Disclaimer: This is a post i don't expect everyone to agree with.

Perhaps due to the ongoing disaster in the Gulf states, and some personal tragedies that have hit an alarming number of my blog friends recently, i've been seeing an unusual number of posts that deal with faith and tragedy.

It's the age old question. Why do bad things happen to good people? What does a person of faith do when tragedy strikes? How does one deal? What happens to a person's faith in an all-powerful and all-loving God when that God takes a loved one for no apparent reason?

One book of the Bible supposedly deals with this very question. It's the book of Job. Perhaps i'm not alone when i say that Job never really made me feel better for reading it. It's a strange book, and it's not a comfort at all, really. i read Job all the way through a few years ago. Let's just say i needed to read it at the time and leave it at that.

Basically, the gist of the story is this, as i recall. Job is a good and righteous man who's been blessed with a nice family and lots of money. One day, God makes a bet with the devil about whether or not Job will reject God if He lets the devil completely fuck with Job's life. So the devil kills all of Job's family, takes all his stuff, and gives Job boils on his skin.

Job gets pissed, but doesn't blame God at first. The devil continues to fuck him up, so Job asks a friend to talk to God for him. That ends up nowhere, and Job finally gets on the line with the Big Guy himself. Now God is pissed, and He says to Job (i'm paraphrasing) "Dude, why don't you create the entire universe in six days. Then you can come back here and pop off to me. Until then, shut your pie hole. I do what I want and you don't get to know the reason."

Now there are plenty of other parts in the Bible where one can go for real comfort in times of despair, but Job is not one of them. God doesn't come off looking very nice in Job, but that's not the point of the story. It's kind of the tough talk part of the Old Testament. We may not like the message, but we need to hear it at least once.

God's smackdown to Job, is one of the most awe inspiring and majestic passages of the Bible. It is hard reading when you're in trouble, though. You never thought God could be this sarcastic either:

From out of a storm,
the LORD said to Job:
Why do you talk so much
when you know so little?
Now get ready to face me!
Can you answer
the questions I ask?
How did I lay the foundation
for the earth?
Were you there?
Doubtless you know who decided
its length and width.
What supports the foundation?
Who placed the cornerstone,
while morning stars sang,
and angels rejoiced?

Have you journeyed to the springs of the sea
or walked in the recesses of the deep?

Have the gates of death been shown to you?
Have you seen the gates of the shadow of death?

Have you comprehended the vast expanses of the earth?
Tell me, if you know all this.

What is the way to the abode of light?
And where does darkness reside?

Can you take them to their places?
Do you know the paths to their dwellings?

Surely you know, for you were already born!
You have lived so many years!

My favorite holy day of obligation in the Catholic Church is the Feast of Christ the King. It's the last Holy Day of the liturgical year, and i think it's placed there for emphasis. It's a reminder to me that God is ruler over all. The universe is not a democracy, it is a monarchy and we are subjects of the King, not his equals.

Therefore i think it would be the height of arrogance for me to presume to know the mind of God. That's the lesson of the tower of Babel, and of the Book of Job. WTF, we humans can't even understand how light can act like both a particle and a wave. We don't know why neurons communicate across synapses. And every day, giant squid and great whales a hundred feet long fight death battles at the bottom of the sea that no man has ever witnessed. So for me to decide whether God is acting justly or unjustly, based on my own infinitely narrow vantage point on the universe, well it's the height of arrogance as i said.

i could choose to be pissed off at my own powerlessness, or i could find freedom in it. i never understand why so many people waste so much energy trying to reason God into or out of existence. Or trying to reason the nature of God. My knowledge that God exists was never based on reason. That knowledge is itself a gift from God and it remains in me as a result of my faith, not reason.

So i go on believing whether or not God's plan appears fair to me. i don't get to know the plan. Is that a cop-out? i don't think so. i think it's the essence of faith. If my faith were dependent on things like reason or observation or argument, it would be a very weak faith indeed. Yes, even my own mind, smart as i am, was created by Him.

Who endowed the heart with wisdom
or gave understanding to the mind?

So what does that mean? What about God's love that we hear so much about. Where does that fit into a universe that may or may not be cruel in a completely arbitrary way. Job asked:

from my deep despair,
I complain to you, my God.
Don't just condemn me!
Point out my sin.
Why do you take such delight
in destroying those you created
and in smiling on sinners?
Do you look at things
the way we humans do?
Is your life as short as ours?
Is that why you are so quick
to find fault with me?
You know I am innocent,
but who can defend me
against you?

It's the knowledge of my own inferior wisdom that has enabled me to never have a crisis of faith, even in times of despair. My spiritual weakness is one of devoutness, not doubt. i have crises of apathy, not belief. i'm going through one now, as a matter of fact. But God's love for this world is obvious to me every time i hear the Gospel. And that's what overcomes the pain i see at times too often to ignore.

Posted by: annika at 07:39 PM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 1373 words, total size 7 kb.

Searching for a poem about New Orleans this week was easy.

Charles Bukowski:

Young In New Orleans

starving there, sitting around the bars,
and at night walking the streets for
hours,
the moonlight always seemed fake
to me, maybe it was,
and in the French Quarter I watched
the horses and buggies going by,
everybody sitting high in the open
carriages, the black driver, and in
back the man and the woman,
usually young and always white.
and I was always white.
and hardly charmed by the
world.
New Orleans was a place to
hide.
I could piss away my life,
unmolested.
except for the rats.
the rats in my dark small room
very much resented sharing it
with me.
they were large and fearless
and stared at me with eyes
that spoke
an unblinking
death.

women were beyond me.
they saw something
depraved.
there was one waitress
a little older than
I, she rather smiled,
lingered when she
brought my
coffee.

that was plenty for
me, that was
enough.

there was something about
that city, though
it didn't let me feel guilty
that I had no feeling for the
things so many others
needed.
it let me alone.

sitting up in my bed
the lights out,
hearing the outside
sounds,
lifting my cheap
bottle of wine,
letting the warmth of
the grape
enter
me
as I heard the rats
moving about the
room,
I preferred them
to
humans.

being lost,
being crazy maybe
is not so bad
if you can be
that way
undisturbed.

New Orleans gave me
that.
nobody ever called
my name.

no telephone,
no car,
no job,
no
anything.

me and the
rats
and my youth,
one time,
that time
I knew
even through the
nothingness,
it was a
celebration
of something not to
do
but only
know.

Posted by: annika at 06:57 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 310 words, total size 2 kb.

i just read one of the dumbest things i've read in a while. "Lack Of Mandate On Iraq Haunts Bush," by Ron Elving, NPR's "supervising senior Washington editor." Knowledge of history or political science seems not to be a pre-requisite for his job. On the contrary, the ability to produce a slanted argument from out one's butthole looks like an asset.

While the premise―Bush's lack of a mandate on the Iraq War―is reasonable enough, the op-ed piece went downhill soon after the byline. Elving's theory, no doubt taught to impressionable young minds when he was a professor at Georgetown's Graduate Public Policy Institute, is that "the scope of [a president's] plans must be matched by the breadth of [his] support.

Elving calls this the Rule of Proportionate Mandate. i cannot find any mention of such a rule in my own library, but never mind. It seems reasonable when applied to republics such as ours. That is, as long as one ignores the historical exceptions to the so-called rule. The plans of Lincoln, FDR, Truman and even Churchill are the most obvious examples.

But this quote here is a real doozie:

Before invading Iraq, the administration of President Bush needed the broad backing of three constituencies: the Iraqi people, the international community and the American public. In each case, the administration heard just enough of what it wanted to hear to conclude it had sufficient support. In each case, it was wrong. [emphasis added]

Wow. This guy was teaching graduate students? In D.C. no less. That's scary.

Elving goes on to re-state the tired old canard that the "Coalition of the Willing" was really a disguise for unilateral action. Never mind the much debated question of whether the over 48 countries who initially signed on to help us were "window dressing" or not. Since when has the commander-in-chief been prohibited from exercising the war powers unilaterally? There is no such requirement in Constitutional law or history. Let's be clear. A president has never been required to seek "the broad backing of the international community." That's complete hogwash. i'll agree that international support is nice to have, but true leadership does not find it necessary before acting.

Then Elving says that support for the war has never been an overwhelming majority such "as in the case of Pearl Harbor or the invasion of Afghanistan." Again, hogwash. In January 2004, for example, 65% of Americans polled by the Pew Research Center thought that the war in Iraq was the "right decision," versus only 30% who thought it was the "wrong decision." Note that support for the war continued to lead by 20 points or more even when Bush's approval rating dipped below his disapproval rating a few months later, according to Pew.

Elving might rightly point out that previous support for the war has eroded today,* but for him to say that it never existed is a lie, and he should know better.

[cross-posted at A Western Heart]
_______________

* In my opinion, this is thanks to a combination of consistent media negativity and consistently inept public relations at the White House.

Posted by: annika at 11:32 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 558 words, total size 4 kb.

The wonderful American Princess took it upon herself to do the whole Cotillion Ball this week. Having done one fourth of the hosting myself, i have to tip my hat to her, it is quite a task, and she did a great job. Go take a look at the best work from the members of the Cotillion here. And if i may highlight one selection, please don't miss Beth's retelling of her visit to Camp Reality in Crawford, Texas.

Posted by: annika at 08:51 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 87 words, total size 1 kb.

What is happening in New Orleans and the Gulf Coast is awful. i had no idea this storm's aftermath would be so severe. And it looks like only the beginning.

i watched Fox News this morning and Shepard Smith was saying that his crew was planning to leave. He thought that by staying, they would be taking resources away from the victims. i think that's a mistake.

This is one case where the media can do more good by covering the story as much as possible. Yah, i never thought i'd say that either. This disaster looks worse than anything i've ever imagined. It needs to be reported, so people can help with donations or in any way they can.

My suggestion to the media would be to spend money. Make the crews self sufficient and join in the relief effort. Fuck the rule against becoming part of the story, they never follow that rule anyway. They should bring bottled water. They should also continue to keep emergency workers informed about what they see or people who need rescuing.

Update: Journalist and Louisiana expat Ken Wheaton has much more.

Posted by: annika at 07:04 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 193 words, total size 1 kb.

As a brand new gun nut, i thought it might be interesting to give you regular updates on how things are going.

i've now shot a total of 150 rounds through a pistol. The Sig Sauer P226 is still the gun to beat, in my estimation. But i recently tried two other guns, which i'll critique for you from my novice's viewpoint.

The first was a Kimber Tactical Pro II in .45 ACP caliber. i did not like this gun. First of all, it dang near took my arm off. Big bang, big kick. That's to be expected from the larger cartridge, i imagine. But i know the Kimber's sights were off, too. Look at the photo of my target. You'll see that nothing hit to the left of center out of 50 rounds at ranges from 7 yards to 25 yards. i think that's unusual. It also shot low and i had to compensate by aiming above the bullseye, which was annoying. i normally line up the sights just below the bullseye.

Also, the Kimber's grip was too short and didn't feel right. The gun was double action only and had a grip safety and a thumb safety. i liked the idea of two safeties, but i'd rather have a single action option because i tend to squeeze the trigger very slowly and watching the hammer go back was distracting to me. i want to try another .45 just to give them a fair shake, but i wouldn't buy a Kimber. They retail for over a thousand and i expected better for that kind of price.

Most recently, i tried the Browning BDM 9mm. Now, after researching this post, i learned that the BDM can be switched from "double action" to "double action only" by use of a little slotted swich on the side. i noticed the switch at the range, but since nobody told me what it was for, i didn't mess with it.

The Browning was nice, despite some problems. i found it to be accurate at all the distances i tried. It fit my hand comfortably and the trigger was easy to squeeze. It's a good looking gun and it was well behaved when it didn't jam, which was too often for my liking. The range dude said it probably needed cleaning. Also, the slide sometimes failed to lock open after the last round was fired. i expected a little more from the famous Browning name, but it was a fun gun to shoot. i still prefer the Sig Sauer's big bright sights. The Browning's sights had smaller dots and one of them had been rubbed off on my rental gun.

Next week i think i'll branch out and try a revolver.

P.S. Last night, i had a dream that i met Kim du Toit. What's happening to me?!

Posted by: annika at 10:51 PM | Comments (30) | Add Comment
Post contains 481 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Give the Glock 9MM a fling.

Posted by: shelly at August 30, 2005 07:12 AM (M7kiy)

2 In particular, give the Glock 17 or 19 a fling. Stay away from the 26 for now; even in wimpy cartridges like 9x19, the baby Glocks have enough recoil and muzzle blast to teach a new shooter bad habits. I'm a strong advocate of learning the fundamentals on easy, non-abusive guns, and having them firmly ingrained before moving to more challenging fare. If you learn bad habits now -- and the chief teachers of bad habits are recoil and muzzle blast -- you'll have a damned hard time unlearning them. It's probably just as well if you stay away from the Kimber for now, for precisely that reason. That said, methinks you're being a bit too hard on the Kimber, accuracy-wise. A "tactical" or "combat" pistol like the Kimber should be accurate enough -- and, judging from your groups, the Kimber appears to be. It's almost certainly not intended for a six o'clock hold like you're describing (that's usually reserved for bullseye), and range and choice of cartridge (muzzle velocity) will affect elevation to some extent, too; any or all of those may have contributed to your group being a tad lower than you expected. The front sight might need to be drifted right a bit, although lighting problems can cause rounds to strike left or right of the apparent point of aim.

Posted by: Matt at August 30, 2005 07:56 AM (10G2T)

3 By the way: Nice shootin', kid. ;-)

Posted by: Matt at August 30, 2005 07:56 AM (10G2T)

4 Annika, ItÂ’s nice to see you having so much fun and exercising your rights. I wonder if you got any feedback from Freddie L. Cranshaw before he went out and had a little fun too exercising his rights. I wonder how tight his groupings were, or if anybody noticed he was insane before they sold him his cache. Remember, nobody ever got shot by someone with out a gun. You know as well as anybody that guns don't stop crime nor do they don't make anybody think twice about committing a crime. Most gun crime involves people who know or loved each other and that most regretted what they did and wished they had just cooled off instead of picking up a gun. I canÂ’t verify this next statement but I would wager that more people are killed accidentally with fire arms than the number of armed citizens successfully protecting themselves with their weapon(s). A fellow I know, runs the check cashing place by the projects, was gut shot a few years back for the bank bag he was carrying at the end of the day (he lived). The stupid assholes (and yes most criminals are stupid) wanted his bag not realizing that at the end of the day check cashers are going to the bank with paper, not cash, but the point is the check casher wears a revolver in plain sight. So instead of just hitting him in the head or pointing a gun at him, the thieves KNEW they had to shoot him. This was his big benefit for having a full carry permit. I have another true story, if youÂ’ll indulge me? A friend of mine, we shall call him Bill, has only a target permit but carries his Glock in his suite jacket pocket. One day he interrupts a robbery in a furniture store in a strip mall. He sees a gunman menacing the female cashier and he starts to sneak towards the front of the store to help. Along the way, an unseen accomplice gets the drop on him and orders him to the front of the store. BillÂ’s gun is still not visible. While walking to the front, Bill who is now convinced he is going to die, drops to one knee, turns and shoots the guy in the neck, killing him. The second gunman leaps over the cash counter and get two rounds off missing Bill both times. Bill shoots back and hits him twice. End of robbery. The second guy lived. LotÂ’s of issues here to be sure. Bill should be dead but lucked out and the robbery might have proceeded with out any violence if not for BillÂ’s intervention. Bill can, in NY, go to jail for his involvement, but he lied to the police and said he was carrying his Glock in the box and took it out of the car so as not to leave it unattended while he shopped on his way to the target range. Bill having acted so heroically the authorities did not push on this matter. Since that incident, Bill has drawn his gun on two black men he though wanted to rob him in a deserted parking lot, no shots fired and he has stuck his gun through the car window of a driver he thought was harassing him. Annika, I do not feel safer in a society that has more guns in the hands of citizens do you? Those who enter criminal enterprise and use guns I can do nothing about, but I am not convinced that more guns in the hands of citizens is the antidote. If you want to target shoot, just rent the use of a gun and have fun there is no need to take it home. If you are compelled to shoot animals; therapy is a better choice than going into the woods with a rifle. One will raise your self esteem while the other makes you question your sanity as you confront your homicidal impulses. (yes, yes, you hunters can turn the last sentence around but IÂ’ll leave it anyway) Criminals don't run from guns, they shoot first while citizens hesitate. Or they just run amok exercising their right to be crazy and refuse medication. For the record, I have shot hand guns, killed animals with rifles but came to my senses as I grew older. http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/beararms.htm offers some real questions about the nature of the second amendment. There is plenty of room for debate on the constitutional issue but far less room in the court of common sense.

Posted by: Strawman at August 30, 2005 09:39 AM (0ZdtC)

5 I thought I was looking forward to the jeopardy questions, but these posts are my favorites by a long shot now. Strawman's comment is just comedy gravy on a heathly serving of gunpowder-seasoned goodness.

Posted by: Trevor at August 30, 2005 10:46 AM (RwZxT)

6 Strawman (how apropos), You're kidding me. This is a fucking joke, right? Seriously. No? Well then, congratulations. You may have just set a record for volume of shit spewed in under 1000 words. It's utterly mind-boggling. Let's look at just a sample. "You know as well as anybody that guns don't stop crime nor do they don't make anybody think twice about committing a crime. Most gun crime involves people who know or loved each other and that most regretted what they did and wished they had just cooled off instead of picking up a gun. I canÂ’t verify this next statement but I would wager that more people are killed accidentally with fire arms than the number of armed citizens successfully protecting themselves with their weapon(s)." That entire paragraph displays jaw-dropping ignorance. Start by reading Kleck's "Targeting Guns", which summarizes a lot of the most relevant evidence. The best estimate is that the ratio of defensive gun uses to gun crimes (even very loosely defined) is between 3:1 and 5:1. The problem of heat-of-the-moment acquaintance killing is tremendously overblown. It arises from the fact that a significant proportion of violent crime victims are acquainted with their attackers. Childlike, kumbaya-singing anti-gunners like you picture thousands of loving moms and dads getting into spats over the decor for the remodeled bedroom and ending up dead, because it fits your preconceived notions of guns and the people who own them. The truth is that the statistics don't not distinguish between such people and, for example, rival gang members from the same neighborhood. Which group do you honestly suspect contributes most to acquaintance homicide. (Hint: This question is intended to test your sanity.) As far as whether guns make anyone think twice about committing a crime, see Wright's & Ross's "Armed and Considered Dangerous." (Brief summary available here.) Wright & Rossi found that 40% of convicted felons they surveyed said they had ever decided not to commit a crime because they feared the intended victim was armed. (That's 40% who had done it at least once. No word on how many were repeat deterees.) 34% said they'd been "scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed citizen." You want to talk Second Amendment? Don't even try until you've read these: 1 2 3 4 5 6 You, sir, are a Buffoon First Class, and I hereby award you the Fucking Simpleton's Cross with Oak Leaf Cluster and Bronze "A" for arrogance.

Posted by: Matt at August 30, 2005 11:18 AM (10G2T)

7 matt, check into what they defination of "strawman" or "straw argument" is. I know it got pissed just reading the frist paragraph....then i stopped and was looking for the joke. Annika, Frist, I would suggest trying everything with the gun if it is unloaded. Unless you are on some funky time limited range or something like that. Take you time with a gun, dry fire it, rack the slide, press the switches, just make sure the thing dry fires correctly before you fire it (you might have hit the take down lever or somthing). If you like the multipe safties on the Kimber, try the spring field XD. It is a glock with a grip saftey (with a grip angle of the kimber you fired).

Posted by: cube at August 30, 2005 11:40 AM (nyNr0)

8 in general, the audience for this blog is pretty vocal about the second amendment. Strawman brings up some interesting points which i'm sure will be addressed thoroughly. My own thoughts are not necessarily in line, but i'll need to wait until later to write them.

Posted by: annika at August 30, 2005 12:00 PM (zAOEU)

9 Miss Annika, Addicting, no? A lot of handguns have fixed sights. This is more or less to keep the sights from shifting under moderate to heavy use. What the proper thing to do is take a handgun with fixed sights, establish a load you're going to use in it (say Remington 230 grain Golden Sabers asopposed to Federal 230 Grain Hydrashoks) & then have the sights adjusted (or adjust them yourself) to be where you want them at. Everybody looks at sights slightly differently, so if my sights are adjusted for me & the way I shot that won't mean that they'll hit exactly where you'd expect. Don't judge a handgun too harshly cause the sights aren't lined up exactly with the point of impact. Also your technique will cause a change in sight picture. with the Sig you mainly shot it single action. With a double action only you have a longer, heavier trigger pull. That usually means you'll pull your shots to the right a bit. The feel not being right for you though is something you should pay attention to. with handguns it's especially important to have a good feel & if one model doesn't do it for you then you should pass on it despite any other virtues it has. The Browning - they have a good rep & for a reason. However any firearm that is neglected will not perform well. You're working with rental guns that get cleaned when they absolutely have to be. If you were shooting mine or Matt's or any other serious gun nuts handgun odds are you'd notice it was fairly well cared for & in good operating condition despite the brand. But ammo has something to do with things too. As do magazines. A lot of feed problems in semi's are attributable to A: ammo B: magazines or C: inadequate maintenence. It's possible that you just had a bad combination of all three (like there's a good combination).Were ya using range ammo? As in reloaded or range brand ammo? or were you using a recognizable name brand of commercial ammo? The frustrating part is that some ammo just isn't liked by some firearms, no matter how otherwise reliable it is. If the slide wasn't locking back all the time then either something is wrong with the slide catch (very possible in a well worn rental gun) or perhaps the ammo wasn't as powerful as needed to be to work the slide reliably. But in general you're doing real well. Honestly you're shooting better than I do with handguns & "proud" wouldn't be appropriate mainly because it doesn't convey that emotion enough. Dreaming about Mr. du Toit though? Hopefully it involved a range trip - a shootin range trip? The again compared to the met'ro'seks-uls in your current enviroment perhaps it was trying to show you it's time to walk a different path? Yeah; it be nice if you escaped to Colorado, but Texas wouldn't be someplace I'd bitch about considering wher eyou're at

Posted by: Publicola at August 30, 2005 02:05 PM (vC8Ev)

10 cube, I'm fully aware of what a strawman is, but I'm pretty sure he's serious. Unless someone has decided to adopt his identity, "Strawman" is Mike from, e.g., this comment thread, and this one, and especially this one. I'm pretty confident it's the same guy. Same condescending tone, same lack of hesitation to spout off without evidence, and the same e-mail in all cases.

Posted by: Matt at August 30, 2005 02:22 PM (10G2T)

11 Dream away, Annika. But you'd be better off dreaming about a Browning High Power (single-action only), one of the best pistols ever made. Note: ignore Glocks, which are ugly plastic things, spoiled somewhat by their excellent reliability and decent accuracy. Get over to Dallas sometime, and we can get you shooting some decent handguns. Oh, and never mind the GFWs (Gun-Fearing Wussies) like Strawman. Shoot lots, shoot safely.

Posted by: Kim du Toit at August 30, 2005 02:44 PM (gOz51)

12 Annika, Contrary to what Mr. Toit says I wish you well in your gun play. Enjoy the feel of a finely made gun, revile in its power and smell. Feel its heft and the density of the loads. Come to know the death and destruction it was designed to cause and then move on. People like Publicola are stunted and dim, lacking in imagination and breadth; imagine devoting vast blocks time on such a thing. Listen to the tenor of his voice as he extols the virtues of guns to you and welcomes you to his fold. Remind you of anything? Hello Matt, Why don't you take a pill, and breathe. I am not entering your house and taking your guns. I have suggested that there is some serious debate over the meaning of the 2nd Amendment and I suggest that the constitution be interpreted now and then with an eye toward the notion that what was salient and deemed necessary in 1775 may not be so today. I don't want the limited vision of the framers necessarily dictating the course of the society I live in today without a little bending of the meaning of the original language from time to time. This has been referred to as a “Living Constitution”. Just as “rights” have been found that specifically were not mentioned e.g. privacy, some “rights” that appear to have been mentioned may not need protection today, e.g. the right to bear arms. I think it is pretty clear that an armed citizenry, able to form itself into a viable militia, rather then “troops” of the central government, was the goal of the authors. They were concerned that the government not have the right to disarm the people and then use troops to impose unfair and unjust policies. I hope you’ll agree that that is no longer an idea with any merit. Did you read the Miller decision? Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, Book V, Ch. 1, contains an extended account of the Militia. It is there said: "Men of republican principles have been jealous of a standing army as dangerous to liberty." "In a militia, the character of the labourer, artificer, or tradesman, predominates over that of the soldier: in a standing army, that of the soldier predominates over every other character; and in this distinction seems to consist the essential difference between those two different species of military force." "In all the colonies, as in England, the militia system was based on the principle of the assize of arms. This implied the general obligation of all adult male inhabitants to possess arms, and, with certain exceptions, to cooperate in the work of defence." This appeal concerns the constitutionality of the Village of Morton Grove's Ordinance No. 81-11, n1 which prohibits the possession of handguns within the Village's borders.The district court held that the Ordinance was constitutional. We affirm. Matt, you think this gives citizens the right to carry a hand gun or to hunt? Any State could prohibit hunting in a minute, or taking your rifle out of your house. The amendment allows you to own a proper musket and ammunition and keep it at the ready and if needed to meet on the common to fight to defend your liberty. Nothing more. I think your argument distinction about that the amount of gun violence between people that know each other is specious. You agree that most gun violence is between people that know each other but assume that since two rival gang members know each other they are part of the data base which includes husbands and wives, uncles and other family relations. Then you arrogantly assume that the familial component of the data base is insignificant and the gang violence significant. Why? Compared to the small number of people in gangs the numbers of familial relations is staggering. It is only reasonable to assume the violence in that group is far and away more prevalent regardless of how violence prone the gang members are. What do you think the ratio of citizens to gang members is? I will look into the stats you quote on guns used for defense. I think you numbers are wrong but I’ll wait and see. I read the summary of the Rossie article. Nothing new, most criminals that use guns don’t buy them in gun stores, so? So, are you against background checks, keeping the records and waiting periods? I will also not call you names and lump you into a group that may not hold or want you. And yes I was mike. Not hding.

Posted by: Strawman at August 30, 2005 04:57 PM (0ZdtC)

13 Strawman, I'm working on a more in depth refutation of your initial comment, but I can't let the second one slide. Stunted? 9 out of 10 of yo' women would disagree. The tenth would remain silent cause your mother is like that. Dim? by contrast that would make you a black hole, which would also be a useful analogy in regards to your claims that I'm stunted. Lacking breadth & imagination? That's amusing as well. Now Casca would be the first to point out that one of my faults is being a long winded bastard, but I doubt even he would come close to the depth of personal attack you've tried to initiate. You wish to discuss the lack of merits of what you were saying? Fine. I can be as civil as you'd hope for. But I'm not above aking this to a game of deoens like you ain't never done seen before. I'm barbaric, remember? (you implied that w/o directly stating it). Always amazes me that those "emlightened" folks of the socilaist/statist persuasion rely on name calling & denial of facts rather than using logic as a basis for their disagreements. As I said I'll have a substantive response to your initial comments directly. & right now I consider us even (mor eor less) so it'll be up to you to decide if you wish to conduct yourself in a rational manner, or if I have to get ghetto on your ass. If th elater come to my blog as miss Annika doesn't need the band width going to me schooling you in insult & derisions.

Posted by: Publicola at August 30, 2005 06:47 PM (vC8Ev)

14 "Listen to the tenor of his voice as he extols the virtues of guns to you and welcomes you to his fold. Remind you of anything?" Almost forgot about that part. Tell me, what is it reminiscent of? ow can you extrapolate the tone of my voice from fairly static type? Would that also be the clairvoyance that should allow gun dealers to judge the intentions of those they sell to? What it should remind a perosn of, & what I assume miss Annika views it as, is a friend trying to help another friend become self reliant & independent. I want her to be able to defend herself. I don't want her to rely upon the state, or perhaps even worse, a statist such as yourself. I would much rather she develop an affinity for the shooting sports that would translate into an increased ability for her self protection than to see her take your view & be at the mercy of any violent confrontational criminal who wanders into her life. But please do tell me what it's supposed to remind her of.

Posted by: Publicola at August 30, 2005 06:54 PM (vC8Ev)

15 If you can believe it, in my dream Kim responded to my email invite by flying to San Francisco of all places, so we could chat about blogging and Browning. But of course that could never happen in real life because neither Publicola nor Mr. du Toit would ever set foot in that city, i'm sure. Anyways Kim, i read your old review of the Browning HP, and it's on my list. Thanks Publicola for easing my mind about those sights. i will try to watch that rightward pull on DAOs next time. As for the ammo i used in the BDM, i saved the box. It says "Magtech 9mm Luger 7,45g (115gr.) FMC (9A)" whatever that means. And my range requires that you buy their brand for use on the range, but it's retail, not handloaded stuff.

Posted by: annika at August 30, 2005 07:59 PM (cJsT2)

16 "You know as well as anybody that guns don't stop crime nor do they don't make anybody think twice about committing a crime." Strawman, with regard to gun possession and the Constitution, I regret that you are uninformed. Please read CAREFULLY John Lott's "The Bias Against Guns." Imagine Joe DiMaggio hitting a baseball. That's how easily Lott refutes your statements on guns.

Posted by: Mark at August 31, 2005 02:38 AM (UESXD)

17 Miss Annika, You'll find that for almost unexplicable reasons some firearms perform really well or really poorly with a specific kind of ammo. If you're lucky yours works well with the cheap stuff, but the one that comes off the assembly line right before yours might only do well with the expensive stuff. But be careful; some ranges will use handloads packed in factory boxes. they're not so much trying to defraud you, it's just the factory boxes are for some unexplicable reason very convenient for storing ammo in Magtech though is usually decent stuff. & there are circumstances where I would set foot in San Fran, but I doubt that the people of that city will call me to help liberate themselves from Cali. Mr. du Toit though doesn't have the same opposition as I do. Oh, he wouldn't be happy about it, but I know he's been to Chicago recently & Chicago is much worse than Cali. Then again there is another circumstance that would cause me to go to Cali... A few years back my then g/f went to Mexico for a few months. I feel the same about Mexico as I do about Chicago but I found myself planning a trip there. Course said trip was for the purpose of rescuing said g/f while holding off the entire damned country but still... & the box - 9mm Luger is a common name for the 9x19mm cartridge, also called the Parabellum. Parabellum came first as it means "for war" (if i recall my german correctly) & since it was the chambering of the Luger pistol eventually 9mm Luger became more commonplace. 115 gr is the weight of the bullet (which I know you knew, or would that be I mu you nu?) FMC means Fully Metal Contained which more or less just means the lead is totally covered by a jacket of metal (presumably copper) 9A is just the product code to distinguish that 115 gr FMC load from the 6 other 9x19mm loads w/o having to write it all out. Btw, your bullet should have been traveling at around 1,135 feet per second. Strawman, Here's a more thorough reply to your initial comment.

Posted by: Publicola at August 31, 2005 04:58 AM (vC8Ev)

18 mmmmmm chicks n' ammo.....

Posted by: Pursuit at August 31, 2005 06:51 AM (n/TNS)

19 Publicola's reply to "Strawman" will probably send him back to Moxie's under a new alias where he can again pretend to be gay.

Posted by: d-rod at August 31, 2005 11:02 AM (xmskQ)

20 Mike/Strawman, Whoa there. Let's not get ahead of ourselves. We're not done with your original comment: Your response tells me that you aren't familiar with Kleck, or Wright & Rossi (and you completely missed the point of my cite to W&R). In other words, you haven't read or even heard of some of the leading literature on guns and crime. I'm no criminologist, and I don't claim to have read everything that's been written on the subject. But this is not esoteric stuff I'm citing here; anyone who wants to be able to consider himself reasonably well-informed on the guns-crime issue simply has to be at least passingly familiar with them. If you were familiar with Kleck, and Wright & Rossi, but disagreed with them, I could at least respect that. But you're not. You're simply ignorant. That's inexcusable in anyone who presumes to hold forth on this subject with sweeping statements such as yours. The results of Wright's and Rossi's interviews, alone, completely demolish your claims that "guns don't stop crime nor do they don't make anybody think twice about committing a crime" and "Criminals don't run from guns, they shoot first while citizens hesitate." If you want a little more detail about acquaintance crime, let's do so. The anti-gun groups commonly trot out statistics about crime among families and acquaintances in order to support their claims that most "gun violence" results from tragic, heat-of-the-moment incidents involving otherwise decent, law-abiding people who could not control themselves in the presence of a gun. In a claim reminiscent of that stupid old movie, Reefer Madness, they assert that the mere presence of guns leads to homicides by encouraging otherwise sane, law-abiding people do to bad things when they're upset. (They lump in acquaintance crime with family crime, despite the fact that we know almost nothing about the actual relationships between the parties in acquaintance crimes, because it boosts their numbers.) That's an important argument for them, because if it were true it would suggest that by severely restricting the availability of guns among the law-abiding -- the group of people most likely to obey gun laws -- we could significantly reduce crime. But the only "evidence" for this proposition is that a majority of violent crime -- IIRC, about 55% in the case of violent crime other than homicide, and an unknown proportion of homicides (but likely greater than 50%) -- is committed by family members and friends or acquaintances of the victims. This is a non sequitur. One cannot conclude from the aforementioned facts anything about the state of mind of the offenders, whether they loved or liked their victims, whether the crimes were premeditated, whether the criminals "regret" their actions, whether they acted in the heat of some sort of passion, or whether they were ex ante law-abiding people. All we know is that people are somewhat more likely to be victimized by someone they know, at least in passing, than by someone they've never seen before. (Which makes perfect sense, since most people aren't likely to have many beefs with complete strangers.) So are these offenders generally law-abiding, peaceable people before they commit their violent crimes? The several studies that I've seen or read of suggest that they're not,. For example, most estimates conclude that between 70% and 90% of domestic homicides are preceded by incidents of violent abuse. (The studies have been limited in geography and time, so the results have varied. I have seen no good national-level data on this question.) About 3/4 of domestic homicide perpetrators (depending on what study you look at) have adult criminal records for violent felonies or burglaries, and more than half (in most studies) of their victims also have criminal records. Juvenile offenders appear even more likely to have violent criminal records, and their records appear to be more serious on average. IIRC, similar numbers apply for most people who commit violent crimes against victims with whom the offender has no preexisting relationship. It does not appear, empirically, that violent criminals are average, peacable, law-abiding people suddenly gone bad in the heat of one moment; instead, they seem largely to be criminals doing what they've been doing for years. The truth is that violent crime in this country is largely a problem of a violent criminal underclass. If you are not a member of that underclass, you are not very likely to commit or be victimized by a violent crime, even if you own guns -- or perhaps especially if you own guns. (And note that if crimes of passion "caused" by the presence of firearms really were a significant proportion of violent crimes, we'd generally expect to see relatively high numbers of homicides where firearms are readily available. But the states and localities with the highest gun ownership rates tend to have relatively fewer homicides than those with very restrictive gun laws.) As to my supposed arrogant assumption that, "that the familial component of the data base is insignificant and the gang violence significant," the fact is that roughly 1/6-1/5 of violent crimes, including homicides, involve an offender who is a family member or person in an intimate relationship with the victim. That's a pretty small proportion, compared to friend and acquaintance crimes. Period. And I can't help it that DOJ's definition of "acquaintance" is in fact broad enough to encompass the relationship between rival gang members, between a prostitute and a john, between a drug dealer and drug buyer, between a bookie and a bettor, or between two strangers who strike up a conversation in a bar. We don't know for sure how many non-family acquaintance murders fall into those counterintuitive "acquaintance" relationships. (There's no particular reason that I know of to think that it's not a significant proportion.) But by the same token, there's simply no persuasive evidence of which I'm aware to support your claim that "Most gun crime involves people who know or loved each other and that most regretted what they did and wished they had just cooled off instead of picking up a gun." If such evidence is out there, please provide it. Moving on to the Second Amendment, I'm not sure I see the point of a debate. Debate requires a minimal set of shared assumptions. Since I am not a living constitutionalist (I view that theory of constitutional interpretation -- if indeed it deserves to be called a theory -- as a lawless usurpation of powers shared by the States and Congress under Article V of our Constitution), I don't think you and I have that minimal set. You can quote me Quilici v. Morton Grove or Cases v. United States day long, and I simply don't care because I view those cases as wrongly decided and intellectually dishonest. Likewise I can quote you the Founders, and eighteenth and nineteenth century commentators and cases, all day long, and it won't matter because you simply don't care about what the Founders (and/or the ratifiers of the 14th Amendment) intended the Second Amendment to accomplish. We can discuss United States v. Miller, and I can explain to you why it's a strongly pro-individual rights decision that implicitly vindicates my right to own a machine gun; but even if I persuade you of that fact (which is true, by the way) you'll simply say that the Court was insane and that, even if they were right as a matter of original intent, times have changed. So what's the value in this exercise? While you're at it, who are the participants in this "serious debate" about the meaning of the Second Amendment? Explain. What is the subject of the debate, exactly? Whether the Amendment secures an individual right? It clearly was intended to, if that's what you mean. Even Larry Tribe now agrees, reluctantly. (Of course it doesn't do so as a practical matter because a great many judges are committed to ignoring the Second Amendment, but that only indicates that many judges think might [the judicial power] makes right, no matter how intellectually bankrupt they may be.) So is the debate about the scope of the right, what is and isn't permissible in the field of firearm regulation? What? There is one thing that I can't let pass without comment, though. You claim that, "The [Second A]mendment allows you to own a proper musket and ammunition and keep it at the ready and if needed to meet on the common to fight to defend your liberty. Nothing more." Are you serious? So I suppose you believe the Fourth Amendment doesn't protect the data on your computer, because computers didn't exist circa 1790? And the government can freely censor online speech because the Internet didn't exist circa 1790, either? And freedom of the press applies to the New York Times only as long as it uses circa 1790 printing presses? I hereby award you a second Oak Leaf Cluster for your FSC. Oops, I almost forgot: Even the anti-gun scholars concede 65,000-80,000 defensive gun uses per year (an estimate that is deeply flawed for a number of reasons that Kleck explains). According to the CDC (Table 12), in 2002 there were 762 accidental deaths by firearms, nationwide. Since 65,000 is a whole lot more than 762, your "wager that more people are killed accidentally with fire arms than the number of armed citizens successfully protecting themselves with their weapon(s)" is out the window, even accepting gross underestimates of total DGUs. Wrong again.

Posted by: Matt at August 31, 2005 01:50 PM (10G2T)

21 Annika, I came by way of Publicola's place. Glad to see that you're learning to shoot. If 9mm is your thing, you might want to try a Springfield XD9. I bought one for my daughter to use, and she loves it. Fits her well and shots well. I like it as well, but I'm more of a 1911 kinda guy. As far as what Strawman has said, it is unimportant, and we do not hear his words.

Posted by: Bill at August 31, 2005 06:49 PM (Tx0EW)

22 i haven't shot a Springfield, but i've looked at their website because they make a replica WWII style 1911. i also noticed that a cool looking gun in the movie Sin City was made by Springfield Armory. i was shocked to see that they are made in Brazil though. i mean, i don't want to sound prejudiced, but when i think precision machinery and quality control, i don't think Brazil.

Posted by: annika at August 31, 2005 07:08 PM (3I5eq)

23 Actually Taurus makes some decent stuff & they're based in Brazil. Matter of fact I have this nice little affordable 12 gauge side by side shotgun that came from Brazil. & if I recall right Harley-Davidson engine blocks are made in Brazil. we ain't talking things that will be looked at by artisans 300 years form now as a sign of our prowess with metal working, but if cared for they'll probably still function. Course shame of it is Brazil passed some major gun control laws recently.

Posted by: Publicola at September 01, 2005 12:24 AM (vC8Ev)

24 It looks like another Eloi has accepted his fate of being Morlock food. I have a spare tire in my trunk ... I do not fear flat tires. I carry a firearm ... I do not fear evil. If he ( or the state, acting as his agent ) comes for my firearms, I will simply kill them.

Posted by: Kristopher at September 01, 2005 01:07 PM (lupHh)

25 "If you are compelled to shoot animals; therapy is a better choice than going into the woods with a rifle. One will raise your self esteem while the other makes you question your sanity as you confront your homicidal impulses." Deer are a good dinner. Therapists write notes, nod and say "hm-mmmmm . . . ." On the whole, the deer is better company. Anyone who doesn't appreciate the subtlety of the differences between a deer and a therapist has spent too little time with deer and too much time with therapists.

Posted by: jerry the geek at September 02, 2005 12:44 AM (zWQj7)

26 If you want to give .45 another try, rent a Glock 30. It is the softest shooting .45 I have ever used.

Posted by: g at September 02, 2005 09:09 AM (eXUzJ)

27 Let me be the first to compliment Annie's fine collage. Her t-shirt reveals the letter "IG" and "SAU" "Pig sauce"? "Big Sausage"?

Posted by: Mark at September 04, 2005 02:06 AM (qI3ib)

28 ...just wandered over here from Instapundit, via Kim do Toit. It *IS* fun, isn't it Annika? Just a coupla thoughts: For fun & practice, try a .22. They're easy to shoot, easy to pay for (including the ammo) and even moderately priced ones are accurate. Revolvers: your experience will depend heavily on how the grip fits your hand. Fortunately, they are hugely adaptable, so you needn't live with the grip that came on the gun. Look for something that fills the space behind the trigger guard.

Posted by: Doug at September 13, 2005 10:26 AM (TEZnx)

29 The Kimber is a single action only gun.

Posted by: steve at September 29, 2005 08:18 AM (m3L4P)

30 Hello friends, its impressive post concerning educationand completely explained, keep it up all the time.

Posted by: walther at January 16, 2013 12:32 PM (aak7F)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Some of you have emailed me with rejected comments. i don't know why they're being rejected, but it's not my doing and i have no control over the filter. It may have something to do with the recent mu.nu server problem and hopefully it will only be temporary. Feel free to email me with your compliments or vitriol, in the meantime.

Posted by: annika at 10:28 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 69 words, total size 1 kb.

i'm donating to Catholic Charities.

While local agencies along the Gulf Coast anticipate that they will be provide some type of emergency assistance in their communities, Catholic Charities' niche in disaster relief is to provide long-term recovery work. In fact, Catholic Charities agencies in Florida are still providing services to help people recover from last year's devastating hurricanes.

Based on past disasters, possible long-term services that Catholic Charities may provide include temporary and permanent housing, direct assistance beyond food and water to get people back into their homes, job placement counseling, and medical and prescription drug assistance.

Posted by: annika at 07:40 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 130 words, total size 1 kb.

i'm sorry for the delay. With the hurricane and all, i was unable to post before today.

Okay, so i'm in California. i knew that. Well the real reason is that i was in moving and had no electricity. i thought i'd be able to post via my telephone but then its battery went dead. So i was completely blog incommunicado for four days.

But i hope you'll find the long awaited Final Jeopardy round as exciting as i did. The category was "The Blogosphere," and the clue was

annika has almost all of his TV appearances on DVD, yet this blogger is not on her blogroll. Go figure.

Next is Ken, who said: "I bet my whole wad on Wil Wheaton." i'm sorry Ken, the judges cannot accept that answer. You lose your whole wad, $200.

Jasen and Skippy didn't play FJ, so i'm keeping their money.

Next is D-Rod, who responded: "Who is Victor David Hanson?" Nope. D-Rod wagered $399, so he now has $1.

Charlie had $400, but didn't submit a response, so i keep his money.

Phil had $500, and his response was "Who is Frank Sinatra?" Last i checked, Frank Sinatra was dead. Although his music lives on, i don't think Sinatra's music has a blog. Phil wagered "$0.00," so he's left with $500 and the lead.

Next is Shelly, who responded

Damn, I hate this game. I am compulsive by nature, and I have made this an addiction. I'm glad it is over an I can get back to my mundane life.

OK, at first, I thought it was gonna be Hugh Hewitt for sure, but I checked and he IS on your blogroll, so that fizzled out.

Then I said (to myself) 'Myself, who has been on TV enough to have Annie have taped him, and yet not so much that her house would be running over with discs, etc.?'.

Myself replied 'The only person I can come up with is a guy who's show was canceled for some inexplicable reason (well, he seems less offensive on the radio, I guess) from Northern California named Michael Savage.'

So, trusting Myself, and having no other thoughts . . . Who is Michael Savage?

Let's see what Shelly wagered. His entire $1000. Sorry Shelly, you're down to zero.

Next is Victor, who guessed "Who is Will Wheaton?" Ding. You are correct, Victor. Spelling does not count in Final Jeopardy. Victor bet all $1100, so he now has the lead with $2200.

Dave J was next with $1400, but this was his response:

Since I'm completely stumped, I'm not betting anything: I can't even think up a good guess, though I'm sure I'll be kicking myself about how obvious it was after this is over.

And now you've motivated me to try out again, and pester the hell out of the real show to call me back this time.

Casca started out with the second highest point total, at $1700. Ever confident, Casca responded with "Who is Hugh Hewitt?" aaaaaaa! Like Shelly said, Hugh Hewitt is indeed on my blogroll. Casca bet the whole thing, so he is now down to zero.

Finally, it's all up to Trevor, who starts out Final Jeopardy with the most points, $1900. His response was "Who is Wil Wheaton?" Nice job Trevor.

Now let's find out if Trevor wagered enough to beat Victor. more...

Posted by: annika at 06:42 AM | Comments (22) | Add Comment
Post contains 664 words, total size 4 kb.

Many thanks to Beth, Michelle and Basil for allowing the free trackbacks and links while Mu.nu was down.

Since the blog was unavailable for most of Tuesday, i will extend the Final Jeopardy deadline until 11:59 p.m. Pacific time, Thursday night. Or until all players have submitted their responses. Right now, we're still waiting for Charlie, Skippy and Jasen.

For future reference, my old Blogspot blog will be my backup blog. You can find it at http://annikagyrl.blogspot.com/ or just google "blogspot annika."

Posted by: annika at 01:19 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 88 words, total size 1 kb.

Don't forget to email your Final Jeopardy responses by 11:59 p.m. Pacific time, Thursday night.

Posted by: annika at 11:59 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 23 words, total size 1 kb.

For those in Southern California interested in lending support, the Crawford Texas Caravan in support of our troops is heading your way.

On Tuesday at 3:05pm, we will be arriving in Burbank at KFI studio, 3400 W. Olive Avenue to appear on the John and Ken Show.

On Wednesday at 8:00am, we will be arriving in San Diego at KOGO studio, 9660 Granite Ridge Drive, San Diego to appear live on the Roger Hedgecock Show. Roger will be broadcasting from the parking lot so our supporters can join him during the broadcast.

PLEASE - if you are anywhere near where our caravan will be, we NEED you to make plans to meet us at the caravan stops... and if possible join the caravan for part of the way.

Posted by: annika at 08:05 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 146 words, total size 1 kb.

This Week's Cotillion Ball is hosted by the following ladies: Cassandra, who asks "what is it about boots?;" The American Princess, a hot chick with some hot cars; Soldiers' Angel - Holly Aho, who spotlights America's fighting women, and the lovely Fausta, of Bad Hair Blog, who never has a bad hair day, blogwise. As always, i encourage you to read these best posts of the last week from the top women bloggers around.

Posted by: annika at 07:41 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 78 words, total size 1 kb.

i took the California Handgun Safety Certificate written test last weekend and passed with flying colors. That means that the State of California has deemed me worthy to purchase a handgun within the next five years if i so choose.

The test is so easy even one of Victor's rats could pass it (assuming that Victor has taught them how to read, as i'm sure he has). But the State of California still got 25 bucks out of me for the privilege of taking the test.

Publicola fisked the test's review booklet and showed how, despite the simplicity of the questions, even an expert can have trouble. This sample question seems to have tripped him up:

Hmmm. They have a self test.

'Safety Rule Number Two is keep
the gun pointed:

A. To the north.
B. In the safest possible direction.
C. Up.
D. Down.'

Well being a Southerner I gotta go with A. . . . we never really trusted those damn yankees . . .

Publicola was also nice enough to answer two questions i posed to him:

if Cali does not have the worst gun laws in the country, who does? and on a related note . . . Are there any decently industrialized nations that recognize the rights of gun owners similar to or better than the US?

Posted by: annika at 10:53 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 234 words, total size 2 kb.

The next time i hear someone say that Iraqi women were better off when Saddam was in power, i'm going to scream. Why are so many people saying that? Do they all get the same stupidity newsletter?

Listen up. When the son of a country's leader goes around town picking out women, who are then abducted, raped, and their husbands killed, that is not a situation that any sane person should characterize as "better off."

Posted by: annika at 10:22 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 87 words, total size 1 kb.

i'm no wine expert, but i'll give it a try. i emailed Pursuit, who is the unofficial sommelier of annika's journal, and asked him if it was time to drink that $12 bottle of '95 St. Supery Cabernet i'd been holding onto. He responded thusly:

I'd suggest that you drink it pretty soon.

I hope you've kept it on its side

and in a reasonably cool place.

While some reds can be great beyond ten years, my guess is the St Supery is probably in its sweet spot now.

(If you're ever in Napa, i recommend the St. Supery winery tour. Very informative.)

As for the '95, i liked it. Almost rust in color, plum and berry predominates, and there was no trace of tannin. A hint of oak [i have no idea what i'm talking about, btw] and big but not overly complex. All in all, a good $12 investment.

Tasted good tooo.

Update: Although i have no idea what a tannin is, this pro seemed to agree with me that the '95 didn't have any.

Posted by: annika at 07:09 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 203 words, total size 1 kb.

The category is "The Blogosphere."

The players are:

Trevor $1900
Casca $1700
Dave J $1400
Victor $1100
Shelly $1000
Phil $500
Charlie $400
D-Rod $400
Skippy $400
Jasen $300
Ken $200
Kyle $200

The time limit is until 11:59 p.m. Pacific time, Tuesday night. Rules are here. Don't forget your wager and to phrase the response correctly. No need to buzz in. Click here to send me your response. Good luck!

[Final Jeopardy music starts now.]

Posted by: annika at 06:46 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 79 words, total size 1 kb.

So is Robyn, of North American Patriot. Here's a great tribute.

Posted by: annika at 07:21 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.

i discovered an interesting niche blog this morning, Boomer Deathwatch. It's about that old Gen X - Boomer antipathy. i consider myself a Gen Xer, so i can relate to a lot of it. Here's an excerpt from the top post:

In the meantime, I worked minimum wage jobs and buffed up my political and social paranoia, built out of bits and pieces of leftover 60s radical rhetoric. Reagan was evil; Thatcher was a witch; the CIA pulled the strings; the Joint Chiefs of Staff and their counterparts at the Kremlin were glaring at each other over some future battlefield, wracked with nervous ticks and drenched with booze-soaked flopsweat, and one day they'd go too far and blow us all to kingdom come. There was no good or evil, or it was all evil, or we all had the potential for good. I don't know, it changed all the time, depending on what I was reading.

Then the 80s boom ended and the Wall fell and I finally got tired of being afraid and confused. More to the point, I got tired of letting fear and ignorance dictate how I saw the world, so I started reading books, some of which I didn't agree with at first. I stopped reading music magazines and started reading about economics, if only to find out just why all of the magazines I'd worked for as a freelance writer and photographer came and went in such regular cycles.

I was 'empowering myself'. Sure. Basically I was trying to peek my head up over the surging boomer crest ahead of me before the building echo wave behind me swept me down again. There had to be more to be seen or heard than the surging spectacle of sex, drugs and rock and roll that had been the backdrop for my whole life. If it looked like I'd never afford a house or a family, at least I wanted to know why I didn't die in a nuclear holocaust, or live in the Orwellian 'security state' of total surveillance and mind control that so many of my peers seemed to think was inevitable - indeed, already here, if you listened to many of them.

i remember when Time ran that cover story about Gen X back in the eighties and it wasn't too flattering. And this whole shit storm erupted about whether Gen Xers were slackers, and why the Boomers were so bitter about the next generation.

Then the conflict seemed to die down, sometime in the late nineties perhaps. Boomers started to realize with their mortality staring them in the face, that their entire life could not be the big self-indulgent youth movement they thought it would be. And that Gen-Xers weren't all lazy cynics, and they didn't necessarily want or need to follow in the Boomers' footsteps either.

By the way, i recently saw The Big Chill for the first time on DVD. i'd heard so much about that movie that i figured i was missing out for having never seen it. i was wrong. i didn't miss a darn thing.

Posted by: annika at 08:18 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 566 words, total size 3 kb.

Way to go, Bob.

Posted by: annika at 10:44 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 10 words, total size 1 kb.