June 29, 2006
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld
I think we all understand that the mainstream media cannot be trusted to analyze Supreme Court decisions within even a basic level of competence.
Accordingly, I've printed out all 101 pages of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, and now that I am home from work, I will attempt to read through it. I may not finish, but even if I only get the highlights, I am confident that I will understand it more thoroughly than the smartest person on staff at USA Today or the L.A. Times could ever hope to.
But for now, I have some Gitmo related questions.
I hear that the ruling does not mean that the U.S. must release the Guantanamo Bay prisoners. (Democrats and foreign types who want us to close the prison are probably disappointed about that.) So, if that means that holding these whatever you want to call them people at Gitmo is okay, then is it only that trying them by military tribunal is not okay?
If so, is the only reason we're insisting on trying them in the first place because that's the only way we can kill them? Otherwise we'd just hold onto them until the end of the war, like we've always done with people we capture on a battlefield.
And if just holding onto them until the end of the war is something that every country has always done in every war, why do some people want us to close down Gitmo? Are people like Carter and Koffi Anon arguing that we don't have the right to hold people we capture on a battlefield?
What do the Gitmo critics want us to do with these prisoners, release them like they were illegal aliens? If so, won't they end up back here again, just like illegal aliens?
Now, if the only reason we are trying these detainees is so we can get the death penalty on them, then we shouldn't be risking the chance that they might be acquitted. I'd rather they just languish in jail until the war is over. And I'm not talking about the Iraq war. As we all know, the "War On Terror" will be going on for a long long time.
If these guys are now "prisoners of war," so be it. I haven't heard of any requirement in international law that a country must unilaterally release prisoners of war before a war is finished. Effectively, these guys probably already have a life sentence. So why bother with a military tribunal at all?
Update: Okay, page three of the decision says, "Hamdan apparently is not subject to the death penalty (at least as matters now stand) and may receive a prison sentence shorter than 10 years . . ."
So again, why do we even need to put him on trial? Can't we just hold onto him indefinitely?
Update 2: This opinion is kicking my ass. I'm at page 27. Someone put some coffee on.
Update 3: Fuck if I'm going to sit here reading this crap on my vacation when I'm a) not getting paid for it, and b) not getting graded for it.
The pool is calling. I'm out.
Oh, here's the USA Today article I cracked on earlier. Not so cocky now, I guess.
Update 4: Check this out:
Hamdan my walkinÂ’ cane
Hamdan my walkinÂ’ cane
Hamdan my walkinÂ’ cane
IÂ’m a gonna catch that midnight train
All my sins they've taken away, taken away
If I die in Gitmo jail
If I die in Gitmo jail
If I die in Gitmo jail
Send my body back C.O.D.
All my sins they've taken away, taken away
Hamdan my book of Koran
Hamdan my book of Koran
Hamdan my book of Koran
IÂ’m gonna get drunk sure as youÂ’re born
All my sins they've taken away, taken away
It just came to me. Make of it what you will. Here's
The Knitters' version.
That's why I'm the cool connector... makin' connections between things that maybe... don't need connectin'.
Posted by: annika at
06:06 PM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
Post contains 669 words, total size 4 kb.
1
Ahhhhhh, that's why I love you!
Posted by: Casca at June 29, 2006 06:30 PM (2gORp)
2
Brace yourself. Wading through that decision is an endurance test. The majority decision was to grant habeas to Hamdan and state that Bush's tribunals have no basis in law. There's a plurality decision in there that I'm still trying to decipher.
Scalia's dissent is a thing of directness and joy, ripping the majority for claiming jurisdiction in the face of a statute that revokes jurisdiction from the Court.
Thomas then writes the dissent's assault on the "merits" of Hamdan's case, but I haven't delved into that yet.
The Court pointedly does not say Bush cannot continue to hold detainees at Gitmo as enemy combatants. They emphasize that issue wasn't in the appeal and acknowledge that the detainees are probably an on-going threat to the US (at the least). So Carter and Kofi can go wander off and smoke a crack pipe together. (Which, come to think of it, is the only way to explain some of their "reasoning.")
For the most part I don't have an issue with how the Court ruled except in one regard, the bit about asserting the right to adjudicate the issue even though Congress explicitly removed it from their jurisdiction. According to some estimates, this opens the floodgate to some 600 habeas filings dealing with detainees. Egads! Can you say "clogged calendar"?
Once I finish with the "merits" of the case I'll probably hate it more.
Posted by: bob at June 29, 2006 06:50 PM (R0/A7)
3
What I had heard from the MSM was that the tribunals were not run correctedly, if they can be run at all.
If you had a chance to finish, what is your final analysis of the opinions, and did you read both?
Posted by: will at June 30, 2006 03:56 AM (GzvlQ)
4
Bob,
The point you bring up is a good one: The Court did ignore Congress. But, they also ignored precedent regarding the President's authority to set up military tribunals. Worse yet was the ludicrous idea the somehow the Geneva Conventions apply to terroists that fight for no country and wear no uniforms. This is another example of the Court deciding that they get to make law rather than interpret it. Enough of this liberal nonsense about the excessive power of the Executive. The Executive and his party must face the voters on regular intervals and are subject to the democratic process. The Supreme Court and the courts generally act as if they are royalty and are accountable to nobody.
Posted by: blu at June 30, 2006 10:57 AM (b1ukN)
5
Aren't some folks making too big a deal about this? Other sites I'm reading seems to imply that what the President was doing would be permissible if Congress authorized it. News sources like the NYTimes are making this out to be some shuddering defeat (the NYT says "...such a sweeping and categorical defeat for the administration..."), but that to me sounds like severe overreach, wishful thinking, even. The authority
to detain those folks wasn't even addressed, and the authority to
try the folks was said to be one issued by Congress, not assumed by the President. To me, that seems to be a rather narrowly focused point. Maybe Anni can answer when she's got the time, but my question stands: Why is this being taken as such a blow to the Administration? It's almost as if the courts were saying "Close. Try again, this time with Congress".
Am I wrong about that? Again, I have .00000001% legal expertise, so I haven't even tried to wade through the text of the decisions themselves, only what other sites are saying about it (like
here).
Posted by: ElMondoHummus at June 30, 2006 11:23 AM (xHyDY)
6
Blu, I'm still wading through the bits about the Geneva Conventions, but there application here -- as you say -- is worse than silly. The Court "reasoning" is in essence since al Qaeda does not represent a nation then a conflict with al Qaeda cannot be "international", in a conflict between nations, therefore they apply a portion of the Conventions that applies only to internal conflicts (i.e., civil wars within a single country). Awk, my head explodes.
Annika,
This Court in this ruling affirms the President's authority to declare someone an enemy combatant (subject to challenge), affirms that he may detain enemy combatants, and affirms that those so detained may be held "for the duration of hostilities." So I'm with you, why the push to put the guy on trial?
Unless you look at as part of a process for closing the detention facilities. That is, you put on trial, convict, and incarcerate the worst of the worst, then release the rest to their countries of origin. Thus, the Gitmo detention facility is emptied and may be closed. This ruling puts the skids on that idea and thus mandates that they remain open.
ElMondo, yes, Bush can go to Congress and get either clarification on his tribunal authority or get it established and thus effectively reverse this decision.
Last, this decision is oh so not a major blow against Bush. It affirms that he can detain enemy combatants (like Hamdan) until such time as the conflict is resolved, which may be for a very long time. That's a slap at positions taken by the NYT and others on the left. It's a major slap at Congress for having the audacity to attempt to remove a matter from the jurisdiction of the Court. Bush gets a minor reprimand for attempting to form tribunals, and that part is mostly a plurality decision and thus persuasive but not binding.
The reporting on this just plain sucks, almost as badly as the ruling itself.
Posted by: bob at June 30, 2006 04:39 PM (R0/A7)
7
This a big boon for the Republicans. The Supreme Court's mistake can easily be fixed by legislation. Every one who votes against the fix will be seen as supporting terrorists.
Posted by: Jake at June 30, 2006 04:47 PM (r/5D/)
8
You are correct grasshopper.
Posted by: Casca at June 30, 2006 10:07 PM (2gORp)
9
Hank Aaron, and Duke Ellington? I understand MLK, but hell, give me GW Carver, or any number of lessor known black men who've made real accomplishments. In any case, few of any race compare to Washington and Lincoln.
Posted by: Casca at July 01, 2006 11:31 PM (2gORp)
10
Casca makes some good points, in a way.
Personally, I'm appalled you've got FDR up there, and not Teddy. TR's greatest accomplishment, among his many,
many was to prove to the world the US was a world power and not some little upstart country made up of castoffs and runaways.
Also, he let his kids keep rats as pets in the White House.
Posted by: Victor at July 02, 2006 03:57 AM (l+W8Z)
11
I have a very long discussion of this on my blog.
The issue of detention is distinct from punishment. Hamdi made explicit that detention is allowed so long as status review panels are used, and those panels were creatd and employed soon after Hamdi's bullshit habeas petition succeeded. (He has since been released to the Saudis). The goal of the tribunals is to punish these guys for war crimes, including the crime of being members of al Qaeda. If you will, like the difference between civil and criminal trials, we can detain for duration of hostilities with low theshold determinations by status review panels but higher stakes permanent punishments as war criminals (including punishments such as death) must be meted out with higher standards. According to Hamdan those must be basically as high as UCMJ court martials which is ridiculous for a number of reasons, not least that article 36 of the UCMJ contemplates lesser standards in the commissions, the DTA authorizes commissions, and the international law standard mandated by Geneva surely cannot require higher degrees of procedural protections than other Geneva signatories. In other words, some low uniform international standard must apply to Geneva Article III, whether it applies in this case or not.
Anyway, my essay is long and probably a little detailed, but not nearly so long and tedious as the majority and plurality opinions in Hamdan itself. God help those prolix justices.
Posted by: Roach at July 03, 2006 11:58 PM (bqbkz)
12
What's all the fuss about? Let's just do what the Supremes and the Democrats want and release each of the prisoners.
Back to the authorities in their country of origin, of course.
Posted by: shelly at July 04, 2006 08:14 AM (BJYNn)
13
I used to have to wear my brother's hamdans. Boy, those were tough years...
Posted by: Kevin at July 04, 2006 09:40 PM (++0ve)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Happy Birthday Ian Paice!
Come celebrate Ian Paice's birthday with me over at
Six Meat Buffet!
Posted by: annika at
06:57 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 20 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I just finally saw the "Vote Insufferable Pricks in '06" thing from six meat buffet, excellent stuff! I will be voting for the pricks this year!
Posted by: Scof at June 29, 2006 02:21 PM (a3fqn)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 28, 2006
Wednesday Is Poetry Day: Vogon Poetry II
You know when I post a poem at night, it means I've either been really busy, the blog's been acting up, or I just couldn't find any inspired choices. Today was a perfect storm of all three reasons.
Since the most important news item of the day was the Star Jones bullshit - more important than Korean missiles or Iranian bombs or terrorist sleeper cells or treasonous papers and politicians or Iraqi amnesty or Israel kicking ass.
Star Jones, Star Jones, Star Jones!
Star Jones, Star Jones, that's what's important. But how does one best glean clues about Star Jones's mysterious exit friom the View? One need look no further than the newest Viewchik. And how better to stay informed about Star Jones lore than by reading some more bad Vogon poetry from the poet laureate of the Vogons herself, Rosie O'Donnell.
Star View
there is drama at the view
regis went on yesterday
and said
hey there is an elephant in the living room
no one likes to pretend
as if it were real
there comes a point
where u become complicit
star jones had weight loss surgery
she had part of her stomach bypassed
that is how she lost 1/2 herself
she refuses to say this
which is her right
but we do not have to pretend
we do not know
any fatty will tell u
it is nearly impossible to go
from where she was
to where she is
without medical intervention
dats da fact jack
and it is ok
talk to ur doctor
decide for yourself
if this is the option for u
by all means do it
it is hard to be fat
u get tired
ur knees hurt
people stare at u
think u less then
u feel less then
when i see one of r own
fly away from planet plus
i wave with misty eyes
proud astonished worried
we have a high recidivism rate
we us r tribe
sis and bros
so star shrinks b4 our eyes
we know the truth
but nod as she talks about
pilates and will power
i am sure star jones
beneathe the beyonce bravado
is a scared lil girl
who grew her body big
strong and safe
there is no delete button
in real life
george bush
talking about the success
in iraq
with star like showmanship
he thinking we still believe
what we know is not true
we dont buy it
peace to star jones
every wave hits the shore
Rosie wisdom, can't live with it, can't live without it.
Posted by: annika at
09:44 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 439 words, total size 2 kb.
1
I can't wait until she chokes on a ham sandwich. Like her superego is going to fit with that grotesque manage of bitchy twats.
Posted by: Casca at June 29, 2006 06:14 AM (rEC2k)
2
I think my brain tried to crawl out of my ear halfway through the poem.
Posted by: Jess at June 29, 2006 07:57 AM (m4pDe)
3
Holy crap. I really had to CONCENTRATE to get through that.
Posted by: red at June 29, 2006 09:35 AM (rNgdr)
4
I'm beginning to wonder if I made a mistake by directing you to that site.
Posted by: Victor at June 29, 2006 10:55 AM (L3qPK)
5
Annika:
You're wrong, I CAN live without Rosie wisdom.
Posted by: JJJET at June 29, 2006 03:42 PM (LNyv5)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Coolest Thing On The Internets Of The Day
This game is awesome. You play a bouncer, and your job is to pummel Kevin Federline into a bloody stump. Not surprisingly, it is a lot of fun. Don't forget to mix in a lot of body shots too.
h/t to Jim via Beth.
Posted by: annika at
09:00 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 60 words, total size 1 kb.
June 27, 2006
Customer Satisfaction Survey Results
For those who are interested, here are the results of last week's
blog customer satisfaction survey.
Anyone who knows anything about statistics, feel free to provide your analysis.
more...
Posted by: annika at
05:54 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 96 words, total size 1 kb.
1
mu.nu sucks. Even after I answered your poll I had further lost posts.
Your blog is the only one for which I save my post, just in case it is lost and I have to re-post later. What a nuisance.
Posted by: shelly at June 28, 2006 03:38 AM (BJYNn)
2
LMAO, like taking candy from a baby... cause like what you have to say is so... important?
Heh, if you're going to hang it over the plate like that, I'm going to have to swing at it.
Posted by: Casca at June 28, 2006 06:33 AM (rEC2k)
3
I will admit, Annie, this commenting system is not my favorite. It never remembers me, and it does sometimes lose what I have to say.
Posted by: Hugo Schwyzer at June 28, 2006 07:24 AM (yLeev)
4
It never loses my stuff. It just flips me a big digital bird when I try to open a comment box. DENIED! Only happens occasionally, but it's still very frustrating.
Posted by: Matt at June 28, 2006 07:59 AM (10G2T)
5
Hell, if you could have hit a curve, you'd still be in Columbus...
Posted by: shelly at June 28, 2006 07:27 PM (BJYNn)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 26, 2006
Bowtie Pasta Parmesan With Prosciutto And Sun-Dried Tomatoes
My culinary skills produce more misses than hits, but occasionally I make something that is worth passing on. Please do not ask me about the sole meunière of a few weeks back. $35 dollars worth of fish and half of it wasted. But cooking fish requires delicacy, and I don't do anything delicately. (Well, not unless you ask nicely.)
Rather, I prefer to cook dishes that can be mixed up with a sauce, and served with a big spoon. Like the following one, which is based on a recipe from Le Cordon Bleu Complete Cook: Home Collection.
-¼ cup olive oil
-one 12 oz. package of bowtie pasta (aka farfalle)
-one large yellow onion, sliced or chopped, whichever you prefer
-about two thirds of a package of regular mushrooms, pre-sliced (what is that, two cups?)
-half a cup or more of julienned sun-dried tomatoes
-two cloves of garlic, minced
-4 oz. of prosciutto slices
-1¼ cup of Silk or some other plain soy milk
-one cup grated parmesan, or as I like to call it "Farmer John" cheese
-one to two teaspoons of capers
Start boiling the water for the pasta. You all know how to make pasta. I would subtract a minute or so from the cooking time to keep it just
al dente, because the pasta will continue to cook after you drain the water and mix it with the sauce. You don't want the pasta to get too soft.
While the pasta water is heating, prepare the sauce. In a large pan, heat the olive oil until a tiny chunk of onion fries immediately when you throw it in. Turn down to medium heat. Then throw the sun-dried tomatoes, mushrooms, garlic, and the sliced or chopped onion in there. I like chopped onion because sliced onions remind me too much of earthworms after they're cooked.
Fry that stuff until the onions get browned. Be careful with the sun-dried tomatoes, which burn easily. Adjust the heat accordingly. This should take about 2 minutes. Then add the soy milk and the capers. Bring the sauce to a simmer, about another two or three minutes. Then fold in the parmesan cheese. Turn off the heat and cover the pan while you finish with the pasta.
When the pasta is ready, drain it. Then chop the prosciutto slices roughly crosswise into one inch wide pieces. Throw them in the sauce, then pour the sauce immediately over the pasta. Mix the whole thing and transfer to a serving bowl.
There you have it. Simple and fast. The prosciutto goes in last so it will retain some of its color, but eventually the red cooks away. Especially after microwaving the next day, but it still tastes good. Soy milk is a pretty good substitute for the heavy cream called for in the original recipe. I suggest a fresh sourdough baguette and a glass of merlot to go with this meal.
Posted by: annika at
01:51 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 501 words, total size 3 kb.
1
"I like chopped onion because sliced onions remind me too much of earthworms after they're cooked."
Huh - you've cooked earthworms?
Posted by: OS at June 26, 2006 08:23 PM (KEZPK)
2
Did you top that off with pudding pops?
Posted by: Casca at June 26, 2006 10:11 PM (2gORp)
3
Next time you try sole meunière try adding a little vegetable oil to the butter. Butter has a pretty low burning point and a little vegetable oil helps raise hat point.
Why'd you sub soy milk for the cream? It seems the sauce wouldn't be as thick and creamy w/o the fat.
Posted by: Victor at June 27, 2006 02:22 AM (l+W8Z)
4
I make lots of pasta dishes. But I would never add a whole onion to one, Onion is such a powerful flavor it can drown out all the others.
I like making red sauces with a little sour cream in them, as well as either mozzerella or parmisian. and just for variety I might add gruyere.
For a lite dish try using ground turkey, or turkey sausages.
Posted by: kyle8 at June 27, 2006 03:17 AM (FGbd8)
5
The vegetable oil w/ butter idea is one i'd heard of but i totally forgot about it that time. Dang.
I substituted soy milk because it's healthier and i always have some on hand. It works fine.
I think a yellow onion is mild enough for this sauce.
I always substitute ground turkey for my red pasta sauces. I've made a gorgonzola sauce dish with arugula, which i got out of a newspaper. that was really nice. I should try gruyere someday, that sounds good.
Posted by: annika at June 27, 2006 06:22 AM (fxTDF)
6
Now is the time when I go off with my, "Fat is a necessary nutrient in moderation, or when you want something to taste good," rant...but since I'm a guest here I won't.
Posted by: Victor at June 27, 2006 10:03 AM (L3qPK)
7
Third year already? Bored to death?
Go to law school; learn to cook.
Posted by: shelly at June 27, 2006 12:45 PM (BJYNn)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 25, 2006
Coolest Thing On The Internets Of The Day
The
Kung Fu Fuck You technique. I've been practicing that one for years, but I'm not as good as those guys.
Honorable mention: check out this utility for sick Foley artists. I totally lost it on "Bowels of the Titanic."
Both via Harvey!
Posted by: annika at
08:05 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 59 words, total size 1 kb.
1
My God. My talents are nothing compared to these professionals.
Posted by: Mark at June 25, 2006 08:12 PM (CwodB)
2
Heh, regarding this "Customer Satisfaction" stuff: "I can't get no, sat, iss, fac, shun. But I try, and I try, and I try, and I try."
Posted by: Casca at June 26, 2006 06:29 AM (rEC2k)
3
I'm almost afraid to ask you to define, "totally lost it."
:~|
:~|
:~|
:~)
OK, I'm not. annika, what do you mean by, "totally lost it?" Because I got a funny feeling we're not thinking the same thing.
Posted by: Victor at June 26, 2006 01:04 PM (L3qPK)
4
lol, "lost it," meaning "cracked up!" not control of the bowels.
Posted by: annika at June 26, 2006 01:10 PM (fxTDF)
Posted by: Victor at June 27, 2006 10:09 AM (L3qPK)
6
The F-U technique reminded me of taking Kung-Fun in Junior High School because of the bullies. ;-)
Posted by: DirtCrashr at June 27, 2006 10:23 AM (pmP8H)
7
Not as good as Ninja Bachelor Party, but pretty funny.
Posted by: Jim Treacher at June 27, 2006 04:21 PM (fPhp8)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 24, 2006
Peter Pumpkin The Spectacular Pumpkin, Episode 43
What's that you say? She's now resorted to link-whoring
88Slide?
Oh the humanity!
Posted by: annika at
01:40 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.
Hippies In Colorado
I don't know why, but
this story makes me laugh. Some choice excerpts:
"I had a shotgun or AK (semi-automatic weapon) pointed at my chest. (The officers) kept saying, 'We're going to shoot your (expletive) dog.' They made this woman cry - she was shaking," said Lobo, a Rainbow Family member.
LOL!
"They tried to trample us with their horses, and all we did was have our arms up in peace," he said. "I even pulled my pants down - which was probably indecent exposure - to show them I didn't have anything on me."
ROTFL!
"I've been here since Saturday, and I've already received three (citations). Look, I'm sick of being harassed. Just because I'm in the middle of the woods with a group of people doesn't mean I don't have a job, that I don't have a family and that I don't contribute to society,"
Bwahahaha!
"All they had to do was get a bullhorn and say 'We've got guns.' They shouldn't have pulled out their guns, that's not kosher, man,"
We are stardust, we are golden... we are picking a
different county next year!
h/t DPGI v.2
Posted by: annika at
12:28 PM
| Comments (14)
| Add Comment
Post contains 188 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Damn, I was in Durango, Co. last week, and one of the local cowboys there said an infestation of hippies had also appeared somewhere in the area, perhaps Telluride. We headed up that way, but never found the hippies, however, we did find a bunch of stupid liberals mucking up the place.
The scenery was great, but putting up with liberal assholes from California strained my last nerve, and a confrontation resulted in some hurt feelings, if not a bloody nose.
Posted by: jesusland joe at June 24, 2006 03:04 PM (rUyw4)
2
Sounds like a cult -- call Janet "torch" Reno, she'll know how to handle these losers ;->
Posted by: Purple Avenger at June 25, 2006 05:10 AM (M0Kdm)
3
Yeah, this isn't really very funny. Authoritarian tactics on the part of the federal government, violations of the constitutional right to assemble... sounds like a laugh riot. Just wait until they're telling
you that you can't be where you want to be, for no reason, and that you must comply or be screwed by the legal runaround.
Posted by: Embryo at June 25, 2006 07:22 AM (sUWK+)
4
you're right of course, embryo. i'm still laughing though!
Posted by: annika at June 25, 2006 07:50 AM (fxTDF)
5
Be careful for what you wish for.
The Forest Service has dictatorial police powers in their protection of their land. The trees and the forest floor trumps all human rights. It was hippies that pressured the government to put these totalitarian rules into force in the first place.
Will these hippies now turn Republican?
Posted by: Jake at June 25, 2006 09:03 AM (r/5D/)
6
Jake is right. The hippies are reaping what they have sown. What say you about that, Embryo?
Posted by: jesusland joe at June 25, 2006 03:27 PM (rUyw4)
7
Jeebus, Embryo,
Are you saying the law in our National Forests should be ignored?
I think it should be pointed out how past experiences with the Rainbow Family have turned the locals against them. It's not like the Rainbows have be the best guests...
"The group, which bills itself as an alternative society for those who wish to leave the mainstream, has failed to sign a special-use permit required by the Forest Service for groups of 75 or more. As a result, rangers Monday barred people from the site and issued between 60 and 70 citations to some of the early arrivals.
Many residents and business people are worried that the trouble is just beginning.
"'When it's over, all that's left is going to be one square mile of feces,' said Alicia Spanhake of Steamboat Springs. 'I hate hippies.'"
source - http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_3960887
Posted by: jcrue at June 25, 2006 03:54 PM (Xk75c)
8
My God, it is perfection. Hoist upon their own petards, these tree huggers now find out that the law applies equally to all. The very laws they forced into creation.
Doesn't the Forest Service know that they are "Liberals", therefore God sanctioned and created, and further exempt from these laws, due to their exalted status?
I guess not.
Posted by: shelly at June 26, 2006 02:29 AM (BJYNn)
9
Everyone's missing the true source of hilarity, courtesy Lobo:
I had a shotgun or AK (semi-automatic weapon) pointed at my chest...
Assault rifle, shotgun, cap gun...they're all the same to hippies. Betcha if one of us showed up at that camp w/ a Super Soaker they'd all piss themselves.
Posted by: Victor at June 26, 2006 08:07 AM (L3qPK)
10
Ha ha, good catch, Victor! This is one of those stories that just keeps on giving(laughs, that is). Thanks, Annika!
Posted by: jesusland joe at June 26, 2006 09:37 AM (rUyw4)
11
I swear I saw this on an episode of King of the Hill last week.
Hank Hill's solution was to make the "guests" of the park uncomfortable enough to leave. He convinced the park service to shut down the porta-potties and provitions stores (temporarily out of service). Once the hippies ran out of food, they just left.
Simplistic, I know. But it was still funny has heck. I love that show.
Posted by: Trint at June 26, 2006 10:27 AM (SlSdA)
12
I live in Colorado and let me tell you, there's a lot of old stale 60's holdout ex-hippies running around. They definitely detract from the scenery.
And FORGET Telluride. To quote Yogi Berra, "Nobody goes there anymore- it's too crowded". I went once and was turned off by all the poseurs and street people and hippie scumbags and punks on skateboards.
These Rainbow people need to be hosed down, deloused, loaded on buses, and sent to effin' New Jersey.
Posted by: Barry at June 28, 2006 09:35 AM (kKjaJ)
13
One edited story,with quotes taken out of context, and suddenly you're all experts?
Do some more reserch.
Posted by: t.d.steve at June 30, 2006 02:08 PM (pm8qO)
14
Free to look like what you want or think what you want.
The "Government" does favor businesses over individuals everyday-the bigger the business the bigger the favors.
When the government=state favors business=corporations too much a state of fascism exists.
Do these people up there really hurt any business in colorado? Why does it seem that so many people hate so called hippies?
Posted by: libertyman at July 04, 2006 09:41 AM (dTaNx)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Aaron Spelling
This man was a huge part of my formative years. Aaron Spelling, the man who taught everyone the zip code for Beverly Hills
has passed away.
Spelling, a onetime movie bit player who created a massive number of hit series, from the vintage "Charlie's Angels" and "Dynasty" to "Beverly Hills 90210" and "Melrose Place," died Friday, his publicist said. He was 83.
Spelling died at his home in Los Angeles after suffering a stroke on June 18, according to publicist Kevin Sasaki.
Spelling's other hit series included "Love Boat," "Fantasy Island," "Burke's Law," "The Mod Squad," "Starsky and Hutch," "T.J. Hooker," "Matt Houston," "Hart to Hart" and "Hotel." He kept his hand in 21st-century TV with series including "7th Heaven" and "Summerland."
. . .
During the 1970s and 1980s, Spelling provided series and movies exclusively for ABC and is credited for the network's rise to major status. Jokesters referred to it as "The Aaron Broadcasting Company."
Success was not without its thorns. TV critics denounced Spelling for fostering fluff and nighttime soap operas. He called his shows "mind candy"; critics referred to them as "mindless candy."
"The knocks by the critics bother you," he admitted in a 1986 interview with The Associated Press.
"But you have a choice of proving yourself to 300 critics or 30 million fans. You have to make a choice. I think you're also categorized by the critics. If you do something good they almost don't want to like it."
. . .
Spelling had arrived in Hollywood virtually penniless in the early 1950s. By the 1980s, Forbes magazine estimated his wealth at $300 million. He enjoyed his status, working in a Hollywood office larger than those of golden-era moguls ("I'm slightly claustrophpobic," he explained.) He gifted his second wife, Candy, with a 40-carat diamond ring.
. . .
Spelling grew up in a small frame house on Browder Street in Dallas "on the wrong side of the tracks," he wrote in his 1996 autobiography. He was the fourth son of immigrant Jews, his father from Poland, mother from Russia. The father's name, Spurling, was simplified to Spelling by an Ellis Island official.
Spelling enlisted in the Army Air Corps after graduating from high school in 1942.
"I grew up thinking 'Jew boy' was one word," the producer wrote in his memoir, "Aaron Spelling: A Prime-Time Life." He was considered strange by his Dallas schoolmates because his parents spoke Yiddish. He was subjected to anti-Semitic taunts and beatings on his way home from school.
At 8, the boy suffered what he termed a nervous breakdown, and he spent a year in bed. He later considered that period the birth of his creative urge. He fell in love with great storytellers, especially O. Henry. Of his early TV series he said, "They are all O. Henry short stories."
Rest in peace, and thank you friend.
Posted by: annika at
11:33 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 482 words, total size 3 kb.
1
I always liked this guy. Unlike some Hollywooders, he seemed very down to earth despite his tremendous success. My condolences to his friends and family. (And Heather Locklear)
Posted by: Mike C. at June 25, 2006 05:17 PM (y6n8O)
2
Alas, he leaves behind him the dubious legacy of Tori.
Kevin
Posted by: Kevin Kim at June 26, 2006 01:36 AM (TDwc6)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Democrats Supporting The Doctrine Of Pre-Emption?
It's not unusual that I find myself disagreeing with a
democrat. But this time it's really ironic.
Former Vice President Walter Mondale says he supports a pre-emptive U.S. strike against a North Korean missile that is raising nuclear fears around the globe.
. . .
Mondale said on WCCO-AM Friday that the United States should tell North Korea "defuel that missile. It has three boosters. Dismantle it and put it back in the sheds. Because if you're getting ready to fire this, we'll take it out."
. . .
Mondale and other former top Democrats are convinced apparently that action is the key to ending the standoff.
"This is such a legitimate thing for the United States to do," Mondale said. "The nature of the threat is so serious that I think we should knock it out right there if they won't stop."
Didn't that guy die? Don't get me wrong, I'm glad he's still alive, but I though I'd heard that he died a while back.
I'm against shooting down the missile. Firing a test missile, assuming they aim it at international waters, is provocative as Condoleezza Rice said. But it is not an act of war. Shooting a test missile down is an act of war. We don't need to escalate this latest confrontation with North Korea into a hot war.
I'm not sure whether Mondale thinks we can shoot the missile out of the sky or whether he thinks we should hit it before it launches. In the audio, he said that
. . . one missile like the one that took out Zarqawi could take out this [the North Korean] missile.
I'll cut the old man some slack, but he seems to have forgotten that we used bombs to kill Zarqawi, not missiles.
Now if we were to blow up the test missile on the ground, we would ignite a shit storm of unimaginable proportions. North Korea would be able to claim justification for some kind of retaliation, and the world might start calling us the rogue state. I would not be surprised if the UN Security Council met to discuss sanctions against the US.
If we were to shoot the missile out of the sky, we'd run the risk that our anti-missile missile might miss. That would be worse than doing nothing. Our anti-missile technology is far from perfect. The task has often been described as "hitting a bullet with a bullet." If we were to try for the Korean missile, we could not afford to miss. And I don't care for the odds.
However, if we let the North Koreans shoot their wad, we can monitor its performance much better than even they can. We'll gain important intelligence on their capabilities, both in missile technology and in electronic missile tracking. (Since they'll be watching the missile, we'll be able to watch their radars.) Diplomatically, we can use their "provocative act" against them if and when we need international support for action in the future.
I say, complain about it, but if they're determined to test their missile, don't stop them.
h/t to Larry at Beth's.
Posted by: annika at
08:48 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 527 words, total size 3 kb.
1
You're right, Annika. I never thought that the ramifications of stopping their missile would be that bad.
I'm confident that our naval missile defense systems would be successful in destroying the enemy missile, but not so much with our ground based defenses in Alaska.
Posted by: reagan80 at June 24, 2006 10:31 AM (qNzwM)
2
the "world" already considers us the rouge state....
Still a missle is too showy. better it blow-up on the ground on its own. Of course if anything goes wrong with this test we will be blamed whether or not we actually do anything.
Then there is the question of what to do if they fire a missle at someone, or at us.
Posted by: Zendo Deb at June 25, 2006 04:00 AM (+gqOq)
3
Lest one has spent some time around the oriental mind... allow me to lay out the calculus of the situation. We're not going to do anything because this administration understands the situation, unlike the Carterite fucktards so freely giving advice.
Who is threatened? The Japs. When they get scared enough, they'll develop a nuclear capability. Who will this threaten? The Red Chinese who clearly don't want this outcome. What will the reds do? Yank that little nehru jacket wearing motherfucker's chain. In the oriental world there is hidden meaning in all action, thus kabuki.
What is the hidden meaning in the NORKs dragging out their new toy and playing with it? They want to get one-on-one with the US in a meaningless negotiation ploy so they can extort money on the world stage like they've done with previous demoncrat administrations. Remember, they're a country without paved roads.
Posted by: Casca at June 25, 2006 07:54 AM (2gORp)
4
I'd be more afraid if I lived in Canada or Mexico given the state of NK missile guidance technology.
Posted by: Col Steve at June 27, 2006 09:49 AM (eEgft)
5
I just realized how many decades have passed. When Mondale first reached national prominence, staying at a Holiday Inn was a bad thing (although he changed his tune when Carter tapped in in '76). Now, people can solve world crises because they "stayed at a Holiday Inn last night."
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at June 27, 2006 11:03 PM (YKFRM)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 23, 2006
The King And I
If I had an internet messenger chat with Larry King, i think it might go a little bit like this:
larrykinglive: tonight, a journey from private heartbreak to internet superstardom with annika. she shares memories and family secrets and more in an emotional hour next on LARRY KING LIVE
annikagyrl: wha?
larrykinglive: hello annika!
annikagyrl: who are you?
larrykinglive: A great pleasure to welcome to LARRY KING LIVE, annika becker, of annika's journal, we'll get to your calls in a moment. but first annika, why blogging?
annikagyrl: what do you mean?
larrykinglive: did it surprise you how popular blogs have become?
annikagyrl: is that you Jason? cut it out.
larrykinglive: you were diagnosed as bi-polar schizophrenic with homicidal tendencies as a child. did that affect you growing up?
annikagyrl: wha? are you on something dude?
larrykinglive: do you enjoy blogging?
annikagyrl: umm yeah
larrykinglive: speaking of um yeah, he'll be our guest on LARRY KING LIVE tomorrow night. we're on with annika becker of annika's journal. Do you get many trolls?
annikagyrl: actually the people who comment at my site are mostly all nice... there was this one guy who..
larrykinglive: ...let's take some calls. pompano beach florida, hello
callerdude: hi annika, big fan here
larrykinglive: did you have a question for our guest?
annikagyrl: this is really weird. are you sure you're not some kind of bot?
callerdude: I just wanted to say that you're just great. Up until you i found you, I was reading margret cho's blog but you totally set me straight,
annikagyrl: oh that's good. i'm glad you stopped reading that awful blog
callerdude: oh no i read you both, i think youre both just great
larrykinglive: do you enjoy reading other people's blogs?
annikagyrl: yes, i try to whenever i can,
larrykinglive: barbra streisand has a blog
annikagyrl: does she, i didn't think she did
larrykinglive: marvelous voice don't you think
annikagyrl: well, i guess, she's not one of my favorites
larrykinglive: rosie o'donnell has a blog it's very funny
annikagyrl: it's horrible, she's a terrible writer
larrykinglive: have you ever thought about entering politics?
annikagyrl: actually when i was little, i wanted to be president
larrykinglive: the first lesbian president...
annikagyrl: im not a lesbian
larrykinglive: it says here you're a lesbian
annikagyrl: where?
larrykinglive: on your blog
annikagyrl: i think you must be looking at rosie's blog
larrykinglive: oh your right, i am. Austin texas, you're on with annika becker
callerchick: yes hello annika, i'm a bi-polar schizophrenic with homicidal tendencies too, i was wondering if you had any drug recommendations?
larrykinglive: any drug recommendations... annika?
annikagyrl: drug recommendations? but i am not a schizophrenic, i don't know why you said that, i think you're on drugs
larrykinglive: did you enjoy rehab?
annikagyrl: what the fucxx?
larrykinglive: many talented people suffer from mental disorders. Next week, Tom Cruise will be on the show. Let's get another call. Mapleside Maryland, hello...
confusedcaller: hello annika
annikagyrl: hello
confusedcaller: first i want to say i love you and i think you're great
annikagyrl: well thanks
confusedcaller: is there any chance you might try to qualify for another PGA event?
larrykinglive: another PGA in your future annika?
annikagyrl: i'm not that annika
larrykinglive: michelle wie can really hit the ball, are you two friends?
annikagyrl: i dont even play golf
larrykinglive: right now we go to west chenango, new york. hello
liberalcaller: i think you're a worthless no-talent whore and a shill, you're bad for america, and only an idiot cares what you say. i'm going to have a party the day you quit, which i hope is soon because i cant fucking stand you and you make me sick
annikagyrl: well, i don't know how to respond to that...
liberalcaller: actually i was talking to larry
larrykinglive: Next week Celine Dion! we have time for one more call. Rubidoux, California, hello
annikagyrl: i love the name of that town
larrykinglive: don't you? it's fun to say. rubidoux rubidoux rubidoux
rubycaller: hello annika?
larrykinglive: rubidoux ruby rubidoux
annikagyrl: lol
rubycaller: i was wondering annika, what's the deal with the pumpkin?
larrykinglive: that's all the time we have. Tomorrow night on LARRY KING WEEKEND, we'll talk with Bill Maher. Boy, can he tell a joke, right annika.
annikagyrl: not really
larrykinglive: Until then, arrivaderci.
Posted by: annika at
09:12 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 724 words, total size 7 kb.
1
"larrykinglive: speaking of um yeah, he'll be our guest on LARRY KING LIVE tomorrow night. we're on with annika becker of annika's journal. Do you get many trolls?"
ROFLMAO! ;-)
Posted by: Radical Redneck at June 24, 2006 07:55 AM (8QK6E)
2
"actually, I was talking to Larry"
ROFLMAO
Posted by: Ted at June 24, 2006 08:10 PM (+OVgL)
3
That was hilarious! Thanks.
Posted by: Alabama Improper at June 24, 2006 08:32 PM (w29Gv)
4
Ok...my comment keeps getting kicked back for questionable content.
There was no question in my mind what I was trying to say. It was clean and respectable (in my opinion)
Maybe it was when I said something about you fant a siz i ng about Larry King?
Nope...it was my URL there is a d and an e before the dot com.
Your server saw the and thought I was some sort of German or something...what do you have against Germans?
Posted by: muzik at June 24, 2006 09:00 PM (jxL+Y)
5
I've notified the CNN authorities, you'll be hearing from their attorneys shortly. Nobody uses LarryKing's likeness without written permission.
Posted by: Preston at June 25, 2006 06:16 AM (DBr6n)
6
That was brilliant, Annika!
Posted by: Beth at June 25, 2006 08:24 AM (9FPYz)
7
Hysterical! Hysterical! I loved it.
Posted by: Janette at June 26, 2006 10:14 AM (OcgcA)
8
I tried to call but the lines were busy. I had a question about shoes.
Posted by: Victor at June 26, 2006 01:09 PM (L3qPK)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
An Answer To Lukobitch
Update: More great photoshopping on this subject at Beth's and Darleen's Place. And of course at Michelle Malkin's, whose idea it was.
Posted by: annika at
04:25 PM
| Comments (22)
| Add Comment
Post contains 30 words, total size 1 kb.
1
That is so right Annika, and I am so stealing it, with full credit of course.
Posted by: LindaSoG at June 23, 2006 04:46 PM (GBBmd)
Posted by: Tuning Spork at June 23, 2006 06:20 PM (SgvHW)
Posted by: dick at June 23, 2006 07:25 PM (Em77H)
4
Annika:
That is totally sidebar-worthy. You're a genius.
Posted by: Cassandra at June 24, 2006 05:31 AM (eKdAq)
5
no
you're a genius, Cassandra!
: )
Posted by: annika at June 24, 2006 08:13 AM (fxTDF)
6
I just don't get all this talk about giving away our secrets and how the MSM is making us less safe. If our enemy is smart, cunning, committed, secrative, ready to give his/her, as Edgar tells us every chance he gets, then why the fuck can't they figure out that phone traffic and money traffic is traceable? I am only a few of those things and I know it. I knew it 40 years ago as an itinerant drug dealer. These brilliant strategists, diciplined and patient enough to plan for years and succeed in demolishing the trade center don't know these things? Horshit they don't. Is there anybody in this administration that is not a liar, indicted or convicted felon?
Posted by: strawman at June 24, 2006 10:10 AM (G2Zzw)
7
Never underestimate the stupidity of most people, Strawman. You and I travel in circles where intelligence is a given, but out there in the rest of humanity, it's a different story.
Posted by: annika at June 24, 2006 10:46 AM (fxTDF)
8
Yummy. I borrowed that cartoon for my blog, I hope that's okay...
Posted by: Rob at June 24, 2006 10:50 AM (Q2xwR)
9
Annie,
Yes and no. Although to support you and dent my own case, I will share a story.
Years ago bookeeper of mine stole from me in various ways but the most amazingof them was when she took a check made out to the State of NY for taxes to a check casher rather than the bank, where with the cameras running, endorsed it "State of NY" and put it under the window to be cashed. As amazing the girl working the other side of that window gave her the money!
But then again I don't think this gal could lean to fly a 767 let alone get to the airport.
Posted by: strawman at June 24, 2006 11:09 AM (G2Zzw)
10
I disagree. I think that many of these people are very sophisticated and very smart. Evil does not equal stupid. To think differently is the worst kind of hubris. (That's, by the way, what I love about the Left: they think they are ever so bright and soooo clever e.g. the disgusting slob, Michael Moore.) It gives our side the edge.
And, Straw, if you don't "get" why acts of treason are not important, then nothing I or anybody can say will make dent in your thick wall of purposeful ignorance.
Posted by: blu at June 24, 2006 11:45 AM (93GuQ)
11
Interesting story, Strawman. When i worked in a department store, years ago, they arrested a girl who worked in the personnel department. She also had a second job as a bank teller. She was taking people's paychecks from the department store and depositing them into her own account at the bank. It amazed me that she actually thought she could get away with that, and nobody would figure it out.
Posted by: annika at June 24, 2006 11:52 AM (fxTDF)
12
That is so great! I'm linking back to this.
Posted by: beth at June 24, 2006 09:53 PM (X6tm3)
13
Blu,
Oh pa lease! Treason?
What did you disagree with? You agreed they may be evil, silly word to describe those committed to a cause, diminishes their purpose and substitutes something biblical which is not helping understand them and their motives, but I digress. They are smart so why do you think it matters that some simpleton plan of tracking is effective?
To inform the public that the administration is breaking constitutional guarentees is an act of patriotism not treason. Edgar will testify that ANYTHING the admistration does in the name of stopping the terrorists is legal, and to report on it makes us less safe-hence treason. He may be more evil than the other side and I truely fear his ability to degrade this nations purpose and values far mor than what an outside can do. Al Qaida may blow things up, kill soldiers and civilians but with their own hand they will never subvert the constitution and diminish this great nation the way those evil son's of bitches in the senate, house and white house have. 911 was a black day but far less black than what has followed.
Posted by: strawman at June 25, 2006 03:05 PM (G2Zzw)
14
Straw,
With all due respect, you have no clue whether these programs "break" Constitutional guarantees. Your arguments almost always breakdown when you get into matters of law and fact.
In fact, Straw, impress us all with your Constitution knowledge. Tell me how these programs "break" Constitutional guarantees and then cite the case law to back up your argument.
I'm waiting.......
Posted by: blu at June 25, 2006 05:08 PM (b1ukN)
15
p.s. While you are breaking out your old law school and/or grad school Con Law notes, perhaps you can also look up the definition of treason. Afterwards, perhaps you can explain how making State secrets public to the enemy in a time of war is not a treasonous act. I suppose if the NY Times had made public D-day that would have been OK with you. I mean, hey, the Press is the 4th branch of government, right? And, afterall, the public has the right to know.
Memo to the Left: We are at war. Time to "get it."
Posted by: blu at June 25, 2006 08:58 PM (b1ukN)
16
Blu,
The short answer.
No declaration of war.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
It is simple-
An executive branch that refuses congressional or judicial oversight is not entitled to call anything a "state secret" in my book.
I have no Con law or any other law books not having gone to law school, just an "advanced degree in woodworking, I ask you?" (Help, the movie).
Posted by: strawman at June 26, 2006 01:42 PM (G2Zzw)
17
Actually, the authorization to use force that Congress gave Bush is de facto a declaration of war. The US is, legally, in a state of war.
Posted by: a guy in pajamas at June 26, 2006 11:29 PM (1dXXw)
18
Pajama person,
With a new focus on the reasons for the Iraq war, some are questioning whether the war was legal. Under U.S. law, it was not.
The authority under which Bush purportedly acted to go to war in Iraq arose under “House Joint Resolution Authorizing Use of Force Against Iraq, October 10, 2002” (the Iraq Resolution). However, the ostensible "statutory authority" granted to the President to was conditional.
In fact, Congress specifically made that authority, if any, of the President to go to war with Iraq subject to the War Powers Resolution of 1973 (War Powers Act or WPA). The Iraq resolution was definite. “Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.” The Iraq Resolution only granted the President the right to determine whether the standards required by War Powers Act Congress were met.
Posted by: strawman at June 27, 2006 07:42 AM (G2Zzw)
19
Straw,
Please stop with all the pseudo-legal/constitutional analysis. You're embarrassing yourself. You don't know the first thing about this topic. Perhaps you can direct me to the ruling of a U.S. court that has estblished that the war is "illegal."
While you are at, you might want to contact Mr. Pollard's lawyers and let them know that in Straw's studied legal opinion that their client should be set free immediately. Heck, he only provided State secrets to an ally...and afterall there was "no declaration of war."
BTW, key word: "unreasonable searches...." It is very reasonable to track those dealing with terroists whose aim is to kill American lives and destroy American property. The President needs no special "permission" from the Congress to fulfill his duty as Commander-In- Chief.
Posted by: blu at June 27, 2006 08:56 AM (j8oa6)
20
Blu,
What you seem to forget is that unreasonable means without cause. I suppose in your world all men or women walking down 5th are either terrorits or they aren't and there is only one way to determin it. Is the president upholding the constitution (that is his sworn duty not the protection of the united states) if he puts military checkpoints on 42nd street to search all who pass?
Blu, why is fascisim so near and dear to your heart? Or conversly, what scares you so much that you are willing to suspend your freedom and mine?
Posted by: strawman at June 27, 2006 10:17 AM (G2Zzw)
21
Straw,
You make this too easy. First of all, can you even define fascism? Don't use terms you can't define or for which you have no intellectual intimacy. Just throwing out words like "cause" or "fascism" doesn't improve a sophmoric argument.
And, BTW, association with terroists or entities that support terroism provides the "cause" about which you seem so worried.
Posted by: blu at June 27, 2006 01:46 PM (j8oa6)
22
Gee Blu,
This wasn't hard. Boy I love this kind of intimacy
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
I lived through McCarthy and have more than a passing fancy with the tendencies of this Captialistic Republic to slip into belligerent nationalism and well racism, when has this country not been racist?. What was the House debating this afternoon? Flag burning so they coudld go home and campaign on their nationalism and against the Dem's for their lack of it. You think that a person who displays a message on a tee shirtr on his car's bumper ought to be forcebly removed from a campaign event on public ground? There are thousands of examples since the Bush brown shirts have taken over. They hate the free independent press because it shines a light on their dark secrets and plans, they think opposition to their criminal policies is treasonous, they act in secret, they continue to classify documents at a pace unknown before, they spy on Americans at home, they detain with out charge, they torture and murder, they use secret warrants to enter American homes and don't give notice, they consistantly retaliate against "enemy's" (Wilson/Plame), they
smear opposition candidates with lies and innuendo, they are using terrorism to scare the small minded (you) into thinking that our society is a little too free and it needs some paring down if we are to be safe. Blu you are the German who saw the chaos, economic depression and supposed communist/jewish threat in 1933 and said "Heil Hitler, give me some of that security, a job and the fine points of liberty be damned". Your wish to debate and acusations of my lack of scholarship are just fiddling whilst Rome burns.
You see what I see, but you think it is OK because you are frightened for America's safety, we are at war and these decisions don't effect you. You don't want to burn the flag, you wouldn't protest in the street against injustice if they took your mother away because she sent 100 dollars to the palestinian cause, you don't think the goverment is overrun by corporate interests, that congressman are lackeys to their funders, you don't have any desire to foment change, you are not a woman, black, an immigrant looking for work, a homosexual, you are not anyone who really has an intimate relationship with the bill of rights except in the abstract because as the fringes errode you are not affected. How many people do you know who have been harassed by the FBI? How many people do you know that could not work in this country because of what they believed? How many people do you know that gave their life fighting for this country or against tyranny? How many times have you been gased, beaten, arrested by the police for speaking your mind? Had a cop aim his gun at your back because you would not heed his warning. You are all weepy for the Chinese in Tienamin Sq. but had they been in the streets of DC you would have sat dispassionately in your room after the riot and brutality and parsed whether they had proper permits and were they fomenting violence or overthrow of the state or if they were agents acting on behalf of a foreign power, etc. A good German desparate for safety, prosperity, respect, a pound of sugar and some new shoes.
Posted by: strawman at June 27, 2006 06:06 PM (G2Zzw)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Revenge Of The Short Bus Kids
I found a really mindless game that is strangely therapeutic for a Friday afternoon. It's called
Short Bus Rampage. The game sets up like this:
Tired of being ridiculed by the other students, you and the rest of the Special Ed class have taken control of the bus and are out for revenge.
I know a game like this might hit a little too close to home for some of my visitors. But the rest of you should give it a try. The sound effects are really funny.
Posted by: annika at
03:18 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 98 words, total size 1 kb.
Informal Blog Customer Satisfaction Survey
Please take this short customer satisfaction survey, to help me better serve you. I would appreciate your most honest answers, and your best estimates, so I have disabled the comment and the view results buttons. Please only vote once per question. This survey will remain at the top of the page until Sunday morning, so please scroll down for newer posts.
more...
Posted by: annika at
02:48 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 77 words, total size 1 kb.
June 22, 2006
So You Wanna Be A Blogger?
Instead of just starting a blog, why not enter a contest?
Cotillion sister Greta at Hooah Wife is running "Blogging Contributor Idol," just like American Idol, only for bloggers not singers.
Submit your entry here!
Posted by: annika at
08:40 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 47 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I think you're giving some misinformation... if you're a singing blogger, I'm sure Greta wouldn't mind your entry as well. It might be the next big thing...instead of Vlogging...Slogging...wait that doesn't look right.
Posted by: Jody at June 22, 2006 09:01 PM (Zbn6O)
2
By the way, very interesting study about why Taylor Hicks won. But you'll have to go to my site to find it out!!!!
Posted by: JD at June 23, 2006 08:26 AM (xD5ND)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Mini Moonbat Robot
I realize this is old, but today's Coolest Thing On The Internets Of The Day is Sean Gleeson's
Autorantic Virtual Moonbat.
He's automated, he's progressive, and he fits on your sidebar.
Actually, this robot is a very accurate portrayal. There's a dude who stands outside the Van Nuys Courthouse and rants incoherently, but sounds exactly like this robot.
Sean designed a chat machine too. It must be channelling Robert MacLelland's spirit, or spit, or something.
Someone should create a computerized voice version. Air America could save a fortune by replacing their on-air personalities with robots. I wonder if anyone would notice. They'd probably just think it was Al Gore.
Posted by: annika at
07:50 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 115 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Hey, if us "Moonbats" had it our way 2500 good, decent people would still be alive. But, you would be out of a job; celebrating their every death. Another member of the sick right.
Posted by: The Tongue at June 22, 2006 08:45 PM (m+R3j)
2
Amazing, Tongue! That output is spot on.
Wait a minute....you weren't using the A.V.M. were you?
Posted by: reagan80 at June 23, 2006 09:16 AM (/5Qqj)
3
Tongue,
Did you skip 8th grade English?
I enjoyed the semi-colon strategically placed amongst your string of sentence fragments.
I do apologize, though, for picking on you. It probably wasn't easy having to take the little yellow bus to school.
Posted by: blu at June 23, 2006 01:21 PM (93GuQ)
4
How could Annika be out of a job; celebrating their deaths: if they were still alive?
And how many lives have spareded the cruel fate of Saddam's "containment"? Not to mention al Qaeda's?
"If I let you kill me, would we have peace?"
"um... Yeah, sure..."
Posted by: Tuning Spork at June 23, 2006 06:19 PM (SgvHW)
5
Hey, if us "Moonbats" had it our way 2500 good, decent people would still be alive
And Saddam would still be murdering his own people at approx 20,000/yr clip. Yep, you're all about the human suffering you are.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at June 25, 2006 05:06 AM (M0Kdm)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
A Really Weird Quiz
Find your own pose!
via Watermark.
Posted by: annika at
06:11 AM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 14 words, total size 1 kb.
1
"Pinching Koala and Tree" for this guy.
Posted by: blu at June 22, 2006 09:06 AM (j8oa6)
2
Mine wasn't one of the choices. I call it "The Campsite"
Posted by: alppuccino at June 22, 2006 09:10 AM (LdL9i)
3
Mine's the "Molested Pillow".
Posted by: reagan80 at June 22, 2006 09:39 AM (sFxGl)
4
The "Acrobats", though I question how they actually figured that out...
Posted by: will at June 22, 2006 12:08 PM (GzvlQ)
5
Will, you did notice Annika's rubric, right? I think your doubt is justified.........
Posted by: blu at June 22, 2006 12:48 PM (j8oa6)
6
My results looked like two dudes. That can't be right.
Posted by: chaika at June 22, 2006 07:32 PM (oSwi8)
7
Tandem Cycle baby. Oddly, I'm happy about that.
Posted by: Pursuit at June 22, 2006 07:57 PM (n/TNS)
Posted by: TBinSTL at June 23, 2006 12:27 AM (bYmT0)
9
Blu, it was totally tongue-in-cheek, so to speak...
Posted by: will at June 26, 2006 06:35 AM (h7Ciu)
10
"The Seatbelt" for me. I would like to point out that although Annika's position looks cozy, it has a horribly ill-chosen position.
"Hey honey! Let's do The Colon tonight."
"I told you that I'm not into that. Christ, don't you ever listen?"
Posted by: physics geek at June 26, 2006 10:15 AM (Xvrs7)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 21, 2006
Wednesday Is Poetry Day
I hate spiders. This morning after my shower, I grabbed some underwear out of the drawer, and as I was putting it on a spider fell out of it and landed on the floor. How does a spider get into the underwear drawer? And no, I do not live in the basement.
I hate spiders because they are sneaky. At least a bee will let you know it's there before it stings you. But spiders are always crawling around where you can't see them. They're like the viet cong.
I hate spiders almost as much as I hate sappy poems.
Spiders
by Janet Bruno
Spiderlings hatch from eggs.
Each one has eight tiny legs.
A spider has more eyes than you.
Most have eight, and you have two.
A spider has two body parts.
Across its web it quickly darts.
From a spider's spinnerets
Sticky spider silk jets.
Spiders feel the frantic tugs,
Of their favorite food; it's bugs!
Blech!
Posted by: annika at
11:17 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 168 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I'm amazed that nobody has jumped on this softball. Must I do ALL the heavy lifting?
Posted by: Casca at June 22, 2006 03:37 PM (2gORp)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
114kb generated in CPU 0.0306, elapsed 0.0938 seconds.
78 queries taking 0.074 seconds, 308 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.