June 30, 2005
Statement Of This Blog's Purpose
The purpose of this blog is to:
1. Bloviate.
2. Increase awareness and appreciation of good poetry.
3. Make fun of people, especially celebrities.
4. Interact with like-minded folks.
5. Promote my own ego-satisfaction.
It is not the purpose of this blog to:
1. Present ironclad arguments in favor of my stated positions, although i sometimes try to do that.
2. Regurgitate the party line, as all long-time visitors should know.
3. Sacrifice honesty to the god of consistency or slay the demon of fallacious reasoning, although i tend to favor those ideals.
4. Be nice, although i often am.
5. Promote your agenda; your website; your point of view; or your online gambling/porn/prescription drug scam.
i've successfully avoided posting a Statement of Blog's Purpose for over two years, but i think its time has come. i'm sick of people telling me what i should and shouldn't do with my own bandwidth. [Well... Pixy's bandwidth.] If i want to make fun of Lindsay Lohan, i will. If i want to do a non-religious post on Easter Sunday, i will. If i want to drop a subtle hint that i might not be celibate, i fucking will. If i want to run your ass out of the comments because i don't like you for no good reason at all, i will. Even though i almost never do that, i reserve any and all rights.
That is all.
More: Wow. i thought i was pissed off. Check out Beth. Right on girl!
Posted by: annika at
03:18 PM
| Comments (18)
| Add Comment
Post contains 257 words, total size 2 kb.
1
amen sister. i especially like the placement of "fucking" in relation to celibate.
Posted by: Blu at June 30, 2005 03:32 PM (j8oa6)
Posted by: Casca at June 30, 2005 03:33 PM (qBTBH)
3
O-o-o-o-o-o-k-a-a-a-a-y. That's sufficiently "in your[mine/theirs/whoever's] face" to meet this month's quota.
Posted by: Iam Doubt at June 30, 2005 03:38 PM (yVOyy)
4
Yes, Boss. Gettin a drink of water over here, Boss.
Posted by: Jake at June 30, 2005 04:04 PM (r/5D/)
5
I also am not in favor of regurgitation. It amazes me to discover that some people love it. "Sean Hannity (or Al Franken) said it...I believe it...it's goo enough for me."\
My blog included a statement of purpose in its
very first post. Occasionally I revisit it to see how far I've strayed.
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at June 30, 2005 04:05 PM (m3UmI)
Posted by: annika at June 30, 2005 04:13 PM (zAOEU)
7
Just you keep shakin that tree, cool hand Jake.
[as long as we're doing movie references.]
Posted by: annika at June 30, 2005 04:27 PM (zAOEU)
8
Annika:
Yessssssssssssssssssssssss.
You got my obscure movie reference.
Yessssssssssssssssssssssss.
You know everything.
Posted by: Jake at June 30, 2005 04:46 PM (r/5D/)
9
I don't get people telling me what to post about mainly because I get about 30 visitors a day. *Sigh*
On the plus side, I've received a total of two pieces of hate mail.
Posted by: Mark at June 30, 2005 04:53 PM (K9Q/+)
10
as annika's journal becomes more popular/well known, and it is/will, more of this will be necessary.
cap'n ed is getting trolls.
i recognized one here in a different thread, but have chosen not to feed him.......so far.
i'm not going to kiss annika's ass and go into the reasons i think her site is becoming more popular.
i would, however, kiss her ass for numerous other reasons.......and she would liiiiiiiiikit.
Posted by: louielouie at June 30, 2005 06:04 PM (xKfMm)
11
Hey Annie, it's your sandbox; I appreciate you letting me build castles occassionally. If others find the time to post comments explaining how you should run YOUR blog, might I suggest that you engage in some judicious word rearranging of their comments. It might surprise some people to be the top ten results from Google when the search criteria are "molests baby squirrels".
Words of wisdom that I heard in "Long Gone": Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke. Nah, sex is a good thing. The better choice would be to NOT fuck 'em. Just my opinion, of course. I could be wrong.
Posted by: physics geek at June 30, 2005 06:33 PM (9xutE)
12
It may be time to retitle this place. How about, "Beauty and the Geeks"? The hairy-palmed throng lining up here these days... ah well, I guess one must take all comers in this business.
Posted by: Casca at June 30, 2005 06:46 PM (qBTBH)
13
Excuse me, Annie, but was I married to you?
Posted by: shelly at June 30, 2005 11:15 PM (pO1tP)
14
Beautiful banner! (I changed mine too this week. It looks good considering I don't own PhotoShop.)
Who's the blondie on the left side?
Posted by: Mark at June 30, 2005 11:56 PM (Q8GPa)
Posted by: annika at July 01, 2005 06:42 AM (w82e2)
16
" Promote your agenda; your website; your point of view; or your online g*mbling/porn/prescription drug scam."
I am personally offended as I often try to present my scams to he world for public offering.
Posted by: cube at July 01, 2005 06:48 AM (nyNr0)
17
long time reader from the east coast. keep up the awesomeness of your site. But why no buzzwords in your mission statement, such as:
"Leverage core competencies with a goals-directed focus combining proactive action with dynamic paradigms in a synergistic fashion that highlights overall strategic output."
Posted by: albo at July 01, 2005 08:33 AM (ZPx7m)
18
i like it, Albo. But isn't that the mission statement for all blogs?
Posted by: annika at July 01, 2005 09:02 AM (zAOEU)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Conservative Back-Slapping Quote Of The Day
At the risk of being accused as a mindless parroter of conservative talking points, let me quote
Jeff Goldstien's deconstruction of the "chickenhawk meme," which is so clever i plan to adopt it and mindlessly parrot it all over fucking creation.
HOWS THAT ASSSHOLE?! THAT FUCKING PASSIVE-AGGRESSIVE ENOUGH FOR YOU YOU PRETENTIIOUS HYPOCRITICAL DICK?!!
[N.B. The above flip-out was directed at a troll, not you, Jeff.]
But i digress. Here's the quote:
Sadly, the chickenhawk argument, though logically puerile, can prove quite rhetorically effective—in the same sense that charges of homophobia and racism have proven effective in debates over gay marriage and government funded affirmative action programs: such charges, cynically delivered, tend to stifle substantive discourse, forcing one side of the argument onto the defensive by changing the focus of the debate from the issues themselves to the character of certain professors of those issues—and in that regard, they help to sustain the status quo.
The bottom line is, the chickenhawk argument is an impediment to legitimate discourse and debate—and legitimate discourse and debate over national security is a necessity in a free society; and for that reason, those who raise the chickenhawk argument should be treated by everyone—right and left—as intellectual pariahs.
. . .
The gist of most of the 'arguments' in support of the [chickenhawk] meme’s righteousness is that people so willing to speak vociferously in favor of the war should put their money where their mouths are—and merely advocating for the cause doesn’t count. Which means, of course, FDR should’ve strapped on a helmet, picked up a rifle, and had one of his aides wheel his crippled ass in front of a Panzer. BECAUSE OF THE HYPOCRISY!
Well put, indeed.
Posted by: annika at
01:55 PM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 281 words, total size 2 kb.
1
thats why i keep coming back
great post
Posted by: troll? at June 30, 2005 02:28 PM (7exp2)
2
I used to work with someone who, when accused of being this or that, would say:
"Ok, I'm this or that. But lets stay focused on the point we are discussing..."
They handled that type of thing as well as anyone I've ever seen.
It is an exasperating thing to have interjected into a conversation. Its difficult not to roll one's eyes and give back some attitude. But that's what they actually want. You give attitude; the conversation is sidetracked; they win.
Posted by: gcotharn at June 30, 2005 03:25 PM (F5ahJ)
3
The "chickenhawk" slur is uber-illogical:
If you dislike crime, why aren't you a police officer?
If you don't like homes on fire, why aren't you a firefighter?
If you hate the idea of stray pets, why don't you adopt a cat or 10?
I am sure you think up your own examples, but none of the ones I have given (as well as the "chickenhawk" bomb) even attempt to deal with the real underlying issues. Just diverts it to the people involved in the conversation.
Posted by: Mark at June 30, 2005 03:46 PM (or801)
4
"If you are so against the ChimpyMcBushHitler-Halliburton war, then why haven't you gone to Fallujah to sign up for the insurgency? Why not help out where help is most needed to end teh IllegalWarForOil? I mean sitting on the Web carping about it isn't doing a single thing to end it. It's about Direct Action ma-an! Go put your action where your mouth is."
Posted by: Desert Cat at June 30, 2005 04:36 PM (n/TmV)
5
Heh, a good evening for me is whiping a gunny sack full of hairball makers off the bay bridge, but that was a good one DC.
Posted by: Casca at June 30, 2005 06:49 PM (qBTBH)
6
Each time someone lobs the
chickenhawk rhetoric at me on my blog (almost daily, it seems), I've found the best way to shut them up is to mention that I have already pulled a tour in Iraq.
The usual respone (because they don't know when the hell to give up), is why don't I re-enlist if I believe so much in
this current war. The fact that I'm now disabled from my first tour usually shuts them up. But now I'm going to have to use that "wheel my his ass in front of a Panzer" quote.
Brilliant!
Posted by: Robbie at June 30, 2005 09:27 PM (htx4h)
7
The original chickenhawk term specfically referred to the pussies (like Bush) who actively dodged the draft, but still supported the war. Folks like Limbaugh, Cheney, G. W. Bush, Tom Delay, et al. ad nauseum, who were as gung ho as they could be about 'Nam except for the part where they might be drafted themselves.
BTW, hearing you spout off about the use of the term stifling debate has a wonderfully comic effect. Lanks for the laughs.
Posted by: sigh at July 11, 2005 10:03 PM (n5EIB)
8
The original chickenhawk term specfically referred to the pussies (like Bush) who actively dodged the draft, but still supported the war. Folks like Limbaugh, Cheney, G. W. Bush, Tom Delay, et al. ad nauseum, who were as gung ho as they could be about 'Nam except for the part where they might be drafted themselves.
BTW, hearing you spout off about the use of the term stifling debate has a wonderfully comic effect. Thanks for the laughs.
Posted by: sigh at July 11, 2005 10:03 PM (n5EIB)
Posted by: annika at July 11, 2005 10:19 PM (iXY4D)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Ulf Hjertström Update: Two Down
Recently i posted about
Ulf Hjertström, the Swede who was held hostage by terrorists in Iraq and vowed to hunt them down. Here's an update:
Hjertström 'doesn’t want to go into detail' about the bounty hunters, but assures Expressen that they are 'the best money can buy.'
'They’re not twiddling their thumbs,' declares Hjertström, revealing that he has 'received confirmation that two of [the kidnappers] have already been taken care of.' When asked to elaborate on the fate of the purportedly captured men, the Swede says he 'hasn’t inquired' but has his 'suspicions.'
Awesome!
The original story is in Swedish. i can't read it but i know someone who might be able to.
Link thanks to Billy McCormac of the Stockholm Spectator Blog.
[cross-posted at A Western Heart]
Posted by: annika at
08:13 AM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
Post contains 129 words, total size 1 kb.
1
"Taken care of". This image of Rooster Cogburn popped into my mind. Real wild west show over there in Iraq. I'd just be happy to be eating lefsa again.
regards
Posted by: zona boy at June 30, 2005 10:21 AM (5afzm)
2
yay! more violence! civilization will be improved if we all turn into vigilantes!
Posted by: eric at June 30, 2005 12:09 PM (hiCir)
3
Eric:
Ulf is doing the world a favor by removing from this earth some very violent terrorists.
That seems to be a lot more effective than kissing their feet as you and other lefty's want to do.
A Melbourne Age editor sums up the feeling of every lefty by saying this:
"The issue really is largely, speaking as I understand it, he was treated well there. He says he was fed every day, and as such to turn around and use that kind of language I think is just insensitive." (via Tim Blair.)
Yep, that's us conservatives all right. We have insensitive feelings about violent terrorists.
Posted by: Jake at June 30, 2005 01:01 PM (r/5D/)
4
it's truly amazing how in so few words you can so completely obfuscate, add and subtract meaning, and show the weakness of your argument. by posting something simplistic i hoped to get just that response--sarcastic, devoid of any factual argument, and full of incredibly dumbed-down stereotypes. (you seem educated, so do you honestly believe that "lefty's" - a term which means absolutely nothing, by the way - want to "kiss their feet"?) what about the vaunted rule of law that's always trumpeted by republicans? does it not apply in certain cases when ignoring it benefits you? inasmuch as i can try to understand ulf's actions - which i do, because i may do the same thing - it seems you're very confused at the difference between justice and vengeance. as i presume you would, i would personally stand on the neck of anyone sending suicide bombers to israel and i'd not hesitate to put a bullet through the 9/11 highjackers and anyone who had anything to do with it, even obliquely. but i wasn't talking about that, was i - i was making a statement about violence. it's very telling that you would jump on the attack to defend something that hasnt been attacked in the first place. your siege mentality is showing, my friend. in a way i wish i thought in such black and white terms, it must be very simple to just take what the leader says as gospel and use namecalling against anyone who disagrees with you.
i hope you respond, i can't wait to see you lump me in with these terrible "lefty's" again and answer questions i havent asked, defend against attacks i haven't brought...
Posted by: eric at June 30, 2005 01:28 PM (hiCir)
5
eric,
What, exactly are you proposing? Ulf should just let bygones be bygones? Sue them? Is it ok if the military takes action against the terrorists?
How about non-violent retaliation? Maybe he should flush a Koran? Appeal to the UN for a resolution?
I support the idea of direct retaliation against those who have deliberately caused harm. Makes for a more polite society.
Posted by: MarkD at June 30, 2005 02:59 PM (oQofX)
6
"Taken care of", yes reminds me of the good old days when the CIA still protected the "family jewels".
Posted by: Casca at June 30, 2005 03:43 PM (qBTBH)
7
Eric:
Hey, I quoted an esteemed left-wing editor from Australia. That sounds pretty factual to me.
I am sorry for calling you a lefty. I know that there is no group more despised, more scorned and more laughed at than left-wingers. To call you a lefty is to call you reactionary, racist conforming, boring, dirty, hostile, unkempt, snotty, intolerant and angry.
But it could have been worse.
I could have called you a Democrat.
Posted by: Jake at June 30, 2005 03:53 PM (r/5D/)
8
Hey I know........lets just all convert to be muslims so they dont hate us anymore!!! Thats what they all want isnt it?
Posted by: Jeff at July 02, 2005 07:36 AM (Zq5kW)
9
> I support the idea of direct retaliation
> against those who have deliberately caused
> harm. Makes for a more polite society.
Strange that polite society isn't here yet, seeing as that the human race have done little else than retaliated since Cain & Abel...
I'm sure that whatever your feelings on revenge might be, you know that this act will not in any way "tip the scale to zero". The kidnappers' relatives, not being able to read these enlightened posts, will just see their family get killed. And as they probably can't get the guy who put out the contract, they will hate and try to kick the butt of anyone from the same general area.
Just as a lot of mosques were vandalized after 9/11. I'm sorry, but it just goes on and on. Much as it hurts your ego, someone WILL have to be big enough to say "bygones". Only way.
Or we could just kill off the bad people and the good people will remain. (This was irony.)
Posted by: Johan B at July 06, 2005 01:19 PM (WZphI)
10
We have learned that justice cannot be subcontracted. Contrary to old cowboy movies, you can't let the law out of your own hands.
Vengence? You bet your sweet ass. There is nothing wrong with well directed vengence.
Posted by: Walter E. Wallis at July 09, 2005 11:16 AM (xX0fS)
11
"Or we could just kill off the bad people and the good people will remain."
You may have meant it as irony, Johan, but it is true. These terrorists want to capture people like you and me, and cut our throats. It's as simple as that. I want to kill them before they do more damage - it's not a tough concept.
Posted by: Barb at July 10, 2005 01:49 PM (g9qHI)
12
I would love to be a part of Operation Vengence, but I think a better name is Operation Justice, because that would be what those murderous cowards would be getting.
They kill anybody and their aim is everybody that they can't control. I would personally like to take off the head of Bin Laden and Al Zarqawi,
these two deserve nothing less, and I would like to do it the same way Al Zarqawi did it to Nick Berg, and all the others.
Call it what ever you want, as long as it gets done....
Posted by: Beth at July 10, 2005 04:39 PM (lZ8lX)
13
I have no problem at all understanding those feelings. I felt them myself after seeing the Nick berg video. But if you don't just surrender to them, you start to think. If you cut the throats of the "original cutters", they will in turn have people who love them (which we may find strange). And you can bet YOUR sweet ass that they will probably not say "OK - we bear no grudge, they had it coming".
So by all means, they should be stopped, but not with the "eye for an eye" method.
Posted by: Johan B at July 22, 2005 03:15 PM (WZphI)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
AmSkank Update
For those who are interested,
Wizbang has posted some photos of Brittany in full frontal pregnancy fashion. She looks...uh...happy, i guess.
Link thanks to Victor, who raced out to see that new movie only to be disappointed when he discovered it was not in fact called Ratman Begins.
Posted by: annika at
07:40 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 52 words, total size 1 kb.
1
WHAT!?!?!? No snarky comment on her halter top, tie-dyed sarong, and cowboy boots?
I'm incredibly disappointed...OTOH, I guess it's too easy...
Posted by: Victor at June 30, 2005 08:07 AM (L3qPK)
2
But the Kabbalah bracelet is still very much in place...
Posted by: Hugo at June 30, 2005 03:19 PM (vXMv1)
3
Reprising Demi Moore? More like reprising Anna-Nicole. I'm no fashion maven, but nothing says Southern-whitetrash-hillbilly-slut like cowboy boots and a halter top.
Posted by: Casca at June 30, 2005 06:57 PM (qBTBH)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 29, 2005
This Week's Cotillion Ball
Please check out this week's Cotillion Ball, hosted by the following lovely and talented ladies:
Rightwingsparkle
Not a Desperate Housewife
Maxed out Mama
Janette and Jody
This is some of the best stuff on the blogosphere, so don't miss it.
And while i'm at it, please go to fellow Munuvian Oddybobo's blog and read "I've Been Thinking, and That Is Bad!" Her thoughts on the Supreme Court are so close to mine, that i don't need to do that anti-establishment clause post i was going to do. Now i can take the night off, thanks Bobo!
Posted by: annika at
12:12 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 104 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Do they wear anything under those skirts?
Posted by: Casca at June 29, 2005 04:48 PM (qBTBH)
2
What about my take on it? huh?
Posted by: Scof at June 30, 2005 04:36 AM (x8hF4)
3
Laziest case of plagiarism I've ever seen ;~)
Posted by: Victor at June 30, 2005 04:50 AM (L3qPK)
4
Forgot to mention--I *love* the graphic you've got for your Cotillion link. Looks almost like an Erte print.
Posted by: Victor at June 30, 2005 04:52 AM (L3qPK)
5
Thank you for the linky-love. I needed a good rant.
Posted by: Oddybobo at June 30, 2005 05:17 AM (6Gm0j)
6
Thank you Victor, i stole it. Can't remember from whom.
Posted by: annika at June 30, 2005 07:14 AM (NCFFn)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Wednesday Is Poetry Day: Whitman's Civil War
Here's a great poem, written by America's greatest poet, who was an eyewitness to what he writes about.
The ArtillerymanÂ’s Vision
While my wife at my side lies slumbering, and the wars are over long,
And my head on the pillow rests at home, and the vacant midnight passes,
And through the stillness, through the dark, I hear, just hear, the breath of my infant,
There in the room, as I wake from sleep, this vision presses upon me:
The engagement opens there and then, in fantasy unreal;
The skirmishers begin—they crawl cautiously ahead—I hear the irregular snap! snap!
I hear the sounds of the different missiles—the short t-h-t! t-h-t! of the rifle balls;
I see the shells exploding, leaving small white clouds—I hear the great shells shrieking as they pass;
The grape, like the hum and whirr of wind through the trees, (quick, tumultuous, now the contest rages!)
All the scenes at the batteries themselves rise in detail before me again;
The crashing and smoking—the pride of the men in their pieces;
The chief gunner ranges and sights his piece, and selects a fuse of the right time;
After firing, I see him lean aside, and look eagerly off to note the effect;
—Elsewhere I hear the cry of a regiment charging—(the young colonel leads himself this time, with brandish’d sword
I see the gaps cut by the enemyÂ’s volleys, (quickly fillÂ’d up, no delay
I breathe the suffocating smoke—then the flat clouds hover low, concealing all;
Now a strange lull comes for a few seconds, not a shot fired on either side;
Then resumed, the chaos louder than ever, with eager calls, and orders of officers;
While from some distant part of the field the wind wafts to my ears a shout of applause, (some special success
And ever the sound of the cannon, far or near, (rousing, even in dreams, a devilish exultation, and all the old mad joy, in the depths of my soul
And ever the hastening of infantry shifting positions—batteries, cavalry, moving hither and thither;
(The falling, dying, I heed not—the wounded, dripping and red, I heed not—some to the rear are hobbling;
Grime, heat, rush—aid-de-camps galloping by, or on a full run;
With the patter of small arms, the warning s-s-t of the rifles, (these in my vision I hear or see,)
And bombs busting in air, and at night the vari-colorÂ’d rockets.
We're coming up on the one hundred forty-second anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg (July 1 to July 3, 1863) and the conclusion of the Vicksburg Campaign (May 19 to July 4, 1863). With Shelby Foote's death yesterday and the Fourth of July this weekend it's appropriate to remember the most important event in our nation's history. Of course i'm talking about the Civil War.
Yesterday in the comments to my post about Shelby Foote's death i mentioned how i am fascinated by the differences between our own time and the way people lived in the time of the Civil War.
We all have a pretty good idea of how soldiers fight today. Heck, we've grown up watching war on tv. But it's almost impossible for most of us to imagine how men fought during the Civil War. It must have taken a special kind of courage and discipline to march side by side with a bunch of other men towards a line of cannon and guns.
Posted by: annika at
08:03 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 581 words, total size 3 kb.
1
And have you seen the terrain at Vicksburg? All hellish inclines and fish-in-a-barrel valleys. I can't imagine rushing the lines atop those ridges in the sweltering heat, wearing wool, carrying the dead weight of a musket.
Korea is the closest I've seen to hills and valleys like those. Only, those men ran up and down those mountains in freezing cold, cold so profound that cartridges froze in breeches and refused to fire.
Every field has its advantages and disadvantages. In Baghdad, Taqaddam, Ramadi, and Balad the sand is everywhere. It's hard to walk in, let alone run with 100 lbs of gear. In Mosul, it was hilly, and everywhere was late-winter mud.
Since Whitman's time, everything has changed, but for the footsoldier, nothing really has changed at all. It's a matter of legs and back and heart and love for the men you're fighting with, until you're home again, awakening next to your wife with the din of battle in your ears.
Thanks for the poem, Annika.
Posted by: Steven Givler at June 29, 2005 10:53 AM (6iOub)
2
If you are a fan of Foote's, might I recommend a lighter perspective from Tony Horowitz, "Confederates in the Attic".
Posted by: Will Stewart at June 29, 2005 11:11 AM (GzvlQ)
3
Thanks for the recommendation Will.
Steven, i have been to Vicksburg, when i was thirteen. Sadly i didn't appreciate what i saw at that age. The story of the Vicksburg Campaign, and how Grant severed his supply lines before going back to begin the seige, is fascinating and underappreciated. It's an argument against the popular misconception of Grant as a simpleton or a drunk.
Posted by: annika at June 29, 2005 12:04 PM (zAOEU)
4
Hmmmmm, as bloody as the civil war battlefield was, there is comfort in the closeness of one's comrades. Shared hardship, all that stuff men live for.
Today, an attack can come from any direction at any time. And it's also worth remembering that more died of disease than wounds in the civil war. Death was a lot closer to the living experience of the 19th century. It's more foreign to us, so more extreme today.
Go watch "Blackhawk Down" again, and then try to compare.
Posted by: Casca at June 29, 2005 04:39 PM (qBTBH)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 28, 2005
Remembering Shelby Foote
Shelby Foote died this morning in Memphis at age 88.
Shelby Foote was the man. About two years ago, i had the pleasure of finishing his Proustian three volume history, The Civil War: A Narrative. It took me nine months of reading to finish it, and like having a baby i imagine, it was both painful and rewarding at the same time.
You may be familiar with Mr. Foote from his talking head appearances in Ken Burns' Civil War series on PBS. His folksy style and always interesting anecdotes were what interested me in his writings originally. So i bought his short novel Shiloh, which was not bad. With my membership in the History Book Club, and a few surplus bonus points, i purchased the 14 volume illustrated Time Life version of the Civil War narrative. i intended to just look at the pretty pictures, set them on a shelf to impress friends with, and maybe pass them on to my kids someday. i never intended to read it.
i saw Ken Burns' documentary, i have two history degrees, i thought i knew enough about the Civil War. And besides, my concentration was always WWII and postwar history. CW history was for the real history geeks, not me. Still, one day i picked up the first volume of the Time Life set during an idle moment, and read a few paragraphs. Amazing. That led to a few chapters and pretty soon i was committed.
The Narrative is very readable -- Foote was a novelist first -- but it is also very detailed. Having read it, i realize now how superficial the Ken Burns documentary was. And that thing was like 12 hours long! To do full justice to the huge subject that is the American Civil War takes time. A lot of time. But as has been said so often, you can't truly understand America without understanding the Civil War. And i do believe that.
It helps to have an interest in military history, though. Because Foote's history describes every single battle and campaign from both a micro and macro perspective. The macro is often the most esoteric, and difficult material. But along with that stuff, there's plenty of personal, political and biographical detail, which makes the Narrative the most comprehensive popular history of the Civil War that will ever be published.
i worked through it partly for the challenge. i knew the general outline of the war, and i knew i had to get to the big events. Sumter, the Bull Runs, Antietam, Vicksburg, Gettysburg, Emancipation, Sherman's march, Appomatox, Ford's Theater, etc. But i learned so much along the way that i had to finish it. To my surprise, i found that some of my favorite subject matter was the history of naval operations during the war. That's a much deeper subject than just the Monitor vs. Virginia battle. Some of the shit that happened on the rivers is pretty unbelievable.
Anyways, i would love to have shaken Shelby Foote's hand and thanked him for having written that huge work, which kept me enthralled for the better part of a year. i almost consider him a professor of mine, because through his books i became a Civil War buff, which i was not before i started.
More: And in the great minds think alike department: The Maximum Leader also wishes he could have shaken the celebrated author's hand.
Posted by: annika at
01:46 PM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
Post contains 575 words, total size 4 kb.
1
Classy post, Annika. I saw the most of the Burns documentary, and I found Foote wonderful to listen to, very knowledgeable and very HUMAN.
Big applause to you for reading his entire CW set of books. I go to book stores often and stare at his CW set like a climber does Mt. Everest. One would love to complete the challenge, but you know in advance that it will be a sacrifice.
I will miss him, despite not reading his work. A sad testament of humanity is that we acknowledge our greatest people AFTER their death.
Posted by: Mark at June 28, 2005 04:22 PM (Vg0tt)
2
Mark, that everest analogy made me smile. That's exactly it! i did that too during many a stop at Barnes & Noble's history section. But i finally bit the bullet, and you can too. i boast a little because i am sort of proud of myself for having read the whole thing.
The thing about WWII is that you can really learn a lot about it from movies and the History Channel without having to crack a book. But that's not so with the Civil War. Historically accurate movies are really hard to find, and there's not that much on the History channel. Unlike WWII the world back then was too different from our own time, and that puts people off. But the differences are what fascinate me the most, along with the great characters: Lincoln, Grant, Lee, Jackson, MacLellan.
i've fallen off on my Civil War reading in the last year or two, but it's a great fun subject.
Posted by: annika at June 28, 2005 04:48 PM (zAOEU)
3
"A sad testament of humanity is that we acknowledge our greatest people AFTER their death."
Shit Mark, it's widely known, that he had chicks out the ying-yang.
Maybe the hardest thing about comprehending the civil war is understanding the zeitgeist. I grew up in an abolitionist stronghold that produced Joshua Giddings & Benjamin Wade, founders of the Republican Party. Wade was the President of the Senate during Andrew Johnson's impeachment, and so was one vote shy of replacing him. Today, the county is a democrat boil on the ass of the rustbelt. C'est la vie.
Posted by: Casca at June 28, 2005 05:22 PM (qBTBH)
4
Yeah Foote was great, even though I often got tired of the civil war, i did like his narration.
I am intrigued that you have two history degrees, I have an economics degree, and after 25 years i have gone back to get a second degree in history to write about history from an economic perspective.
BTW I am currently writing this while the president is giving his address. I may be a silly man, but his voice seems soothing to me. Can you imagine what i would be feeling if i were hearing the halting disembodied brahminisim of Kerry, or the shrill hate speach of Hillary?
Posted by: Kyle at June 28, 2005 05:30 PM (7Re84)
5
imagine what it would have been like to hear the high-pitched country-bumpkin accent of Abraham Lincoln. But his words live forever don't they?
Posted by: annika at June 28, 2005 06:34 PM (dtHLB)
6
Annie:
I'm impressed.
Anyone that finished that American/Russian Novel will have no trouble slogging through year two of law school.
You should be able to do it on your hip.
Posted by: shelly at June 28, 2005 06:56 PM (pO1tP)
7
"Shelby Foote was the man"
I agree. I am in the middle of Volume II.
Robots, basketball, air-conditioning and now the Civil War. You are become more perfect every day.
Posted by: Jake at June 28, 2005 07:35 PM (r/5D/)
8
"Today, the county is a democrat boil on the ass of the rustbelt."
And I thought Annika was the only poet here.
Posted by: Mark at June 28, 2005 11:07 PM (xKJ2p)
9
I loved the Narrative. I never found it bursensome. I especially liked the flashes of humor that revealed so much of the character in the personalities of the Civil War. Here is one incident related by Foote that comes immediately to mind: At the beginning of the War, when many Southern career officers in the old Army were resigning their commissions to join the Confederate army, Sherman sees George Thomas, a Virginian, leaving the War Department, and assumes the worse. "George, where are you going?" he asks. "I'm going south, Bill" Thomas responds. "But George, I vouched for you to the War Department. You're putting me in a terrible spot," Sherman complained. "Not to worry, Bill," Thomas responded, "I'm going south at the head of my troops."
Posted by: Ralphyboy at June 29, 2005 12:33 AM (BYNGx)
10
"...CW history was for the real history geeks, not me."
lol - guess again Annika! But we still love you
Posted by: jimilove at June 29, 2005 04:47 AM (BN/Fu)
11
In general, Ken Burns' series was excellent and Shelby Foote's contributions were critical to its success. The one big criticism I have about the series is that apart for touching very briefly on the subject when discussing the origin of Arlington National Cemetery, essentially no mention is made of the thousands of southerners who remained loyal to the union, and took up arms against their relatives and former friends. Don't forget that so many counties in Virginia stayed loyal to the union that the state of West Virginia was formed. This is also one of the reasons why the union had far more men available despite populations that were much closer. I know that southerners in general don't like to be reminded of this extremely important historical fact, but by ignoring it, Burns and Foote left out the most emotional and fundamental part of the story.
Posted by: Edward Cole at August 07, 2005 08:48 PM (DVf2A)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Just A Question
The BTK Killer's nickname stood for "bind
torture kill. i wonder if he chose to call himself that because he liked to play loud rap music and turn the a/c up on his victims.
i'm not being flip here, just trying to make a semantic point.
Posted by: annika at
07:12 AM
| Comments (28)
| Add Comment
Post contains 52 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I don't think you're being flip at all. I think it's a valid point, and if I had Dick Durbin's ear, I'd ask him that very question.
Although, I'm sure the pseudo-intellects of the Left, such as Al-queda Franken, would tell you that it's just a
different flavor of torture.
Posted by: Robbie at June 28, 2005 07:52 AM (lbWbV)
2
It seems to me there is something a little screwy on the right-wing's view of Gitmo and Abu Gharib--and I speak as a conservative Republican here. On the one hand, it's said that these were the acts of a few wayward, undisciplined soldiers and, while regrettable perhaps, they do not reflect badly on the army or the mission as a whole. On the other hand, these acts are said to be no big deal, a necessary response to a ruthless enemey. The problem is whether they're regrettable acts of folks acting outside their authority, or defensible on their merits.
The fact is the torture allegations go beyond the silly pictures of Lynnie England or the burned Koran story. A dozen or more individuals have died in captivity, some at the hands of their interrogators. A third or more of Gitmore detainees have been released after they were determined not to be AQ. If innocent individuals are being interrogated in a fashion that kills them--with beatings, drowning, etc.--this is the essence of torture and military excess, would you not agree?
That said, the media's obsessive focus on the sensational images of Abu Gharib to the neglect of the more serious allegations--that certain detainees have been killed in custody--shows how immature of an institution it is.
Posted by: Roach at June 28, 2005 08:18 AM (MRlvg)
3
Roach, It's a war. Bad things happen. Some of the "not Al Quaeda" were later killed on the battlefield after we had let them go. Oops.
I'd say that these guys are being treated far better than they deserve. I've heard no practical alternatives to holding them somewhere for the duration of this war. Unless you'd prefer that we execute them as illegal enemy combatants? Which, BTW is completely in accordance with the Geneva Convention.
Posted by: MarkD at June 28, 2005 09:27 AM (oQofX)
4
Roach:
We have no way of knowing how and why these criminals died at Gitmo. They could have died from natural causes. If any of these Bad Guys met a violent death is was due to guards protecting their lives.
These criminals are desperate and insanely violent. At every opportunity, they will try to murder the guards using their feet, hands and their teeth. They make Hannibal Lector look like a 80 year old grandmother.
Every one of those criminals sent to Gitmo was captured in a battle. All should still be in Gitmo today. Through the kindness of America's military, the combatants who were determined not to be hard-core Al Qaida were released. It is a decision the military has regretted often as most of them were recaptured in other battles.
It is hard to believe that you are a conservative. No thinking person would believe anything MSM says about Gitmo and Abu Gharib. MSM has consistently distorted, made-up or exaggerated the facts concerning those two military installations.
Posted by: Jake at June 28, 2005 10:20 AM (r/5D/)
5
You say, " If any of these Bad Guys met a violent death is was due to guards protecting their lives." This is false. Army investigations have focused on more than two dozen cases where captives may have been killed in the course of interrogations, none of which involved claims of self defense. Such killings are in violation of US law, Army regulations, Army rules of engagement, and the like. Here's the Army CID report:
http://www.cid.army.mil/Documents/OIF-OEF%20Homicides.pdf
Mindless cheerleading should not be opposed to the mindless criticisms of the war.
You also say that all the Gitmo detainees were found on the field of battle. This is false in at least some cases, and anyone who has looked into this knows it. Many were turned in by Afghans seeking to cash in on the cash rewards given for pretty much anyone turned in. While some that have been released have been wrongfully released and returned to AQ, at least some are acknowledged by the military and everyone else to be completely innocent. So should torture be used preemptively on anyone, even those who are factually innocent, just to find out? Would't this hurt our PR efforts in the Muslim world--where we're trying to separate jihadists from the uncomitted--and just be wrong to boot? I have no problem with us arresting detainees and determining for ourselves their status, but that does not mean we can or should torture all of them on the mistaken assumption they're all enemy combatants, nor does it mean we should tolerate the violations of Army rules and regs by lower level guys that decide for themselves to torture anyone, i.e., those that violate direct orders. The Army itself has concluded many of these detainees are not enemy combatants. http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050608-112525-6483r.htm
The mindless jingoistic chorus from the so-called conservatives in this country that refuse to look at the facts (and distorts those that exist) is not conservatism. You have to fight lies with truth, not more lies or raw and false assertions.
Posted by: Roach at June 28, 2005 11:18 AM (MRlvg)
6
How do you sleep at night? You know, being on the same side as the terrorists, and all?
Posted by: Robbie at June 28, 2005 12:52 PM (lbWbV)
7
Unbelievable. Hey Robbie, go buy a clue, read a book, and learn a little something. It's Army officers in the JAG corps and the FBI who've raised the biggest stink about this. Are they on the same side as terrorists? Do I have to make excuses for illegal actions not to be on the same side as the terrorists. I agree this doesn't belong on page 1, etc., but that doesn't mean it doesn't matter at all.
Incidentally, is the Army and Navy CID on the same side as the terrorists.
One more thing, go fuck yourself Robbie.
Posted by: Roach at June 28, 2005 01:44 PM (MRlvg)
8
Hey Robbie, how does it feel not to have something intelligent to say? To live in a world where on any issue, no matter all the various degrees of opinion and sub-issues, there are two positions -- pro-terrorist and anti-terrorist?
Maybe you'll think about what a stupid, worthless little shit you apparently are before accusing someone who had two brothers serve in Iraq, and who had an NYFD uncle die on 9/11, of being a terrorist sympathizer.
You worthless, sniveling little fuck.
Posted by: Answerman at June 28, 2005 02:20 PM (wQzfm)
9
Insults always clarify everything.
Posted by: Mark at June 28, 2005 04:24 PM (Vg0tt)
10
Hey answerman, I noticed that while listing all the brave people in your family, you left yourself off that list.
Having served in Iraq in the US Army, I can tell you that my first hand experiences just don't vibe with all the hearsay that you've read on the Internet.
Posted by: Robbie at June 28, 2005 04:25 PM (htx4h)
11
Roach:
I stand by what I said. I read the CID report, and it no way supports your accusations that you made.
We have not tortured prisons at Gitmo. We have applied psychological pressure on these terrorists which is allowed by the Geneva convention. Muslims hear what some Americans call torture and they laugh at the Americans sucked into believing terrorist propaganda.
Your mindless jingoistic chorus is not conservatism. You are ignoring the truth and believe only lies or raw and false assertions.
Posted by: Jake at June 28, 2005 04:47 PM (r/5D/)
12
Actually he was talking about me and my family, which someone with basic command of English grammar would have noticed. So, do you still think I support terrorists simply because I conclude that some of what was undeniably torture took place under US auspices?
Why do you feel so free to insult people and their patriotism, Robbie, as soon as they disagree with you on some particular? Why do you think that people who've not served in our military are not patriotic or are liberals? And what of the CID, JAG, and FBI folks mentioned above? What of the fact that certain lies and misinformation are the only way to support your position?
You served. Good for you. That doesn't mean you get to win every debate on any subject relating to the military or foreign policy for the rest of your life. We're a republic of equal citizens; not a warrior aristocracy.
Posted by: Roach at June 28, 2005 04:48 PM (MRlvg)
13
Well Jake, I'm just willing to believe things that are troubling, and not dismiss them as "raw assertions." It's true the tortures in quesiton took place in Iraq and Afghanistan--not Gitmo--but that doesn't change the fact that killing someone in an interrogation through suffocation or blunt trauma is torture under any reasonable definition of that term.
Look up jingoistic when you get a chance; you're obviously misusing the word.
Posted by: Roach at June 28, 2005 04:51 PM (MRlvg)
14
Robbie, unlike Roach, I thank you for your sacrifices in serving your country.
Posted by: Mark at June 28, 2005 05:20 PM (Vg0tt)
15
Mark maybe you can lick his boots to show real appreciation.
Posted by: Roach at June 28, 2005 05:24 PM (MRlvg)
16
U da man, Robbie.
The man in the arena always has to listen to this kind of shit.
Everyone who takes arms against this country has given up the right to life, unless of course it was for the cause of hanging five members of the Supreme Court.
Posted by: Casca at June 28, 2005 05:35 PM (qBTBH)
17
Robbie, that's wonderful that you served. Of course, it doesn't excuse you for being a piece of shit who -- in response to reasoned argument from Roach with which you may or may not agree (anyone who cares, read Roach's original comment) -- feels justified in cavalierly accusing people whom you don't know of the most morally vile things imaginable, like sympathy with the terrorists.
You're a dimwitted cheerleader who can't have an intelligent debate with someone who supports the war but has certain policy disagreements with Bush. Although you service does you proud, your comments in here do you, the Republican Party, and your country shame. You're an embarrassment to this country, and your unthinking, populist approach is truly cause for sadness about our future.
Rot in hell, cocksucker.
Posted by: Answerman at June 28, 2005 06:50 PM (Jl3/M)
18
Answerman seems to be a little contradictory and apparently believes hell, with the most hideous suffering and torture imaginable (for the rest of eternity even), is an appropriate place for our bravest guys like Robbie.
DO NOT QUESTION HIS PATRIOTISM!!
Posted by: d-rod at June 28, 2005 08:52 PM (EHJaf)
19
Answerman did not question Robbie's patriotism; he questioned his good sense, and he questioned his judgment and intellect. This should be obvious, if you read the exchange above. Robbie rather questioned my patriotism, rather than addressing the merits of what I wrote above. Answerman said something that I would not have said myself, namely, that my family background (and personal background if truth be told) makes it pretty ridiculous to question my patriotism.
If it's wrong and ilegal to kill people during interrogations--some of whom may not be terrorists, hence the point of interogation--and the CID and FBI have tried to prevent these unauthorized and in some cases illegal actions, then I think I'm in good company for distinguishing these incidents from the A/C and other mild coercions of Gitmo. My only point was pretty limited: that focusing on the "rap music" and mild pressure of Gitmo does not tell the whole story, that some of what everyone would classify as torture has been committed by a small number of US troops.
As for Robbie, it's pretty ridiculous for people to expect me to get on my knees and thank him for service when, patriotic or otherwise, he has acted like an asshole and pulled out some pretty strong accusations at the first sign of disagreement. Guess what, there are assholes in that have served in the US military too. It doesn't make you a saint to be a veteran and it doesn't mean you get to win every debate on military and related matters until the day you die. If you want your servie respected, you should not use it as a cudgel.
Posted by: Roach at June 29, 2005 07:37 AM (MRlvg)
20
Um... I was suggesting that we not question
Answerman's patriotism, Roach, since he seems a little unbalanced (in a Nancy Pelosi sort of way). Sorry if that was unclear.
Posted by: d-rod at June 29, 2005 07:47 AM (ASqxY)
21
As Duff Cooper wrote, the jingo nationalist "is always the first to denounce his fellow countrymen as traitors." Of course, most jingo nationalists likely do their denouncing with a little more reasoning and argument that our own dear Robbie. But he gets points for the effort.
And d-rod, I don't recall anyone above questioning my patriotism, but I do appreciate your preemptive warning to low-IQ cheerleaders like Robbie and his ilk. Keep up the good work.
Posted by: Answerman at June 29, 2005 09:06 AM (Jl3/M)
22
I respect Robbie and Roach. Cease the conservative infighting. Initiate the truce. Let's get back on the same page and resume bashing the anti-American "Robert McClellands" of the world instead.
Posted by: reagan80 at June 29, 2005 10:00 AM (hlMFQ)
23
Reagan 80 I appreciate your magnanimity and desire for conservative unity, but I wouldn't want to be associated with anyone that felt so free to hurl around accusations of "supporting terrorists" and treason.
These are not our people; they're not liberals, but they're not conservatives either. They're some kind of militaristic, populist, jingoistic, half-breed. They're the folks that "hate" journalists, lawyers, college professors, successful businessmen, and pretty much anyone with an education. There is a weird mismash of class envy, fear, cocksure certainty, and ignorance propelling the jingoist to the forefront. They crowd out true conservative ideas with their quick accusations and dimwitted pseudo-analysis. And, if they're at all influenced by ideas, it's the world-wide crusading gobbeldygook of the neoconservative theorists at Weekly Standard, the stuff that used to be associated with FDR and liberals. The older America First traditions of Lindbergh, Albert Jay Nock, Russell Kirk, and Robert Taft are totally off their radar. They'd be as at home with Woodrow Wilson and Huey Long, as any of the real conservative statesmen of the 20th Century. They may vote the right way, but that's about it. They're not men of ideas and good sense, but of crude impulses. Their domination of the Republican party is why we've seen no real limitations on government under Bush, whom the new militarist-populists worship. Throw a few bones about gay marriage and look serious about the war and they're happy.
And this trend is on the rise. This human type is more prevalent. Quick to denounce, devoid of independent thinking, and quick to classify the least disagreement on a any particular as a heresy worthy of putting one in the enemy camp. These are not my friens. I wouldn't want to make peace with them. Mencken was down on these people for a reason.
Posted by: Roach at June 29, 2005 12:44 PM (MRlvg)
24
How fitting that Reagan80 would invoke Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment: "Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican."
: )
Posted by: annika at June 29, 2005 06:30 PM (jUmhP)
25
I wonder how the Gipper would have felt about tossing around the accusation "terrorist sympathizer"?
Posted by: Answerman at June 29, 2005 07:02 PM (Jl3/M)
26
Two words, "Evil Empire".
Posted by: Casca at June 30, 2005 08:48 PM (qBTBH)
27
Ah, so we see that the brainless populists on the Right equate reasoned policy criticisms by patriotic Americans with totalitarian governments bent on destroying us.
Casca may not be bright, but at least his comments are enlightening.
Posted by: Answerman at July 01, 2005 09:00 AM (wQzfm)
28
Am I the only one to think that in some photos, the BTK killer looks vaguely reminiscent of Salman Rushdie?
Posted by: NuggetMaven at July 07, 2005 09:41 AM (DP5IG)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 27, 2005
A Lovely Left Blogger
i wanted to see what bloggers were saying about the death of 58 year old Wal-Mart heir and Silver Star awardee, John Walton.
He died in Wyoming today, when his experimental ultra-light crashed.
i looked up "John Walton" on Technorati and saw a pretty disgusting LiveJournal entry by a "blogger" (LJ blogs aren't real blogs, as you all know.) whom i won't link to. This ignorant bitch requires registration to read her drivel, so i couldn't read the whole entry. But the Technorati robot pulled this quote, which was quite enough:
The 11th richest asshole in the world ($18 billion) was killed in some kind of plane crash in Wyomning. John Walton (of Walmart), 53, is plunging towards the bowels of hell at this very moment.
John Walton, was more than just the world's eleventh richest man. He was a Green Beret medic in Vietnam, who received his Silver Star "for helping save the lives of several members of his unit while under intense enemy fire." i wonder if that LiveJournal bitch was aware of that.
Like most Americans with his kind of wealth, Mr. Walton was known as a philanthropist. The foundation he ran donated over 700 million dollars to education related causes over the last six years. i wonder how much LiveJournal bitch has contributed to charity.
Oh annika, you don't understand; the Waltons are rich, conservative, anti-union and Christian, so that makes them the embodiment of evil.
[As i continue to bang my head against the wall.]
Update: Zombyboy plumbs the depths of depravity known as the Democratic Underground, where many comments are in a similar, bigoted and hateful vein.
Posted by: annika at
11:35 PM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
Post contains 269 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Annie,
While you and I, and no doubt Mr. Walton's fellow soldiers, may be impressed and thankful for his courageous service, the left would view it as just further evidence that he was a "killer".
Posted by: Pursuit at June 28, 2005 05:10 AM (n/TNS)
2
annie, stop banging your head on the wall; I find it better to mutter, "Tut, tut," while shaking my head ruefully. It's less painful, doesn't leave scars, and is just as effective in dealing with those who do not see.
Posted by: Victor at June 28, 2005 05:16 AM (L3qPK)
3
yes, pursuit, but medics are non-combatants! for pete's sake.
Posted by: annika at June 28, 2005 06:57 AM (aQZcw)
4
Ah, but he was saving the lives of killers!
Posted by: Pursuit at June 28, 2005 07:06 AM (n/TNS)
5
Ms. Annie...
You might want to check with Matt over at Blackfive but I don't think Special Forces medics are noncombatants...
Posted by: davek at June 28, 2005 07:07 AM (oBH+P)
6
Yes, it seems that John Walton committed the biggest crime against humanity, he had money. It's a shame, I am sure. It's too bad that he isn't as talented as Micheal Moore because he is such a positive role model for society. He has money, but he is all about helping out the poor - right? I'm sorry, I am digressing.
Actually you are spot on. The LJ'er couldn't be bothered about finding out the actual truth about the man. All she needed to know was that he had money. But it's odd, I doubt that she will ever say anything nasty about all those celeBRATies who have all that money...
Posted by: ethne at June 28, 2005 07:26 AM (miAG4)
7
Since when do idiots permit facts, reason, and logic to get in their way?
And talking ill about a man who died a day prior in a PLANE CRASH -- how classy can you get?
Posted by: Mark at June 28, 2005 09:20 AM (bToiD)
8
sure - she/it was way to busy hating the man for being successful to actually research what he was all about ... and being a proud member of the lower 49%.
/TJ
Posted by: TJ at June 28, 2005 09:22 AM (9Rmby)
9
annie,
take victor's advice.
i wonder if this guy was the guy/father that got into that naming fiasco at the u of mizzou a couple years ago.
although i don't condemn the rich, i do wonder out loud sometimes how people that are as dumb as dirt, read as THK, can fall into a pile of shit and come out smelling like a lincoln rose.
trust fund babies.
Posted by: louielouie at June 28, 2005 10:54 AM (xKfMm)
10
It makes me so sick that someone could make that kind of statement. Disgusting.
Posted by: ginger at June 28, 2005 12:33 PM (g2QG2)
11
Annie,
Thank you for the additional information about John Walton. It gives us information on the kind of man he was.
It is wrong that some people assume because a person has a lot of money, that person is a jerk.
Appears to me to be just the opposite.
Again, thank you.
Posted by: N Diane at June 28, 2005 02:54 PM (CAT+l)
12
Don't hurt your head! Its such a pretty head. And filled with Civil War knowledge....
Posted by: gcotharn at June 28, 2005 05:34 PM (U/NfN)
13
i'm new to this site. it's so much fun to see passive-aggressive right-wingers pat each other on the back! it's almost so obvious that we shouldn't speak ill of this man who died the other day that you all shouldn't have to reassure yourselves so much. almost. it's great to watch though, you all took that one disgusting comment from some clueless webmonger and used it not only to defend something that hadn't been attacked (the monied class, or whatever) but to attack the imaginary attackers. you rightwingers have used this imaginary-attacker-siege-mentality to great effect recently, mostly defending yourselves from the phantom "attacks" by the left on things like marriage (gasp! gay marriage will kill america!) and religion (gasp! we're under fire because everyone doesn't agree with us!). don't you realize that defending something that hasn't been attacked makes you seem weak? anyway. i look forward to your snarky, passive-aggressive pile-on of responses. it'll be funny to see what happens when you aren't in the majority anymore and you have to figure out what you're really about again. endless power and enlargement of government aren't exactly bedrock republican principles, but you seem to have made an exception for bush.
by the way, however full of shit that LJ bitch was, the reason some reasonable people don't like wal-mart is that it has put small businesses out of business and basically shuttered whole regions of the country. in the red states mostly. where's the outcry.
now answer a question i didnt ask, defend against something that wasn't attacked, and spew the party line! it's fun and simple!
Posted by: eric at June 30, 2005 11:34 AM (hiCir)
14
how about i just fucking ignore you?
Posted by: annika at June 30, 2005 12:56 PM (Y4qg6)
15
well you're enlightened and that's what bush wants so enjoy.
so much anger.
Posted by: eric at June 30, 2005 01:31 PM (hiCir)
16
Here's the accusation:
(Take a) comment from some clueless webmonger and use...it not only to defend something that hadn't been attacked...but to attack the imaginary attackers.
And here's the accuser doing that very thing:
don't you realize that defending something that hasn't been attacked makes you seem weak? anyway. i look forward to your snarky, passive-aggressive pile-on of responses.
Nice!
Posted by: Desert Cat at June 30, 2005 05:31 PM (n/TmV)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
There's Only One Thing To Do...
...repeal the Establishment Clause.
Really.
Okay, maybe just Marbury, then.
Read Justice Scalia's dissent in McCreary County v. A.C.L.U., starting at screen page 39. It's too long to excerpt here, while i'm supposed to be working, but it is beautiful and worth the effort to read.
Posted by: annika at
02:22 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 58 words, total size 1 kb.
1
In regard to the Establishment Clause, the High Court proves to be consistently inconsistent.
How can average Americans be able to even discuss the Establishment Clause when the top judges in the land are as confused as drunkards riding the Tilt a Whirl?
Posted by: Mark at June 27, 2005 04:09 PM (Vg0tt)
2
this scalia guy is sharp.
i wonder if he and justice stevens will be sharing drinks this evening.
thanks annie for the source. an interesting read.
i guess he didn't want to accentuate the protestant aspect of religion in pointing out that the first congress consisted of 24 ordained or in-training ministers.
Posted by: louielouie at June 28, 2005 11:15 AM (xKfMm)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
A Major's View
Doug Tennapel interviewed United States Air Force Major Steven A. Givler, who served during both Iraq wars as an intelligence officer.
Some highlights:
As far as ethics and rules of engagement are concerned, we take greater pains than any military in the world to safeguard civilian life. We actually incur a good deal of risk in order to avoid hurting people or damaging property. People donÂ’t realize what a change this is from how war has been waged throughout history. Civilian populations have always born the brunt of war, and suffered from the after effects. Look at WWII.
To destroy a single factory in Germany we might have had to destroy the entire city surrounding it, just because of the inaccuracy of our weapons. In Japan, we had to destroy even more because of JapanÂ’s decentralized industries. In Iraq though, I stood on a bridge that had been destroyed with a single laser-guided bomb. The mosque next to the bridge was completely unscathed. We could have carpeted the entire area with a B-52 full of dumb bombs from a safe altitude, but instead we sent in a fighter that risked surface to air fire just so we could be precise and spare any unnecessary damage. This in spite of the fact that our enemy makes no distinction between military and civilian, and has time and time again, used mosques and churches for military purposes such as fighting positions or places for hiding weapons caches.
. . .
When I see those 'war is not the answer' bumper stickers, I always wonder 'what was the question?' Because maybe weÂ’re talking different questions. Certainly, if the question is 'What do you do about a group of men who believe in slavery, who are completely dedicated to killing every one of us, and who cannot be negotiated with,' the war is definitely the answer.
People with those bumper stickers remind me of people who think meat comes from a grocery store. They have completely forgotten that something had to die in order for them to eat, and before it found its way to that sterile Styrofoam tray, that steak went through a very messy process. They have forgotten too, that our founding fathers said that occasionally the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of patriots. It amazes me that they seem unaware that, were it not for war, their bumper stickers, if they were allowed to have them, would be printed in German, or Japanese, or Russian. War, and our success at it, is precisely what has earned them the freedom to be so naïve.
Unfortunately, the world is an imperfect place. Evil exists. Some people are so given over to it that there is nothing else that can be done with them other than to kill them. I know this is difficult for some people to believe. I wish I could show them what IÂ’ve seen, like the Brothel Palace, outside of Baghdad, where Saddam and his friends imprisoned women they kidnapped off the streets. Or maybe I could introduce them to Iraqis who were forced to watch their family members fed feet-first (to prolong the suffering) through plastic shredders. Maybe that would change their minds, but probably not. ThatÂ’s alright. IÂ’ve been there. I know that 5 million Iraqis owe their freedom to a war fought for them by Americans. I know that for them, war has definitely been the answer.
Posted by: annika at
11:07 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 578 words, total size 3 kb.
1
My favorite quote:
"People with those bumper stickers remind me of people who think meat comes from a grocery store. They have completely forgotten that something had to die in order for them to eat, and before it found its way to that sterile Styrofoam tray, that steak went through a very messy process."
Rock on, Major.
Posted by: reagan80 at June 27, 2005 01:17 PM (hlMFQ)
2
Wonderful post. Spread this one around the whole blogosphere.
Seriously.
Posted by: Mark at June 27, 2005 04:11 PM (Vg0tt)
3
Certainly there is truth in what this air force pogue has to say, BUTT-Monkey, one thing that civilians don't understand about the military is that the differences between the services, and the specialties within, which have survived over a decade of androgenization to emerge in wartime as starkly pragmatic. The Air Force has had almost no casualties, while the Marine Corps has borne a disproportionate share in the war in Iraq. Ground combat is an entirely different animal than dropping a bomb on a bridge. Ask those shitheads in Fallujah what we didn't shoot. If we made a mistake in this war, it was in being too careful, and not bloody enough. God bless Curtis Lemay, he understood.
Posted by: Casca at June 27, 2005 05:38 PM (qBTBH)
4
amazingly deep comments. i wish i could see a brainscan of you people. it's amazing how deftly you deflect and obfuscate, answering questions that were never asked and changing the answers when it suits you. do you really believe all liberals don't know the costs of war? i tune out the dopey democrats who say we should pull out - we're there, so we have to finish the job, clearly. but when someone asks how we can improve the safety of our forces, or whether we should even TALK about a plan for getting out eventually, you all act as if the questioner is a terrorist sympathizer. that's called ignoring the question, which is a clear sign of weakness and, recently, desperation. i know to you rightwingers nixon was a liberal, so maybe this won't help - but the stuff i hear every day about questioning the leader being akin to helping the enemy has been copied verbatim from nixon+vietnam. desperate. i don't believe you're all stupid or crazy, so i wonder why you're hanging onto it so aggressively.
everyone knows that war is bad, and i hope even you fringers can answer the simple question "would you rather have war or not war?" correctly.
the meat analogy is telling - if you look close, you might say the author is suggesting that we look at the causes, justifications, and planning that led to this war. but you don't like to do that. it's much easier to just spit the party line.
Posted by: eric at June 30, 2005 11:47 AM (hiCir)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 26, 2005
There's An Idea
Via
Rodger, this cool story from
The Australian:
Ex-hostage hires bounty hunters
A hostage held alongside Australian Douglas Wood in Iraq has hired bounty hunters to track down his former captors, promising to eliminate them one by one.
Swede Ulf Hjertstrom, who was held for several weeks with Mr Wood in Baghdad, was released by his kidnappers on May 30.
Mr Hjertstrom has since claimed he shared information with US and Iraqi troops about Mr Wood which led to the release of the 63-year-old Australian engineers two weeks ago, after 47 days in captivity.
Now, he wants to find those responsible.
'I have now put some people to work to find these bastards,' he told the Ten Network today.
'I invested about $50,000 so far and we will get them one by one.'
i guess he didn't buy into that whole Stockholm Syndrome nonsense. Gotta love it.
More: i found this apalling story about the Australian hostage Douglas Wood at Andi's World. It shouldn't shock me, yet somehow it does.
It seems that lunacy isn't exclusive to American journalists. After Douglas Woods, the Australian contractor kidnapped in Iraq, was freed from captivity, he actually expressed his true feelings for his captors by calling them a**holes. These remarks have drawn the ire of one Andrew Jaspan, editor of a left-wing newspaper in Australia.
Jaspan tells us that Woods went way too far with his remarks:
Said Jaspan: "I was, I have to say, shocked by Douglas Wood's use of the a---hole word, if I can put it like that, which I just thought was coarse and very ill-thought through and I think demeans the man and is one of the reasons why people are slightly sceptical of his motives and everything else.
Woods greatest sin was to say "God Bless America" and praise American and Iraqi forces. Apparently, Jaspan thinks Woods should have been more grateful to his captors and a little less grateful to the forces who freed him. After all, his captors didn't torment him too badly.
Well, unless you count kidnapping him, kicking him in the head, keeeping him blindfolded and bound for 47 days, shaving him bald, killing two of his colleagues, making him beg for his life, and -- according to Hjertstrom -- shooting several other prisoners in front of him.
Wow. What is wrong with the far left? And how can anyone on God's earth take them seriously? It makes me want to bang my head against a wall sometimes.
Australian lefties, while Woods was still in chains, used him as a prop in their crusade against the forces of "U.S. Imperialism." Now that he's free, and free to speak the truth, the lefties have no use for him. And in fact, now they've come to despise Mr. Woods.
But we know what Wood's real offence is, don't we?
Yes, he did not do as did SBS journalist and Left hero John Martinkus after his own brief captivity and declare his kidnappers were "not savages", and say Iraq was 'on the road to s---'.
INSTEAD, he roared 'God bless America' and praised the US-trained Iraqi soldiers -- Iraq's real freedom fighters -- who saved him, saying he was 'proof positive that the current policies of the American and Australian governments is the right one'.
It seems that to a Leftist, this makes Wood the boorish inferior of the killers who beat him and held him captive. It is why journalist Tracee Hutchinson, in an Age column, calls him a 'blustering buffoon', moaning: 'It was enough that his words God bless America had been played over and over on his release.'
Let me ask younger readers still deciding on their brand of politics. Wouldn't you blush to join this Left?
Exactly.
[Cross-posted at A Western Heart.]
Posted by: annika at
11:33 AM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
Post contains 629 words, total size 5 kb.
1
$50K? Better be getting heads in boxes at that price.
Posted by: Casca at June 26, 2005 12:19 PM (qBTBH)
2
i just got back from ocean city.
thanks for the interest.
now i have to think up something to post. hmmmm...
p.s. Rodger Schultz was my first favorite blog - he's a riot.
-nikita
Posted by: nikita demosthenes at June 26, 2005 12:21 PM (u4CZI)
3
This Andrew Jaspan is a intellectual cripple.
HOW EASY IT IS to tell others how to react to their most horrifying experience. Truth is, Jaspan is not so much concerned with Wood's naughty words as he is with sympathizing with murders and thugs.
This is a very unfortunate aspect of liberalism. It generally sympathizes with the offender, not the victim.
I, too, shall now bang my head against the wall.
Posted by: Mark at June 26, 2005 05:08 PM (Vg0tt)
4
Can you imagine how dangerous it would be for Western bounty hunters(if they are Western) to start searching these assholes out? Still, bounty hunters on a revenge mission is a Hollywood movie come to life. Were they younger, Stallone, Steven Segall, Van Damme, and Chuck Norris, at a minimum, would all be trying to find financing for this movie.
Who could most effectively take out the assholes:
Stallone
Segall
Van Damme
Norris
Schwartzenegger
Joe Don
Dog the Bounty Hunter
Dog the Bounty Hunter's wife
Beatrix
or
Lara Croft?
Posted by: gcotharn at June 26, 2005 08:37 PM (U/NfN)
5
Wild cards:
O-Ren Ishii
Charles Bronson
Jason Bourne
Jack Bauer
Bonus Dialogue for chosen assassin to speak in Farsi:
"You and I have unfinished business!"
Posted by: gcotharn at June 26, 2005 08:45 PM (U/NfN)
6
BTW, might there be ANY relationship between the mentality which produces a total of zero non-puppet WOT movies, and this headline from today:
"U.S. Box Office Hits Longest Modern Slump"
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050626/D8AVJ0902.html
Naaaaahhh. Total coincidence, I'm sure.
Posted by: gcotharn at June 26, 2005 08:59 PM (U/NfN)
7
BTW II:
That puppet WOT movie? Sucker made money. Lots of it. Also total coincidence, I'm sure.
Try this thought experiment:
What if the Southparkers had made a puppet anti-war movie which ripped Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and various Gulag-y enlisted war criminals. Would that movie have made as much money? Hint: Does anyone remember the huge success of the Southparkers' "That's My Bush" on Comedy Central?
Posted by: gcotharn at June 26, 2005 09:04 PM (U/NfN)
8
Chef, here are the grid coordinates, your callsign is allmighty.
Posted by: Casca at June 26, 2005 10:33 PM (qBTBH)
9
Speaking of puppets, wonder what Triumph the Insult Comic Dog would think of all this.
"Hirrring bounty hunterrrs to kill kidnapperrrs. Brrrilliant idea. For me to pooooop on."
Posted by: mark at June 26, 2005 11:12 PM (NY9f3)
10
Annika wrote{Wow. What is wrong with the far left?}
uuhhmm, they are Stupid?, evil,? cowardly?, all of the above?
Posted by: Kyle at June 27, 2005 02:16 PM (7Re84)
11
Hjerström's boys have apparently caught up with two of his abductors...
http://www.spectator.se/stambord/?p=927
Posted by: Billy McCormac at June 30, 2005 05:54 AM (kcL6z)
12
Dog the bounty hunter could and would get in there and take these scrotes down, HARD!
Posted by: NightHunter at September 07, 2005 05:58 AM (w839m)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Tom's Lost It
Somebody give the man some
Prozac.
More at Wizbang.
[Also, i linked to Beth. Because she said i could.]
Posted by: annika at
12:30 AM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
Post contains 15 words, total size 1 kb.
1
HEY, IT''S NOT SUNDAY YET!!! Are you at Wimbleton or something?
Posted by: d-rod at June 25, 2005 11:21 PM (tUe0u)
2
So now Tom thinks he can decide the ehalth treatment of everyone else? Sheesh..
Posted by: Rachel Ann at June 25, 2005 11:27 PM (cANTF)
3
Boy am I confused.
Is it Scientology or Katie Holmes' sexual capabilities that has taken his mind?
Celebrity = money = knowing everything = right to be rude to everyone.
Not.
We report; you decide.
However, I've decided. No more Tom Cruise movies for me in my lifetime. He goes in with Sean Penn, Barbra Steisand, Alec Baldwin, Tim Robbins, Janeane Garafolo, Al Franken and an ever growing bunch of psuedo intellectuals who think they know something because people gawk at them.
My favorite quote is still Elvis Presley; when asked about his opinion of the war, he said "Lady, I'm just an entertainer."
Thanks you Elvis, you are the King.
Posted by: shelly at June 26, 2005 04:51 AM (pO1tP)
4
Sigh it's a sad sad day when anyone on the Today show looks smarter than...well...anyone.
Posted by: jody at June 26, 2005 06:53 AM (ByVKO)
5
i can't go cold turkey on the Cruise, Shelly. i've enjoyed most if not all of his movies. He may be a jerk, but he's got a good agent.
Posted by: annika at June 26, 2005 07:19 AM (kwh2s)
6
No doubt Tom will go home with his new Beard (er, woman) and banish Matt Thetans, by reciting an ode to Xenu.
I wonder how many people know that Scientology was started as a bet between two hack science fiction writers?
Posted by: Kyle at June 26, 2005 07:40 AM (7Re84)
7
Readers of this blog know. Check the comments to
this post.
Posted by: annika at June 26, 2005 08:14 AM (kwh2s)
8
Yes, we all know, except for Tom and Katie, of course.
Posted by: shelly at June 26, 2005 11:19 AM (pO1tP)
9
To his credit, atleast Tom did SOME reading and SOME research. (What exactly that was, I don't know. Of course, knowledge is a poor excuse for arrogance.)
It could be worse. We could be dealing with Janeane Garofalo.
Posted by: Mark at June 26, 2005 05:09 PM (Vg0tt)
10
Tom claims there is no such thing as chemical imbalances. (!!!!) His interview appeared to contradict that statement.
Posted by: Mark at June 26, 2005 11:14 PM (NY9f3)
11
Tom may have regressed from "clear," which should only take about $350,000 to rectify...
Posted by: L. Ron at June 27, 2005 06:19 AM (2CAKL)
12
I am soooooooooooooooo going to linkback to this animation!
Posted by: NuggetMaven at June 29, 2005 12:07 PM (DP5IG)
13
I totally agree. That is exactly how I understand it.I am very lucky to get this tips from you
neon signs wholesale. Great! Thanks for sharing will be sure to follow this blog regularly
Business Signs. WOW! this is awesome
LED neon sign! you can download it at my website for FREE along with lots of other games and media content
LED Signs. I look forward to more updates and will be returning.Cheers!
Posted by: Advertising signs at January 21, 2011 02:58 AM (zpIH7)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 25, 2005
250,000th Visitor
Congratulations to the 250,000th visitor to my site. You found me via a google search for "sex poems." i'd call you a perv, except that my site comes up as the number two link for "sex poems," so what does that say about me?
Posted by: annika at
02:20 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 48 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: Casca at June 25, 2005 03:56 PM (qBTBH)
2
funny!! oooh i failed miserably at the 4 question QUIZ!!
1.How do you put a giraffe into a refrigerator?
cut it up...
2.How do you put an elephant into a refrigerator?
get a bigger fridge!
3.The Lion King is hosting an animal conference. All the animals attend... except one. Which animal does not attend?
the human.
4.There is a river you must cross but it is inhabited by crocodiles, and you do not have a boat. How do you manage it?
...still thinking on that one!
i had to like scratch my head for like 45 min... heee... but being sick it kept the thoughts of pain away... thanks...
Posted by: maizzy at June 25, 2005 05:32 PM (FbHOJ)
Posted by: annika at June 25, 2005 09:41 PM (95PTW)
4
250, 000? My Blogger blog got over 15,000.
I can't even get Sitemeter to work on my new site. *sigh*
Posted by: Mark at June 26, 2005 02:00 AM (gsO4u)
5
Barbara Boxer is naked? WHERE?
Posted by: mark at June 26, 2005 05:10 PM (Vg0tt)
6
Congratulations...doesn't matter to any of us how you arrived at 250K...just that Crystal Clear you have arrived time and time and time again...Here is hoping the next 250k are even sweeter than the last!
Posted by: Crystal Clear at June 26, 2005 09:23 PM (CQDk7)
7
Congrats, for making it hapen, anyway.
Posted by: Shirazi at June 27, 2005 05:56 AM (G8Pvj)
8
Gotta be the poetry, man. CongRATulations!
Posted by: Victor at June 27, 2005 06:02 AM (L3qPK)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The Kick-Ass Movie Assassins Runoff: Round One Results
A week or so ago, i asked this provocative question in my rotating poll: "If Jason Bourne and Jack Bauer were each given orders to kill each other, who would win?"
The results are in. You decided, with 76% of the vote, that Jason Bourne would kill Jack Bauer.
Much as i love Jack Bauer, i'd have to add my vote to the 76%. Jason Bourne kicks ass!
One thing about Jason Bourne, and i haven't read the Ludlum books so i'm only relying on the Matt Damon portrayal here, but he is freakin' deadly all by himself. Without the aid of a memory, or any organizational backup at all, he was able to alternately hide from, or escape from the clutches of, any government's intelligence or police apparatus, including about a half dozen of the world's best assassins sent to get him. Plus he's a hell of a nice guy.
The trouble with Jack Bauer is that he is nothing without CTU. And CTU is unreliable at best. Look what happened last year. In twenty-four hours CTU managed to allow someone to take over all the U.S. nuclear power plants by remote control, resulting in a nuclear meltdown and thousands of deaths, someone then stole an F-117 stealth fighter and shot down Air Force One, probably killing the president.*
Poor Jack Bauer. Without his little palm pilot he's pretty much useless. Unfortunately, that palm pilot links him to CTU, which as Dawn Summers once pointed out, "has more leaks than the Nixon White House."
Jack has his strengths, to be sure. He doesn't quit, and he doesn't shy away from doing what has to be done. Like, for instance, shooting his boss in the leg or in the head, or killing his girlfriend's husband for "national security" reasons, wink-wink. Too bad Audrey Heller couldn't see that he is actually a pretty nice guy, too. Whatta picky bitch.
But the key reason i think Jason Bourne would win this round is that he's so damn fast. And when he fights, he attacks. It's like three punches and three guys go down in one second. i've never seen Jack fight like that, although maybe he hasn't had the opportunity. Next season, when Jack's flying solo, we might get to see what he can do without CTU, so i'm looking forward to that.
Next up: Beatrix Kiddo vs. Lara Croft (not technically an assassin but what the heck.) So go vote.
_______________
* i'm still not clear on that. Did the president die or not?
Posted by: annika at
08:13 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 439 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Good analysis. Bourne wins.
Audrey is not only a picky bitch, she's a whiny bitch. And, as written, inconsistent. First, to protect national security secrets, she tries to participate in a double suicide with her father. Then, after that incredible act of heroism, she spends much of the rest of the day moping around like the weakest "Perils of Pauline" character ever.
Also, think of all those episodes in the context of a single day. If you are Audrey, for about 20 hours, every hour on the hour, Jack is on the phone in the most grating, unctuous tone ever, asking: "Audrey, are you ok?"
Can you imagine being Audrey and having to listen to that puppy dog crap every 60 minutes? "Jesus, Jack, I'm FINE. For Chissakes, stop calling me and go save the nation already! BTW, don't call me back, ever, you co-dependent fuck!"
Posted by: gcotharn at June 25, 2005 08:46 AM (U/NfN)
2
LOL, gcotharn. excellent analysis on this most important topic.
Posted by: annika at June 25, 2005 09:02 AM (Cfw4j)
3
the only way bauer would have a chance against bourne would be to carry a one year old kid in the other hand, holding the palm pilot in the other of course.
seeing the one year old kid would turn bourne into a sitting duck i could take out with a bb gun.
some hot shot assasin. he's got blood in his veins.
Posted by: louielouie at June 25, 2005 10:00 AM (xKfMm)
4
Hey Annika,
Thanks for watching my back, we babealicious bloggers must watch out for each other......I got you covered
Call on me if you ever need anything
Mwah!
Posted by: Pamela aka "Atlas" at June 25, 2005 11:44 AM (ywZa8)
5
Shoulda smotherfucked her.
Posted by: Casca at June 25, 2005 01:21 PM (qBTBH)
Posted by: Victor at June 27, 2005 06:03 AM (L3qPK)
7
OMG Victor! Get to a videostore tonight and rent Kill Bill Vol. 2! You of all people need to see that! it's also one of
the best movies i've seen in years! And i despise Tarantino.
Posted by: annika at June 27, 2005 07:20 AM (JWS28)
8
Hmm. Not familiar with Bauer. Am familiar with both the movie and written portrayals of Jason Bourne. They are substantially different. Read the books; there's a lot more depth to the original story than comes across in the Damon movies.
Posted by: TriggerFinger at June 30, 2005 12:09 AM (tzMET)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 24, 2005
Karl Rove Is A Genius
A diabolical genius. i'm glad he's on our side.
Ralph Bristol of SCHeadlines.com theorizes that the controversy surrounding Rove's recent anti-liberal comments was the result of a well played trick. If so, i love it. If not, the furor over what Rove said is still laughable.
Whether it was an intentional trap or not, and we all know that Rove is evil and maniacal, the Democrats fell into it, one after another.
Even before the dust had settled on Sen. Dick DurbinÂ’s potentially treasonous assertion that our military guards at the Guantanamo Bay terrorist prison camp were acting like Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot, followed by his tearful apology to himself for attracting the wrath of friend and foe alike, Rove offered Democrats the opportunity to stand out as uniquely hypocritical.
In the world of politics, where hypocrisy is an art form, to be uniquely hypocritical is indeed a remarkable accomplishment.
i'm hesitant to even blog about what Karl Rove said, since its truth should be self-evident to everyone. That's what makes it so objectionable to liberals, i guess.
Professor Hewitt has the rundown on why Rove need not apologize for speaking the truth. Let's hope he doesn't.
Back to the Ralph Bristol piece. Here are the differences between the Rove and Durbin comments:
Liberals might argue that while Schumer, Clinton and others are in fact hypocritical for attacking Rove and defending Durbin, conservatives are similarly hypocritical for attacking Durbin, but not Rove. That argument would have merit only if the two menÂ’s statements were similarly outrageous.
Here are the differences.
First, What Durbin stated was demonstrably fallacious. Anyone with even a modicum of historical knowledge and perspective would not seriously equate the alleged mistreatment of Gitmo prisoners, cited by Durbin, (uncomfortable heat and cold; loud rap music) with the inhumane murder of millions of innocent civilians at the hands of Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot.
What Rove said is largely factual. Liberals, specifically the group Moveon.org, did in fact counsel “moderation and restraint” after 9/11. While many Democrats voted for the war on terror, it is true that some liberals reacted exactly as Rove described. He could have been more accurate if he had said “some liberals,” but that’s a miniscule rhetorical error compared to Durbin’s slander of the guards at Gitmo.
Second, Rove served up his remarks at a setting that is accepted as a 'red meat banquet,' a gathering of the New York Conservative Party. DurbinÂ’s comments came on the floor of what is supposed to be 'the worldÂ’s most deliberative body.'
Finally, and most important, DurbinÂ’s allegations can and will be repeatedly broadcast by AmericaÂ’s enemy as a tool to reinforce the fury in the Jihad soldiers and inspire others to join the battle. His comments will be a useful and enduring propaganda tool in the hands of the enemy.
That difference cannot be overstated, in my opinion. Even if only one soldier, or one marine, or one Iraqi policeman dies as a result of Durbin's disgusting statments from the Senate floor, isn't that reason enough for him to leave politics in disgrace? And who can say that Durbin's stupidity didn't lengthen our military commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan at the very least?
By contrast, the worst you can say about Rove's comments are that they were
an inaccurate rendering of some DemocratsÂ’ support for the war, which could harm their electoral chances in the future.
But i wouldn't even go that far. i think what Rove said about liberals [as Dan Patrick pointed out this morning on Laura Ingraham's show, Rove never mentioned "Democrats"] was entirely and demonstrably accurate.
Posted by: annika at
10:26 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 593 words, total size 4 kb.
1
Bill Quick said it best, "As long as Durbin is in the Senate, the Republicans need not apologize to the Democrats for anything."
Here is another way Rove is a genius. MSM would never report a speech by Rove and he knows it. By saying something controversial (but true), he got a big reaction from the left and the MSM.
Now his speech is now being spread all across the nation and the vast majority of Americans agrees with him.
Posted by: Jake at June 24, 2005 10:59 AM (r/5D/)
2
Not answering liberal democrats and the MSM hurt Nixon, Reagan 2nd term, and Bush 41.
Bush/Rove/Mehlman know that you must fire back. There is no "take the high road" option in politics.
The fact that they did it in a way that damages the Dems in their weak spot is beautiful...but guess what, fuckfaces? You let Dean/Reid/Durbin do a lot of talking recently, and here comes a big overhand right in return.
Posted by: Jason O. at June 24, 2005 12:19 PM (2CAKL)
3
Karl Rove is "Boy Genius".
Bush may be termed out, but Rove isn't.
Four more years!!!
Posted by: shelly at June 25, 2005 12:34 AM (pO1tP)
4
Yes, I find it amusing that the people who are most exercised by Rove's remarks seem to discern no differentiation between "liberals" and "Democrats". That fact alone makes an audacious point--one that Rove himself, being the evil genius he is, didn't have to.
Posted by: Bernard at June 25, 2005 04:04 AM (i/HzM)
5
Evidently, Preston is on vacation or AWOL.
Posted by: d-rod at June 25, 2005 09:25 AM (QIT5R)
6
"Al Qaeda might have been disgraced and destroyed."
By offering therapy and understanding for our attackers?
I'd have given long odds on that one.
Posted by: Bernard at June 26, 2005 03:36 PM (i/HzM)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 22, 2005
Liveblogging The Bug-Eyed Bride Interview (With Casca)
And for the record, letting somebody think somebody they love is dead, when they're not, is quite cruel.―Kill Bill, Vol. 2
In what was most likely a really bad idea, i decided to ask Casca to help me live-blog the Jennifer Wilbanks interview that aired last night with Kiki Kouric on NBC.
But i'll be damned if i'm going to waste an hour of my life (and Casca's) live-blogging that shit and not post about the stupid thing.
You've probably already heard the main sound bite from the show. The bride took a bottle of pills on the bus with her, but decided "not to play God." Someone needs to tell John Mason that any girl who considered killing herself rather than marrying him, may not be "the one." Cut your losses dude.
Anyway, here's some excerpts from my IM critique with Casca:
more...
Posted by: annika at
11:27 PM
| Comments (18)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1185 words, total size 11 kb.
1
Fire Casca and thaw out chick hearn
Posted by: tongue in cheek at June 23, 2005 03:50 AM (x8hF4)
2
It is great to know that there are people who hate Katie Couric more that I do.
Posted by: Jake at June 23, 2005 06:03 AM (r/5D/)
3
great blogging.
accurate as well. or is that hell???
either.
look forward to your coverage of dumbass kouric interviewing the missing/rescued boy scout that took the wrong turn.
Posted by: louielouie at June 23, 2005 10:18 AM (xKfMm)
4
I feel so used. My best material was left on the cutting room floor.
Man that was an endurance contest. I thought it was only going to be about 15 minutes. Good thing I was faced.
Posted by: Casca at June 23, 2005 12:09 PM (qBTBH)
5
Seriously. Where the hell do these people come from!? Get a hint, dude!
Posted by: Humor Girl at June 23, 2005 12:29 PM (ssmGv)
6
COURIC: So it came down to a question of size, is that right?
BUGEYE: Pretty much.
COURIC: Didn't you say earlier that you were saving yourselves for marriage?
BUGEYE: Yeah.
COURIC: So how did size ever become an issue, Bugeye?
BUGEYE: Well, look, I thought hard and prayed a lot and...
COURIC: You saw Johnny naked? Go on, admit you did.
BUGEYE: I did not! I
so did not! Like I said, I prayed about this, and--
COURIC: Wait, so you're saying God
looked in Johnny's pants and
told you Johnny had a small dingus, then advised you to cross the state line to fuck some farmer's
prize cucumber?
BUGEYE: Hey, come on, it wasn't exactly like that. But yeah, I hear things, Katie.
COURIC: You're sweating, Bugeye.
BUGEYE: I am not.
COURIC: I like it when you sweat.
BUGEYE: Huh?
COURIC: And you've obviously got tits that won't quit.
BUGEYE: Ex
cuse me?
COURIC: Don't deny it, girlie... I see those headlights. You hungry? Wanna blow my taco stand? Look at you, breathing all hard...
BUGEYE: Are... are these really your interview questions?
COURIC: I love how your neck flushes. Guys, kill the lights, cut the camera.
BUGEYE: What-- what are you doing? Why are you taking off your-- oh!
COURIC: You like that, huh?
BUGEYE: Oh, my! Oh my God! Oh,
fuck, yeah!
COURIC: Dammit, guys, I said
cut the camera!
Signed,
Kevin
Posted by: Kevin Kim at June 23, 2005 12:31 PM (1PcL3)
7
There's something about ol' bug eyes...I'd tag that. Something about psychotic sex that can be....dangeros...and frantic...and scary...and fun...
Plus, you gotta admit, her eyes aren't the only things bulging on that skinny broad.
It's like the Family Circus comic strip...it's always there, in the lower right hand corner, just waiting to suck. But yet, I can't look away. I hate it, but I'm strangely drawn to it.
Posted by: Robbie at June 23, 2005 12:56 PM (lbWbV)
8
Casca, i knew you'd say that. but i couldn't
print your best material.
; )
Posted by: annie at June 23, 2005 01:29 PM (zAOEU)
Posted by: Um Yeah at June 23, 2005 02:53 PM (MhJuU)
10
Anything involving Katie Couric should be immediately boycotted.
Posted by: Mark at June 23, 2005 03:03 PM (dEplh)
11
Sure you could, but you'd need a set of testicles, and collectively we might not like you as well in that case.
Posted by: Casca at June 23, 2005 03:18 PM (qBTBH)
Posted by: Um Yeah at June 23, 2005 04:08 PM (MhJuU)
Posted by: Victor at June 24, 2005 05:37 AM (L3qPK)
14
Oh yeah, for a skinny little skank, she has quite the disporportinate rack. Look for her in the pages of Playboy soon (with much air brushing, me thinks).
Posted by: Robbie at June 24, 2005 08:25 AM (lbWbV)
Posted by: annika at June 24, 2005 09:38 AM (zAOEU)
16
Annika harshes my mellow.
Kevin
Posted by: Kevin Kim at June 24, 2005 11:07 AM (1PcL3)
17
Yeah, they have that softball-under-the-sweater look to them. I can't get past them crazy eyes. Like I said before, I'd lay awake all night waiting for that knife in the chest.
Posted by: Casca at June 24, 2005 03:57 PM (qBTBH)
18
Thank for this great post, i like what you read
Menu Board. Thumbs up, and keep it going!Thanks for sharing I’ll email my friends about this too
LED Billboard. This is a really good read for me, Must admit that you are one of the best bloggers I ever saw
Led Signboard.Thanks for posting this informative article
LED writing board. I look forward to more updates and will be returning.Cheers!
Posted by: Advertising signs at January 21, 2011 02:59 AM (zpIH7)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Wednesday Is Poetry Day: T.S. Eliot
i had been planning to do a parody of the whole Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes nonsense by altering the words to T.S. Eliot's Song of the Jellicles. But i couldn't get it to work; the meter was all wrong and "Tomicle Kats are not too bright" was about the best line i could come up with. Not very good at all, especially compared to the original, so i abandoned the idea.
What a coincidence that Mark Nicodemo (a brand new Munuvian btw, congratulations) would reference another poem from Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats in my comments section. Great minds, i guess. So, i decided this week i'll post the Song of the Jellicles, unaltered of course.
The Song Of The Jellicles
Jellicle Cats come out tonight,
Jellicle Cats come one come all:
The Jellicle Moon is shining bright--
Jellicles come to the Jellicle Ball.
Jellicle Cats are black and white,
Jellicle Cats are rather small;
Jellicle Cats are merry and bright,
And pleasant to hear when they caterwaul.
Jellicle Cats have cheerful faces,
Jellicle Cats have bright black eyes;
They like to practise their airs and graces
And wait for the Jellicle Moon to rise.
Jellicle Cats develop slowly,
Jellicle Cats are not too big;
Jellicle Cats are roly-poly,
They know how to dance a gavotte and a jig.
Until the Jellicle Moon appears
They make their toilette and take their repose:
Jellicles wash behind their ears,
Jellicles dry between their toes.
Jellicle Cats are white and black,
Jellicle Cats are of moderate size;
Jellicles jump like a jumping-jack,
Jellicle Cats have moonlit eyes.
They're quiet enough in the morning hours,
They're quiet enough in the afternoon,
Reserving their terpsichorean powers
To dance by the light of the Jellicle Moon.
Jellicle Cats are black and white,
Jellicle Cats (as I said) are small;
If it happens to be a stormy night
They will practise a caper or two in the hall.
If it happens the sun is shining bright
You would say they had nothing to do at all:
They are resting and saving themselves to be right
For the Jellicle Moon and the Jellicle Ball.
Posted by: annika at
07:45 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 370 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Yay! I love
Old Possum's...
Posted by: Victor at June 22, 2005 08:19 AM (L3qPK)
2
Yay! Me too! You've inspired me....
Posted by: Robert the Llama Butcher at June 22, 2005 03:02 PM (IkTb7)
3
Annika you are a silly silly person, but I like you.
Posted by: Kyle at June 22, 2005 03:18 PM (7Re84)
4
My fav bumper sticker? Glad you asked: "Cats, the other white meat".
Posted by: Casca at June 22, 2005 05:17 PM (qBTBH)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 21, 2005
E.T. Extra Tonight Lies Of The Day
Generic entertainment news host/bimbo:
Denise Richards is finally breaking her silence about Charlie, her new baby, and her career.
. . . ummm . . .
. . . what career?
Kelly Monaco on her new dance routine for Dancing with the Stars:
And I'm doing the split for the first time in my life.
. . . Ummm . . .
. . . i seriously doubt that.
Posted by: annika at
07:32 PM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 79 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Denise better have a career. She is hot and I want to see more of her movies.
Posted by: Jake at June 21, 2005 08:09 PM (r/5D/)
2
Wow!, I didn't check your blog in two days and all of a sudden there is a whirlwind of activity.
Let me sum up Ms. Richards talents, she was floating underwater in a t-shirt and no bra for several minutes in a Bond Flick. It was awesome.
Posted by: Kyle at June 22, 2005 04:15 AM (7Re84)
3
Also ... was Denise Richards silent? I didn't even notice ...
Posted by: red at June 22, 2005 06:51 AM (qxKkx)
4
Denise Richards is:
O-VER-RA-TED
(CLAP, CLAP, CLAP-CLAP-CLAP)
compared to, say, Natasha Henstridge.
Damn you, Annika. You mentioned Natasha the other day and I'm still thinking about her.
On another topic, can you Cali-types help me out? Is Mark Kotsay going to the Yankees?
Posted by: Jason O. at June 22, 2005 07:47 AM (2CAKL)
5
heteronormitive facists all of you! youre lookists too - what about me who finds JANINE GARFALO 1000% TIMES MORE ATTRACTIV( shes brillian AND sexy)?! facists make everyone want to look airian! zeeg hile!
Posted by: Um Yeah at June 22, 2005 01:25 PM (MhJuU)
Posted by: Um Yeah at June 22, 2005 01:46 PM (MhJuU)
7
well Jeanene Garafalo has one positive I will admit, strangly, the woman has the smoothest skin I have ever seen. But the brain does not match the complexion.
Posted by: Kyle at June 22, 2005 03:17 PM (7Re84)
8
Nah, JG is greasy, and unfuckable. DR clearly has talent. Charlie married her didnt' he?
Posted by: Casca at June 22, 2005 03:19 PM (qBTBH)
9
Thank for this great post, i like what you read
Menu Board. Thumbs up, and keep it going!Thanks for sharing I’ll email my friends about this too
LED Billboard. This is a really good read for me, Must admit that you are one of the best bloggers I ever saw
Led Signboard.Thanks for posting this informative article
LED writing board. I look forward to more updates and will be returning.Cheers!
Posted by: Advertising signs at January 21, 2011 03:02 AM (zpIH7)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
161kb generated in CPU 0.1237, elapsed 0.7588 seconds.
80 queries taking 0.4782 seconds, 390 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.