just trying to eat my waffles

July 13, 2006

Annika's Jeopardy, Round 11 (Sans Graphics)

The category is Ronald Reagan for $300.

The clue is:

"The only movie in which the Reagan-Davis team was featured."

Posted by: annika at 11:29 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 32 words, total size 1 kb.

Wednesday is Poetry Day: Joe Haldeman

Victor here, off from work and a bit groggy still from anaesthetic. Long story.

I'm sorry annika is having computer difficulties and I hope she doesn't mind my jumping the gun. If she does, I'm blaming the anaesthetic, but Wednesday's just arent' the same without poetry.

I also blame the anaesthetic for any typos and major errors in grammar.

Joe Haldeman is a Viet Nam vet and science-fiction writer whose first novel, The Forever War, won both the Hugo and Nebula awards as best SF novel of the year. He's written many, many SF novels and short stories since, and also a fair bit of poetry.

His works frequently include military themes, and this is reflected in his poetry. Of course, I can't find one poem of his I'm particularly looking for; I fear the book it was in may have been given away during a move. It's a shame: It didn't really rhyme; instead, words were repeated in a specific pattern which gave it the quality of a chant. It's a shame you won't be reading it today.

Instead, I'll present one of his science fiction poems. As far as I know, Mr. Haldeman might be the first to combine science fiction and poetry. This particular example tells a story--a science fiction story, to be sure, but a story nevertheless, and to me it seems this story could only be told as a poem. It was linked from his website and also has a copyright notice at the bottom. Because of that, I present only the first stanza (I don't think the anaesthetic defense would protect annika) and I hope you click the link to finish the poem. I find it's quite touching.

Eighteen years old, October eleventh

Drunk for the first time in her life,
she tossed her head in a horsey laugh
and that new opal gift sailed off her sore earlobe,
in a graceful parabola,
pinged twice on the stone porch floor,
and rolled off to hide behind the rose bushes.

Read the rest of 'Eighteen years old, October eleventh'

Posted by: Victor at 11:25 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 356 words, total size 2 kb.

July 12, 2006

Technical Difficulties And Poetry Day

Due to a local internet connection problem with the phone company, I have been unable to access the web from home today. I am posting this from my phone.

Therefore, no Jeopardy question today. Maybe tomorrow I can post one from work, but I will have to forego the graphics.

In the meantime, get your Wednesday poetry fix from Tony at LAist, who is celebrating Pablo Neruda's birthday with a really romantic one!

Update: Those bastards at my ISP still haven't fixed the problem.

Posted by: annika at 06:50 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 94 words, total size 1 kb.

Meanwhile, Enrichment Continues

It's so frustrating watching this slow dance between Iran and the G-6. You just want to sceam at them: "cut to the chase!" However, as I said before, the delaying game benefits us as well as Iran - but only if we use the time well. And to date I have seen no sign that we are doing anything other than playing patsy to a tin-pot third world dictatorship. Damn it, Bush and Condi. Wake the fuck up!

From AP:

World powers agreed Wednesday to send Iran back to the United Nations Security Council for possible punishment, saying the clerical regime has given no sign it means to negotiate seriously over its disputed nuclear program.
The United States and other permanent members of the powerful U.N. body said Iran has had long enough to say whether it will meet the world's terms to open bargaining that would give Tehran economic and energy incentives in exchange for giving up suspicious activities.
"The Iranians have given no indication at all that they are ready to engage seriously on the substance of our proposals," French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said.
. . .
Any real punishment or coercion at the Security Council is a long way off, but the group said it will seek an initial resolution requiring Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment. Debate could begin as soon as next week.
If Iran does not comply, the group said it would then seek harsher action. The group's short statement did not give any specifics, but it cited a section of the world body's charter that could open the door to economic or other sanctions.
. . .
The group said it could stop the Security Council actions at any time should Iran cooperate.

Make sure you say please, guys. Maybe that will help.

There's always the possibility that the administration is following my advice about supporting Iranian dissidents, and that we just don't hear about it because things are happening behind the scenes. However, by this time in Reagan's second term, the Solidarnosc movement in Poland was in full swing and everybody knew it. I see nothing similar happening in Iran, although I keep hearing that the country is ripe for it.

Posted by: annika at 02:16 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 375 words, total size 2 kb.

1 FUCKING STOP IRAN NOW I will never ever ever ever understand the reasons why a bunch of over-educated, extremely pedigreed people cannot simply communicate. The world of diplomats just cannot call a spade a spade, so fuck them. I fucking hate them, even more so than I hate the people responsible for onlooker slowdown. They are endangering the fucking safety of the fucking world so they can continue to draft toilet paper resolutions and get photo ops before they go eat a 200 dollar meal with the other self-important pricks they work with. Fire them all and staff the State Dept with Marines!

Posted by: Scof at July 12, 2006 08:48 PM (iCNOR)

2 Yes, the pace at which a resolution to the whole affair is taking place is excruciatingly slow. Hopefully, the G6 know that enrichment is hitting a snag, that a rebel movement is in gestation as you suggest, or that another measure heretofore unmentioned is awaiting a triggerpoint. And then there is NK to consider...

Posted by: will at July 13, 2006 02:39 AM (h7Ciu)

3 Iran and KN are both alarming and unfortuately both present few good options for the US. While both are obviously extremely important, the most important thing going on in the world is happening in Israel. Israel is at war. Why? Because they suffered yet another unprovoked attack from sub-humans. Of course, the usual suspects (W. Europe, Kofi, etc) are acting as if Israel is the problem. "Disproportionate reponse" and all the sanctimonious BS. Even the US support is tepid. Can you imagine the response if Mexicans fired rockets in San Diego, stormed across our border and killed our soilders, kidnapped people, and acted as if the US was responsible? To make things worse, the cowards hide amongst their own populations. BTW, the terrorist rocket attacks are targetting purely civilian populations with no military value.

Posted by: blu at July 13, 2006 12:31 PM (j8pkL)

4 Hopefully, the Israelis' search goes better than our search for Pancho Villa did.

Posted by: reagan80 at July 13, 2006 12:45 PM (dFOlH)

5 Unfortunately, Russia will be no help to us on the Security Council, as they're cementing a massive joint venture with Iran by proposing a natural gas pipeline version of OPEC. http://peakoil.com/article17069.html

Posted by: will at July 14, 2006 03:38 AM (h7Ciu)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

July 11, 2006

Breaking News

MAINSTREAM MEDIA FAILS TO HALT INDIAN TERROR PLOT, HUNDREDS DEAD

MUMBAI (AJN) - A coordinated series of seven exposions ripped through several commuter trains in Mumbai, India yesterday, killing at least 160 people and injuring more than 400. And now the repercussions of this latest apparent terror attack have begun to affect the once revered Mainstream Media.

One day after the attacks, which appear to bear the signature of Islamic terrorists, many observers are asking why the Mainstream Media did not act to prevent these deaths beforehand.

"It is horrible," said one man who asked not to be identified. "I ask myself why? Why did not the New York Times do something about this? Why did they not stop these bad men? Do they not care about the lives of innocent Indians?"

News analyst and terror expert Annika, of the blog Annika's Journal, told AJN that questions are being raised about the Mainstream Media's failure to detect and prevent the Mumbai terror plot.

"A lot of people are scratching their heads today," said Annika. "They wonder how the MSM could have fucked this one up so badly. They have more than adequate resources to detect a plot like this [the Mumbai bombings]. They're always patting themselves on the back about their investigative reporting, yet they couldn't stop these terrorists. And now hundreds of people are dead."

The Mainstream Media has recently come under attack from far right conservative groups for releasing information about secretive American anti-terrorism programs, which some say are designed to uncover information about future terrorist plans.

"When the New York Times spends all it's time investigating the programs that are meant to stop terrorists from killing, you got to ask why they can't spare just a little effort trying to investigate the terrorists," said Annika. "It couldn't hurt, and it might just save lives."

Media representatives responded to Annika's criticisms, on condition of anonymity. "It's not our job to be law enforcement," said one television news executive. "That's the government's job, to stop terrorists. We're just there to report news, not make it."

Yet Annika and other media watchers argue that the Mainstream Press has unique capabilities that the government does not possess, which could be used to unearth terror plots before they occur.

"For instance, covert government investigations can always be revealed by members of the press, often destroying months of hard work," said Annika. "But if the same investigation were conducted by reporters, who's going to rat on them? We all know reporters would rather rot in jail than give up one inch of their precious First Amendment rights."

A former New York Times reporter recently served 85 days in jail rather than reveal the identity of one of her journalistic sources.

"The New York Times, The Washington Post... These guys are so proud of how they brought down Nixon, and he didn't even kill anybody," Annika continued. "The L.A. Times didn't have any problem finding every chick Arnold groped back in the seventies. How come they can't find Osama? Bill Keller seems to think he's got better judgment on national security issues than the freakin' Department of Homeland Security. Let him put that superior judgment to use... fighting terrorists instead of helping them."

Bill Keller is the executive editor of the New York Times, which has come under fire by far right wing extremist groups such as the Republican Party for allegedly revealing details of secret U.S. government anti-terror programs. He could not immediately be reached for comment.

"And CNN? Don't get me started," Annika concluded. "It's unconscionable for CNN to wash their hands of these continued terrorist attacks. They consider themselves 'citizens of the world.' What a fucking joke. They're such hypocrites. The people in Madrid and Bali and London and Baghdad and now Mumbai are all citizens of the world too. The MSM is a disgrace."

AJN's Annika Becker contributed to this report.

Posted by: annika at 08:29 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 653 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Why can't they investigate the terrorists instead of the people trying to catch the terrorists- the age old question.

Posted by: jane at July 11, 2006 10:45 PM (Ffvoi)

2 well done.

Posted by: blu at July 11, 2006 11:29 PM (j8pkL)

3 I have no problem with the reporting of abuses. It may be the dream of conservative Republicans to make non-GOP news outlets the paragon of evil, but the only people who are going to fall for that are conservative Republicans. So an article like this can be viewed as an attempt to retain/enforce this scenario among those who already believe it.

Posted by: will at July 12, 2006 02:49 AM (h7Ciu)

4 The term "non-GOP news outlets" is redundant.

Posted by: shelly at July 12, 2006 03:35 AM (BJYNn)

5 Nice one, Annika, but you need to throw in some "root causes" to help justify this act, such as India's Kashmir policy. BTW, Drudge lists the death toll at 190+ now.

Posted by: reagan80 at July 12, 2006 04:14 AM (dFOlH)

6 Excellent

Posted by: Jake at July 12, 2006 08:27 AM (CT8rN)

7 What abuses are those, Will? Perhaps you are speaking of the perfectly legal and very successful financial tracking program that the NY Times decided was crucial for terroists to learn about? Yeah, that really helped the American people out didn't it? Or how about when NY Times reporters call suspected terrorists money laundering groups (otherwise known as Muslim "charities") and tip off planned FBI raid by means of the questions they ask? - I suppose that is "reporting" on abuse as well. The MSM is a one-sided joke. And as you well know, Will, every credible study ever done on the media and its members demonstrates that an extreme left-wing bias exists. It is not something that can be debated. It is fact. By the way, how does NPR function now that Pravada is no longer around to provide its material? Do they check in with Castro and Chavez to make sure they are getting the story right - making sure all those "abuses" are being covered fairly? This is kinda off topic, but how much you want to bet that the ever so fair and open-minded MSM will be doing its best to draw a moral equivalence between the Muslims human debris in Lebannon and "Palestine" and the Israel government trying to defend itself? You think the Muslim abuses will covered? Don't hold your breath. No, their abuses will be cloaked in language related to Jewish "oppression." I gurantee that any collateral damage caused by Israel in its defense will be covered and a fucking UN Resolution condeming it will not be far behind. Anyway, say hi to Alice, the Mad Hatter,and the Red Queen. And remember: keep your head.

Posted by: blu at July 12, 2006 09:03 AM (mv0lx)

8 "So an article like this can be viewed as an attempt to retain/enforce this scenario among those who already believe it." sure it can, Will, if you want to ignore the point of the article.

Posted by: annika at July 12, 2006 09:55 AM (zAOEU)

9 >every credible study ever done on the media and its members demonstrates that an extreme left-wing bias exists. Please reference the studies you consider to be credible. Oh, and 'hi!'. > sure it can, Will, if you want to ignore the point of the article. The point of the article seemed to be advocacy for news organizations to perform covert operations, frequently in foreign countries. In other words, to investigate organizations that are currently under investigation by the FBI, CIA, and others. Though you criticized one news organization for doing just that. So now you are the one cornfusing me... Do I think that exposing conditions at Abu Ghraib and similar situations was appropriate? Certainly. Don't forget, I became a Republican years ago because of liberal bias in the media.

Posted by: will at July 12, 2006 11:46 AM (GzvlQ)

10 Annie: Have you ever thought of being an appellate lawyer? Your writing skills really make you a great candidate for that kind of a job. Most of them never put on a suit or tie except to argue a cse in the court, opting for shorts and sandals, etc. Give it some thought.

Posted by: shelly at July 12, 2006 12:28 PM (BJYNn)

11 Will, Will, Will always so pedantic. There are a ton of studies - not that it is even necessary to cite them. Anybody with a 3-digit IQ who pays attention to the MSM know this. It reminds me of the Time cover that so astutely informed us stupid peasants that men and women are "different." Yeah, no shit Sherlock. That's kinda what I think when somebody says "the media is liberal." Anyway, I just did a (literally) 30 second search and found a UCLA study cited in the Quarterly Journal of Economics at the beginning of '05 that found distinct liberal bias in the MSM. And guess what - it also found that FOX isn't nearly as conservative as much as the MSM is liberal. If I say 2 + 2 = 4 will I need to cite a math professor to prove to you that I am correct?

Posted by: blu at July 12, 2006 01:02 PM (mv0lx)

12 > Will, Will, Will always so pedantic. There are a ton of studies - not that it is even necessary to cite them. Only trying to understand if you mean what you say or if you are loose with your words, which were, "every credible study ever done on the media and its members demonstrates that an extreme left-wing bias exists." This article does not support that assertion. > it also found that FOX isn't nearly as conservative as much as the MSM is liberal It doesn't actually say that. It says that, "The most centrist outlet proved to be the NewsHour With Jim Lehrer, CNN's NewsNight With Aaron Brown, and ABC's Good Morning America were a close second and third. The fourth most centrist outlet was Special Report With Brit Hume on Fox News..." This seems to confirm my assessment of The NewsHour, which I like to either watch or listen to on the radio, depending on the day's schedule. But the actual metrics they use in the study are crude and ignore placement, emphasis, ommission, and order arrangement of compound statements joined with a "but". So while such a study can give the most rudimentary of indications, it completely misses subtle and not-so-subtle bias. While there are many good discussions on this subject, I encourage you to read the wikipedia article on media bias and review it; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_in_the_United_States > If I say 2 + 2 = 4 will I need to cite a math professor to prove to you that I am correct? You are attempting to overly stretch a metaphor as damage control.

Posted by: will at July 12, 2006 07:08 PM (h7Ciu)

13 Hardly need to do damage control, Will. I told you that I found that one study in 30 seconds. No effort. And the point about Fox is that it is most certainly not as conservative as MOST MSN news media is liberal. To listen to some (and you've made this argument yourself), Fox is some right-wing version of Pravada. It is not. Indeed, it appeared to me that the researcher was surprised. And, Will, I don't mean to underestimate you, but can you kindly tell me your credentials for determining whether a study is "crude." (For example, I have 4 years of graduate school and a career heavy in quantitative analysis. This doesn't make me a PhD in stats but it does help me be a good consumer of data.) I'm not going to go back and analyze this study because frankly I don't care. So, I can't refute your analysis of it as crude. You seem like a smart guy, so I'll take your word for it. Moreover, I know that my fundamental point is accurate. The MSM leans heavily Left. You already knows this to be true, Will, but feel the need for somebody to go a find you a "link." So, I tossed out something I found in a few seconds that, "crude" or not," makes my point - as have numerous others. It's silly and, yes, pedantic. As silly as asking me to find a link demonstrating simple math. The end.

Posted by: blu at July 12, 2006 08:15 PM (j8pkL)

14 > can you kindly tell me your credentials for determining whether a study is "crude." Simply put, they "tallied the number of times each media outlet referred to think tanks and policy groups, such as the left-leaning NAACP or the right-leaning Heritage Foundation." Fox is well known for selecting general quotes from left leaning organizations while selecting the most appropriate quote from a right wing shop. And it doesn't show how much time they devoted to one side or another, nor the credibility given by the journalist in facial and speech inflections. Note that I previously gave several other examples of metrics that would help to determine bias. So by any measure, the UCLA metrics were crude. I invite you to speak in support of this study's approach, if you consider it to be a exemplar. > I told you that I found that one study in 30 seconds. No effort. And it wasn't hard finding the Wikipedia article either, though you haven't commented on it yet. Your original quote was ""every credible study ever done on the media and its members demonstrates that an extreme left-wing bias exists." I don't see that you've supported your assertion yet, only that you simply want us to believe "the MSM leans heavily left" now. If that's the case, the most Left wing MSM would be the Wall Street Journal, according to this study, which we know to be an absurd conclusion. And many MSM papers or news segments were determined to be neutral, so your blanket statement is not supported by the study you quoted.

Posted by: will at July 13, 2006 02:33 AM (h7Ciu)

15 I take it by your response that you have no expert credentials in this area. Well, I guess then you are going to have to send me a link proving your analysis is correct. And since I do have the academic expertise to be a good judge, I'll decide whether your study actually holds water. Remember, I'll need that link....and, most certainly, another link to prove this statement: "Fox is well known for selecting general quotes from left leaning organizations while selecting the most appropriate quote from a right wing shop." Says who? Again, I'll be the judge as to whether any study is credible should you decide to present any links. I'm certain that the Quarterly Journal of Economics regularly includes "crude" analysis. You might want to ask them to provide a link to demonstrate their competency. And, finally, asking somebody to prove everything they say is simply silly on an internet site. Espeically when you have a tendency of demanding proof and then discounting whatever is provided. Tell you what, Will, you prove to me that the MSM isn't liberal. The overwhelming consensus is that it is. I've never seen any proof to the contrary. Hint: busting out Wikipedia as a source probably won't score you a lot of points in academic circles. So, I'm going to have to insist that you do better. I'd prefer something peer reviewed if possible.

Posted by: blu at July 13, 2006 08:50 AM (mv0lx)

16 Annika, it's true that the MSM was responsible for the deaths of these people, but they were not solely responsible. The senators from New York should obviously be concerned about terrorist acts anywhere in the world. Why did they refuse to stop this carnage? Similarly (or not so similarly), one would think that an organization with a name like "Focus on the Family" would want to protect families. Where were they when families were (literally) torn apart? And don't get me started about the failures of the cast of Ocean's Twelve or Ocean's Thirteen or Ocean's Twenty or whatever.

Posted by: Ontario Emperor at July 13, 2006 02:12 PM (OeJic)

17 > Well, I guess then you are going to have to send me a link proving your analysis is correct. By all means, I'll be happy to provide you examples of criteria that can be used to assess bias. These will run the gamut from liberal to conservative examples, though the techniques they describe can be used independently; http://www.globalissues.org/HumanRights/Media/USA.asp?Print=True http://www.dallasmorningnewswatch.com/criteria.htm > And, finally, asking somebody to prove everything they say is simply silly on an internet site. I merely asked you to support your bold assertion, "every credible study ever done on the media and its members demonstrates that an extreme left-wing bias exists." You then provided an example that said that the WSJ was the most liberal MSM, even more so than CBS Evening News, the NYT, and the LAT. The most centrist outlet proved to be the "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown" and ABC's "Good Morning America" were a close second and third. > I'm certain that the Quarterly Journal of Economics regularly includes "crude" analysis. Oddly enough, this was not an economics article, so you would need to ask them how they determined the veracity of the study based on the application of economic theory. Still looking for your thoughts on the wikipedia link. Seriously.

Posted by: will at July 13, 2006 06:33 PM (h7Ciu)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Annika's Jeopardy, Round 10

The category is Ronald Reagan for $400.

Posted by: annika at 08:18 PM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 15 words, total size 1 kb.

Is Castro Dead?

American Princess, and apparently Jonah Goldberg have heard rumors. Nothing on Drudge yet. E.M. says she heard it from a Wall Street friend, as does Jonah. I checked the stock market and it did rally around 12:00.

Update: Still nothing from any reputable news source. Or from Drudge for that matter.

If it turns out to be true, I for one will question the timing. Is Castro's death simply the Bush administration's attempt to deflect attention away from their failure to unh...

Oh I got it. It's the Bush administration's attempt to deflect attention away from the impending indictment of Barry Bonds, who I hear, is a Republican.

Culture of corruption! Culture of corruption! Halliburton! Halliburton! Sis-boom-ba!

Posted by: annika at 12:25 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 123 words, total size 1 kb.

1 If so, I hope it's declared a national holiday. In California, we are forced to pay for our lazy, unionized state workers to take a day off for a that fruit-picking commie, Caesar Chavez. I'd much rather have my tax money going to celebrate the death of a vile commie bastard and everything he stands for.

Posted by: blu at July 11, 2006 02:15 PM (mv0lx)

2 Ah the wheels of justice grind exceedingly fine. No doubt he's finally chomped down on one of those salted CIA cigars. Hasta La Vista asshole. Give the devil my best!

Posted by: Casca at July 11, 2006 03:17 PM (2gORp)

3 They will just break out FidelBot number 5

Posted by: k at July 11, 2006 03:32 PM (PwBqG)

4 uuhhhmm that was me, BTW Annika, Casca, and Shelly, what do you think about this years College Football? My pick to win it all is Notre Dame. They were dam good last year and return most everyone. Texas and USC will both have new QB's so you might get a downturn there. OS will be an offensive powerhouse but has a nearly all new defense, that could be trouble. Miami will steal the ACC, but I predict a few losses. SEC, too much parity, they will beat each other up as usual.

Posted by: kyle8 at July 11, 2006 03:36 PM (PwBqG)

5 Bonds as a Repub reminds of a Charles Barkley story: Barkley told his mother he was going to vote for a Repub. His mom said "Don't do it. They only pass laws that help rich people." Charles said "Mom, I am a rich people."

Posted by: gcotharn at July 11, 2006 06:44 PM (bkSeR)

6 Bonds is a rebub? he better go dem like yesturday if he wants jese jackson to screan racism! Oh and Whats this college football crap??? Notre Dame??? Please how pathetic. Wait a minute......am I trapped in the 1960's?? Wisconsin Badgers all the way. You guys went to queer schools get over it!

Posted by: jeff at July 11, 2006 07:01 PM (njqFN)

7 Castro was only taken down and Zidane did it! http://www.babalublog.com/archives/003602.html

Posted by: jcrue at July 12, 2006 02:48 PM (ZDQoM)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Annika's Jeopardy, Round 9

See the comments to Round 8, for an update on the latest Annika's Journal Jeopardy controversies.

For round 9, the category is "Vexatious Vexillology," for $200.

Shelly is in the lead with $700; D-Rod and Leif are second with $500; Matt has $200; Drake Steel, TBinSTL and SkippyStalin have $100 each.

Note to all you lurkers out there: Everybody is eligible to try their luck at this game. Just leave your response in the comments section. And no. I don't have Lindsay Logan's phone number.

Here's the clue, which I think is pretty difficult.

Hands on your signalling devices, don't forget to phrase it right. Go!

Posted by: annika at 01:15 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 114 words, total size 1 kb.

Important Status Update For A's J Fans

My boyfriend and I have finally decided upon our summer vacation destination. Some of you may know that I had talked about going to Japan, and then Italy for a while. Then my mom asked, why don't you finally go and see Denmark? So Chris and I thought about it, and it made perfect sense.

I haven't been back there since I was about one, and I have always been curious. But I always felt like it wouldn't be right to go without my mom, so I kept postponing the trip. Since my mom doesn't fly anymore, I just kind of gave up on the idea. But now I want to support Denmark, so why not spend my travel dollars there? And everybody speaks English, plus it's a lot cooler in summer than Italy, which we'll probably save for a winter or fall trip.

So, my triumphant return to the place of my birth is scheduled for next month. And with the best travelling companion I could ever have, too! It's very exciting.

This means of course, that I will be on vacation starting next Tuesday. A very special guest blogger will be taking over for me. It's Victor of Publius & Co., who has been on a blogging hiatus for a couple of months. We hope he will return to his own Mu.Nu blog soon, but in the meantime it will be great to have him working the levers over here.

Jeopardy will continue until next Monday. We'll see how far we can get before my vacation. Then we'll pick up again after I return on July 29th. Don't freak out about this, Jeopardy fans. Remember last year, we didn't get to final Jeopardy until the end of August! Annika's Jeopardy is like the Tour de France. It's a grueling ordeal, but a fun one, and with 50% fewer Frenchies. So it will be totally worth the wait!

Posted by: annika at 12:07 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 333 words, total size 2 kb.

July 10, 2006

Nothing To See Here, Move Along...

From the Houston Chronicle:

[A] man with a Middle Eastern name and a ticket for a Delta Airlines flight to Atlanta shook his head when screeners asked if he had a laptop computer in his baggage, but an X-ray machine operator detected a laptop.
A search of the man's baggage revealed a clock with a 9-volt battery taped to it and a copy of the Quran, the report said. A screener examined the man's shoes and determined that the "entire soles of both shoes were gutted out."
No explosive material was detected, the report states. A police officer was summoned and questioned the man, examined his identification, shoes and the clock, then cleared him for travel, according to the report.
A TSA screener disagreed with the officer, saying "the shoes had been tampered with and there were all the components of (a bomb) except the explosive itself," the report says.
The officer retorted, "I thought y'all were trained in this stuff," TSA officials reported.
The report says the TSA screener notified Delta Airlines and talked again with the officer, who said he had been unable to check the passenger's criminal background because of computer problems.

So what did they do? They let the guy on the fucking plane!

Now of course, since the plane didn't blow up we can assume one of three things: a) that it was a test run; b) that the plan involved hiding the explosive somewhere else on the plane, or with an accomplice who aborted the mission; or c) that this poor innocent man with the middle eastern name was unfairly hassled while scores of evil grannies were allowed to board the plane unmolested.

I tend to think that it was just a test of our defenses, since a clock and battery do not seem to be necessary components of a shoe bomb. In any case, I hope someone is raising holy hell over this incident.

Posted by: annika at 08:12 AM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 331 words, total size 2 kb.

1 This country, led by the left and PC zealots, is well on its way to being lulled back into the a "9/10" mindset. Until another plane or building is blown up, we will continue to have people more worried about offending Muslims than stopping terrorists. Yeah, somebody (or possibly many) better lose their job(s) and America better start waking up.

Posted by: blu at July 10, 2006 08:24 AM (j8pkL)

2 Yes Blu, Why not hang them? Airports have lots of exposed beams and rope is no problem in Houston once you scrape the cow shit off of it. And you must, because cow shit is giving off methane and that coupled with a hollowed out shoe, match book and duct tape are the makings of a bomb. Send that cowpoke to Cuba! I think anytime a laptop, sneakers with holes in them and a travel alarm clock with a spare battery taped to it are in the same room together, or even in two different airports at the same time, the occupants of both airports should be sent to Gitmo as enemy combatants and put in a dark room for eternity. Now that, Blu, would keep us safe and prevent us from the hedious 9-10 mentality where NO ONE had or could have imagined a plane flying into a building. Or where "determined to attack" mean't let's go on vacation.

Posted by: stawman at July 10, 2006 11:19 AM (G2Zzw)

3 Hanging seems extreme, Straw. I just say keep the fucker off the plane and asked him about his hollowed out shoes and alarm clock/laptop. Heck, you might even run a little background check since he felt the need to lie. I guess that might trample on his civil rights, however. And, what's up with your too often bigoted caricatures regarding anything southern? It weakens your already weak agruments.

Posted by: blu at July 10, 2006 01:42 PM (iC+6O)

4 Oh, Blu, I love the south. The home of Nucular Fishing one of my favorite pastimes. You are, however, correct. He should have run a basic background check. I, you will be surprised to hear, believe in the power of profiling in certain circumstances. I don't think it necessary to strip search every semitic looking person but I do think that it is a waste of time to search my parents when they travel or a charter of 16-18 year old girls going to St. Bart's for spring break.

Posted by: Strawman at July 10, 2006 02:48 PM (G2Zzw)

5 Your mangling of "nuclear fission" was cute, 'Nam Warts.

Posted by: reagan80 at July 10, 2006 03:03 PM (dFOlH)

6 I'd almost vote for option d) - just a crazy guy incapable of doing anything - but he wasn't quite crazy enough. He wasn't carrying a Playboy magazine, which he would use to select the appearance of his 72 virgins. I happen to be of the belief that mankind is fundamentally incompetent. Richard Reid comes to mind, as do the Watergate Plumbers. There are probably clowns like this one who want to do something bad, but forget minor little details like explosives.

Posted by: Ontario Emperor at July 10, 2006 05:19 PM (FPdMX)

7 Raygun, I can't take credit. It was Lenny Bruce over 50 years ago commenting in a routine of his how SOutherners could be talking high energy physics and they would still sound dumb.

Posted by: strawman at July 10, 2006 07:22 PM (G2Zzw)

8 Shouldn't we take a positive spin on this? I mean, we caught someone who appeared to possibly have a bomb. He didn't, so there's no reason to detain him, period. What this means, though, is that maybe TSA will keep doing a good job and in the future catch people who *actually* pose a threat, whether or not they are grannies, middle easterners, southerners, or midgets? If he's not a threat, why detain him? Others in the future might be threats, and if so, we can hope they would be detained. But he didn't do anything illegal. If I wear a Freddy Krueger mask (all plastic, of course) onto the plane, I might scare people (little kids anyway) -- but I haven't done anything illegal. I cannot get behind detaining people because they scare us. So I choose to look at the positive side of this -- they caught someone who might have been a bad guy, and did the right thing by letting him go. Now they'll be even more vigilant to catch actual bad guys. Seems like something both libs and cons can get behind, no?

Posted by: The Law Fairy at July 10, 2006 07:39 PM (954g7)

9 You said 'fuck'! Don't worry, I won't tell.

Posted by: Kevin at July 10, 2006 08:21 PM (++0ve)

10 well just for FYI the local radio and TV stations here in Houston are raising holy hell over this one. But thats what you get in any job like that, a bunch of mindless "by the book" drones and farking bureaucrats. BTW thats just the kind of people who strawdog wants running our Medical industry, and everything else really. As for Southerners sounding stupid, Uhh no not to us, Its the yankees with that nasal twing who sound stupid.

Posted by: kyle8 at July 11, 2006 03:38 AM (S9dGj)

11 Ah Lenny, that epitome of wisdom.

Posted by: Stew at July 11, 2006 04:18 AM (2LMpg)

12 Kyley, "industry is the key word. I want medical care delivered without a profit motive. Medicare seems to be able to administer itself for less than 10 cents on the dollar and all the hospitals are getting paid, while the CEO of The Equitable flies each morning by helo to Hartford from Manhattan and gets 8 mill a year. WHo's getting taken care of and who's not. All that needs to be done id for the federal medical program that takes care of ALL federal employees and is not administerd by a private company, offered to ALL americans for a price that will keep the program solvent. Betcha, it cost less than your HMO, dosen't restrict you to plan doctors, provides wider coverage with fewer restrictions and pays doctors better rates than the current programs. Oh, it also won't make a lot of suits rich.

Posted by: Strawman at July 11, 2006 07:46 AM (G2Zzw)

13 Straw, That's called socialized medicine and it's a miserable failure everywhere it's tried. The quality of care is horrible and the system is inefficient. Talk to somebody from England or Canada about getting even basic surgery. Why do you people always bring up the Medicare example? Because admin fees are low that means it is a good program? That's your main criteria for declaring success? The program is infamous for fraud and waste as is Medicaid (called Medi-Cal in my state.) And, on a philosophical level, somebody explain to me why I should have to pay for the health care of rich old people or, for that matter, lazy poor people? There is no fucking "right" to healthcare. BTW, should I be responsible for feeding them too? How about clothes? Hey Straw, should the government buy everybody a car too? After all, it is nearly impossible to exist in a modern society without a car. And you need to be able to communicate: So how about free mobile phones for everybody? Is anybody responsible for themselves, Straw?

Posted by: blu at July 11, 2006 11:09 AM (mv0lx)

14 Blu, Dopey, dopier, and stupid. I did not mention socialized medicine and your wish to construe single pay as socialized is just the red in your eyes blinding you. All delivery institutions remain the same as do private doctors and your option to opt out of the system so you can prove to yourself you are a self reliant man if you need that sort of thing. Everybody pays and I will have a means test for social security as well as for the Fed MED Plan, no problem. Don't worry dear boy, you will never have to support someone with more money than you(like you don't do it now!) Yes there is currently fraud as there is with ALL large systems private or federal. Not an issue, just part of the cost of doing business. This plan is insurance not care delivery. If a premium is charged where do you get off calling it socialized and where do i ever say there is a right to medical care? My business does not provide it and I think the American demand that it SHOULD be provided at work is infantalizing crap. I am however deeply concerned that there are not affordable alternatives for the worker who has 2 young children and one household income. DO the math BLu. I a guy earns 40-50 grand a year- housing in 1500 a month plus food, transportation and sundries how can a family of 4 also afford 1200-1500 a month for a family health plan? Impossible If this country is to consider itself a humane place to live it must not have 40 million people who cannot afford medical insurance and therefore become part of a forced socialized medical system which cannot deliver decent care. It will be cheaper if the feds provide affordable insurance rather than the free medical care it doles out to EVERYONE who is in poverty or claims to be. How many millions of people as they reach their 50-60's divest themselves of all assets so as to be eligible for medicaid and not have their life savings devoured by one hospital stay? A relative of mine in their 70's without insurance has had three major hospitalizations in the last 3 years. Total cost about 400,000.00 dollars. All paid for but about 5% by the feds and state. If they had an affordable policy and 40 million others did and the hospitals charged the real cost to deliver this care, not the inflated amounts that take into consideration all that they are not reimbursed for by the indidgent and the low medicaid rates, this whole mess might be cleared up and far better care delivered. Ever been to an emeregency room at an inner city hospital Blu? It is the primary care facility for the poor who sit there by the hundreds, hour's on end with their feverish children, sprained backs, congested lungs from bacteria infections, infected ingrown toenails, etc. Isn't is far more cost effective for thse people to see private family practitioners in clinics and private offices with an insurance plan? Whatever you want to call the plans of Canada, England, France, and many others, they do not force people into poverty before they offer them care.

Posted by: Strawman at July 11, 2006 02:19 PM (G2Zzw)

15 Yes, I wish to consture single pay as socialized medicine. I suspect most Americans feel the same way. It is one of the reasons that this stupid idea is always rejected by Americans. Do you really believe the level of fraud in medicare and medicaid are equal to that found privately? Nice try, Straw. But I call BS. The difference between you and me (besides the fact that I'm younger and smarter - just kidding) is that I've actually worked in and around government my entire adult career. And I've been involved at the local, state, and federal levels. Hell, I've even been a Medicaid analyst when I was young and stupid enough to work for a county. The amount of fraud in these areas is staggering and occurs at all levels. And about this 40 million uninsured crap number - it is meaningless. Most of these people are young and single and choose not to purchase insurance. It is (as it should be) a choice. You and yours make it sound like there are 40 million people out there crying their eyes out because they have no insurance. It is not true. It is another silly left-wing lie to try and get more power and tax money into the hands of government. The more people you folks have on the dole the more power you have. How can you be so distrustful of the government and still want it to control billions and billions of healthcare dollars?

Posted by: blu at July 11, 2006 03:02 PM (mv0lx)

16 Blu, I hear what you say. Though I am a woodworker I did spend 5 years working in the NYS Dept of Mental Hygiene and have some insight that is not filterd through saw dust into health care matters. The negatives are not really a big concern of mine since the negatives of the whole system of delivery and afordability of health care drawf the problems of fraud. This is typically a RW paradigm: don't look at the deeper and more profound flaws in a system but rather focus on the bad dealings of a few. THis same cry was always heard around the welfare system. WOmen have extra babies to increase their benefits, women don't care to focus on bith control because the worst thing that can happen is a new kid and more money, women aren't looking for jobs because welfare is giiving them such a grand life. Talk about bullshit. Blu, have you ever lived in a large city in the North? The fraud and waste are in each realm different. In the world of medicaid you have things like hospitals bliing for services they did not deliver, clinics making up patient records and billing and individuals doing the same things but on for smaller amounts. Remember the hospitals that commit the fraud are often private for profit corporations bilking the government. What is the percentage of fraudulant v. appropiate payouts? I really don't know do you? In the system of insured health care as it now exits the 'fraud" take the form of profit. Every dollar that is removed from the system to pay sharholders dividends, multimillion dollar salalries and high operating costs is money that could otherwise be delivering care. I think Blu, if you totaled the fraud you experienced in medicaid and treated it as an administrative cost you would still be below the percentage that the private sector spends per dollar paid to providers. I know a woman who delivered psychiatric services for a clinic that had a contract with a union to deliver mental health services. She had to quit because in every case meeting it was clear that limiting the number of sessions to be delivered to a client was a goal regardless of the medical need of the patient. The clinc contracted to provide a fixed number of sessions for a year to the union's health plan and every session under that number was additional profit and every one over was considered a loss. Blu, this is fundamentally wrong and it it the mentality that permeates all of the health plans in America. WOuld you address the other issue I mentioned of impovershment before medicaid kicks in and the problems with the socialized medicine they now receive? I agree that there are many in the uninsured catagory that may be choosing not to sign up but i doubt the number is significant.

Posted by: strawman at July 12, 2006 08:13 AM (G2Zzw)

17 Medicaid, in nearly all cases, is based on "deprivation," Straw. So, the idea of having to get rid of nearly all your wealth prior to services is rare - in fact in California it doesn't happen anymore. And your paragraph on welfare is, frankly, a joke. It is another example of you having no clue about which you speak. Welfare pre-1996 was one of this country's most miserable policy failures. As demonstrated in numerous studies and by intellectuals as diverse as Murray and Moynihan, welfare was a disaster especially for American Blacks. The policy changes implemented in 1996 by the Republicans (and, of course, by "stick my finger in the wind and see which way it is blowing" Clinton) changed the old policy and is actually a huge success story. There were two fundamental changes: time limits and work. (You see, Straw, conservatives understand human nature, which is to take free stuff as long as somebody is willing to give it to you - especially if nothing is asked of you in return.) It takes too long to explain the policy at a lower level. You clearly, though, don't understand very well the mindset of the average welfare recipient. These people are, generally, lazy and unmotivated - and often times (pre 1996) were part of a generational legacy of welfare. It was indeed a lifestyle. And don't forget, though they did not receive much, they were/are provided free medical care, free food, and cash. No bad for doing absolutely fucking nothing. Anyway, Straw, you can't BS me on these types of issues.

Posted by: blu at July 12, 2006 09:39 AM (mv0lx)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

July 09, 2006

Annika's Jeopardy, Round 8

Point totals are as follows: Shelly is in the lead with $700; D-Rod is second with $500; Matt has $200; Drake Steel, TBinSTL and SkippyStalin have $100 each.

The category is Dicks, for $500.

Posted by: annika at 03:27 PM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 42 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Bzzzz... Who are Dick Cheney and Bill Clinton's "little buddy?"

Posted by: The Maximum Leader at July 10, 2006 06:46 AM (jiSuM)

2 Bzzt! Who are Armey and Gephardt?

Posted by: Leif at July 10, 2006 07:04 AM (M5Jcv)

3 *buzzzzzzzzz* Who are Dick Armey and Dick Gephardt? I'll take shoe shoes shoes for $500.

Posted by: victor at July 10, 2006 07:06 AM (L3qPK)

4 Blleeeep!!! Who are (VP) Dick Nixon and (VP) Dick Cheney? By the way, Annie, the last category is supposed to be "Great Lawyers".

Posted by: shelly at July 10, 2006 07:57 AM (BJYNn)

5 With all respect to Shelly, please tell me it's "one new category (until the max of 6 categories is reached) to one correct answer."

Posted by: Victor at July 10, 2006 09:30 AM (L3qPK)

6 My bad, and my apologies to Shelly. Your name was buried in "DAILY DOUBLE."

Posted by: Victor at July 10, 2006 09:42 AM (L3qPK)

7 It's OK, Victor. No one else around here can read, either. It's occupational hazard with lawyers...

Posted by: shelly at July 10, 2006 10:51 AM (BJYNn)

8 Bzzzzzzzzt...! Ahem. Who WERE Congressmen Dick Armey and Dick Gephardt? They were congressmen in the past, y'see.

Posted by: Tuning Spork at July 10, 2006 03:27 PM (a3DAX)

9 Guys, Armey and Gephart (Howdy Doody) didn't lead for 14 years. Gephardt didn't lead much at all. But he is and was certainly a Dick, in all respects.

Posted by: shelly at July 10, 2006 08:08 PM (BJYNn)

10 Who are 'the guy who replaced Tip O'Neil' and 'the guy who was senate majority leader at that time' ?

Posted by: Kevin at July 10, 2006 08:23 PM (++0ve)

11 What is 'two guys'. Who are 'the guys who were named Dick who ruled the Senate for 14 years'. Stop me if I get it. Who is 'some dudes'. What is 'a pair of weenies'.

Posted by: Kevin at July 10, 2006 08:28 PM (++0ve)

12 Kevin, you are a weenie. First, learn to read. The, learn to read instructions. You missed your chance with the fairy castles...

Posted by: shelly at July 10, 2006 08:36 PM (BJYNn)

13 oops, sorry i'm so late. Leif is first with the correct answer. As on the tv show, last names are okay if sufficient to identify the person. Leif, hopefully will be back soon and not off exploring Vinland, so he can select the next category. And speaking of categories, technically Shelly should get to pick the final category, since he did guess right last time. And that is what i told the judges, but unfortunately they disagreed with me, and so I have to listen to them. Basically the judges said that since we had "fuckin lawyers" as a category last year, we shouldn't have another lawyer category again this year. i think the judges just hate lawyers, which is kind of odd, when you think about it. Anyways, they told me to invoke the "lameness veto" and so we won't be having "great lawyers" as a category this year. Sorry Shelly. I think "Ronald Reagan" is a cool idea for a category tho. Maybe somebody will pick it. So it's up to me to pick the last category. I will choose something obscure and challenging. How about "vexatious vexillology?" Sounds great, I'm ready, let's go!

Posted by: annika at July 10, 2006 10:44 PM (fxTDF)

14 Shelly, **ahem**, that was me who screwed up on the fairy chimneys. Kevin, they didn't rule the Senate, they ruled the House. If it wasn't Armey and Gephardt then I'm still stumped, so I'll say: Bzzzzzzzzzt....! Who are Dick Weid and Dick Hertz?

Posted by: Tuning Spork at July 10, 2006 10:47 PM (Bw3Od)

15 Aah, there you are, Annie!

Shelly could've chosen the final category if he had picked it. But he didn't! He opted for Dicks for $500 so his option was negated. Good ruling, judges.

Posted by: Tuning Spork at July 10, 2006 10:56 PM (Bw3Od)

16 Bzzzzzzzzz....! Who are Dick Bosman and Dick James?

Posted by: d-rod at July 10, 2006 11:12 PM (7abZN)

17 Well, woo-hoo! Long-time listener and first time caller and all that. How very exciting. I'll take Vexatious Vexillology for 200.

Posted by: Leif at July 10, 2006 11:42 PM (5jofr)

18 Kevin, you are a weenie. First, learn to read. The, learn to read instructions. *sniff* Ok I learned to read early this morning. Where are the rules?

Posted by: Kevin at July 11, 2006 04:57 AM (++0ve)

19 Thanks for explaining that Tuning Spork. I had no idea what she was talking about with that fairies comment.

Posted by: Kevin at July 11, 2006 12:20 PM (++0ve)

20 Yer welks, Kevin.

Posted by: Tuning Spork at July 11, 2006 09:01 PM (3dnYO)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Our Long International Nightmare Is Over...

Congratulations Italia!

Posted by: annika at 03:00 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 14 words, total size 1 kb.

1 If there weren't penalty kicks, would some of these games take, oh i don't know, about 3 days to complete? Funny moment I recently heard on local sports talk radio in Sacramento: the host stopped the normal call in-show and said "folks, we've got some breaking news that's pretty stunning: (preganat pause) apparently somebody has scored a goal in the World Cup." What other sport could make you long to watch baseball on television? It is appropriate that, generally speaking, only third world ghetto dwellers and socialist idiots care about this crap. Oh, and what is the deal with all these fucking pussies acting like they have been shot everytime somebody touches them?

Posted by: blu at July 09, 2006 03:26 PM (j8pkL)

2 Yeah, well the Gomba that Zizou headbutted in the chest didn't have to act; he was too busy trying to catch his breath. That probably turned the tide in favor of Italia. ABF!!! (Anybody but the Frogs)

Posted by: shelly at July 09, 2006 03:39 PM (BJYNn)

3 The anti-international culture here is in keeping with the New American Century, but it seems obvious that document is now settled in the dustbin. GWB has been working more closely with, and, more importantly, winning the support of the leaders of other nations. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5501752 Once we see the rest of the world as peers instead of subjects, the sooner we'll fill in the hole we've been digging ourselves into.

Posted by: will at July 09, 2006 07:32 PM (h7Ciu)

4 uhhh, just cuz i think soccer is boring means i think the rest of the world are subjects? alright, you got me there. ; )

Posted by: annika at July 09, 2006 10:44 PM (fxTDF)

5 Will, do you ever wake up in the morning and feel like you might take yourself too seriously? oh yeah, i forgot to add... AMERICA RULES, SOCCER DROOLS! That ought to get you in a real hissy... Now me and my co-conspirators need to get going on our plans of world-domination. We will accomplish our evil goal by forcing every country in the world to participate in a mandatory badminton tournment every 4 four years. You think soccer turns dudes into raving pussies,wait til we stick a skinny little racquet in their hands and have them chasing around oddly shaped objects called shuttlecocks.

Posted by: blu at July 10, 2006 07:49 AM (j8pkL)

6 >Now me and my co-conspirators need to get going on our plans of world-domination. I'm assuming you are already clued into http://www.newamericancentury.org/ >uhhh, just cuz i think soccer is boring means i think the rest of the world are subjects? I'm not jumping on you per se, but addressing many of the commenters who disparage anyone or anything that isn't from US (or doesn't walk in lockstep). GWB has much more experience in world affairs now and, more importantly, it is beginning to show in words, actions, and preliminary results.

Posted by: will at July 10, 2006 08:23 PM (h7Ciu)

7 seriously, will, i was just making fun of soccer. i have no plans for world domination. i can't even get my girlfriend to listen to me.

Posted by: blu at July 10, 2006 09:42 PM (j8pkL)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Jeopardy With Annika, Round 7

Shelly gets the first Daily Double of the year! In the category "Dicks."

Let's go over the Daily Double rules.

Just like last year, the rules for Daily Double are almost the same as on tv, with an important exception. In my game everybody gets to play the Daily Double.

Every response must have a wager in it. The lowest you can wager is $100 and the highest you can wager is either $500 or however much money you have earned already, whichever is higher. Or you can wager any amount in between.

One caveat. Since Shelly picked the Daily Double, his response gets priority. So if you guess before him you run the risk of tipping him off to the correct response. If Shelly either guesses wrong or does not respond by the expiration of the time limit (10:00 p.m. Pacific time on Monday) the rest of the responses will count in order of their posting.

The competition is wide open. Here are the standings. D-Rod is in the lead with $500; Matt and Shelly have $200 each; Drake Steel, TBinSTL and SkippyStalin have $100 each.

Here's the clue. Good luck.

Posted by: annika at 12:48 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 202 words, total size 1 kb.

Another Danish Themed Post

From the Wall Street Journal, a sensible Danish liberal:

Bjorn Lomborg busted--and that is the only word for it--onto the world scene in 2001 with the publication of his book "The Skeptical Environmentalist." A one-time Greenpeace enthusiast, he'd originally planned to disprove those who said the environment was getting better. He failed. And to his credit, his book said so, supplying a damning critique of today's environmental pessimism. Carefully researched, it offered endless statistics--from official sources such as the U.N.--showing that from biodiversity to global warming, there simply were no apocalypses in the offing. "Our history shows that we solve more problems than we create," he tells me. For his efforts, Mr. Lomborg was labeled a heretic by environmental groups--whose fundraising depends on scaring the jeepers out of the public--and became more hated by these alarmists than even (if possible) President Bush.

Read what Mr. Lomborg has to say about priorities here. Good stuff.

via Shelly.

Posted by: annika at 11:57 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 163 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Lomborg was neither an environmentalist nor a scientist, unless you want to consider his credentials as a political scientist. His material has been debunked and put to rest long ago. http://www.sciamdigital.com/index.cfm?fa=Products.ViewIssuePreview&ARTICLEID_CHAR=FB7B4B3D-44D9-491F-A5A9-03E2C01909A

Posted by: will at July 10, 2006 08:52 PM (h7Ciu)

2 A link to the full article; http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000F3D47-C6D2-1CEB-93F6809EC5880000

Posted by: will at July 10, 2006 08:54 PM (h7Ciu)

3 Thanks for the link, Will. I will print it out and try to read it all. By the way, just a friendly tip. I think your credibility is affected when you neglect to mention that the article you linked identifies Lomberg as a political scientist and statistician. (In fact, the article places the word statistician before political scientist when identifying Lomberg's credentials.) Either you didn't expect anyone to actually click the link, which i doubt, or you don't consider mathematics a field of science. Having taken a statistics course at Berkeley, and done poorly in it, I can assure you, it is a field of science.

Posted by: annika at July 10, 2006 11:09 PM (fxTDF)

4 Annika, I was referring to scientists from the direct subject areas, such as climatology, biology, epidemiology, etc. Most scientists take statistics as a matter of course (as have I in my engineering education), and report their results with statistics as one tool. While Lomborg has a doctorate in political science and has lectured on statistics as it relates to that field, he doesn't have any degrees in statistics or even math, hence my description of him still stands as accurate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lomborg

Posted by: will at July 11, 2006 04:34 AM (h7Ciu)

5 So let me get this straight. you are now disputing the accuracy of the article, which you linked in order to dispute the accuracy of the article I linked, because your article is about people who dispute the accuracy of the guy in the article I linked, who disputes the accuracy of findings by people like those in the article you linked. I'm cornfused.

Posted by: annika at July 11, 2006 06:53 AM (fxTDF)

6 You pointed out the article I supplied a link to reported that Lomborg is a political scientist and a statitician. He lectures on statitistics, though has no degree in any field of mathematics. So to call him a scientist would be misleading, which was my original contention. If you read the rest of the wikipedia page, you'll see that there has been considerable back and forth on the veracity of his book, which the Demark Ministry of Science, Technology, and Innovation eventually concluded was not a scientific publication, therefore could not be reviewed and critiqued as such. You would need several days to labor through the critiques, responses, response critiques, explanations of data set variations, artful deflections, dismissive generalizations, etc, etc, ad nauseum, ad infinitum. I plowed through this a few months ago, and it was quite a rollercoaster ride. He makes some valid points, though ultimately he is shown to be slanting his overall thrusts to the detriment of his thesis statement. However, the general public knows little about the application of the sciences involved, and can be easily hoodwinked by soundbites from either side.

Posted by: will at July 11, 2006 07:29 AM (h7Ciu)

7 If Dr. Lomberg's opinions can be dismissed because his PhD is "only" in political science, can I then dismiss Al Gore's opinions becuase he doesn't even have a PhD?

Posted by: annika at July 11, 2006 11:29 AM (zAOEU)

8 Yes, "only" poly sci. Unless you are considering that a hard science. You are shifting away from the original question with the remark about Gore, but I will be happy to provide you the answer; http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/27062006/2/entertainment-scientists-give-thumbs-al-gore-s-movie-global-warming.html

Posted by: will at July 11, 2006 06:51 PM (h7Ciu)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Danish Torture Conviction Overturned

A victory in the little known case of Annemette Hommel, the Danish officer accused of "torture" at the Danish Contingent's Camp Eden in Southern Iraq.

Apparently Eden was no paradise for the detainees under interrogation by Hommel and four MPs. They had been subjected to the heinous torture of:

having to sit down for a long time

getting yelled at

not getting a second glass of water when they asked for one

Danish blogger Exile has background on the Hommel case.

She was tried here in Denmark in the full glare of the press and with indignant left-wing politicians screaming for an example to be made. 'War crimes!' they screamed. And it gave a perfect setting for a left-wing outcry against our participation in the 'invasion and occupation' of Iraq.
Though being found technically guilty of abusing prisoners, Annette Hommel was not handed any sentence, merely left to live with the findings of the court and a ruined career. She was not content with that and appealled the courts decision. And in my opinion, quite rightly so.

And Thursday, Jyllands Posten's English language site reported that the ÃƒÂ˜stre Landsret ruled in Hommel's favor.

Annemette Hommel and four other military police have been acquitted of breaking Geneva Conventions by the High Court of Eastern Denmark.
Hommel and the four others had been previously been found guilty by a lower court. Due to mitigating circumstances, however, none of them are facing jail time.
Hommel appealed the decision handed down by a Copenhagen court that convicted her of calling detained Iraqis names and expletives while forcing them to sit in stressful positions during questioning.
Following the first trial in January 2006, Hommel said she was pleased and satisfied with being acquitted on some of the charges but felt that the court has laid down an unnecessarily hard line on the other points.
'I can't live with that,' Hommel said after the first trial, adding that she had been convicted of something that was against her principles.
Hommel has yet to comment on the new, not-guilty verdict by the Eastern High Court.

I like Exile's final comment, which puts most of these "torture" cases into perspective:

No hooking their genitals up to car batteries then? No beatings with clubs or heavy duty electrical cable? No tools or other impliments of torture? No pulling of teeth or fingernails? No poking out of eyes? No beheadings?
No, none of that. That is what she went there to put an end to.

Indeed.

Posted by: annika at 11:01 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 416 words, total size 3 kb.

July 08, 2006

Annie's Jeopardy, Round 6

D-Rod has named the fourth category, "Dicks." We're a little heavy on celebrity themed categories, so I'm going to make this one about "objects that sort of remind me of an erect penis."

I got time today, so let's make it another video. Here's the clue, for $200.

Posted by: annika at 11:47 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 56 words, total size 1 kb.

Jeopardy With Annika, Round 5

SkippyStalin has selected "Canadians You've Never Heard Of" for $500.

Here's our first video clue of 2006!

Update: Let's review the rules. 1. Use the signalling device. 2. A correct response is phrased in the form of a question. 3. If you get it right, you may pick the next category, but don't forget to name the dollar amount you want too.

Posted by: annika at 10:36 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 72 words, total size 1 kb.

July 07, 2006

Hitch Explains The Blow Job

Am I the only one who thinks it unseemly that the author of a scholarly work about Thomas Jefferson should also write an article about fellatio?

Be that as it may, Christopher Hitchens did just that. His article for Vanity Fair, is heavy on literary references, but contains one piece of etymological trivia that I'd always wondered about. Why do they call it a "blow job" when, as Chevy Chase once said, "you're not supposed to blow on it; that's just a figure of speech."

The crucial word "blowjob" doesn't come into the American idiom until the 1940s, when it was (a) part of the gay underworld and (b) possibly derived from the jazz scene and its oral instrumentation. But it has never lost its supposed Victorian origin, which was "below-job" (cognate, if you like, with the now archaic "going down").

Interesting. Of course, "sucking cock" is also a misnomer. If this were a more confessional blog, I might tell you the story of a certain fourteen year old's first encounter with a boy, wherein they both discovered the truth of that last statement, embarrassingly so for her, but painfully so for him.

Hitchens has a theory about why the blow job has become the quintessentially American sex act of late. It's not that Monica was so influential. It's really about the ADA, according to British transplant Hitch.

There is another thinkable reason why this ancient form of lovemaking lost its association with the dubious and the low and became an American handshake and ideal. The United States is par excellence the country of beautiful dentistry. As one who was stretched on the grim rack of British "National Health" practice, with its gray-and-yellow fangs, its steely-wire "braces," its dark and crumbly fillings, and its shriveled and bleeding gums, I can remember barely daring to smile when I first set foot in the New World. Whereas when any sweet American girl smiled at me, I was at once bewitched and slain by the warm, moist cave of her mouth, lined with faultless white teeth and immaculate pink gums and organized around a tenderly coiled yet innocent tongue. Good grief! What else was there to think about? In order to stay respectable here, I shall just say that it's not always so enticing when the young ladies of Albania (say) shoot you a cheeky grin that puts you in mind of Deliverance.

Hitch also mentions the movie Deep Throat, and it's importance to American cultural development.

[I]n 1972 . . . some amateurs pulled together $25,000 for a movie that eventually posted grosses of $600 million. Is this a great country or what? This film, with performances by Harry Reems and Linda Lovelace, was one of the tawdriest and most unsatisfying screen gems ever made, but it changed the world and the culture for good, or at any rate forever.

Having seen Deep Throat at a high school slumber party years ago, I can't say I understand Hitch's praise. It was a pretty sucky film, literally and figuratively. I don't remember much about it, except that me and my friends couldn't stop laughing, which means it was either really cheesy, or we were really stoned. I also remember wondering how Linda Lovelace did that. They must have used some kind of special effects, is all I can think, because what I saw was not physically possible.

As long as we're on the subject, I have a blow job related philosophical question. It's a non-rhetorical one for the comments section if you choose to weigh in. It seems there are two schools of thought regarding the power distribution within a duo a fellatio.

School one views the person doing the sucking as the one with all the power. Quite simply, this school argues that despite the apparent subservience of the fellator's posture, and the work:reward ratio involved, it is the sucker rather than the suckee who is in command. The argument is based on the fact that at any time, at the whim of the fellator, the fellatee might find himself in a World Of Hurt According To Garp. If you know what I mean.

The second school of thought on the power relationship issue vis-a-vis dicksucking, tends to scoff at the former school's "Garp" argument. This more inferential argument can be summarized thusly: Since fellators service a fellatee willingly and almost never cause harm, it can be surmised that the fellatee has power akin to a master-slave relationship. As one arrogant guy said to me during a discussion of this very issue, "A powerful king won't let anyone with a sword near him. But the most powerful king surrounds himself with swordsmen, because he knows nobody would dare hurt him."

Interesting point. But still I would come down on the side of the fellator as the one with all the power. Because she/he still gets to decide whether, when and for how long the job gets done.

And how well.

h/t to Blogger Ale.

Update: Essential reading: Oral Sex for Dummies, by JoanC: Part I and Part II. Even if you think you know the subject, I gaurantee you won't think so after reading Joan.

Posted by: annika at 04:21 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 867 words, total size 6 kb.

1 Women always had the power in a relationship because of their sex. That is until the last few decades where women have discarded their power in the pursuit of.........? Pre 1970's women had the power and the knew how to use it. That's why women in those days got married in their early 20's and today's women are lucky if they get married in their middle 30's.

Posted by: Jake at July 07, 2006 08:56 PM (CT8rN)

2 Robin Williams noted that God gave men both a dick and a brain, and only enough blood to run one at a time. Ven dee voomaan suck, she haav dee paawaaaaah. Kevin

Posted by: Kevin Kim at July 07, 2006 09:33 PM (1PcL3)

3 I'm stil astounded at the use of "Monica" and "influential" in the same sentence.

Posted by: Ontario Emperor at July 07, 2006 09:33 PM (GMHZ/)

4 Stil?

Posted by: Ontario Emperor at July 07, 2006 09:34 PM (GMHZ/)

5 As a potential California attorney, I think you already know the answer to your own question. Just look at your divorce laws. Just ask Johnny Carson (who, I know is dead) or Eddie Murphy, who lost both ways. If cunnilingal prowess were all it took to gain real estate, I'd be the King of Malibu by now. That I'm just some worthless loser in Toronto tells you all you need to know.

Posted by: skippystalin at July 07, 2006 10:23 PM (ohSFF)

6 All this talk about the power distribution during the act is sooooooo Gloria Steinem. I shouldn't have to tell you this, but I will; blowjobs are about having fun with your partner and if anyone is thinking about anything other than getting each other off, well, its just a little too bad for them.

Posted by: Pursuit at July 08, 2006 07:41 AM (n/TNS)

7 Pursuit, If your not going to be a cynic you should consider taking your pure of heart crap somewhere else. Just kidding. You are so obviously correct when the discussion involves people who are relatively healthy and capable of emotionally intergrated relationships but alas, they are in the minority and nonexistant if you watch shows like Huff, The Soprano's, Weed's, The Shield, Six Feet Under, Deadwood, Des. Housewives, and so many more. I enjoy most of these shows but i would not suggest that my children watch as examples of adults solving the problems of love and life in admirable or healthy ways. Now that that is out of the way I think the Catholics ruinied gettin on you knees for everyone. An important question concering the power balance is: In what position are you most comfortable/uncomfortable when getting/giving a blowjob. Then the anal i sis begins to have a foundation.

Posted by: Strawman at July 08, 2006 08:03 AM (G2Zzw)

8 The power of the one performing said blowjobbery comes from the ability to be able to stop at any given time. They are in control of every aspect of the blowjob -- speed, technique, longevity, rhythm, etc. And as for deepthroating...I assure you, it is not only possible, but not really that difficult once you learn to control your gag reflex. It's the same concept as drug mules swallowing condoms filled with drugs before boarding a plane. Swallow when it's at the top of the throat and then relax your esophogial muscles, letting it slide down.

Posted by: Joan at July 08, 2006 09:07 AM (Ffvoi)

9 Joan, I wonder if you could expand on the esophogial muscle tecnique you learned in Bogata. I have a girl friend down there looking to pick up some extra cash. Butt more importantly, I think your description of why and how the power lies with the jobber is deeply flawed. Am I to believe all the men you've jobbed have cum on your schedule, had their hips strapped to the whatever, and never touched your puffed cheek with their hands? Joan, have you ever jobbed someone who wasn't dead and didn't have an electrode up his ass or wasn't shackled to a wall in your basement??

Posted by: Strawman at July 08, 2006 10:39 AM (G2Zzw)

10 Strawman -- Yes, as a matter of fact, the men I have blown have cum on my schedule. Always. Have they been shackled? Only when they asked nicely.

Posted by: Joan at July 10, 2006 07:30 AM (r/CEY)

11 jOAN, That's great, I think schedules are very important.

Posted by: Strawman at July 10, 2006 08:39 AM (G2Zzw)

12 The second school of thought is just how hoooers delude themselves into thinking they're empowered. It's a penis, in your mouth. A penis, in your mouth. In your mouth, a penis. It's the king of Siam lording it over his lowly subject. In her mouth. With a penis. If you had a daughter and walked in on that, would you be horrified at how she's using him to get all empowered?

Posted by: Dave Munger at July 13, 2006 10:19 PM (eE3Nh)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Jeopardy With Annika, Round 4

TBinSTL chose the latest category: Anal Bum Covers. Here's how it works, I'll describe the album cover, you name the artist.

Since TBinSTL didn't indicate what dollar amount he chose, I'll make it $100. Please don't forget to name your dollar amount when you have control of the board.

Here's the clue:

Posted by: annika at 12:14 AM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 62 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Who is The Velvet Underground?

Posted by: Mike C at July 07, 2006 03:40 AM (y6n8O)

2 Mike is quick !! remember the instructions "peel slowly and see"? I loved the 60's

Posted by: jimi at July 07, 2006 04:41 AM (BN/Fu)

3 *Bzzzzzzzzzzz* Who is the Velvet Underground? I'll take "shoes shoes shoes" for $500.

Posted by: Victor at July 07, 2006 04:58 AM (L3qPK)

4 Ding Who is the Velvet Underground with Nico?

Posted by: skippystalin at July 07, 2006 07:00 AM (ohSFF)

5 ANnie, Skippy is the correct answer, we musn't forget the sumptuous Ms. Nico who's vocal styling on "I'll be Your Mirror" suggested a life of enviable and incomparable misery. A ravaged beauty if ever there was one. Not that Lou has managed getting into his sixties without looking quite the worse for wear. (Name drop now....) He and I were having Pizza last spring on the LES (sitting at different tables unknown to each other) and he looks pretty beat up as does his always inventive wife Laurie Anderson.

Posted by: Strawman at July 07, 2006 08:16 AM (G2Zzw)

6 EMH: (*Too scared to touch his buzzer/shocker thing, didn't know the answer anyway*)

Posted by: ElMondoHummus at July 07, 2006 08:21 AM (xHyDY)

7 No! No! No! The correct question is: What is The Velvet Underground and Nico.

Posted by: Tuning Spork at July 07, 2006 01:27 PM (fs1yQ)

8 Oh, wait. Here's how it works, I'll describe the album cover, you name the artist. Ooops. I guess Mike did get it. Curses!

Posted by: Tuning Spork at July 07, 2006 01:30 PM (fs1yQ)

9 Skippystalin is correct. I was wondering if you'd join us Skippy. I wonder if you sniffed out the Jessica Alba video and thought you'd stay for the game. Skippy has control of the board. You may now either name a new category or stick with the existing ones. Don't forget your dollar amount.

Posted by: annika at July 07, 2006 03:31 PM (fxTDF)

10 I thought responding before leaving early for work, eastern time zone advantage, and absurd recollection of something I clearly shouldn't have remembered combined to assure me control of the board. As it were: NICO, nada, nil. Nice work Skipster, let the game continue!

Posted by: Mike C. at July 07, 2006 05:18 PM (wZLWV)

11 Bogus! My answer would have passed muster with the judges! If you're nitpicking, the correctest answer would be (after hitting the signalling device), "Who are The Velvet Underground and Nico." And Strawman is, as usual, incorrect. Nico's vocal stylings on anything she sings suggest either she was strung out on heroin (again) or that she couldn't sing. Or both.

Posted by: Victor at July 07, 2006 08:11 PM (l+W8Z)

12 How culd I not take Canadians You've Never Heard of Of for $500.00, Annika?

Posted by: skippystalin at July 07, 2006 09:43 PM (ohSFF)

13 Victor, You can deal. Or not. Whatever.

Posted by: skippystalin at July 07, 2006 09:48 PM (ohSFF)

14 Victor, I don't know why you wouldn't agree that "incomprable misery" might be synonymous with being strung out on herion. I don't get the "wrong" of this equation unless you, during the halcyon days of your youth and drug abuse, thought yourself a happy fellow.

Posted by: Strawman at July 08, 2006 07:39 AM (G2Zzw)

15 Geez, Strawman, I'm beginning to think you wouldn't recognize joking if you tripped over it.

Posted by: Victor at July 08, 2006 07:19 PM (l+W8Z)

16 Victor, Geez, VIc, I didn't know any of this was ever not humorous. But if you thought I was too sensitive I apologize.

Posted by: Strawman at July 09, 2006 12:36 PM (G2Zzw)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

July 06, 2006

Happy Birthday To The Bikini

Yesterday was the 60th anniversary of the bikini.

No, not this bikini.

I'm talking about this kind!

So scandalous was the first modern-day bikini that the only female free-spirited enough to pose in one was a stripper. Parisian engineer-turned-designer Louis Reard released the suit at a fashion shoot on July 5, 1946. It was cut high on the hip, but the really stunning feature was that it bared the navel, a part of the body that in modern history had been off-limits for public display.
The tiny two-piece shocker signaled the coming transformation of attitudes toward the body. Still, it would take more than a decade for most American women to get comfortable with wearing the skimpy suit.
The baring of the belly button was the big hurdle.
"I can't think of any situation in the thousand years before the '60s when it was acceptable to show the navel, '' said Kevin Jones, a curator and fashion historian at the Fashion Institute of Design & Merchandising in Los Angeles.

Maybe so, but as the article points out, the bikini wasn't invented in 1946. It was only re-introduced. According to Wikipedia (font of all knowledge) "Two-piece garments worn by women for athletic purposes have been observed on Greek urns and paintings, dated as early as 1400 BC."

Here's a scene from the famous Roman "bikini girls" mosaic at the Villa Romana del Casale in Italy, which dates to the early 4th Century A.D.

(The chick on the left demonstrates something the Romans liked to call "nipplae slipae.")

Over the course of this blog, I've done a couple of bikini related posts. Let's take a look back, shall we?

Two years ago, I linked to a swimwear poll, which revealed that 7 out of 10 women own a bikini, and California girls prefer low-rise bottoms, while East coast girls like a mid-rise.

Last winter, I went all out and did a bikini fashion preview. In that post I predicted that polka dots would be "in," and I was right. I saw polka dots all over the place. Speaking of nipus slipus, that was the post where I coined the term ""dunstation."

I'll probably toast the bikini's 60th birthday with a fruity drink and a swim after work. That sounds like a plan. How will you celebrate?

Posted by: annika at 06:58 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 392 words, total size 3 kb.

1 I shall celebrate by asking my lovely wife for a beach date ASAP.

Posted by: Hugo at July 06, 2006 09:20 AM (yLeev)

2 I'm gonna hang out at my local mosque with the lastest SI Swimsuit Edition and a Pacifico.

Posted by: blu at July 06, 2006 11:42 AM (j8pkL)

3 We were hoping you would model one...

Posted by: BobG at July 06, 2006 04:02 PM (+zarT)

4 You simply can't find this wonderful diversity of topics anywhere else in cyberland. Drew Carey said it best: Annika Rocks!

Posted by: Mike C. at July 06, 2006 06:30 PM (wZLWV)

5 A blog on bikinis and you dont have the guts to get in one and show a pic? There goes your credibility. You would have fit in well pre1946.

Posted by: Jeff at July 06, 2006 07:09 PM (mQhCk)

6 are you a premium subscriber Jeff? huh? well then, you can't complain if you're not. Premium subscribers to annika's journal get the following: 1. access to all of annika's journal photo archives 2. new photo shoots every day in a different costume 3. naked video chatting all for only $1999.95 per month!

Posted by: annika at July 06, 2006 07:18 PM (fxTDF)

7 I thought that would hit you where you lived. Im loving it!

Posted by: Jeff at July 06, 2006 07:40 PM (mQhCk)

8 Move that decimal point two spots to the left an' we'll think about it

BTW, that 2nd link had an awful lot of Jessica Alba in it. Not that that's a bad thing. In fact, it's a good thing. Think I'm gonna bookmark it...

Posted by: ElMondoHummus at July 06, 2006 07:55 PM (nAE4x)

9 Annika, I still do my bikini shopping here www.wickedweasel.com These are some serious threads and down under women have some serious body issues!

Posted by: strawman at July 07, 2006 05:02 PM (G2Zzw)

10 just window shopping i hope, strawman. anyways those things are way too small for normal people to wear.

Posted by: annika at July 07, 2006 05:38 PM (fxTDF)

11 aNNIKA, ahh, that's why we have pretenatural.

Posted by: Strawman at July 08, 2006 07:43 AM (G2Zzw)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

154kb generated in CPU 0.0763, elapsed 0.1423 seconds.
80 queries taking 0.1132 seconds, 387 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy

Monthly Traffic

Pages: 4074
Files: 11
Bytes: 58.7M
CPU Time: 1:56
Queries: 219829

Content

Posts: 2168
Comments: 17090

Feeds

July 13, 2006

July 12, 2006

July 11, 2006

July 10, 2006

July 09, 2006

July 08, 2006

July 07, 2006

July 06, 2006

Search Thingy

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Monthly Traffic

Content

Feeds