I just got done watching a tape of Hillary's sit-down interview with Jane Pauley at the Masonic Auditorium in San Francisco. The event was held on January 28th and sponsored by the San Francisco Bar Association. I've never forced myself to listen to Hillary for as long as I did tonight. It was difficult.

The substance of what she said was unremarkable, except for one outrageous statement. She would have us believe that President Bush is deliberately trying to prevent the reconstruction of the Gulf Coast in order to stop democratic voters from returning to the area. Naturally, the fellow travelers in the audience ate that craziness up. Pauley was only there to suggest topics for Hillary to pontificate on, not to challenge any logical inconsistencies in what her guest of honor might say.

Otherwise, Hillary's chat was a real snooze-fest. Her great handicap is the opposite of Bill's great strength. She is simply not a very charismatic person in public. She can do the subtle-cynical dig well enough for a sophisticated an admiring audience of San Francisco lawyers. She can do the criticism thing. She can do sarcasm and condescention. She can be a pompous know-it-all too. But can she do the "positive" thing?

I hate the positive thing myself. But that's because I ― like you, and like the people in the audience at the Masonic ― am a very sophisticated political junkie. We all have a well developed sense of irony and cynicism, which we either supress or put to use as needed, in service of our chosen party.

Of course, presidential elections are not won or lost by the votes of sophisticates like us. In this country, it's the wobbly middle 20% of voters who decide elections. Those folks who can't be bothered to decide until the last minute respond best to a focused, positive message, often repeated.

The simple positive message worked for Kennedy in '60, Carter in '76, Reagan in '80 and '84, and Bush in 2000 and 2004. Guys who couldn't deliver the simple positive message include Stevenson, McCarthy, Ford, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry. In 1980, Carter lost the ability to present that kind of message after he had fucked up the country so badly.

I think Hillary will have a hard time with the "positive" thing. She'll raise money alright, and she'll have large cheering crowds wherever she goes. Actually, the cheering crowds and the money are part of the problem for any Democrat today. It's easy to get the money and applause by negativity and vitriol, but then they forget the positive and upbeat mesages that win elections.

Keep in mind that wobbly 20% when you hear the press and the polls telling you how great Hillary's doing two years from now. Hillary can re-work her image only so much. I don't think you can learn charisma, and she's constitutionally incapable of being pleasant or upbeat, let alone positive. But then, she's a Democrat, and her party has completely abandoned positive ideas in favor of unfocused negativity.

Posted by: annika at 06:51 PM | Comments (27) | Add Comment
Post contains 514 words, total size 3 kb.

Admit it, Casca. You got a little-teary eyed when Tia got booted.

And Barry is great.

Posted by: annika at 09:10 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 20 words, total size 1 kb.

There'll be no suspense at the Oscars this year.

Posted by: annika at 06:29 AM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 19 words, total size 1 kb.

April 27, 1995: The first appearance of the David Puddy character on Seinfeld.

Nothing against Patrick Warburton. I was just watching a Seinfeld rerun tonight -- the face-painting episode -- and it finally dawned on me. The decline of Seinfeld's writing definitely coincided with the emergence of the Puddy character. By season seven it had stopped being a show about nothing and become a show about callousness, thus jumping the shark.

Posted by: annika at 11:20 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 81 words, total size 1 kb.

Normally a response to the State of the Union address is released after the president's speech. In an interesting procedural twist, the Democratic response was released beforehand this year.

Posted by: annika at 04:22 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 41 words, total size 1 kb.

I'm here for a wedding. I love Santa Barbara. I just saw a homeless dude with bluetooth! And I ain't talking about his dental work. He had a full-on earpiece. How weird is that?

The weather is gorgeous. The whole frickin' town is gorgeous. I'm in a bar, drinking Guinness, and enjoying a black forest ham panini. Gorgeous. I'm going to hang out by the pool later. In the middle of frickin' winter! More later.

Posted by: annika at 01:20 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 83 words, total size 1 kb.

An excellent short post on Pope Benedict's Deus Caritas Est is over at Hugo's. I wholeheartedly agree with the Pope, and Hugo's, thoughts on the separation of charity and proselytization. Although I recognize that for much of my church's history, that separation was blurred at best. I do think it's most effective, especially on a personal level, to proclaim the Gospel more by example and less by argument.

Posted by: annika at 09:55 AM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 74 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Word

Posted by: Scof at January 27, 2006 09:24 AM (a3fqn)

2 On the other hand, I once worked at an inner city mission for the homeless, They gave out good food and preached during the eveng meal. There were at least a few people who turned away from alcohol because of a religous experience.

Posted by: Kyle N at January 27, 2006 12:12 PM (UKuFN)

3 "There were at least a few people who turned away from alcohol because of a religous experience." Our current president being one of them....

Posted by: reagan80 at January 27, 2006 03:22 PM (K9tdw)

4 Yes Ray, He'd been an abusive, angry, lying sack of shit who also drank too much. Too bad religion only got him to give up one bad habit.

Posted by: Strawman at January 29, 2006 05:05 PM (0ZdtC)

5 "He'd (sic) been an abusive, angry, lying sack of shit who also drank too much. Too bad religion only got him to give up one bad habit." Shit straw, sounds more like you... do you drink too much?

Posted by: Casca at January 29, 2006 06:36 PM (2gORp)

6 Hey StrawDude, Do you get your material from Howard Dean, Paul Begala, or James Carville---visionary thinkers all. The ad hominem attacks only demonstrates the extent to which "W" has kicked the shit out of you guys. Here is an idea for Democrats: Come up with one new idea...just one. I won't hold my breath, though. The Dems idea of a policy debate is to run around saying "Bush lied, Bush lied." You fucking idiots haven't had a new idea since FDR tried to destroy our country with his brand of socialism. (Well, that is when he wasn't throwing non-white people in internment camps. Funny, how your heroes above don't have much to say about that action in a time of war, but are torn up about monitoring the calls of terroists.) Anyway, the Left's disdain for religion is one (of many) reason you people lose election after election. So, go put on your Che Guevara T-Shirt and attend a Hugo Chavez rally. You'll feel right at home amongst people who idolize murderers and God-haters.

Posted by: Blu at January 30, 2006 09:41 AM (2LSwo)

7 A link to two people who don't think much of God, the Pope, or Bush. (Strawman's peeps.) http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060129/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/venezuela_sheehan

Posted by: Blu at January 30, 2006 11:29 AM (2LSwo)

8 Hey Blu, What do you think of god? I'm Curious. You like the guy? Think he/she is doing a good job caring for his best works? DO ya think he has a plan? BTW, the Japanese internment was a terrible crime against Americans and I don't know anybody who thinks differently. Nor do I think any historians on the left have given FDR a free ride about it. It is, however, a bit late for those on the left to protest it. But W is a lying sack of shit and history will record him as such. How quickly you forget that he lost the first election and won the second by the smallest margin of a second term winner. This to you is kicking the shit outof something? That a majority of this nation currently feels he has bungled Iraq and is not trustworthy or competent. Wait 'till the midterms and you'll watch his party run away from him.

Posted by: Strawman at January 30, 2006 05:17 PM (0ZdtC)

9 He lost the first election? Really? Weird, I thought he won the electoral college vote, which is how we elect Presidents in this country. Yep, I'm pretty sure he won---despite widespread Democrat voter fraud.

Posted by: Blu at January 30, 2006 05:51 PM (A+3OL)

10 Blu, Really? I didn't notice the W was president. My point was that more Americans wanted Al Gore to be president than wanted W. I do know that the electoral college is the method we use, none the less, it has been and continues to be a myth purpertrated by the Right that the country is in some RW slide. IT is not. The right to choose is supported by nearly 60%, the presidents popularity is less than 40%, the perception that he is an incompetent boob is shared by more than 50%, his lies about the need for SS over hall were rejected for what they were,distortions, his wish to have creationism taught as "just another point of view" was crushed with predjudice, his lie that "nobody could have imagined the levee's breaching" is clear to all who are not dead, his fear mongering about how if illegal wire taps had been in use prior to 911, it could have been stopped, utter nonsence, just a caculated lie to manipulate public opinion among the freightened sheep who make up a large part of this country. Why did Chainey pound away befor the invasion on the idea that there was a Saddam-Al Quieda connection regardless of there being NO supporting evidence? You think he had info he wouldn't share or he had an invasion agenda? The NYT call Bush a liar at least 5 times in Sunday's editorial and has refuted every stupid baseless argument the WH puts out about the need and legality of domestic spying: the lives it saves or could have saved, pure bullshit. Blu, you are living a dream which is rapidly becoming a god infested , facist neightmare. W has the FEAR card and nothing more and you quake in your boots watching your constitutional protections go down the sewer.

Posted by: Strawman at January 31, 2006 10:06 AM (0ZdtC)

11 The links between Sadaam and Al Quieda are well-docuemnted. He trained them in his country for years. Get over it. Read Stephen Hayes and stop listening to left-wingers with two-digit IQs. You actually read the NY Times editorials? The specific editorial referenced was a fucking joke---one of the worse pieces of crap ever written by that piece of shit paper. (Maybe, Jason Blair wrote it.) They couldn't even cite relevant case law to support their argument. On the other hand, the President can easily make his case for based on several pre-FISA cases and a post-FISA case. Now, do you think the idiots at the NY Times, (who have NO constitutional scholars on their editorial board,) bothered to check the case law? Of course not. The NY Times is a Left-wing rag that is becoming less relevant each and every day. Check their circulation #s over the past decade. Anyway, the difference between you and me (and the Right and Left generally) is the use of facts rather than just the spewing of BS. So, here is the case law (courtesy of John Hinderaker) that supports Bush and that proves you and the NY Times incorrect...as usual. United States v. Clay, 430 F.2d 165 (5th Cir. 1970), in which the court held that federal statutes prohibiting wiretapping do not "[forbid] the President, or his representative, from ordering wiretap surveillance to obtain foreign intelligence in the national interest." Does the Times mention Clay? Of course not. United States v. Butenko, 494 F.2d 593 (3rd Cir. 1974), where the court held that no judicial warrant was necessary where "surveillances ... were 'conducted and maintained solely for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence information.'” Times doesn't mention it. United States v. Truong, 629 F.2d 908 (4th Cir. 1980), where the court sustained the federal government's position, which it summarized as follows: "In the area of foreign intelligence, the government contends, the President may authorize surveillance without seeking a judicial warrant because of his constitutional prerogatives in the area of foreign affairs." The court explained why the President has the inherent constitutional authority to order warrantless electronic surveillance: "For several reasons, the needs of the executive are so compelling in the area of foreign intelligence, unlike the area of domestic security, that a uniform warrant requirement would, following [United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972)], “unduly frustrate” the President in carrying out his foreign affairs responsibilities. First of all, attempts to counter foreign threats to the national security require the utmost stealth, speed and secrecy. A warrant requirement would add a procedural hurdle that would reduce the flexibility of executive foreign intelligence activities, in some cases delay executive response to foreign intelligence threats, and increase the chance of leaks regarding sensitive executive operations." If the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals was right, then the New York Times is wrong. So, surely the Times must have some persuasive rebuttal to the Truong decision in support of its technical legal argument? No. The Times never refers to Truong. United States v. Duggan, 743 F.2d 59 (2nd Cir. 1984), was a terrorism case in which the court, among other rulings, upheld the constitutionality of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The court wrote: "Prior to the enactment of FISA, virtually every court that had addressed the issue had concluded that the President had the inherent power to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence information, and that such surveillances constituted an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment." A damning summary. Surely the Times has a rejoinder to the court's statement that the universal weight of authority is against the paper's position? Nope. Those cases are pre-FISA, of course, and the Times says that FISA is the statute the administration "violated." So maybe the Times would argue that the pre-FISA cases don't apply. Such a claim would be unpersuasive on its face, since Congress cannot by statute or otherwise strip the executive branch of its constitutional powers. But there is, in fact, a post-FISA case that specifically addresses the question whether the passage of that statute could have changed the pre-existing principle that the President has constitutional power to order warrantless surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes. Since that case is directly on point, surely the Times discussed it. Right? Wrong. The Times never mentions In re: Sealed Case No. 02-001, decided in 2002 by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, the very court which is responsible for interpreting and applying FISA. It's not hard to figure out why the Times editorialists pretend that Sealed Case No 02-001 doesn't exist. It conclusively refutes their legal position: The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. ... We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power. So the only federal appellate court that has ruled on the issue says that the New York Times is wrong about the law. The Times, ostrich-like, pretends that the federal courts don't exist. So, Strawman, as usual, I bury your bullshit with facts. You really are gonna have to bring your game up a level.

Posted by: Blu at January 31, 2006 10:40 AM (9Z/ir)

12 Blu, I am not a lawyer and rely on the interpretation of others who are so I cannot argue the decisions and interpretations that you would like to call facts. I do, however, read and have heard many lawyers,(the latest was Reagans soliciter general) say you are wrong and that the warrantless taps, post FISA are illegal. If it were as cut and dry as you say it is there would not be such an uproar. A bi-partisian one at that. Listening to the pin head last night I realized that the whole wire tap issue is a smoke screen. They really don't think the intel is that valuable nor do they believe they would have done better connectiong the dots pre-911. Rather what they are doing is defining the election strategy. They realize that the Dems are going to have to answer the question " ....so senator, in other words, if an operative is talk'in to Al Kida overseas you don't want to know what he's say'in?" The fear card. If you oppose wirtapping you are willing to let American's be killed. This is the only hope thay have for winning. All the real issues are in a shambles for the RW. Iraq is a debacle, the tax cuts have only benefitted the wealthy, real wages for Americans are dropping, economic growth is slow, spending is at an all time high, the diaster response and relief are deeply troubled plagued by incompetence at the top and the surplus they inherited has turned into the largest debt ever. Fear is their only card. So you may parse the legality but it is meaningless. They couldn't and still can't find there way out of a gunny sack. What did Condiliar say the other day in response to the Hammas win? "Yes, Bob, we were quite surprised by that and I am goning to find out why we didn't have have a clue" (paraphrase) She has never had a clue, never will, she is in way over her head.

Posted by: Strawman at February 01, 2006 10:04 AM (0ZdtC)

13 There are opinions and then there are facts. The court is the final arbitor of law. The appellate courts, as demonstrated by the relevant case law, have decided---REPEATEDLY---that the President has the authority. So, end of discussion. Now, people may be uncomfortable with the facts, but they are arguing their personal sentiments not the law. BTW, C. Rice is by far the smartest and most intellectual Sec of State this country has ever had. Her recent work with N. Korea was universally applauded as brilliant. And her work with Israel and its barbaric neighbor has also been lauded as very effective and even-handed---as compared to Clinton's courting of those Palestinian fascists. Compare her to the idiot windbag of a woman Clinton installed for purely affirmative action reasons. It was Albright's (and Clinton's) mess that Rice cleaned up in N. Korea. Indeed, it is Clinton's mess world-wide that Bush has had to deal with since taking office. Their "head in the sand" foreign policy directly led to 9-11 and to a myriad of other problems in the world. Lucky for him that a stock-market fueled by imaginary internet profits allowed that idiot/serial adulterer to duck out just in time to avoid the blame for disaster with wich he left us.

Posted by: Blu at February 01, 2006 10:38 AM (9Z/ir)

14 Oh, and economic growth has been very, very good. Do you even look at the numbers? On top of that, inflation has been low despite high energy prices. What world do you live in? Clinton handed us a recession, which TAX CUTS got us out of. Do you even understand basic macro-economics? And, yes, you are right there was a surplus---but then, as I said, Clinton gave us a recession and then his incompetence gave us 9/11. Surplus gone. Besides, the surplus was an illusion. Clinton got his "surplus" by gutting our military. This has been yet another area that Bush has had to salvage. Prior to Bush, our troops didn't have sufficient equipment for normal training. Do you ever wonder why 90% of the military despises Clinton and the Left? Seriously, debating with you can be very annoying because you don't seem to have knowledge about fundamental concepts of law, economics, and political philosophy. Do you just make stuff up? Perhaps, you just mimick the Left-wingers you trust. I'm not certain. Regardless, do your homework or get your ass to graduate school. Or maybe just read a book. Opinions are nice but facts are better.

Posted by: Blu at February 01, 2006 11:07 AM (9Z/ir)

15 "C. Rice is by far the smartest and most intellectual Sec of State this country has ever had." Well, I don't know. I seem to remember a guy by the name of Thomas Jefferson. I'm not trying to pick on you Blu. You know I luv you. Rock on.

Posted by: annika at February 02, 2006 07:35 AM (naOK+)

16 Annika, I'm not a Thomas Jefferson fan. Spent A LOT OF TIME in graduate school and since reading Jefferson and reading about him. He was (admittedly) brilliant, arrogant, radical, and hypocritical. I much prefer Adams and Hamilton (in terms of Founding Dudes). His support of the French Revolution and his weak reasons for supporting it ought to be enough to turn the stomach of any conservative. I know that it is tough to argue against the (main) writer of the Declaration and a Founder, but I don't think that he was even close to being the brightest of the Founders. He was, however,(second only to Franklin) an excellent self-promoter. With regard to the Rice comment, I admittedly failed to think beyond the past several decades. So, hey, pick away. I can take it. Remember, I've spent many, many years debating academic/political crap. I can take it.

Posted by: Blu at February 02, 2006 10:17 AM (9Z/ir)

17 Alright, Blu, if you don't like our first Secretary of State, how about these: John Marshall, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, William Seward, William Jennings Bryan, Charles Evans Hughes, Gen. George C. Marshall, John Foster Dulles, Dean Acheson, Henry Kissinger. I am a big fan of Condi, but that's a pretty tough list to be at the top of.

Posted by: annika at February 03, 2006 06:48 PM (FbmKB)

18 Man, Annika you do like the old white guys. (Must be a history major I think that I like Madison the most of that group though he wasn't considered terribly effective. Kissinger might be the smartest of the bunch. But we all know his baggage. You are right---our country has has the benefit of some very smart men (and women.)

Posted by: Blu at February 03, 2006 07:01 PM (9Z/ir)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

1. I'm taking suggestions for a spring Fash-ism photo essay. Leave one in the comments.

2. Is the starling an ugly bird or a handsome bird?

3. That crane reminds me of the alien machines in Spielberg's War Of The Worlds. Dang, they were scary.

4. Hey over there. In the world of foundation, less is more. Look into it.

5. What is that smell?

6. I want an Audi TT convertible. Those things are sweet.

7. Shit, it's time to go. Do I have to go?

More scintillating blog content later.

Posted by: annika at 08:45 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 114 words, total size 1 kb.

1. Have you noticed how touchy and flirty the guys are with Paula this season?

2. Put me in the column of folks who are bored with the Diva voice.

3. The Sacramento area representin' tonight - embarassingly. What was with that MJ impersonator they passed? Eeek. And that dude from Elk Grove who tried to sing Clay? Bwahahaha.

Posted by: annika at 08:41 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 75 words, total size 1 kb.

Screw democratic idealism, Google takes the money.

Google's launch of a new, self-censored search engine in China is a 'black day' for freedom of expression, a leading international media watchdog says.
Reporters Without Borders joined others in asking how Google could stand up for US users' freedoms while controlling what Chinese users can search for.

Its previous search engine for China's fast-growing market was subject to government blocks.

The new site - Google.cn - censors itself to satisfy Beijing.

. . .

It is believed that sensitive topics are likely to include independence for Taiwan and the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, as well as human rights and democracy in China generally.

Google argues it would be more damaging to pull out of China altogether and says that in contrast to other search engines, it will inform users when access is restricted on certain search terms.

Unbelievable Update: Google founder Sergey Brin, in a lame attempt to defend Google's decision, actually compared censorship of information about Taiwanese independence, the Tiananmen massacre, human rights and democracy with censorship of child pornography! Sort of.

Brin: . . . [W]e also by the way have to do similar things in the U.S. and Germany. We also have to block certain material based on law. The U.S., child pornography, for example . . .

I'm sure Google justifies this by saying it's just a couple of search words that people can't get to, but it's very difficult for Google to do what they just did and avoid the slippery slope. The next thing [China will] do is ask [Google] to tell them who is searching for 'Taiwan' or 'independence' or 'human rights.' And then it's going to find itself in the position of turning over the names of dissidents or simply of inquisitive individuals, for imprisonment.

The key in my view is that every company faces the same dilemma -- how do you maintain your principles while benefiting from the enormous Chinese market. And the answer is only going to come through safety in numbers. And it's going to require all of the search engines to get together and say 'None of us will do this.' And China needs search engines. If it can pick them off one at a time, it wins. If it faces all of the search engines at once banding together, the search engines win.

Google's got a great philosophy of 'Do No Evil.' And I'm sure they say well, 'It's better for us to be there than for us not to be there and there are just a few things that people can't search for.' . . . I would have expected better from Google.

Posted by: annika at 08:38 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 489 words, total size 3 kb.

Robert Burns, the great Scottish poet, was born on this day in 1759. He is probably most famous for having written Auld Lang Syne. Now I know there are some Burns fans out there. Here's on he wrote in honor of his own birthday.

Sonnet Written On The Author's Birthday,

On hearing a Thrush sing in his Morning Walk.

Sing on, sweet thrush, upon the leafless bough,
Sing on, sweet bird, I listen to thy strain,
See aged Winter, 'mid his surly reign,
At thy blythe carol, clears his furrowed brow.

So in lone Poverty's dominion drear,
Sits meek Content with light, unanxious heart;
Welcomes the rapid moments, bids them part,
Nor asks if they bring ought to hope or fear.

I thank thee, Author of this opening day!
Thou whose bright sun now gilds yon orient skies!
Riches denied, thy boon was purer joys-
What wealth could never give nor take away!

Yet come, thou child of poverty and care,
The mite high heav'n bestow'd, that mite with thee I'll share.

Posted by: annika at 12:49 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 182 words, total size 1 kb.

Along the lines of my weird Tom Cruise dream, I had another crazy dream last night. Bea Arthur, Betty White and Estelle Getty were in it. They formed a rap group, calling themselves the Insane Bingo Posse. They had a huge following, much like the Dead or Phish used to have. All young people too. Somehow I found myself watching them at Shoreline Amphitheatre with my old friends from high school. Weird huh? I blame it on the dip from last night. We had some chips. We had some leftover sour cream. We were hungry. So we decided to make some dip. There was a package of Lipton onion soup mix in the back of the pantry that was about five years old. But I figured, hey, soup mix don't go bad right?. So we mixed up some dip, and ate it with a bowl of Tostitos. It wasn't bad. However, among other side effects that I won't go into, which also occurred during the middle of the night, I had that crazy dream.

Posted by: annika at 11:13 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 184 words, total size 1 kb.

We already got a country and western network on cable. It's called CWT. Not everyone likes country music, but I have a solution, which should help bring in more viewers.

Add David Gilmour to the Gilmore Girls' cast. This will bring in the casual rock & roll viewer who would otherwise channel surf past the CW network.

On a somewhat unrelated subject, Time Warner cable service sucks logs. Comcast is way better.

I would also suggest tinkering with the names of some of CW's sitcoms. Smallville should be changed to Well-hungville, to capture the more discerning female viewer. And Everybody Hates Chris should be Everybody Loves Chris. Why would I want to watch if you're already telling me I'm not going to like the main character? And it goes without saying that America's Top Model should be changed to America's Top Nude Model, or maybe America's Top Drunk Nude Model. That's a no-brainer and a sure ratings getter.

Finally, fire Les Moonves. I don't like him, and I never know how to pronounce his last name. It sounds like he should have been a character on WKRP.

Posted by: annika at 01:24 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 201 words, total size 1 kb.

Senate Judiciary Committee refers Alito to the full Senate.

Posted by: annika at 12:39 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 23 words, total size 1 kb.

the concept of "high energy" in advertising?

...or some other thing?

Update: "High energy" would be like loud upbeat music, lots of dancing kids, bright primary colors in motion, maybe a cartoon character or two breakdancing.

Okay, I got something more annoying, maybe. How about that barrista who's having so much fun she's just gotta yell all the time?

Posted by: annika at 07:56 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 65 words, total size 1 kb.

I could only come up with four flippant* comments about the whale. They are as follows:

1. Haven't seen this many Londerners lining up to see a dead body since Diana's funeral.
2. Why make such a big deal over this whale, when thousands of fish are lost along the Thames every day, and no one tries to save them. It's species favoritism, I tell you.
3. Is there a way they can blame Bush for this one?
4. "Unsuccessful attempts had been made during the night to encourage the Thames whale to swim back downriver." Maybe they should have tried a bikini whale.

* Five if you count that pun.

Posted by: annika at 03:43 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 124 words, total size 1 kb.

1 1. Vive le Dauphin! 2. "C'est assez!" dit la baleine. 3. Quick solution to the whale's problems: grenade in blowhole. 4. Quicker solution: Sinead in blowhole. 5. Headline: A Confused Sir Elton John Sighted in Thames 6. Headline: Giant Sperm Attempts to Impregnate London 7. Headline: Disoriented Whale Likely Irish 8. Headline: Whale's Triumphant Swim to London Trumps Its 2004 Scaling of Eiffel Tower 9. Headline: Muslim Whale Decries British Decadence 10. Headline: Whale Too Late to Watch David Blaine Stunt Subtitle: "Piss,Fuck, Diddle!" Says Whale. Kevin

Posted by: Kevin Kim at January 22, 2006 02:24 AM (TDwc6)

2 Now that's good comedy!

Posted by: annika at January 22, 2006 08:55 AM (BtM3x)

3 Crap. Kevin beat me to the angle I was going to use, or at least half of it: "Londoners Mourn Death of Oprah in Freak Thames Drowning; Scotland Yard Suspects French Involvement." How about, "Autopsy: Thames Whale Had 0.3 BAC; Footie Yobs Sought in Investigation." Shit. Those suck. I'm no comedian.

Posted by: Matt at January 22, 2006 10:23 AM (PYUlV)

4 Sperm whale impregnates London... Ya know, if you think of a side view diagram of the reproductive system, and imagine southeast England as a uterus, London as an ovary, and the Thames as a fallopian tube...

Posted by: gcotharn at January 22, 2006 12:28 PM (KU0Ns)

5 Such rancor.

Posted by: will at January 23, 2006 02:32 AM (h7Ciu)

6 An anagram engine tells us that the phrase "WHALE IN THAMES" yields a gazillion anagrams. Among them: SEW HIM THE ANAL WHEEL HIM, SANTA ELENA WHAM SHIT ENEMA WITH LASH MAN HEAL WHITES HATE HIS LAWMEN HI! HATE SLEW MAN! HE HAS LAME TWIN and every sperm bank's favorite: HAIL SEMEN THAW! Kevin

Posted by: Kevin Kim at January 23, 2006 04:44 AM (TDwc6)

7 Shit, shoulda quit while you were ahead.

Posted by: Casca at January 23, 2006 06:22 AM (y9m6I)

8 It's in London. They are British. So, they weren't lining up. They were "queuing" up. Sheesh, Annika. Don't be so culturally insensitive.

Posted by: ccs178 (Chris) at January 23, 2006 07:32 AM (B5UVm)

9 "And there's more where that came from!" shouted the asshole. Kevin hee hee

Posted by: Kevin Kim at January 23, 2006 08:15 AM (1PcL3)

10 Not better, necessarily, just stupider. Here.

Posted by: Pachey at January 24, 2006 01:39 PM (BNTVs)

11 Great stuff Pachey. Blogrolled you.

Posted by: annika at January 24, 2006 01:49 PM (zAOEU)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

With the position that I've kind of come into I'm in a place where I can really make an impact on people and really help girls that are, you know, people with anorexia, people that aren't in good relationships with their lovers Â… people that don't get along with their parents. I can change that a little bit.

Then again, maybe nobody gives a rat's what you think.

Posted by: annika at 03:25 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 78 words, total size 1 kb.

Cinnamon dolce!

Posted by: annika at 09:55 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 6 words, total size 1 kb.

Via Dawn.

Posted by: annika at 08:18 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 117 words, total size 2 kb.

Jerry: Posture, dude. Stop watching your partner. You can do better. My mom still loves you.

Giselle: Wow. Another nice routine. I love the tango. It's so fun with a partner who knows what he's doing. The judges are whack. She did good.

Drew & Cheryl: If Drew shows improvement every week, it's because Cheryl is probably the best pro on the show. And he's coachable. Only negative: he wasn't in synch at times (no pun intended).

Aside: I checked out that skating show last night, expecting it to be better, but it was not as entertaining as this dancing show.

George: He's so funny. But that was not good. No posture. No movement. By the way, is he Warren Beatty's long lost brother, or what?

Lisa: Casca is right about her lips. I thought she did fine. I love the bubble-gum flapper suit. I could not pull it off, but my friend Betty would totally wear something like that. She's curvy like Lisa Rinna. I wonder if that outfit is for sale at Lisa's store?

Stacy: I send my boyfriend out of the room when she's on. Fantastic. Best tango of the night so far. The ringer didn't disappoint. The judges suck.

Master P: He's like Kobe, uncoachable. When he dances, I want to leave the room. I could tell he was trying harder this week, but it's hopeless. He dances worse than my brother. On the other hand, the judges still suck.

Tia: Schwing! Better than Stacy's! The best choreographed routine of the night, too. That dorky judge said: "a little too much of an Argentinian flavor." WTF? Isn't that a good thing when doing a tango?

Final thoughts: The best jive was Drew's and the best tango was Tia's. Master P should probably be eliminated tomorrow night.

Posted by: annika at 08:04 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 308 words, total size 2 kb.