This weekend i went hiking in the Sierras. The weather was great and we were in a park that i had not ever been to before. i also saw a spectacular bird up close, but i wasn't quick enough with the camera and she flew away. The bird was Cyanocitta stelleri, commonly known as Stellar's Jay.

Living in urban environments, as i have for the last bunch of years, i don't get the chance to see that many non-boring birds. But up here in the Sacramento area, you really can't avoid seeing some really cool looking birds. In the last year i've seen wild turkeys, snowy egrets, yellow billed magpies and a great blue heron (which is always an awesome sight).

i have a strange ambition. Someday i would like to see in the wild the following birds: a tufted puffin, a magnificent frigate bird, a penguin, and a California condor. Condors are extremely rare, but shouldn't be hard to find. They only live in the L.A. area. If i ever get to see the other birds it will mean i have travelled to Newfoundland, the southern tip of South America and Baja California, three places i've never been.

Posted by: annika at 11:35 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 207 words, total size 1 kb.

Mark Nicodemo writes in the comments section to the preceding post, "She must be a law student with that arrogance." i figured Mark was talking about me, since Shelly is actually short for Sheldon, and also since i have been attracting well-meaning criticism like flies lately. Turns out he was probably referring to Shelly, but still, the attribution of "arrogance" to moi is not undeserved. Especially in regards to my writing style.

But, to be more accurate, it's not arrogance that you find in my writing, it's what i call a certain casual pedantry, or even more accurately, as the master E.B. White called it, "a breezy manner."

Truly, in this blog i continually, unjudiciously, perhaps annoyingly, although unconsciously violate Mr. White's rule number 12 from chapter five of the classic rulebook The Elements of Style by Strunk and White.

Does this ring any bells?

Do not affect a breezy manner.

The volume of writing is enormous, these days, and much of it has a sort of windiness about it, almost as though the author were in a state of euphoria. "Spontaneous me," sang Whitman, and, in his innocence, let loose the hordes of uninspired scribblers who would one day confuse spontaneity with genius.

The breezy style is often the work of an egocentric, the person who imagines that everything that comes to mind is of general interest and that uninhibited prose creates high spirits and carries the day. Open any alumni magazine, turn to the class notes, and you are quite likely to encounter old Spontaneous Me at work--an aging collegian who writes something like this:

Well, chums, here I am again with my bagful of dirt about your disorderly classmates, after spending a helluva weekend ing N'Yawk trying to view the Columbia game from behind two bumbershoots and a glazed cornea. And speaking of news, howzabout tossing a few chirce nuggets my way?

This is an extreme example, but the same wind blows, at lesser velocities, across vast expanses of journalistic prose. The author in this case has managed in two sentences to commit most of the unpardonable sins: he obviously has nothing to say, he is showing off and directing the attention of the reader to himself, he is using slang with neither provocation nor ingenuity, he adopts a patronizing air by throwing in the word chirce, he is humorless (though full of fun), dull, and empty. He has not done his work.

Oh hell, never mind. Tomorrow is poetry day and you can read someone else's writing then.

Posted by: annika at 11:56 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 530 words, total size 3 kb.

Happy Memorial Day everyone. And especially to all veterans and active military, thank you and God bless you all.

A friend of mine told me yesterday why none of my a's j t-shirt designs have ever sold, even though my Cafépress site has been up for ages. "They're too gay," he said in pithy and/or lame language.

<shameless self-promotion>Well, fash-ism problem solved. Here is my brand new tuff t-shirt design, incorporating the Maltese Cross so popular these days with the biker crowd; and the URL is in a grafitti style font:

i honestly don't know about the quality of the t-shirts from cafépress, i've never bought one, but i do have some mugs and they came out beautifully. These shirts are $15.00 to $18.00, depending on the style. Seems pricey, but i only get a couple of bucks out of it; the rest goes to those pimps at cafépress. (Anyways, you know i'll put the money to good use. Gambling debts, sex toys, court-ordered restitution, and the like.)

Guys could personalize them with a few motor oil (or bbq sauce) stains, then wear one to the gym. Why not broadcast to the world how smart and tuff you are while you're lifting those barbells. And girls can tie the hem in a knot to show off their own little barbell, maybe while riding on the back of a Harley off Highway 101.

If you're reading annika's journal every day, like you're supposed to,* there's no reason why you shouldn't have your very own a's j t-shirt.

Now if i could just get Brittany or Lindsay or Paris to model one, i could retire wealthily.</shameless self-promotion>
_______________

* Yes, even on days when i don't post. You could be committing earlier posts to memory.

Posted by: annika at 09:13 AM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 307 words, total size 2 kb.

Everybody's talking about Danica Patrick, the girl who is starting today's Indianappolis 500 in the second row. Danica is one of eight rookies in the race. She's never driven a 500 mile race before. Don't believe the hype, she's not going to win (i'm picking Helio). So much depends on the car, the team, and luck. But i'll be rooting for Danica. i hope she'll be safe and i hope she does good.

The Indy 500 is not an easy race. That's five hundred miles - think LA to Phoenix, an 8 hour drive, normally - exept they're doing it at 200 miles an hour. Five hundred miles, two hundred laps, eight hundred left hand turns, two hours of total mental concentration. You ever try concentrating for two hours in a life and death situation? In this race there are a hundred problems that come up, which you gotta deal with, and a million potential problems you gotta worry about the whole time. You gotta have your shit together to win the Borg Warner.

My brother races a little, and he's a huge Danica fan. Mainly because he's a horndog and she is a hottie. On weekends at my parents house, no one is allowed to touch the remote because everyone knows Derrick will be watching the car shows on Spike tv all day long. Danica does the intros for each of the shows (Ride with Funkmaster Flex, Horsepower TV, Extreme 4x4, etc.), so i was familiar with her as a spokesmodel before i ever heard she was a driver.

It was hard for me to believe, when my bro told me that Danica drove Indy cars and that she had talent. He knows about those things, but i still thought he was kidding me, so i looked her up on the web. In fact she's done well in her short career. Derrick says driving is all about aggressiveness and thinking ahead, and he thinks Danica has those qualities.

What's interesting to me is that Danica doesn't try to be "one of the boys." It's a different world now, than it was when girls like Janet Guthrie or drag racer Shirley Muldowney blazed their trails. i can understand the wisdom of using a driver's looks in a sport that depends so heavily on sponsorship money. But i also think its a sign of progress when a girl can do a guy thing and not have to act like a guy or downplay her own femininity. i think that's cool.

Posted by: annika at 08:23 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 425 words, total size 3 kb.

A pithy and/or lame movie review.

Sucked.

Shockingly bad, on so many levels.

Earns the rarely given Netflix one star rating ("hated it.")

Self-satisfied, pretentious new age bull-shit.

Less fun than repeatedly hitting yourself in the nose with a large rubber ball.

A comedy that thinks it's about philosophy, or a philosophical movie that thinks it's a comedy. Whatever, it fails either way.

Not a single likeable character.

For a movie that's supposed to appeal to the narrow demographic of touchy-feely new-agey politically-correct elitist guru-gropin' dolly-llama-lovin' tree-huggin' liberal fuckturds, the main characters sure are an unpleasant passive-agressive lot with major anger management issues.

Far and away the worst entry in last year's Jude Law trifecta.

This shit-fest places its liberal point of view front-and-center. Yet the only persons of color are a tall skinny African, who has about five lines, and two black security guards. Can we say stereotype? How about racist?

Jason Schwartzman, already hideously ugly, refuses to wash his hair even once.

The obligatory anti-Christian jab, which has become de rigeur for American filmmakers these days, is extended to a full scene.

Features an ass-fucking in the mud scene.

'nuff said.

Full disclosure: i once went out with one of those new-age freakos, and i still have unresolved issues about that whole thing.

Posted by: annika at 11:04 PM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 225 words, total size 2 kb.

1 don't sugar coat it, annika. tell us what you really think.

Posted by: louielouie at May 28, 2005 09:49 AM (i7mWl)

2 Thanks for saving me from seeing this piece of junk.

Posted by: gcotharn at May 28, 2005 10:12 AM (OxYc+)

3 If anything, it was WAY worse even than that.

Posted by: Dave J at May 28, 2005 12:20 PM (kLLbt)

4 Features an ass-fucking in the mud scene. Is that an ass-fuck in regular mud, or the mud that results from ass-fucking?

Posted by: Radical Redneck at May 28, 2005 02:38 PM (emZL6)

5 Issues? What issues? I reviewed my copy of "Cobb" several times in the past week, and as you know, "A man's friends never care what he says or does".

Posted by: Casca at May 28, 2005 03:12 PM (qBTBH)

6 Wow, RR, you resisted the temptation to link that Ted Rall picture. i'm so proud of you! ;-)

Posted by: annika at May 28, 2005 03:29 PM (QqdEX)

7 worst film of year for Jude? I've not yet seen it. Were there any likable characters in Closer? You know, in the play, Natalie Portman's character is heartbroken and kills herself at the end. Why'd they change it and make her a player?

Posted by: lighterate at May 28, 2005 03:57 PM (DiCb8)

8 likeable characters in Closer? Not really, but i still liked that movie a lot. And of course there's Alfie, where the plan was for Alfie to be really likeable (instead he got really annoying by the middle of the movie) and that didn't save the movie. by the way, anyone who hasn't seen the original Michael Caine version of Alfie needs to head straight to Blockbuster tonight... go now. i mean it.

Posted by: annika at May 28, 2005 04:02 PM (QqdEX)

9 Annie: Have you ever considered that it is hard to take an imperative issued in lower case without capitals and exclamation marks seriously? I hope that when you are submitting briefs to the Court that you may reconsider your stylish ways. Sometimes the message gets lost between the messenger and the intended recipient. That having been said, you are right, right, right! So, GO NOW! DO NOT PASS GO! DO NOT COLLECT $200!

Posted by: shelly at May 29, 2005 03:07 AM (pO1tP)

10 everybody's a critic. ;-)

Posted by: annika at May 29, 2005 09:46 AM (pFLNc)

11 Annika, do u remember what was said in that "anti-Christian" jab? Yes, Hollywood is indeed one "tolerant" place.

Posted by: Mark at May 29, 2005 06:55 PM (Vg0tt)

12 Oh thank you Annie, my roommate and I watched that movie I while ago, and I seriously considered throwing the TV out the window and never watching movies again, it was that bad. My favorite thing about it is reading the forums on imdb.com, where everyone loves it and says basically if you don't you are too stupid to "get it". Huckabees takes a place next to "Natural Born Killers" as two movies that showcase the absolute worst self-indulgent tripe that can be made. Rob

Posted by: Rob at May 30, 2005 09:19 AM (TEoqH)

13 Yes, Rob. From the first minute, the movie was intended as an inside joke for people who "get it." It really makes no attempt to appeal to non-meditators, who aren't into yoga and karma and all that shit. But the joke is on them, because i did get it, having done my time with one of those new agey dudes, who dragged me to all his meetings and tried to get me into that crap. So i was familiar with the message of the movie, and i'm not stupid and it still sucked.

Posted by: annika at May 30, 2005 10:33 AM (rrZ84)

14 Could not have said it better. That movie suck-diddly-ucked.

Posted by: Dawn Summers at May 31, 2005 11:55 AM (ZyabD)

15 TOTALLY sucked! Awesome review, tho. Couldn't have said it better myself. I actually saw this junk in the movie theater -- biggest waste of $5.50 ever (thankfully I saw a matinee and didn't waste a whole $8.00 on that garbage).

Posted by: ginger at May 31, 2005 06:47 PM (jK/kA)

16 This is late in coming, but thanks for saving me $9. Burn Hollywood Burn.

Posted by: Mark at May 31, 2005 08:50 PM (QO8Wc)

17 When Schwartzman reads the poem in the very beginning, I just got a whiff of Max Fischer bringing a slight smile to my face. I only made it to the dinner scene with Jean Smart as the African dude's adoptive mother, then I got the f*** out of Dodge. What a waste of time. Ever seen the bathos that oozes at "Inside the Actors Studio?" That's what's f***ing wrong with Hollywood. Imagine John Ford or Sergio Leone or Peckinpah or James Stewart or McQueen or John Wayne sitting with James Lipton?? I can't either.

Posted by: Jason O. at June 01, 2005 06:52 AM (2CAKL)

18 Or John Huston, or Clark Gable or Henry Fonda. McQueen i could see. He was pretty full of himself at times.

Posted by: annie at June 01, 2005 04:26 PM (zAOEU)

19 Spot on review. I saw this movie at the dollar theater a few months ago. Not good. Although, I do like the music and I thought Marky Mark did a decent job. It's a real shame, too, because the writer/director made one of my favorite movies, "Flirting With Disaster."

Posted by: Micah at June 02, 2005 07:47 PM (v/oTo)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

The lawyer i work for at my summer job is a brilliant and very literary guy. He makes me realize how little i really learned in school about literature and poetry. He can recite T.S. Eliot and Keats from memory; it's quite impressive. But he has a Masters in English, which i don't have.

Today we had a long conversation about art and poetry and he mentioned that he loved Wordsworth. i said that the only poem i remembered by Wordsworth was one about London, which i discovered while i lived there for a short time. He said "oh yes, the sonnet 'Composed on Westminster Bridge'" i said, "um yah, that one." He then recited it from memory.

Way to make me feel uneducated, dude.

Composed Upon Westminster Bridge, September 3, 1802

Earth has not anything to show more fair:
Dull would he be of soul who could pass by
A sight so touching in its majesty:
This City now doth like a garment wear
The beauty of the morning; silent, bare,
Ships, towers, domes, theatres, and temples lie
Open unto the fields, and to the sky;
All bright and glittering in the smokeless air.
Never did sun more beautifully steep
In his first splendour valley, rock, or hill;
Ne'er saw I, never felt, a calm so deep!
The river glideth at his own sweet will:
Dear God! the very houses seem asleep;
And all that mighty heart is lying still!

Posted by: annika at 01:31 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 309 words, total size 2 kb.

This was just an excuse to mess around on photoshop.

i watched the final episode of The Contender tonight, although i missed the undercard because of American Idol. The bout between Sergio "Latin Snake" Mora and Peter "Pride of Providence" Manfredo was one of the best fights i've seen in a long time.

The great thing about tonight's episode was that it was unedited, which means real boxing. No slow-mo, and minimal family reaction cut-aways make for better sports action. They should have cut Stallone's mike though. He kept repeating himself. He alternated between the same two lines for seven rounds - it was either "Whoa!" or "there's got to be a re-match." He actually started calling for a re-match in the middle of the second round. Sly needs to worry more about whether the show will be renewed. Ratings apparently were less than expected and putting the final up against tv's most popular show AI, didn't help.

Sergio Mora won the match, and the million dollars. i was impressed by him last week when he advanced to the final with a win against Jesse, whom i had expected to go all the way. Sergio fights with real attitude and he's damn quick. Tonight, when Peter had completely run out of steam in the final round, Sergio was still showering combinations on his head like it was the first.

Peter seemed more of a hard-headed slugger and had Sergio backed against the ropes for much of the fight. Sergio's temple opened up early and looked ugly. But Peter wasn't slowing him down. Sergio clearly was the better conditioned fighter, and if he didn't move as much as i had expected, he still punched almost continuously.

There was an episode of smack talk in one of the middle rounds, when Sergio turned his head to mouth off at Peter's corner. Since it wasn't broadcast live on the West Coast, they cut out the audio and i don't know what he said. But it seemed like a dangerous move, leaving yourself unprotected against a guy like Manfredo, even for a moment. i think Sergio has a little too much attitude for his own good, and that may end up hurting him down the road. He did show class after the fight by apologizing to the other corner and giving Peter the props he deserved.

One of my ex's, Tommy, was an amateur boxer who taught me how to score a fight. i think you get much more out of watching boxing if you make an effort to keep score. i had the match much closer than the judges did. According to my card, the fighters split the first six rounds, and Sergio took it all by showing more aggressiveness and energy in the final round. i had Sergio 67 to Peter 66.

And as for American Idol, we'll find out who that champ is tomorrow. My pick is Carrie Underwood, but rumor has it that Bo's got more fans. It should be interesting.

Matt has a Contender recap too.

Posted by: annika at 11:11 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 515 words, total size 3 kb.

Don't ask me how i came up with this one. It's too bizarre.

Match the celebrity lip defect to the correct lip quadrant on the diagram.

a. Elvis' sneer.

b. Stacy Keach's harelip.

c. Dick Cheney's halliburtonlip.

d. Greta Van Susternernen's plastic surgery leftover.

extra credit: What's up with Tina Fey's cheek?

Good luck. There will be no prize.

Posted by: annika at 12:07 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 63 words, total size 1 kb.

The deal is in. Via NRO:

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS

We respect the diligent, conscientious efforts, to date, rendered to the Senate by Majority Leader Frist and Democratic Leader Reid. This memorandum confirms an understanding among the signatories, based upon mutual trust and confidence, related to pending and future judicial nominations in the 109th Congress.

This memorandum is in two parts. Part I relates to the currently pending judicial nominees; Part II relates to subsequent individual nominations to be made by the President and to be acted upon by the SenateÂ’s Judiciary Committee.

We have agreed to the following:

Part I: Commitments on Pending Judicial Nominations

A. Votes for Certain Nominees. We will vote to invoke cloture on the following judicial nominees: Janice Rogers Brown (D.C. Circuit), William Pryor (11th Circuit), and Priscilla Owen (5th Circuit).

B. Status of Other Nominees. Signatories make no commitment to vote for or against cloture on the following judicial nominees: William Myers (9th Circuit) and Henry Saad (6th Circuit).

Part II: Commitments for Future Nominations

A. Future Nominations. Signatories will exercise their responsibilities under the Advice and Consent Clause of the United States Constitution in good faith. Nominees should only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances, and each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist.

B. Rules Changes. In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement, we commit to oppose the rules changes in the 109th Congress, which we understand to be any amendment to or interpretation of the Rules of the Senate that would force a vote on a judicial nomination by means other than unanimous consent or Rule XXII.

We believe that, under Article II, Section 2, of the United States Constitution, the word “Advice” speaks to consultation between the Senate and the President with regard to the use of the President’s power to make nominations. We encourage the Executive branch of government to consult with members of the Senate, both Democratic and Republican, prior to submitting a judicial nomination to the Senate for consideration.

Such a return to the early practices of our government may well serve to reduce the rancor that unfortunately accompanies the advice and consent process in the Senate.

We firmly believe this agreement is consistent with the traditions of the United States Senate that we as Senators seek to uphold.

i'm not overjoyed at the compromise, but i'll have to live with it. What choice do i have? Last time i checked, i am not a United States Senator.

So this is a deal that allows the Democrats to save face, while still giving the Republicans a vote on some of the nominees. Or, it's just as accurate to say that it allows the Republicans to save face while still allowing the Democrats the option to filibuster in the future.

In the world of civil litigation, lawyers say it's a good settlement when both sides are unhappy. But there's another rule in negotiating settlements: "Never negotiate away your leverage in exchange for "goodwill."*

If there's one thing plaintiffs attorneys and Democrats have in common (besides John Edwards) it's that you can't trust a single one of them to act in good faith. Like Sam Gompers, they want only one thing: "more." And they're absolutely shameless about getting it. We saw that in the way guys like Harry Reid completely flip-flopped on the issue of floor votes for judicial nominees.

That's why the most troublesome part of the deal for me is this clause:

Nominees should only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances, and each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist.

That's the biggest problem with the deal. It takes the issue of constitutionality off the table. The true-believers have a right to be angry on that point. By conceding to the minority a power to block majority will on judicial nominees, the Republicans have conceded the constitutionality of that procedural tactic. They caved in on the very principle that brought about this entire crisis. And for what? A bit of goodwill. A promise to be good from now on.

Ha! That's worth about two dead flies.

Why would Senate Republicans negotiate away all their leverage by giving up the nuclear option in exchange for a promise? Because they are suckers? Because they love Senate tradition more than they love the Constitution? Or because the Republican Senate leadership is just plain bad at their job?

As i mentioned before, my ideal solution would have been to do away with all filibusters on all issues. Why the hell should one half of the legislature have that stupid rule when the other house does very well without it? The filibuster is almost never used for a noble purpose.

i agree with the late Tip O'Neill, who was wrong about so many things. But he was on the right track when he wrote:

Thanks to television, the House of Representatives is now recognized as the dominant branch of Congress,. [sic] In 1986, the Senate brought in TV cameras as well. But the senators ramble on for hours, whereas our members can speak for only five minutes, apart from "special orders" at the end of the day, and a few other exceptions. Unlike the rules of the House, those of the Senate allow for unlimited debate and unrestricted amendments. Now that the Senate is on television, the prestige of the House should continue to increase."
[Thomas P. O'Neill, Man of the House, p. 290, Random House, 1987]

More outrage: see Professor H; Three Knockdown Rule; i can't disagree with Patterico's prediction; Spoons has a riddle; and Mark Nicodemo agrees that the Senate Republicans are inept; and Nikita Demosthenes calls them out by name.
_______________

* Okay, i don't know if that's really a negotiating rule, i just made it up. But it should be.

[Cross-posted at A Western Heart.]

Posted by: annika at 06:14 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 1109 words, total size 8 kb.

Fifty-six votes on my semi-scientific Jim Carrey poll and i'm ready to call it. the question was this: "The best Jim Carrey film was..." And the results, in order of the vote totals was:

The Truman Show 25%
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind 18%
Dumb & Dumber 14%
Bruce Almighty 11%
The Mask 7%
Me, Myself & Irene 7%
Ace Ventura: Pet Detective 5%
Liar Liar 5%
The Cable Guy 4%
The Dead Pool 4%

First of all, it was kind of a trick question. Or at least a question subject to dual interpretations. What was the best "Jim Carrey movie" or what was the best "movie in which Jim Carrey appeared." If you ask me, each interpretation of the question should get a different answer.

If you're talking about "best movie in which Jim Carrey appeared," in my opinion that's clearly Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, which is one of the best movies to come out in recent years. But it's not a typical Jim Carrey movie. Sure, his performance was great, and there were flashes of the madcap, but Carrey wasn't the star. The script was the star and i was more blown away by Kate Winslet's complex performance.

The fact that 25% voted for The Truman Show is interesting. That's the movie that broke the Carrey typecast mold. Not a great film. Interesting enough to chat about for fifteen or twenty minutes during the obligatory post-movie Panda Express run, but no more than that. Still, without The Truman Show, we would have seen Nick Cage in the lead role of Eternal Sunshine. And what a mistake that would have been. i like Nick, but he couldn't have pulled off the baby under the table scene.

Funniest "Jim Carrey" Jim Carrey movie? i'm appalled that the comedy classic Ace Ventura: Pet Detective was so low on the list. Too many lines from that movie are worth memorizing and sprinkling into everyday conversation. It's also the only comedy movie i can think of with an offbeat hero, where the hero is not a bumbler of some kind. Think of the Pink Panther movies (also classics), when you have a wacky lead, he usually succeeds despite himself. In Ace Ventura, the lead is not a stereotypical lovable loser, instead he's the only one smart enough to crack the case.

Dumb and Dumber is hilarious, but except for the scene where the two of them are squirting ketchup and mustard into their mouths, i don't laugh as hard throughout as i did when i first saw it.

The Mask was just bad, never funny, and too reliant on special effects. Bruce Almighty is a one punch line movie, and i think it came in fourth on the strength of Jennifer Aniston's titties. Finally, by all rights The Dead Pool should have scored higher than The Cable Guy. Jim Carrey was great in that final installment to the Dirty Harry franchise. He played a strung out Axl Rose type rock star named Johnny Squares. This was a couple of years before In Living Color.

i was interested in that poll question not because i'm a huge Jim Carrey fan, because i'm not. i like him well enough, but what fascinates me is how a guy who everyone was so hot on in the nineties suddenly lost favor when everybody realized that he only had one act, and it got old rather quickly. He career kind of mirrored the dot-com boom/bust cycle of the nineties. Suddenly Hollywood realized he was obscenely overvalued and his career went through a "market correction." Carrey has dramatic talent and it's been interesting watching him try to re-invent himself for his last few movies.

Posted by: annika at 11:58 AM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 624 words, total size 4 kb.

1 I'm pretty much alone in this opinion, but I think The Cable Guy was Jim Carrey's best work. It was both dark and funny. Didn't know whether to laugh or be creeped out.

Posted by: Ron at May 23, 2005 01:32 PM (N2E4z)

2 Why does every comic actor feel the need to do at least one "seemingly innocent guy who's really a creepy axe murderer" movie? For instance: Robin Williams in that one hour photo movie, Michael Keaton in Pacific Heights. i'm sure there are more examples.

Posted by: annika at May 23, 2005 02:38 PM (zAOEU)

3 Ace Ventura: Pet Detective is a guilty pleasure along with Dumb and Dumber. But I have an elegant persona to maintain so I will not admit I like those movies.

Posted by: Jake at May 23, 2005 04:58 PM (r/5D/)

4 Sorry, I didn't vote in your pool, and truthfully, I don't know how I would have answered. I probably would have had to vote twice: Once for Dumb and Dumber, because that is my all time favorite stupid comedy -- Jim Carrey at his finest being typical Jim Carrey. Another vote would have gone to Eternal Sunshine, because his performance in that is just heartbreaking -- one of my favorite performances, by anyone, in any movie, ever.

Posted by: ginger at May 23, 2005 05:42 PM (jK/kA)

5 WTFO! 1. Dumb & Dumber 2. Ace Ventura 3. The Mask (which really was good no matter what some skinny-assed blond thinks) 4. and all the rest which are unremarkable.

Posted by: Casca at May 23, 2005 05:52 PM (qBTBH)

6 Oh yeah, "Laces OUT!!!"

Posted by: Casca at May 23, 2005 05:53 PM (qBTBH)

7 Well, I liked Liar, Liar! Secretary: Joe Shmoe is on line 1. He just robbed another liquor store and needs your legal advice. Carrey (into the phone at arms length): STOP BREAKIN' THE LAW, ASSHOLE!!!

Posted by: Tuning Spork at May 23, 2005 07:11 PM (hKkrR)

8 Casca, my brother loves The Mask too. No surprise, you're both freaks.

Posted by: annika at May 23, 2005 07:24 PM (YiEf8)

9 Excuse me, but The Mask is augmented with effects like Cameron Diaz when she still looked good.

Posted by: Casca at May 23, 2005 08:26 PM (qBTBH)

10 eternal sunshine was the best, but nothing beats the scene at Medieval Times in cable guy. i start to cry when i watch that...

Posted by: scof at May 23, 2005 11:32 PM (x8hF4)

11 Nobody mentioned The Majestic, which is admittedly overwrought and painfully sentimental, but I still liked most of it.

Posted by: DBrooks at May 24, 2005 08:20 AM (w6ScD)

12 Scof - "Down, down, down! Red knight is goin' down!" That just happens to be one of my fave scenes from that movie too. I loved Eternal Sunshine, but I have to say my all-time fave would be Dumb & Dumber. It's guaranteed when I need to put something on that will make me laugh.

Posted by: Amy Bo Bamy at May 24, 2005 09:55 AM (kxatG)

13 i've been trying to get "the most annoying sound in the world" to use as my ringtone, no luck so far. nothing like a bunch of good laughs, and carrey is always reliable for that.

Posted by: scof at May 24, 2005 10:23 AM (7z8ua)

14 Who was the better idiot? Jim Carrey or Jerry Lewis? Hmmm. Wait. Better review some Three Stooges, Buster Keaton and . . . wait . . . this IS a trick question. THERE ARE NO GOOD JIM CARREY MOVIES!!! You almost had me for a minute there. :-)

Posted by: Hawkeye at May 30, 2005 09:45 AM (Hn+2k)

15 I am shocked, shocked [!] that Man on the Moon did not get any votes. Carrey channeled Andy Kaufman and was jobbed when he didn't get an Oscar nomination. (The biggest travesty since the Academy ignored Val Kilmer's performance as Doc Holliday in Tombstone.)

Posted by: Ralph Kostant at June 01, 2005 09:20 PM (lDA9f)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Doug TenNapel made a provocative statement, which happens to be a pretty good summary of what i believe on the subject.

First of all, let me state that I'm Pro-Life and Pro-Abortion. . . . But the only instance where I think abortion is moral would be when two human lives are likely to die and if one life is aborted so that only one will die, then abortion is a moral act.

And on a related theme, Michelle Malkin asks if abortion is funny. Some people think so.

Posted by: annika at 09:45 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 121 words, total size 1 kb.

George and that nurse. What a bizarre couple.
He has no hair on his body. She has no lips.

Posted by: annika at 10:52 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.

Celebrity blogger and annika's journal visitor, Hugh Hewitt, spent the major portion of his radio show today talking about the Pepsico middle finger controversy. Here's the professor's summary:

The President and CFO of Pepsico gave a speech at Columbia Business School's commencement. In the speech, Indra Nooyi compared the fingers of the hand to different parts of the world. The United States got the middle finger. What a surprise! How courageous for Ms. Nooyi, how daring, and such soaring rhetoric.

As the longest of the fingers, [the United States] really stands out. The middle finger anchors every function that the hand performs and is the key to all of the fingers working together efficiently and effectively. This is a really good thing, and has given the U.S. a leg-up in global business since the end of World War I.

However, if used inappropriately --just like the U.S. itself-- the middle finger can convey a negative message and get us in trouble. You know what I'm talking about. In fact, I suspect you're hoping that I'll demonstrate what I mean. And trust me, I'm not looking for volunteers to model.

Discretion being the better part of valor...I think I'll pass.

What is most crucial to my analogy of the five fingers as the five major continents, is that each of us in the U.S. --the long middle finger-- must be careful that when we extend our arm in either a business or political sense, we take pains to assure we are giving a hand...not the finger. Sometimes this is very difficult. Because the U.S. --the middle finger-- sticks out so much, we can send the wrong message unintentionally.

Unfortunately, I think this is how the rest of the world looks at the U.S. right now. Not as a part of the hand --giving strength and purpose to the rest of the fingers-- but, instead, scratching our nose and sending a far different signal.

Following my remarks to the graduating class of Columbia University's Business School in New York City, I have come to realize that my words and examples about America unintentionally depicted our country negatively and hurt people. I appreciate the honest comments that have been shared with me since then, and am deeply sorry for offending anyone. I love America unshakably - without hesitation - and am extremely grateful for the opportunities and support our great nation has always provided me.

Over the years I've witnessed and advised others how a thoughtless gesture or comment can hurt good, caring people. Regrettably, I've proven my own point. I made a mistake and, again, I'm very sorry.

i believe in American exceptionalism. i don't think America needs to be more humble. If my country has ever flipped anyone off in the past, that's something i want to see more of. Look at the scoreboard. Was America "scratching its nose" with the middle finger when we saved the world from tyranny three times in one century? Like the song says, fuck yeah! Was it arrogance when our fifth president declared "hands off this hemisphere" to the superpowers of his day? Or when T.R. said "let's build that fucking canal!" (paraphrasing). Or when Jack promised we'd walk on the moon within the decade? Sure it was. And so what?

Egypt of the Pharaohs. Imperial Rome. Spain in the siglo de oro. Napoleon's France. Victoria's Great Britain. Name a superpower in history that hasn't been arrogant. You can't. Name a superpower that's done as much good in the world as America has in the last two centuries? You can't do that either.

We are different. We are better. And i'm sick and tired of our own people getting on a public stage and telling us we should bow and beg and be meek in front of the rest of the world. When was that ever an American trait? i hope it never is.

So let the America-haters and the timid intellectuals whine. Call me a jingoist, i won't be offended. i'm proud to be a flag waving, middle finger sticking, American.

p.s. All real Americans drink Coke anyways.

Posted by: annika at 06:01 PM | Comments (48) | Add Comment
Post contains 778 words, total size 5 kb.

1 Hell fucking yeah! Standing applause for Annika! Brilliant...simply brilliant. I think I'll post my own middle-finger salute tonight, and link to your brilliant rant.

Posted by: Robbie at May 19, 2005 08:03 PM (htx4h)

2 LOVED IT!!!

Posted by: d-rod at May 19, 2005 08:11 PM (BnwMH)

3 Ok, I've posted my own graphical response to Pepsi. I've dubbed my post: Annie's Meme: Giving Pepsi the Finger.

Posted by: Robbie at May 19, 2005 08:42 PM (htx4h)

4 i'm not sure what else you can do to earn the big fat smile i have on my face. i'm gonna go have a coke and keep on smilin...

Posted by: scof at May 19, 2005 10:04 PM (x8hF4)

5 Well of course you're right. I thought we all understood that. As for this culturally illiterate third world mutherfuckette whom we've taken to our breast, how else to remind people that Michael Jackson was once a Pepsi flack.

Posted by: Casca at May 19, 2005 11:10 PM (qBTBH)

6 If America is so bad, why is she here? This country isn't heaven. No place is. They aren't sneaking across the border to get to wherever she came from. That pretty much says it all.

Posted by: Mark at May 20, 2005 04:26 AM (oQofX)

7 For a bunch of toughguys you're a sensitive lot. My God, it was a speech asking international businesspeople to be respectful of other cultures- for the sake of their _businesses_ as well as their country. What's next- an analysis of the political meaning of the latest Star Wars? For the record, this was also part of the speech: “As the longest of fingers it really stands out. The middle finger anchors every function that the hand performs and is the key to all of the fingers working together efficiently and effectively. This is really a good thing, and has given the U.S. a leg-up in global business since the end of World War I” “This land we call home is a most-loving, and ever-giving nation- a “promised land” that we love in return” I guess the next act in the 'sky is falling' culture wars has begun: cue tape on Fox News' round-the-clock coverage on this woman that none of us had ever heard of a week ago.

Posted by: Preston at May 20, 2005 06:41 AM (wkfsI)

8 FUCK YEAH!! Totally agree with you Annika. "i'm proud to be a flag waving, middle finger sticking, American." New tagline for my e-mail, if ya don't mind me borrowing it.

Posted by: Joe from jersey at May 20, 2005 07:32 AM (dO3Ek)

9 Annie: We just need to give the finger back to her, apology or no. I say, begin a boycott against Pepsi and pass the word around the web: When they dump Indra Nooyi, the boycott is off, otherwise we keep it in effect and cause it to spread. She has a right to speak her mind, and we have a right to spend our dollars. If she loses her job, well, I'll apologize, that ought to make her feel better. No one has mentioned this in the posts, so I will: She is one of the "Blame America First Crowd"; if they don't like living and working here, they can live and work somewhere else where the govenment is not so objectionable. I suggest she try Iran; she'd look better in a burhka anyway.

Posted by: shelly at May 20, 2005 07:57 AM (pO1tP)

10 this finger. http://www.francesucks.com/

Posted by: louielouie at May 20, 2005 09:21 AM (i7mWl)

11 You can tell liberals are ultra-tolerant because they only dominate 95% of the media, and with no sense of shame, attack the lone network that gives time to conservative views. That's "tolerance" alright.

Posted by: mark at May 20, 2005 10:49 AM (Hk4wN)

12 Love the finger! Preston - I'm sooo happy the Pepsi lady pointed out that it is ok for America to be exceptional. Thank God she cleared that up! This is a good time to whip out one of my favorite quotes of the last few years - from Mona Charen: "Is it really arrogance to believe that the system and the culture we've inherited is superior to others? Or is it ingratitude to deny it?" Also, here's the words to "America, Fuck Yeah!": http://theendzone.blogspot.com/2004/11/life-imitates-art-team-america-aids.html That song might be good for a Wed poetry day.

Posted by: gcotharn at May 20, 2005 10:55 AM (OxYc+)

13 I hope Mrs. Falcon doesn't read this because I was twitterpated by that post.

Posted by: goldfalcon at May 20, 2005 12:01 PM (LCCTJ)

14 Not that I am a fan of giving the middle finger, I wholeheartedly agree with you Annika! We'll kiss the world's butt when we are on our knees, but not before then!

Posted by: javaslinger at May 20, 2005 02:46 PM (BK2EC)

15 Annie, you're a goddess. And you're absolute right about Coke.

Posted by: Matt at May 20, 2005 06:18 PM (vQvTM)

16 Shit! Absolutely right. Explanation for my stumbly fingers, here.

Posted by: Matt at May 20, 2005 06:21 PM (vQvTM)

17 Fuck yeah! We should be proud, being all "we're so sorry for having a system that allows us to become rich and powerful" is a bunch of crap. We worked damn hard as a nation to get where we are and we shouldn't apologize. It would be like Lance Armstrong apologizing for kicking ass in the Tour De France. This is right up there with those shirts that apologize for being American in ten languages. If you want to do crap like that go to one of those ten countries and stay there. My family immigrated here legally in the 1930's from Norway and I'm damn proud of what we have acheived, and I'm damn proud of my country. So if they want to think of us as giving them the bird then so be it because in a way we are and I'm glad we are doing it.

Posted by: Andy at May 20, 2005 09:44 PM (l04c2)

18 you had me, then you lost me, then you had me, then you lost me. to answer your question, Jesus was a superpower who wasnt arrogant. or if thats too highbrow for your supporters, think about it this way, name a guy youve met with a huge... uh... advantage think about how much more you respect him when he doesnt shove it in the faces of others who werent so blessed. walk softly with your big - finger, ms annika. regards from your diet pepsi drinking, C2 swigging pal down here in intellectual yet untimid LA

Posted by: tony at May 21, 2005 12:03 AM (84E1F)

19 Tony, I don't think your Jesus analogy gets you very far. The rest of the world considers it arrogant that we do what we believe needs to be done, even when most of them consider it to be wrong, scandalous, shocking or what-have-you. Well, so did Jesus. From eating with the tax collectors and prostitutes to cleansing the temple, He always did what He knew to be right -- regardless of what anyone else thought. Even his own disciples rarely understood his actions and teachings at first. He didn't let that stop him. Nowhere in the Bible do you see Jesus bowing and scraping to his disciples, saying, "you're right; in the future I'll tone it down. It was wrong of me to shock your sensibilities." If the disciples failed to understand him, if they found his actions scandalous, it was up to them -- not Jesus -- to change. Of course Jesus had the advantage of being God, and therefore conclusively right in all He did. But the point is that there's nothing arrogant about doing what's right, even when it puts you in the minority. (If there were, we'd have to conclude that Jesus was indeed arrogant.) I believe this country is right about most of the things it does that so greatly upset so many people. That being the case, I cannot bring myself to care if the rest of the world is too foolish, craven or corrupt to see that we are right. Like the disciples, they're the ones who need to adjust. Of course, unlike Jesus, we don't have the luxury of knowing to a certainty that we're right. He didn't make mistakes; we have, and will. But we're right a lot more often than we're wrong, so I'm willing to live with that risk.

Posted by: Matt at May 21, 2005 06:53 AM (vQvTM)

20 I would humbly dispute the contention that Jesus never made mistakes. Mistakes can be of omission as well as commision and after all He was human too. He could have been clearer in denouncing say the death penalty against homosexuals as proscribed in the OT and made clarifications to many texts which could have saved millions of innocent lives later and avoided religious atrocities like the Inquisition. This place was pretty messed up when Popes ruled the world.

Posted by: d-rod at May 21, 2005 09:05 AM (/ga2e)

21 Jesus is not responsible for what the Popes did. As far as the Inquisition, I think he covered it by saying "Love your neighbor as yourself" and "Judge not, let ye be judged." Do you need any more clarification than that?

Posted by: javaslinger at May 21, 2005 10:50 AM (BK2EC)

22 Yeah probably, since Jesus was not the first person to pronounce these ideals - Buddha and Lao-tse were saying these things 500 years earlier. But if popes are not followers of Jesus, who is?

Posted by: d-rod at May 21, 2005 12:51 PM (WnsbM)

23 Just because you profess to be a follower of Jesus and do things in his name does not mean you are a true follower. Because of free will, God cannot be responsible for man's actions. This is one thing I have had a problem with the Catholic church; that the Pope viewed as almost devine and infallible. They may profess to be followers, but one way to know what is in a man's heart is to see how he acts. "By their fruit ye shall know them." Christ warned of many that would come in his name and do things in his name, but he stated that they would be judged accordingly on judgement day. Like anything in life, you gotta walk the walk, not just talk the talk. To be more on topic, Christ was (and still is) a superpower, but his mission was not to dominate the world, but to save it. Being a Diety is a definite advantage in this area. Men on the other hand have limited options. As far as being arrogant, I think that it is justified, only if you can back it up. Christ could back it up, but he chose not to. He would have never connected with his disciples, or the poor, if he had projected such an attitude. And concerning the advantage, Tony; most guys big enough to push others around aren't exactly loaded for bear, if you get my drift. Whenever I hear a guy bragging about having a big winkie, I automatically think he is lying anyway. If you got it, you don't have to brag. If you are worried about this, I would suggest you have some inferiority issues to deal with. Ever hear of good things coming in small packages?

Posted by: javaslinger at May 21, 2005 01:38 PM (BK2EC)

24 You know I was informed by a rather smart lady that its not that Pope is divine/infallible in whatever he does, its just when he makes pronouncements on doctrine. ...as far as d-rod's comments, well its clear he doesn't have a grasp of christianity, which of course distorts one's view of humanity as well. Not to be mean about it, it's just he doesn't understand, and I don't know that a comment box is the place to remedy that...but what the hell, i'm bored and its too hot to go outside, so we'll see

Posted by: scof at May 21, 2005 04:46 PM (x8hF4)

25 java, You said, "This is one thing I have had a problem with the Catholic church; that the Pope viewed as almost devine and infallible." Let me clarify. Divine - no. Infallible - yes. But only (1) in his teachings; (2) on matters of faith and morals; and (3) under narrow circumstances. There is absolutely no question, in Catholic teaching or elsewhere, that the Pope is a man and thus fully capable of all sorts of terrible sins, just like any other man. However, we also believe that he is Christ's direct representative on Earth, and Catholics therefore believe (or at least many believe, and the Church teaches) that the Pope commands great obedience and respect even when he is badly flawed. By the way, I generally agree that "one way to know what is in a man's heart is to see how he acts." However, the fact that a man sins -- even badly -- does not mean he is not a Christian. It means he's human. Even devout Christians sin. Remember: Peter denied Jesus three times before the cock crowed -- and this after following Him and witnessing his miracles first-hand. All I'm saying is that I think it's rather tricky to judge who is or isn't a follower of Christ based on outward appearances.

Posted by: Matt at May 21, 2005 04:49 PM (vQvTM)

26 What does Jesus have to do with Pepsico official trash talking the USA? He doesn't drink Pepsi or give anyone the finger, let alone the USA. He's not stupid enough to want to be nuked by Rummy. One crucifixion ought to be enough for anyone.

Posted by: shelly at May 22, 2005 01:56 AM (pO1tP)

27 With you on the Coke. On the historical side, America is indeed exceptional, but not entirely unique. Rome and Great Britain cared for their empires in a way other powers have not. On the other hand, they were empires, where America's empire is freedom itself. Um, on yet another hand, Britain left democracy behind in almost every place it once ruled.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at May 22, 2005 03:25 AM (+S1Ft)

28 As someone in the field of religious studies, I'm often amazed at how theological discussions spring up in the strangest places, like beautiful nipples suddenly hardening in a grocery checkout line. Yes... that's how this discussion makes me feel. Pardon me, now, while I fondle myself. Kevin

Posted by: Kevin Kim at May 22, 2005 05:38 AM (1PcL3)

29 You might try hanging out at the freezer aisle, if that kind of thing turns you on. ; -)

Posted by: annika at May 22, 2005 07:47 AM (YARSC)

30 I'll stand by my point that Jesus made mistakes. For Christsakes, He had to choose twelve disciples to spread the Gospel, and one of them not only turned out to be a dud, but an enemy. And consider what we know about Him as a teenager - NOTHING. He surely made a few mistakes then as well, but unfortunately none of us will ever know because there is no historical record of the most important teenage being ever to have visited this planet. I grieve about the untold numbers of innocent women who died in agony, which found justification in Biblical quotes on witches as well as the highest authorities on the moral teaching of Jesus at the time. That was Hell then. Was Jesus himself culpable in any way? Possible.

Posted by: d-rod at May 22, 2005 08:43 AM (JWdx+)

31 A, Yeah, I can imagine hanging in the frozen food aisle all day. Kevin Dynamite. With my luck, my own nipples would be blue and ready to fall off before I saw a chick with headlights. South Korea, of course, is the WORST country for nipple-age. Women here don't show much skin and are only beginning to discover body-hugging clothing. And you can forget about ever seeing a braless woman. Such a creature exists only in Korean folklore. Alas. On the bright side, it does mean that any little exposure of skin becomes something of a major event for starved senses calibrated to Western standards. I'm always happy to see a bare midriff, for example... and then there's Miss Panties, about whom I blogged. Kevin Dirty Old man

Posted by: Kevin Kim at May 22, 2005 10:06 AM (1PcL3)

32 whoa -- stumbled on this site by accident. what the hell is happening to people these days? annika - lighten up. i think even you would admit that anyone who thinks they're better than everyone else has, er, a problem. no?

Posted by: remotedevice at May 22, 2005 12:34 PM (ZME2x)

33 "...anyone who thinks they're better than everyone else has, er, a problem. no?" Only if they're wrong.

Posted by: Dave J at May 22, 2005 09:05 PM (CYpG7)

34 No. i would not admit that.

Posted by: annika at May 22, 2005 09:56 PM (VyMzn)

35 Remote, I think the point was that the Stranger From a Strange Land who went abroad and insulted the natives was her... Talk about putting your foot in it. Nobody needs that crap from a hypocrite, especially not at their college graduation.

Posted by: Mark at May 23, 2005 04:36 AM (oQofX)

36 Mark, She's an American. If certain Republicans are salivating at the idea of Ahnold being *President of the United States* after 30 or so years is it really out of bounds for an American citizen who has been here 35 years to as recent graduates not to be jackasses when they go to foreign countries?

Posted by: Preston at May 23, 2005 05:56 AM (wkfsI)

37 It's the anti-American assumptions that drive it all "preston". she's not asking us "gee be nice when you travel" (as if college grads are so stupid not to perhaps already grasp this) she's saying be humble because your country sucks and everyone else thinks so. but whatever, that has been made abundantly clear, you still disagree. So as these comments have ranged from middle fingers to Coke to Christ, I shall hopefully end this thread thusly: if you disagree with me, you're a nazi.

Posted by: scof at May 23, 2005 11:10 AM (7z8ua)

38 I don't see how the speech was inspirational at a commencement. Provocative? Fuck yeah! Inspirational? Highly suspect! My .02 cents Although this country's history is replete with arrogance on a multitude of issues, there *MUST* be a reason why people flock to our shores, ostensibly for a better life, for better opportunities, et al. And if we're going to spiral out of control about "Superpowers," anyone here jazzed about "The Fabulous Four," due out in theaters soon?

Posted by: NuggetMaven at May 23, 2005 12:30 PM (DP5IG)

39 PS: oh G-d, someone just used the n-to the a-to the z-to the i word. Good use of hyperbole!

Posted by: NuggetMaven at May 23, 2005 12:31 PM (DP5IG)

40 I think you have said something very important in this,"I believe in American exceptionalism." I really do think that is something that many do not want to forgive us. It offends many to see American Individualism celebrated. Yet, we know it makes us what we are, and has supported the ideals of freedom and progress.

Posted by: ilona at May 23, 2005 12:43 PM (hiW10)

41 Ok- if you want to argue that her warning against mocking the plumbing in Third World countries was a critique of US foreign policy: was the strategy implemented after WWII of maintaining strategic alliances to contain and defeat communism worth scrapping? Was it unsuccessful? Did it undermine 'who we are'? Nugget: "there *MUST* be a reason why people flock to our shores" Yeah, I'm surprised that so many people have difficulty distinguishing US foreign policy and domesestic freedom. Clearly the US has _sometimes_ been a force for democracy and freedom worldwide and _sometimes_ it has been a force for oppression: it depends what suits our national interest- or more typically economic interests. Like Athens and Great Britain before us we have democracy on our shores yet an agressive foreign policy that does not always adhere to our democratic ideals. For Ms. Nooyi to state the obvious does not mean she doesn't love her country, fer crying out loud.

Posted by: Preston at May 23, 2005 01:50 PM (wkfsI)

42 Speaking of oppression... I'm amused at our history. The Puritans came here for religious freedom, however, they only supported religious freedom as it related to the Puritans. The Native Americans, or the Anglicans, Huguenots, and all the other groups that followed immediately? Yer on yer own. Oppressive? Darn tootin'. The United States, much like a single human being, is made up of many different components. If we were to all dwell upon one or two aspects of it (either human or the US, take your pick), and dwell ONLY on those two aspects of it (say for argument's sake oppression/slavery and colonization/globalization), we would essentially be throwing the baby out with the bathwater to discount every other positive thing which makes up these United States.

Posted by: NuggetMaven at May 23, 2005 03:15 PM (DP5IG)

43 Annika, Nice ring you got there. Hehe.

Posted by: Mark Nicodemo at May 23, 2005 05:51 PM (Vg0tt)

44 Like Athens and Great Britain before us we have democracy on our shores... C'mon, Preston! GB had a monarchy when we kicked their rear, and Athens was some freaky kinda precursor to democracy, using a lottery to determine who got to help make decisions.

Posted by: Victor at May 24, 2005 01:29 PM (Sx8zO)

45 It's not good enough for us to be democratic- we have to have invented it now?

Posted by: Preston at May 24, 2005 02:46 PM (wkfsI)

46 My name is annika 2 that is sooooooooooooo kool!!! when is ur b-day?

Posted by: Annika Schick at May 29, 2005 03:46 PM (ywZa8)

47 I think someone is confusing secularism for democracy. Believe it or not, this is a secularist country--despite what Dubya and his theocrat thugs want us (middle of the road-to-liberals) to believe.

Posted by: NuggetMaven at June 02, 2005 12:31 PM (DP5IG)

48 Wow, your a moron! You do know that song is a parody of bushies cronies? Dumb dumb

Posted by: chris mankey at September 23, 2005 09:38 AM (LvGqD)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

If i hear someone use the phrase "up-or-down-vote" one more time, i think i'm going to scream. Is there any other kind of vote?

[Well, i guess in England it's a left or right vote. But still...]

Posted by: annika at 10:25 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 28 words, total size 1 kb.

Here's a cute one by Jenny Joseph (b. 1932):

Warning

When I am an old woman I shall wear purple
With a red hat which doesn´t go, and doesn´t suit me,
And I shall spend my pension on brandy and summer gloves
And satin sandals, and say we´ve no money for butter.
I shall sit down on the pavement when I´m tired
And gobble up samples in shops and press alarm bells
And run my stick along the public railings
And make up for the sobriety of my youth.
I shall go out in my slippers in the rain
And pick the flowers in other people´s gardens
And learn to spit.

You can wear terrible shirts and grow more fat
And eat three pounds of sausages at a go
Or only bread and pickle for a week
And hoard pens and pencils and beermats and things in boxes.

But now we must have clothes to keep us dry
And pay our rent and not swear in the street
And set a good example for the children.
We will have friends to dinner and read the papers.

But maybe I ought to practise a little now?
So people who know me are not too shocked and surprised
When suddenly I am old and start to wear purple.

Posted by: annika at 10:21 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 228 words, total size 1 kb.

Brittany & Kevin or Law & Order.
Brittany & Kevin or Law & Order.
Brittany & Kevin or Law & Order.
Brittany & Kevin or Law & Order.
Brittany & Kevin or Law & Order.
Brittany & Kevin or Law & Order.
Brittany & Kevin or Law & Order.
Brittany & Kevin or Law & Order.

sorry Brittany.

Posted by: annika at 10:05 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 64 words, total size 1 kb.

i don't live in L.A. anymore (though i hope to return after i graduate), but i'm apparently still on the voter list down there. Which is why i've received an email from none other than the next mayor of Los Angeles, Antonio Villaraigosa.

i've never received an email from a major politician before, it's kind of exciting. Here is what Tony (if i may call him that) wrote to me.

Dear Annika,

I love Los Angeles. It has already given me so much -- a strong education, a loving family, a lifelong career in public service.

That's why I have set out an ambitious new vision for LA, because I believe the Mayor must have a plan for the future. I want to build more schools for our children and reduce classroom sizes. I want to make Los Angeles safer and greener. I want to create better jobs for our workers, provide better health care and more affordable housing for our families, and develop a 21st Century transportation system for all of us.

I know this has been a tough and negative campaign, but I pledge on my first day in office to begin to bring our city together for real, positive change.

Los Angeles deserves a better Mayor. Someone with big dreams, bold ideas, and an ambitious vision for the future -- a strong leader with a proven record of accomplishment who will roll up his sleeves and work hard to fix our city's problems, large and small.

As Mayor, I pledge to work with you and all of our neighbors to build a better Los Angeles. But I need your help to do it.

I ask your vote on Tuesday, May 17th!

To make our city a better place, we must restore the people's trust in Los Angeles city government. After four long years of waste, fraud, and scandal, I am committed to cleaning house at City Hall and putting an end to the 'pay-to-play' system under Jim Hahn. Because let's be clear: Honesty and ethics at City Hall start at the top, with the Mayor.

I am proud to have received the endorsements of [blah blah blah...].

But today, I am asking you for the most important endorsement of all: your vote.

If you agree that we can and must do better in Los Angeles, I ask for your vote on Tuesday.

It's time to get Los Angeles back on the right track. And I am committed to doing just that. I pledge to you that I will work to bring all residents of our city together and solve the tough problems we face.

But I can't do it alone. I'm going to need your help, along with hundreds of thousands of our friends and neighbors, to get the job done. And it all starts on Election Day.

I look forward to working with you to build a better Los Angeles!

Sincerely,

Antonio Villaraigosa

i hope he'll be a good mayor. L.A. has big big problems challenges, but it is a great town. i notice that transportation is at the end of the list in paragraph three, almost like it was an afterthought. To my mind, light rail should be the priority for the next mayor. Incredibly, nowhere in the email was there any mention of illegal immigration, a subject that seems to be on everybody's lips these days. Progress on that issue would take care of half the other problems he mentioned in that second paragraph.

Anyways, i hope the coronation goes well.

Posted by: annika at 06:39 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 632 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Nice to hear support for public transportation from the right side of the aisle... It's clear that LA will grind to a halt one day if they don't get on the bandwagon. (I'm not advocating bandwagons as public transportation though...)

Posted by: Preston at May 16, 2005 07:04 PM (+jnzE)

2 Unfortunately, it's often the left that's holding up a sensible light rail solution in L.A. The "bus-rider's union??!" environmentalists, slow growth people, plaintiff's lawyers, and NIMBYs.

Posted by: annika at May 16, 2005 07:12 PM (Sq19q)

3 Hell if you got rid of the illegals, the trans problem would solve itself. I think this is priceless, in a couple months California's three biggest cities will all have fucktards as Mayors. V in LA, that simpering asshole in SF, and the old burnout hippy union whore Donnay Frye in SD. I'm comforted by the knowledge that the electorate of these cities did NOT vote for dubyah.

Posted by: Casca at May 16, 2005 09:51 PM (qBTBH)

4 I disagree - L.A.'s problems won't be solved by light rail or any oter mass transit program. The problem with L.A. (& to varying degrees the rest of the state & country) are ideaological not material. Look at any of those "problems" the mayoral candidate seeks to address & then think of a non govcernmental solution for them. Now not all are best served by the private sector, but that's the problem - everyone thinks government is a problem solver. In general government is a problem creator. We could debate the merits of any public transportation system or this specific one but that'd just be adressing a symptom, not the problem. Ditto with everythign else except the governmental corruption thing. & let's be honest - in the closest thing to a welfare state we have in this country there's not going to be an end to corruption. BTW, if he wants to make L.A. safer then I assume he's going to be rolling back some of the assinine gun control laws they have there & then push for cutting back the state level gun control? Anyway, the problem is th emindset of the people. Till that cna be adressed then anything else will only be a temporary fix. & no place has that problem completely under control, but L.A. & Cali seem to be worse off than the rest of the nation (well with certain exceptions, such as D.C., Chicago, NY, Mass. etc...)

Posted by: publicola at May 17, 2005 01:15 AM (DQj8i)

5 publicola: "We could debate the merits of any public transportation system or this specific one but that'd just be adressing a symptom, not the problem." What's the problem? annika: That's interesting. But I wouldn't classify NIMBY's as liberal. I don't know any thing about the Bus Rider's Union- why would they slow down mass transit?

Posted by: Preston at May 17, 2005 07:33 AM (wkfsI)

6 "fucktards"????? merriam-webster comes up empty.............. don't sugar coat it Casca....tell us what you really think.

Posted by: louielouie at May 17, 2005 09:59 AM (i7mWl)

7 Hell if you think he'll do anything that will in any way shape or form discourage illegal immigration you are nuts. If anything he will do everything he can to make LA the most illegal immigrant friendly town in the US!

Posted by: Skippy at May 17, 2005 11:04 AM (v3xUb)

8 that's what i'm afraid of

Posted by: annika at May 17, 2005 09:27 PM (oCGrt)

9 I haven't really followed the election in Los Angeles - heck, I've barely followed the mayoral election in Ontario. In fact, I'm writing this at 10:33 in the evening; polls presumably closed 2 1/2 hours ago, and I haven't made an effort to see who actually won. I'll do my homework in a moment. I would think that both candidates would try to avoid mentioning illegal immigration at all costs. Candidates try to be all things to all people, and any mention of illegal immigration, pro or con, is bound to anger somebody.

Posted by: Ontario Emperor at May 17, 2005 10:34 PM (ukBYg)

10 OK, I did my homework. From the Daily Breeze: Updated, 10:28 p.m. Bruising runoff between two Democrats is a rematch of the 2001 election, in which Hahn rallied to win.... Los Angeles Mayor James Hahn and Councilman Antonio Villaraigosa were locked in a close race tonight as the incumbent struggled to hold onto his job and his opponent sought to become the city's first Hispanic mayor since the 19th century. With 228 of 1,599 precincts reporting, along with about 120,000 absentee ballots, Villaraigosa had a lead of 56 to 44 percent. Villaraigosa had 90,660 votes, compared to Hahn's 72,024. Here's a live link to city election results.

Posted by: Ontario Emperor at May 17, 2005 10:38 PM (ukBYg)

11 Close race? Did that fool at the Breeze say "close race"? A "close race" is when it is 50.2 to 49.8%. The numbers I am seeing are like 58.6 to 41.4%. Where I come from, that's an "old fashioned whupping". So much for Jimmy Hahn and his sleazy, anti-hispanic buzzword campaign. Live by the sword, die by the sword. And so much for Bill Carrick and Kam Kuwata and Bill Wardlaw and their sleazy, down and dirty mudlinging campaigns. In this one, the best man won... As my grandson says "Antonio rules; Jummy drools".

Posted by: shelly at May 18, 2005 01:44 AM (pO1tP)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Like many people, i've been expecting to hear that Wilbanks, the runaway bride, was on a cross country booty call when she disappeared. The fact that i was right, merely confirms that human nature is soo predictable. It's a great example of Occam's Razor at work.

The New York Post reports:

Jennifer Wilbanks wasn't just running away from her wedding, she was running toward something — an old paramour with whom she had a steamy sexual relationship.

The bolting bride set her sights on New Mexico sometime during her three-day cross-country sprint from the altar because it's the home of a short-lived fling, several sources told The Post.

But if Wilbanks harbored hope of reigniting an old passion, she would have been sorely disappointed.

'I would have turned her ass in, no question,' former flame Todd Kendrick told The Post.

'And then,' he joked, 'I'd have asked for the $100,000 reward.'

. . .

Kendrick said that though 'worried' for Wilbanks, he 'had a feeling' foul play wasn't involved when she vanished in Georgia four days before her planned lavish wedding to fiancé John Mason.

'She's a crazy girl,' said Kendrick, who said he had a brief — and sexually charged — relationship with Wilbanks.

. . .

Said Kendrick, 'When I heard she was here, I thought, "Oh, God, why not Idaho?" — anywhere else, really.'

. . .

Kendrick, 41, said he knows Wilbanks, 32, through his younger sister — who was to be a bridesmaid in Wilbanks' jettisoned wedding and had thrown her a bridal shower.

'About three years ago, she and my sister came out to New Mexico together to visit me; I dated [Jennifer] a couple of times,' he said.

Like other men who've gone a few rounds with Wilbanks — several firemen, a dentist and gym buffs among them — Kendrick said Wilbanks had a healthy sexual appetite.

'She liked sex,' he said.

Nevertheless, Wilbanks' fiancé, Mason, has famously boasted he and his intended had abstained during the 18-month courtship leading up to their planned wedding.

Kendrick found it 'very disturbing' that Wilbanks tried to feed police a phony kidnap-and-rape story after she landed in New Mexico after a side trip to Las Vegas.

Posted by: annika at 06:51 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 376 words, total size 2 kb.

The Texas anti-cheerleader bill is dead.

The measure was approved in the Texas House on May 3, with supportive lawmakers waving pompoms as the bill moved to the Senate's Education Committee, where the cheering abruptly stopped.

'We will not be hearing it,' committee chairwoman Sen. Florence Shapiro said Friday.

'We have some very important work to do in the next two weeks, and that's not one of them,' said Shapiro, R-Plano.

Rather than being a 'mandate from the state,' she said, the problem of students performing suggestive acts should be addressed by parents and school districts.

Hat tip to gcotharn, who is now atop the leader board in my fantasy league. Guess who's at the bottom?

Posted by: annika at 07:33 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 163 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Well he won't be in first for long! And i had no idea about this cheerleader bill...it seems this bill combined with the recent one to take foster kids out of the homes of gay parents shows that the Texas legislature is full of nincompoops, pretty much like the rest of the country. Of course they're never as bad as California...and I'm a california boy so I know!

Posted by: Scof at May 15, 2005 10:14 PM (OHbSQ)

2 It's what we've come to expect from the Texas Republican Party. At least if they're wasting their time with cheerleaders they are unable to push their Platform: http://www.texasgop.org/library/RPTPlatform2004.pdf p.4 #10: "We oppose conservation easements on our natural resources administered by organizations unaccountable to tax payers and voters." (That means land trusts and conservation groups would be declared unconstitutional.) p. 4 #18: "We oppose the Endangered Species Act." pp. 7 and 8: "We reject the establishment of any mechanism to process, license, record, register or monitor the ownership of guns." p. 9 The party opposes highway speed limits based on environmental standards of any kind. p. 10 The party believes that the practice of sodomy tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseaseas. p.13 " ... gradually phase out Social Security tax for a system of "private pensions.." p.15: Supports abstinence only sex education p.15:"The Party urges Congress to repeal government-sponsored programs that deal with early childhood development p.18: supports teaching of intelligent design p.17: prohibits reproductive health care services in high schools. p.23: The party opposes one-world government... p.24: The Party urges Congress to evict the United Nations from U.S. soil.

Posted by: Preston at May 16, 2005 08:00 AM (wkfsI)

3 Preston, I don't see where any of that is objectionable. For example, we've been paying excessively high Social Security taxes for years. Congress took that money and spent it. Tell me where we wouldn't be better off with the money invested in a private account? Move to New York. Your kind will be happy here.

Posted by: Mark at May 16, 2005 08:29 AM (oQofX)

4 So much for the 'big tent', Mark. Well, the easy ones: 'intelligent design' isn't true and 'abstinence education' doesn't work. Is it so radical to ask for a government that bases its decisions on reality?

Posted by: preston at May 16, 2005 08:34 AM (wkfsI)

5 Some of that shit is okay, some is well, shit. But saying that prohibiting a private organization from claiming an easement on public lands would make such organizations unconstitutional betrays a lack of understanding of easements, constitutional law and just plain sense.

Posted by: annika at May 16, 2005 08:39 AM (zAOEU)

6 It would sort of defeat the purpose of founding a conservation land trust if your work was illegal. You could do it but what's the point?

Posted by: Preston at May 16, 2005 08:49 AM (wkfsI)

7 Buy the land. Then it's yours and you can do what you want with it. Including not building strip malls. Is it radical to ask that the federal government stick to its enumerated powers and leave the rest up to the states to decide? It's not going to happen, but I can dream...

Posted by: Mark at May 16, 2005 09:58 AM (oQofX)

8 Mark, conservation land trusts are not a 'public taking' of property: http://www.lta.org/aboutlt/faq.shtml

Posted by: Preston at May 16, 2005 10:13 AM (wkfsI)

9 But on the larger point: Do you feel like a community has no right to shape its future? Is it ok if a slaughterhouse or a Wal-Mart opens next door to your house?

Posted by: Preston at May 16, 2005 10:16 AM (wkfsI)

10 for Preston - a smaller point: The bill was introduced, and tirelessly promoted, by a Democrat: State Rep Al Edwards, D-Houston.

Posted by: gcotharn at May 16, 2005 01:13 PM (OxYc+)

11 That's too bad, but like I said: at least if they're wasting their time with cheerleaders they aren't threatening Texans with the GOP platform.

Posted by: Preston at May 16, 2005 01:27 PM (wkfsI)

12 p.13 " ... gradually phase out Social Security tax for a system of "private pensions.." you've obviously not read the 1932 speech by FDR proposing SS. that/this was his plan.

Posted by: louielouie at May 16, 2005 03:00 PM (i7mWl)

13 p.24: The Party urges Congress to evict the United Nations from U.S. soil. I'm moving to texas!!!!!

Posted by: louielouie at May 16, 2005 03:02 PM (i7mWl)

14 "you've obviously not read the 1932 speech by FDR proposing SS. that/this was his plan." I'm afraid you've read too many right-wing talking points... FDR was talking about a transition _to_ Social Security _from_ the temporary payments to the elderly who hadn't contributed to SS as workers. http://mediamatters.org/items/200502160003

Posted by: Preston at May 16, 2005 03:13 PM (wkfsI)

15 using KO as a source????? moonbat publishing.

Posted by: louielouie at May 17, 2005 10:43 AM (i7mWl)

16 Eh? it was the first thing to come up when you Google 'FDR phase out' The point is that Britt Hume took FDR out of context and rearranged his quotes to make it seem that FDR supported 'privatization'. Would you prefer the Nation? http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/07/opinion/main678638.shtml

Posted by: Preston at May 17, 2005 10:55 AM (wkfsI)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

CNN has a new partner in the ranks of journalistic infamy. Both news organizations have blood on their hands.

When i heard about this story, the first thing i thought was "even if it's true, why on earth would they publish that story?"

i admit that's an untenable position to take. Freedom of the press and all that rot. But true or not, the story was going to cost lives. Newsweek had to know that. Did that fact present even a minor speed bump to their rush to embarrass the hated United States?

Apparently not, since Newsweek has now apologized for publishing a lie.

Newsweek magazine on Sunday said it may have erred in a May 9 report that said U.S. interrogators desecrated the Koran at Guantanamo Bay, and apologized to victims of deadly violence sparked by the article.

The weekly news magazine said in its May 23 edition that the original source of the allegation was not sure where he saw the assertion that at least one copy of the Koran was flushed down a toilet in an attempt to get detainees to talk.

'We regret that we got any part of our story wrong, and extend our sympathies to victims of the violence and to the U.S. soldiers caught in its midst,' Editor Mark Whitaker wrote in the magazine's latest issue, due to appear on U.S. newsstands on Monday.

The report has sparked angry and violent protests across the Muslim world from Afghanistan, where 16 were killed and more than 100 injured, to Pakistan to Indonesia to Gaza.

On Sunday, Afghan Muslim clerics threatened to call for a holy war against the United States in three days unless it handed over the interrogators in question.

Biased journalism is not just annoying, not just wrong, not just unethical, sometimes it gets people killed.

Update: i shouldn't have complimented Fox News. Even they're sloppy. Reporting on the story this afternoon, Chris Wallace said that Newsweek's source had said he saw the alleged flushing incident, but then backed away from his story. Not true. The source actually told Newsweek's Michael Isakoff that the incident would be mentioned in an upcoming written report by military investigators. The source never saw any incident. He only saw a reference to an allegation of an incident in a report investigating a bunch of alleged incidents. As it turned out, the incident didn't make it into the final report. No matter, Newsweek went ahead with the story. Somewhere, Mary Mapes is probably smiling.

[cross-posted at A Western Heart]

Posted by: annika at 12:28 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 435 words, total size 3 kb.