're saying? Of course Eisenhower wasn't a racist. Strom Thurmond leaving the Democratic Party in 1948 in protest of its pro-civil rights platform marked the first break of the segregationists and the Democratic Party. Lyndon Johnson's shepherding of the 1957 and 1964 Civil Rights act as well as the 1965 Voting Rights Act marked the final straw for this relationship. Richard Nixon in 1968 capitalized on this with his 'Southern Strategy' that winked to the South and assured them he did not intend to push additional Civil Rights legislation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy If you're honestly claiming that the Democratic Party is the party of institutionalized racism then you're also saying that 90% of black voters and every single African American Congressman is a dupe unable to tell which party holds their best interests at heart. Who's to say if those Republicans 'recanted' their racist beliefs? I'm more inclined to think the 20 or so Southern Democratic Congressmen who switched since the 1960's found a home more suitable to their ideology than experiencing a mass conversion to the gospel of racial equality. But who knows- maybe it was the flouride in the water or something... Segregation was made illegal but appeals to race are clearly still possible. The party more lenient to this type of politics will have a greater appeal to the racists holdouts. I'm not saying that everyone in the South is racist or this is the only reason for Republican dominance in the South but it is foolish to discount the role of racial politics in the dismantling of the 'Solid South'.

Posted by: Preston at April 24, 2005 01:15 PM (pm/Ll)

17 Though, I don't really think you actually believe what you're proposing I'll leave with a final circumstantial evidence regarding the roots of the political shift of the South: a de-racialized Democratic Party or a de-racialized electorate. Voters began voting for alternatives to the Democratic Party at the national level far before they began at the local level. This was because the national Democratic Party was ending its collusion with segregationists while local Democrats were largely free to continue these appeals. By the 40's Truman allowed Civil Rights on his platform (and integrated the army: the result was the Dixiecrat rebellion in the 1948 Presidential election. However, Southern legislatures remained Democratic. In the 60's Democrats led the passage of more Civil Rights acts. In 1968 the South retailiated by voting for Nixon and Wallace. But Southern legislatures remained Democratic. In the 1980's Reagan made appeals to the South by beginning his campaign in Philadelphia Mississppi and pepper speeches with references to 'welfare queens'. He wins the South. But Southern legislatures remained Democratic. This was able to happen because local Democrats were able to continue with racist appeals while their national counterparts were not. Even so, Republican Governors and Senators and Congressmen began having more success because of their ideological affinity on these issues. I think it's clear that racial politics were important well into the latter half of the 20th century but national Democrats no longer won elections there.

Posted by: Preston at April 24, 2005 01:50 PM (pm/Ll)

18 Eh, I've lost interest in your long-winded self-delusion. Blacks vote with the D's for several reasons, one being that like you they're prisoners of leftist groupthink to the extent those who vote with the D's think at all. For the most part, they live in rotten buroughs where votes are routinely stolen. Computerized voter registration will be the end of a lot of this, and is the federal law that is going to take another chunk out of the D vote stealing machine in the next cycle. Hahahaha, you're in for a looooong painful stretch.

Posted by: Casca at April 24, 2005 02:51 PM (cdv3B)

19 My recollection of '68 was that Wallace picked up the red neck racist vote, and Nixon got the fuck-the-peacenik-liberal vote in the South. From reconstruction until '68 the racists were with the Democrats. In '72 they voted for Nixon because they weren't unpatriotic enough to vote for McGovern, few were. '76 they got to vote for a fellow cracker, and by '80 the entire nation was sick of limp wristed incompetence, ergo Reagan. From that point on, it's pretty clear that an anti-black racist vote pretty much evaporated in America.

Posted by: Casca at April 24, 2005 05:32 PM (cdv3B)

20 Wow- you must love the anonymity of the internet- though I'd love to be at a party where you attempted to talk to a liberal or an African American face to face with your rhetoric. Unless you're a trust fund baby and no longer at a draftable age I don't see any stretch of Republican rule being any easier for you than for me. -oh, I remember it's about power not principle. I'll see you at the Wal-Mart when we 'retire'...

Posted by: Preston at April 24, 2005 08:06 PM (pm/Ll)

21 "From that point on, it's pretty clear that an anti-black racist vote pretty much evaporated in America." Someone forgot to tell Lee Atwater and Pere Bush.

Posted by: Preston at April 24, 2005 08:08 PM (pm/Ll)

22 Connect the dots dickhead... if you can.

Posted by: Casca at April 24, 2005 09:57 PM (cdv3B)

23 Congratulations on your luck. Don't forget to pull up the ladder after you.

Posted by: Preston at April 25, 2005 04:04 AM (pm/Ll)

24 from killrighty maybe they should do away with the congressional record. or grow up. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA): “It is not the role of the Senate to obstruct the process and prevent numbers of highly qualified nominees from even being given the opportunity for a vote on the Senate floor.” (Sen. Barbara Boxer, Congressional Record, 5/14/97) Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA): “I urge the Republican leadership to take the steps necessary to allow the full Senate to vote up or down on these important nominations.” (Sen. Tom Harkin, Congressional Record, 9/11/00) Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA): “We owe it to Americans across the country to give these nominees a vote. If our Republican colleagues don’t like them, vote against them. But give them a vote.” (Sen. Ted Kennedy, Congressional Record, 2/3/9 Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA): “It is true that some Senators have voiced concerns about these nominations. But that should not prevent a roll call vote which gives every Senator the opportunity to vote ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ … Parties with cases, waiting to be heard by the federal courts deserve a decision by the Senate.” (Sen. Ted Kennedy, Congressional Record, 9/21/99) Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV): “[W]e should have up-or-down votes in the committee and on the floor.” (CNN’s “Evans, Novak, Hunt & Shields,” 6/9/01) Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): “It is our job to confirm these judges. If we don’t like them, we can vote against them.” (Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Congressional Record, 9/16/99) Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): “Our institutional integrity requires an up-or-down vote.” (Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Congressional Record, 10/4/99) Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA): “[The filibuster process] is used … as blackmail for one Senator to get his or her way on something that they could not rightfully win through the normal processes.” (Sen. Tom Harkin, Congressional Record, 1/4/95)

Posted by: louielouie at April 25, 2005 03:09 PM (i7mWl)

25 And the Republicans have quotes saying the opposite from when they were using the filibuster. Like I mentioned earlier they need to agree to a policy and have it kick in several years so neither party can know for sure who it will benefit.

Posted by: Preston at April 25, 2005 03:19 PM (wkfsI)

26 The Democrats are conveniently forgetting the effort by 19 Democrats in 1995 to kill the filibuster. The resolution was introduced by Joe Lieberman and Tom Harkin. “…the filibuster rules are unconstitutional.” “…the filibuster is nothing short of legislative piracy.” “We cannot allow the filibuster to bring Congress to a grinding halt.” ” …So today I start a drive to do away with a dinosaur — the filibuster rule.” It was defeated 76-19 in 1995. All 19 that supported it were Democrats, some with very familiar names. Like these: Jeff Bingaman, Barbara Boxer, Russ Feingold, Tom Harkin, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Frank Lautenberg, Joe Lieberman, and Paul Sarbanes.

Posted by: louielouie at April 25, 2005 03:22 PM (i7mWl)

27 ...meaning that Republicans voted in _favor_ of the filibuster. Personally, I could imaging getting rid of it or maybe dropping the number for cloture down to, say, 55- but only at a specified time in the future. Isn't everybody a little of the shifting procedural rules engineered to favor the party in power?

Posted by: Preston at April 25, 2005 03:32 PM (wkfsI)

28 ...(though I understand that 'principle' is not a popular concept around here.)

Posted by: Preston at April 25, 2005 03:32 PM (wkfsI)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Via Naked Villainy.

Posted by: annika at 07:53 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 60 words, total size 1 kb.

In one of his first official acts as pontiff, Pope Benedict XVI will meet with the Archbishop of Canterbury. What surprised me is that such an invitation has never before happened, according to the Times of London.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, will meet Pope Benedict XVI for the first time on Monday.

Anglican insiders said it was "highly significant" that the Pope should choose to meet the honorary head of the Anglican communion in the very first hours of his official pontificate.

The papal audience in the Vatican follows his attendance at tomorrowÂ’s inaugural mass at St PeterÂ’s, when Dr Williams will become the first serving Archbishop of Canterbury to attend a papal inauguration since the Reformation. On Sunday evening Dr Williams will preach at the Anglican church of All Saints in Rome.

After a chilly period for Anglicanism under the last Pope because of the ordination of women priests, Benedict XVI appears eager to usher in a new era of closeness between the two communions.
[emphasis added]

More myths busted: The anti-semitic slur against the new pope is bogus:

Rabbi Di Segni quoted a letter from the pope, who said he had "trust in the help of the Almighty", in which he pledged to continue and intensify contacts with Jews begun by his predecessor, Pope John Paul II.

'I trust in the help of the Almighty to continue and strengthen the dialogue and collaboration with the sons and daughters of the Jewish people,' the pope said in the message, dated yesterday.

Jewish leaders in Israel and beyond have saluted the election of Benedict, saying he was a friend of the Jewish people and calling on him to continue the fight against anti-Semitism.

The new pope's conservative outlook, which has caused controversy in the Western world, appears not to overly concern religious leaders in the Middle East.

Jordan's King Abdullah II, a direct descendant of Islam's prophet, Mohammed, voiced his trust in the new pope's 'wisdom and courage to go forward and continue his predecessor's mission with strength and faith to bring about world peace and reinforce respect between religions.'

The Italian daily La Repubblica, meanwhile, reported that the documents Benedict had been working on before being elected pope included one allowing divorced couples who remarry to receive Communion.

Posted by: annika at 10:49 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 452 words, total size 3 kb.

Got a late start. Missed the project assignments.

9:10 - Hey Net Worth, if the cell phone don't work, pick up a land line. That's a no brainer.

9:15 - Net Worth is making a tabouret. Magna a lazy susan.

9:25 - i'm waiting for Craig to throw a tape dispenser at Kendra. That would be funny.

9:28 - On second thought, that's not a tabouret, it's a credenza.

9:29 - Craig's doin' a verbal smackdown on Kendra. If they lose, Tana is golden in the boardroom. But Kendra has immunity, interesting. Craig has totally missed that key dynamic, which could be his undoing.

9:31 - No, i changed my mind again. Since it has wheels, it's a tabouret. It looks expensive too.

9:33 - Net Worth lost. Back to the ivory tower, boys.

9:35 - Haha, the Staples "Desk Apprentice" is actually for sale. i think it's stupid. Too big for most desks, plus you need to keep the area around it clear so it will spin, thus it takes up even more space.

9:39 - The rainbow room looks suweet. i just heard the male half of the tv audience let out an audible sigh of disappointment when Carolyn revealed she was married.

9:42 - It's traditional at my place to say "Trump" in unison when the boss walks into the boardroom.

9:43 - Can lawyers be creative? Sad to say, in my experience, mostly no.

9:45 - Alex, you're a loser, face it.

9:48 - i love that Jetta commercial where the dude's on a job interview and his car radio comes on accidentally and it's way too loud.

9:50 - Alex is the "hungriest person here." Should have had lunch before he went in. Brin has trouble "taking risks." Might have wanted to keep that to himself. Trump just smelled blood.

9:52 - "Branson went after me, I killed 'im. Cuban went after me, I killed 'im." Whoaaa. Nice trash talkin' Don. What about Martha, i wonder?

9:53 - It's Bren. He didn't want it. i just watched him commit boardroom hari-kari. Talkin' about how he'd rather be home with his kids. i can respect that. Oh well. Another bow-tie bites the dust.

9:59 - In the cab, did i hear Brin clicking his heels together three times?

Posted by: annika at 09:30 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 388 words, total size 2 kb.

1 I didn't see last night's show, but it has been obvious since very early on that Alex is an empty suit. Trump, inexplicably, is blind to this and the guy keeps hanging in there week after week. Brin may have not been the best guy in the world, but he would add more value than Alex.

Posted by: Pursuit at April 22, 2005 05:49 AM (VqIuy)

2 I can't say I was disappointed with Carolyn being married. I don't consider her to be attractive. I was a little surprised after watching her fawn all over Bill in the 1st season though.

Posted by: ccs178 (Chris) at April 22, 2005 07:34 AM (B5UVm)

3 I'm hopelessly addicted to this show. LOVE IT. I'm not so sure I like Craig. I didn't like that he didn't participate in the focus group research. You can never have too much market research. And who the hell files their folders vertically anyway?! And I sure as hell am not impressed with Alex. Brin seemed like a really nice guy, but he did seem to be much more exhausted for the past couple of weeks. I think the one that will come out on top (ultimately) will be Tana. That's my prediction anyway.

Posted by: Amy Bo Bamy at April 22, 2005 09:03 AM (kxatG)

4 I hate the show, mostly because Trump is one of the biggest cheats in America. His biz model is basically trailor park chic; buy on credit, hide assets, go bankrupt. Anyways, the rolling credenze was a BRILLIANT idea. That fucking lazy susan was ultra-lame, and says more about the "judges" than the judged.

Posted by: Casca at April 22, 2005 04:02 PM (cdv3B)

5 tabouret

Posted by: annika at April 22, 2005 07:19 PM (shSd9)

6 It may not strictly be a rolling credenza, but it is most certainly NOT a tabouret. For one thing, it is not low.

Posted by: Casca at April 23, 2005 10:48 AM (cdv3B)

7 yes it was.

Posted by: annie at April 23, 2005 11:07 AM (YPCN4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

From Reuters:

Germans have average lengths of about 3.4 inches, Israelis 3.27 inches, Turks 3.07 inches and Filippinos 2.89 inches. Italians were the longest at 3.54 inches, and Americans averaged 3.46 inches.

The study did not measure the penises when they were erect.

LMAO!

And that there's one group that's conspicuously absent from the study.

Posted by: annika at 08:48 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 69 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Chinese?

Posted by: Desert Cat at April 21, 2005 09:28 PM (xdX36)

2 "The study did not measure the penises when they were erect." Doesn't this reflect a fundemental misunderstaning of what is important? It is similar to saying one car is better than another because it has a faster idle speed! By the way, did I mention my grandparents came here from Italy?!

Posted by: Pursuit at April 22, 2005 05:52 AM (VqIuy)

3 Was the sample size statistically valid? Same measurement technique, temperature, measurement taker? On second thought, not being average, who cares?

Posted by: Mark at April 22, 2005 06:28 AM (oQofX)

4 *especially* temperature.

Posted by: Victor at April 22, 2005 12:23 PM (L3qPK)

5 Yours truly is Italian.

Posted by: Mark at April 22, 2005 01:43 PM (Vg0tt)

6 Signora bella, sono l'amante per voi. Avrete i orgasms migliori della vostra vita e se non pensate che il mio penis sia abbastanza grande, io lo attacchi nel vostro asino in modo da potete giudicare più meglio.

Posted by: Casca at April 22, 2005 04:10 PM (cdv3B)

7 Well, if they'r not measured while erect, what's the point?

Posted by: Tuning Spork at April 22, 2005 07:19 PM (89OIM)

8 Such a protocol might provide too much opportunity for mischief, i would imagine.

Posted by: annika at April 23, 2005 07:32 AM (YPCN4)

9 Seems like the job would suit you then.

Posted by: Casca at April 23, 2005 11:09 AM (cdv3B)

10 Viva L'Italia!

Posted by: Mark at April 26, 2005 12:19 PM (Vg0tt)

11 Zip 'em up, kids. Have some dignity.

Posted by: Mike M at April 28, 2005 11:52 AM (K1oQY)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

How is it that Ryan Seacrest got a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, and Joe Don Baker hasn't yet?

Posted by: annika at 08:26 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.

Here we are, almost three weeks into a new season, and i've been stuck at the bottom of my own ten team league for most of the time. However, after a few key roster moves, one promising trade, and some brilliant free agent acquisitions, i've been able to pull my team up by its bootstraps to fourth place.

i'm behind Paul and Dawn (neither of whom have made a single trade or free agent pick - that's good drafting) and Matt.

My offensive starters as of today are:

Catcher: Victor Martínez, Cleveland, slumping right now, but i hope he can regain his 2004 form soon.

First base: Paul Konerko, Chicago Sox, currently leading the majors with seven home runs.

Second base: Clint Barmes, Colorado, averaging .652 with 8 RBI and an on base percentage of .714 in the last week! He's currently second in the majors in both batting average and on base percentage, behind...

Third base: Edgardo Alfonzo, San Francisco, that's right, i have the number one and number two major league batting average and OBP leaders on my team. They're fucking keeping me afloat. And you know what the funny thing is, i picked up both of them after the draft as free agents. i should be a talent scout.

Shortstop: Pedro Feliz, San Francisco, tied for fourth and eleventh in runs scored and RBI, respectively.

Outfield: Jim Edmonds, St. Louis, love this guy, he's been on my fantasy team every year.

Outfield: Matt Lawton, Pittsburgh, perrenial underachiever on a mediocre team.

Outfield: Sammy Sosa, Baltimore, whom i'm a little worried about, but i couldn't say no to the trade when Victor offered him.

Utility: Adrián Béltre, Seattle, who had a monster year last year, and better deliver this year. i've noticed that former Dodgers often seem to do well during their first year with a new team.

Defensively, my brilliant pickup was Toronto rookie Gustavo Chacín, who was just sitting there in the free agent pool with three wins, nobody noticing. So i snagged him. Similarly ignored is the supremely talented, but sometimes inconsistent Dodger starter Odalis Pérez, who's having a great April.

My disappointments have been the injured Eric Gagne, who was my #1 draft pick, and Barry Zito, who seems to be having trouble adjusting to life without Mulder and Hudson. But he'll come around. So will Mike Lowell, my old standby the last couple of years. He's in the middle of the worst slump i've seen him in since i've been his fan. Snap out of it, mi borinqueño!

If i can get some save production out of Trevor Hoffman and/or Gagne comes back healthy, i might move up even more. If i don't jinx everything with this post, that is. Still, it feels good to be out of the cellar.

Posted by: annika at 06:57 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 473 words, total size 3 kb.

Monday was the 230th anniversary of Paul Revere's ride. The famous 1863 poem, by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow is one of the few poems i have ever memorized. Although now i can only recite the first few lines from memory, i love it all the same.

It's a long one, but if you've never read it please enjoy it all the way to the end. Longfellow was great at telling a story, and this is a great story to tell. Listen to the galloping rhythm of the meter as you read. It's wonderful.

Paul Revere's Ride

Listen my children and you shall hear
Of the midnight ride of Paul Revere,
On the eighteenth of April, in Seventy-five;
Hardly a man is now alive
Who remembers that famous day and year.

He said to his friend, "If the British march
By land or sea from the town to-night,
Hang a lantern aloft in the belfry arch
Of the North Church tower as a signal light,--
One if by land, and two if by sea;
And I on the opposite shore will be,
Ready to ride and spread the alarm
Through every Middlesex village and farm,
For the country folk to be up and to arm."

Then he said "Good-night!" and with muffled oar
Silently rowed to the Charlestown shore,
Just as the moon rose over the bay,
Where swinging wide at her moorings lay
The Somerset, British man-of-war;
A phantom ship, with each mast and spar
Across the moon like a prison bar,
And a huge black hulk, that was magnified
By its own reflection in the tide.

Meanwhile, his friend through alley and street
Wanders and watches, with eager ears,
Till in the silence around him he hears
The muster of men at the barrack door,
The sound of arms, and the tramp of feet,
And the measured tread of the grenadiers,
Marching down to their boats on the shore.

Then he climbed the tower of the Old North Church,
By the wooden stairs, with stealthy tread,
To the belfry chamber overhead,
And startled the pigeons from their perch
On the sombre rafters, that round him made
Masses and moving shapes of shade,--
By the trembling ladder, steep and tall,
To the highest window in the wall,
Where he paused to listen and look down
A moment on the roofs of the town
And the moonlight flowing over all.

Beneath, in the churchyard, lay the dead,
In their night encampment on the hill,
Wrapped in silence so deep and still
That he could hear, like a sentinel's tread,
The watchful night-wind, as it went
Creeping along from tent to tent,
And seeming to whisper, "All is well!"
A moment only he feels the spell
Of the place and the hour, and the secret dread
Of the lonely belfry and the dead;
For suddenly all his thoughts are bent
On a shadowy something far away,
Where the river widens to meet the bay,--
A line of black that bends and floats
On the rising tide like a bridge of boats.

Meanwhile, impatient to mount and ride,
Booted and spurred, with a heavy stride
On the opposite shore walked Paul Revere.
Now he patted his horse's side,
Now he gazed at the landscape far and near,
Then, impetuous, stamped the earth,
And turned and tightened his saddle girth;
But mostly he watched with eager search
The belfry tower of the Old North Church,
As it rose above the graves on the hill,
Lonely and spectral and sombre and still.
And lo! as he looks, on the belfry's height
A glimmer, and then a gleam of light!
He springs to the saddle, the bridle he turns,
But lingers and gazes, till full on his sight
A second lamp in the belfry burns.

A hurry of hoofs in a village street,
A shape in the moonlight, a bulk in the dark,
And beneath, from the pebbles, in passing, a spark
Struck out by a steed flying fearless and fleet;
That was all! And yet, through the gloom and the light,
The fate of a nation was riding that night;
And the spark struck out by that steed, in his flight,
Kindled the land into flame with its heat.
He has left the village and mounted the steep,
And beneath him, tranquil and broad and deep,
Is the Mystic, meeting the ocean tides;
And under the alders that skirt its edge,
Now soft on the sand, now loud on the ledge,
Is heard the tramp of his steed as he rides.

It was twelve by the village clock
When he crossed the bridge into Medford town.
He heard the crowing of the cock,
And the barking of the farmer's dog,
And felt the damp of the river fog,
That rises after the sun goes down.

It was one by the village clock,
When he galloped into Lexington.
He saw the gilded weathercock
Swim in the moonlight as he passed,
And the meeting-house windows, black and bare,
Gaze at him with a spectral glare,
As if they already stood aghast
At the bloody work they would look upon.

It was two by the village clock,
When he came to the bridge in Concord town.
He heard the bleating of the flock,
And the twitter of birds among the trees,
And felt the breath of the morning breeze
Blowing over the meadow brown.
And one was safe and asleep in his bed
Who at the bridge would be first to fall,
Who that day would be lying dead,
Pierced by a British musket ball.

You know the rest. In the books you have read
How the British Regulars fired and fled,---
How the farmers gave them ball for ball,
From behind each fence and farmyard wall,
Chasing the redcoats down the lane,
Then crossing the fields to emerge again
Under the trees at the turn of the road,
And only pausing to fire and load.

So through the night rode Paul Revere;
And so through the night went his cry of alarm
To every Middlesex village and farm,---
A cry of defiance, and not of fear,
A voice in the darkness, a knock at the door,
And a word that shall echo for evermore!
For, borne on the night-wind of the Past,
Through all our history, to the last,
In the hour of darkness and peril and need,
The people will waken and listen to hear
The hurrying hoof-beats of that steed,
And the midnight message of Paul Revere.

The other poems i've memorized include Jabberwocky, The Star Spangled Banner and Desdemona's lines from a scene i did for a college acting class. The only one still left in my head is Jabberwocky.

If you're interested, here's a history of the various frigates named H.M.S. Somerset.

Posted by: annika at 12:01 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 1144 words, total size 7 kb.

i'm ecstatic about the selection of Cardinal Ratzinger, which is strange since i'm quite liberal on many Catholic issues. It's not just because we share a Bavarian ancestry. i really believe that the Church needs an orthodox leader after the touchy-feely pontificate of John Paul II.

The list of changes i would favor in my Church is long. But my faith remains strong. i'm not going to leave the Church because women can't be ordained, for example. It is good that the Pope is more conservative than i am. That's something the reformers seem to forget. When religion doesn't set moral standards, it ceases to be a religion, and becomes a social club.

Also, the media critics don't want to admit that most of the Catholic world is very happy at the selection of a conservative cardinal. It's just here in the godless west that you hear the whining. i am hopeful and happy about Pope Benedict XVI because he has already signalled that he will not lead the Church into error by chasing after fallen Catholics. It is up to the faithful to remain in faith, not the other way around.

Lastly, i'm sick and tired of hearing the talking heads question whether Cardinal Ratzinger will be too divisive, when (they arrogantly surmise) the Church needs a uniter. i'm reminded of the following words of scripture:

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, a man's enemies will be the members of his own household. [Matthew 10:34-36]

Viva il Papa nuova.

Update: Zomby has a great post on this very thing.

Posted by: annika at 09:14 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 327 words, total size 2 kb.

White smoke.

Got pope.

developing . . .

Seriously, it's kind of exciting. i hope it's the German.

Update to the update: Note to the non-Catholic, but curious: If you thought the conclave was exciting, wait until you see our convlex!

Posted by: annika at 09:28 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 45 words, total size 1 kb.

1 See my comment in the previous update.

Posted by: ccs178 (Chris) at April 19, 2005 09:56 AM (B5UVm)

2 It's the German...Cardinal Rat-whocareswhattherestis?

Posted by: Victor at April 19, 2005 10:36 AM (L3qPK)

3 Papa-ratzzi

Posted by: shelly at April 19, 2005 11:09 AM (6mUkl)

4 Let's see: "Put a gun in the hands of a German and he turns towards France". I wonder what happens when you put a bible in his hand?

Posted by: shelly at April 19, 2005 11:11 AM (6mUkl)

5 What if there were some "irregularities"? Has every vote been counted? Where is the paper trail?

Posted by: d-rod at April 19, 2005 11:23 AM (CSRmO)

6 He's old. I've got at least one more shot at it. Seriously, here's hoping he has the stamina to un-do some of the damage that's been done by the abuse scandal.

Posted by: Mark at April 19, 2005 12:05 PM (oQofX)

7 The AP already has a "story" out on the wires about how the Third World is "disapointed" with the selection. In keeping with the AP's rigorous journalistic standards, the reporter went out and found a couple of people who would have prefered a person from Latin America or Africa and then ran the story as if there was some sort of general disconent. The MSM just really sucks.... If you want to see somebody really pissing his pants over the selection, go check out Andrew Sullivan's site......was he expecting a pro-gay Pope?!

Posted by: Blu at April 19, 2005 04:29 PM (j8oa6)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Still no pope.

developing . . .

Posted by: annika at 07:26 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 11 words, total size 1 kb.

It's interview season. And if there's one thing i've learned, it's that interviewing is a game.

There are two types of interview questions. The ones they ask you and the ones you're supposed to ask them. The ones they ask you are easy to answer if you read enough guidebooks and have some idea of how to sell yourself. The ones you're supposed to ask them are just plain stupid.

That's because there's really only two questions that you need to ask, and you can't ask either of them. They are:

1. How much are you gonna pay me? and

2. How much work do i have to do?

So instead you end up asking the lamest questions, which you memorize from the back of one of those interview guides. Here are some gems:

What qualities would you expect the successful candidate to possess?

Do you have a mentor program?

How would you describe your management style?

Does your firm encourage participation in pro-bono or volunteer work?

What do people like most/least about working here?

What do you see as the overall growth areas for the firm in the next few years?

Besides the above mentioned two most important questions, which you can't ask, i came up with some other useful questions, which you also cannot ask. Like:

Is your firm personal-call friendly?

Who are the hot single non-gay prospects around this place?

What's your hangover policy? Do you want me to come in, or stay home? Cuz if i come in, i'm not gonna be much good to anybody, lemme tell ya.

Do i have to wear hose?

Do i have to wear shoes?

What's your freak/snitch/bitch/pompous-ass : normal person ratio?

What about a company credit card? Any chance of that?

Company car? No? How 'bout a masseuse?

Do i get the corner office?

Posted by: annika at 11:03 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 473 words, total size 3 kb.

[T]hat's the critical error the insurgents made. They thought they could keep the Marines' heads down. But he gets back up.

Three important lessons for the would-be terrorist, from this story:

1. This is why we shoot when a vehicle doesn't stop.

2. Terrorist attacks are becoming fewer in number, but sometimes reflect more sophisticated planning.

3. Marines will still kill their ass dead.

Knocked down by that blast, with bricks and sandbags collapsing on top of him, [Lance Cpl. Joshua] Butler struggled to his feet only to hear a large diesel engine roar amid the clatter of gunfire. It was a red fire engine, carrying a second suicide bomber and passenger. Butler says both were wearing black turbans and robes, often worn by religious martyrs.

Amid the chaos of that first bomb blast, supported by gunfire from an estimated 30 dismounted insurgents, the fire engine passed largely undetected on a small road that leads from town directly past the camp wall, according a Marine report.

'I couldn't see him at first because of the smoke. It was extremely thick from the first explosion,' Butler says. When the fire engine cleared the smoke, it was much closer than the dump truck had been.

As the driver accelerated past the 'Welcome to Iraq' sign inside the camp's perimeter, Butler says he fired 100 rounds into the vehicle. The Marines later discovered the vehicle was equipped with 3-inch, blast-proof glass and the passengers were wearing Kevlar vests under their robes.

Pfc. Charles Young, 21, also of Altoona, Pa., hit the fire engine with a grenade launcher, slowing its progress and giving Butler time to recover. Without breaching the camp wall, the driver detonated the fire engine, sending debris flying up to 400 yards and knocking Marines from their bunks several hundred yards away. Butler, less than 50 yards away, again was knocked down by the blast, which partially destroyed the tower in which he was perched. After he crawled for cover, a third suicide bomber detonated outside the camp. That blast caused no damage or injuries. Sporadic fighting continued for several hours.

Meanwhile, Cpl. Anthony Fink of Columbus, Ohio, 21, fired a grenade launcher that the Marine unit says killed 11 insurgents. The Marines' 'React Squad' swiftly deployed against the remaining insurgents.

'We were able to get the momentum back,' Diorio says. He also says that Husaybah townspeople later reported 21 insurgents dead and 15 wounded. No Marines were seriously hurt.

Posted by: annika at 09:00 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 418 words, total size 3 kb.