just trying to eat my waffles

November 03, 2005

One Liner Of The Day

From the legal world:

. . . the very worse thing about sleep: when you're sleeping, you're not billing!

―Dawn

Posted by: annika at 07:42 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 28 words, total size 1 kb.

November 02, 2005

Wednesday Is Poetry Day: Lawrence

Here's a poem by D.H. Lawrence from 1916. On the surface it seems to be a portrait of some Londoners who, down on their luck, are living by the river. But almost every stanza contains some sort of sexual imagery, it's weird.

Embankment at Night, before the War
The night rain, dripping unseen,
Comes endlessly kissing my face and my hands.

The river, slipping between
Lamps, is rayed with golden bands
Half way down its heaving sides;
Revealed where it hides.

Under the bridge
Great electric cars
Sing through, and each with a floor-light racing along at its side.
Far off, oh, midge after midge
Drifts over the gulf that bars
The night with silence, crossing the lamp-touched tide.

At Charing Cross, here, beneath the bridge
Sleep in a row the outcasts,
Packed in a line with their heads against the wall.
Their feet, in a broken ridge
Stretch out on the way, and a lout casts
A look as he stands on the edge of this naked stall.

Beasts that sleep will cover
Their faces in their flank; so these
Have huddled rags or limbs on the naked sleep.
Save, as the tram-cars hover
Past with the noise of a breeze
And gleam as of sunshine crossing the low black heap,

Two naked faces are seen
Bare and asleep,
Two pale clots swept and swept by the light of the cars.
Foam-clots showing between
The long, low tidal-heap,
The mud-weed opening two pale, shadowless stars.

Over the pallor of only two faces
Passes the gallivant beam of the trams;
Shows in only two sad places
The white bare bone of our shams.

A little, bearded man, pale, peaked in sleeping,
With a face like a chickweed flower.
And a heavy woman, sleeping still keeping
Callous and dour.

Over the pallor of only two places
Tossed on the low, black, ruffled heap
Passes the light of the tram as it races
Out of the deep.

Eloquent limbs
In disarray
Sleep-suave limbs of a youth with long, smooth thighs
Hutched up for warmth; the muddy rims
Of trousers fray
On the thin bare shins of a man who uneasily lies.

The balls of five red toes
As red and dirty, bare
Young birds forsaken and left in a nest of mudÂ—
Newspaper sheets enclose
Some limbs like parcels, and tear
When the sleeper stirs or turns on the ebb of the floodÂ—

One heaped mound
Of a womanÂ’s knees
As she thrusts them upward under the ruffled skirtÂ—
And a curious dearth of sound
In the presence of these
Wastrels that sleep on the flagstones without any hurt.

Over two shadowless, shameless faces
Stark on the heap
Travels the light as it tilts in its paces
Gone in one leap.

At the feet of the sleepers, watching,
Stand those that wait
For a place to lie down; and still as they stand, they sleep,
Wearily catching
The floodÂ’s slow gait
Like men who are drowned, but float erect in the deep.

Oh, the singing mansions,
Golden-lighted tall
Trams that pass, blown ruddily down the night!
The bridge on its stanchions
Stoops like a pall
To this human blight.

On the outer pavement, slowly,
Theatre people pass,
Holding aloft their umbrellas that flash and are bright
Like flowers of infernal moly
Over nocturnal grass
Wetly bobbing and drifting away on our sight.

And still by the rotten
Row of shattered feet,
Outcasts keep guard.
Forgotten,
Forgetting, till fate shall delete
One from the ward.

The factories on the Surrey side
Are beautifully laid in black on a gold-grey sky.
The riverÂ’s invisible tide
Threads and thrills like ore that is wealth to the eye.

And great gold midges
Cross the chasm
At the bridges
Above intertwined plasm.

Lawrence uses the adjective "naked" three times in the same poem. "Bare" appears four times, "heap" five times. Look at his other images, they make a poem all their own:

endlessly kissing, slipping between, heaving sides, revealed where it hides, white bare bone, peaked in sleeping, the tram races out of the deep, eloquent limbs in disarray, a youth with long, smooth thighs, heaped mound of a womanÂ’s knees, she thrusts them upward under the ruffled skirt, erect in the deep, wetly bobbing and drifting, beautifully laid, midges cross the chasm, and lastly the intertwined plasm.

wow. Looks like he had some fun with that one. D.H. was one horny bastard.

More poetry: Did you know that Tuesday is Haikuesday at Crash and Byrne?

Posted by: annika at 07:15 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 759 words, total size 5 kb.

November 01, 2005

California Voter's Guide

What a crappy crappy day i had today. i won't go into all the reasons, some were biological and others environmental. But i'm all stressed out right now. My preferred stress reliever had to work tonight, so instead i'm enjoying a glass of fine California wine.

One thing that pissed me off early, happened between classes as i was filling out my absentee ballot. An annoying guy in my class came over and sat down next to me. He obviously thought i was filling out a lotto card.

"Hey, if you win the lottery, do I get some?" he asked.

My first thought was, You couldn't get some offa me even if you won the lottery. Then it occurred to me that he was talking about the winnings.

"No this is an absentee ballot," i told him.

"Oh, are you voting no on all those propositions?" he said.

"What propositions do you mean?"

"Those ones the governator likes."

i paused for effect. "Um, no. i'm actually voting yes on them."

He looked horribly disappointed. "Really?"

"Yes really."

"i voted for him," he added. "But I don't like any of his propositions."

This type of thinking is apparently common, according to the polls. But i was amazed to have actually met someone with that kind of disconnection from reality.

"What's the point of voting for Schwarzenegger if you don't want him to change anything? That makes no sense at all. He can't do it by himself. We might as well have kept Gray Davis."

He obviously hadn't thought about that. "Um, well, it seems like some of those propositions are just 'broken promises.'"

Whoa. That was amazing. Here was a guy who had no idea what was on the ballot, yet he was able to parrot verbatim the Unions' attack ad slogan. That's how effective those anti-Schwarzenegger ads have been.

i wanted to lay into him at that point, but i figured the better solution would be to salvage something positive from an idiot, if possible.

i said, "They're not like that at all. Why don't you read the propositions and vote for the ones that sound good to you."

"Well, i suppose." He seemed open to the idea.

"Good. Promise me you'll do that," i flashed him a smile.

"I will. I promise."

Excellent. i had hopefully converted an idiot.

So here's how i voted for next Tuesday's special election, in case any of you care:

Proposition 73: This measure requires a 48 hour waiting period and parental notification for minors seeking an abortion. This is probably just a ploy to get conservatives to the polls, but i figure it might actually bring just as many pro-abortion voters out. Since i'm against abortion, i'm in favor of any restrictions, no matter how incremental. i voted YES.

Proposition 74: This is the first of the four Schwarzenegger propositions. This measure increases the amount of time a teacher must work before getting tenure. Right now they can get tenure after two years. The initiative bumps it up to five years. Sounds reasonable to me. YES.

Proposition 75: According to the Secretary of State this initiative prohibits "the use by public employee labor organizations of public employee dues or fees for political contributions except with the prior consent of individual public employees each year on a specified written form." That's a no-brainer. YES.

Proposition 76: This is the initiative that promises to make the State government "live within its means." i hope it passes, and if it does, i hope it works. YES.

Proposition 77: This measure is supposed to reform California's gerrymandered districts by taking redistricting out of the hands of the politicians and letting a panel of retired judges draw the lines. Not a perfect solution, but better than the current system, which leaves the foxes in charge of the henhouse. YES.

Proposition 78: One of two competing prescription drug discount initiatives. i voted for this one rather than 79, which is more flawed. YES.

Proposition 79: This prescription drug scheme relies on state bureaucrats to negotiate discounts, instead of the free market. But the worst thing is that it creates a whole new loophole for greedy plaintiff lawyers to file frivoulous lawsuits based on technicalities. NO.

Proposition 80: i don't know what to think about this measure, which purports to repeal California's energy deregulation. i can see arguments both ways on this one. However, i'm generally in favor of deregulation, so i voted NO.

The four Schwarzenegger supported propositions are 74, 75, 76 and 77. The polls say they're all going down. But the polls have been wrong before, and i hope at least 76 and 77 win. That could really start some changes here in California, which is a state that is much more conservative than its legislature. Though most people don't realize it.

Posted by: annika at 10:41 PM | Comments (30) | Add Comment
Post contains 811 words, total size 5 kb.

1 Add to that, Boston Legal has become an anti-Iraq War skreed tonight. Deep thoughts from the Hollywood left.

Posted by: Casca at November 01, 2005 10:55 PM (qBTBH)

2 I guess that was you looking over my shoulder as I marked my absentee ballot last week. Good luck to us and to Ahnold. Too bad his wife has chosen to sit this one out; sorry about her Mom, but she should have been out there for him all the way.

Posted by: shelly at November 02, 2005 03:40 AM (M7kiy)

3 Hope it works out, I would have voted exactly the same (I am not being a syncophant). I have been very surprised by Ahnold. He has proven to be a strong leader and sticks to his guns against very powerful interests. Since he cannot be president, I hope the next republican President has a place for him on the cabinate.

Posted by: Kyle N at November 02, 2005 06:11 AM (SQg/C)

4 Hello Annika, Not living in CA I don't have a vested interest in the outcome of these measures but I am curious about the reasoning behind #79 and if by extention I might demand that the fed's ask me about the choices they make with my tax contributions. I don't want any of my contributions going to the president's salary and a few other budget items as well. Casca, If you had script control over BOston Legal would you a) never mention current political issues, b) see to it that if mentioned the issue would be viewed from both the R and L. or c) see to it that the issue was viewed from either the R or the L.? And I'm sure you know that at the moment the prevailing sentiment in our fair country is that the occupation was a mistake but that immediate withdrawal, something your dad was a tad slow at, is too radical an approach and a time table for witdrawal should be developed.

Posted by: Strawman at November 02, 2005 08:13 AM (0ZdtC)

5 CORRECTION # 75

Posted by: Strawman at November 02, 2005 08:14 AM (0ZdtC)

6 Straw the taxpayer's argument you allude to has been tried before, unsuccessfully. i don't have the supreme court cite right now, but it's somewhere in my notes from last semester.

Posted by: annika at November 02, 2005 09:29 AM (zAOEU)

7 Since we're talking about Arnold and elections: It's too bad we can't preemptively vote down the potential recall election they're trying for in June. I'm not saying I think Arnold is the best governor we could have -- but for pete's sake, people, we have a regular election next November, just a few months later! What a waste of taxpayer money to have a recall. The guy should be investing his efforts in defeating Arnold at the real election. I get that there are legitimate things to criticize the guy for, but this is just ridiculous and wasteful.

Posted by: The Law Fairy at November 02, 2005 09:55 AM (XUsiG)

8 Annika, I know it has been unsuccessful re: taxes. I was just wondering what the argument would be in the case of the union dues. And how it would work-apportion contributions by stated party affiliation of members? And we all know that this measure is a Republican move to counter Union support for Dem's. This is hardly a fight about rights and free speech. Just a partisan crow masquerading as a constitutional peacock.

Posted by: strawman at November 02, 2005 09:57 AM (0ZdtC)

9 {Straw the taxpayer's argument you allude to has been tried before, unsuccessfully.} Yes it was Phoney Joni Baez, another useless, stupid, left wing asshat.

Posted by: Kyle N at November 02, 2005 10:13 AM (k6tMv)

10 Hey Kyle, Only her friends called her Joni. Are you hiding a secret passion?

Posted by: strawman at November 02, 2005 12:50 PM (0ZdtC)

11 Annika, Don't you feel (your personal political judgement here) as though the governor may have bitten off a little too much? His polling wasn't fantastic before calling the special election and its since fallen through the floor. What's he at now, 36%? Christ, even President Bush can't help but look at a number like that and giggle. And, as you may have read, President Bush in a desperately bad place right now. Let's for a second assume that the polling is correct and all four measures go down. That gets spun as a "referendum on Arnold", and all of a sudden, his re-election becomes a different prospect entirely. In my judgement, he might be able to survive losing two, maybe. He loses all four and I guarantee he faces a primary challenge from some Orange County lunatic, or better still, a retard like Bill Simon. And he could very well lose a contested Republican primary. Stranger things have happened than someone who is essentially a RINO getting primaried out existence. Any political pro will tell you that you need, at minimum, a 40% approval rating 12 months before election day if you have any chance of surviving. Can you see the governor's approval going up if he loses even one initiative? While I admire the governor's almost galactic ballsiness, I can't help but question whether this is a smart political move. There's one very real danger in all of this; Governor Fienstein. If the Senator sees Arnold get beaten by a moron, or even sufficently softened up by one in a primary, who can say that she wouldn't jump into the race and beat everyone in sight like an inbred whore? Politics is chock full of unintended consequences. Just sayin'.

Posted by: skippystalin at November 02, 2005 02:09 PM (ohSFF)

12 It must be a living hell to be a liberal... all this imagination wrapped around hypotheticals. Life is so much easier when one simply deals with reality. Bill Simon a retard? A onetime neophyte perhaps, but his cherry was popped long ago. No matter what, there will be no credible primary for the Governator, and all of the big time D's will cower in the general, so as not to get it Bustamanted off in their ass. No popularity poll is worth a fuck unless there are horserace questions.

Posted by: Casca at November 02, 2005 03:27 PM (qBTBH)

13 i honestly believe that Schwarzenegger called the special election when he did because he truly believed it couldn't wait. Unfortunately, i think the scenario you paint is realistic. i would not be surprised at all if all four props went down. Arnold's people have made mis-step after mis-step in running these props out there, and i heard they've not been advertising as much as they needed because they haven't raised enough money. By contrast, the Unions have been plastering the airwaves with vague ad hominem attacks for about a year now. It will be seen as a referendum on Arnold's job performance, and that's too bad, because it shouldn't be. If all four props lose, the media will say it was because people didn't like Arnold. Yet if you ask the average Californian what Arnold has done wrong, you always get a nonsensical response, like i mentioned in the post. People don't like him because they've been told not to like him by an unprecedented smear campaign by the Unions, Like lemmings, these voters will follow the Unions over the cliff, and they'll take this great state with them, but they will never even stop to ask why. Look at Prop 76, the only one that's directly aimed at controlling spending. Ask anyone why we threw Davis out, and theyll say it's because California was going bankrupt under him. Okay, so why is prop 76 polling the worst of all of them? It should be doing the best, because we NEED to control spending. Obviously the status quo is not working. But nobody thinks. Nobody questions. Its amazing to me. The public employee Unions who are paying for all these ads have a vested interest in preventing any kind of limits on state spending. But nobody thinks about that. Bottom line, yeah, i agree with you. Arnold's probably toast no matter what. And the lesson we can all learn from this is that if you cross the Unions, you can't sit back and let them hammer you for months without fighting back. If they tell the big lie often enough, people will believe it.

Posted by: annika at November 02, 2005 04:01 PM (zAOEU)

14 Arnold is the perfect example of the american dream. Arnold for the rest of the world is a person that hardly can add up 1 plus 1 and is the David hasselhof of politics..

Posted by: Hemaworstje at November 02, 2005 05:16 PM (QlLyk)

15 Hmm, looks like we're voting the same way. I knew there was a reason I like coming here. To those who question Prop 75 and its attempt to allow union members to have some control over union spending: If it appears to be Republicans acting pissed off at union support of Democrats, well, yes. I don't think you quite comprehend the mutual ass suck that goes on between state unions and the Democrat party. I cannot think of any single instance in which a state employee union has backed a Republican or a Republican effort. Maybe it's happened, but in 32 years of voting in California, I can't recall a single time. Am I really to believe that 100% of the union membership is 100% Democrat? I think not. Example: The state employee unions screamed bloody murder when Pete Wilson illegally raided the PERS state retirement fund. Yet those same unions aided and abetted Gray Davis when he renamed the tactic, used a different approach, and raided the fund at will. I've been working for the state for 5+ years now. I am not a member of any state employee union. Yet the Democrat controlled legislature implemented "fair share" so that I still must pay union dues. My dues are approximately 1% less than those of an actual union member. According to the union, that's the percentage of dues that go toward political causes. Ha! Last month my "fair share" deduction almost doubled. Why? Because the union needed more money to fight the governor's ballot propositions. Thus, by the union's own admission, the entire increase in my "fair share" is going toward political causes. (You can find all the details at the SEIU Local 1000 website, the "fight back fund.") Prop 75 may not allow ME any say (as I said, I'm not a union member; I'd rather join a satanic cult or, worse, register Democrat), but it definitely will allow some say from actual union members who are sick and tired of seeing the aforementioned mutual suck fest.

Posted by: bob at November 02, 2005 06:45 PM (N/RuW)

16 "My first thought was, You couldn't get some offa me even if you won the lottery. Then it occurred to me that he was talking about the winnings" I guess D.H. isn't the only person with sex on the brain...

Posted by: Mark at November 02, 2005 07:47 PM (Vg0tt)

17 Annika we are voting exactly the same!

Posted by: Chuck at November 02, 2005 09:28 PM (R/J3m)

18 Casca, Firstly, I'm no liberal. If anything, I hold liberals in even greater contempt than I do modern "conservatives." Actually, that's probably not true, I remember a time when conservatives weren't supposed to believe in fairy tales, but that time seems to have ended. If it were up to me, the Republican Party would nominate the ghost of my great hero, Barry Goldwater. Then they might actually be what they claim to be, a conservative party. Sure, they might get crushed all over again, but at least they'd lose with some honor, knowing that they at least lost while believing in something. Secondly, polling is an important tool to anyone who has even the slightest interest in what's happening in politics. While they're often flawed to varying degrees, they're certainly more reliable than the RNC talking points you seem to live your life by. If life is uncomfortable for me being a "liberal", I can't imagine what it's like for you, having to be Ken Mehlman's Charlie McCarthy and all. Various scenarios are important to explore, because politics s far more about perception and spin than it is about facts and reasoned argument. This has always been true and always will be. You ignore that fact at your own peril. Things change rapidly in politics and if you cling to a rigid ideology, those changes will leave you in the dirt. If you don't believe me, just ask Newt Gingrich. In five short years, he went from being the King of America to a twice divorced guy in his fifties, looking to start a new career. And he was shanked by his own party because he refused to change with changing circumstances. Both you and the Governor can learn much from Newt's experience. God knows that the national party will in the next three years.

Posted by: skippystalin at November 03, 2005 01:53 AM (ohSFF)

19 Skippy, one clearly sees the similarities between you and ole AU-H2O. He too was a politically self-destructive inflexible ass, until the end when he just became a kook. I have to thank you for kindly straightening me out on the efficacy of polling. Do you even KNOW what a "horserace" poll is? If not, take a seat at my knee, remain silent, and merely be thought a fool. A horserace poll asks the question: "If the election were held today and you had the choice of voting for candidate A or B, whom would you vote for, A, B, or neither?" Then of course B changes to C, D, E, F, and the generic, "Any candidate of the other party". This is the only measure of political popularity. All others are simply priming the MSM newscycle. All polling is methodology dependent. Most issue polls are absolute drek, and the bane of modern politics is bad polling surfacing election cycle after election cycle. After a cursory look over at RCP, and at Ahnuld's internals, I'm heartened that his issues will go at least 3 of 4 with 76 being the weak sister. In any case, my previous comments remain unassailed.

Posted by: Casca at November 03, 2005 05:03 AM (qBTBH)

20 Skippy, isn't pre-election polling outlawed in Canada? except for the 1st amendment problem, i always thought that would be a good idea here.

Posted by: annika at November 03, 2005 07:08 AM (shSd9)

21 Annika, Pre-election polling is on illegal for the 5 days before election day. And actually, I disagree with that law. Generally speaking, I think voters deserve more information rather than less, regardless if they do something monumentally stupid - like vote for the winner because he's elected to win - with that information. The government curbing the flow of ANY information during a campaign is generally regarded to be a bad idea. The slippery slope argument comes to mind, but I prefer to think things like, "Who the fuck is the government (who always runs for re-election under the Parliamentary system) to decide what I should or shouldn't know?" I guess I'm just funny that way. On to Casca, Yes, Casca, I'm fully aware of what a "horserace poll" is, you fucking dolt. However, I will admit that you do have one talent I envy. You can manage to spew insults, yet still manage to ignore the basic point of every commenter who challenges your party line diatribes. Christ, how I with you had a blog with neat little archives so one can chart how your positions on virtually everything "evolve" with the White House's. For example, 1. Did you oppose the creation of the Department of Homeland Security before you agreed that it was a damn fine idea? 2. Did you oppose the creation of the 9/11 Commission before you supported it's appointment and then cite its findings in public every chance you got? 3. Did you oppose the creation of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence before you agreed that it was a damn fine idea? 4. Did you agree that "Brownie" was doing a "great job" during Katrina before supporting his firing as Director of FEMA? 5. Back in the Ninties, did you support abolishing the Department of Education before deciding in 2002 the No Child Left Behind was imperative to our children's future? I'm willing to bet that you did, because there's a certain president of the United States who did all of the above... and I've never once heard of Charlie McCarthy telling Edgar Bergen that he's a monsterous asshole. In that spirit, I'll let the concept of a Bush "Republican" calling someone "inflexible" slide for the time being. Look, being an incredibly obnoixious partisan is a lot of fun. I devoted almost all of my Twenties to doing it myself. But then I learned that you can learn a lot of neat stuff and, consequently live a fuller life, through independent thinking. Maybe you'll grow into someday. Maybe not. Maybe I'm obsolete because I remember a day without the echo-chamber of political blogs. But there is one thing that I have noticed about you. That would be that not once in our little love-ins have you pointed out where I'm factually inaccurate or even how my intrepretation might be off. Not once. In fact, you haven't even tried. Perhaps I do come off as pompous and long winded, but that's because I actually like to think and argue from time to time. That can take a a few words to do. As much as I've been trained to write pithy litle sound bites, I prefer not to do so here. I happen to like the exchange of fully formed ideas. So please lecture me some more about how I'm in danger of becoming a kook. It amuses me. Christ, I actually have more respect for Strawman than I do for you, if only because he at least tries to explain why he thinks like he does. By the way, I love you too.

Posted by: skippystalin at November 03, 2005 02:30 PM (ohSFF)

22 Is this guy who spoke with representative of all Californians? What a jackass.

Posted by: Mark at November 03, 2005 02:39 PM (Vg0tt)

23 Ugh, Canadians, lmao, like wild pigs you shit everywhere, and I feel no compulsion to restore order. I'm sure that your kinship with the other gibbering twit who frequents this site is quite close. You share that most offensive of all pseudo-intellectual traits, the love of one's own voice.

Posted by: Casca at November 03, 2005 04:35 PM (qBTBH)

24 Casca, Perhaps, but I have a gorgeous voice. But I think my narcissim has a lot more to do with actually having something to say. You should look into it someday. I could also point out that your nativist outlook is a perfect expression of why Americans have been so good at making friends around the world lately, but I'm feeling generous so I won't.

Posted by: skippystalin at November 03, 2005 04:44 PM (ohSFF)

25 Nations have interests, not friends. - Otto von Bismarck May you live long enough to gain wisdom.

Posted by: Casca at November 03, 2005 08:09 PM (qBTBH)

26 HAHAHAHAHA! sorry

Posted by: annika at November 04, 2005 07:27 AM (Dztge)

27 Casca, You Ignorant Slut, Wasn't it a recent president who suggested that the United States might need just a little bit of help in, I dunno, Iraq from its friends? And aren't a lot of American "conservatives" all pissy because said friends didn't come rushing in to something that they almost universally thought was a bad idea at the time and said so in the loudest possible voice? The fact that those friends also picked up the slack in Afghanistan when the US virtually abandoned it to go Saddam hunting seems to have escaped those "conservatives." In fact, I agree with you. A nation's first and foremost responsibility is to act in its own national interest and not because President Bush asks them ever so nicely to do the opposite. Of course, the President would have to ask nicely after the Secretary of Defense went out of his way to insult them in public. You might be surprised to know that I was an original supporter of the war, although for reasons different from the Adinistration's. Further, I thought it was far more in the interest of both Europe, Japan and Saudi Arabia to remove Saddam than it was in the United States'. After Canadian forces were greeted with a "Welcome to Afghanistan" bombing raid by a speed-addled American pilot, you might excuse us from wanting to stay away from your planes for awhile. Besides, Canada is run by Commie, peacenik shitheads and has been for generations. On the other hand, you seem to want to have it both ways. On one hand, "conservatives" say that "nations have interests, not friends", yet on the other you want to chastise countries that didn't see the President's dopey democracy crusade in the Middle East as being in their national interest. Let me give you some silly ststistics that might paint my picture in slightly brighter hues. America has an Arab population of about 2%. Within the next 30 years, based on population projections, both Germany and France will be MAJORITY Muslim countries. Germany and France also happen to treat their Muslim populations like shit. Notice how Muslim rioters have been burning Paris to the fucking ground this week? Well, that's in SPITE of the fact the fact that France wasn't bombing the shit out of the aunts and uncles back home. Imagine the reaction if France was. See? National interest is a double-edged sword. Generally speaking, sitting on either edge tends to cut you up pretty badly in ways that might embarass you in the Emergency Room. And to think that all started out as discussion on a few politically damaging ballot initiatives in California. We should really take the show on the road, Casca.

Posted by: skippystalin at November 04, 2005 02:38 PM (ohSFF)

28 And since you started this business of quoting people with amusing accents, I have one of my own. "I shall destroy you all." - Stewie Griffin

Posted by: skippystalin at November 04, 2005 03:00 PM (ohSFF)

29 "You Ignorant Slut," I respectfully object to the misuse of such a phrase. This is proper usage: http://hanoijane.ytmnd.com/ If you don't like that one, this one has better audio/visual qualities: http://animeslut.ytmnd.com BTW, can't we all just get along? *runs out of room* *hides*

Posted by: reagan80 at November 04, 2005 04:12 PM (K9tdw)

30 Canadians should be neither seen or heard, and in this case, since I don't read their blather, they shouldn't write.

Posted by: Casca at November 04, 2005 04:20 PM (qBTBH)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Cotillion Ball

i've neglected to link the Cotillion Ball in a few weeks, so let me remedy that right now. This week's ball is over at Portia Rediscovered, a fellow Munuvian. i like all the pictures, way cool.

Posted by: annika at 06:24 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 40 words, total size 1 kb.

Hollywood Hypocrisy

i bet i could totally outshoot Ben Afflack, that pansy.

Posted by: annika at 09:22 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 14 words, total size 1 kb.

October 31, 2005

Take The Hewitt Poll

Take the Hugh Hewitt poll on Judge Alito.

Posted by: annika at 03:51 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 16 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Heh, the ponk doesn't have AJ listed under blogs! I voted too.

Posted by: Casca at October 31, 2005 04:07 PM (qBTBH)

2 I'm calling hugh tomorrow; that sucks. Annie gies him props all day long and he4 IGNORES the girl. We'll fix that.

Posted by: shelly at October 31, 2005 06:12 PM (6mUkl)

3 Another neo-con Nazi!

Posted by: Robert McClelland at October 31, 2005 06:52 PM (V2eAR)

4 WISHES DO COME TRUE! ROBERT McCLELLAND: As far as who Bush puts on the SC, my hope is that itÂ’s the craziest fucker American conservatism has to offer. And I hope that this wacko sets about destroying America. That would give Canadians one more reason to never vote Conservative in this country ever again. Then the Chimperor nominates craziest fucker American conservatism has to offer. ScalitoÂ’s extreme right wing record Â…ALITO WOULD OVERTURN ROE V. WADEÂ…ALITO WOULD ALLOW RACE-BASED DISCRIMINATIONÂ…ALITO WOULD ALLOW DISABILITY-BASED DISCRIMINATION Lets hope the Reich Whingers can ram this nomination through the system so that the new Supreme Court of Bush can get to work destroying America before our election next spring. History will view this as both a failed attempt to control governments and legislation, and a significant step in the downfall of the once powerful Catholic church.-- From the great Stageleft

Posted by: Robert McClelland at October 31, 2005 06:59 PM (V2eAR)

5 Mr. McClelland, After deliberating the merits of your post, I have soberly concluded that...... http://gogglesdonothing.ytmnd.com/

Posted by: reagan80 at October 31, 2005 07:19 PM (K9tdw)

6 Annie: Where have these lefty crazies come from? Are you associating with an unsavory element in law school? You are losing control here. Back to censorship. Nah, better yet, let's just ignore them, maybe they'll go away. S.

Posted by: shelly at October 31, 2005 07:37 PM (6mUkl)

7 Hehehehehe, this is fucking fantastic. I love that answer, "Yes, the longer a law has been around the more powerful it should be viewed as a precedent." Sounds about right to me! All that new shit put on the books over the past fifty years can be wiped the fuck off now, mwahahahaha!!!

Posted by: Casca at October 31, 2005 07:48 PM (qBTBH)

8 Where's the pussy laugh?

Posted by: shelly at November 01, 2005 05:19 AM (6mUkl)

9 Didn't scare enough small children last night, so you've got to come back and haunt me?

Posted by: Casca at November 01, 2005 06:45 AM (qBTBH)

10 Hewitt's writing polls? I thought he was supposed to be protesting the White House over Miers until he was arrested.

Posted by: dawn summers at November 01, 2005 03:52 PM (SOf9N)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

MNF Pick, Week 8

Tonight, Pittsburgh hosts Baltimore. The line started out at 7½ points and is now inflated to 11½ points.

i always have trouble with big spreads on Monday night. Even with a sucky team like Baltimore, you know they don't want to embarrass themselves in front of half the country. But they're missing two key defensive starters, and Roethlisberger is back for Pittsburgh. i expect him to regain his pre-week 6 form tonight.

But will the Steelers cover the big spread? Looking at Baltimore's previous losses, you'll find: a 14 point loss to Indy, a 15 point loss to sucky Tennessee, an 18 point loss to suckier Detroit, and Chicago held them to two field goals last week.

So with the overconfident air that i've adopted this season, i'm absolutely reasonably certain that Pittsburgh will probably cover the spread. Take the Steelers and laugh at the suckers later.

Update: Nobody likes to get embarrassed on MNF. i should always go with my first impulse.

Posted by: annika at 03:06 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 171 words, total size 1 kb.

October 30, 2005

Talking About Scooter

i apologize for not blogging much lately. i have been very busy, spending almost all of my waking time trying to care about the whole Scooter indictment. So far i have been unsuccessful.

Yesterday, in a desperate effort to make myself care, i attached this picture to a device i invented, so that i could look at it all day long. That didn't work, and in fact was more of a distraction than i intended.

Later on, i picked up the New York Times and scanned the three stories above the fold. i looked at the first story, which began with something like: Lewis Libby was indicted. Then i went to the second story which said Lewis Libby was indicted. Then i tried the third story, which talked about Lewis Libby being indicted. Then i looked at the... well, you get the picture. i thought, "what the hell?" There was nothing on there about any Scooter! If the New York Times doesn't care enough about the story to put it on their front page, why should i care?

Posted by: annika at 08:43 AM | Comments (35) | Add Comment
Post contains 184 words, total size 1 kb.

1 In keeping with the spirit of this post, I couldn't muster enough interest to read to the end of it. I will be interested should any of the intel oversight committees decide that they care how the fuck ole joe ended up in Niger.

Posted by: Casca at October 30, 2005 09:54 AM (qBTBH)

2 Oh no!! The MSM doesn't care about THAT lie. To expose it, they'd have to tell us about Valerie's role. Hell, that could be a crime. What ever happened to press ethics? The wrong person went to jail. Meanwhile, doesn't seen to me that "Scooter" is a great name with which to to enter a prison. He better beat the rap. Which, by the way, is definitely my prediction. National Security will prevent alot of folks from tesilying, and he will be dismissed and back in the White House before the term ends. How do we contribute to his defense fund?

Posted by: shelly at October 30, 2005 02:12 PM (6mUkl)

3 WHat am I missing here? Casca, Shelly, Let me get this straight, you think that Plame did something wrong and that she deserved to have her identity blown? That Wilson also did something wrong? That Libby, Chaney, Rove et al were disclosing her cover as a public service? That the Niger yellow cake story was in fact true? That the forged Italian documents were real? (In spite of the fact that there was a supply of yellow cake already in Iraq, and that there was absolutely no capacity to concentrate it despite CondiÂ’s lies about the aluminum tubes?) And I guess, most importantly, if by extension I should infer that you also believe the entire run up to the invasion was based on real, supported and verified intelligence? That we were facing an atomic scenario, stocks of germs and gas? And that the boys from Brazil are a nice friendly bunch without a vindictive bone amongst them. Please tell me whatÂ’s up, I guess I got this whole thing wrong. Let me get my check book out and help this poor guy.

Posted by: Strawman at October 30, 2005 03:21 PM (0ZdtC)

4 On the off chance that you're really as ignorant as you may be pretending to be... What is really going on here is a rogue element inside the CIA represented by Plame et.al. was working to undermine a sitting President through the non-office of Wilson. These people deserve a lot more than unmasking and being publicly pissed on. They're traitors, thus no doubt welcome at your table. The left when they reach power always does what it accuses the right of doing. It uses the National Security Institutions of our country for political ends. Although there was plenty of room for it, the CIA NEVER tried to tie together the Clintons and all of their nefarious actions. When did they send a referral to the DOJ on Mark Rich and the bribes he paid for pardon? Clinton definitely used our military power to get his fat ass off the frontpages, and influence the newscycle, but never to protect this nation by going after her enemies. That's why we're in a religious war with Islam today, and considering YOUR heritage, you're pretty fucking stupid if you can't see that.

Posted by: Casca at October 30, 2005 04:21 PM (qBTBH)

5 Kids, kids, kids, As much as I don't want to add any credence to Strawman and his silly points, I do need to acknowlege that he has one. I supported the war and I continue to, despite the incompetence of the occupation. I supported the war for very different reasons than the Adminstration supported it. I supported it because as long as Saddam was in power, he was a threat to the region and therefore to all of the oil that doesn't come from Alberta. Western democracies happen to like cheap oil, althouh you wouldn't know it by the prices we pay at the pump these days. It was only a matter of time before the French and the Russians succeeded in lifting the sanctions against the fascist Ba'athist regime. Once that happened, one could reasonably surmise that saddam would go on a shopping spree of weapons of mass destruction. One can surmise this because he's done it before. That would be inconsequential but or Saddam's history of strategic miscalculation. In 1980, he figured "I'll invade Iran. What can happen?" A milion dead later, he didn't learn anything. In 1990, he figured "I'll invade Kuwait. What could happen?" The spectacular ass-kicking he suffered in 1991 seemingly taught him nothing at all. In my opinion, the White House was stupid by hanging the case for taking Saddam out on WMD and I said so at the time. Even with a convential military, Saddam was a threat and needed to be taken out. Anyone who suggests otherwise is an idiot. But for the White House to hang their entire case on WMD was equally idiotic. It really didn't matter, from a national security perspectiive, if Saddam had WMD or not. He was a threat and needed taking out. But marrying Saddam to WMD put the Administration on the path that logically lead to Plame-gate. WMD was the poison apple that spawned te fruit of Joe Wilson and Valarie Plame in the first place. As much as Joey is a lying monster and all around motherfucker, he is a creation of Administration policy as it relates to WMD. If the Administration didn't predicate their entire case for war on WMD, Joe Wilson would be unknown today. But you can't get around the fact that Wilson was virtually created by a flawed policy. I've tried, and it just can't be done. The Administration then tried to hammer the monster they created by outing his wife. Then they lied under oath about it, That much is indisputable. I think Annie makes a horrible political mistake by minimizing the importance of this indictment. One could easily say that this is a knock-off Watergate. That misunderstands what Watergate was all about. Watergate grew out of the leak of the Pentagon Papers by Daniel Ellsberg. Given the China negotiations and the general paranoia of Richard Nixon, the resulting scandal was predictable. But one should always remember that only five people were convicted in the break-in, but eighteen Nixon people ended up going to jail over it. The point is that stupid things tend to get away from you sometimes and often times come back to bite you on the ass. Hard. Asking Gerald Ford how this works might be helpful.

Posted by: skippystalin at October 30, 2005 04:56 PM (ohSFF)

6 Casca, you're an idiot. Seriuosly, how you manage to get through a day without eletrocuting yourself by blow-drying your hair in the shower as means of saving time, I'll never know. Blaming the CIA is easy. So easy, in fact, that every president does it. Read enough memoirs and you'll find that everyone in the history of White House has a hate fuck for Langely. The only recent president how doesn't hate them is this president's father.And that's only because he ran the CIA and their headquarters happens to named after him. Furthermore, if the CIA had an agenda against this president, why would he give them such a wide opening to make him look stupid? As i pointed out earlier, WMD was the weakest case to base invading Iraq on, but it was the preferred option for the Administration to argue. It also ignores the point that CIA was the central clearing house for the "Saddam has WMD" theory in the first place. Do you really believe that they would set up a policy position just so they could knock it down at the expense of their own prestige? You're argument seems to be that the Agencey killed Kennedy, but couldn't shoot straight. As you can imagine, you can't have it both ways.

Posted by: skippystalin at October 30, 2005 05:42 PM (ohSFF)

7 Skippy Boy, You sure have a lot of words to describe and to circumvent the realtity of what is essentially a bunch of thugs doing bad things to america and the iraqi people for reasons that you think make sense when viewed through the lens of things that had not happened. What would have occured in Saddam's Iraq once the sanctions were lifted is mere speculation. Any number of things may have occured. To justify a current policy which began by lying to congress and the American peole and further has included invading a soverign nation and the death of 2000 GI's and as of today 26,000 civilians is a pretty fucking big leap into the abyss of "hey, it needed to be done. Doesn't matter what they said by way of a justification." I would like to see your face after your son or daughter comes home in a box and you tell their mother or grandparents about how this conflict was inevitable and that NO other way was possible to stop the threats, stick waving and to perserve a flow of oil. And, sad as you are about the loss, you are confident that all avenues had been explored leaving invasion and occupation the only viable options. My guess is you would demure from that position once you had been presented with the folded flag. Casca, you are an ass. Our war with radical Islam is not a result of Bill CLinton's inefectual foreigh policy. To think that is really pretty empty headed. To empty headed to even begin a discussion. I'm sure Annika or possibly RayGun will administer some insight in this matter in your direction. I am no fan of Clinton's but I cannot excuse the far more malevelant foreign policy of the Bushies just because Bill was not too swift either and put his tail between his legs in Somalia. This is classic RW bullshit. "we are stupid bungling lying shits but not as stupid and bungling as the last guy" My heritage gives me a perspective on these affairs that you cannot fathom: christian newcomer that you are.

Posted by: strawman at October 30, 2005 05:58 PM (0ZdtC)

8 I stand with Casca on this one. Joe Wilson is a scumbag and Libby was taking him down for trying to pin the trip in Chaney. Libby just forgot to read his notes before he testified. Rove forgot, too, but he read them after and came back and fixed his testimony. There is no basic crime here, because Wilson was all around the District introducing Plame as his "CIA wife". Everyone in offical Washington that would talk to Wilson knew it. And, she was not "covert". Perjury is damn near impossible to prove; as a former trial lawyer and judge, I have seen lots worse that was not provable in a court, and I'm betting Scooter scoots on this one. There's a war here, a real, honest to goodness shooting, bombing, to the death fucking war, and these idiots are taking down our Generals with process. There is no going back here; do you get it? We did not invade anywhere to cause 9/11 or the Cole, or the various embassy bombings. They hate our way of life and will fight to the death. We need to get them there faster, and, over there, not here. History will show that George W. Bush is a hero for the ages. You idiots should thank God, if you know how, every day that you are safe at your computers planning to tear him and his administration down, that George W. Bush has the guts to do what he is doing. Casca, you don't know football, but you know what is what in this world. Thank the Lord there are more of us than them.

Posted by: shelly at October 30, 2005 06:04 PM (6mUkl)

9 Love it. Strawman fell for the strawman. Way to go, Rove!

Posted by: Victor at October 30, 2005 07:11 PM (l+W8Z)

10 I'm sorry, but I have a two paragraph limit. I don't care how great your argument is. If you can't say what you mean in that much terrain, go back and edit. I'm not curious enough to read that much bile. Not even when it begins, "Casca is..." I just keep scrollin' alooooooooong!

Posted by: Casca at October 30, 2005 07:19 PM (qBTBH)

11 BTW, if http://rschultz.blogspot.com/ isn't a daily stop, if should be. Today he recapped last nights, The True Story of Hannibal, which is relevant and instructive; http://rschultz.blogspot.com/2005/10/difficile-est-saturam-non-scribere.html And yes, the one bet I truly regret yesterday was WaZoo. What a buncha fucking marshmellows, and if those fucks at Stanford had any stones, they'd hang their coaching staff on the quad.

Posted by: Casca at October 30, 2005 07:32 PM (qBTBH)

12 Hey Ray, Thanks for the memories. In my mind Cindy Sheehan's failure was to raise a son who wasn't sophisticated enough to understand the nature of American militarism since WW II so that he could stay out of the army where he was destined to become cannnon fodder and/or the murderer of civilians. Her strength has been to stand up and demand an accounting from the bunch of thugs that shot him into harms way. Hey, Ray, I don't remember if you ever told me why you are not in fatigues? Better things to do?

Posted by: strawman at October 31, 2005 11:06 AM (0ZdtC)

13 "Aaaaaaaaaaaah, now I see", said the blind man. I thought you were a child, straw, a natural enough mistake considering the jejeune skreeds you emit. Now that you're unmasked as the dregs of your generation, a self-loathing baby-boom dirt-bag, I can understand how lying raises your ire. We always hate most in others, that which we hate most in ourselves. A lifetime of lying to oneself MUST be exhausting. Muster a bit of honest shame in the company of better men, and just go away. Reagan, please don't waste time on this fool. He has wasted his life. Don't let him do the same with yours.

Posted by: Casca at October 31, 2005 11:41 AM (qBTBH)

14 Don't you just love those who enjoy the boundless freedoms and economic juggernaut in this nation, and yet baad mouth the military, and "American Imperialism". The same imperialism which defeated the Nazis, outlasted the commies, and is now fighting Islamo-fascist child murderers. Yeah, I know not everything we have done was good, neccesary, or done well, but hell, which nation can claim that? People like strawman really are the scum of the earth. I am reminded of the Gilbert and Sullivan song in "The Mikado" "The idiot who praises with enthusiactic tone every century but this and every country but his own"

Posted by: Kyle N at October 31, 2005 02:07 PM (mmKfW)

15 Y Kyle, you nugget. You have unplumbed literary depths. I was thinking the very same thing... "I have a little list, and none of them'd be missed."

Posted by: Casca at October 31, 2005 02:22 PM (qBTBH)

16 You mean, Lewis "Ham Sandwich" Libby don't you?

Posted by: TBinSTL at October 31, 2005 02:46 PM (Vq/8g)

17 I generally superspeedskim strawman's comments, noticing only about every 20th word. But I notice he has insulted Casey Sheehan, a true American hero. By extension, strawman has insulted all American's who have given their lives for this nation. I don't have words to express the depth of my disgust. Sometimes I reflect that I shall never be in another fight as long as I live. This would not be the case if I were to meet strawman in person. His nose and his teeth would be in peril. If there is a way to rid him from this comment section, I am for it.

Posted by: gcotharn at October 31, 2005 02:57 PM (zILLH)

18 Casca, "Jejune skreeds" I like that and you almost spelled jejune correctly! Although I spell for shit I couldn't resist since you took the trouble of going to the dictionary and all.

Posted by: strawman at October 31, 2005 03:04 PM (0ZdtC)

19 I'm calling you out, you piece of shit. Its time for you to abandon the keyboard, put on a hairnet, and enter the workforce.

Posted by: gcotharn at October 31, 2005 03:11 PM (zILLH)

20 Gcotharn, You got a problem mutherfucker? I'll take my fucking hair net and shove it so far up your cloacae a vole couldn't find it.

Posted by: strawman at October 31, 2005 03:32 PM (0ZdtC)

21 "I apologize for not blogging much lately." Really I had not noticed at all.

Posted by: Orion Testaclese at October 31, 2005 03:33 PM (Vg0tt)

22 There's a great scene in "In Harm's Way" where Kirk Douglas questions Rock Torrey's son's paternity, then tells him, "Guys like your old man come along only once in a while. Bums like your pal Owynn are with us always." Then Kirk beats the shit out of Owynn in the head.

Posted by: Casca at October 31, 2005 03:38 PM (qBTBH)

23 "Hey, Ray, I don't remember if you ever told me why you are not in fatigues? Better things to do?" Wow. The Chickenhawk Meme? Isn't this your M.O. anyway, Strawman? [The Chickenhawk argument modus operandi is alsways the same as you said B5, decsending: Did you serve or not? No? you're a ChickenHawk If you served, did you serve in Iraq? No? you're a ChickenHawk. Are you retired military or in CONUS? Yes? you're a ChickenHawk. Hmmnnn- you're an aviator, you're not in infantry? I see- you must be a ChickenHawk (C.H.). That was used on me..LOL.] I've seen you diss veterans here before. Unless if they are mutinous, I know that you loathe the troops that are currently serving in Iraq. I also know that you have no respect for the fallen. What would change if I enlisted myself? How about this: Since you are so opposed to our military achieving victory for our country, I'll respect your opinion when you volunteer as a suicide bomber for the Islamo-Fascists. kthxbye

Posted by: reagan80 at October 31, 2005 07:06 PM (K9tdw)

24 Dammit Reagan, that was pretty good.

Posted by: Casca at October 31, 2005 07:54 PM (qBTBH)

25 Thanks, Casca.

Posted by: reagan80 at October 31, 2005 08:05 PM (K9tdw)

26 It's really quite simple; - Bush was looking for an excuse to invade Iraq - A false document was created by (???) to enable an excuse - Cheney asked for an answer on the document (perhaps expecting a certain answer?) - Plame suggested her husband, a former ambassador to Iraq - Joe took the trip, plied the Niger leadership, and discovered the document was false - Joe made a number of statements, one where he speculated Cheney asked to send him. This seems to be the basis for all of the attacks against him. - Cheney told Libby about Joe's wife - Libby tells (directed to tell?) reporters about Joe's wife, in order to punish/harrass the Wilsons and make examples of them - Rove tells other reporters - Libby and Rove lie to a grand jury about telling reporters, and how they learned about Plame. - Massive propaganda campaigns attempt to focus on relatively insignificant points to steer the minds of the steerable - Politicians who were extremely upset about lying to the American public and grand juries 6 years ago about sex act as if it is nothing to worry about now about lying about matters of national security, even though they claim to be the stalwarts of national security. For example, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, in a pre-emptive strike against the perceived, imminent indictments for perjury and obstruction of justice, of Karl Rove and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, has come out and said such charges are not severe ones, just "technicalities" in her words, and the Senator implored the prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald not to indict them for anything frivolous like that. "I do think . . . that something needs to be said that is a clear message that our rule of law is intact and the standards for perjury and obstruction of justice are not gray. And I think it is most important that we make that statement and that it be on the record for history. "I very much worry that with the evidence that we have seen that grand juries across America are going to start asking questions about what is obstruction of justice, what is perjury. And I don't want there to be any lessening of the standard. Because our system of criminal justice depends on people telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." -- Hutchison discussing President Bill Clinton's impeachment at a news conference, Feb. 5, 1999. In fact, given the number of special prosecutors and partisan zealots like Ken Starr hounding the former President, it is guaranteed that if Clinton had actually perjured himself and / or obstructed justice he would have at least been charged with something, somewhere, in a real court of law. Hutchison should know about "technicalities" anyways. She once escaped criminal conviction in Texas on a "technicality", when a partisan Republican judge refused to rule in advance on whether the evidence showing her guilt could be admitted for the jury to see, thereby destroying the prosecutor's case.

Posted by: will at November 01, 2005 05:16 AM (GzvlQ)

27 [Joseph Wilson, a retired US diplomat the CIA sent to investigate the Niger story, also found evidence of Iraqi contacts with Nigerien officials, the report said. Wilson told the committee that Niger's former prime minister Ibrahim Mayaki reported meeting with Iraqi officials in 1999. Mayaki said a businessman helped set up the meeting, saying the Iraqis were interested in "expanding commercial relations" with Niger -- which Mayaki interpreted as an overture to buy uranium, Wilson said. All of that information came to Washington long before an Italian journalist gave US officials copies of documents purporting to show an agreement from Niger to sell uranium to Baghdad. Those documents have been determined to be forgeries.] http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2004/07/11/2003178550 "- Plame suggested her husband, a former ambassador to Iraq - Joe took the trip, plied the Niger leadership, and discovered the document was false - Joe made a number of statements, one where he speculated Cheney asked to send him. This seems to be the basis for all of the attacks against him." Wow. You are actually trying to spin one of Wilson's bald faced lies. Wilson said his wife had nothing to do with his appointment. Period. [Instead of assigning a trained intelligence officer to the Niger case, though, the C.I.A. sent a former American ambassador, Joseph Wilson, to talk to former Niger officials. His wife, Valerie Plame, was an officer in the counterproliferation division, and she had suggested that he be sent to Niger, according to the Senate report. That finding contradicts previous statements by Mr. Wilson, who publicly criticized the Bush administration last year for using the Niger evidence to help justify the war in Iraq. After his wife's identity as a C.I.A. officer was leaked to the news media, Mr. Wilson said she had not played a role in his assignment, and argued that her C.I.A. employment had been disclosed to punish him.] It is really quite simple; Wilson is indeed a lying prick.

Posted by: reagan80 at November 01, 2005 09:26 AM (K9tdw)

28 Hey Ray, Getting a bit testy arenÂ’t we? I have no real beef with soldiers as long as they shoot the real enemies of America and refrain from torturing and murdering those in their custody. In Iraq they are not. They are on a bogus mission destroying a country that was and is not our enemy. Niger, yellow cake, all bullshit. Iraq couldn't have made a bomb. Not possible, just another lie to whip up rubes like you, who never took a science class and nodded their collective empty heads as Condi told them (lies) about the centrifuge tubes, with Atomic bullshit. Did Saddam want to drop a big fucking H bomb on DC? Sure. So have a thousand others. Did he? Did a bunch of connected Saudi's attack America? Seems so, no? Did we do anything about it? I can't really tell unless killing Iraqi's and AfghanÂ’s is the measure. Iraq was always part of another plan: control oil. ThatÂ’s all. EVERYTHING has been used as an excuse to achieve this end. 911 made these creeps jump for joy. Now, they thought, all will be right with the world. This whole adventure is one big fucking lie. The Chaney-Wolfy-Libby-Rove crowd wanted to get Iraq for ten years ago. All documented. ALL that has happened is they got into power, hijacked the govt., usurped the power of congress by feeding them a bunch of hysterical lies, pretended there was no other way to save America and "free" the poor people of Iraq, and topple a dictator who owed his life and stature to our previous support. All false pretenses, all unlawful, treasonous, crimes against America. Now assholes like you call me names because I think it is a tragedy, accuse you of paying lip service to the cause you so dearly believe in and then you dimwits suggest that I wish our real enemy, sick fucking Islamo nuts that they are, to cause us harm and our troops harm? You are really fucking idiots. Ray, you and guys like Casca are so full of shit it runs out your nose when you get all weepy watching the e-ring or band of brothers. I love this country, I mourn our dead soldiers and I want to put a stop to their useless killing. Ray, I really don't want you fighting; your death would be as tragic as the next GI who will likely die in the next few hours. This adventure in regime change and nation building (all things Bush swore he would never do) is getting America NOWHERE and will not ever cure the rift with those who want to annihilate us. It is by most accounts making it worse. We have a problem with these people to be sure, donÂ’t for a minute think I don't know that, I am not brain dead; I just don't think Iraq is the place to fight or the place where a win will be a win. It is a lose, lose situation. 100,000 dead, a crap non secular government, and a lot of hatred burned into the sand. I want all Americans safe, I want innocent civilians in all countries free from our bombs, I want American bullets in the hearts of those who harmed us and I want an American government that has respect enough for it's constituents to tell them the truth, admit mistakes and follow the rule of law. And stop being vindictive bastards. The Bush Cabal is evil: dangerous men undermining the basic precepts of what make this country great. Secretive, paranoid little men infused with religious fervor and hatred for those who turn over the rotting wood to shine the light on them. They are on a mission from god and are expressing a blatant disregard for the rule of law each day they occupy the White House. And I do mean occupy in the most militaristic sense.

Posted by: strawman at November 01, 2005 01:01 PM (0ZdtC)

29 "This adventure in regime change and nation building (all things Bush swore he would never do) is getting America NOWHERE and will not ever cure the rift with those who want to annihilate us. It is by most accounts making it worse." Strawman, don't let anything like FACTS or TRUTH get in the way. I mean really! Iraqis have no benefitted at all from the toppling of a bloody monster who murdered his own family members, who raped, tortured and murdered men, women and children on a whim. No one has benefitted from free elections with little or no violence, and it's hardly noteworthy that a people with no experience in writing constitutions did so as quickly as they did. Nor are you impressed that millions of Iraqis braved death threats and the possibility of violence on their families and themselves just for standing in line to vote, sometimes for hours. Perhaps you don't care about those things in Iraq because you don't value them in AMERICA.

Posted by: Mark at November 01, 2005 05:48 PM (Vg0tt)

30 I don't know why you folks parlay with the miserable self-loathing shitstain. I'm in the process of rescreening "The Sorrow & The Pity", and the defeatist politics of the collaborators clearly got the Frenchies steamrolled. It's hard not to compare them with the collaborators in our midst. I should think that we'll find something more extreme than headshaving to reward them with.

Posted by: Casca at November 01, 2005 06:07 PM (qBTBH)

31 Mark, I value them far more than you obviously do. The Facts you state are subjective observations about a wrecked country that you CHOOSE to see in a lovely golden light and you have bought into the way overblown horror stories of Iraq under Saddam. Where was your outrage as Rummy strode across the tarmac and gave him a big hug? Was he so terrible then? Were you worried then that they could not vote or were being raped in some prison basement? How concerned were you when we toppled the elected president of Chile and allowed the death squads to "dissapear" thousands of dissenters? Or the same in Guatamala? Or in Honduras? Or in Timor? You are a typical american with a mobile conscience that gets driven to the sites your government wants you to see and chooses a response for you. Mindless sheep are harder to sway than people like you. We have tortured hundreds and killed 30 in our prison camps. We have cause the death of,30-50 thousand Iraqi's since our incursion. Far moren than Saddam would have killed in the next 20 years. There country is descimated, few schools, few hospitals, museums looted, and hundreds of other institutions destroyed, little electricity or drinking water and you, you silly ass, think they are thrilled to have traded it for a vote? Guess again. And BTW There is a fine bridge across the east river I can sell you cheap.

Posted by: strawman at November 01, 2005 06:09 PM (0ZdtC)

32 Casca, You dimwit, you clearly never read anything I write. You spew ignorant, nasty, ill conceived bile, spit (you sound like a man who chews), grab another brew, settle your lazy ass into the Barcko and wait for the test pattern so you can fall asleep just like your president who I might add is dumber than you. I doubt he can type.

Posted by: Strawman at November 01, 2005 06:20 PM (0ZdtC)

33 The headshaving is to get rid of the lice. It doesn't seem to be working. I think their still here. I tolja, Casca, fugggedaboudit. Back to Columbus.

Posted by: shelly at November 02, 2005 03:48 AM (M7kiy)

34 "Where was your outrage as Rummy strode across the tarmac and gave him a big hug? Was he so terrible then? Were you worried then that they could not vote or were being raped in some prison basement? How concerned were you when we toppled the elected president of Chile and allowed the death squads to "dissapear" thousands of dissenters? Or the same in Guatamala? Or in Honduras? Or in Timor?" Above, strawman engages in what liberals do best: Change the subject. "You are a typical american with a mobile conscience that gets driven to the sites your government wants you to see and chooses a response for you" = Insult plus big assumption. "We have tortured hundreds and killed 30 in our prison camps. We have cause the death of,30-50 thousand Iraqi's since our incursion." = Side issue to divert attention + blatant anti-Americanism "Far moren [sic] than Saddam would have killed in the next 20 years." = Total falsehood considering Saddam murdered over 2 million. You have lost all credibility once again. I note also the not so subtle support for a ruthless murderer who inserted innocent people into wood chippers alive. "There [sic] country is descimated, few schools, few hospitals, museums looted, and hundreds of other institutions destroyed, little electricity or drinking water and you, you silly ass, think they are thrilled to have traded it for a vote?" = More disinformation. Explain this to the millions who stood in line for hours risking their lives for their vote. Schools have been built and are running again. Hospitals are being rebuilt. Problems with electricity are partly due to horrible obsolete grids. Your post reflects the media's desire to shield you from any good info, and you assume good things are not happening simply because the media does not report them. Thanks for calling me an "ass." Another liberal tactic: Insult the person you're debating with if he dare disagree with u. Childish insults make me smile. "Guess again. And BTW There is a fine bridge across the east river I can sell you cheap." = Arrogance, infantile condescention, and tired cliche. Next...

Posted by: Mark at November 02, 2005 08:01 PM (Vg0tt)

35 There is so much damage control contortions by the GOP desperate to contain the hemorraging that they only have recourse to shoot the messenger.

Posted by: will at November 03, 2005 05:18 AM (h7Ciu)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

My Blog Is Worth...

Any takers?

My blog is worth $305,980.68.
How much is your blog worth?

It must be my Sacramento location.

Via Old Skool at Stop the Bleating.

Posted by: annika at 07:46 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 33 words, total size 1 kb.

October 27, 2005

Always Thinking Outside The Box

Everybody always talks about building a better mousetrap. Why don't we just build a worse mouse?

Posted by: annika at 08:24 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 26 words, total size 1 kb.

October 26, 2005

Invasion Blogging

Swamp fishing for a giant golden spermatozoon?

i gave this show its one chance, and it failed miserably.

Posted by: annika at 10:29 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 22 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Going OT here; please forgive me. Just saw a commercial for some shoe store, and it included the line, "You can't get arrested for getting high on heels." annika, my first thought was that you'd probably be relieved to hear that.

Posted by: Victor at October 27, 2005 02:45 AM (l+W8Z)

2 If you're referring to last nights show, tell me about it, apparently the spermatozoon can morph into a near catatonic, overhalls wearing, son of a shotgun pointing daddy. Real cool for alien life trying to fit in.

Posted by: Paul of York at October 27, 2005 06:18 AM (+iXGC)

3 I know what you mean Paul; I'm not certain how invading the Earth entails turning into an extra from Deliverance. I was halfway expecting the guy to whip out an old guitar and start playing "Dueling Banjos"...

Posted by: BobG at October 27, 2005 07:51 AM (SUzYC)

4 Ya know that new show E-Ring isn't that bad, its taken over the TV space that used to be occupied by NCIS

Posted by: Scof at October 27, 2005 10:19 AM (7z8ua)

5 Of course you'd think so scof. It's because you don't have a frame of reference in reality fow how the defense of this country really works. E-ring is holly-drivel, whereas NCIS was just fucking ridiculous. Anyone who has crossed paths with NCIS and their predecessor NIS, knows what a laughable pack of fucking idiots in search of a mission they truly are.

Posted by: Casca at October 27, 2005 10:34 AM (qBTBH)

6 Casca never misses a chance to remind us that he is after all USMC to the core.

Posted by: annika at October 27, 2005 11:19 AM (zAOEU)

7 Ha! That's pretty good writing for a jarhead. Reality hardly makes for good TV, even the reality shows need scripts. E-Ring has a hot marine chick and a hot lawyer chick, and NCIS had funny dialogue and a hot chick as well. At least we can agree November 10 is an important day, for it is the birthday of both myself and The Corps, Oorah!

Posted by: Scof at October 27, 2005 12:21 PM (7z8ua)

8 "E-Ring has a hot marine chick", that should tip you off to the disconnection from reality right there. I guess the romance novel "quality" of the modern tv drama is the reason behind the popularity of reality tv. Good fiction is believeable.

Posted by: Casca at October 27, 2005 01:38 PM (qBTBH)

9 Realistic or not. E-Ring entertains which is what it is supposed to do. I don't sit down to watch a show and spend my time thinking how disconnected from reality the show is. That's the purpose of entertainment, to disconnect you reality for a period of time and make life a little more enjoyable, which E-Ring does for me.

Posted by: Clyde at November 16, 2005 10:28 PM (oWwFj)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Miers: My End-Game Opinion

Earlier, i posted my preliminary opinion on the Miers nomination. At the time i fully expected the controversy to die down, although i was mildly disappointed with the choice. Or rather, i was more disappointed with the fact that Bush had chosen not to nominate one of my preferred candidates, instead opting for another apparent stealth nominee.

Over three weeks have passed, and i've watched and listened as the controversy refused to die. This story has had "legs," in the news parlance of the day. And the more i learned about Miers, the less willing i have been to close my eyes and hope for the best. Now, i am ready to commit to a side in this debate. It shouldn't be a surprise, given my background as a conservative with a history degree, that i have decided to oppose the confirmation of Harriet Miers as Supreme Court justice. My reasons have little to do with ideology.

Many reasons to oppose her confirmation have been proffered by conservative pundits much more knowledgeable than i am. These reasons seem to fall into a few broad categories. One group is mad because she isn't a big name judge. These folks are mad because they expected Luttig or Brown or Pryor. i can understand this criticism. i wanted McConnell or Brown. i still don't understand why Kozinski's name wasn't batted around more often. But i could have lived with my disappointment if Miers had been a good choice, and i think most conservatives feel the same way.

Another group is mad because Miers lacks a clear "judicial philosophy." The most articulate spokesman for this point of view is Mark R. Levin, who's turned the phrase " . . . but what's her judicial philosophy?" into a kind of mantra. This criticism has a lot of merit, in my view. i think it's fair to suspect that a person who has shown no evidence of having a coherent underlying approach to constitutional issues probably does not have such an underlying approach. At age 60, it's a little late to expect Ms. Miers to start developing a useful judicial philosophy if she hasn't given much thought to it before now.

Still, i'd be willing to give Ms. Miers the benefit of the doubt on the judicial philosophy question if that were my only objection. It's quite possible that despite the scant evidence of any coherent philosophy, she might actually have one. The trouble is, we don't know what it is. Larry Tribe and Erwin Chemerinsky have coherent judicial philosophies, but woe unto us if they were ever placed on the court. At least Tribe's and Chemerinsky's viewpoints are well known, as are their towering intellects. Which brings me to my next point, which is the clincher.

i'm not saying that Harriet Miers is not smart. Her background, education and experience proves to me that she is. But the position of associate justice on today's Supreme Court is not a job for just any smart person. It's a highly specialized occupation, and those who say it's not a place for "on-the-job training" have it absolutely right.

i am certainly no expert on constitutional law, although i have studied it in more detail than most people my age, both as a law student and in undergrad and graduate history courses. i know enough to know what i don't know. It is perhaps the most difficult area of law, not because it surpasses the intricate detail of a subject like tax or securities law, but because it is so malleable and its standards can be so hard to define. Con law is the "big leagues" of the legal profession. And doing con law as a Supreme Court justice is like being in the World Series. You have to be on your game at all times. You have to be the best of the best to do it right, and if you're not, it will become painfully obvious to knowledgeable observers very quickly.

i think that is the problem when non-lawyers like President Bush try to make decisions concerning the legal world. Most non-lawyers i've met seem to think that all lawyers know everything about all fields of law. No one would think to ask a dermatologist questions about spinal surgery. Yet Miers supporters are quick to assume that a corporate lawyer could easily slip into the role of constitutional scholar overnight.

i don't care that Miers has been at the White House for almost five years. That's not the same thing as spending a lifetime thinking about constitutional issues and the development of precedent from year to year and case to case. That's what con law is all about. It's analyzing precedent, history, argument and policy, then trying to extrapolate the potential reverberating effects of a ruling on future transactions, often for generations to come. Con law is to regular legal practice as Chess is to checkers.

Think about a guy like Mike McConnell, for instance. i've spent many hours this semester dissecting his various Establishment Clause articles, most notably his William and Mary Law Review piece (44 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 2105), which is heavily footnoted, dense and unquestionably essential reading no matter what side of the religious argument you are on. i'm nowhere close to getting a handle on the subject. Here's a guy who's thought about this shit for years. He likes thinking about this shit. You could say the same thing about Prof. Tribe, if you're a liberal. Is there any evidence that Ms. Miers is similarly up to speed on even one subject of constitutional law?

So what if she's not up to speed? Why does that matter? i'll tell you why. An effective Supreme Court justice must have the power of persuasion. If the other justices do not have confidence in her mastery of the subject matter, in her authority as an analyst of the case law in question, they will eat her alive. At this point, i see no evidence that Ms. Miers has the kind of background that will give her that kind of persuasive authority. In fact, i have seen discouraging murmurs that she lacks just that.

How many Supreme Court opinions has she read top to bottom, and understood? It's hard to believe, with her busy career, that she's had the time for that kind of recreational study. If she's confirmed, when is she going to find the time then? i remember my first month of law school. In my nightly reading, i came across so many unfamiliar words and concepts that i was constantly going into Black's Dictionary to look things up. It was a nightmare. i've since learned how to skim the cases just to get through the reading, but that's not something i want my Supreme Court justices doing.

Oh sure, she can have her clerks do the heavy lifting. But in this day and age, i don't want unaccountable idealistic twenty year olds who were basically the best ass-kissers in law school leading around the new justice by her nose. There are plenty of historical examples of Supreme Court justices who relied overly much on their law clerks, but that was never a good thing. And today, the scariest issues are much scarier than they ever were back in the day. Terrorists who can blow up entire cities, scientists who can condemn millions more unborn lives to death, those are just two examples. This is a game best left to the pros.

i'm planning to watch the confirmation hearings, assuming she doesn't withdraw before then. i'm willing to keep an open mind, but unfortunately Ms. Miers has an even tougher job than Justice Roberts had. She must be absolutely stellar at the hearings, because she has to change minds. i know the White House has been working hard to prepare her, but i'd be very surprised if she can pull it off. Very surprised.

Update: You're freakin kidding me?! i told you the president reads my blog.

Update 2: i heard Dick Durbin this morning say, "this was not about documents, it was about Dobson." What an ignoramus. Dobson was one of Miers's earliest supporters, you moron.

And Hewitt's afraid we might lose to these guys?!

Update 3: The Anchoress, who correctly predicted the Miers nomination ahead of time, now turns her clairvoyant powers toward Ted Olsen. i see one problem that should prevent an Olsen nomination: a little case for which he represented the president once upon a time. Bush v. Gore. An Olsen nomination would be spun as a belated quid pro quo, fairly or not. Who needs that aggravation on top of everything else?

Let me go on record now and reiterate that McConnell is my first choice, J.R. Brown my second.

[cross-posted at A Western Heart]

Posted by: annika at 06:50 PM | Comments (43) | Add Comment
Post contains 1470 words, total size 9 kb.

1 My dear, I must lead you by the hand back to the land of sanity. "I'd rather be ruled by the first 500 names in the Boston telephone directory, than the faculty of Harvard. Because given a choice, the faculty of Harvard will vote for utopia, and the pursuit of Utopia in the 20th century has led us to the death camps, and the gulag." You're being taught the internecine quibbling of the legal guild. A justice should not need to be a lawyer. There is no hidden meaning to be devined in the constitution. If an ordinary citizen can't understand the law, it's time to hang the judges.

Posted by: Casca at October 26, 2005 10:18 PM (qBTBH)

2 Sorry Annie, I have to agree with Casca. But I have to warn you both that I won't be happy until engineers rule the world.

Posted by: Mark W at October 27, 2005 06:14 AM (yTuVc)

3 Actually, any reasonably well-read conservative will recognize the words as those of Chairman Bill, WFB, the Godfather of modern conservatism. Poor Harriet, she was not Prince Hamlet, nor was meant to be; An attendant lord, one that will do To swell a progress, start a scene or two, Advise the prince; no doubt, an easy tool, Deferential, glad to be of use, Politic, cautious, and meticulous; Full of high sentence, but a bit obtuse; At times, indeed, almost ridiculous-- Almost, at times, the Fool.

Posted by: Casca at October 27, 2005 06:55 AM (qBTBH)

4 "i'm nowhere close to getting a handle on the subject." Nor will you. Establishment Clause jurisprudence is a total MESS.

Posted by: Mark at October 27, 2005 07:05 AM (ePNL9)

5 Looks like you don't have to worry about it after all... Now we just have to wonder who Bush will put up next, hopefully someone good this time.

Posted by: Rob at October 27, 2005 07:17 AM (OeHNk)

6 The reason Scalia is the model is that he best is able to simplify and impart his strict constructionist view of the Constitution. We need someone who can likewise enunciate and has a record of following that clear and unabiguous approach to the Constitution. We don't need any more liberal Justies telling us what they think ought to have been included as "rights". The Framers included a method by which the Constitution could be amended, in fact, two alternate methods. They did not include the method of Judicial Legislation as a third way.

Posted by: shelly at October 27, 2005 10:34 AM (6mUkl)

7 I maintain that she was always a stalking horse sent out to disarm the opposition. Even dear Annie has bit on the "qualifications" red herring. My money is on Luttig. After all... he is "qualified", hehehehe.

Posted by: Casca at October 27, 2005 10:38 AM (qBTBH)

8 I side with the Godfather, and further say this: The Constitution was written by smart Americans from all different vocations, and it can be understood by smart Americans from all different vocations. It only requires extreme training to understand the logical physics of creating rights out of thin air. When a smart layperson cannot understand Constitutional law, its time to overthrow the government, burn the legal document, and start over(can you tell I don't have a law degree?!) I also believe its not optimal to create a nine person band which is all horns. A piano would positively impact the sound. And some drums. Second: That Ms. Miers did not make it through confirmation is empirical proof that she was not outstandingly competent. This is where I draw my line for a non-judge SCOTUS Candidate: elitely competent - no; well and solidly competent - no; outstandingly competent - yes. Bill Parcells says this: "You are what you are. If you have a 6-10 record, you are a 6-10 team." If Miers' was an outstanding intellect, quick on her feet, with at least SOME excellent speeches and writings in her background, I believe she would've successfully made it through contentious, ugly, Clarence Thomas type hearings(begin porno jokes now). That she did not is a comment on her competence: solid, but not outstanding. I wasn't distraught over Miers nomination, because I had confidence it would play out as it ought to, either way. Accordingly, I'm happy with this outcome. President Bush probably erred on the side of hubris, and conservatives reminded him of his proper responsibilities. A very good thing.

Posted by: gcotharn at October 27, 2005 11:01 AM (zILLH)

9 i wasn't really clear above. i agree that the constitution is plain enough to be understood by the average layperson. i'm not saying i wanted a judge who was a con law scholar because i want someone to take the simple document and make it more complex. i want the opposite. But you need someone who is a scholar to do that. Really you need two things, an originalist who is a scholar. Mike McConnell is my first choice. Someone who can back up his or her originalist philosphy with argument based on history. Someone who knows the territory, because the libs on the court are smart enough to construct counter-arguments for their expansionist points of view. if we're to have any chance of rolling back the mess that the recent courts have made of things, we need a strong player on the court. Miers was not that player. It's not enough to know where you want to take the court (and i'm not sure Miers even knew that), you have to have the intellectual tools to get four other justices to go along with you. If our goal as conservatives was to preserve the status quo of expansionism, we could easily live with a go-along and get-along kind of justice. What we want is fundamental change, and we need a scholar for that.

Posted by: annika at October 27, 2005 11:15 AM (zAOEU)

10 Luttig and McConnell lack an essential part that will be important in this next battle; because it most certainly will be a battle, there will have to be big stakes, and that means political capital will be on the line. The way to do that is be sure that the nominee and the fight will result in increases to the party of the President and decreases to those opposing. Thus, the nominee better have a vagina or be a person of color to raise the stakes. I'm praying it isn't Gonzalez; he's way too squishy, but maybe one of the Ediths or Collins of Texas. My choice? Janice Rogers Brown, who meets both criteria and who is unabashadly a conservative. And, she writes well and gets along well with her peers. That'll make Chuck Shumer's eyes pop out of his head and Leahy go into conniptions. Let'm filibuster. We can win this one, and win big points across the board. P.S. What kind of man says "hehehe"?

Posted by: shelly at October 27, 2005 11:49 AM (6mUkl)

11 true, shelly. JRB would be my second choice. i wonder however, since her female-minority background makes her such a strong choice, why Bush didn't name her instead of Miers? Is there something we don't know? Or is it really that Bush didn't want a fight with Democrats, as i suspect.

Posted by: annika at October 27, 2005 12:48 PM (fvAbz)

12 Luttig has an outstanding qualification. He's buds with Roberts. I can see them now, the four horsemen of the Supreme Court; Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, & Luttig. The left will have a shit hemorrage for at least a decade. P.S. I will not stoop to bandy insults with a racist, sexist, santa monican.

Posted by: Casca at October 27, 2005 01:50 PM (qBTBH)

13 On the one hand, Bush is free to forget about an affirmative action/gender nomination, which is refreshing. OTOH, it would be brilliant politics to bait the Dems into an all-out attack against JRB. I would LOVE to see those images. You could revise "How She Sat There" to reflect JRB sitting poised and self-contained in the Judiciary Committee, with moonbat furies swirling all around her. I live in Texas. I know lots of people who are very decent in almost all respects, yet, for some reason, they cannot be comfortable with the idea of mixed race marriages. Yet these very people generally rever Condi Rice, and Tiger Woods, and Colin Powell. Pre HIV, they loved Magic Johnson like their own son. They love Michael Jordan, Jerry Rice, and Oprah. It would take these people 2 seconds to see the image of JRB, ascertain that she was being picked on, and rally completely to her side. If JRB is as sharp as I think/hope she is, and as poised and as dignified, her nomination might be nuclear good. I love the idea of McConnell. His nomination would make me ecstatic. But JRB is brilliant political jujitsu.

Posted by: gcotharn at October 27, 2005 02:06 PM (zILLH)

14 I can't help it. Everytime I look at JRB, I see Wanda Sykes! That COULD be a good thing.

Posted by: Casca at October 27, 2005 02:12 PM (qBTBH)

15 CASCA, I have come over to your way of thinking, She was a stalking horse. ANNIKA, The Supreams might spend many years of their life thinking about constitutional issues but it sure does not show. Any idiot with half an education can see that McCain-Fiengold was an a priori imposition upon political speach, the very type of speach most protected by the constitution, yet five of them still got it wrong. I wanted to slap them (and the president) and yell "What part of congress shall make no law do you not understand!".

Posted by: Kyle N at October 27, 2005 02:15 PM (d1AI3)

16 Janice How she sat there, the time right inside a (formerly liberal) place so wrong it was ready. That trim name with its dream of a bench to rest on. Her sensible robe. Doing nothing was the doing: the clean flame of her gaze carved by a camera flash. How she stood out when they bent down to retrieve their dignity. That courtesy.

Posted by: gcotharn at October 27, 2005 02:18 PM (zILLH)

17 Let's nominate Olsen and rear the head of 9/11 once more. As far as gcotharn's comments, they cannot be comfortable with the idea of mixed race marriages I like to think Texas is changing, but since I've moved here anytime I've gone out with a black girl I've definitely felt that vibe, and it is specifically reserved for black people. And I'm in dallas, so I hate to think what it is like out in the countryside, though I've heard stories. Still it is quite often just a vibe, people don't say anything beyond non-descript politeness.

Posted by: Scof at October 27, 2005 02:54 PM (RvrGB)

18 Annika, yes at least one of his staffers may very well read you. Nothing gives a truer picture of the real opinions of Americans than their own words. The "wheat" in the blogosphere is pretty thin compared to the "chaff", and it doesn't take much more than a regular dose of solid thinking/writing to rise above the chaff. Hi Karl!

Posted by: Desert Cat at October 27, 2005 04:49 PM (B2X7i)

19 SCOF, I live in Houston and see mixed rqace couples all the time. It's no big deal here.

Posted by: Kyle N at October 27, 2005 05:15 PM (d1AI3)

20 I wish I hadn't brought up race. I was thinking/writing fast on a deadline. My opinion: mixed couples are just fine with the large majority of Texans. I do find it odd, though, when an occasional person who I consider wonderful in every respect, and who I just know would run into a burning car to save a black child, will express discomfort with mixed couples.

Posted by: gcotharn at October 27, 2005 05:30 PM (zILLH)

21 Yeah I've seen more and more here too Kyle, but I still hold out poor hope for people's private opinions. Like I said, I ain't seen much whenever I've been in an applicable situation, but still...

Posted by: Scof at October 27, 2005 05:36 PM (Gnqv5)

22 There's all this talk about the Republican base and the conservative base of the Republican Party, and the conservative base of the president and how it's important to play to the base and please the base and fawn over the base. And look what it gets President Bush: It just gets him a kick in the rear. That's what they've done to him, and they've done it to him at a time when he's vulnerable, and they've done it at the expense of a perfectly fine human being. The extremist nature of modern Republicanism laid bare for all to see.

Posted by: Ghost Dansing at October 27, 2005 05:50 PM (kbKHY)

23 Aw shit GD, can't you get anything right? We kicked him in the nutz! And he had it commin'. Just as Clint observed in "Unforgiven", "We all got it commin' kid." OMG, if there is anyone more unassailable than a black woman, it is the surviving spouse of Barbara Olsen! OMG, the humanity!! Rend the curtain and let his story be told!!!

Posted by: Casca at October 27, 2005 07:20 PM (qBTBH)

24 Guys like durbin dont give a fuck that his wife died on 9/11. He'll probably say she was the 20th hijacker.

Posted by: annika at October 27, 2005 07:32 PM (ubdvk)

25 I know! It will once again unmask them, like that lying fucktard's funeral in Minnesotta. It's the only thing that gets through to the "undecided vote". God DOES have a sense of humor, Mwahahahaha.

Posted by: Casca at October 27, 2005 08:07 PM (qBTBH)

26 If being a pragmatist makes one a racist and a sexist, I guess I am one. Funny, I never thought of that myself. Nah, the truth is that if he puts JRB up, it is in the face of the Shumer/Leahy/Kennedy death squad. I think he's spoiking for a fight now, and he may do it. They take her down, they lose the midterms across the board, maybe we get to 60. They'll have to filibuster to do it. What will the 7 from the gang of 14 do? Stay tuned. More accurately, I am a Palisadian, although my address may be Santa Monica, it is because the US Post Office does not observe city boundaries and insists on my address being that, despite the fact that I live in the Pacific Palisades and know how to laugh like a man.

Posted by: shelly at October 28, 2005 01:18 AM (6mUkl)

27 OK, I've been thinking about Ted Olson. He is one smart guy. Early in my career I had some interplay with him when he was in Los Angeles, and he is right on the money most of the time. No one can doubt his deep steeping in the Constitution; Hell, Bush v. Gore ran the gamut all by itself, not to mention the tons of cases he's argued as Solicitor General. But, I think he's about 65 or so, maybe too old to waste the seat on. And there's the sexist, racist stuff; no danger to the Dem's to take him on and lose some constituency. I'd be surprised to seee Bush go with him, but surely not disappointed. I'm still hoping for JRB and the fight, but guessing one of the Ediths or some other possessor of the magic part.

Posted by: shelly at October 28, 2005 07:39 AM (6mUkl)

28 Well, since you started out by whining like a beatch, it's hard to tell. There is no cause and effect relationship between blacks in government, and the 90% black democrat voting block. Nobody votes 90% for one party or candidate. That's the product of the real voter fraud going on in this country, and will be overturned by the law which takes hold in January that requires all voter records to be computerized.

Posted by: Casca at October 28, 2005 09:25 AM (qBTBH)

29 Can we talk about something really important? What do you think about the 30pt spread Wazoo is getting this weekend? They've got a shitty record, but have been in the hunt until the last snap all season.

Posted by: Casca at October 28, 2005 09:31 AM (qBTBH)

30 Annika, perhaps a Supreme Court haiku contest is in order, lol.

Posted by: Mark at October 28, 2005 10:50 AM (Vg0tt)

31 OPPORTUNITY And yet: "Not Prudent". Oh Dad! DNA echoes. Brave Bush. Protective. Called to big issues, by God. All else pragmatic.

Posted by: gcotharn at October 28, 2005 02:16 PM (zILLH)

32 What SC needed was a reality check; they got it this week with the (BCS Bullshit Computer System)ranking Texas ahead by a pubic hair. Watch for them to blow Washington out of the Coliseum tomorrow. They are pissed, and they've moved some guys to corner to help out. Pete's been redesigning the D backfield strategy, due to the picking on thing. I'm laying the points (I took them last week and gotlucky)this week. Is OSU still playing football?

Posted by: shelly at October 28, 2005 02:30 PM (6mUkl)

33 Let's see, WaZoo lost their last three games by a total of 10 pts to UCLA, Stanford, and Cal. They are easily better than their 0&4 record. I don't see your heros beating them by 30. They put 30 on the board against Cal in one half last week. Upset of the week? Georgia over FL, bet the moneyline.

Posted by: Casca at October 28, 2005 02:59 PM (qBTBH)

34 I rarely hear people talking about pac10 football out here in dallas, so I had to drop in my 2 cents about Arizona football: please please win some more. That is all.

Posted by: Scof at October 28, 2005 03:34 PM (ylwBl)

35 BTW, I hope someone talks to Harriet about that eyeliner. She was a couple of weeks early for Halloween.

Posted by: shelly at October 28, 2005 08:17 PM (6mUkl)

36 NOW, you go for the ad hominum! And she's ugly too.

Posted by: Casca at October 28, 2005 08:30 PM (qBTBH)

37 Whhheeeet! Fifteen yards for piling on (and redundancy).

Posted by: shelly at October 29, 2005 06:49 AM (6mUkl)

38 "I don't see your heros beating them by 30. They put 30 on the board against Cal in one half last week." Whoops. Covered in the first half. Ten yards for being dense. "Upset of the week? Georgia over FL, bet the moneyline." Whoops. Wrong again, Henry. Fifteen more yards for inappropriate selection. Better stick to SCOTUS picking.

Posted by: shelly at October 30, 2005 05:18 AM (6mUkl)

39 Samuel A. Alito Jr., J. Michael Luttig, Priscilla R. Owen, Alice M. Batchelder, Janice Rogers Brown, Edith Brown Clement, Edith Hollan Jones, Larry D. Thompson, J. Harvie Wilkinison, Theodore B. Olson, John Cornyn, Alberto Gonzales, Emilio Garza. What a bench! Just to throw in a favorite son, how about Ronald George of California, our Chief Justice? Luttig is the closest to John Roberts as a candidate; Alito is the safest bet for the conservative base. Brown, Clement and Jones are women. Thompson and Brown are black, Garza and Gonzales are brown. Ron George and Ted Olson are longshots, but possible. Both are confirmable. I'm hoping for Luttig or Alito. Alito is the closest to Scalia. He's my man. I have backtracked from the vagina/color theory. Now, we just need a fight we can win and and a good solid thinker who can move the rest of the court in the right (no pun intended) direction. Alito will be named tomorrow by POTUS. Shumer will whine, Leahy will threaten, Kennedy will burp and bloviate. Too bad Daschle is gone; he would have been sad, sad, sad. Reid will try to be Daschle. Alito will be confirmed with about the same amount of votes as was Roberts. The court will take a step to the right. The President's numbers will start to climb back, and will be bolstered by the confirmation and then the election in Iraq.

Posted by: shelly at October 30, 2005 05:31 PM (6mUkl)

40 nice pick, Shelly. Who do you like in tonight's game?

Posted by: annika at October 31, 2005 02:04 PM (zAOEU)

41 Sorry Annie: I'm not following pro football, except the Raiders. My favorite team is whoever they are playing that week. Tonight I was trick or treating with some grandkids, and had no time for Steelers or Colts, both of whom appear to suck. 11 1/2 doesn't look too good right now. Don't know why Casca would laugh, but at least it isn't a teeheehee thing.

Posted by: shelly at October 31, 2005 07:51 PM (6mUkl)

42 Fucker, another year of trick or treating without a mask eh? hehehhehe

Posted by: Casca at October 31, 2005 07:59 PM (qBTBH)

43 I've long suspected that Casca was a girl, the clues are all there. The Annika's Bitch thing, the laugh, ...

Posted by: shelly at November 01, 2005 05:12 AM (6mUkl)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Wednesday Is Poetry Day

By Rita Dove, here's a timely poem:

Rosa
How she sat there,
the time right inside a place
so wrong it was ready.
That trim name with
its dream of a bench
to rest on. Her sensible coat.
Doing nothing was the doing:
the clean flame of her gaze
carved by a camera flash.
How she stood up
when they bent down to retrieve
her purse. That courtesy.

Posted by: annika at 09:44 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 76 words, total size 1 kb.

October 25, 2005

Breaking News

MEDIA CELEBRATES 2000th US MILITARY DEATH

With a collective sigh of orgasmic release, the US Media today celebrated the 2000th military death since the beggining of the Iraq War. In the past week or so, you could almost feel the tension mounting as various anti-American news outlets such as CNN, CBS, NBC and ABC finalized their preparations for today's festivities.

Media hopes are high for a multi-orgasmic week, with many journalists openly speculating that Karl Rove may be indicted before the weekend.

"I haven't felt this good since we hit 1000 dead guys," said one giddy newsanchor, who chose to remain anonymous. "People around the newsroom are positively glowing today. And if Rove gets it, man, I'm gonna need a cigarette. Whew."

In a related story, something or other happened with some election they had over there recently.

Developing . . .

Posted by: annika at 04:20 PM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 146 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Because 2000 Americans were murdered last year in California, I am calling on America to withdraw all police from California. These police should be sent to Iraq where it is much safer for Americans.

Posted by: Jake at October 25, 2005 05:49 PM (r/5D/)

2 I've always said these reporters are animals. I can't help but feel less and less inclined to even watch the local news.

Posted by: tesco at October 25, 2005 06:24 PM (c0E+O)

3 This is the media's neo-"Tet" coverage that is supposed to herald our utter defeat. Fuck 'em. Instapundit has good link about this: http://www.facesfromthefront.com/content/view/137/3/

Posted by: reagan80 at October 25, 2005 07:35 PM (K9tdw)

4 I was utterly fuzzbuckled to see Democratic Senators, including Patrick Leahy and Frank Lautenberg, rise on the floor of the Senate and commemorate the 2000th death by calling for the U.S. to withdraw our troops from Iraq. I just... bizzafutz... I don't want to get started. FUCKERS. Everything about the Democratic Senators' actions - on several levels - infuriates me. These guys, these corrupt adolescents, CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO GAIN CONTROL OF OUR GOVERNMENT.

Posted by: gcotharn at October 25, 2005 08:26 PM (zILLH)

5 One of the greatest disappointments of my life was watching the American people elect a quintessentially feckless corrupt free-loader entirely representative of his party, and the disloyal left whom we had to drag through the cold war while they sniped at us from the rear. It was a repudiation of all those who sacrificed so much. That's why I always look forward to the next revolution. Canada's largest influx of population was Whigs running for their lives after the last revolt.

Posted by: Casca at October 25, 2005 11:23 PM (qBTBH)

6 I found it telling how for the last couple of weeks most reports of U.S. casualties did not report the actual number of casualties but instead reported it as "closing in on", "nearing", or "approaching 2000."

Posted by: shugbear at October 26, 2005 06:23 AM (U7X+u)

7 and we're not talking combat deaths either! any ol' death will do as long as it is an American servicemember overseas. some of these people do not deserve the rights and benefits the military ensures they retain. grrrrrrrrr.

Posted by: jcrue at October 26, 2005 09:17 AM (ZDQoM)

8 I fully agree with your assessment of the biased-as-ever media. However, I am very disheartened by the fact that despite all of the rhetoric pouring out of the White House, we don't appear to be gaining any meaningful ground in Iraq (in terms of US casualties). http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm ...and this is coming from a staunch supporter of this administration, and this war (me)... I'm finding it harder and harder each day to maintain my support in the face of what appears to be a flailing administration at this point; with the blatant crony-ism in Miers, the failure of Social Security reform, spending restraint, and the lack of the conservative/republican ideal of a limited government, the environment issues, etc. This in addition to the lack of concrete positive steps forward in Iraq as I mentioned before. The stance President Bush took and apparently thinks are important (abortion, and gay marriage, stem-cells) don't resonate at all in me. Where do I look for hope, my fellow conservatives?

Posted by: Rob at October 26, 2005 10:03 AM (OeHNk)

9 I'm appalled by the fixation myself; I don't get it -- just like it's been said, the 2000th American death in Iraq is just as important as the first and will be just as important as the last.

Posted by: Amy Bo Bamy at October 26, 2005 01:31 PM (kxatG)

10 CASCA SEZ:That's why I always look forward to the next revolution. Canada's largest influx of population was Whigs running for their lives after the last revolt. I'm with ya bro, when we take over there's gonna be a lot of guys on meathooks.

Posted by: Kyle N at October 26, 2005 03:17 PM (q9xP6)

11 2,000 dead is a milestone, especially considering in the run-up to this debacle it was being sold to the American sheeple largely on the basis of presuming it would be nearly bloodless. The REAL story however is the showcase of American "military" weakness that this farce in Iraq has become and its potential ramifications. The U.S. "military" is a laughingstock, totally stymied by a poorly-armed rag-tag guerilla force several times smaller than itself, especially disgraceful is the U.S.'s pusillanimous over-reliance on air power instead of the fundamentals of ground combat. When someone slams a door loudly or when a car backfires they duck and call for air support. "Oh no, it's an 80-year-old Iraqi woman in a wheelchair with a musket! We need air support!!" "Look out, I see a crippled Iraqi man hobbling towards us in a threatening manner and he's got a sharp piece of glass! Call in the helicopter gunships!!" The world is laughing at your cowardice America. Any infantry that upon encountering a handful of poorly-armed Rebels doesn't attack them using fire & maneuver tactics but instead hides and calls in air support does not deserve to be called infantry. Infantry is the backbone of any army and without that you got nuthin'. The U.S. high command has given up hope of militarily defeating the insurgency and is now settling for trying to whittle down the Rebel forces somewhat so they can claim to believe the puppet "Iraqi" sellouts will be able to handle them so the U.S. can make an exit. Disgraceful, like the "Vietnamization" scheme all over again. Notice how all the "operations" it launches in Iraq are "hit and run" pinprick "operations" just designed to (they hope) disrupt Rebel activities? Notice how many cities like Ramadi and Haditha and Husaybah are Rebel strongholds and the U.S. knows it but is too weak to try to clear them out of those cities and occupy them? Notice how the so-called "world's only superpower", after two and a half years in Iraq still doesn't control the airport road in Baghdad? Pretty humbling isn't it? You'd better thank your lucky stars that America isn't up against a REAL enemy army like that of North Korea or China or Iran because they'd croak 2,000 Amerifags in an afternoon. The U.S. "Army" and "Marine Corps" would be a grease spot. America had better stick to picking on places like Panama and Grenada because that's about all that it can handle.

Posted by: Allen at October 27, 2005 10:10 AM (6/LqO)

12 This is what I take away from your screed: If a crippled Iraqi man is hobbling towards me in a threatening manner, and is carrying a sharp piece of glass, I should double-tap center mass with my M-16. Calling in a helicopter gunship would be a waste of ammunition. Well, I agree. Can't we all get along?

Posted by: gcotharn at October 27, 2005 11:18 AM (zILLH)

13 I'm impressed, Allen. That is, by far, the largest single paragraph I have ever seen on this blog. The fact that it is also the most idiotic is icing on the cake for me. Thank you for wasting a small part of my life.

Posted by: Rob at October 27, 2005 12:13 PM (OeHNk)

14 "The U.S. high command has given up hope of militarily defeating the insurgency and is now settling for trying to whittle down the Rebel forces somewhat so they can claim to believe the puppet 'Iraqi' sellouts will be able to handle them so the U.S. can make an exit." Iraqi troops and police are "sellouts" for trying to defend their fledgling democratic gov't from terrorists? This reminds of the Jan. 30 comment fiskings at the Democratic Underground..... ["Where are the freedom fighters today? Are their voices silenced because some American puppets cast a few ballots?" -- 8,000,000 ballots. Turns out most Iraqis are... "American puppets?" "I can't believe the Iraqis are buying into this "democracy" bullshit." -- sorry, fellah, down here on Planet Reality, most people want democracy. Including Arabs. "Maybe they're afraid and felt they had to vote. That's the only way I can explain it to myself." -- since they were threatened with death if they _did_ vote, there's a bit of a contradiction there. In fact, they put on their festive clothes and in many cases danced to the polls, elevating their fingers to defy the "insurgents" who'd threatened to kill anyone whose finger was marked with the ink showing they'd voted. "Becuase if it's not--and if the Iraq vote is seen as a success that spread "freedom"--the world is screwed." -- let's see... the world is screwed if democracy spreads among the theocrats, kleptocrats, and general tyrants characteristic of the Middle East. Run that one by me again? Now let's sponsor elections in Saudi Arabia. I would just love to see the Saudi princelings in exile, clipping their coupons and complaining about how the Americans betrayed them. "they only increase the fight and take down those who betrayed their country today by voting in this fraud election." -- you want to kill off 8,000,000 Iraqis? Awesome, dude.] "The U.S. "military" is a laughingstock, totally stymied by a poorly-armed rag-tag guerilla force several times smaller than itself, especially disgraceful is the U.S.'s pusillanimous over-reliance on air power instead of the fundamentals of ground combat." How many battles with out troops have you heard about on the news lately have involved thousands, or even hundreds, of "rebels" on the OFFENSIVE against our troops? How many Khe Sanh-styled sieges have our troops faced in Iraq? Where'e today's Dien Bien Phu? All I hear about our troops facing are sporatic car bombings, IED's, sniping, and....wait for it.... "Notice how all the "operations" it launches in Iraq are "hit and run" pinprick "operations" just designed to (they hope) disrupt Rebel activities?" ....."hit and run" attacks just designed to (they hope) disrupt Iraqi democratic and reconstruction activities. Wow, the strength of our superior enemies has us quaking in our boots! "Pretty humbling isn't it? You'd better thank your lucky stars that America isn't up against a REAL enemy army like that of North Korea or China or Iran because they'd croak 2,000 Amerifags in an afternoon." It's funny that you mention China because, after the 1991 Gulf War, the Chi-Coms crapped their collective pants. Wikipedia says: [The People's Republic of China (whose army in many ways resembled the Iraqi army) was surprised at the performance of American technology on the battlefield. The swiftness of the coalition victory resulted in an overall change in Chinese military thinking and began a movement to technologically modernize the People's Liberation Army.] You should check Strategy Page more often: http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htlead/articles/20051025.aspx You shouldn't be talking about our military's "weakness" since I'm sure that you live in a self-destructing welfare state with an atrophied defense force that would'nt survive a campaign against the Vatican, fucktard.

Posted by: reagan80 at October 27, 2005 12:27 PM (K9tdw)

15 Reagan, don't stop to kick every barking dog. Clearly, Allen's ancestors were some of those who ran North.

Posted by: Casca at October 27, 2005 01:56 PM (qBTBH)

16 i'm with Rob. i could spend a half hour explaining why Allen's comment is a collossal display of ignorance. Or i could choose to use my time more constructively, knowing that most of my visitors don't need to me to point out the stupidity of that comment.

Posted by: annika at October 27, 2005 01:56 PM (zAOEU)

17 Hey There - I really think you guys are way off the deep end. Your point seems to be "why be upset about 2,000 service men dead? Who Cares? No Big Deal. I mean I might be upset when there are 20,000 - but 2,000 just does not matter." Is there some way that you can honor the dead, and their families, without acting like it's a political thing. Two Thousand families hurt, maybe destroyed, is worth mourning, not mocking.

Posted by: bbbustard at October 28, 2005 04:58 PM (6krEN)

18 bbbustard, A sincere point. I plan to honor our fallen heroes by mocking Allen.

Posted by: gcotharn at October 28, 2005 05:03 PM (zILLH)

19 gcotham - Mocking an Allen is totally appropriate. Whatever you think of the war, calling U.S. troops, living wounded or dead, "Amerifags" like Allen does is really, really sick.

Posted by: bbbustard at October 29, 2005 02:49 PM (6krEN)

20 gcotharn - apologies for getting your name wrong.

Posted by: bbbustard at October 29, 2005 02:54 PM (6krEN)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

If WWII Had Had A Chat Room

On this blog, i once lamented the way we teach history in this country. i haven't figured out a solution, but i think it should probably include a chat room.

Click on the link, it's funny. Here's an excerpt, which explains the origins of the Cold War in teen friendly language:

*tru_m4n has joined the game.*
tru_m4n: hi all
T0J0: hey
Stalin: sup
Churchill: hi
tru_m4n: OMG OMG OMG i got all his stuff!
tru_m4n: NUKES! HOLY **** I GOT NUKES
Stalin: d00d gimmie some plz
tru_m4n: no way i only got like a couple
Stalin: omg dont be gay gimmie nuculer secrets
T0J0: wtf is nukes?
T0J0: holy ****holy****hoyl****!
*T0J0 has been eliminated.*
*The Allied team has won the game!*
Eisenhower: awesome!
Churchill: gg noobs no re
T0J0: thats bull**** u fockin suck
*T0J0 has left the game.*
*Eisenhower has left the game.*
Stalin: next game im not going to be on ur team, u guys didnt help me for ****
Churchill: wutever, we didnt need ur help neway dumbarss
tru_m4n: l8r all
benny~tow: bye
Churchill: l8r
Stalin: fock u all
tru_m4n: shut up commie lol

Isn't that pretty close to the way it happened?

Via Rocket Jones &c.

Posted by: annika at 03:45 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 212 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Close, but Stalin forgot that he started out on the other side.

Posted by: Casca at October 25, 2005 04:01 PM (qBTBH)

2 Casca is right. Our fearless leader has this to add: http://poland.ytmnd.com/ This post makes me crave some online gaming now. Battlefield 2, anyone?

Posted by: reagan80 at October 25, 2005 07:29 PM (K9tdw)

3 Haha, very funny R. Dammit, we keep doing that.

Posted by: Casca at October 25, 2005 11:27 PM (qBTBH)

4 Damm, I wasted a mouthload of good scotch!! !!!!!lolo!!!RFLMAO

Posted by: Kyle N at October 26, 2005 03:06 PM (q9xP6)

5 You asked "isn't that how it happened?". Not really, especially the comment about the western Allies not needing the Soviets' help... Even a cursory look at World War II would reveal that the war was won on the Eastern Front (that's the Soviets), every other front being a mere sideshow in comparison. There is no way the Allies could have beaten Germany without the Soviet Union, it would have been IMPOSSIBLE. No other country in the world could have suffered the losses the Soviets did and even survived, let alone come back and won. Could you imagine America suffering millions of military dead and many millions more civilian dead and still hanging on? Hell no. Could you imagine Chicago being beseiged like Leningrad was and holding out for over 900 days until relieved, being shelled and bombed every day, much of the time with the only food and medical supplies coming into the city having to be carried in trucks over the ice of Lake Ladoga (while being bombed), people living on starvation rations, eating sawdust bread and rancid meant, dying in droves, pulling their little dead babies on sleds through the streets to bury them in the frozen ground, all of this and still holding out for over 900 days until relieved? Hell no. The Soviet and western Allied contributions to Allied victory are not even worth comparing it is so lopsided but I will compare them just for levity's sake. While the Soviets were encircling the German Sixth Army and part of Fourth Panzer Army in the Stalingrad pocket in the most important battle of the war, the best America could do against the Nazis was to play a supporting role to the British in an invasion of Vichy French Morocco. While the Soviets were crushing Germany's last hope of regaining the strategic initiative on the Eastern Front in the Kursk salient, including the largest tank battle in history at Prokhorovka, the best America could do was to again be assigned a supporting role to the British in an invasion of Sicily. When the Americans and their more-skilled ally the British were desperately clawing out a foothold in northern France against mostly third-rate German reserve units, having finally gotten around to opening the long-promised "Second Front" (once the eventual outcome of the war had been long-since decided), the Soviets were crushing the German Army Group Center in Germany's most catastrophic loss of units in any campaign in the war. From 22 June 1941 when the Axis invaded the Soviet Union to 8 May 1945, the end in Europe, for most of that time the Soviets faced over three-fourths of Germany's total combat power, and even after the belated Normandy invasion until the end of the war they faced no less than two-thirds of Germany's total combat power. They destroyed vastly more German units than all the other Allies put together. Over 80% of all German military deaths happened against the Soviets. The war on the Eastern Front greatly dwarfs all the other fronts and relegates them to profoundly less significance. Germany lost the war because it lost on the Eastern Front, period. To put it in your boorish terms, the Soviets didn't really need the western Allies' help anyway, and won without much of it.

Posted by: Allen at October 27, 2005 10:41 AM (6/LqO)

6 "From 22 June 1941 when the Axis invaded the Soviet Union to 8 May 1945, the end in Europe, for most of that time the Soviets faced over three-fourths of Germany's total combat power, and even after the belated Normandy invasion until the end of the war they faced no less than two-thirds of Germany's total combat power" Wikipedia says: [German armies pursued a three-pronged advance against Leningrad (modern-day St Petersburg), Moscow, and the Caucasus. Having pushed to occupy Moscow before winter, German forces were delayed into the Soviet Winter. Soviet counter-attacks defeated them within sight of Moscow's spires, and a rout was only NARROWLY avoided.] You said it yourself, we tied up 25 percent of Germany's military strength from joining the Eastern Front. If the Germans went in with full strength, Moscow would have probably been occupied before winter. "To put it in your boorish terms, the Soviets didn't really need the western Allies' help anyway, and won without much of it." You're forgetting one thing in your little moment of Soviet-philia: Japan. One reason Germany was defeated by the Allies was because of their foolishness to open up a multi-front war, right? Well, the Japanese could have invaded the eastern half of the USSR, but they made the blunder of declaring war on us first. Hence, we single-handedly distracted the Japanese throughout the war while the Russians only had to deal with the Germans. Stalin had the luxury of Japanese neutrality during the war, we didn't. Churchill was right. In the minds of all freedom-loving Europeans at the time, the epic battle of Hitler vs. Stalin shared the same tagline as "Aliens vs. Predator": whoever wins, we lose. In the grand scheme of things, we didn't want Stalin to "save" the free world. BTW, Annika didn't write that stuff you quoted since it was from her link, douche.

Posted by: reagan80 at October 27, 2005 11:37 AM (K9tdw)

7 lighten up Allen. it's called a humorous post. you wingnuts have no sense of humor.

Posted by: annika at October 27, 2005 01:59 PM (zAOEU)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

October 24, 2005

MNF Pick, Week 7

Last week was my bye week, so i'm coming back well rested and with a sure thing, no brainer pick.

Tonight, the Falcons, who i hate, are playing the Jets, who i kind of like even though their quarterback is my least favorite QB of all time, Vinnie "INT" Testaverde. The Falcons are at home and favored by 7½ points.

The Falcons are overrated. They survived with a win over the Saints last week, but they should really be a 3-3 team. The Jets however, are not overrated. Everyone knows they suck. It should be a rout tonight, so take the Falcons minus the points and laugh at the suckers later.

Posted by: annika at 11:39 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 119 words, total size 1 kb.

1 They will both play to each other's mediocrity, resulting in a 3 point win for the Falcons, 27-24.

Posted by: Scof at October 24, 2005 11:59 AM (tzeux)

2 Did you know that Vini Testes Verde literaly means "I came with green testicles"?

Posted by: kyle at October 24, 2005 04:37 PM (GAoVv)

3 So, based on your prediction below, we should all take the Jets.

Posted by: albo at October 24, 2005 04:58 PM (YYwOl)

4 As much as I loathe old green testicles, he does have a way of performing like a pro when pounding a weak sister. BTW, I gave you guys the keys to the bank with my Northwestern pic, yet not even a word of thanks? And, did Shelly have a stroke during the ND game? He's conspicuously silent. Putting time back on the clock, for shame!

Posted by: Casca at October 24, 2005 06:12 PM (qBTBH)

5 The rules are the rules. "The harder I work, the luckier I get." USC played with heart; Notre Dame gave 125%, but it wan't enogh to overcome Checkbook U. The University of Spoiled Children will be in the Rose Bowl on January 4th. Where will OSU be?

Posted by: shelly at October 24, 2005 06:46 PM (6mUkl)

6 If you're not careful, they'll be cruising LA looking for YOUR geriatric ass!

Posted by: Casca at October 24, 2005 08:29 PM (qBTBH)

7 Seems about right. Don't think they'll be otherwise occupied in post season. But, they'll be disappointed; I live in Santa Monica, actually, and on January 4, I'll be in Pasadena for sure. Or, maybe a rest home watching TV from a rocking chair. Actually, their offense should probably be with me there.

Posted by: shelly at October 25, 2005 01:17 AM (6mUkl)

8 Way to go, Annie. You are improving your numbers. Let me know when you get to .500, but remember, in the betting world, you need to get to .550 to break even. Are you keeping up with the grunt work? Next year, it is "bore to death". Then the Bar exam. If things work out right, I might be swearing you in, let's see, in the end of '06?

Posted by: shelly at October 25, 2005 01:24 AM (6mUkl)

9 I thought week one was your bye week.

Posted by: Victor at October 25, 2005 08:03 AM (L3qPK)

10 Yes, Shelly, but will USC play for the championship as the number one or the number two team? Whattup with the BCS?

Posted by: annika at October 25, 2005 10:01 AM (zAOEU)

11 I'm satisfied that your life is a living hell, since you're the only conservative in the Peoples Republic of Santa Monica, lmao. Give my best to Senator Tom Hayden, and don't trip over the bums laying on the sidewalk.

Posted by: Casca at October 25, 2005 11:15 AM (qBTBH)

12 Well, I'm not the only conservative in the People's Republic of Santa Moscow, but damn near. When they used to have separate voting polls for Dems and Reps, there were three Dems and one Rep and never a line for me. Ironically, my home is right across the street from the park where everyone votes, so I fly my stars and stripes at 30' and the globe and anchor below it 24/7 (yes, it is lit). But, no bums on the sidewalk where I am, just trust babies and lucky sperm club members galore. Tom Haydn's gone, but we still have Henry Waxman, Sheila Kuehl and a cast of thousands of lefties. Still, Arnold may change the world here in California. Check the election November 8 and see for yourself. If Prop's 73 thru 77 inclusive pass, the unions are out of business, and so are their bought electeds. It's hard to be miserable in paradise.

Posted by: shelly at October 26, 2005 04:21 AM (6mUkl)

13 "It's hard to miserable in paradise." True, but tis better to live in the Republican part of the garden. So you think that we should turn gerrymandering over to the judges? It strikes me fundimentally as a mistake. As corrupt as the legislature is, it is still the representative body of the people. "Unions out of business"? That presupposes that they follow the rules. I'm for the initiative, since it serves to codify Beck. Shit it's only taken 25 years. However, the unions will do anything to survive, and see that we are governed by the very best dykes money can buy. They murdered to get power. What will they do to keep it?

Posted by: Casca at October 26, 2005 07:37 AM (qBTBH)

14 Absolutely. The present system is so lopsided it perpetuates power. The Dem's have about two short of 2/3 in both houses and if they get there, they can override the Governor. Their true majority in California is nowhere near that, and they traded that for giving up on Congressional seats. The Rep's have four or five, maybe as many as fight or nine seats too many for the population demographics. It is time to just do it fairly by some appelate justices who are retired and will yield to peer pressure to do a fair job. Once the unions lose the paycheck dip, things will get even more balanced. They are borrowing up to and over their limits to try to fight, but are losing even their own members who hate the system. Our legislature is disfunctional; that's why all the initiatives. Ain't it cool?

Posted by: shelly at October 26, 2005 07:51 AM (6mUkl)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Greenspan Successor Prediction

On Mondays, it's customary for me to make predictions. Bush is about to name Alan Greenspan's successor today, so here's my prediction:

Bush will name Zahira Zahir as the new chairman of the Federal Reserve Board.

Posted by: annika at 09:08 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 42 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Who?

Posted by: M at October 24, 2005 09:21 AM (Vg0tt)

2 Did the same guy who gives you your Monday night football picks give you this one?

Posted by: shelly at October 24, 2005 09:21 AM (6mUkl)

3 Ben Bernanke is my best guess...former Fed Governor and now White House Advisor. Anyone see a pattern here?

Posted by: shelly at October 24, 2005 09:24 AM (6mUkl)

4 The only words I want to hear from this guy is; "I will be an exact clone of Alan Greenspan"

Posted by: kyle at October 24, 2005 04:38 PM (GAoVv)

5 Lawrence Kudlow a former Reagan economic adviser had this to say about Ben Bernanke: "In my view it is a good choice. Though Mr. Bernanke is not a hardcore advocate of the price rule, he does favor an inflation target, which is the second best option. Noteworthy is the fact that in recent speeches he has emphasized the slow and steady 2 percent zone of core inflation and inflation less energy. So he is not as militant as some of the crazed Fed presidents. Bernanke does watch financial market indicators such as the inflation-adjusted Treasury bond and the TIPS spread. Bernanke will also support an extension of BushÂ’s tax cuts for capital gains and dividends, and he has told me in the past that raising tax rates would only harm the economy. He is widely respected in the economics profession as a former chairman of the Princeton Economics Department. Thank heavens that Fed board member Donald Kohn, who is a demand-sider and a Phillips Curver, did not get the nod". I like Kudlow so I should like Ben Bernanke.

Posted by: Jake at October 24, 2005 06:20 PM (r/5D/)

6 Now, now, BEhave! One whacky appointment does not a presidency make. AAAAAAA fuck, I'm making chili, and i just rubbed cayenne in my eye, fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck! In any case, Harriet will retire from the field in a week or two. She HAD to be the stalking horse.

Posted by: Casca at October 24, 2005 06:29 PM (qBTBH)

7 OK, I agree with Casca on this one. She may not withdraw, but I don't think she's got the votes to get confirmed. Next is Edith Jones, or Gonzales.

Posted by: shelly at October 24, 2005 06:40 PM (6mUkl)

8 Notice that one of us picked Bernake BEFORE the announcement. Modesty prevents me from naming that person.

Posted by: shelly at October 24, 2005 06:41 PM (6mUkl)

9 "Modesty", LMAO!

Posted by: Casca at October 24, 2005 08:32 PM (qBTBH)

10 in the immortal words of Bill Murray: "Barnakey! He still owes me money!"

Posted by: annika at October 25, 2005 10:05 AM (zAOEU)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

October 20, 2005

Apprentice Blogging

Is it me, or does Zenthrura sound like the stupidest fucking idea for a movie you've ever heard?

And it got made?! My rabbits in space idea is like ten times better.

Posted by: annika at 09:44 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 36 words, total size 1 kb.

Things A Law Student Knows

Vibrators are illegal in eight states.

(Hey, i'm a law student. i'm supposed to know all about laws and shit.)

Posted by: annika at 08:49 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 30 words, total size 1 kb.

If Dogs Wrote Haiku

woof woof woof woof woof
woof woof woof woof woof woof woof
woof woof woof woof woof

Think about it.

Posted by: annika at 06:40 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 28 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Pretty randy. I like the way the action just takes off in the second line.

Posted by: gcotharn at October 20, 2005 07:43 PM (z1J0S)

2 If a chihuahua wrote Haiku Yip Yip Yip Yip Yip Yip Yip Yip Yip Yip Yip

Posted by: Jake at October 20, 2005 08:06 PM (r/5D/)

3 mrow miau me wow miau? FFT! Rrow sss yowl mrow-wow yow! Prrrm mrowm miau mau mi?

Posted by: Desert Cat at October 20, 2005 08:35 PM (xdX36)

4 I'm still laughing, "think about it" hooked me. I'll be giggling all day over that one.

Posted by: Casca at October 21, 2005 06:19 AM (qBTBH)

5 HAHAHAHHAHAH...me too! And I have a big meeting today, I just know woof woof woof will flash across my mind at some point and then I'll be laughing out loud for reasons no one else will know.

Posted by: dawn summers at October 21, 2005 07:34 AM (SOf9N)

6 many disturbing dog Haiku dreams last night thanks alot a's j.

Posted by: d-rod at October 21, 2005 09:46 AM (ci7UZ)

7 At least they're not writing limericks...

Posted by: BobG at October 21, 2005 03:15 PM (/UKvh)

8 If you'd bought my book, you'd have seen I did the chicken haiku back in 2001. Ah, sadness. How to market... how to market... Kevin

Posted by: Kevin Kim at October 21, 2005 08:36 PM (1PcL3)

9 Forgot to mention-- in Korea, the dog's bark is either "mung-mung!" or "wah-wah!" mung mung mung mung mung! wa wa wa wa wa wa wa! mung mung wa wa mung! Kevin

Posted by: Kevin Kim at October 22, 2005 02:45 AM (TDwc6)

10 Nuts-- that last line should be changed. The real poem is: mung mung mung mung mung! wa wa wa wa wa wa wa! mung mung wa wa ... ...stew Now it's Korean. Kevin (yes, I've eaten boshin-t'ang, and I have no regrets... mm, good doggie)

Posted by: Kevin Kim at October 22, 2005 02:51 AM (TDwc6)

11 Kevin: You are a sick person. Take your meds and call the doc for a checkup. How many copies did you sell of that masterpiece?

Posted by: shelly at October 25, 2005 01:37 AM (6mUkl)

12 i once ordered a dish at a Korean resaurant that listed one of its ingredients as "meat." Then someone at the table warned me that it might not be a good idea to order something called "meat" on the menu, if it didn't say what kind of meat. By then i didn't have the guts to change my order, so i ate it. It tasted like chicken, btw.

Posted by: annika at October 25, 2005 11:31 AM (zAOEU)

13 Shelly, How many copies? Not as many as Stephen King. Sickness, by the way, is only in the mind. Annika, All hail Mystery Meat! If it tasted like chicken, it certainly wasn't dog. Dog meat is stringy, not very good-looking, and tastes nothing like chicken. It does, however, have its own yummy charm, though I didn't like the stew's broth very much. Next time I order dog, I'm getting the barbecued version. Kevin

Posted by: Kevin Kim at October 27, 2005 05:51 AM (1PcL3)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

207kb generated in CPU 0.137, elapsed 0.1911 seconds.
80 queries taking 0.1467 seconds, 443 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy

Monthly Traffic

Pages: 46467
Files: 107
Bytes: 250.6M
CPU Time: 48:08
Queries: 2620759

Content

Posts: 2168
Comments: 17090

Feeds

November 03, 2005

November 02, 2005

November 01, 2005

October 31, 2005

October 30, 2005

October 27, 2005

October 26, 2005

October 25, 2005

October 24, 2005

October 20, 2005

Search Thingy

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Monthly Traffic

Content

Feeds