I totally picked Alan Arkin. I should have put money on it! He was 4:3, but the favorite was Eddie Murphy at 1:2. I was in Reno this weekend and I told people I was going to bet and then I chickened out, damn.

My theory was that Arkin would win because Little Miss Sunshine was the only nominated movie out on DVD until just a few weeks ago. Therefore a lot of the voters were probably too lazy to go out and see the other movies, but I'm sure they had Netflix.

Posted by: annika at 08:12 PM | Comments (28) | Add Comment
Post contains 101 words, total size 1 kb.

From now on, when traveling by air, I plan to wear only cow-print clothing. Might as well dress the part.

Posted by: annika at 12:23 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 26 words, total size 1 kb.

1 "I plan to wear only cow-print clothing. Might as well dress the part." I don't get it. Do you have four tits? Kevin

Posted by: Kevin Kim at February 25, 2007 12:42 PM (1PcL3)

2 If that is your mode of dress, I will make a perfect traveling companion for you as I always wear my cowboy boots and hat on the airplane.

Posted by: Jake at February 25, 2007 12:43 PM (V6rxT)

3 Nice blog, I'll have to stop by more often. You are your readers come check out mine as well. I am always looking for new conservatives and liberals who like to comment

Posted by: The Game at February 25, 2007 01:08 PM (Geh7J)

4 Hey, great. We've got a couple of liberals you can have for nothing. Take them. Please.

Posted by: shelly at February 25, 2007 09:16 PM (SLFj+)

5 Teats. On cows, they're called "teats". And someone keep Casca out, before he comes up with some sick fantasy of milking Annika.

Posted by: ElMondoHummus at February 25, 2007 10:50 PM (J+r3D)

6 ElMondoHummus, "Teats. On cows, they're called 'teats.'" True, but on women, I think they're called tits. Kevin couldn't help myself

Posted by: Kevin Kim at February 26, 2007 05:48 AM (1PcL3)

7 Those of weak character, always trying to lay their own shortcomings on others.

Posted by: Casca at February 26, 2007 07:31 AM (Y7t14)

8 Heheheheheh!... >:-} (<- evil smirk)

Posted by: ElMondoHummus at February 26, 2007 08:55 AM (J+r3D)

9 But if you'll hold her by the horns, I'll give it a try.

Posted by: Casca at February 26, 2007 12:19 PM (Y7t14)

10 How about trying calf roping instead? Hehe... so if I hold the horns and accept complicity in the - err... milking - does that make me Annika's Bitch II? Annika's Bitch Jr.? Annika's Other Bitch?

Posted by: ElMondoHummus at February 26, 2007 02:27 PM (J+r3D)

11 No, I believe the police report will read "accomplice".

Posted by: Casca at February 26, 2007 02:37 PM (Y7t14)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Today we take a look at the slutty movies: BUtterfield 8 and The Sandpiper.

The Sandpiper, 1965

This movie is set in the beautiful Central Coast of California, from San Simeon to Big Sur. The restaurant Nepenthe even makes an appearance. You may remember I wrote a poem about Nepenthe. In case you don't remember, this is a good excuse for me to re-post it.

At Nepenthe

At the edge of a deep
Verdant crevasse
The hissing ocean so far below
Barely seen this morning
Through the fog

Cool gentle breeze, and
Green strands among blue waves
Of the pacific, sea of forgetfulness
Calming spirit and mind
As you sit waiting

Pale rays of gold
The sun from your left
Warms your arm and lights
This contented respite
On your journey south

Sailing through the mist
Wings teetering, acute dihedrals
Vultures float like seraphim
Two hundred feet beneath
Your outdoor table, where

You eat your nine dollar hamburger
And quaff oÂ’ quaff this diet coke

Elizabeth Taylor plays Laura Reynolds, a free spirited artist/feminist/atheist who's moved to a cozy shack on the beach in order to raise her son far away from the evil influence of traditional values. She doesn't have a high opinion of men, most especially Richard Burton's character Dr. Hewitt, an Episcopal priest.

Taylor's son gets in trouble with the law for shooting a deer, and the judge orders Taylor to send him to the private religious boarding school run by Burton. Single mom and school principal soon clash over child rearing philosophies, as in this scene.

Dr. Hewitt: It may be hard for you to believe Miss Reynolds, but boys like children of their own age. They also like some order in their lives. Given just a little time, Danny will adjust beautifully.

Laura: Adjust to what?

Dr. Hewitt: To himself, to other people, to society.

Laura: That's just it, I don't want him to adjust to society!

Dr. Hewitt: Well if you want Danny to be a non-conformist, San Simeon is the best place that could happen to him, we'd give him a set of values there that he can rebel against later. Otherwise, he may rebel against yours.

Laura: Oh I see. You mean you teach children evil, so they can rebel against it when they grow and become good.

I expected better from director Vincente Minnelli (An American In Paris, Gigi) and writer Dalton Trumbo (Roman Holiday, Spartacus). I gave it three stars on the Netflix scale, "liked it," but just barely.




BUtterfield 8, 1960

I'll tell you right up front, BUtterfield 8 is one of my favorite Elizabeth Taylor movies. Beautifully shot, amazing performances, great characters, and no Richard Burton! Instead we get Laurence Harvey in the best performance of his career. He plays the same self-important prig that you saw in The Manchurian Candidate and The Alamo, only this time with a lot more depth. He's a playboy who married well, but messes around on his wife out of self-loathing and boredom. He treats his women like whores, until meeting Elizabeth Taylor's character, a nympho by the name of Gloria Wandrous. As in The Sandpipers, Elizabeth Taylor gets cast as the "other woman."

Interestingly, Elizabeth Taylor is at the apex of two love triangles in this one. It's more of a love bowtie, I guess. A subplot involves Taylor's best friend, a writer played by Eddie Fisher, her real life husband at the time. Fisher's girlfriend wants to get married, but he's having trouble getting past his barely concealed crush on Elizabeth Taylor, who toys with his affections mercilessly. Again, she's the "other woman," this time preventing a marriage.

But it's the fiery relationship between Taylor and Harvey that provides all the action in this movie. It opens with Elizabeth Taylor waking up alone in Harvey's bed the morning after their first tryst. She wanders around the mansion, and after brushing her teeth with whiskey, finds a thank you note from Harvey with a wad of cash for her trouble. In retaliation, she scrawls her response in the mirror and steals one of his wife's furs.

The second time they meet is at a bar. I love the dialogue in this scene because they spar like two champions in a draw match. You wonder, has the playboy finally met his match? Has the man-eater finally met hers? At the climax of the scene, Harvey grabs her wrist in a vice-grip, while she crushes his instep with her heel.

Ouch. They both retire to neutral corners after that, but by the end it's Harvey's character who throws in the towel. Can you blame him? It's Elizabeth Taylor! He's so in love he vows to change his life around for her, leave his wife, and get a real job. Taylor cleans up her act too, and it looks like she's become a one man woman at last. But, and there's always a but, in the end their high hopes all come crashing down. Quite literally.

Elizabeth Taylor won the Best Actress Oscar for this role, and she totally deserved it. (She was up against Shirley Maclaine for The Apartment that year. Wow, I'm glad I wasn't voting.) Remember this was 1960 and frank treatment of sexuality was still pretty daring. There's a scene at the end when Taylor breaks down in front of Eddie Fisher, telling him a dark secret. Even by today's standards, that scene still blows me away. That's all I'll say about it.

Hollywood still makes movies about slutty women, but nowadays it's all about shock value and appealing to the sickest impulses of the criminal mind. It's enough to make me turn into a feminist. "Hey let's chain a naked chick to a radiator for the whole movie?" How disgusting. I'll take the classics and Elizabeth Taylor over Christina Ricci and fetish porn anyday.

I gave BUtterfield 8 four stars on the Netflix scale, "really liked it."

Posted by: annika at 02:24 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 1158 words, total size 8 kb.

Among the requirements for admission into the Skankwomen sorority is an inability to learn simple lessons from personal experience, most specifically evidenced by poor driving judgment.

to wit:

Nicole Richie, with a previous DUI on her record, not to mention a heroin bust, decides to smoke weed, pop vicodin, then get in her SUV and drive the wrong way on an L.A. freeway. Luckily, nobody got killed as a result of that brain fart.

Not to be outdone, Nicole's pal Mischa Barton, whose sister just went into rehab, and whose OC character got killed in a car crash, borrows Nicole Richie's car, slams into another car in a parking lot, then a few days later gets photographed smoking a j while driving her own car.

Congratulations, Mischa, you're in the club. Hopefully you won't kill anyone either. Not that you care, you stupid skank.

P.S. In unrelated Brittany news, it's impossible to pick a favorite in Stereogum's photoshop contest, but #11 is up there.

h/t 6MB, via Agent Bedhead

Posted by: annika at 02:21 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 173 words, total size 2 kb.

Pictures are here, so you can follow along at home.

Stephanie Edwards: Two words: Loved her.

Amy Krebs: Cute girl, big pores, didn't like the dress, loved the shoes, hated the song choice. Maynard had more personality.

Leslie Hunt: I like Leslie. I think her personality is a little quirky, maybe a little bizarre. I love the pirate boots. She should do some sixties hippie material, Michelle Phillips or stuff like that. I think she could be good even though her voice really lacks range.

Sabrina Sloan: Very pretty girl. Great style. Smart song choice. Love love love the black patent stack heels. Nice job with a difficult song. I think I have a crush on her. But on my scorecard, Stephanie was just a notch better, despite what Simon said.

Antonella Barba: Overrated. Safe song choice. She was out of tune. And the red top with the cut-out shoulders was sooo New Jersey.

Jordin Sparks: Impressive. Maybe my favorite so far. With a song that is not vocally challenging, the temptation is to sing it safely, but she made it her own. Very nice. Jordin could win this thing; I wouldn't be surprised. Good personality too, and she managed to kiss up to Simon without making it obvious.

Nicole Tranquillo: Randy said it was "rough," Paula said "she can sing," and Simon thought it was "indulgent." I think they were all right. There's nothing wrong with her instrument, but that performance was odd at best. The words were indecipherable and her facial contortions were completely unnecessary. Honestly, it was painful and embarrassing to watch. Prediction: she may not be here next week.

Haley Scarnato: So many Italian girls representing tonight! That song was so boring I completely forgot to listen. Her outfit was hideous. Black strapless jumpsuit with an Eighties big-belt. Nauseating. She may survive to next week, but it won't be on the strength of that performance.

Melinda Doolittle: Someone is lying to us. This is not a shy girl with no self-confidence. You can't fake that kind of stage presence. I don't believe that whole shtick, but the storyline will probably win fan loyalty. She doesn't need the gimmick though, because she might be the best singer in the competition. She'll make it to the top six, easy. Maybe even final two.

Alaina Alexander: Bye-bye.

Gina Glocksen: I like her, but I hated the song, "All By Myself," what a boring song choice. It's boring in the original version. Who does it even? See, I don't even remember the original artist. I know Celine Dion did it, but someone else did it first, and I can't remember who.

LaKisha Jones: Very nice. She sounded like she'd been in the business for years. Professional. I hesitate to make the comparison to Mandisa from last year, whom I loved. But the judges were obviously thinking the same thing when they picked her. She's better than Mandisa was, which is very good indeed.

Even the worst of tonight's women were better than the men last night. Easy prediction: this year's AI champ will be one of the girls.

Posted by: annika at 09:34 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 532 words, total size 3 kb.

Presidential politics just might be my favorite spectator sport. And the Democrat league, like the AFL, is inevitably where you'll find the most action. Damn I love the Democrats.

I hope you've heard about the latest Clinton-Bomber skirmish. It's a sure sign of the even worse backbiting to come.

The latest row was sparked by music mogul and former Clinton toady David Geffen, now a Bomber groupie, whose comments were a knife in the back of Mrs. Clinton. He said:

Everybody in politics lies, but they [the Clintons] do it with such ease, it's troubling.

The gossip passed around by those who follow Hollywood and politics holds that Geffen fell out with Bill Clinton much later over the then-president's refusal to pardon Leonard Peltier and over Clinton's subsequent allusion to Geffen's thwarted lobbying effort to demonstrate that he didn't dole out pardons as favors to certain friends.

At a candidate forum in Nevada today, Hillary played the "politics of personal destruction" card, which I think Bill invented:

I sure don't want Democrats or supporters of Democrats to be engaging in the politics of personal destruction.

I'm fascinated by Bronco Bomber. If I was a liberal, I'd totally jump on his bandwagon, and not just because I love making fun of his name. He's got a lot of strengths. He's very personable and yes, I hear he's articulate and clean too. I think we all want a candidate who bathes regularly, regardless of our party affiliation.

I'm not yet convinced however, that Bronco Bomber is not this season's Howard Dean. Being a media darling means nothing to the Iowa caucusers. Serious political junkies have to admit that raising a ton of money means nothing if your organization doesn't know how to use it.

People like David Geffen may represent the vocal face of the Democratic party. But they don't represent the majority of voting Democrats, who are more centrist than the press corps realizes. That's why Dean came in third in Iowa last time, even though the media kept treating him like he was the front runner. Rank and file Democrats were rightly suspicious of Dean's electability, and they went for the safer bet, John Kerry. The trouble was, they didn't inspect the goods well enough before switching to Kerry, and they got burned.

Not that I place much stock in the "Hawkeye Cauci," as Rush calls it. I don't. New Hampshire has always been a more reliable indicator of party preference, historically. And Bronco Bomber is no Howard Dean; they don't share the same negatives. That's good for Bronco. Unfortunately his poll numbers are not in a range where he should be getting the kind of press he's getting right now. The latest polls have him losing to Hillary by an average of 18.2 points. That's a lot of ground to make up, even for a media darling.

For now, Bomber's just not a credible challenger, though I love watching him make Hillary sweat.

Posted by: annika at 08:13 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 558 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Pretty well said, I'd only add the simplification that Bronco is a lightweight. He's running for veep, so he'd better play nice with Dykarella.

Posted by: Casca at February 21, 2007 09:33 PM (2gORp)

2 Kære Annika, vær så venlig, slutt ikke journalen din!

Posted by: Arik at February 21, 2007 11:20 PM (bACRg)

3 i think someone just called me a slutt?

Posted by: annika at February 21, 2007 11:53 PM (JBltT)

4 Worse than that, an icky slut journalist.

Posted by: Casca at February 22, 2007 07:30 AM (Y7t14)

5 I once knew an executive who had tremendous enthusiasm and competitiveness, but little content. She was always talking about her big plans to kick competitive ass, but never was able to identify quite what these plans *were*. I hadn't thought about her for years, but Obama reminded me of her...

Posted by: david foster at February 22, 2007 12:58 PM (ZD/CA)

6 Selv om jeres imødegå er på dansk , jeg mene jer forstod mig besked

Posted by: Arik at February 22, 2007 04:22 PM (bACRg)

7 For all the talk of the primaries being dominated by the extremes of the political parties, it's interesting to note that the Democrats have nominated both Carter and Bill Clinton, who are more centrist than others in the party. Hard to tell whether Obama is this cycle's Howard Dean. Or perhaps Hillary is this cycle's Ted Kennedy (the anointed heir who doesn't get the crown).

Posted by: Ontario Emperor at February 22, 2007 05:53 PM (GT9eg)

8 Hey, Arik: I need some help with the Ikea catalog.***My 16-year-old daughter suggested the other day that Barak Obama might be the Anti-Christ. We'll just have to keep an eye on him, won't we?

Posted by: Joules at February 22, 2007 06:30 PM (u4CYb)

9 Hey Annie, this is a great idea for a money making web site. Icky Journalist Sluts web cam!

Posted by: kyle8 at February 22, 2007 07:22 PM (z86sf)

10 Annie, you aren't icky, but the web cam is a great idea. Think how exciting it will be to watch you studying for the Bar later in the year!

Posted by: shelly at February 24, 2007 08:49 AM (SLFj+)

11 > People like David Geffen may represent the vocal face of the Democratic party. But they don't represent the majority of voting Democrats, who are more centrist than the press corps realizes. Interesting observation. Most of the reader comments I see on these pages would suggest otherwise. Of course, Gorbachev once thought that the US was populated primarily by Nazis and drug addicts, because the news sources he focused on told him just that. It's unfortunate that Tom Vilsack left the race, as he was one of the few voices of moderation in the Dem candidate list (though too far back in the pack in name-recognition and funding). Of course, that strengthens McCain's and Guliani's positions as centrists and makes a Republican ticket more likely to succeed. I'd be happy with either of the two, as they are both reasonably rational and have the ability to reach across the aisle.

Posted by: will at February 26, 2007 06:34 AM (z62e3)

12 Well Will, hopefully one of them will win, but why reach over the aisle??? The Dems sure don't reach for anything other than the money in our pockets...

Posted by: Arik at February 27, 2007 05:15 PM (bACRg)

13 "I'm a uniter, not a divider"...

Posted by: will at February 28, 2007 02:49 PM (z62e3)

14 Hey there! I randomly stumbled upon your blog out of Yahoo. Your content is filled with interesting info, and I will probably use it at some point in my career. Keep up the excellent work!

Posted by: reverse phone lookup free name results at February 02, 2013 07:31 AM (WAKEr)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

The BBC announced that the U.S. has a plan to attack Iran and they know the details. No shit, so do I. Anybody with a brain knows we have a plan, and that it would be negligence if our military did not have a plan.

The BBC seems overly concerned with this little bit too:

US contingency plans for air strikes on Iran extend beyond nuclear sites and include most of the country's military infrastructure, the BBC has learned.

It is understood that any such attack - if ordered - would target Iranian air bases, naval bases, missile facilities and command-and-control centres.

Calm down Beeb.

Posted by: annika at 03:09 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 157 words, total size 1 kb.

Rudy: Two words: utterly sucked.

Brandon: Not a note in tune. Perhaps he'll get it right eventually.

Sundance Head: WTF? "Like Dad at a wedding" was spot on. He's unusual enough that he'll last into the final six, but tonight was not good.

Paul Kim: Kevin, tell your bro to put some shoes on. Sucked.

Does anybody belong this season? What the hell is going on? And please, someone tell the contestants that the whole holding your hand up like a phone and mouthing the words "call me" has been done to death.

Boy Band Wannabe #1, Chris: Check out his dad in the audience. Now we know where he got his moves. Baaaaad.

Nick "Vote For" Pedro: Dude, instead of slouching, try moving the mike up. It might also help if you found at least one note too.

Everybody sucks tonight. I don't remember a season that has started out this bad. But I had a feeling after getting a taste of these losers last week.

Boy Band Wannabe #2, Blake: His dad is the disastrous byproduct of a cloning experiment using Bill Cowher and Victor French's DNA.

Sam Jaya: I didn't think he was that bad. The judges all beat up on him. But a little vocal coaching and he could be good to go.

Paula looks like she's either had a cervical fusion recently and is unable to move her neck, or someone injected botox directly into her carotid artery.

Chris "The Funny Gigh" Sligh: With that hairstyle, he's gotta do at least one Weird Al song before he gets kicked off. He was okay. I expected more. Like Sundance, his personality might carry him probably into the final six.

Jared "Welcome Back" Cotter: Best so far, and he wasn't that good. I'll pick him to make it to the final six though.

Boy Band Wannabe #3, A.J.: Luther Vandross? What's going on here? Doc, you gotta help me! I came here in a time machine you invented, and I need your help to get out of the year 1985!

Phil The Navy Guy: Gollum can sing.

Tonight's show was the worst AI ever. I hope the girls will be better tomorrow, but about half of them are Barbies who don't belong up there either.

Posted by: annika at 09:37 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 392 words, total size 2 kb.

Brittany is disintegrating in public view. It is very sad. Odds are even that she won't make it to 30. If she does, it will be as some other unrecognizable creature, in the way that ultra-celebrity transformed Howard Hughes and Michael Jackson. Some say she's "crying for help." Unfortunately, the only hope for her would be if everyone completely ignored her from now on. I think this post proves that that is not going to happen.

Posted by: annika at 05:47 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 86 words, total size 1 kb.

A simple and beautiful sonnet, expressing love using some of the simplest words in the English language. Only Shakespeare could have written this poem.

SONNET 116
Let me not to the marriage of true minds
Admit impediments. Love is not love
Which alters when it alteration finds,
Or bends with the remover to remove:
O no! it is an ever-fixed mark
That looks on tempests and is never shaken;
It is the star to every wandering bark,
Whose worth's unknown, although his height be taken.
Love's not Time's fool, though rosy lips and cheeks
Within his bending sickle's compass come:
Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks,
But bears it out even to the edge of doom.
If this be error and upon me proved,
I never writ, nor no man ever loved.

Posted by: Victor at 01:40 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 147 words, total size 1 kb.

The vikings are gone, but Denmark is still invading Britain, via Lego.

h/t Londonist, by way of LAist.

Posted by: annika at 10:15 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 22 words, total size 1 kb.

Whatever happened to Tim Robbins's "chill wind?"

It must be yet another sign of global warming, because that "chill wind" is getting downright balmy.

Posted by: annika at 11:21 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 30 words, total size 1 kb.

If you are a member of the set (24 fans) ∩ (ATHF fans), this hilarious spoof is for you.

Posted by: annika at 11:20 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 31 words, total size 1 kb.

1 LMAO! I wish Jack would say, "Boy, I haven't bitch-slapped someone since Tucson. Now, prepare for a pride obliterating bitch-slap!"

Posted by: reagan80 at February 12, 2007 06:06 AM (qjCPY)

2 I never have gotten hooked up the 24 bandwagon, and I meant to watch ATHF after all the unpleasantness but I couldn't find it in the satellite guide. Incidentally, you should check out Peter Berdovsky's moves to get asylum in the U.S. (from Belarus) if you haven't already done so.

Posted by: Ontario Emperor at February 12, 2007 04:17 PM (B0VZe)

3 Ontario, do you get the Cartoon Network? I think ATHF is on pretty much every night (although they recently messed with the schedule... if you can't find it maybe try again in a month or two). If not, you can also watch episodes at [adult swim]'s website. And you could always see the movie, which comes out March 16. I swear I'm not paid by Turner, although perhaps I should be

Posted by: The Law Fairy at February 15, 2007 05:06 PM (XUsiG)

4 "And you could always see the movie, which comes out March 16." Flaming Chicken FTW!

Posted by: reagan80 at February 15, 2007 05:39 PM (qjCPY)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Back in August I asked this rhetorical question:

I'm sure there's lots of guys working in thinktanks and war colleges whose job it is to figure these things out, but so far I haven't seen nor heard of any effective way to fight guerrillas other than by total unrestricted warfare — which we won't do. How do you counter the weighty advantage they've claimed for themselves by co-opting the machinery of world public opinion? How do you beat an enemy that has perfected the use of civilian deaths both offensively and defensively, if your one achilles heel is the fear of civilian deaths?

The article is New Yorker length, unfortunately. But it's Sunday Morning, so why not print it out and read it with your coffee instead of the funnies.

Lt. Col. Kilcullen and Dr. Montgomery McFate* are two people who may provide the "new way" I've been talking about. I have read about the social sciences approach to counter-insurgency before and I was very skeptical. The New Yorker article is detailed enough to be persuasive. The anthropological approach is more than just "hearts and minds" b.s. Properly implemented, it's an integrated and adaptable strategy that includes force, coersion, propaganda, and all those other fun things I've said we need to be doing. But it also recognizes that we're in a new "information age" and we need to understand and adapt to the advantage this gives our enemy.

Another very important concept, which I've not considered before, but which makes perfect sense to me, is this:

“I saw extremely similar behavior and extremely similar problems in an Islamic insurgency in West Java and a Christian-separatist insurgency in East Timor,” [Kilcullen] said. “After 9/11, when a lot of people were saying, ‘The problem is Islam,’ I was thinking, It’s something deeper than that. It’s about human social networks and the way that they operate.” In West Java, elements of the failed Darul Islam insurgency—a local separatist movement with mystical leanings—had resumed fighting as Jemaah Islamiya, whose outlook was Salafist and global. Kilcullen said, “What that told me about Jemaah Islamiya is that it’s not about theology.” He went on, “There are elements in human psychological and social makeup that drive what’s happening. The Islamic bit is secondary. This is human behavior in an Islamic setting. This is not ‘Islamic behavior.’ ” Paraphrasing the American political scientist Roger D. Petersen, he said, “People don’t get pushed into rebellion by their ideology. They get pulled in by their social networks.” He noted that all fifteen Saudi hijackers in the September 11th plot had trouble with their fathers. Although radical ideas prepare the way for disaffected young men to become violent jihadists, the reasons they convert, Kilcullen said, are more mundane and familiar: family, friends, associates.

We need a strategy that understands and targets those social networks with a flexible and multi-faceted approach. The correct strategy should work not only in Iraq but also in the "long war," which includes Afghanistan, Africa, Europe, Southeast Asia and wherever else radical Islam is making inroads. But as the article points out, not many in government understand the problem or have the expertise to tackle it. Another obstacle is the decades long antipathy of social science academics to any endeavor that might be considered patriotic.

That needs to change.
_______________

* A fellow Cal Bear.

Posted by: annika at 12:22 PM | Comments (26) | Add Comment
Post contains 728 words, total size 5 kb.

There's a reason why I haven't written whether I think the Surge Strategy will work or whether it's a good idea. I'm not an expert in any of the disciplines necessary for my opinion to have any value. In fact, most of my knowledge regarding the Iraq War comes from secondary sources, written by other people who are similarly ignorant, i.e. the press.

The vast majority of reporters and columnists who write about Iraq and pretend to know what they're talking about are completely incompetent to do so. Not only is their journalism degree inadequate for the task (it's a glorified general ed degree) but their undisguised bias robs their output of any credibility. Yet, from my desk chair, I'm forced to rely on these people almost exclusively for my information. So, as a result, my opinions are just about as worthless.

That's why I'm taking a wait and see approach. I do consider myself an expert on another thing, though: I'm an expert on the domestic battlefield. This is why I have said over and over again that we must achieve success in Iraq quickly, because if Americans don't see progress soon, our next president will pull the plug on the whole noble enterprise.

So I was very encouraged when the President yanked the most recent generals in charge, good men though they might be, and replaced them with guys who understand the need for a change in strategy. Today is General Petraeus's first day on the job. His resume is impressive.* He's had success before.** I wish him and his new strategy well.

Australian Lt. Col. David Kilcullen is an advisor to Gen. Petraeus and an expert on counter-insurgency strategy. He's also a Duntroon grad and a veteran of East Timor. In this post at Small Wars Journal, Kilcullen outlines the two schools of thought regarding counter-insurgency.***

An illustrative anecdote:

In Timor in 1999 I worked closely with village elders in the border districts. I sat down with several of them one afternoon to discuss their perception of how the campaign was progressing, and they complained that the Australians weren't securing them in the fields and villages, that they felt unsafe because of the militia (the local term for cross-border guerrillas) and that we needed to do more to protect them. In actual fact, we were out in large numbers, securing the border against infiltration, patrolling by night, conducting 14 to 21-day patrols in the jungle to deny the militias a chance to build sanctuaries, and working in close in the villages to maintain popular support. There had not been a single successful attack by the insurgents on the population for more than two months. So, "objectively", they were secure. But -- and this is the critical point -- because our troops were sneaking around in the jungle and at night, staying out of the villagers' way and focusing on defeating enemy attempts to target the population, they did not see us about, and hence did not feel “subjectively” secure. This was exacerbated by the fact that they had just experienced a major psychological trauma (occupation, insurgency, mass destruction and international intervention) and as a society they needed time and support for a degree of "mental reconstruction". Based on their feedback (and that of lots of other meetings and observations) we changed our operational approach, became a bit more visible to the population and focused on giving them the feeling, as well as the reality, of safety. Once we did that, it was fine.

In other words, we had to shift from a more enemy-centric approach to a more population-centric approach to adjust to the developing situation. My personal lesson from this experience was that the correct approach is situation-dependent, and the situation changes over time. Therefore the key is to develop mechanisms that allow you to read the environment, to be agile and to adapt . . .

You can see how the above example illustrates the need for more troops and contact with the population. It's more than just switching to a zone defense from man-to-man. At least in the short run, our new strategy will provide the enemy with more opportunities to kill Americans. We're not going to like that here at home, and I have no illusions that the media will understand what's happening or that a different strategy is at work. The commanders in theater, and the President must realize that the home front will not cut them any slack and they have to get it right this time.
_______________

* But so was McClellan's.

** But so did Hooker.

*** The comments are especially interesting.

Posted by: annika at 11:41 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 793 words, total size 5 kb.

Posted by: annika at 12:47 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 14 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I thought Peter and Glowee broke up...so I just went back and pretty much read all the past PPTSP. There's some funny shit in there, annika.

Posted by: Victor at February 09, 2007 02:09 PM (1oGDT)

2 Get a life loser. I hear that Ballentine Has got him five to nine, And the Farmer's brother's A Friend of mine.

Posted by: Casca at February 09, 2007 06:30 PM (2gORp)

3 OK, for youse guys what never hoid of Guys and Dolls, this here's the original lyrics to "Fugue for Tinhorns". NICELY-NICELY I got the horse right here The name is Paul Revere And here's a guy that says that the weather's clear Can do, can do, this guy says the horse can do If he says the horse can do, can do, can do. (Benny starts singing his part at this time, while Nicely continues Can do - can do - this guy says the horse can do If he says the horse can do - can do, can do. (Rusty starts singing his part as the time, while Nicely and Benny continue For Paul Revere I'll bite I hear his foot's all right Of course it all depends if it rained last night Likes mud, likes mud, this X means the horse likes mud If that means the horse likes mud, likes mud Likes mud. I tell you Paul Revere Now this is no bum steer It's from a handicapper that's real sincere Can do, can do, this guy says the horse can do. If he says the horse can do - can do - can do. Paul Revere. I got the horse right here. BENNY I'm pickin' Valentine, 'cause on the morning line A guy has got him figured at five to nine Has chance, has chance, this guy says the horse has chance if he says the horse has chance, has chance, has chance I know it's Valentine, the morning work looks fine Besides the jockey's brother's a friend of mine Needs race, needs race, this guy says the horse needs race If he says the horse needs race, needs race, needs race. I go for Valentine, 'Cause on the morning line, The guy has got him figured at five to nine Has chance, has chance, this guy says the horse has chance Valentine! I got the horse right here. RUSTY CHARLIE But look at Epitaph. he wins it by a half According to this here in the Telegraph "Big Threat" - "Big Threat" This guy calls the horse "Big Threat" If he calls the horse "Big Threat", Big Threat, Big Threat. And just a minute, boys. I've got the feed box noise It says the great-grandfather was Equipoise Shows class, shows class. This guy says the horse shows class If he says the horse shows class Shows class, show's class. So make it Epitaph, he wins it by a half According to this here in the Telegraph. Epitaph! Valentine! Paul Revere! I got the horse right here! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by: shelly at February 09, 2007 07:53 PM (SLFj+)

4 All in all you're just a dick with no balls, casca.

Posted by: Victor at February 09, 2007 08:11 PM (l+W8Z)

5 Tsk, tsk, Victor. When one is reduced to name calling, certainly one has reached the bottom of the barrel; I'd say about three fathoms lower than whaleshit.

Posted by: shelly at February 10, 2007 03:23 AM (SLFj+)

6 Glass houses, Shelly...unless "mental midget" is a term of endearment to you.

Posted by: Victor at February 10, 2007 05:44 AM (l+W8Z)

7 I don't know why the word "gourd" is so funny--but it is. This reminds me of Freshman year at Princeton High School in New Jersey. I had a huge crush on the senior who was playing Nicely Nicely Johnson, Jon Tenney. I never spoke to him--just worshiped him from afar. He was an awesome performer. Fast forward 20-some years and he's a Broadway, t.v. and movie actor who used to be married to Teri Hatcher. One day in the late 90's I turned on the t.v. and realized that the guy playing the lead on a new (short-lived) cop show was that guy I liked in 9th grade.

Posted by: Joules at February 10, 2007 05:49 AM (u4CYb)

8 Alright, there are two bloggers at Annika's Journal: Annika and Victor. From now on, I'm declaring a moratorium on all unprovoked attacks on the management. Up to now, I've allowed things to be pretty rough and tumble in the comments, but this schoolyard bully shit is getting on my nerves, so cool it.

Posted by: annika at February 10, 2007 09:52 AM (JBltT)

9 Thank you!

Posted by: Brad at February 10, 2007 10:03 AM (9ADYb)

10 Annie: How'd you do in Con Law? Did you get to the 1st Amendment yet?

Posted by: shelly at February 10, 2007 11:24 AM (SLFj+)

11 Ah, now I understand the IM conversation. To tell the truth, I'd completely forgotten the comment, and it had nothing to do with our resident cell-block-punk, Victor being the author. ANYONE who'd go back and reread the Peter Pumpkin chronicle is by definition not engaged in a productive life.

Posted by: Casca at February 11, 2007 07:50 AM (2gORp)

12 Now you've got me wondering... has the management synchronized menstrual cycles yet?

Posted by: Casca at February 11, 2007 08:05 AM (2gORp)

13 LOL. So, here's a good law school final exam question: Was that "unprovoked"? For extra credit: What difference does it make? Alternate question for extra credit: Outside of a crowded theatre, where can one yell "Bullshit" without being censored? (Knowledge of the existence of the 1st Amendment is required for this option)

Posted by: shelly at February 11, 2007 09:40 AM (SLFj+)

14 Was that unprovoked? Not by your definition. Hell, it's obvious your and Casca's petty jealousy is such that if I were to open a window on a hot summer day, you'd consider that sufficient provocation to start slinging insults around. As for what difference it makes--not much, I concede, because your definition of provocation gives you the right to attack if I so much as blink. It does, however, demonstrate a total lack of respect for annika and for the spirit of her rules (if not the letter, for reasons discussed above). As for your last question--C'mon, Shelly. People give up their right to total "Freedom of Speech" all the time (court orders, non-disclosure agreements, being asked, "Does this dress make me look fat?") under threat of a sanction of some sort. If that isn't censorship, I don't know what is.

Posted by: Victor at February 11, 2007 11:03 AM (l+W8Z)

15 You don't know what is. Like all liberals, the rules don't apply to you, since right is on your side. Me, I stopped hiding behind skirts a long time ago.

Posted by: shelly at February 11, 2007 11:26 AM (SLFj+)

16 OUCH! LMAO! Dammit Shelly, I was saving that one for later. Since some here have been likened to "Bullies", to continue the analogy, maybe others wouldn't get their ass beat if they didn't have their mommy walk them to school? I'd suggest moving to a new neighborhood where the big boys aren't so mean. lmao

Posted by: Casca at February 11, 2007 02:29 PM (2gORp)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Have you seen those commercials for Apple lately? This spoof is pretty dang funny.

Posted by: annika at 08:29 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 18 words, total size 1 kb.

Posted by: annika at 12:59 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 14 words, total size 1 kb.

I'm telling you, the secret's getting out. The latest Gallup poll reveals:

In a head-to-head matchup against McCain in a Gallup poll of Republicans and Republican "leaners" taken Jan. 25-28, Giuliani beat the Arizona senator handily in most categories: better public speaker, more likable, better chance of beating the Democratic nominee, would run a more positive campaign, would perform better in debates, would do more to unite the country, would manage the country more effectively, would be better in a crisis, better understands the problems faced by ordinary Americans, and strength of leadership.

The Monitor article from which I pulled that quote also says that Giuliani's approval ratings are at 62%. Sixty-two percent! That will change as the attack machine heats up. But I ask you, can anyone name another public figure with numbers over 60%? I can't think of one. That's unheard of in this age of hyper-negativity.

On the other hand, some analysts say that McCain's recent dip in polling is due to his more vocal support of the President's Surge plan. It's possible that not a lot of poll respondents knew Giuliani's position on the Iraq War is identical to McCain's. Or maybe they do, but they just trust Giuliani more.

That's my take. Even if I liked McCain, I would always favor a guy with executive experience over legislative experience. Theoretically, executives must work in the real world where results are expected. Therefore, they should be more results oriented. Legislators on the other hand, work in a world of theoretical projections, possibilities and imaginary outcomes. When they fuck up, they're rarely held to account because they simply blame the other party, the executive, or both.

[How can I quit blogging this summer when Campaign '08 is already so interesting?]

Posted by: annika at 02:36 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 292 words, total size 2 kb.

1 For me it's a matter of trust. I know all of Rudy's warts. They have been on the front pages repeatedly. Ditto McCain's. I trust Mr. Mayor to be able to lead in a more honest manner than McCain. McCain has done too many things (campaign finance, gang of 14, Keating 5, for and against social security reform, etc). I would vote for him against Hillary or Obama or any other dem (except Lieberman) but in Rudy vs McCain it's not even close for me and I'm a rabid right wing nut.

Posted by: chris at February 07, 2007 04:51 PM (QZTLy)

2 Just wait till the straight talk express starts flinging mud. Nobody does mean like the Senator from Arizona.

Posted by: kyle8 at February 07, 2007 06:57 PM (yB636)

3 Don't count in it, Kyle. The R's are down to their last bastion right now; they need a win, and they know it. If BOTH are on the ticket, what happens then? Well, there's your answer. I think they'll make nice in the end. Think Kennedy-Johnson. Go back in time (I assume most of you don't remember, but can read about it)to 1960. Both Kennedy and Johnson appeared at a joint caucus of the Texas and Massachusetts delegations and Johnson vowed that he would NEVER accept the Vice Presidental nomination. Twelve hours later, Bobby offered it, then withdrew the offer. Johnson was then begging for it and threatening what he'd do if he didn't get it. One heartbeat away from the presidency, in this era ain't bad. Gore and Cheney changed that.

Posted by: shelly at February 08, 2007 04:21 AM (SLFj+)

4 I'm completely anti-Rudy and anti-McCain. Rudy, while talking a good game, still comes out looking like a Chicago liberal when it comes to many of the rights of the people. His stance on personal ownership of firearms keeps tracking back to "display a need," "register," etc. If the (R) throw up Rudy/McCain against Hillary, we will have the floor wiped with us. It will either result in a heavy (D) win, or an independent is going to end up capturing much of the south and mountain states, but not winning the election, giving us Hillary in the end. Rudy seems to resemble British conservatives; he's all for surveillance, authoritarian law and order, etc. McCain is a no-go for a ton of reasons; he's like the (R) version of Clinton. He will say whatever, to whomever, to ensure that MTV likes him and the MSM calls him a "loose cannon," a "rebel," etc.

Posted by: Jmarsh at February 08, 2007 07:40 AM (J0G4s)

5 Rudy's got a lot of skeletons in his closet and much of them aren't known nationally. His negatives will start going up when they talk about his personal life, corruption and cronyism in the mayor's office, and his mistakes in the aftermath of 9/11.

Posted by: PoliticalCritic at February 08, 2007 09:29 AM (B9HSl)

6 "his mistakes" after 9/11." That stuff is already starting: I saw a wire story on the so-called "mistakes" yesterday. They also mentioned a book taking the same position. Koch was interviewed in the wire story and said that Rudy deserved all the positives he got after 9/11, but that NYC was over him on 9/10. In other words, 9/11 rejuvinated him as a politician. So far, he hasn't taken many hits. You are right to say that it will start soon. We'll see if he can handle it. JMarsh, Please explain how the candidate with the highest negatives from either pary is going to "wipe the floor" with either McCain or Rudy, both of whom are fairly articulate and experienced men with solid GWOT credentials? I'm not saying either is the perfect Rep choice, but that Hillary has a ton of political problems to overcome. Suggesting she is going to wipe the floor with these two in a general election makes no political sense to me. Now if you were talking about somebody like Brownback, I'd probably agree.

Posted by: blu at February 08, 2007 09:57 AM (duPNB)

7 Agree with Koch (and Blu). If September 11 hadn't occurred, Giuliani wouldn't even be running for dogcatcher today. I'm starting to hope for a Tancredo - Kucinich election; perhaps we'd have some discussion of issues.

Posted by: Ontario Emperor at February 08, 2007 10:08 AM (YWsCw)

8 I agree w/Blu on Rudy, NYers & 9/10. As for a positive 60+ rating, only Obama & Rudy have them right now. However, Rudy's stuffed closet will eventually be opened. The dems are saving the salvos for when they can do the most damage. A private poll that will be released this weekend, shows that in a contest between Obama & Hillary, it's Hillary that would win by a large margin. So a Hillary/Obama might be a possibility. However on the Rep's side its still too early to tell. A lot can happen in 18 months

Posted by: michele at February 08, 2007 10:43 AM (Po6a+)

9 Blu, I have been editing this to try to make this less gun-centric, but it's not working . I'm not trying to get into a 2A debate, and hopefully what I'm getting at will be apparent. There are a fair number of folks like me that have litmus tests for firearms. I think they're reasonable and simple: 1) No registration (other than the defacto form already in place with BATFE's form 4473) and 2) You don't need to display a need for a firearm, you can buy one just because, as guaranteed by the 2A. They're articulate, and at least Rudy seems to generally believe he's doing the right thing, and he's got some convictions. No problems there, or with GWOT stances. But, there is something that looms larger, and that's freedom, as enumerated by the Constitution. Hillary wants to pillage my economic freedom, while Rudy would have no problems plastering millions of cameras throughout the US, a la the UK. Rudy seems very wedded to the anti-crime track, but there isn't a higher power (ie, the 2A) that he feels is important to respect. *That* is the problem. (McCain has issues with the 1A, among other things). The basic problem we are faced with is, for instance, Hillary vs. Guiliani, maybe with a libertarian on the ballot. We've got Clinton/Dole/Perot all over again. I, and others, cannot vote for someone that is (insert your conservative litmus test of choice here) hostile to gun ownership as Rudy, even if it's to keep the human apocalypse that is Hillary out of office. Some surely will as the "lesser of two evils" strategy, of course. When a democrat (Richardson) has a friendlier approach to gun ownership than a republican, there is a serious problem. Rudy and McCain have created negative groundswells throughout people that are pretty solidly (R) otherwise, via past documented action. How many of them will apply my version of the litmus test in 08? Don't know. But, there's not a lot of wiggle room to soften one's stance on gun control, for instance, when you've been quoted throughout your entire political career of note as solidly in one direction as he is. Expanding a bit past gun control, I think the problem that many (R) will have is that they've taken what are traditionally democratic stances on too many issues recently. Supported medicare drug benefit? Got those. Supported McCain-Feingold? Check. Support amnesty for illegals? Yep. Trashed the GWOT/Iraq/WMD/etc? Yeah, those are (R) too. Agree with CEO pay "adjustment?" Check. Complained about oil profits? Those too. Supported continued ban of offshore drilling? You see where I'm going? They're pretty indistinguishable from each other on "current events," which brings things like the support of second amendment that much more into the forefront. Frankly, Rudy, good virtuous man that he is, forces me to campaign against him (which I'm already actively doing).

Posted by: Jmarsh at February 08, 2007 04:08 PM (J0G4s)

10 JMarsh, Fair enough. Well articulated position. Thanks for taking the time to put it out there. In the end, we just have different priorities, which is why you have the primary and put those priorities out there for people to debate. My priorities are free market economics and the GWOT. The Reps are not always good on either, but generally they are much better than the Dems.

Posted by: blu at February 08, 2007 05:30 PM (duPNB)

11 JMarsh gets at what I think the purpose of Libertarians and true Conservatives should be, which is anchoring the right flank of the political spectrum. Meaning there should be a solid anchor to our viewpoints and policies, which is well known and unchanging. There may be people who vary from that conservative position depending on the issue, but once "Conservatism" becomes a sliding scale, all is lost because there's nowhere to go but left. Ronald Reagan understood this when he proposed that we get rid of the Energy and Education Departments. George W. Bush does not understand this when he proposed and got DHS and Prescription Drug Entitlements. What the Libertarians get right (and thank God for them, because these days they're the only ones making the case) is that there is such a thing as a slippery slope and somebody has to put the brakes on. Of course, you might ask, so how can you support Rudy. First, I didn't say I'd vote for him in a primary. I feel free to vote my conscience in all primaries, which is why I never vote for a pro-choice candidate in primaries. But when the general comes, It's always a lesser of two evils thing. I know enough about the political situation nowadays that I'm a realist. I want a Republican in the White House, and so I will vote for whoever gets the nomination, unless it's McCain. I like Rudy because he can win. In a perfect world, we could tolerate a moderate Republican president if he is counterbalanced by solid conservatives in Congress. Unfortunately, that is not the case today. But the alternative is a phony centrist Democrat like Clinton/Bomber and a bunch of whacked out communist political appointees sneaking into the beauracracy who'll take years to ferret out, and only after doing incredible damage (e.g. Jamie Gorelick). That's what really scares me about a Democrat in office. There are a million Amanda Marcottes chomping at the bit for a low level appointment and if/when the next Democrat administration comes along they are going to flock to D.C. and someone is going to find a spot for them.

Posted by: annika at February 08, 2007 07:24 PM (JBltT)

12 Well said JM. The jist of Reagan's charisma was his willingness to differentiate between who we are, and who THEY are. We wandered in the wilderness from the Depression until 1980 because the accomodationists ran the party. Rudy and the McCainiac are a return to the wilderness years. There is only one heir to Ronaldus Magnus, and we all know who he is, and whatever the CW is about him, they said worse things about Ronnie.

Posted by: Casca at February 08, 2007 07:54 PM (2gORp)

13 I'm beginning to believe that none of the current Republican candidates can go the distance. The true heir (according to Casca) has to be Newt. He says he'll run if his ideas are not being carried by some other candidate; a sure thing that he gets in when the others falter. He led us to the biggest victories we've experienced since Reagan, and he can do it again, provided they get him a suit with no zipper. But, what the Hell, it never affected Bubba, so let's all wait for Newt to come to the game.

Posted by: shelly at February 10, 2007 09:42 AM (SLFj+)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

The judge released the Astronut chick on bail because he didn't consider her a flight risk! In what universe is she not a flight risk?!?! Hellooooo!?!? She's a pilot. She can fly! By definition that makes her a flight risk.

And not only that, she's an astronaut. What's to stop her from getting into her spaceship and flying off to another planet tomorrow? Then the only way we could catch her is by sending a team of astronauts after her. And I doubt we have many astronauts trained in law enforcement.

This is a bad situation just waiting to happen. What if, for instance, she escapes to the moon? Would the cops/astronauts have jurisdiction there? Maybe at Tranquility Base, since that's U.S. territory. But what if she hides out in some other crater with a jug of water, some Tang and a box of Depends? We might never find her. I don't think her GPS bracelet is going to be much help on the moon.

Or what if she made it all the way to Mars? I'm sure there's no extradition treaty with the Martians, and they hate us anyway. Oh those Martians would jump at the chance to grant asylum for an ex-astronaut simply to embarrass us, like the French do with Roman Polanski. Those Martians think they're so superior, just because their orbit is bigger than ours.

Posted by: annika at 08:53 AM | Comments (23) | Add Comment
Post contains 243 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Another Boat School grad does us proud. Let's review: (1) Jimmy Fuckin' Carter. Nuff sed. (2) John "What First Amendment?" McCain. (3) Lisa "Crazy Bitch" Nowak. Fan-freakin'-tastic. On the plus side of the ledger, at least Bobby Heinlein was one of ours.

Posted by: Matt at February 07, 2007 09:20 AM (10G2T)

2 the moon is a harsh mistress indeed

Posted by: annika at February 07, 2007 09:28 AM (JBltT)

3 and are there any astronauts who would want to go near her to capture her? they might all be a little frightened. i would ask for hazard pay.

Posted by: sarahk at February 07, 2007 09:33 AM (DJfGe)

4 She's an "astronut."

Posted by: Mark at February 07, 2007 10:04 AM (2MrBP)

5 Thanks Mark. Matt, you forgot Jim Webb. I bet we could come up with at least a couple hundred before the end of the day. The Naval Academy is fucked up. West Point on the other hand tends to produce uniformly good leaders.

Posted by: Casca at February 07, 2007 10:35 AM (Y7t14)

6 Dunno 'bout West Point. Custer, for instance. And on the plus side for the squids, I'd like to add Adm. Fluckey. Betcha if a statistical analysis was done, the flake/hero ratio would be about the same.

Posted by: Victor at February 07, 2007 11:19 AM (1oGDT)

7 sorry Casca, can't concur with you on the Point. two words: Wes Clark "ring knockers" bleh. give me a 2ndLT from Texas A&M or another state school any day...

Posted by: jcrue at February 07, 2007 11:23 AM (ZDQoM)

8 Girl, you just ain't right

Posted by: Swamp Rabbit at February 07, 2007 12:49 PM (chQH7)

9 Not really buying that either, Casca. I've known a few woops in my day. They're about the same. Get past all the PR bullshit and the service academies aren't really much different. (Nor are A&M, VMI, the Citadel or Virginia Tech immune from the problem. My battery commander -- the one who got sent to be the 2nd MarDiv urinalysis coordinator after we returned from a float that he royally fucked up -- was an A&M grad. What an idiot.) The Point has produced its share of freaks, too. MacArthur, just to name one. (A history prof of mine had spent a lot of time studying MacArthur and interviewing people who knew him well -- family members, former aides, etc. The guy really was a freak.)

Posted by: Matt at February 07, 2007 12:51 PM (10G2T)

10 She likes the moon! I hope they keep her away from any dirigibles or zeppelins. Or lightbulbs.

Posted by: The Law Fairy at February 07, 2007 01:50 PM (XUsiG)

11 Jeez, I'm talking about recent history, not sixty years ago, and one bad apple don't spoil the whole bunch. Peacetime generals are the product of politics. Take it for what it's worth. There are most definitely differences between the academies. For producing combat leaders, give me a West Pointer or VMI grad. That's not to depricate the product of state schools, but everyone knows that the aggies are famous fuckups, too much bullshit between their ears. I base my observations on direct personal contact. I spent a month as a peer at Ft Benning with 100 USMA cadets, and six months with the cream of the USNA at basic school, along with a dozen USAFA grads. I know these guys pretty well. My early impressions were only reinforced by the contact I had during my career. The Navy and Air Force acadamies should be closed. They're social clubs that foster their own particularly perverse cultures. I would never trust a boat schooler, on the other hand a USMA grad's word tends to be good.

Posted by: Casca at February 07, 2007 04:30 PM (2gORp)

12 This incident precludes women from being sent into space ever again. The cosmic radiation in space affects their brains and turns them into sex maniacs. No telling what would happen if all the women in space became sex maniacs. OH..........never mind

Posted by: Jake at February 07, 2007 04:52 PM (V6rxT)

13 LawFairy, I totally forgot how much I loved those guys!

Posted by: annika at February 07, 2007 09:19 PM (JBltT)

14 Annie, how'd you do in Crim Law? As a guy who set a lot of bails (Including Patty Hearst, The Griffith Park Sniper, etc.) you have to know that bail is not to hold someone because you think they are going to do something horrible. It is to ASSURE RETURN to face the charges. The thing is, she isn't going anywhere. She's got three kids, a house and an ankle bracelet that they can track her with. If she takes it off, it beeps and they are on her. They beep her and she has to call them back right away or they know it's off and they swoop in. And be sure, they are tracking her with survelliance on a 24/7 basis, maybe with the cooperation of her shipmates. No way to hold her the way the prosecuters wanted; they just wanted to have her in so they could keep building their case with her. It is that need to win them all that pervades every prosecutor's office in the world. Except Aruba.

Posted by: shelly at February 08, 2007 04:33 AM (SLFj+)

15 Enjoyed Casca's Osmond Brothers reference, even if it was unintentional. Pro for West Point - Ulysses S. Grant. Anti for West Point - Ulysses S. Grant. The good thing about...um...EXTREMELY MOTIVATED people such as Lisa Marie Nowak (why is the news dropping the "Marie"?) is that they're only motivated to do one thing. At least until she starts sending love letters to Brit Hume.

Posted by: Ontario Emperor at February 08, 2007 10:13 AM (YWsCw)

16 hey, I got dibs on Brit

Posted by: annika at February 08, 2007 10:16 AM (zAOEU)

17 Let's see, didn't Ollie go to Boat U?

Posted by: shelly at February 08, 2007 12:05 PM (SLFj+)

18 I base my observations on close personal contact, too, being that I'm a Canoe U grad and spent five months at Ft. Sill, plus six at TBS (and four years living with various exchange cadets). But of course my observations are no more unbiased than yours.

Posted by: Matt at February 08, 2007 02:49 PM (10G2T)

19 Now your shit is in the street. I'm from a different generation. They weren't coed then.

Posted by: Casca at February 08, 2007 08:20 PM (2gORp)

20 My dad would have have said to you, "you talk like a girl with a paper ass! He was a man with a very limited sense of humor.

Posted by: mike at February 08, 2007 09:20 PM (UNYWb)

21 They're social clubs that foster their own particularly perverse cultures. I would never trust a boat schooler, on the other hand a USMA grad's word tends to be good. I like the way you think Casca (not that I'm unbiased on the subject).. Ross Perot..I digress.. Although generalizing, one factor that reinforces these cultural differences is the community sub-cultures in the Navy (Surface Warfare, Submariner, Aviators, etc) and to a lesser degree in the USAF (pilots versus well, everyone else).

Posted by: Col Steve at February 09, 2007 09:09 AM (pj2h7)

22 It looks like NASA administrator Mike Griffin gave Karl Rove a call and asked for something to draw attention away from this story. You know, a hurricane or something. But the truthers are on to the hurricane generator in the White House basement, so Rove had to try something different. So he had Anna Nicole Smith whacked. It worked like a charm since this astro-nuttiness is now below the fold on page 19. Just hope that a bunch of the male astronauts don't start claiming to be the real father of Anna's baby ... --HH

Posted by: Go 4 TLI at February 10, 2007 06:31 PM (TmKwU)

23 Fuck. Too late.

Posted by: Matt at February 12, 2007 03:16 PM (10G2T)

Hide Comments | Add Comment