July 20, 2005
Wednesday Is Poetry Day: Wordsworth
i doubt there's any visitor to this blog who needs to be reminded of
the importance of this day in human history. So i don't have to tell you why i chose this poem. (It has nothing to do with Jackie Gleason.)
To The Moon
Wanderer! that stoop'st so low, and com'st so near
To human life's unsettled atmosphere;
Who lov'st with Night and Silence to partake,
So might it seem, the cares of them that wake;
And, through the cottage-lattice softly peeping,
Dost shield from harm the humblest of the sleeping;
What pleasure once encompassed those sweet names
Which yet in thy behalf the Poet claims,
An idolizing dreamer as of yore!--
I slight them all; and, on this sea-beat shore
Sole-sitting, only can to thoughts attend
That bid me hail thee as the SAILOR'S FRIEND;
So call thee for heaven's grace through thee made known
By confidence supplied and mercy shown,
When not a twinkling star or beacon's light
Abates the perils of a stormy night;
And for less obvious benefits, that find
Their way, with thy pure help, to heart and mind;
Both for the adventurer starting in life's prime;
And veteran ranging round from clime to clime,
Long-baffled hope's slow fever in his veins,
And wounds and weakness oft his labour's sole remains.
The aspiring Mountains and the winding Streams,
Empress of Night! are gladdened by thy beams;
A look of thine the wilderness pervades,
And penetrates the forest's inmost shades;
Thou, chequering peaceably the minster's gloom,
Guid'st the pale Mourner to the lost one's tomb;
Canst reach the Prisoner--to his grated cell
Welcome, though silent and intangible!--
And lives there one, of all that come and go
On the great waters toiling to and fro,
One, who has watched thee at some quiet hour
Enthroned aloft in undisputed power,
Or crossed by vapoury streaks and clouds that move
Catching the lustre they in part reprove--
Nor sometimes felt a fitness in thy sway
To call up thoughts that shun the glare of day,
And make the serious happier than the gay?
Yes, lovely Moon! if thou so mildly bright
Dost rouse, yet surely in thy own despite,
To fiercer mood the phrenzy-stricken brain,
Let me a compensating faith maintain;
That there's a sensitive, a tender, part
Which thou canst touch in every human heart,
For healing and composure.--But, as least
And mightiest billows ever have confessed
Thy domination; as the whole vast Sea
Feels through her lowest depths thy sovereignty;
So shines that countenance with especial grace
On them who urge the keel her 'plains' to trace
Furrowing its way right onward. The most rude,
Cut off from home and country, may have stood--
Even till long gazing hath bedimmed his eye,
Or the mute rapture ended in a sigh--
Touched by accordance of thy placid cheer,
With some internal lights to memory dear,
Or fancies stealing forth to soothe the breast
Tired with its daily share of earth's unrest,--
Gentle awakenings, visitations meek;
A kindly influence whereof few will speak,
Though it can wet with tears the hardiest cheek.
And when thy beauty in the shadowy cave
Is hidden, buried in its monthly grave;
Then, while the Sailor, 'mid an open sea
Swept by a favouring wind that leaves thought free,
Paces the deck--no star perhaps in sight,
And nothing save the moving ship's own light
To cheer the long dark hours of vacant night--
Oft with his musings does thy image blend,
In his mind's eye thy crescent horns ascend,
And thou art still, O Moon, that SAILOR'S FRIEND!
Posted by: annika at
07:46 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 606 words, total size 4 kb.
1
always nice to revisit old friends-moon and sea and sloitary moments in reflections of days gone by... thanks anni
Posted by: bill at July 20, 2005 09:00 PM (klWaZ)
2
I'm tellin' you Anni, one of these days... pow! right in the kisser...
Posted by: Casca at July 20, 2005 10:27 PM (qBTBH)
3
To tell you the truth, I had completely forgotten about the anniversay until I read your entry.
You're the greatest.
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at July 21, 2005 05:11 PM (bGyIu)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
California's AG Says "Fuck You" To Conservatives
In the "How the Leftist Fringe Has Infiltrated Your Government" department, we have this latest outrage from the office of California Attorney General, Bill Lockyer.

From Sacramento radio host Eric Hogue's blog:
California's Attorney General Bill Lockyer has invited 'political artist', Steven Pearcy, to hang his creations in the lobby of the Attorney General's Office at the Department of Justice, 1300 I Street, in Sacramento.
Today we dispatched our crack crew to the office complex to see for ourselves the 'artwork' hanging in the lobby - sure thing, it is in full view. Friday there was a reception, and a ceremony honoring Pearcy and his piece of 'art' as it was placed on the wall.
You might remember Steven Pearcy and his ugly wife Virginia, both
Bay Area lawyers who hate America.
When Michael Moore was seated next to Jimmy Carter at the Democratic Convention, the party signaled its lack of concern for the half of this country that thinks Michael Moore is a liar and a charlatan.
While that was bad enough, it wasn't out of place at a party convention. But Bill Lockyer's office? Sure he's a Democrat, but he represents all Californians as Attorney General. By proudly displaying Pearcy's artwork, Lockyer is announcing his contempt for a good portion of the electorate that put him where he is.
i'm not saying he shouldn't have freedom of speech. But that type of inappropriate display in a state government office doesn't instill a lot of confidence that the Attorney General cares much about people like me.
Posted by: annika at
07:46 PM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 269 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Miss Annika,
"...that type of inappropriate display in a state government office doesn't instill a lot of confidence that the Attorney General cares much about people like me."
You can chalk it up to a firearms-centric view, but the best way to tell if an AG or any other .gov type cares about people is if they trust them with Arms. Lockyer doesn't. Damn near anything he's had to do with the subject of firearms has been a denial of your Right to them.
so him having artwork that depicts a party or even the country in a bad light shouldn't have been a sign that he holds you in contempt; it should have been yet another confirmation of it.
Really - look at any & all politicians view on firearms then see if a pattern develops between those you think are alright & those you think hold you in disdain. I think you'll find that most of the time (but not always) you can tell whether a politician respects you by whether or not he respects your ability to protect yourself from his kind (i.e. .gov types).
On a lighter note don't feel too bad. Turns out that despite the "budget crisis" that Colorado is in (that's what they keep telling us to
get us to vote for a change in our Taxpayer Bill of Rights that'll jack us for a little more) our state just paid 5 grand for a piece of art originally entitled
"12 dildo's on hooks".
Posted by: Publicola at July 21, 2005 01:39 AM (yHkmm)
2
If Arny had any hair on his sack he'd call a press conference at which he'd call Lockyer an anti-American, neocommie piece of shit, and publicly demand his resignation.
Posted by: Matt at July 21, 2005 03:37 AM (MV59I)
3
Hopefully, the voters of California (and I seem to be one who realizes "California" isn't just LA and SF/Berkely) will let Lockyer know what they think of his choice of what to hang. I hope he hears about it come re-election time.
Posted by: Victor at July 21, 2005 05:59 AM (L3qPK)
4
Well, if I'm right that Schwarzenegger isn't going to run for his own term - something I've thought since he won the recall - then you'll get a whole lot more of Lockyer when he gets elected governor next year.
I can't see a scenario where Arnold runs again, or if he does, wins. And the only other California Republican who MIGHT be able to beat him is Dick Riordan, and that would only serve to make California Republicans crazy. Given how the state party runs, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they thre that retard Simon into the meat grinder again.
Of course, I haven't seen any polling, but I would suspect that if you put Lockyer's percentage of the state wide vote against, say, President Bush's, you have a formidible Democrat who might be impossible to beat.
And that's what mades California so maddening most of the time. It's like Canada with better weather.
Posted by: skipystalin at July 21, 2005 10:27 AM (ruCNe)
5
What cracks me up is that he cites SUVs as an example of government action.
sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/07/20/BAGV0DQLCS1.DTL&type=printable
Posted by: Tony at July 21, 2005 10:45 AM (tjFjH)
6
"When Michael Moore was seated next to Jimmy Carter at the Democratic Convention, the party signaled its lack of concern for the half of this country that thinks Michael Moore is a liar and a charlatan."
The same could be said for many conservative 'journalists' and commentators, from O'Reilly, Hannity, Coulter, ad infinitum.
His documentaries are certainly biased, but it doesn't hurt to have something other than FauxNews to ponder over.
I don't think the flag/toilet artwork is very tasteful, and shouldn't belong in a government office. He just tanked his chances at running for Governor.
The SUV comment must refer to the stonewalling on CAFE improvements that the Republicans have been engaged in for over a decade now.
The Pearcys sound like extremists, which we see on both sides of the fence.
Posted by: will at July 21, 2005 04:28 PM (h7Ciu)
7
I will defend to the death the right for the artist to display that art.
I will also defend to the death the right for the Governor to call people "girly men."
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at July 21, 2005 05:13 PM (bGyIu)
8
Annika,
You mention the importance of free speech, but I note that free speech and a little CLASS are never exclusive of each other. Clearly Mr. Lockyer has alot of speech, and not much class, or good judgment for that matter.
Plus, the drawing of the toilet bowl that you posted is poorly drawn. I'm not an "artist," I can draw a little, and even I know that the toilet looks all wrong.
If you're gonna flush America down the toilet, atleast draw the toilet correctly!
Posted by: Mark at July 21, 2005 08:35 PM (m22hj)
9
I just saw Steven Pearcy on "Heartland" and I sure hope that most of the people in CA are not as stupid as he is! He thinks he is real 'smart', apparently but, eveyone that I have talked to thinks he is a jackass and anyone that would 'let' him place such tastelass garbage on display (in a public place that the rest of the people pay for) should be voted out of office next time around.
Sure makes me glad that I do not live in CA!
Posted by: Elaine at July 23, 2005 05:54 PM (ywZa8)
10
And the democrats and far left keep losing elections. Let 'um keep it up.
Posted by: Eneils Bailey at July 24, 2005 05:17 AM (tYuhc)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Not Worried About Ann
So Ann Coulter's
not happy about the John Roberts nomination? i don't believe her. i hate to let the cat out of the bag, but i'm convinced her column today is all part of the game plan. It smells like something Karl Rove would have cooked up.
It's no secret that presidents throughout history have used friendly and willing columnists to their own advantage. This president has been caught doing it a couple of times, to great controversy. i read Coulter's piece and her objections seem half-hearted. Hey, i agree with her on strategy. i think Bush should have named an in-your-face conservative, and i said so a few weeks ago. But on substance, the worst she can say about Roberts is "we don't know much about" him.
This is great strategy. When people who don't follow politics that much hear Ann Coulter's name, they often think of her as a right wing extremist. She is not that. Michael Savage is a right wing extremist. Coulter is just very funny, often sarcastic, blonde and female. Therefore, the left hates her more than Savage, who's appeal is narrower and thus less dangerous from their point of view. No one has to be told that Savage is a nut. But since Ann Coulter makes sense so much of the time, demonizing her is the only weapon the left has against her.
So when the politically apathetic hear that Coulter is against Roberts, they're not going to know the specifics of her lackluster objections, they're just going to think "he must be okay." It's just my theory, and of course what do i know, but this kind of reverse psychological tactic seems like trademark Rove to me.
Link thanks to Captain Ed.
Posted by: annika at
02:10 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 297 words, total size 2 kb.
1
cliche alert
A second positive fallout from Coulter-type articles:
Might not Conservative heebie-jeebies make Roberts eager to prove his bona fides?
Posted by: gcotharn at July 20, 2005 03:35 PM (lu3H/)
2
Oh yeah. Annie, not Anni, is dropping her panties for Rove. Brilliant cover move.
Posted by: Casca at July 20, 2005 03:56 PM (qBTBH)
3
I agree with you that Ann Coulter is "positioning" Roberts toward the center
And I also agree with you on your assessment of Savage vis a vis Coulter...
Posted by: Thomas Galvin at July 21, 2005 01:52 AM (hZ3fd)
4
it never ceases to amaze me how the scared little dim-witted dems all seem to be worried about everything. now they are in a panic as to who farted they are really getting ready to melt down.the dems mental disease is worsening. did rove really do it? or not......
Posted by: bill at July 21, 2005 11:23 AM (X3B0/)
5
Ha, I saw the Coulter article, myself I thought it was a fairly transparent attempt to give Roberts cover from the right.
But kid yourself not, y'all are building the new world order and the more doctinaire rightwingers personally loyal to the maximum leader get packed into the upper layers of gummint, the more looting will take place, and the less likely it is that the country will hold together after the bonk.
China off the dollar peg? check
Oil and overall energy system weak and vulnerable? check
Political Division to the point where no issue can be dealt with on it's merits? check
This country is the fiscal equivalent of a meth addict, and when we're done tweaking out on various conspiracy theories and the P.R.C cuts off the money spigot, where will we be?
Posted by: Bull Libertarian at July 28, 2005 01:45 AM (f+7Fs)
6
nnika,I don't visit your eb site often,but when I do it is always informing.But I have to disagree with you on Ann Coulter.Yeah,she's smart and she's pretty,but most of the time and I can onlyspeak for myself here she come she comes off as pompous know-it-all on the right.I guess Michael Savage and I do agree with him on many points was once a lefty and when you have on hte other side and have switched your prespective changes and naturally your passion is a lot stronger.Ann Coulter has never been on hte other side at all and also she tends to have avery hloier than thou attitude that I don't particularly care for.
Posted by: Lisa Gilliam at July 28, 2005 11:00 AM (Xa2ig)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Tragedy Tomorrow... Poetry Tonight
[That's a Cole Porter reference, by the way.]
i'll be busy again today, so look for poetry tonight.
In the meantime, read this fantastic post from Baron Bodissey at Gates of Vienna.
Posted by: annika at
06:59 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 32 words, total size 1 kb.
1
It's time for a Kipling discovery. When you choose classic subjects, and you're right, you become timeless. Try "Gods of the Copybook Headings".
Posted by: Casca at July 20, 2005 09:27 AM (Qlvb9)
2
Or "The Dane-Geld" (which could be updated for today as "The Moor-Geld").
Thanks for the link!
P.S. I thought that was Stephen Sondheim...
Posted by: Baron Bodissey at July 20, 2005 10:15 AM (GMXzJ)
3
hey, call me crazy, but please don't write any the words "tragedy tomorrow." your blog might be the root cause for london! you got witchy powers.
Posted by: ken at July 21, 2005 02:53 PM (xD5ND)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 19, 2005
Democrat Strategy Telegraphed Already
Hey the announcement is only a half hour old and Schumer and Durbin have already told me everything i need to know about the Democrats' obstruction strategy!
On CNN, Durbin told Larry King that they intend to be deliberate and they need to ask a bunch of questions, and that they're entitled to ask Roberts' opinion on past cases like Roe. At an earlier press conference Schumer said that he voted against Roberts before* because Roberts would not answer certain questions.
So the strategy is to ask questions that the Democrats know a judicial nominee cannot answer according to the rules of judicial ethics, then claim that he's hiding something. They also plan to drag out the hearings, to enable their operatives to manufacture a "scandal," their allies in the media to publicize the "scandal," and the lefty blogs to whip up outrage over the "scandal."
Just watch.
_______________
* Which is misleading, since Roberts was confirmed unanimously. Shumer voted no in committee.
Posted by: annika at
06:37 PM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
Post contains 171 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I know absolutely zero about this guy but if the press and the Democrats hate him I will probably love him. I wonder what Scalia thiks of him? Because if Scalia likes him then he's good in my book.
Posted by: Andy at July 19, 2005 06:55 PM (l04c2)
2
It's OK. We've found out one thing, which I knew already. If you're doubting dubyah, you're misunderestimating him. These mutherfuggahs are the first team. Nothing is done without reason.
The libs will blow their load on Roberts, and he'll beat them. Forty-two cases argued before the Supremes? I think he's seen all the tricks, and has three plays in the book for each one. We're going to watch Peyton Manning pick apart a weak secondary.
Stage deux is Rehnquist's replacement, and the thirty potentates whom dubyah didn't consult will be standing there as Sonny said, with their dick in their hand.
Posted by: Casca at July 19, 2005 09:19 PM (qBTBH)
3
i agree with andy.
i hope this gets boxer to soak her depends on the senate chamber floor.
Posted by: louielouie at July 19, 2005 10:23 PM (xKfMm)
4
For the Circuit Court, I read that Roverts was approved by the full Senate 99 to 0.
Does that mean Shumer sat it out or did he actually vote for him on the floor?
This is so Karl Rove that it must be pissing the libs off still.
This will take the headlines for the next forseeable future until he is confirmed; then we get Rhenquist and/or Stevens.
The Special Prosecutor will decline charges against Rove and that will die a natural death.
If the Chief can hold out loing enough, say a year or so, maybe we get Janice Rogers Brown again for the Bigs and Scalia moves up.
When Stevens passes on, W can then get his butt boy Gonzales and the diehards will have to let it go, since he has clearly proven his loyalty to the right.
Can't wait to hear the "Conscience of the Senate" bloviate, you know, Mark Spitz Kennedy...
It just don't get no better than this...
Posted by: shelly at July 20, 2005 03:17 AM (pO1tP)
5
Oh, by the way Senator Shumer, I'll take Political Calculus for Double Jeapordy.
Ans: "What is a one legged man at an asskicking?"
Posted by: shelly at July 20, 2005 03:23 AM (pO1tP)
6
The only thing you need to know about the guy is that Mark Levin, author of Men in Black, thinks he is first rate.
Posted by: Kyle at July 20, 2005 03:49 AM (7Re84)
7
Leahy is also telegraphing a strategy of delay, saying(I'm paraphrasing): I will go back home, pull on a pair of jeans, sit under my apple tree, and read everything I need to read about Judge Roberts; and it will take the entire month of August for me to accomplish this.
Since a legitimate Roberts' scandal looks unlikely, I don't see how he can fail to be confirmed. Circuit Court and Appellate Court judges could be filibustered b/c the nation wasn't paying close attention, and Senator Whoever could get away with bullshit justification for opposing cloture. But the eyes of the nation are fixed on this nomination, and Senator Whoever cannot get away with his bullshit justification so easily.
Therefore, despite the upcoming weeks of howls, a filibuster will go nowhere on Roberts. The Dems have a problem: they need to mollify the money-raising interest groups. The only way to do that is to delay a Roberts vote as long as possible - to show that their hearts were in the right place, and to try to embarrass/weaken Bush as much as possible - even in a losing cause.
Posted by: gcotharn at July 20, 2005 11:17 AM (3Bn47)
8
Bush will have proved himself to social conservatives when Roe v. Wade is overturned. Roberts plus Renquhist's replacement will not do that. Appointing Gonzales would keep Roe protected.
Posted by: RA at July 20, 2005 11:44 AM (QvWcl)
9
"For the Circuit Court, I read that Roverts was approved by the full Senate 99 to 0. Does that mean Shumer sat it out or did he actually vote for him on the floor?"
Shelly, I'd think you of all people know the Senate does so many things by unanimous consent in part so that nobody has to be publicly accountable about what they're really for or against. For a nomination to go through that way, you're not going to have a neat lineup of names in the Congressional Record with Y's and N's next to them, just the indication that no one objected and therefore unanimous consent was granted.
Posted by: Dave J at July 20, 2005 12:40 PM (CYpG7)
10
I have a question for the pro-choice conservative lawyers/students who inhabit this blog:
Even though you're pro-choice, don't some (most?) of you think Roe v Wade is bad law? Wouldn't you be, at some level, happy to see it overturned on that basis? Couldn't you support a justice who supported overturning Roe v Wade on the basis that it is bad law?
Anyone?
Posted by: gcotharn at July 20, 2005 03:29 PM (lu3H/)
11
For my part, gcotharn, I've become less and less pro-choice over time, am torn both ways on the issue and I guess would define myself as "reluctantly pro-choice with significant restrictions." I certaily believe Roe is bad law and that the matter should properly be returned to the states (not necessarily just the state legislatures, BTW, either, as this would immediately become a subject of litigation under STATE constitutional law).
Part of the genius of federalism is that far more than a simple majority get what they want locally, and in principle I see nothing wrong with, for example, Alabama banning abortion while Massachusetts not only allows it but expends state funds on it (though as a Massachusetts Republican, I would fight that within the confines of my own state political process...er, until whenever I leave again, of course).
Posted by: Dave J at July 20, 2005 03:56 PM (CYpG7)
12
I am a pro-choice conservative Republican lawyer and I think that Roe v. Wade is bad law. I much prefer the state's rights approach.
The problem is, I question my own validity, as I vacillate about the pro-choice thing.
I have a grandson who is 11 years old; he was often discussed while in his mother's womb about abortion. I could not support him being aborted.
On the other hand, crack babies have nothing to live for but pain and addiction, sometimes horrible disfigurement, so I certainly support aborting them all.
I guess it is an economic/family situation thing for me. If you can afford it and would love and raise it properly, I say no abortion, but otherwise, call in the long knives.
Posted by: shelly at July 20, 2005 08:29 PM (pO1tP)
13
I'm happy to hear this, which is what I expected would be the case.
I think there is no reason for someone like Shelley to fear a pro-life SC Justice, as Shelly believes the issue should properly be decided by the states anyway, and I do not anticipate conservative justices ever supporting a federal ban on abortion. If anyone is still reading this thread: Does anyone fear a conservative SC would ever find in favor of a federal ban on abortion?
Posted by: gcotharn at July 21, 2005 03:01 PM (3Bn47)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Supreme Court Update

WHITE HOUSE SAYS
CLEMENT NOT NOMINEE
Despite early reports today, speculation that right hander Matt Clement was picked to be the ninth man in the Supreme Court rotation are apparently untrue.
Sources within the administration, speaking on condition of anonymity, told annika's journal that Matt Clement was never under serious consideration.

However, some experts say Clement would have been an awesome choice, despite his 4.21 ERA and mediocre WHIP. Said annika: "Heck, he's been on my fantasy team three years in a row. i don't know what kind of justice he'd make, but he's got ten wins and 101 K's this year. And the way my team's been doing, i've needed every damn one of 'em."
Developing . . .
Update: Speculation continues to circulate around Gonzalez as a possible nominee. Some pundits say President Bush is under pressure to nominate another Arizonan to replace Justice O'Connor, who grew up in Duncan, Arizona. However, some conservative activists are wary of the veteran outfielder for the Diamondbacks.
Said prominent right wing blogger annika: "Sure Luis throws right handed, but he bats lefty. And everytime i've seen him, he's way out in left field. Can we really trust him?"
Developing . . .
Update 2: The news is out! It's Roberts! i'm ecstatic. His stats aren't outrageous, but he's got good speed and was a quality guy when he played for the Dodgers. This year Dave's been a solid contributor to the first place Padre team. Democrats who wanted a center fielder should be happy with this lefty batter.
Developing . . .
[If there's a rule about beating a joke to death, you might want to invoke it now.]
Update 3: Preston wanted a justice with strings attached. Or someone who can pull all the right strings. Or something like that.
Posted by: annika at
04:23 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 289 words, total size 2 kb.
1
...but he's got ten wins and 101 K's this year. And the way my team's been doing, i've needed every damn one of 'em."
The way your team's been doing, you've needed a bitch of a lot more than ten wins and 101 K's )Not that I've got any room to talk--but at least I'm number one in total K's and I'm making a serious run for W's in the pitching department.).
Posted by: Victor at July 19, 2005 04:59 PM (IBRcA)
2
Clement??...Come on. We all know Randy Johnson would be picked over him. Let's Go Yankees.
Anyway, I found you via the Cotllion.Nice blog by the way.
RR
Posted by: RegularRon at July 19, 2005 05:30 PM (UXT/+)
3
Leave it to the Chicago Cubs and the trolls at the Chicago Tribune to let a pitcher like Matt Clement go.
What a truly sorry ass organization.
Posted by: Mark at July 19, 2005 08:22 PM (442Yb)
4
Personally I would prefer Lindsay Lohan for SCOTUS. Or Boy George. Or Kenny Rogers (the Barona casino hawker, not the fan of photographers).
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at July 20, 2005 05:45 PM (c6rOB)
5
Roberts was one cool dude; I am sure that it was he, and not Ensign Pulver who stole Queeg's strawberries. Not sure about who tossed the palm tree either.
Will Broadway Chuck ferret this out of him in intense cross examination?
Or, will the Bloviating Senator from Boston take him on with skills he learned in college whilst being caught having others take his exams?
Stay tuned to this station through September...
Posted by: shelly at July 21, 2005 12:40 AM (pO1tP)
6
Which Bloviating Senator from Boston? The one whose last name begins with a K?
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at July 21, 2005 05:27 PM (bGyIu)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The Cotillion Costume Ball
What an honor it is to host this week's
Cotillion Ball, along with
Dr. Sanity,
RightGirl, and Beth of
My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.
Week in and week out, i am amazed at the talent to be found in the links of the Cotillion Ball, and this week is no different.
At my corner of the Ball, a costume theme in honor of our friends and allies, the people of Great Britain. And in honor of these grand ladies of the blogosphere, enjoy a little bit of British fashion history while you peruse the links.
While we're talking fashion, Holly of Soldiers' Angel is providing cute barefoot sandals and her original artwork out of the generosity of her heart to members of the military. She's given away over 200 miniature paintings so far, and has received many gracious thank-yous from servicewomen who appreciate a gift of somthing girlie.
In the "great minds think alike department," i was happy to find a kindred spirit in Jody of Steal the Bandwagon on the subject of the death penalty. Jody explains her change of heart regarding that touchy subject thusly:
At first it sounds great. Sure, you have so little regard to human life to take someone elseÂ’s life? Fine. Say hello to Mr. Sparky. And for most of my life this is how I have regarded the death penalty.
But I am beginning to wonder if putting to death anyone can fit into my personal ideology. I am adamantly against abortion and euthanasia. The act of willfully taking anotherÂ’s life devalues human life. The story last [year] regarding the newborns being euthanized in a Dutch hospital made me shudder. Imagine where life is so unvalued that a doctor is allowed to take it?
Like Jody, it was also the
Groningen Protocol story, along with Terri Schiavo's death that made me seriously question my support for the death penalty. i just don't know anymore if human beings and human institutions can be trusted with the power to decide who lives and who should die.
Zendo Deb of TFS Magnum found a site that has some very interesting and provocative information about self-defense, along with some cool graphics. Check out "Two ways to shield yourself from a violent attack." It's an effective way to get across a very simple yet important message. Go visit Deb and follow her link to A-Human-Right.com. Ladies especially should pay close attention to the page entitled "Stay Safe."
Michigander E. M. Zanotti of The American Princess thinks a man named Ted might be a good choice to replace governor Jennifer Granholm. No, not Kennedy... Ted Nugent.
No. I am not kidding.
Yes, sir. The Nuge, the Motor City Madman, may be throwing his camouflage cowboy hat with the real 'coon tail into the ring to take on the Moled Wonder.
. . .
Not that the Nuge isn't qualified, he's written for more than 40 publications and is author of 'God, Guns and Rock nÂ’ Roll,' 'Kill It and Grill It' and the newly released 'BloodTrails II.' HeÂ’s serving his fourth term on the National Rifle AssociationÂ’s board of directors, and is president of the Ted Nugent United Sportsmen of America. And if that wasnÂ’t enough, his No. 1 voted hunting show 'Spirit of the Wild' on the Outdoor Channel. He's the national spokesman for D.A.R.E. and he's got a solid political outlook . . .
And let's not forget how he warned America about the dangers of Cat Scratch Fever, so many years ago. i'd vote for him.
i already alerted you to The Anchoress's blog post about the 1999 ABC News report that, quite beyond belief, completely contradicts the standard MSM line about any pre-war connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq. This post is the type of stuff that makes The Anchoress one of those blogs you should check daily as you're taking that first sip of coffee.
The same is true for Fausta's Bad Hair Blog. She implores us to focus like a laser beam on the real scandal confronting us all:
There is ONE, and I repeat, ONE pressing issue of our times: we are at war. Not a 'little' war in a far-away place, but an assault on all civilisation The Democrats simply don't have a clue as to what to do about that.
And that's the real scandal.
Absolutely. Fausta also forsees a change in France. Who is this man
Nicholas Sarkozy, and can he save the Republic?
Denita of Who Tends The Fires describes what it's like to live along the Gulf Coast during hurricane season.
All along the Coast a person can see the legacy of numberless hurricanes. No structure is without its scars and replaced siding, with holes pocking the window frames where plywood was hastily thrown up to protect the glass. Only those houses that were built during the more peaceable Winter are pristine and untouched--and it's a sure bet that they'll no longer be virginal within a couple years.
Also (if we can talk fashion again for a moment) do go over to Denita's friend
Sandra's eBay shop. Mention Denita and get a $3 discount!
Children are not luggage. That may seem like an obvious point, but some folks apparently need to be reminded of the child/luggage dichotomy. Beth at Yeah, Right, Whatever has the details.
Imagine for a moment that you're a mom with a dilemma. You have to get your kids to their dad's home several states away. Your car will not fit them all. What do you do?
Here's a hint- you DON'T put your kids in the frickin' trunk!
Amazing what some people think is proper parenting these days.
2004 Weblog Award winner and Cotillion blogger Kate of Small Dead Animals is a great place to get a conservative's perspective on Canadian politics. Mary Katharine Ham of Townhall.com shares a great bit of family history involving the mighty 8th AAF. And pretty much everything at Villainous Company is always worth linking to; here she exhorts WaPo columnist Richard Cohen to stop lying.
i hope you enjoyed the Ball. Please go check out the rest of the links at Dr. Sanity's, RightGirl's, and Beth's
Posted by: annika at
12:36 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1026 words, total size 9 kb.
1
I have always looked at support for the death penalty (for murderers) as being an affirmation of Life. You see, I respect life so much I want to give the ultimate punishment to those who take it. Otherwise you are belittling the life of the victem.
Or to put it in another way; Sympathy for criminals is the same as contempt for their victems.
However, I am willing to compromise and permenantly do away with the death penalty. But only if DP opponants go along with this compromise: we take all death row inmates and they get only the one appeal unless NEW evidence shows up, then we send them to the Gulag, somewhere in the artic Islands, they exist with only what is needed for life, and they never come out.
Unsurprising, I have never met a lefty who is willing to take this compromise. That is because they love criminals. Dont go getting soft on us.
Posted by: Kyle at July 19, 2005 03:24 AM (7Re84)
Posted by: Fausta at July 19, 2005 06:30 AM (Hf7u/)
3
I've poured a bottle of cheap rum in the punchbowl. Which one is the sluttiest?
Posted by: Casca at July 19, 2005 07:03 AM (Qlvb9)
4
The Nuge is great, but I don't think he's electable -- especially in Michigan's urban centers. Ann Arbor and Detroit would positively lose their minds over a Nugent candidacy ('though I'm sure he'd do well in the U.P. and the more rural parts of the L.P.). He doesn't have Arny's fame to pull him through, and his ideas are much further-out -- and better-documented -- than Arny's.
Still, it's a fun idea. I'd give just about anything to hear the Nuge perform
Wang, Dang, Sweet Poontang at the inauguration.
Posted by: Matt at July 19, 2005 07:37 AM (10G2T)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 18, 2005
Jeopardy With annika 8
The category is "Military History," for
500! Casca feelin' a little cocky.
Posted by: annika at
09:00 PM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 20 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: Casca at July 18, 2005 09:04 PM (qBTBH)
2
correct.
dang, after i posted it, i realized it was too easy for a 500 question.
Does anyone know why the other attendees were not heads of state?
Posted by: annika trebek at July 18, 2005 09:07 PM (Bq2Q0)
3
Because, hehehehe, Stalin was the head of the Party, not the President. Who the fuck knows who the President was. Churchill was the outgoing PM, and that fuckstick Atlee was the incoming, and as such, not the heads of state. The King/Queen are the heads of state in England. BTW, I'm playing drunk to give Victor a chance.
Posted by: Casca at July 18, 2005 09:13 PM (qBTBH)
4
Make it Military History for four.
Posted by: Casca at July 18, 2005 09:14 PM (qBTBH)
5
(Signaling device backfires after short circuiting from extreme heat in annikaheartland then spontaneously combusts creating various steam whistle-like sounds).
umm - who are Churchill and Stalin??
Posted by: d-rod at July 18, 2005 09:15 PM (SZjt0)
6
i think d-rod's a few drinks ahead of you, lol.
Stalin was "first among equals." Neither Atlee nor Churchill were heads of state, the king was.
According to David McCullough, Stalin asked Truman to preside over the conference because he was the only head of state present. Churchill seconded the idea.
Posted by: annika trebek at July 18, 2005 09:25 PM (Bq2Q0)
7
that's enough for tonight, more tomorrow.
Posted by: annika trebek at July 18, 2005 09:27 PM (Bq2Q0)
8
Chuh, you ought to be working as a pit boss. A fellow gets a hot hand and you close the game.
Posted by: Casca at July 18, 2005 09:32 PM (qBTBH)
9
A great example of de jure vs. de facto. In those days, the Soviet head of government appointed the head of state. Bizarre system.
At least George VI was the head of state in the UK. Imagine if Edward had remained.
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at July 18, 2005 11:10 PM (A0qGO)
10
Darn right that was too easy for a $500 question-and I think the east coast/west coast thing is starting to play a factor.
Posted by: Victor at July 19, 2005 02:23 AM (IBRcA)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Jeopardy With annika 7
The category was made up by Victor so don't blame me. It's "People annika Would Like To Meet," for 100.
Let's make this one a little more google proof though, with a video clue.
Posted by: annika at
07:10 PM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
Post contains 42 words, total size 1 kb.
1
DING!
Who are Derek and Keith Brewer?
Posted by: Casca at July 18, 2005 08:27 PM (qBTBH)
2
nice, Casca. And i know it must have taken every ounce of willpower you had to keep from making any gay references.
Casca has control, and the lead.
Posted by: annika trebek at July 18, 2005 08:31 PM (Bq2Q0)
3
Well, the bad news for you is that there is no filling in their two-man sandwich. Their favorite charity is the "AIDS Ministry". You do the math.
Military History for FIVE!
Posted by: Casca at July 18, 2005 08:34 PM (qBTBH)
4
you're wrong Casca. that man sandwich is a triple decker, i'd wager.
lol. i'd never have guessed that you were so knowledgeable about hott men.
Posted by: annika at July 18, 2005 08:43 PM (Bq2Q0)
5
(drools on buzzer)
Who are Nipple and Zipple--?
Oh, damn, there's already an answer.
Kevin
Posted by: Kevin Kim at July 18, 2005 08:53 PM (TDwc6)
6
"that man sandwich is a triple decker, i'd wager."
Possibly, but there is no tuna in the middle.
Posted by: Casca at July 18, 2005 09:49 PM (qBTBH)
7
"nipple and zipple", lmao. Kev I went out for bulgogi, bop kim bab, and yaki man doo the other night. I think that's what the pitbull killer was after. Any thoughts?
Posted by: Casca at July 18, 2005 09:52 PM (qBTBH)
8
All I knew was that the hair was too short for Nelson.
I am not trendy.
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at July 18, 2005 11:11 PM (A0qGO)
9
Jeee-zus Kee-rist, annika, you ask Casca to change his topic because it's not annika-centric; I make one that's nothing but annika-centric and you bitch.
I should've spelled it, "meat."
Posted by: Victor at July 19, 2005 09:02 AM (L3qPK)
10
I was going to answer Lyle and Erik Menendez, until I saw the pic.
Posted by: Jason O. at July 19, 2005 11:11 AM (2CAKL)
11
I guess it IS true that women prefer homosexual men.
*Sigh*
Posted by: Mark at July 19, 2005 08:24 PM (442Yb)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Just Plain Weird
From
The Sacramento Bee:
Woodland police have arrested a man discovered skinning a pit bull, his hands drenched in blood, law enforcement officials said.
Officers called to the scene Saturday found transient John Hummer, 47, alongside a Woodland gas station skinning the dog with a knife, said Sgt. Davis of the Woodland Police Department.
. . .
The dog was dead at the scene and already partially skinned, he added.
Animal control officers collected the body and determined that the dog had several puncture wounds and had died within the previous hour, said Davis.
The dog had no collar and the owners are unknown, according to Davis.
Hummer was charged with maliciously and intentionally killing a dog, a felony, and booked into the Yolo County Jail, Davis said.
i'm no fan of pit bulls, but that's just freaky. There's some real weirdos in this part of California. i wonder if he was going to make himself a coat?
Posted by: annika at
02:35 PM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 162 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Pit bulls are evil, but intentionally manipulating the carcass of any animal is a great sign of mental imbalance.
"Land of fruits and nuts" indeed.
Posted by: Mark at July 18, 2005 03:12 PM (Vg0tt)
2
That bum coulda got at least a couple of dollars at the nearest Korean resturant.
Posted by: Kyle at July 18, 2005 04:17 PM (7Re84)
3
Sheesh, you mean you don't knife pitbulls, skin them and eat their livers raw? Shit everyone does it down here when it gets over 100 degrees?
Posted by: Casca at July 18, 2005 04:17 PM (qBTBH)
4
Eeek! I'm not a big fan of pit bulls either, but gah. That is
too freaky.
On the brightside, maybe he's like the freak in
Silence of the Lambs and decided he'd try it out on pit bulls first. Good thing he's in custody.
Posted by: Amy Bo Bamy at July 18, 2005 04:28 PM (K0qzr)
5
I wonder if there is more to it than what they are saying? Because if he was a transient I don't see why he wouldn't kill and eat a dog? If he has a way to cook it, it would be a lot better than digging through trash cans for spoiled food. If I were homeless I'd eat a dog before I would beg for food or money that's for sure.
Now if he was just mutilating it and playing with the body parts that is an entirely different story.
Posted by: Andy at July 18, 2005 05:06 PM (l04c2)
6
Damn! You're getting some interesting readers around here Anni. I'm making chili, and in honor of this story, and Andy's views on self-reliance, I'm going to name it "Anni's Dead Dog Chili". I just need to find a pitbull.
Posted by: Casca at July 18, 2005 06:04 PM (qBTBH)
7
i ate a pit bull liver once
with some fava beans and a nice chiaaanti
f-f-f-f-f-f-f-ffff
Posted by: annika at July 18, 2005 08:02 PM (Bq2Q0)
8
LMAO, you made my liver hurt!
Posted by: Casca at July 18, 2005 09:54 PM (qBTBH)
9
I oppose the death penalty, save for cretins like this fellow. As a former pit owner, I'm in the "no bad pit bulls, only bad pit bull owners" camp...
Posted by: Hugo at July 19, 2005 03:30 PM (uQK+G)
10
How's about a death penalty for pit bulls?
Posted by: Mark at July 19, 2005 08:25 PM (442Yb)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Jeopardy With annika 6
The category is "Fuckin' Lawyers," for 100. i name the lawyer, you tell me who was fucking 'em.

Don't forget to use the signaling device, and phrase it in the form of a question.
Posted by: annika at
06:30 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 42 words, total size 1 kb.
1
*waves carrot in front of guinea pig; guinea pig emits eardrum-piercing WHEEKs*
Who is Edith Wilson?
Posted by: Victor at July 18, 2005 07:08 AM (L3qPK)
2
correct. Victor has control, and $300,
Posted by: annika trebek at July 18, 2005 07:35 AM (fbmgH)
3
I'd like "People annika Would Like to Meet" for $100, please.
Posted by: Victor at July 18, 2005 08:00 AM (L3qPK)
4
No category on the liberal media? There's a wealth of questions here. lol
Posted by: Mark at July 18, 2005 12:33 PM (bEIfp)
5
Um, shouldn't the answer refer to BOTH Mrs. Wilsons?
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at July 18, 2005 11:12 PM (A0qGO)
6
both responses would have been acceptable.
Posted by: annika trebek at July 18, 2005 11:14 PM (Bq2Q0)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 17, 2005
The Media Is On The Side Of The Enemy, Or Journalists Are Not Just Idiots, They Are Treasonous Bastards And Liars, The Lot Of 'Em
i'm hosting part of the
Cotillion Ball this week, and i was going to save
this link from The Anchoress for Tuesday. But i'm so pissed off that i had to post about it right now. i haven't been this outraged since Rathergate.
i mean, i shouldn't be surprised, i knew the media are a bunch of fucking liars who hate Republicans and will sell their country down the river, just to embarass Bush. But their unprincipled treason -- yes i am literally calling ABC, CBS, PBS, CNN and NBC traitors -- their clumsy treason is lengthening this war, encouraging the enemy, and costing American lives. The bastards.
What the fuck am i talking about? Look at this video clip.
Back in 1999 when Clinton was president, ABC News did a news report, which stated in unequivocal language that Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were in contact and actively planning an alliance. ABC News actually said that Saddam's envoy told OBL "he would be welcome in Baghdad," and that Iraq was willing to help OBL get weapons of mass destruction!
This is incredible. It's positively Orwellian. It's the smoking gun for the media's hypocrisy. As far as i'm concerned there is no reason for me to trust anything they say, ever. As if i needed a reason after Jason Blairgate, Rathergate, Easongate I, Easongate II, etc. etc.
Please watch this video and pass it on whenever you hear any liberal say that there were no links between Al Qaeda and Iraq. They bought that line because their media told them so. Upon hearing the same media tell them the exact opposite, i imagine some of them will self destruct like the computer Landrew in that old Star Trek episode.
Audio and story is at Roger Simon. Video via a comment from Bill at INDC Journal to Roger's post.
Posted by: annika at
09:54 PM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
Post contains 359 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Yep, been that way for a loooong time.
Posted by: Casca at July 17, 2005 11:12 PM (qBTBH)
2
Annie:
The media is not on the side of the enemy; they ARE the enemy.
Posted by: shelly at July 18, 2005 01:47 AM (pO1tP)
3
Unfortunantly they represent about a third of all americans.
Posted by: Kyle at July 18, 2005 03:50 AM (7Re84)
4
Dear Annika,
I know you probably hear this every day, but I love you. If you're ever on the east coast, let me know. I'll buy you a drink...
Love,
Rob
Posted by: Rob at July 18, 2005 04:22 AM (/2+5K)
5
Can I just say that I'm surprised you were surprised? Nothing about the hyprocisy of the MSM surprises me anymore.
Posted by: physics geek at July 18, 2005 07:24 AM (Xvrs7)
6
It is good to retain the capacity for outrage. When we are so cynical that we lose the capacity for outrage, we will be France. Through the device of her righteous anger, Annika is doing her part to fight against that.
Posted by: gcotharn at July 18, 2005 09:38 AM (lu3H/)
7
"Orwellian" is absolutely right. When the truth no longer serves this media, it just erases any evidence, and pretends it never existed.
Then they expect us to react the same way.
Posted by: Mark at July 18, 2005 12:32 PM (bEIfp)
8
Heard the MSM sponsored a party for some of thier fascist Islamic associates. It was a BOYB...Bring Your Own Bomb.
Posted by: Eneils Bailey at July 18, 2005 12:50 PM (tYuhc)
9
it is truly odd when you CAN believe the gov't and CAN'T believe a damn thing the media says.
gcotharn,
read abraham lincoln a lot do you?
Posted by: louielouie at July 18, 2005 01:30 PM (xKfMm)
10
Louielouie heres a tip; you cant believe the government either. Media and government are both manipulating the truth for their own benefit.
While it might be wrong that the media didn't issue retractions or corrections it doesn't constitute lies, treason or hypocrisy when it is perfectly possible that the situation has changed.
Did you guys miss the 9-11 commission? Sure in 1999 it may have looked like Saddamn and Al Qaeda were planning to get in bed together, we now know it wasn't really true, alot of stuff can happen in 3 years.
Although it would be funny to see it, I don't think any liberals will self destruct, they will probably point out that the Government has better intelligence than ABC News.
Posted by: Ivan at July 18, 2005 03:59 PM (GpcqB)
11
it's interesting though, that the claims made by the ABC reporter were bolder than anything the Bush administration ever said on the subject.
Posted by: annika at July 18, 2005 08:16 PM (Bq2Q0)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Jeopardy With annika 5
The category is "Miltary History," for 100.
Posted by: annika at
08:09 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 15 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Ding!
Who is Roland Garros?
Posted by: Casca at July 17, 2005 08:13 PM (qBTBH)
2
correct! was that too easy?
Casca has $300, and control.
Posted by: annika at July 17, 2005 08:20 PM (8pXBX)
3
Thank U Anni,
Let me have Clinton Rape Victims for a hundred.
Posted by: Casca at July 17, 2005 08:24 PM (qBTBH)
4
come on, i can't work annika into the clue with that category (thank goodness) pick another one
Posted by: annika trebek at July 17, 2005 08:27 PM (8pXBX)
5
How about "Fuckin' Lawyers" for a hundred?
Posted by: Casca at July 17, 2005 09:05 PM (qBTBH)
6
how about you name it? why does cooper look and act so much like homer simpson! for 100 $ yankee...
Posted by: bill at July 18, 2005 01:36 AM (p4c5a)
7
Agreed--all categories should be about annika. After all, it's her blog; we just comment in it.
Posted by: Victor at July 18, 2005 02:20 AM (IBRcA)
Posted by: Mark at July 18, 2005 01:37 PM (Vg0tt)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Jeopardy With annika 4
The category is "fash-ism," for 200.
Posted by: annika at
12:42 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 14 words, total size 1 kb.
1
DING!
What is animal print?
Posted by: Casca at July 17, 2005 01:01 PM (qBTBH)
2
yes. we have a competition now.
Posted by: annika at July 17, 2005 01:44 PM (NXQxT)
3
Casca has control of the board, and is tied with Victor with $200.
Category please.
Posted by: annika trebek at July 17, 2005 01:46 PM (NXQxT)
4
I was going to propose that very same kind of board, annika. This should be fun!
Posted by: Victor at July 17, 2005 05:20 PM (IBRcA)
5
Profanity, and Places that suck? I'm fucking guaranteed to win this.
Let's have a new catemagory Anni, Histoire Militaire.
Posted by: Casca at July 17, 2005 05:46 PM (qBTBH)
6
for a hundred of course.
Posted by: Casca at July 17, 2005 05:49 PM (qBTBH)
7
Yo ANNI! DING! DING!DING!DING!DING!DING!DING!
Military History for a hundred.
Posted by: Casca at July 17, 2005 07:20 PM (qBTBH)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Jeopardy With annika 3
Victor has the board. The category is "fash-ism." for 100.
Posted by: annika at
07:39 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 18 words, total size 1 kb.
1
*feeds grass to dog; dog immediately starts making puking sounds*
What are flip-flops?
Posted by: Victor at July 17, 2005 08:04 AM (IBRcA)
2
Wait, wait-- I know this one!
(slaps buzzer with tentacle)
What is "fssssssssss-graaaaafgkaaa"??
Kevin
Posted by: Kevin Kim at July 17, 2005 08:57 AM (1PcL3)
3
Sorry, Kevin, too late on the buzzer.
Victor is correct. He has $200 now and control of the board.
Posted by: annika trebek at July 17, 2005 09:57 AM (Lk2mq)
4
I'll stay with Fash-ism for $200, please.
Posted by: Victor at July 17, 2005 10:14 AM (IBRcA)
Posted by: Vince at July 17, 2005 02:33 PM (V2ONp)
Posted by: annika at July 17, 2005 05:03 PM (Lk2mq)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 16, 2005
Remember This When...
Remember the following when the Senate Democrats cry "extreme circumstances."
Bush . . . stated that Americans 'expect a Senate confirmation process that rises above partisanship.' Indeed... we expect and desrve a quick confirmation. Bush did right by establishing what the precedent of fair treatment is. The 1993 confirmation of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal who replaced a retiring conservative, was voted on an confirmed with 96 votes a mere 42 days after her nomination was submitted by President Clinton in 1993. Some liberal pundits have suggested that Bush's victory in November doesn't give him a 'mandate' to replace O'Connor with a conservative. However, Clinton, in his first year of office after winning without a majority of the vote had a near painless confirmation process for his nominee, who, as I previously mentioned, replaced a retiring conservative.
From
Blogs For Bush.
Posted by: annika at
12:20 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 145 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Annie:
I had a simiar discussion with Orren Hatch one day at lunch, as I was compaining that I had helped Barbara Boxer get two tough nominations through the Republican Senate, working with him on both.
I asked him why there is no reciprocity, to which he answered "They don't play fairly like we do; winning is more important than integrity or justice."
You cannot deal logically with one who is not logical.
Posted by: shelly at July 16, 2005 03:14 PM (pO1tP)
2
Yes, Annika. Yes, Shelly. Let us remember this example the next million times we hear the Republicans urged to give up some political something in order to win the good will of the Democrats:
1) Thomas is Borked.
2) Ginsburg is politely confirmed.
3) Confirmation hell breaks out against Bush' appointees.
I remember Annika herself creating this negotiation meme:
"Never give up a concession to gain goodwill."
I completely agree.
Posted by: gcotharn at July 16, 2005 03:36 PM (lu3H/)
3
Which is to say:
GO FORWARD WITH THE NUCLEAR/CONSTITUTIONAL OPTION!!!!!
Posted by: gcotharn at July 16, 2005 03:38 PM (lu3H/)
4
K-rist, can't you people get laid on a Saturday? Me either, so when the blood letting comes, if you don't have a target, keep your head down so you don't get hit. Yes I HAVE been drinking.
Posted by: Casca at July 16, 2005 03:46 PM (qBTBH)
5
Nuclear Option. Easier said than done. (except by W)
Frist was not shy, he just didn't have the 50 to do it, viz. "The gang of 14".
That so called "compromise", as distasteful as it was to many of us, may yet turn out to be the key to the rules change.
If the Dems who were part of the 14 try to allege that "unusual circumstances" exist in a situation where the 7 R's (or even enough of them) disagree, perhaps some of the squishes will actually grow a spinal cord and join Frist, the rest of thie party and W in getting the rule changed once and for all.
I think this was the thinking of at least Lindsay Graham, Mike Dewine and John Warner, who did sign on to the compromise. The others were the usual suspects, John McCain, Susan Collins, Olympia Snow and Lincoln Chaffee.
I was personally surpised not to see Chuck Hagel in the deal, as he was always one of those who was iffy on the cloture vote. He may still be.
I am bothered by just one thing, and that is the fact that I am a pro-choice Republican; otherwise I am conservative about every other major issue.
I am not sure that I want to open the door for Bush or the right wing part of my party to jam in a couple or three of pro-lifers in order to change the 6-3 Roe v. Wade vote to 5-4 the other way.
You never get it all, do you?
Posted by: shelly at July 16, 2005 09:16 PM (pO1tP)
6
Shelly,
Interesting point - I wish I believed the Stupid Party was smart enough to "win by losing" via 7 Repub Senators joining the "gang of 14." Maybe they are smart enough. Maybe the Great Pumpkin.... oh never mind.
Posted by: gcotharn at July 17, 2005 11:13 AM (lu3H/)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 15, 2005
It's Time Once Again For Jeopardy With annika
The category is "places that suck."
Posted by: annika at
05:46 PM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
Post contains 22 words, total size 1 kb.
1
*signal device pushed*
"Where is Ridgecrest, CA?"
Posted by: wayne at July 15, 2005 06:57 PM (BcdEc)
2
*Scritches Zoe the Rat juuust right so that she starts bruxing like mad*
What is Sacramento, CA?
Posted by: Victor at July 15, 2005 07:31 PM (IBRcA)
3
hey annika-
how about a reciprocal link there, sister?
gracias-
-nikita
Posted by: nikita demosthenes at July 15, 2005 11:49 PM (u4CZI)
4
Dante's Canto 3.14159 mentions a circle of hell named Linguanus, the region where people who like giving and receiving rimjobs are punished. Their fate: orally servicing farm animals that defecate shards of glass.
Kevin
Posted by: Kevin Kim at July 16, 2005 03:00 AM (TDwc6)
5
Of course, I forgot to buzz in and also failed to phrase my answer as a question.
Kevin
Posted by: Kevin Kim at July 16, 2005 03:01 AM (TDwc6)
6
What is? El paso texas.
Posted by: Kyle at July 16, 2005 04:00 AM (7Re84)
7
I whip out my schlong and desperately slap the signalling device with it until I realize that, on Annika's version of this show, the signalling device is not a button but a TRIGGER.
"Shit!" I cry, as I grab the signalling device, snap off the trigger guard with adrenaline-frenzied hands, curl my man-meat around the device and YANK.
What is
Britney Spears's milk-engorged left TIT?
Kevin
Posted by: Kevin Kim at July 16, 2005 06:22 AM (1PcL3)
8
the judges have ruled: The sound of a rat grinding its incisors is sufficiently similar to that of the signaling device, albeit a malfunctioning one.
Victor is correct. He may choose the next category.
the judges are frightened by Kevin, but will allow him to continue the game.
Posted by: annika at July 16, 2005 09:13 AM (UCIZt)
9
I'd like "Fash-ism" for one hundred, annika.
Posted by: Victor at July 16, 2005 05:11 PM (IBRcA)
10
What is Annie's wrath?
Posted by: shelly at July 17, 2005 02:27 AM (pO1tP)
11
DING! What is Berkeley, CA?
Posted by: Mark at July 18, 2005 01:39 PM (Vg0tt)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 14, 2005
This Blog Has Two Audiences
Want a laugh? Go check out the comments to what has become my most popular post ever:
"My E-Mail To L!nds@y Loh@n."
Lately, every couple of days someone has been commenting to that post. i guess google searches for L!nds@y have increased since the Herbie movie came out, and my site pops up as the number seven result in a search for the sudden waif's e-mail address.
Most of the people who arrive and comment do not seem to have a clue, and think that i am either L!inds@y herself, or a close friend of hers. It's funny. For instance, this chick thinks L!nds@y is in the habit of giving her phone number out to random strangers:
Dear Lindsay or whoever is reading,
Hey, what's up? I would like to know more about Lindsay Lohan. If anyone know her phone no & e-mail or one of them pls give it to me.If this e-mail reads it lindsasy lohan ,can u give me your phone no & e-mail pls. Thanks . Bye
Strange.
Here's someone who took my satirical post way too seriously.
u honestly think Lindsay would respond to that.. and wat makes u think tht by telling her u noe a cool guy shes gonna care.
Well, my post may have been satire, but i wasn't lying when i said that L!nds@y would totally dig on
Ken Wheaton, if she only met him.
My post has become a discussion board of sorts for a totally different audience, most likely international, and very obviously young. i am beginning to worry about the state of English language education in the world, now that i've seen a sampling of what passes for spelling and grammar.
well i thing lindsay is the best actris in the world .and herbie fully loaded is the greatest movoe i ever saw. all the movies of linsay i h ave saw but i just want to know if anybody has her email adress i will be great to have it thanks bye
Crikey! i have to admire anyone with the intestinal fortitude to sit through the entire L!nds@y
oeuvre. What fascinating conversations one might have. i imagine they might go like this, for instance:
"i love how the auteur combines editing and cinematography in idiosyncratic ways as a commentary on outmoded concepts of "reality" [here make the "quote" gesture with fingers] utilizing both the explicit and implicit narrative meanings in the film Freaky Friday."
"Oh yes, but the subtlety of The Parent Trap is at once delicious and painful as an expression of ambivalent attitudes toward the ideological issue of violence, drawing upon conventions of cinematic realism to characterize the plot structure and mise-en-scene exposition of theme and characters."
"Exactly. I wept."
But most of the comments contain the same question: "How can i get in touch with L!nds@y?" Since i have been silent on the matter, as i can't answer that question, other commenters have offered their advice.
I have several adresses thay all clame to be lindsays I emailed her about amillion times I have mary kate and ashleys but who knows if they are real.
Now there's a question i
can answer. They are
not real. All four are fake. And spectacular, from what i hear.
Posted by: annika at
07:19 PM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
Post contains 537 words, total size 3 kb.
1
I wood rathar have Sandra Bullocks email if u r the one who has that kinda stuff. Do you like work with the stars?
Too Funny. The strangest search phrase I've been found by is, "dog ate my homework image".
I guess the Sandra Bullock reference gives away the fact I'm not a teeny-bopper female. For that matter, so does using teeny-bopper.
Your site always makes me smile. Thanks.
Posted by: Jim at July 14, 2005 07:58 PM (ponKd)
2
Shit, your site always gives me a hard-on, no wait, that's Roger's site... so how about Sandra Bullocks number?
Oh yeah, Mary Kate and Ashley... after they swallow, they barf it back up... ruins the whole thing.
Posted by: Casca at July 14, 2005 08:16 PM (qBTBH)
3
You are just too funny.
Posted by: Brad at July 14, 2005 11:41 PM (Qz3ul)
4
Jim, I live just a couple of blocks over from Sandra B. I don't know her email address, but I guess I could always drop something directly into her mailbox (if I were in anyway a fan of hers...I'm not...too nasally and whiney with no breadth or variety to her acting ability)
Annie, I have two diff. posts on Ashless Simpson (one on her Super Bowl fiasco, the other on a petition to ban her from every singing again), and both of them elicit the same types of teeny-bopper comments as your LL posts...
Posted by: Robbie at July 15, 2005 06:05 AM (lbWbV)
5
Annika, is this really worth a few hundred hits?
Posted by: Mark at July 15, 2005 08:46 AM (Vg0tt)
Posted by: dawn summers at July 15, 2005 10:48 AM (ZyabD)
7
C'mon, annika! You're in California! Lindsay's in California! Don't you two know each other?
Posted by: Victor at July 15, 2005 12:58 PM (L3qPK)
Posted by: Radical Redneck at July 17, 2005 10:49 AM (Hn8NG)
9
Didn't Paris have Lindsay's number?
Completely off topic - a year ago, our church's high school youth group went to Florida. When the other groups found out that our group was from California, they asked our group if they surfed. Finally, one of our group wrote "I surf to school" on his backpack. The guy lives in Rancho Cucamonga, which is in the 909, fifty miles away from any beach.
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at July 18, 2005 11:16 PM (A0qGO)
Posted by: Patriot Xeno at July 20, 2005 10:41 AM (LPdru)
11
Call me
evil. I even adopted Jim's favorite word "teeny-bopper." However, I left off the dash, which will probably cause a flame war even worse than the Lindsay-Britney battles.
When I was 9 or 10 years old, our class was assigned to interview someone. Two of us in the class decided that we would interview President Richard Nixon. To this day I don't know why we didn't get the interview. (Actually, one student did interview the Arlington, Virginia Superintendent of Schools. But Paris Hilton didn't know him.)
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at July 21, 2005 01:05 PM (c6rOB)
12
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 02:57 AM (zpIH7)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Cough... Cough...

You are Marijuana (aka: weed, dope, skunk,
chronic…
. You are the most commonly used
drug in the world. You are powerful, stubborn,
moody, have a strong attitude. You are
classified as class (A and B) illegal drugs.
What kind of Drugs are you? and how that reflect your personality?
brought to you by Quizilla
Posted by: annika at
06:47 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 54 words, total size 1 kb.
1
What no comments? Are is everyone emailing her, so as to keep it on the DL?
Posted by: scof at July 15, 2005 10:52 AM (7z8ua)
2
You're in good company! I was Marijuana too.
Posted by: Pursuit at July 15, 2005 05:45 PM (n/TNS)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
i Have Been Tortured
Yesterday,
Captains Quarters linked to the results of an independent investigation that found only three violations of Army Regulations and the Geneva Conventions* at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility.
The chief investigator, Air Force Lt. Gen. Randall M. Schmidt, described the interrogation techniques used on Mohamed al-Qahtani, a Saudi who was captured in December 2001 along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.
. . .
Schmidt said that to get him to talk, interrogators told him his mother and sisters were whores, forced him to wear a bra, forced him to wear a thong on his head, told him he was homosexual and said that other prisoners knew it. They also forced him to dance with a male interrogator, Schmidt added, and subjected him to strip searches with no security value, threatened him with dogs, forced him to stand naked in front of women and forced him onto a leash, to act like a dog.
Looking at the list of "violations," i realize that most, if not all of these things have happened to me at various times in my life. i bet most of you could say the same thing.
Someone has insulted my mother.
i've worn a bra. In fact, i'm wearing one right now, against my will.
i've worn a thong, though not on my head.
i've been told that i like men and that other people knew it.
i've danced with men.
i've had my clothes removed from my body for no apparent security purpose.
i've been frightened by a dog.
i've stood naked around women.
i've barked like a dog. uhhh, but i was drunk at the time.
No comment on the leashy thing.
Where's my ACLU lawyer?
_______________
* Why we're even talking about the Geneva Conventions is a mystery to me. Until Al Qaeda becomes a signatory to that agreement, it is irrelevant.
Posted by: annika at
10:28 AM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 313 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Unfortunately, teh Geneva Conventions aren't irrelevant. Even though our enemies are not signatories (How could they be, anyway? The conventions seem to be diametrically opposed to their own "convictions") I think the signatories agreed to abide by the conventions even if their enemy in the particular conflict is not or does not. I can think of no other reason that we abided by them in Vietnam (I know both the VC and North Vietnam were not signatories, nor, obviously, did they pay any attention to them) or Korea (I'm pretty sure North Korea was not a signatory)
Seems stupid, but I think that it was part of the traty.
Posted by: JJR at July 14, 2005 10:58 AM (HxEi3)
2
Wearing a bra against your will eh? I say you take it off THIS INSTANT!
It would be a sign of support for those poor little terrorists in Gitmo. Not to mention you might make those men around you very happy. And if I know you you're all about making people happy.
Posted by: The Maximum Leader at July 14, 2005 11:06 AM (jiSuM)
3
I've worn a thong on my head - and I enjoyed it - though I was hungover the next day.
Posted by: gcotharn at July 14, 2005 12:27 PM (3Bn47)
4
Oh my God, I might be a terrorist!
I've insulted someone's mother (I might have even insulted my own mother)
I've purchased a thong for someone, and implored her to wear it.
I've told other's that they are men, and have even called some men 'gay' --- not that there's anything wrong with it.
I've forced my wife to dance the Marcena at a wedding
My dog has frightened some small children.
There has been much nudity around men and women.
Posted by: Robbie at July 14, 2005 01:22 PM (lbWbV)
5
http://knidmidds.chinalake.navy.mil/clweather.asp
nothing to do with the subject on hand
other than 111F is torture
Posted by: Wayne at July 14, 2005 02:35 PM (djVNl)
6
K-rist JJR, have you ever taken The Law of Land Warfare course? I thought not, so stfu about geneva convention applicability. It doesn't apply to ANY of those sons of allah. They never had a uniform til the got to Gitmo. As far as the Geneva convention is concerned, we should have executed them by summary court martial, but we were looking to gather a little intel. That is all.
Posted by: Casca at July 14, 2005 05:47 PM (qBTBH)
7
Thinking here that anyone who wants to kill us should be killed first. And anyone defending the Gitmo prisoners needs to get a life, for real, or not take ours with their bs. Annika, 1st time commentor, like your blog. 59 y.o. white male
Posted by: Johnny at July 14, 2005 07:23 PM (ntdZU)
8
I heard McCain yesterday at a senate panel grandstanding about this issue saying "What will happen when our guys get captured?" Well, senator, they will probably be tortured and beheaded, which was going to happen anyway you dumbass!
That man is as big an attention whore as Schumer.
Posted by: Kyle at July 15, 2005 04:10 AM (7Re84)
9
Casca,
I have taken the law of land warfare, and have TAUGHT the class. Please don't lecture me on what it says or does not say. I served as an active duty infantry officer for over six years. Have you? I thought not, so "stfu" about what I know or don't know. If you would like to debate the aspects of the law or convention, that's fine, but back up your point with some facts. First of all, I said I might be mistaken. If you have a SPECIFIC point I got wrong, let me know. The law of land warfare (as we have put it in FM 27-10) specifically, to my memory, mandates that we will abide by the mandates of the Geneva Convention, whether or not our adversaries do so.
Personally, I don't think we necessarily should, or should have done so in the past, but the whole point of my post is simply that we HAVE applied the mandates of the conventions unilaterally.
Also, the law of land warfare is not the convention. It is our application of them. Have you read the several treaties which we have signed? I believe that they do say that the mandates of the conventions will be applied by the signatory states, even when engaged in combat operations against an enemy which has not signed. I said it was stupid that they put it in.
Finally, whether or not the particular provisions of the convention apply to a specific "combatant" is a matter for a military panel. Personally, I think we should repudiate this provision of the treaty, but you can't ignore something just because you don't like it.
Posted by: JJR at July 15, 2005 10:17 AM (HxEi3)
10
"I served as an active duty infantry officer for over six years." You think not? You think wrong. But what the hell, it's not the first thing that you're wrong about here. Lecturing the troopies barely qualifies as "teaching".
You pick up a weapon on the battlefield, and you're not part of a bonafide organized military with ties to the nation-state, and you are fucked.
We adhere to the Geneva Convention when the bad guys don't? Go read about the Phoenix Program. Yep, we really did go out and whack 'em. Thank God there are pragmatists wearing cammie who don't quibble about the fine points of law. Do you know that we have snipers watching the turning circles in Iraq where the IEDs get planted? They shoot people who are acting in a "suspicious fashion".
The Geneva Convention was setup to protect soldiers and civilians in a gentler age. It is an anachronism in an age of total war.
The truth is that it is bad to have a nebulous standard when serving in the field, so we teach the Law of Land Warfare. In reality it is impractical. Normally the trigger pullers make rational judgments based on least risk to themselves, as they should. That doesn't protect them from second-guessing from those who weren't there. So I refer you to Lord Byron:
When a man hath no freedom to fight for at home,
Let him combat for that of his neighbor.
Let him dream of the glory of Greece and of Rome,
and get knocked on the head for his labor.
To do good for mankind is the chivalrous plan,
and is always as nobly requited.
So battle for freedom wherever you can,
and if not shot, or hanged, you'll be knighted.
Posted by: Casca at July 15, 2005 04:13 PM (qBTBH)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
131kb generated in CPU 0.0433, elapsed 0.1061 seconds.
80 queries taking 0.0832 seconds, 352 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.