Latest LA Times/Bloomberg Poll
The latest LA Times/Bloomberg poll on the Iraq War contains a real surprise, which might explain why nobody is reporting it. The poll is dated April 5th through April 9th. The key question is this:
Generally speaking, do you think setting a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq hurts or helps U.S. troops serving in Iraq right now, or doesn't it affect the troops one way or the other?
And the responses, no doubt highly disappointing to the LA Times and other anti-American news organizations, were as follows (emphasis mine):
Hurts: 50%
Helps: 27%
No Effect: 15%
Unsure: 8%
The really crazy thing about the poll is that the next question asks whether the President should sign a funding authorization that includes a timetable for withdrawal, or veto it. The poll found 48% of respondents favoring such a timetable! Even though 50% believe it would harm the troops! Not only that, 45% believe Congress should "refuse to pass any funding bill until Bush agrees to accept conditions for withdrawal." Again, even though it harms the troops.
So much for Americans supporting the troops, if you believe the poll.
Predictably, the only news story I found on Google that even mentions the poll is selective in its coverage — i.e. they're incredibly biased. Here's the link. As of this writing, E&P completely failed to mention the first question I highlighted above, instead focusing on the second question. That's not just biased reporting, it's fucking propaganda.
1
If the link includes propaganda about sexual intercourse, then I can't read it from work. (Or maybe propaganda is OK, just the facts can't be read?)
I don't think the proper question is whether or not something helps the troops - one can easily argue that the best way to "help" the troops is to deploy them in Iowa where people won't shoot at them (I don't think). The proper question is what action will help the Iraqis. But, since Americans are often inwardly-focused, this question is of little consequence to most people. (Liberal Democrats as the new isolationists?)
The interesting part of the poll question is the 27% who believed that a timetable would help the troops. Did the respondents believe that the timetable would help the troops in the long-term only, or did they also see some short-term benefit? (If so, I can't imagine what it would be.)
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at April 11, 2007 01:03 PM (B0VZe)
2
Annika,
Another deeply flawed set of question given to the deeply flawed American voter whose intelligence is only somewhat more compromised than their morals or ability to think logically.
Of course, "What's good for the troops" is a crap phrase, completely ambiguous. You think keeping their morale high, belief in the mission intact and their kit well equiped is what they need and I think sleeping at home with their wife and taking care of their kids is what they need.
Posted by: Strawman at April 11, 2007 01:25 PM (9ySL4)
3
"The proper question is what action will help the Iraqis. But, since Americans are often inwardly-focused, this question is of little consequence to most people."
Ah, the Emperor just reminded me of something. Right Wing Donn posted my favorite comment of the week:
[An even MORE interesting essay would be:“How the Iraqis Lost Iraq.”And, might I add, the Iraqis can singularly give themselves credit for turning the Post 9/11 generations in America into people who certainly believe or feel or both that it is better to have a brutal dictator in power, with rape rooms, mass beatings and mass murder--as long as he keeps the peace and keeps the population from doing to each other what the Iraqis are determined to do.Muqtada al Sadr--THIS is YOUR legacy.I don’t think anyone in America needs worry that the U.S. will do anything like this any time soon. Which means that the Brits and French had better learn to stand on their own. Because I think we will soon hear:NO AMERICAN BLOOD FOR EUROFREEDOM!!!!]
...................................................
"(Liberal Democrats as the new isolationists?)"
Not quite.
Posted by: reagan80 at April 11, 2007 06:24 PM (fO04l)
4...whose intelligence is only somewhat more compromised than their morals or ability to think logically.
Except for you, right?
Posted by: Radical Redneck at April 12, 2007 04:17 AM (quenf)
6
Hey Red,
Have you checked the label on your terry cloth upholstered barcolounger? I'll bet it says "schmuck sienna".
Posted by: Strawman at April 12, 2007 07:32 AM (9ySL4)
7
That's wild. At first I thought it must be an antique piece of furniture. But its apparently something new. I knew Canadians were odd, but racist too?
Posted by: annika at April 12, 2007 07:53 AM (WfR6S)
8
Annika,
My guess is that it is a misspelling of "Niger Brown"
Posted by: Strawman at April 12, 2007 08:26 AM (9ySL4)
9
in that case, Straw, shouln't it be the color of "yellow" cake?
; )
Posted by: annika at April 12, 2007 08:31 AM (gPH4l)
10
It was assembled in China. I'll bet the overseer had the label-making Chinaman blindfolded with dental floss thus creating the error.
Of course the stoopid™ only multiplies: the dumb-assed bitch is bringing the 1 square inch tag to some PC Humanoid Rights Commission. :rollseyes:
Posted by: Radical Redneck at April 12, 2007 09:27 PM (QizG9)
11
Annika,
Right you are. Yellow cake with Niger Brown chocolate icing.
Posted by: Strawman at April 13, 2007 01:03 PM (9ySL4)
Thank Don ImusI have a somewhat different take on the whole Imus debacle. I've always thought he was totally overrated and I never understood his appeal or influence. Happily, living in California, I don't have to listen to him.
However, I think the huge uproar surrounding Imus's recent unfunny racial jokes, his subsequent apologies, public bitchslapping and two week suspension have shown us just how far we've come as a society that is unwilling to tolerate such insensitivity.
It is right and just that Imus be brought low, a-hole that he is.
I also firmly believe that this controversy has brought us closer to that glorious day, which will occur soon and possibly within our lifetimes, when no one will ever be insulted ever again. By anyone. At any time. In any way.
Hallelujah!
Update: It's official. Wikipedia now refers to "Imus in the Morning" in the past tense.
1
Lol, you forgot to turn the sarcasm off.
I remember Imus from when I was a boy, and he was a drunk on the radio (AM) in Cleveland. He was hilarious to my preteen mind back in those days, but hell, we only had three channels on TV, so my fun meter pegged pretty easily. Then he went to NYC, turned to smack, got fired everywhere, cleaned up his act, and re-emerged with his grouchy old prick schtick. He's been saying worse things about everyone for years. Had he called them nappy headed dykes, he could fall back on the truth defense. My joy in this is that he's been whoring for the D's for a couple of years now, and for the next ten years, he'll be a public joke.
Posted by: Casca at April 10, 2007 06:52 PM (2gORp)
2
Nicely said Casca.
I'm fucking sick of this non-story. It was a stupid, un-funny comic routine. That's it. Nobody busted out the "N" word. Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton have both said worse things about Jews and whites and yet both have the fucking balls to act offended in hopes of raising some money for themselves and their parasites in the "civil rights" community. Fucking pricks. I despise both those frauds and their out-dated, pathetic "cause."
What's more disgusting than all the phony black outrage and white liberal guilt is the fact that black rappers/hip-hop artists say worse shit about their own people every fucking day on the raido and make millions selling it too little white, brown, yellow, and black boys. So, when young black males preach misogyny, and toss around the "N" word every other sentence, well, that's art. But when an old, insignifcant, white asshole says something only barely racist, then, of course, America is a cauldron of racism just waiting to boil over.
There are few things I care less about than the phony "racism" cries of black and white liberals.
As for Don, I couldn't give a shit. I don't think he should be fired, but I sure wouldn't mind if his market-value went down. One less dip-shit on the airwaves is good thing.
Posted by: blu at April 10, 2007 08:23 PM (Z0MKU)
3
Actually, I watch him almost every weekday.
I record it on TiVo and after an hour or so, scroll through and get rid of the crap and commercials.
Lately, it's been a lot more crap than funny. His ultraliberal child bride has turned him from M Republican into a pussy patsy for the likes of John Kerry, Cris Dodd and James Carville and Paul Begala. He always notes that he's a Republican but he never votes that way.
I like watching Lieberman, McCain and a few others, including Colonel Jack Jacpbs who got the Medal of Honor, but more and more he is unfunny and liberal.
Maybe now he'll become a little more conservative, since the definition of a conservative is "A liberal who just got mugged".
Imus just got mugged.
Posted by: shelly at April 10, 2007 08:53 PM (2nDll)
4
Annie,
My take is that he's an old dinosaur blowhard who doesnÂ’t understand the world, despite the visitations of many Presidential wannabees, doesnÂ’t revolve around him and his wife as they schlep their "green" products and tell us the great things he does on his ranch.
What pisses me off most is not his racist, feminist, stupid rants it's that recently with the Walter Reed scandal, he attacked the Army leadership, who no doubt both screwed up the job and the discussion, but called some "sons of bitches" bastards, and for court-martial.
I say, whoever is stupid enough to employ Imus, gets what they deserve.
Posted by: Otto at April 10, 2007 10:16 PM (czVLs)
5
Judging from the sheer volume of advertisements that I scroll through trying to find a little comedy on Imus without his wife's liberal buddies' commentary, I'd say that whoever employs him makes a lot of money in the process.
Sometimes he is pretty outrageous but I think he knows pretty well who and what he is. He is a parody of himself and he laughs at himself as much as others do.
I also think he is sincerely sorry for his comments, taken out of context, to be sure, but still sorry they have caused so much pain to the girls, mostly thanks to the bible thumping frauds, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, who are riding this wave for all it is worth.
And, by the way, so is Imus. His viewership is bound to increase exponentially as those who never heard of him tune in when the "suspension" is over.
Meanwhile, he takes a "vacation" and does the circuit advertising his show. Hell, dontcha just love showbiz??
Posted by: shelly at April 11, 2007 02:29 AM (2nDll)
6
I don't know Shelly. He has a face for radio. When I look at him, I think of my mother after a year of cancer. Is Fred still around, or did the new wife banish him?
I should have known that it was the young, large breasted wife. His course correction was about 180 degrees. As for the ranch, give me a fucking break. It's a fucking tax dodge. Nothing like a 501(c)3 if you have a way to hustle people for money. His fund raising for his fraud/ranch was embarrassing.
Posted by: Casca at April 11, 2007 07:18 AM (Y7t14)
7
Imus just got mugged... the question is how much will Al and Jesse bleed him. The sad twist to this story is Rutgers University getting in on the act.
I didn't see the whole press conference, but Rutgers is lucky no reporter got one of the players to deviate from the script by asking a question such as what rappers/songs the players have on their Ipods..
Jason Whitlock summed up the point nicely:
http://www.kansascity.com/182/story/66339.html
"With the comments of a talk-show host most of her players had never heard of before last week serving as her excuse, Vivian Stringer rambled on for 30 minutes about the amazing season her team had.
Somehow, weÂ’re supposed to believe that the comments of a man with virtually no connection to the sports world ruined RutgersÂ’ wonderful season. Had a broadcaster with credibility and a platform in the sports world uttered the words Imus did, I could understand a level of outrage.
But an hourlong press conference over a man who has already apologized, already been suspended and is already insignificant is just plain intellectually dishonest. This is opportunism. This is a distraction."
Oh, wonder if the Duke Lacrosse players will get an hour long press conference to talk about being "scarred for life" and whether they'll get an apology from some of the Duke faculty members..
Posted by: Col Steve at April 11, 2007 07:48 AM (WffUy)
8
"Oh, wonder if the Duke Lacrosse players will get an hour long press conference to talk about being "scarred for life" and whether they'll get an apology from some of the Duke faculty members..."
Exactly, Col! I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for the professional, left-wing race-baiters to apologize. I gurantee many of them are either sadly disapointed that this whole episode was a lie made up a cheap whore or that they refuse to believe that the evil, white-males didn't actually rape the helpless, black female.
These people's entire political belief system is premised on non-white/non-Western victimhood and a belief in innate white/Western racism - facts be damned.
Posted by: blu at April 11, 2007 09:55 AM (Z0MKU)
9
I'd be interested in your take on Gingrich's admission that there is sufficient evidence for anthropogenic global warming;
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/04/11/gingrich_drops_skepticism_on_global_warming/
Posted by: will at April 11, 2007 10:18 AM (GzvlQ)
10
i'd have to take newt very seriosly, since he's a scientist and all. and of course he's not running for president.
Posted by: annika at April 11, 2007 10:29 AM (zdkjQ)
11
I'd be interested in Will's take on yet another famous and prestigious scientist saying that the global warming propogandists are full it and full of themselves. And, of course, another in the chorus of voices calling Al Gore's movie what it is: C-R-A-P.(Will Ad Hominem Alert: get ready for a personal attack on the particular MIT professor and an inability to deal with him intellectually.)
Pretty cold April, Will, don't ya think?
Newt's ass-kissing of yet another liberal is just one more nail in his presidential coffin. Seriously, why would any self-respecting person - let alone conservative - be in the same room with that pompous, arrogant weasel. Hey, Will, I'll bet you voted for ol' John, didn't ya. You guys have a lot in commmon. I'll let you figure out what those personality traits are.
Posted by: blu at April 11, 2007 11:17 AM (Z0MKU)
12
this Imus thing demonstrates the worst knee jerk - emphasis on "jerk" aspects of our society. I don't know Imus well, though I did see his apology. I was impressed that it was an actual apology - as opposed to the fake apologies employed by Bill Clinton, Dick Durbin, et al, when they never actually got around to apologizing for any wrongdoing. Imus gets points from me for his apology.
Jesse and Al are jokes. Imus is a fool to cater to them.
WTF IS THE RUTGERS BASKETBALL TEAM DOING AT A PRESS CONFERENCE?!? That is the biggest freakin joke I have ever seen. Child abuse. The parents of Rutgers players should sue the school for allowing their kids to be made into a public spectacles. I guarantee you - GUARANTEE - there's a way to sue the school, on behalf of any basketball player, under current Sexual Harrassment laws, and win. Guarantee.
Posted by: gcotharn at April 11, 2007 11:28 AM (clP4M)
13
Those girls are, effectively, employed by the university. They generate revenue for the university. If they don't show up, in their sweatsuits, at that vanity press conference for their coach; and if they don't show up, to sacrifice themselves on the altar of an NAACP/race hustler agenda; then they could reasonably expect they might lose playing time next season. They could reasonably expect harrassment in practice: extra running, extra disciplinary measures, extra criticism from their coach. Their scholarships are year to year. They could reasonably fear their scholarship might not be renewed. When that vanity + race hustler press conference was announced to the media, those girls were instantly thrust into a hostile work environment.
Posted by: gcotharn at April 11, 2007 11:41 AM (clP4M)
14
Those girls, and their parents, would never sue the school. College is too short, and too precious of an experience, to defile it in order to make a political point. However, this is the type of counter-terror lawsuits which conservatives should be filing, across the nation, to break the back of the EEOC, and or the current court rulings vis a vis sexual harrassment law. Leftist employers, and managers, are mindlessly running amok, and creating work conditions which ideally fit inside the definition of "hostile work environment." No one has thought to sue them for it, and service of a counter terror pushback at sexual harrassment law. Conservative attorneys should be soliciting such lawsuits. There is a gaping vulnerability there, waiting to be exploited.
Posted by: gcotharn at April 11, 2007 11:49 AM (clP4M)
15
Blu,
The take on this story from a fried.........
I'd like to see Don and Al shackled together like Sidney and Tony. They could call it Raison and Son. Or they could learn to cooperate and co-produce the Imus and Andy Show. Maybe they could get the Reverend Jackson to atone for his Hymietown remark by playing the role of George 'Whitefish' Stevens. Sharpton: "What dat disgustin' smell, Whitefish?" Whitefish: "Ah thinks dat's dog poo, Andy. It comin' from dat nasty plastic garbage bag. Saaaaaay! Dere's a nappy-headed ho in dat shitty bag! Why, it's Too-wanna Brawly!" Cut to commercial: Mississippi John Hurt for Maxwell House coffee. I'm just glad that Buddy Hackett and Jerry Lewis never lived to see this.
Posted by: Strawman at April 11, 2007 01:32 PM (9ySL4)
16Happily, living in California, I don't have to listen to him.
Actually, and also happily, no one has to listen to Imus, even those who don't live in California.
Posted by: eh at April 11, 2007 09:32 PM (M2Hj1)
17
blu, if you are referring to Richard Lindzen, I'd have to say that he's entitled to his opinion. I'm sure the $2500 per showing he gets from giving endless presentations to lobbyists, conservative organizations, and oil/coal/gas/automaker/utility groups has noinfluence on his POV.
If you are referring to the many other at MIT, you'll see that they overwhelmingly support the IPCC position (indeed, several participate in the IPCC process). So Lindzen is a part of a vocal, though tiny, minority of climate researchers.
Don't confuse a cool fraction of a month with long term climate trends; that's a futile attempt by the denialist spin doctors to delude the lay public. And April is far from over...
Posted by: will at April 12, 2007 08:41 AM (GzvlQ)
18
As I predicted, Will is incapable of making any intellectual argument against Lindzen's position:
"I'm sure the $2500 per showing he gets from giving endless presentations to lobbyists, conservative organizations, and oil/coal/gas/automaker/utility groups has noinfluence on his POV."
This is always Will's ploy regardless of the debate: Shout loudly about his position being correct and then personally attack any person with a contrary position. It's sad and pathetic really.
Will, you are a sophist. Anybody who understands how research money is given and who provides those funds, understands that each scientist and each benefactor has an agenda.
Go, push your propoganda on some 6th graders, who might actually buy it. (Sadly, your kind of junk science is already being systematically included in the propoganda of the public school system.)
Oh, this April, coldest on record in, what, 100 years...?
Posted by: blu at April 12, 2007 09:46 AM (pXoDI)
19
blu,
Lindzen merely states that he doesn't understand how the climate models can be used as prediction tools. He's one of a very tiny minority of scientists, most of whom have been backtracking their statements over the last several years as more data has become available and the models have been shown to be surprisingly accurate in identifying trends.
I have no doubt that you also hold highly conservative positions on evolution, flat earth, and similar topics, holding up one or two cranks as your champions. Even your hero Newt now says you are full of fertilizer, so the island position you are defending is eroding rapidly around your feet even as you speak. It's time to bail out, else you will spend inordinate amounts of time splashing about aimlessly.
Posted by: will at April 13, 2007 05:04 AM (GzvlQ)
20
Dear Annika,
Please, for the love of all that is good in this world, concede to Will's points.
As you may already know, he is the host to my symbiotic existence. If he is not happy, then his misery will inevitably trickle down to ME.
If you could find it in your heart to...oh fuck it. Here's the lowdown: see, unless if you kowtow to his views, my host can't get a stiffy. Ever. Again.
He's been forcing me, at gunpoint, to give him handj0bs, but it hasn't been working out so far. You should see how Will takes his frustrations out on me! He flogs me with the strap-on that he's been using on the missus! The horror!
So, don't be an ice queen. I only have about a month left before he decides to end it all for both of us. Give him what he wants for my sake, PLEASE!
Graciously waiting,
Swill
Posted by: Swill at April 13, 2007 09:43 AM (fO04l)
21
Those who can't debate the science on its merits use any number of other rhetorical tricks.
Posted by: will at April 16, 2007 06:05 AM (GzvlQ)
1
This entire episode just goes to show how the far, far, far left fringe controls the Dem party. Can you imagine if conservatives started giving PBS or CBS the finger? CBS and PBS are both more bias than FOX - as are CNN and NBC. (ABC, in my opinion, is less bias than the rest though still clearly a left-wing cheerleader.)
The Dems know that the kooks pay their bills. Hopefully, it won't take average Americans too long to see who really controls these people.
Posted by: blu at April 10, 2007 09:23 AM (Z0MKU)
2
Blu,
"The only thing wrong about bias is thinking that it does not exist. To believe that there can exist a neutral position is a bias toward fantasy."
Strawman
Some are left, some are right. Where is that unwaivering belief you have in the wisdom of the average American to suss out the reality and vote their conscience? You tell me all the time I underestimate intelligence the lumpen P. so I look to you to highlight their strengths.
"The truth is a moving set of metaphors"
"There are no facts, only interpretations."
"You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist" Friedrich Nietzsche
Posted by: Strawman at April 10, 2007 10:09 AM (9ySL4)
3
I actually wouldn't have so much of a problem with the left-wing MSM if they would just admit their bias.
Instead, you get self-righteous left-wing assholes like David Gregory pretending that they are neutral. It's a joke.
Posted by: blu at April 10, 2007 10:16 AM (Z0MKU)
4
Most primary candidates are satisfied to lock themselves into a "me too" strategy - primarily because those who don't (e.g. John Anderson) don't win. So the Dems imposed their "boycott Fox" litmus test to prove their Democraticness.
I'm sure that if Mitt and Rudy decided that it was "Republican" to boycott the New York Times or Cosmopolitan whatever ("Nancy Reagan never appeared on the Cosmopolitan cover"), every single candidate would follow suit to prove their Republicanness.
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at April 10, 2007 10:18 AM (P8ktI)
5
That's an interesting take, OE. Have to see if something similar happens on the Rep side.
Posted by: blu at April 10, 2007 10:29 AM (Z0MKU)
6
It's much simpler than media bias. The D's own almost all of the media. For a LONG time they owned it all, that's how they stayed in power.
No conservative can play with the MSM without getting fastballs thrown at his head, while the umpire calls it a strike. The D's get one groved down the middle of the plate, and if they whiff, it's a ball. That's not bias. That's a crooked game. The D's can't compete in a straight game, and they know that, so they cheat. The MSM is just the umpire in their pocket.
Posted by: Casca at April 10, 2007 10:32 AM (Y7t14)
7
Funny... I would have thought the DEMS would be the ones to compare Fox to America's enemies :0)
Posted by: The Law Fairy at April 10, 2007 11:18 AM (XUsiG)
8
Fortunately for us (well, all but one or two of us) it is the power of the ideas that prevails, not the people or the biased commentary of the self-professed "neutrals" like the aformentioned Howdy Doody of NBC, the provacative Mr. Gregory.
I'm waiting for him to ask tough questions of Speaker/Alternate Secretary of State Cruella de Pelosi.
But, I'm not holding my breath.
Posted by: shelly at April 10, 2007 11:51 AM (JQe3J)
9
there's another big question: how come i can't get traffic like cap'n ed even though i post stuff exactly like this - only three days before he does!?
http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2007/04/
edwards-and-democrat-party-willing-to.html
Posted by: reliapundit at April 10, 2007 07:37 PM (xz4sV)
10
As Commodore Vanderbilt once remarked when someone asked him how much it costs to own and operate a yacht, "Them as has to ask, can't."
Posted by: shelly at April 11, 2007 02:33 AM (2nDll)
11
Maybe it's his open bar Tuesdays, and Free BJ Fridays?
Posted by: Casca at April 11, 2007 07:22 AM (Y7t14)
12
Captain Ed is big because he was one of the handful of bloggers who broke the Rathergate story.
Posted by: annika at April 11, 2007 11:28 AM (zAOEU)
The Next QTs
I know the reason why Grindhouse did so poorly at the box office this weekend. Its target audience was busy making YouTube videos, trying to be the next Quentin Tarantino.
Check it out. Here are some of the more interesting ones I found: more...
1
Chalk it up to my short attention span, but you have about a minute to spike my interest, or I'm moving on. Life is short. I'm thinking that QT is a one hit wonder. And that was only a hit because he had a washed up actor making a comeback in a very quirky movie, with no message. Zed is dead. What the fuck is that all about?
Posted by: Casca at April 09, 2007 10:06 PM (2gORp)
2
well, I enjoyed some of his other movies also, but yeah, Pulp Fiction was by far the best. Rodriguiz is a bit overrated too. I thought I would like to see any movie with both Kurt Russell and Bruce Willis in it, but the chick with the leg gun was a big turn off to me. Some things are just too weird.
Posted by: kyle N at April 10, 2007 02:50 AM (hwEFM)
3
Are you fuckin' with me? Reservoir Dogs beats the shit outta Pulp Fiction.
But yeah, for the most part Quentin's movies are vastly overrated. I do plan to see Grind House, though, on the recommendation of a colleague whose movie tastes are sometimes pretty quirky.
Rodriquez . . . well, I'd just swear off him altogether if not for Sin City and Desperado. (Yes, goddamn it, I kinda like Desperado. OK? I blame Salma.)
Posted by: Matt at April 10, 2007 02:31 PM (10G2T)
4
sin city? unwatchable. i fast forwarded through most of it.
Posted by: annika at April 10, 2007 05:22 PM (WfR6S)
5
I agree with Matt, except for the part about liking Desperado.
And, why did the Finnish guys dress up for a Deliverance remake? I didn't know Europe had rednecks too.
Posted by: reagan80 at April 10, 2007 08:16 PM (fO04l)
6
I didn't expect to like Sin City, and I'm still not sure what about it appealed to me (leaving aside Jessica Alba). But something did.
Posted by: Matt at April 11, 2007 09:22 AM (10G2T)
1
What's the BFD, that he asked for your opinion? No surprises in the questions or answers.
Posted by: Casca at April 09, 2007 11:21 AM (Y7t14)
2
Annika,
Quite the poll. How does it feel to be in the midst of a group that thinks (2-1) the theory Evolution is not the best answer to the question of the differentiation of the species?
Only fools make up questions like these;simplistic,reductive; demanding a yes or know answer to a question that cannot be reduced to either or. Some of Darwins's conclusions are actively debated but there is no debate as to whether it is the BEST overarching explanation yet conceived by an eathling who isn't innoculated by the magical thinking demanded religious beliefs.
In the Iranian question he mixes missles and nuclear weapons in the same questionas if they were the same thing.
Abortion is two questions.
Generally a sloppy set of questions.
Posted by: strawman at April 09, 2007 03:28 PM (9ySL4)
3
Geez Straw. Lighten up, dude. Save the passion for something worth the bother. This was just an amateur little on-line poll. And actually the group, 2 -1, SUPPORTS evolution. I think a guy like you would like the idea of a proportionate response....since you are always demanding it of the civilized world when the barbarians attack.
BTW, who stole question #3?
Posted by: blu at April 09, 2007 05:38 PM (Z0MKU)
4
Question #3 was "Do you think Annika has a right to grind her Journal to an abrupt stop, therefore creating a group of blogger homeless junkies?"
The results were:
99% No
1% Yes
(Annie clearly voted in this one)
Posted by: shelly at April 09, 2007 06:48 PM (JQe3J)
5
Blu,
Correct, 2:1 for. That means in a town of 30,000 there will be 10,000 pitchforks and torches coming up the drive to set things straight.
RIght, question #3.
Should the United States, regardless of the expense and duration, occupy Iraq until the Iraqi government can project it's power beyond the green zone?
Posted by: Strawman at April 09, 2007 06:58 PM (9ySL4)
6
It is amazing to me that some people can't accept that evolution and the existence of God are not mutually exclusive.
Posted by: annika at April 09, 2007 07:56 PM (WfR6S)
8
Well, if you want to talk evolution. I always have to qualify the question. Do you mean what Darwin wrote, or what the loaded word has come to mean in our reductio ad absurdum culture?
Darwin simply observed what he saw. He definitely was a Christian, and his faith was not swayed. It was the Marxists who took his words, and twisted them into a rejection of faith.
Posted by: Casca at April 09, 2007 09:58 PM (2gORp)
9
The only guys with pitchforks and torches are the leftists enforcing their political correctness on everyone.
Posted by: kyle N at April 10, 2007 02:54 AM (hwEFM)
10
Good thing we have high-power rifles, and all the military training.
Posted by: Casca at April 10, 2007 06:31 AM (Y7t14)
11
KAscha,
WRONG, for a change.
Yes, Darwin was a christian and his faith in god did not waiver as a result of what he saw in nature. To him the grand plan and the details were all the work of the big guy. He was not, however, stopped from his expansive and wonderful examination by the literal "word" which is where the problem lies not with the Marxists may have tried to use the "Origin of Species" to argue against a belief in god but the real problem was the true believers who continue to insist that "Orgin of Species" is incompatable with the "word", that that Darwins work is deeply flawed and not to be examined other than to debunk it. No reasonable teacher of evolution tells his students or his friends that their belief in god is and should be shattered by Darwins work. The converse, however, is always preached by the biblical literalists. They, not those who wish to teach evolution, are the reason this issue is so heated. The believers in the "word" push very hard and must be resisted for all our goods.
The pope said the church is concerned with mens souls and evolution does not discuss this issue and further, it (evolution) appears to be the best explanation for the complexity of life on earth.
Posted by: Strawman at April 10, 2007 07:23 AM (9ySL4)
Martin & Kelly
I never watch Live with Regis and Kelly, but caught a few minutes this morning because I wanted to see Gina Glocksen. Regis is out on the DL, and Martin Short is filling in. OMG, is there anyone funnier than Martin Short? He's off-the-hook! Regis better hurry back, or he may be out of a job.
1
You know, I think some of these comedians we don't hold in too high a regard - and I've never really thought of Short as anything other than merely mildly funny - are actually at their best in unscripted circumstances. A comedian I figured I'd loathe - Bob Saget - once did some interview on TV. I was reaching for the remote when he got out his first 3, stream of consciousness riffs, and I ended up staying and laughing my ass off the whole time. Saget - the man responsible for that "Full House" atrocity on television, not to mention painfully forced observations on that funniest home video thing show - had me laughing so hard I was wheezing, all due to his ADD-afflicted nonstop riffing.
I'd guess the same thing's true with Short. I've never openly disliked him, but he's never been my first choice when I think of funny men. But given Saget and a few other similar cases I haven't mentioned, I'd bet Short's a riot when he's not trying to deliver someone else's lines.
Posted by: ElMondoHummus at April 09, 2007 10:25 AM (xHyDY)
2
Annika,
Great, I love Martin Short. Have always thought he was a really funny guy since back in his SCTV days doing Jackie Rogers Jr. and a few others. We saw his show "Death Becomes Me" on Broadway last year and had a great time. The Prime Time Glick show was also very funny. He does some Glick in the Broadway show and drags different performers out of the audience and does a Glick style interview. Alex Trebeck was our night's patsy. The show was a take off on one person shows and was delightful.
MONDO, did you see Saget's Aristocrats bit? I, too always thought he was a dork, but he is pretty well respected among comics.
Posted by: strawman at April 09, 2007 02:08 PM (9ySL4)
3
Yeah, I did. That's a perfect example of what I mean by ADD-afflicted delivery. His complete randomness of direction actually showed a faster mind than what I ever used to give him credit for. I always judged him by Full House (mom loved the show, so I was sorta forced to endure it) and America's Funniest Home Videos, and I now know those aren't anywhere near being good indicators of his talent.
And yeah, I got that impression about his standing among other comics too. I remember at a Comedy Caravan night that we in the crowd were talking with the opening act after the show. One of his questions to us was "Favorite Comic?!". On my turn, I rattled off a list ('cause everyone else did), then said "... and I found out Bob Saget was pretty damn funny too." No verbal response, he just pointed at me and gravely nodded his head in agreement. Some lady close by said "Seriously?", and that guy nodded again, wide eyed, then said "Yeah. Seriously. Watch his standup sometime." That may not have been a very verbose reaction from him, but it was a very telling and completely honest one.
Funny thing was, the headliner told us couldn't stand Saget.
Posted by: ElMondoHummus at April 11, 2007 06:12 AM (xHyDY)
4
I heard that Bob Saget once told somebody at the hospital, after his daughter was born, that he'd "let 'em finger her for a dollar". I also heard that half his act is making jokes about fucking the Olsen Twins.
Posted by: reagan80 at April 11, 2007 08:16 AM (fO04l)
5
Ew! Ewwwwww!
I hate him, I like him, I hate him, I like him... the more I find out, the more I get yanked between like and dislike.
But the Olsen twins? Cripes, who didn't make jokes about f***** them? It's only after they turned legitimately legal that we all realized "Damn! They turned out skankier than I thought they would!..." I never liked heroin-level anorexia in Kate Moss, and I don't like it in M.K. and Ashley. There's a difference between elegantly slender and "Damn, chick, eat a sandwich!".
Posted by: ElMondoHummus at April 12, 2007 01:31 PM (xHyDY)
6
Actually, I wasn't trying to bash Saget by pointing those out. I was just shocked to learn that he wasn't always some sterile sit-com dork.
It would be like discovering that Angela Lansbury was in the Vagina Monologues or something. And, no, "Bedknobs and Broomsticks" isn't an S&M flick.
Posted by: reagan80 at April 12, 2007 04:27 PM (fO04l)
1
Katie Couric already has one in her bathroom, but hers dispenses neatly folded sanctimony. Why? Because she doesn't give a shit what's hanging out of her own ass.
Kevin
Posted by: Kevin Kim at April 07, 2007 01:58 AM (1PcL3)
2
Kevin you little weirdo. What do you have against Kiki?
I think she's brilliant; she got them to pay her an ungodly sum for failure. You're just jealous.
Posted by: shelly at April 07, 2007 05:34 AM (4hKsD)
3
This solves the riddle: Why can't the Cal Bears ever win a championship?
Posted by: shelly at April 07, 2007 07:45 AM (h/YdH)
Posted by: Casca at April 07, 2007 08:00 AM (2gORp)
5
What a waste of paper. Who needs a big wadd like that? , Well except maybe Rosie O'Donuts.
My cat can unwind the toilet paper real fast. I had to start placing it undersided instead of oversided so he could not unroll it.
Posted by: kyle N at April 07, 2007 06:39 PM (WVlyu)
Posted by: Casca at April 08, 2007 02:08 PM (Y7t14)
7
Annie, you went to Berkeley? Was sodomy a requirement or elective?
;-)
Posted by: Radical Redneck at April 08, 2007 05:19 PM (cOyko)
8
Not impressed. When it can complete the final task the TP is meant for, then I'll take notice.
'Till then: Meh.
Posted by: ElMondoHummus at April 09, 2007 10:16 AM (xHyDY)
9
kyle, on a campus whose prodominate smell is the smell of urine, you want as much insulation as you can between your hand and pretty much everything.
Posted by: annika at April 09, 2007 08:00 PM (WfR6S)
Kiki On WWI
Here's Kiki Couric on today's anniversary of the American entry into World War I.
Did you catch that?
Listening between the lines, Kiki's message is this: If not for advances in modern medicine, over 413,000 Americans would have died fighting the Iraq war.
Am I reading too much into it? If it was anybody else, I might be, but this is the anti-American CBS News.
1
What she meant to say was "If it were not for the aliens and their mind control device, I would be a pushy soccor mom, getting into a pissing match with another hausfrau at the Peoria PTA."
Posted by: kyle N at April 06, 2007 07:10 PM (7k0iG)
2
The video is no longer available! Conspiracy!!!!
Posted by: Otto at April 06, 2007 08:27 PM (czVLs)
3
There are few members of the media that make me cringe with revulsion more than Ms. Katie Couric. She could be reading "Green Eggs and Ham" -- it wouldn't matter.
Posted by: Mark at April 06, 2007 10:31 PM (viPPu)
4
Jeez, she reads like the smart bitch in a high school English class. Since when was the "A" in fatalities long?
On the upside, I just got off the phone with Casca II. He called on the satphone from a wadi in the western desert. It was good to hear his voice. Technology is great!
Posted by: Casca at April 06, 2007 11:44 PM (2gORp)
5
If he's really your son, it would be Casca, Jr. Small distinction, but worth mentioning.
Please give him my thanks, and those of all of us, (except that fool who keeps butting in), for being there and defending us all, even the fool.
Posted by: shelly at April 07, 2007 05:39 AM (4hKsD)
6
I second Shelly's motion. I hope him and his comrades remain safe for the duration of their stay.
Posted by: reagan80 at April 07, 2007 07:49 AM (I0gpu)
7
Lol, well since he's about five inches taller than me, I've always suspected his mother's fidelity. The rub is that his mind works a lot like my own. In any case, since I'm not a legalistic sort, I'll continue to call him any damn thing I want.
It was an interesting conversation. We talked tactics a bit. I asked him about his ability to displace, so as not to become a fixed target, and to emphasize the need to be thinking about that, and he replied, "I've got very little else to think about, and all day to think about it." LOL
He's on a grand adventure, and he knows it. Any man worth his salt would trade places with him in a heartbeat. I'll pass on your good wishes.
Posted by: Casca at April 07, 2007 08:16 AM (2gORp)
8
Kasca,
Despite what you or Shelly may think I wish him a safe return. I may not agree that he is defending me or you from a real threat or that his commander in chief is competent but he is a soldier and doing his job takes courage and committment.
Posted by: strawman at April 07, 2007 12:27 PM (9ySL4)
Posted by: Mike C. at April 08, 2007 05:30 AM (2nDll)
11
Hey Red,
DOn't worry, after we get move in proper and all and the kid comes we'll get you a nice new leather collar and a life coach.
Posted by: strawman at April 08, 2007 09:57 AM (9ySL4)
12
Straw is especially bitter on Easter because the Jew came back. Good Friday is the ultimate liberal blueballing!
Posted by: Radical Redneck at April 08, 2007 01:42 PM (G0EXJ)
13we'll get you a nice new leather collar and a life coach.
What the fuck is a life coach? Is that some kind of PC government makework job to inculcate loathing of America, heteros and self? I'm surrounded by a zillion of those every day and it hasn't yet, nor will it ever work.
Speaking of weddings Straw, when is your Daddy #1 going to make an honest man out of Daddy #2?
Posted by: Radical Redneck at April 08, 2007 05:29 PM (cOyko)
14
Thank you to your son, Casca. My son-in-law just got back from 14 months in Iraq. We owe them and their families a huge debt.
Posted by: MarkD at April 09, 2007 05:42 AM (5vbH6)
Posted by: Casca at April 09, 2007 06:28 AM (Y7t14)
16
Red,
It is, if Hillary is elected, going to be a new cabinet level position; Secretary of Life, right down the hall from the office of the Secretary of Peace. They may need an ugly mutt to pace in the front yard so you may have a job opportunity with medical bene's
Posted by: strawman at April 09, 2007 06:35 AM (9ySL4)
17
Seconds and Amen's to everyone's hopes for your son's safety, Cas. BTW, is he a Marine, or is he army? Figured the overbearing
influence of his paterfamilias might predispose him to life as a leatherneck, but then again, maybe he's all about blazing his own path and needling his old man about it. 'Specially given that dig 'bout his mom ("Yeah, pop, but funny thing is, I'm the same height as the mailman...").
Hehe...
All kidding aside, kudos and blessings to him and his immediate leadership, who I'm certain are equal to the task of leading fine young soldiers and Marines.
Posted by: ElMondoHummus at April 09, 2007 10:10 AM (xHyDY)
18They may need an ugly mutt to pace in the front yard
No thanks. Either of your wives (from the picture above) are more than qualified.
right down the hall from the office of the Secretary of Peace.
Got news for you genius - there already is a Secretary of Peace. It's called the Secretary of Defense, or the War Department.
Your desperate wet dream of a weak, surrendering and defeatist America will never happen.
Posted by: Radical Redneck at April 09, 2007 01:04 PM (fWJN4)
19
El,
We're coming up on the 25th anniversary of his mother deficating him upon a table in the delivery room at Camp Pendleton. Nine months earlier, the deed having been committed at Quantico, MCB. It truly was in his blood. I tried to wave him off, but we're from a line strong with the need to burn our own fingers.
Posted by: Casca at April 10, 2007 06:49 AM (Y7t14)
I've seen almost every movie Kirsten Dunst has made. I think she's wonderful, and not just because she's half Scandinavian and half German, like me. In Marie Antoinette, just out on DVD, she gives a beautiful and sympathetic performance as someone I thought I was supposed to hate.
Only Sofia Coppola could have made this movie. It's very sensual, like all of her pictures. Lots of food, lots of pastels, lots of shoes (designed by Manolo), lots of flowers, lots of hair, and of course cake. It was filmed at Versailles — the Versailles — which is reason enough to see it.
Marie Antoinette's story is essentially a girl's story, and the movie never loses that perspective. It's told from her point of view alone, and thus the French Revolution never intrudes until the very end. That was the problem, you see. Court life was completely insulated from the real world, and Marie Antoinette really had no clue what was going on outside the palace borders.
She was an Austrian princess, who was sent to France to seal an alliance with the Holy Roman Empire by wedding the somewhat shy, but basically decent grandson of the Sun King. Louis XVI is played by Jason Schwartzman, who is Sofia Coppola's cousin.
After the wedding, Marie Antoinette's biggest problem is getting the dauphin to consummate the marriage. He's sort of an Eighteenth Century nerd, more interested in the inner workings of locks, than in producing an heir. Eventually, after a man-to-man talk from the Holy Roman Emperor himself, Louis is persuaded to do the deed.
Later, Marie Antoinette enters into a secret affair with Count Axel von Fersen of Sweden (A close confidant of Gustav III, the Swedish king assasinated during a masquerade ball, and whose blood stained costume I viewed last summer at the Livrustkammaren in Stockholm, a must-see museum, but I digress.) who's a real hottie. Louis never finds out in the movie, although historically there is some debate about whether the real Louis suspected that Fersen was the biological father of the dauphin.
Anyways, the movie is as slow and dreamy as one should expect from a Sofia Coppola flick. The photography is great, as is the set and costume design. Interestingly, the costumers made a conscious choice not to include any browns in the color palette, because they didn't want to suggest sepia tones, lest the viewer get the feeling it was a historical pic. Along the same lines, there's plenty of cool Eighties new wave in the soundtrack, to add a contemporary feel a la A Knight's Tale.
I gave Marie Antoinette four stars ("really liked it") on the Neflix scale of one to five. When I got back from Sweden, I rented Queen Christina with Garbo, and last month I saw and enjoyed Cleopatra. Now I'm inspired to rent Elizabeth with Cate Blanchett, to complete my quartet of movies about iconic queens.
Update: Casca asks an interesting question: "Do they show her head getting cut off?" Actually I debated last night whether to reveal the ending, but decided not to. This morning I changed my mind, so *SPOILER ALERT* she dies at the end.
Seriously though, there is one problem with the movie, and that is that they do not show Marie Antoinette getting beheaded. That didn't spoil the movie for me, and I totally understand Coppola's decision not to show it, but I think a lot of people (i.e. guys) will end up scratching their heads at the ending.
My boyfriend hated the movie. I think that's because it's a chick flick, and if you're doing a biography of Marie Antoinette, there's sort of an implicit promise that you're going to show her head getting chopped off. That's pretty much all most people know about the subject anyway. She says "let them eat cake," (which they show, but which she never said) and she gets her head cut off. So when the movie ends with Kirsten Dunst still having a head, there's a lack of resolution, and guys are all about resolution after the build-up.
For me, the movie was not about a chick who got beheaded. It was about the contrast between court life and the life of the common folk, whom we never get to see. To fully appreciate this subtlety, you have to go into it knowing the story of the French Revolution. You also have to have a well developed sense of irony, because the movie is infused with irony. Otherwise, when an aide tells Marie Antoinette that the people have no bread, and she responds by saying, quite seriously, "well the kids will just have to go without diamonds," you won't get it.
The queen was serious, but we the viewer know that her insulation from the populace has left her hopelessly naive — as if going without diamonds could stave off the reign of terror we know will come. So even though the Revolution is not shown, the knowledge that it is brewing animates the first two acts, but only if one knows the history. Otherwise its probably just a boring costume pageant.
Or maybe Chris thought Antonella Barba was going to be in it. Just kidding honey.
Posted by: Casca at April 06, 2007 06:47 AM (Y7t14)
2
Annika,
Cate B. is amazing as Elizabeth which is half the reason for seeing the film the other half is that is quite a good movie.
Posted by: strawman at April 06, 2007 07:39 AM (9ySL4)
3Louis XVI is played by Jason Schwartzman, who is Sofia Coppola's cousin.
We need not mention who Sofia's father is.
Ah the comforts of nepotism.
Posted by: Mark at April 06, 2007 08:48 AM (2MrBP)
4
Learning about the French Revolution is one of the events that persuaded me to become a conservative. Reading Burke's take on the subject is wonderfully enlightening. Everything you need to know and despise about the Left can be learned in that brief time period.
Posted by: blu at April 06, 2007 10:06 AM (Z0MKU)
5
Straw,
We both agree that Ben A. totally sucks ass and that Cate B. totally rocks. It's a strange world indeed.
Posted by: Casca at April 06, 2007 12:33 PM (Y7t14)
7
I saw Elizabeth today....sort of.
That should sate anyone's penchant for beheading and dismemberment.
Posted by: reagan80 at April 06, 2007 05:03 PM (I0gpu)
8
Acton and Burke are good to read on the Revolution.
Posted by: Scof at April 06, 2007 06:10 PM (nE8Mg)
9
Since i am a History freak, I will probably check it out. Although French history was never my major area. I think that kirsten Dunst was incredibly good looking at one time but sort of uglied up on me. I don't know quite what happened, but I no longer find her attractive,
In just the opposite way, the vastly overrated Hilary Swank got attractive to me. I still think she is overrated as an actress, but she used to be a bow wow, and now is kinda hot.
Posted by: kyle N at April 06, 2007 06:19 PM (7k0iG)
10
What a coincidence, I just put The Affair Of The Necklace, in the Netflix queue, with Hillary Swank. It's about a scandal involving Marie Antoinette.
Posted by: annika at April 06, 2007 06:25 PM (WfR6S)
11
nd when Cate speaks in her native Aussie it doesn't make you skin crawl the way Nicole K. does. Speaking of Aussie actors I think Judy Davis is also terrific.
Posted by: strawman at April 07, 2007 08:08 AM (9ySL4)
12
Yes, but do they show her head getting cut off?
Posted by: Casca at April 07, 2007 08:19 AM (2gORp)
13
I think Sophias a great film maker. I'll check it out, even if it does make me a bit of a 'girlie-man.'
Posted by: Mike C. at April 08, 2007 05:42 AM (2nDll)
Posted by: Radical Redneck at April 08, 2007 01:35 PM (G0EXJ)
15
i loev teh movie!! although, i think it would be way better at the end if krsten's head got chopped off like in real life, this movie touched me in so many ways, i cant stop watching it!! and marie antoinette will always have a place in my heart!!
Posted by: melissa at April 19, 2007 05:14 PM (/vjcP)
16
omg!!! this is the best movie ever, amrie antoinette is soooo fastinating, and the movie rocked my world, it made me mad that in real life, marie had to be such a slut and cheat on her husband, ecspecaily cause he was sooo sweet in the movie, and kind of cute too!!! i agree with that other person though, she should have gotten heer head chopped off, so that teh story made more sence, and you know what? this si my favorite movie, and all the things that you mentioned about it was not shown in tehj movie, they all should have been, sio we all could have seen and heard the whole story bout this truley beautiful and facinating princess!!
Posted by: melissa at April 19, 2007 05:20 PM (/vjcP)
17
Melissa, sounds like you might like my favorite Kirsten Dunst movie, Bring It On. Actually that's my second favorite movie ever.
Posted by: annika at April 19, 2007 05:57 PM (WfR6S)
A Non-Issue For Me
I am in complete agreement with Jim Geraghty on the Pelosi head-scarf non-controversy.
I enjoy whacking around Nancy Pelosi as much as the next guy, but as far as I can tell, the photos of her in a headscarf are all of her while visiting a mosque. . . . There are a million and one reasons to object to Pelosi, but wearing the headscarf while in the mosque isn't one of them. It's akin to dressing appropriately while visiting a church, or a man wearing a yarmulke in a synagogue. It's something you do when you're a guest. It's not submission, it's respect.
I, too, looked through the entire Yahoo News photos slideshow to find a picture of Pelosi wearing the scarf outside the mosque, and there isn't any. Remember, she visited the tomb of John the Baptist, and made the sign of the cross. Before Vatican II all Catholic women covered their heads in church. I have zero problem with this and I think it hurts our credibility when we make a big stink over a non-issue and try to turn it into something it's not. Pelosi followed the same custom you and I would have done if we were in the same place. In fact, I think American women (myself included) dress far too immodestly in houses of worship. I was impressed when I visited Portugal, and saw young female tourists covering their shoulders before entering a church. So anyways, stick to hating Pelosi because she's an idiot.
1
A different version of the facts from the Reform Party of Syria:
http://tryingtogrok.mu.nu/archives/221714.html
Posted by: david foster at April 05, 2007 10:25 AM (VoCcd)
2
Annika,
Very reasonable. You had such a good upbringing so how come your politics got so twisted??
There are things that take place in these houses of worship that have made me a little queesy at times. If I am in a church for mass I stand when the congregation stands but i do not kneel when they kneel.
Posted by: strawman at April 05, 2007 11:26 AM (9ySL4)
3"how come your politics got so twisted??"Projecting much?
Posted by: reagan80 at April 05, 2007 01:29 PM (2A8p9)
4
She should have been criticized if she DIDN'T wear the headdress.
On a more substantial subject, I don't have any problem with Congressional fact-finding tours per se, nor do I have a problem with a Congressperson noting in the generic that yes, I play a role in the foreign policy of my country. Granted that this confuses some nations that are not used to separation of powers, but if our female government officials are going to wear headdresses in your country, you need to understand that our female government officials have to exercise Constitutional oversight in our country.
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at April 05, 2007 01:41 PM (P8ktI)
5
Raygun,
I don't know what I would do without you to point these things out to me. Many thanks.
Posted by: strawman at April 05, 2007 01:43 PM (9ySL4)
6
It's a cardinal rule that visitors respect the customs in someone else's country--even more important if you represent your country's government. Doesn't count against her.
Posted by: Joules at April 05, 2007 02:48 PM (u4CYb)
7
Nancy submissive? Are you nuts?
No one has ever accused her of being that...
Arrogant, naive, ballsy, rude,scary, confronational, any of these, but sumissive?
Never, never, never. (To paraphrase Winnie)
Posted by: shelly at April 05, 2007 03:21 PM (JQe3J)
8
The problem is not that she wore a hijab, it's the fact that she was in syria, a terrorist sponsoring state, trying to undermine the current administration.
Much like Kerry in the 70s, she's in violation of a little thing called the Logan Act.
§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.
Posted by: Frank at April 06, 2007 07:20 AM (YHZAl)
9
I found you quite by accident, and admittedly, this is the first time I've read any remarks made by you, but I just wanted to say, You ALMOST had it right. ALMOST. "Frank" hit the nail on the head. I don't care what Ms. Pelosi wore, or how courteous and respectful she might have been. The only question Americans should be asking, including our Federal prosecutors, is WHAT IS SHE DOING THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE? Anyway, I'll drop in from time to time, you sound intersting. Chef
Posted by: Chef at April 06, 2007 10:11 AM (JMWr9)
10
Chef,
Unless if Annika comes up with her own "Hockey Chicken" campaign* to keep her from "retiring", you've only got until May 20th before this blog is put out of commission.
*such as meeting all of her Amazon wishlist demands ASAP!
Posted by: reagan80 at April 06, 2007 10:28 AM (I0gpu)
11
Reagan, it is a function of the stress of the California Bar Exam. You get one chance, every six (6) months to pass. The pressure is great and the exam lasts three days, eight hours a day.
Thus, I expect her to retire as planned, but, she says she'll occasionally post on something called "Six Meat Buffet", so we can all move over there, except for that one fool who will remain nameless.
Here's the link:
http://www.sixmeatbuffet.com/
Posted by: shelly at April 06, 2007 11:21 AM (JQe3J)
12
Thanks for clarifying that, Shelly.
Though in my case, there will be 2 fleas that I won't miss after the curtain finally comes down here.
Posted by: reagan80 at April 06, 2007 12:29 PM (I0gpu)
13
Shelly,
Now look what you've gone and done: given me the link.
You know Shelly, just because you don't like me and I don't like you doesn't mean we can't be friends. Some of my best friends are RW jellybean appointee's. Why just the other day, I was on Madison and 57th street and who should come strolling up the avenue?
Posted by: strawman at April 06, 2007 01:28 PM (9ySL4)
Truth Kook Caught On Video By Yours Truly
When I heard crazy Rosie O'Donald shooting off her ignorant bullshit about WTC Building 7, I was reminded of my trip to Ground Zero in July 2003.
As my friend and I walked around the site, we saw a guy standing next to a sign with a bunch of literature. He kept talking about how the WTC was really made up of seven buildings, not just the towers. I thought, "How nice, he's not political at all, he just wants to give people a little history while they tour the site." He kept repeating the exact times that the buildings came down with special emphasis on Building 7. I thought that was odd, but it wasn't until recently that I remembered him and realized that he was a friggin Truther, defiling the scene with his craziness.
On the video I shot, you can't really see him until the very end. In the last frame, I think he's to the right of center, half hidden behind the dude in the white shirt.
1
I had to watch it multiple times. It's like trying to analyze the Zapruder film.
Posted by: reagan80 at April 04, 2007 09:03 PM (I0gpu)
2
I guess I don't know what this is about. It reminds me of Louis Farrakhan and all the goofy stuff he said during his Million Man March speech. I had a conspiracy theorist carpet cleaner visit our house once. He showed me how you can fold a bill (can't remember if it was a $1 bill or what) so that the Twin Towers are clearly visible, "proving" that our government was involved in the incident. Whew! What do you say to that? Here's your money; you need it to pay your mental health bills.
Posted by: Joules at April 04, 2007 09:26 PM (u4CYb)
3
It's clearly the result of the ongoing meth epidemic. Tweekers are all nutjobs. The drug fries their brain. Coinkydink? I think not! Excepting Rosie of course, she's just an angry dyke.
This film is another Annikan ploy to boost her up the ladder of YouTube hits.
Posted by: Casca at April 04, 2007 10:50 PM (2gORp)
4
Annika,
Are you referring to the facts concerning the reasons building 7 came down although it was not actually hit very hard?
I thought it was a clearly understood by now that Rudy G. brought it down? Not that most people would put it that way,( but I, a Rudy denigrator do,) but it was his facility, (built on his watch and with his hand pushing it)that, once ignited, led to the total destruction of the building. So, it is only a stretch of a certain type to say that had it not been for Rudy's grandiosity, building 7 would still be standing.
The facility in question was the Office of Emergency Management. I know it well since the plans for the facility landed on my desk. A contractor who was bidding the entire project asked that I bid on the woodworking component. The set of drawings depicted a facility that was so over the top and, even to our woodworker's eyes, ill conceived that I had to be restrained by cooler heads from sending it off to the Daily News. I wanted to begin an investigation as to who was getting rich off of it and who was so dumb that they would place 5000 gallon diesel fuel tanks and generators on the 7th floor and the facility on the 23 floor with great views of the Hudson. Hurricane resistant shutters were proposed for the windows among a myriad of other brain dead ideas. Mostly though, after we laughed at the functional problems we laughed a different kind of laugh at the costly, extensive and totally frivolous woodwork that was called for. If this was supposed to be an emergency facility why did it need a Bubinga paneled conference room when painted sheetrock would have been perfectly reasonable? The rest of the job was quartered cherry, stained and lacquered; again, Formica would have been fine. The bid was nearly 300,000 dollars for a job that could have been done for less than50 thousand in wood working.
So, I don't know exactly what this fellow at GZ was pitching to you, but if this was it, he is correct: Some stupid Motherfker at city hall pushed a pet project of the mayor's and the not so unforeseen consequence was that it contributed to the destruction of the city rather than to the orderly recovery.
Posted by: strawman at April 05, 2007 07:00 AM (9ySL4)
5
Straw, I think the point is that some screwy folks believe the US government brought WTC 7 down with explosives. And (in one version of the Conspiracy Fantasy) that Giuliani was the one who gave the order (the dominant fantasy has the owner - Silverstein - ordering the Fire Department to set the explosives off, but there's a subset who believes it was Giuliani's order).
Anni, those dumbass fantasy dwellers have been hanging around Ground Zero quite a bit. Some of the other blogs - Screw Loose Change, etc - have members who occasionally go out to counter them when they're in the area. But it's hard to take time out of your life to fight obsessive stupidity, so it's not like there's someone to counter those folks every day. And yeah: "Defiling" is the proper term. "Desecrating" is another one I favor.
Whoops, back to Straw - Respectfully, minor, tiny nitpick: Saying WTC7 wasn't hit "very hard" may be a bit misleading. Engineers' opinions were that the damage from falling debris, as extensive as it was, by itself may not have been enough to bring the building down without the presence of the fires. So in a way, you're correct: It wasn't hit very hard in the sense that "hard" means "enough to bring the building down all by itself". But the damage was extensive enough to where the fires were able weaken everything else to the point of collapse. Sorry to nitpick, but there're folks out there who keep on insisting that the damage to WTC 7 wasn't bad at all, so only controlled demolition could account for it's fall. I wanted to draw the distinction between "not hard enough by itself to account for the collapse" and "hardly damaged at all". I know what you're saying, I'm merely clarifying for some others who may come along and stumble across this post and think "Hey, someone who believes in controlled demolition!"
Posted by: ElMondoHummus at April 05, 2007 11:22 AM (xHyDY)
6
Humono,
I don't disgree with any of what you say. I used "not hit too had" to mean as you say, not enough to collapse it but certainly plenty of damage. Without the diesel fuel fire it certainly would be standing until it went the way of the Deutch Bank building scheduled for demo due to contamination.
Posted by: strawman at April 05, 2007 01:40 PM (9ySL4)
7
The bottom 10 floors of WTC7 were severely damaged.
Posted by: Mark at April 06, 2007 08:51 AM (2MrBP)
8
True, Mark. Again, I'm trying to draw a distinction between "hit hard enough to fall from the act of being hit by debris alone" and "hardly damaged". Too many folks out there continue to insist that WTC 7 was "hardly damaged". While it may not have fallen without the fires (I need to soften the "wouldn't have" stance; will explain why in a minute), there was severe damage done; Fire Chief John Norman describes the edge of the south face as "heavily damaged", and also repored a "huge gaping hole" in that face.
Also: Going back over the testimony of the involved firefighters, I see that there were many battalion chiefs who judged that WTC 7 was going to fall, and a few of them don't attribute that suspicion to fire damage. Rather, they talk about structural damage alone. The last stuff I've read in debates have pretty much followed the NIST line that all the WTC buildings (1, 2, 7, and the others not involved in conspiracy fantasies) fell due to a combo of fire and damage, not one or the other alone. But going over the testimony I haven't read in months brings back to the fore that many firefighters were talking about impact damage, or effects from them, not fire weakening.
I need to review all that stuff again sometime soon. I'd forgotten that early testimony.
Also, Straw brings up the diesel tanks. I though they were in the basement myself (need to look that up again), but regardless, everyone knew they were there. Recorded testimony references the cut diesel lines which fed the fires for hours, and also records the fact that firemen were taken away from firefighting in order to concentrate on human rescue operations, thus explaining why they weren't ever put out. All this is ignored by the conspiracy fantasy pushers in favor of claiming "controlled demolition".
Posted by: ElMondoHummus at April 06, 2007 02:53 PM (J+r3D)
Capitulation Works
I suppose we should all be happy that the crisis over the kidnapped Royal Marines looks like it's coming to a peaceful end. But something doesn't feel right about the way this thing has turned out.
I mean, Britain was patrolling the Gulf for a reason, right? And whether the Marines were kidnapped outside of Iranian waters or inside, the Iranians have quite forcefully demonstrated their power to win a showdown, anytime, anywhere.
The British could have won this confrontation, gaining the marines' release, without showing the world what a bunch of groveling patsies they've become. But instead, they've given the world another reason for a false hope: that you can deal with the Iranians as long as you avoid making them mad.
And don't think I'm letting President Bush off lightly in my scorn. Sure he talked tough while it was the Brits in captivity. But this administration has done nothing except pusue diplomatic impotence, while the Iranians built more centrifuges, and yanked our chains. Where is the Iranian Lech Walensa? Where is the Iranian Solidarity movement? Does anyone think the Iron Curtain fell on its own? We pushed it over. Reagan pushed it over. The means he used weren't always open and obvious, but by this time in Reagan's second term, we could see the effects. I've been hearing about Iranian dissidents and how sick the people are of the mullahs for years now. If that's so true, we should be seeing some actual dissent over there, demonstrations, labor strikes. Again I ask, where are President Bush and Secretary Rice on this issue?
Great Britain just made the likelihood of eventual military confrontation between Iran and the West more likely. What are we doing to prevent it by toppling the dictatorship before that happens?
Update: A comment by Cruiser at The Belmont Club made the following very cogent point:
We always hear that acting aggressively towards Iran shores-up the hardliners. This is an good example of why the opposite can be true.
Update 2: In 2005, after the London bombings, I asked, "Where is this Britiain?" I'm now sure of the answer. It no longer exists. Blair has made a mockery of James Thomson's stirring poem, and it should never be sung again, except in sarcasm.
Yes the Britain of Lord Nelson is dead. And so is the Britain of Lord Churchill who, in 1940, said:
[B]e the ordeal sharp or long, or both, we shall seek no terms, we shall tolerate no parley; we may show mercy—we shall ask for none.
Yes, that Britain is dead as dead can be. Mourn it.
1
Wait... Anni, I don't get you here. The Iranian's are getting jack s*** for releasing the sailors. The most concrete thing they've received is a formal letter from Britan promising "not to violate Iranian waters". Which is pretty much akin to telling a fish not to swim out of water; the Brit's never violated Iranian territory, and saying they won't do so in the future is merely saying "continue on as before". In return, the British were able to keep negotiations private, wasn't forced to grovel, upstaged the UN for their US allies (anyone remember that the Brits were there under "UN" auspices?).
The Iranian's get to pat themselves on the back in the media with their condescending remarks about "proper" negotiating stances, but if that and the letter is all they get for releasing the sailors, they get practically nothing. They've not dissuaded the UN to reconsider the nuclear sanctions. They've definitely not gotten their "diplomats" (*cough*) from Irbil back. And they've proven to the US Navy that they're willing to take actions outside their own waters, which just provides the US Navy cover to be more aggressive about defending itself if approached by armed Iranians. If said Iranians try to pull this stunt now, on the US navy, they'll get a whole lot of gunfire in return, and the US will have a ready-made justification handed to them on a silver platter by the Iranians ("They captured the Brits before; that's why we were on such a high state of alert. Sorry about sinking their ships and killing their personnel, but they shouldn't have come at us with weapons. Next question...").
The Iranian's blew their wad and got nothing concrete in return. The most they can claim is a slight publicity victory, and even that's lame, given the fact the US is holding 300+ Iranians involved in combat in Iraq. They come off as hypocrites in crying about a handful of Brits in a peaceful area when they've been caught red-handed with so many of their own personnel assisting insurgents in combat areas.
I don't see how this is any sort of real victory for the Iranians. To me, they backed down before something bad was inflicted on them, and they're trying to cover their caving with talk of "gifts" to Britan and other condescensions. That's the attitude of a loser, not a winner.
Posted by: ElMondoHummus at April 04, 2007 10:55 AM (J+r3D)
2
I don't think we can really draw parallels between the Cold War and the post Cold War. When Communism was run out of Eastern Europe, some (not all) of the countries DID become more democratic, more capitalistic, and more easily integratable into the world community. Yet the governments that have been overthrown in the Middle East have not followed the same script. The overthrow of the Shah in Iran led to the current regime, and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein is going to result in a dictatorship (or perhaps three separate dictatorships). And I can just imagine what would happen if the Saudi government were overthrown; I don't think we're going to get a multi-party, multi-religious haven of freedom if THAT happens. And don't even mention the overthrow of Rhodesia.
The successful transitions in Poland and South Africa resulted from (1) having a well-defined oppposition that was poised to take over, and (2) having a ruling government that was eventually willing to assist in the transition.
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at April 04, 2007 10:59 AM (Kkft8)
3
Just read ElMondo's comment, and I respectfully disagree. 25+ years ago, when the Iranians took hostages in the past, they were condemned as a rogue regime outside of the community of nations. They gain a TON of good PR in the world just by acting reasonably.
The next time there's a confrontation between the West and Iran, significant parts of the world will shout, "Hey, why are you picking on Iran? They let the sailors play chess and then released them. How can you call them a rogue regime, you fascist cowboys?"
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at April 04, 2007 11:03 AM (GT9eg)
4
Mondo, you're not one of those who thinks Israel "won" against Hezbollah last summer too?
Emperor, of course I'm not making a comparison to say that the situations are identical or that the same thing that happened in the 80's would work in Iran. For one thing, we had a polish pope back then, but there's no comparable guy who can influence Iranians religiously. But my point is that I am seeing nothing, NOTHING happening over there. As in Iraq, Bush is making the mistake of thinking he has all the time in the world. Pursue diplomacy, then if that don't work, go to the next step? Isolation? ooooh scary, isolation. as if they care. We should be multitasking this problem, especially since anybody with a brain knows the Iranians won't respond to diplomacy. They don't think we have anything to offer them worth negotiating for.
Posted by: annika at April 04, 2007 11:11 AM (zAOEU)
5
If anything the Iranians are practically being hailed as heroes for releasing hostages by the Left-wing MSM. Listening to CNN, you'd never know that the Iranians commited an act of war. And for that act, there was absolutely zero response. The European West is comprised of effete socialists who haven't the moral or physical courage to stand up for themselves. (But, hey, no worries they are really, really worried about "global warming." Gee, I feel safer already.)
And, I have to disagree with ElMondoHummus: the Iranians did win something here. First of all, they won big monetarily with the price of oil increasing during the stand-off. And they proved - yet again - that they can do anything they like and the West will piss itself out of fear before actually responding. They made the Brits and the West look like fools.
The Midget and the mullahs wins that round.
Posted by: blu at April 04, 2007 11:14 AM (Z0MKU)
6
Given the current rigime, war with Iran is inevitble. The question is where and when. I'd say over the Iraq/Iran border, because they will never stop meddling, sometime in the Guliani or Gingrich administration.
Posted by: Casca at April 04, 2007 12:25 PM (Y7t14)
Posted by: shelly at April 04, 2007 02:40 PM (JQe3J)
8"They gain a TON of good PR in the world just by acting reasonably."
In turn, respectfully disagree sir. First of all, they didn't act "reasonably"; threatening to charge a uniformed member of a nation's military with espionage, especially when carrying out a UN mission, is the furthest thing from being reasonable. And then suddenly letting them go without carrying through on the threat, but trumpeting how they could but they choose not to? That's the act of someone scared of keeping the sailors, not the act of someone confident they had the upper hand. If they were seriously concerned, they wouldn't have let them go for nothing. By turning them loose, they admitted how weak their hand was. Remember, they got no deflection from the UN sanctions, nor did they get the return of the supposed Irbil "diplomats" (expertise: Diplomatically training bombmakers). They got jack in return. And Great Britan didn't even threaten them with anything other than negotiations. England played their hand in a surprisingly weak, pissy way, and Iran still gave the sailors up. What does it say about Iran that they let the sailors go with no more than a finger-wag from the Brits?
"The next time there's a confrontation between the West and Iran, significant parts of the world will shout, "Hey, why are you picking on Iran? They let the sailors play chess and then released them. How can you call them a rogue regime, you fascist cowboys?""
Pffft... the idiots will say that anyway. Nothing that Iran does or does not do, or more pertinently, what Great Britan does or does not do, will change the idiot parade's predictable chant. Plus, I don't see them getting any more than an ounce of good PR from this. Everyone knows that right before the kidnappings, the UN sanctioned their nuke program. Who isn't going to put 2 and 2 together? Only the ones that wouldn't agree with the US or UK on anything anyway. Screw those guys. Everyone else sees the power play, and the attempt to deflect. Iran's being terribly transparent here.
I see what you're trying to say, Ontario, I just don't think it applies here.
Posted by: ElMondoHummus at April 04, 2007 02:59 PM (xHyDY)
9
Anni: No, I don't, but the Israel/Hezbollah situation is entirely different. Both of them somehow managed to lose, which before last summer, I never would've thought was possible. Plus, international pressure and that UN deadline was what got Hez to stop shooting rockets and Israel to withdraw. Contrast that to Iran, which just unilaterally dumped off the sailors. They basically gave up without getting anything real in return.
Again, Britan played weak, but the Iranians somehow ended up playing weaker. They didn't even try to string the situation out. They just let the sailors go. That's not a power play.
Posted by: ElMondoHummus at April 04, 2007 03:02 PM (xHyDY)
10
WHAT???!! Wait... whoa... this changes everything!:
http://formerspook.blogspot.com/2007/04/linkage.html"Another Iranian diplomat, captured in Baghdad two months ago, has apparently been released. At the time of his abduction, the diplomat's captors were described as "unifomed gunmen," although their identity was never officially disclosed. A senior Iraqi government official told the Associated Press that his country's intelligence service was holding the diplomat, who was set free this morning"
Okay, if the sailor release was a quid pro quo for releasing the "diplomat" (if anyone believes it's really a diplomat), then scratch everything I said. Because if the US released a prisoner for the British hostages, then the Iranian's did get something in return. And that does give them a victory.
And it's made me mad on top of that. If that is indeed related, then I'm steaming pissed. You never, never pay the Danegeld, because once you do, you never get rid of the Dane.
That better not be related. Else the US and GB were the ones doing the caving.
Anni, Ontario, Blu: If that link is accurate, I may have to hand this one to you guys. My whole argument was predicated on Iran getting nothing in return. This has the potential to undo that.
Posted by: ElMondoHummus at April 04, 2007 03:23 PM (xHyDY)
11
looks like you found the Turkish missiles, Mondo.
Posted by: annika at April 04, 2007 03:47 PM (zAOEU)
12
Here is Iran's real objective: http://patdollard.com/2007/03/25/leverage/
Here is another take on it: http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/07/front2454186.013888889.html
And here is a little better summation of it all: http://patdollard.com/2007/04/04/told-you-so/
Posted by: Joatmoaf at April 04, 2007 04:10 PM (ls2Sh)
13
Annie:
Of course capitulation works;how else does any woman catch a man?
My father used to say "I chased her and chased her until she caught me".
Posted by: shelly at April 04, 2007 05:08 PM (JQe3J)
14Roach made an interesting entry on "Fourth Generation" Warfare, not long ago.
I also liked Glaivester's comment there:
As William Lind pointed out, there is a way for nation-states to defeat fourth generation warfare with second generation techniques (the nuke suggestion).
The problem, of course, is that second generation techniques and superior technology can only defeat fourth generation enemies by engaging in macro-terrorism (i.e. raze cities to the ground until everyone submits, and respond to "parallel structures" by savage retaliation [any soldier of ours killed, we will kill 1000 people in the area, including, if we can find who they are, the attackers' entire family]).
Hopefully, the West will only have to lose 25,000 more of its citizens in a single attack before getting pissed enough at the Muslim world to put Lind's remedies into action.
If there is a war against Iran, it better be a "scorched earth" campaign that would make Sherman proud. No more of this nation-building and peacekeeping bullshit for our troops. To Hell with them...
Posted by: reagan80 at April 04, 2007 08:06 PM (I0gpu)
15
As you know, Reagan, I've blogged several times on the fourth generation warfare problem. Your solution, while sounding attractive, is impractical because no civilized nation would threaten such a thing, and the plan doesn't work unless there's advanced notice. No, the only solution is to force the enemy into a conventional war, where we can master them. Or, as I have posited, and which is far more likely, to wait for the enemy to become so powerful that they make the mistake of taking us on in conventional warfare. Until then, despite the imbalance in power in our favor, we in the west will continue to grovel bow and scrape before our inferiors riding camels.
Posted by: annika at April 04, 2007 08:59 PM (WfR6S)
16
I figured Ahmagetajob wasn't going to do anything. No matter what they say, I don't think they're dumb enough to think they could do something to those soldiers without repercussions, especially when our military forces are right there in their neighborhood.
Posted by: Joules at April 04, 2007 09:32 PM (u4CYb)
17
Yes, I remember you mentioning 4GW before, and I probably posted the same Derb link then, as well.
"because no civilized nation would threaten such a thing"
I'm afraid you might be right about that, but I can still dream, can't I?
Another idea would be to outsource our war against Iran to the Chinese. After we topple the regime, tell the PLA that they can have complete control over Iran's oil reserves if only they'd supply the manpower to keep the locals and jihadists in check(Tiananmen-style, if necessary) on our behalf. We'd even provide them the logistics support and air/sea transportation to get their troops into the theater.
The Chi-Coms would get their oil and lebensraum while we can wash our hands of Iran after stopping their nuclear program. Our troops wouldn't be dying from a post-invasion occupation and the Chinese won't care about suffering casualties since they want to control their own population's growth anyway(via mandatory abortions). Another fringe benefit of this expedition would include giving Chinese men a chance to find a woman.
Sure, I might be channeling General Ripper now, but it won't sound so crazy as time goes on.
Posted by: reagan80 at April 04, 2007 10:38 PM (I0gpu)
18
Shit, is Bill Lind still alive?
So how do you think that Sharafi fellow liked the waterboard? If we sent him back, we must have turned him. If we didn't turn him, we'll make them think that we did, mwahahahaha, win-win.
Posted by: Casca at April 04, 2007 11:04 PM (2gORp)
19
Anni, I agree completely with your implied strategic and tactical recommendation, which you've mentioned in the past as well.
Posted by: will at April 05, 2007 04:56 AM (GzvlQ)
20
I don't think I disagree with anything you have to say, Anni, except that Winston never actually got around to accepting a peerage (he was supposedly leaning towards taking the title Duke of London).
Posted by: Leif at April 05, 2007 08:28 AM (n7rBV)
21
Still steaming... that better not have been related.
But I'm not finding anything to the contrary. Which pisses me off. There's no reason to negotiate with thuggery.
Posted by: ElMondoHummus at April 05, 2007 11:25 AM (xHyDY)
22
On the 25th anniversary of the Falklands Islands recapture.. interesting contrast for the Royal Navy...
Posted by: Col Steve at April 06, 2007 12:12 PM (WffUy)
23
They got lucky in the Falklands. If the Argies had any starch in their shorts at all, they'd have kicked the Brits collective ass. A great example of how leadership and morale can carry the day. The weaker force had it. The Argies... not so much.
It's dismaying to hear a Royal Marine Captain explain how he folded his hand instead of holding his bluff. We'll have to see how the next hand gets played.
Posted by: Casca at April 06, 2007 11:59 PM (2gORp)
The Category Is "Heads Of State"
Identify the European head of state who, according to Time Magazine, complained that the President "acts like a faith healer" and formulates "policy from the pulpit?"
1
I never saw that one coming. What a surprise...a pleasant one, nonetheless.
Posted by: reagan80 at April 03, 2007 07:46 PM (I0gpu)
2
Only one person at a time is "The President". Every other former occupant of that position is "Ex-President" or "former President".
So, when you asked the question, it was obviously a trick question, because "The President" is not that fool Carter.
Better hope the bar Examiners are more careful about their questions...
Posted by: shelly at April 04, 2007 06:57 AM (JQe3J)
3
"...the virtues of open diplomacy and moral principles as a substitute for what he contends was the often secretive and sometimes amoral Realpolitik of the Nixon-Ford-Kissinger years."
The man was, is, and at this point, probably always will be the definition of a fucking idiot. What was accomplished in those amoral years? Well there was this war in Vietnam, that the left didn't want to win, but didn't want Nixon to get the credit for ending. There was also the opening of Russia with Glasnost, and that Red China thing, all of which created a world where the possibilities of nuclear war became more remote.
Jimmy on the other hand, deposed the Shah, and gave us the mullahs. I propose that wherever he opens his mouth in front of a microphone, he be driven from the place with wet towels! The man is a disaster.
Posted by: Casca at April 04, 2007 07:02 AM (Y7t14)
4
Kasha,
It is not surprising that you genuflect for the dubious accomplishments of a man whoÂ’s name and dark countenance has been, until the current occupant of the WH grabbed the feedbag of slime, synonymous with deceit and malfeasance, anti-Semitism, racism and many other less pleasant attributes and deride a man who has acted impeccably throughout his career, never a whiff of scandal, always championing the high moral ground.
The Shah was a corrupt despot and Israel will settle for nothing less than separate but unequal. Today I was reading an account of the firing of general Lavelle in 1972 and the Nixon-Kissmonkey-Laid statements about the event transcribed from the tapes. They are pissed at Laird for firing Lavelle when he (Laird) knew full well that “protective reaction” was to be used as the excuse for bombing targets in the North other than SAM sites that turned on their radar. Lavelle was hung out to dry for following the orders contained in the wink rather than the explicit paperwork and the winker (although more often referred to as the wanker), Nixon, was furious.
Posted by: strawman at April 04, 2007 07:43 AM (9ySL4)
5
Hey Casca, did you hear something?
I swear I thought I heard something. Nope, I guess not,
Sorry about the OSU bit; I couldn't resist. I actually spit out my coffee when I read Annie's post. Florida's team is going en masse to the NBA, but USC just got the Numero Uno pick for next year. This year was your chance...
Posted by: shelly at April 04, 2007 08:11 AM (JQe3J)
6
Mata is a good coach. I'm just glad that we have a respectable program now. Conley is an incredible talent, overshadowed by the big man Oden. They'll probably do the smart thing, and take the money, and be gone next year. Who can blame them?
Posted by: Casca at April 04, 2007 12:08 PM (Y7t14)
7
Straw,
At this point in your career, I'm rarely surprised at your silly statements and distortion of reality.
Jimmy Carter is a miserable failure. He's a disgusting, amoral, self-righteous idiot. The day he meets Jesus will be a great day for mankind. The moron is unworthy of being mentioned in the same sentence as Nixon, who despite some obvious personal failings accomplished more in his career than that jackass Jimmy Carter did or ever will.
"The Shah was a corrupt despot and Israel will settle for nothing less than separate but unequal."
Yeah, the Iranian people (and the American and Israeli people were much better off with him gone.) My God, are you that dumb!? Jimmy Carter is as much responsible for the current mess with Islamo-fascism as anybody walking the planet.
Your commment about Israel, however, was even more dumb. How is it possible that this German-American can know more about and care more about your own people than somebody in tribe? I have Jewish friends that would spit on you, Straw, for such inane rambling. The very people who would like to see every Jew dead get to vote in Israel. Ruminate on that while you sit around feeling sorry for the barbarians.
Get a life and clue, pal. Better yet, try going to Israel sometime and meeting your people, and experiencing what life is like knowing you are surrounded by sub-humans whose entire existence revolves around destroying you and yours.
Posted by: blu at April 04, 2007 12:36 PM (Z0MKU)
8
Straw is this the same naive Carter who has been bowing before the altar of dictators for decades and thinks they're all perfectly rational people? Is this the same vicious Carter that rips his country at home and abroad?
If you're going to defend a Democrat President, fine. Pick Roosevelt. Pick Kennedy. Carter?
Posted by: Mark at April 04, 2007 02:10 PM (krump)
9
Blu,
Calm down fella, wipe the foam off your lip, take a drink of water and listen. I am dedicated to the survival of Israel, be they my tribe or not. (you should only know how many Jews And Israelis I have as friends and business associates). But I am not going to get sucked into your foaming at the mouth rambles about the sub-human peoples that surround them and agree that a policy of keeping a heel in their necks is the only way to control a very difficult situation. No matter how long you keep your heel there you will someday have to or want to relax and try to live your life. Unfortunately the damage done through oppression cannot be undone by simply getting them to say uncle. The poverty and oppressive conditions in Gaza and the west bank are appalling. The population explosion in these territories is causing great pressure and the anger and resentment grows year by year. The numbers that want to sacrifice everything to the cause increases daily. Explosives are the limiting factor, not those willing to serve Allah. I do not expect nor do I want the Palestinians to enter Israel and participate in running the country. No vote and no citizenship. But, short of trucking 2 million people out into the desert and shooting them, (which on may days, I am sad to say, I think is a good idea) I cannot think of a solution that does not include giving up territory and resources. Can you? I don't pretend to know exactly how this might be configured but I do know that the application of military might coupled with indefinite containment is not a solution.
Maybe I don't remember the events of 1979 too well, but why would you lay Khomenei's accent at the feet of Jimmy Carter? Corrupt royal families are not my cup of tea but neither are Islamic Republics.
Posted by: strawman at April 04, 2007 03:10 PM (9ySL4)
10
Want to watch a Jew's eyebrows go up and his eyes squint?
Just start saying any version of "Some of my best friends are Jews".
We all know what's coming next...
Posted by: shelly at April 04, 2007 08:43 PM (JQe3J)
1
Call us anything you like. At least we are called, BITCH!
Posted by: Casca at April 02, 2007 09:14 PM (2gORp)
2
The Fighting Griffins of Reed College won't make the NCAA, or the NIT. Back when I attended, we competed in rugby and ultimate frisbee. I don't think times have changed.
The Travelocity Gnome can be compared to the King of Burger King, but at least the King is scary. The gnome is a bunch of nothingness.
If God had meant us to eat salad sandwiches, lettuce would sprout out of wheat stalks.
I have no idea who any of this years American Idolwannabes are. But I did enjoy WB's parody of American Idol, where they chose the worst people and had three judges (the smartmouth, the black guy, and the nice girl) just like you know who.
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at April 02, 2007 09:31 PM (P8ktI)
Posted by: Chuck at April 03, 2007 01:28 PM (iXWYc)
4
Yeah, Jessica Simpson is pretty and Jessica Alba is hot....BUT Jessica Biel has an AMAZING ass!
Posted by: blu at April 03, 2007 03:03 PM (j8oa6)
5
The Travelocity Gnome is one of the reasons I stopped watching what used to be my favorite TV Show-- The Amazing Race.
It was a combination of the retarded gnome, and Rob and Amber, and the constant influx of model/actresses and token gays. What a waste of a show.
6
Tsk, tsk, Casca.
Don't worry. OSU will win a National Championship one day soon (and, a monkey will jump out of your ass at the same time).
Posted by: shelly at April 04, 2007 07:00 AM (JQe3J)
7
Quit drooling on the kybd, and go take your medications, before they have to take you back to the farm for a visit.
Posted by: Casca at April 04, 2007 07:05 AM (Y7t14)
8
Ooops, what I meant to say was, probably before you're taking a dirt nap, you old bastard.
Posted by: Casca at April 04, 2007 07:07 AM (Y7t14)
9
I have seen many UCLA and USC National Championships, and will live to see many more.
You may outlive me, but you may still never see a National Championship for OSU again, well, at least as long as Florida is around to be their Daddy.
Posted by: shelly at April 04, 2007 07:43 AM (JQe3J)
10
With the favor of the motorcycle gods, I WILL outlive you safe in the knowledge that the Buckeyes will win again.
Posted by: Casca at April 04, 2007 04:09 PM (2gORp)
11
Wear your helmet.
Although, that won't do you much good against a semi that has lost his brakes.
Posted by: shelly at April 04, 2007 05:10 PM (JQe3J)
12
Dammit! A friend of mine is vacationing in Hawaii, and called to wake me from my nap to feed me this pathetic poke in my eye. He of course read it on Rodger's blog. I will henceforth always get a boost when I hear about the failure of the perpetually pathetic Bears.
Posted by: Casca at April 04, 2007 11:17 PM (2gORp)
13
The Bears? They are the Chicago Cubs of California. Pick on someone your own size, like UCLA or USC.
Both my teams are winners, but they do, like Florida's Bitches, lose occassionally. Yuo can rejoice then.
In the meantime, in the immortal words of Leo Durocher, "Wait 'til next year."
Posted by: shelly at April 05, 2007 07:58 AM (2nDll)
14
I like the gnome. He's a fairly genteel and quaintly funny (like your nerdy English uncle) little guy in a world of t.v. madness. I like him better on radio so you can imagine what he looks like. His life is far more exciting than mine.
Posted by: Joules at April 05, 2007 02:42 PM (u4CYb)
McCain Loses First Primary
John McCain just lost his first primary this season: the "fundraising primary."
Sen. John McCain today announced a disappointing $12.5 million fundraising total for the first three months of 2007.
The total, which would have been impressive in past election cycles, finds McCain trailing GOP rivals Mitt Romney and Rudolph Giuliani in the crucial early money sweepstakes.
Romney, the former Massachusetts governor who has struggled in the national polls, reported $23 million in primary election contributions, including more than $2 million of his own money. The Federal Election Commission allows candidates to collect money for their primary and general election campaigns simultaneously.
Giuliani, the Republican frontrunner in national surveys, took in more than $15 million in primary cash, including more than $10 million last month. He also transferred about $2 million from another campaign account for a total of $17 million.
This is not good news for McCain, but it's good news for America.
Memo to Senator McCain: The mainstream media is not a constituency. You pissed off the wrong people with your Gang of 14 - anti-free speech - dumbing down the definition of "torture" - Democrats are people too, views. Money flows to candidates that can win the nomination. You can't win. It's time to leave the field to Giuliani and Romney and stop sucking up attention that should be going to the legitimate candidates.
1
Seconded, except for the get out of the race stuff. His comments in support of the war are helpful, and while he's running, he's trying to say nice things to us.
Posted by: Casca at April 02, 2007 01:41 PM (Y7t14)
2
Thirded. As far as I'm concerned, Romney is the ONLY viable candidate for the GOP right now.
Posted by: Dan at April 02, 2007 02:32 PM (IHDHe)
3
I wonder if Romney believes that he is going to be in charge of his own planet someday, making celestial babies with his wife for all eternity (a Mormon belief). Kind of makes it hard to vote for him if he's a devout Mormon.
Posted by: Joules at April 02, 2007 04:40 PM (u4CYb)
4
Romney is a nobody. A somebody always beats a nobody. He won't be the candidate.
Posted by: Casca at April 02, 2007 09:15 PM (2gORp)
5
Don't ALL politicians believe that they're rulers of their own planets? I wouldn't hold that against Romney. Frankly I haven't really investigated him (other than hearing noises about his supposed flip-flops). Then again, I'll probably investigate Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo before I look at the other ones...
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at April 02, 2007 09:27 PM (P8ktI)
6
Still very early in the contest and more entrants are walking through the door (more to adjust tenor of the debate, no doubt). McCain's moderate supporters wince at his support of Bush, while the conservative crowd reviles his wont of the center. Watch for a spoiler...
Posted by: will at April 03, 2007 04:50 AM (GzvlQ)
7
Way, way too early to talk about anything substantial. The money is important, but Mitt had a spurt and John was asleep. Let's look again in a few months.
Meanwhile, don't forget to vote in Annie's polls, especially the one about Florida's Bitches.
I hear their are changing their color to pink and calling themselves "Big Pink".
Posted by: shelly at April 03, 2007 07:04 PM (JQe3J)
Modern Liberalism Explained
Two weekends ago I turned you on to a fabulous 75 minute YouTube on global warming. This weekend, I only need you to set aside 48 minutes.
This speech, by a guy named Evan Sayet, is pure brilliance. I don't know why I've never heard of him before. For years I've been looking for a "grand unified theory" of why liberals are so fucked up, and this dude came up with a real contender. He presents his thesis within the first couple of minutes, and when I heard it I was like, "whoa, that's amazing, I've never thought of it like that before."
Posted by: reagan80 at March 30, 2007 08:40 PM (I0gpu)
2
Good Gawd woman! Now you're reduced to reposting Rodger's week old work? Not that it isn't worth watching. It definitely is. Sayet was on Dennis Miller's radio show today. BTW, this was the first week of Miller's show, and he's GREAT! His guests are as esoteric as his wit.
This is the way the blog ends,
This is the way the blog ends,
This is the way the blog ends,
Not with a bang, but a whimper.
There were some good times here. Snapping Victor with wet towels; bitchslapping LF and Procain Amy; taunting senescent USC fans; but life must go on; For all things change, the darkness changes,
The wandering spirits change their ranges,
The corn is gathered to the granges.
The corn is sown again, it grows;
The stars burn out, the darkness goes;
The rhythms change, they do not close.
They change, and we, who pass like foam,
Like dust blown through the streets of Rome,
Change ever, too; we have no home,
Only a beauty, only a power,
Sad in the fruit, bright in the flower,
Endlessly erring for its hour,
But gathering, as we stray, a sense
Of Life, so lovely and intense,
It lingers when we wander hence,
That those who follow feel behind
Their backs, when all before is blind,
Our joy, a rampart to the mind.
Posted by: Casca at March 30, 2007 08:53 PM (2gORp)
3
nice, Casca. Can't follow it with equal eloquence. A few years ago, I would've been devastated that this blog was ending. Since, I've come to be more religious, to trust God's plan more. It's God's plan that all things come to an end. I'm okay with it now. Been some nice times hanging out here, with all you guys. Truly.
I actually took notes during Evan Sayet's video. His premise: Liberals are not okay with the continued existence of war, poverty, crime, and injustice, reminds of the way I wasn't okay, a few years ago, with the reality of everyone dying dying, and of everything coming to an end. Liberals, like me a few years ago, have a complaint with the Creator. They just don't know it.
What is funny, about Liberals choosing not to employ discriminate thought about competing options, is that everything is a choice, including the choice not to choose amongst competing options. Liberals are discriminating as to whether to use discriminate thought about option, or whether not to do so. Humans cannot avoid employing discriminate thought. The entire Liberal premise - as described by Evan Sayet - is slashed to pieces by this reality.
I enjoyed the video.
Posted by: gcotharn at March 30, 2007 11:15 PM (n+fl+)
4
More and more people are cottoning on to the imminent death of Annika's Journal.
I shall have to write a Korean-style death poem for it. Or draw something particularly filthy to commemorate its passing.
"Passing..." Yes, that gives me an idea...
Kevin
Posted by: Kevin Kim at March 31, 2007 06:56 AM (1PcL3)
5"Passing..." Yes, that gives me an idea...
Kidney stones?
Posted by: reagan80 at March 31, 2007 07:41 AM (I0gpu)
6
Think bowels reagan80, like this...
...and gcotharn, considering your comment on "everyone dying dying", consider these other lines from "casca's" poem:
Fasten to lover or to friend,
Until the heart break at the end:
The break of death that cannot mend;
Then to lie useless, helpless, still,
Down in the earth, in dark, to fill
The roots of grass or daffodil.
Down in the earth, in dark, alone,
A mockery of the ghost in bone,
The strangeness, passing the unknown.
...That death will change because it must;
ITS a good video, well deserving of a repost, better watch than any of that michael moore tripe, but still, the daily show is funnier...
Posted by: Scof at March 31, 2007 04:19 PM (nE8Mg)
Posted by: Scof at March 31, 2007 04:24 PM (nE8Mg)
8
Thanks, Scof. You surprised me.
I was worried that it would be a "tub girl" or "goatse" link. No one deserves to have their eyes raped by those.
Posted by: reagan80 at March 31, 2007 04:40 PM (I0gpu)
9
Annika,
I don't know what theis guy was drinking the night out that he had his epiphany but it wasn't logic juice.
He is completely guility of the logical flaw that the R always makes. If you don't agree with my plan to attack my enemy than you must perfer my enemy to me"
If one thinks the aftermath of the Iraq invasion is a tragedy, then, Saddam was a good guy who should have been left in place.
If you thought 911 beat up America but you don't agree that beating up Iraq, who had nothing to do with 911, is the oppropriate response, then, you must have enjoyed the 911 attack and thought America deserved it.
If you think a woman's right to choose is more important than the concept of ending the progress of the life in her womb, then you must be part of the culture that promotes unprotected sex and promiscuity.
If you think that America still has problems with institutional racism then you are a hater of our country because S. Africa, Poland, Germany, and Borneo have greater problems with racism.
If you think that universal health care is a good idea then you are a communist and Russia lover because they though it was a good idea too and looked what Stalin did.
And if you think descrimination is often used to marginalize segments of the population than you are a proponante of indiscriminate thinking.
The man is an idiot. The basis for the ideas he espouses are so riddled with generalization and
sophistry that I wonder why he doesn't get laughed of the stage. And why, you, a reasonable woman would find this simplistic reasoning the answer to lifes big question-Why Liberals hate America.
He infact said nothing about the why's. He said nothing about the complex reality of the world will live in. Just dumb equations-if you don't want to kill an evil man, you too are evil. This is the kind of crap GB lives and breathes
Posted by: strawman at March 31, 2007 06:00 PM (9ySL4)
10
If you want to gauge the validity of Sayet's theory, just look at one of Strawman's classic rants.
Observe the way he even talks shit about the military in the '91 Gulf War.
Posted by: reagan80 at March 31, 2007 06:59 PM (I0gpu)
Posted by: reagan80 at March 31, 2007 07:09 PM (I0gpu)
12
If you have friends and family who still believe in this whole global warming thing, pass this link on to them.
http://www.gorelied.notlong.com
It goes to that video
Posted by: ted at March 31, 2007 11:09 PM (hEbb8)
13
as the peasant in Holy Grail said:
"I'm not dead yet!"
Posted by: annika at April 01, 2007 06:10 PM (WfR6S)
14
Since this blog won't be around for the second anniversary, I would like to take this time to formally congratulate Annika's Journal for remaining the #1 search on Google for "bullet shaped titties".
For those that were disappointed with the absence of the desired visuals when their search brought them here, I will finally offer a meek token of consolation. Enjoy!
Posted by: reagan80 at April 01, 2007 07:13 PM (I0gpu)
15
yah you laugh now, but when my graphic novel gets made into a feature film, you'll all say you knew me way back when.
And what are you doing searching for bullet shaped titties, Reagan?
Posted by: annika at April 01, 2007 08:02 PM (WfR6S)
Posted by: reagan80 at April 01, 2007 08:22 PM (I0gpu)
17
Okay, okay, I admit not being very forthcoming there. I apologize. I was kidding about Skippy. He had nothing to do with it.
Actually, beLIEve it or not, I saw that YTMND site first and it reminded me of that old post for some reason...
Hey, if I can remember Strawman's old posts, then surely I can remember your classics, such as that entry you made about the classmate sitting away from you due to problems with rigor mortis in his pants or something.
Posted by: reagan80 at April 01, 2007 09:42 PM (I0gpu)
18 If you thought 911 beat up America but you don't agree that beating up Iraq, who had nothing to do with 911 . . .
Sweet Jesus, help me.
Read this s l o w l y, straw:
WE DID NOT ATTACK IRAQ AS A RESPONSE TO 9/11.
WE ATTACKED IRAQ FOR ACTIVE SPONSORSHIP OF TERROR, WHICH HAS BEEN HEAVILY DOCUMENTED, AND LED TO 9/11.
Posted by: Mark at April 01, 2007 11:15 PM (7A5PO)
19
I listened to this in its entirety last week. His thesis is impressive and does make a ton of sense. Examine liberalism from top to bottom and a lack of standards is what tends to dominate.
Posted by: Mark at April 01, 2007 11:21 PM (7A5PO)
20
A great article by Sayet:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1408339/posts
Posted by: Mark at April 01, 2007 11:36 PM (7A5PO)
21
It has been a few days now since I saw this, and I have been thinking about his thesis. I believe I can even pinpoint when this type of thinking was first codified. H. G Wells wrote a book back in 1923 called Men Like Gods. He put forth this idea that if mankind could just jettison religion, philosophies, nations, and ethnicities, then we would be malleable and could be shaped by an elite vangaurd into realizing our full potential. We could be like gods.
Now, it is a simplistic, and utterly naive belief. But it is true, many many otherwise educated people have bought into some version of this banality.
Posted by: kyle N at April 02, 2007 01:45 AM (WzccO)
22
Like a lot of ideas, that sounds pretty good, until one realizes that many men are devils.
Posted by: Casca at April 02, 2007 06:26 AM (Y7t14)
23
Annika, thanks for the video. I just bought The Closing of the American Mind and look forward to reading it.
Posted by: Sarah at April 02, 2007 07:41 AM (vrR+j)
24
Mark,
One word. Lies. Oh, another couple: the indiscriminate thinkers who believe them.
History is beginning to write the epitaph to the whole debacle. Bush, the worst ever, ignorant, naive, insulated, fervent believer of bullshit surrounded by the uncritical, bungling manager of corrupt bunglers (people who truly hate America and will steal her resources, capital and compromise the safety of her people for their own agrandizement ad profit), mismanager of domestic resources, believer in faith not science, supporter of creation "science", could not read Hamlet if his life depended on it, caused the complete turnaround of Republican influence in America (a good thing), no less a murderer than Karadzic and too much else to list.
Keep smiling Mark, its only going to get worse, and NO i don't hate America any more than I hate my son after a bad day on the playground where he might have struck a playmate without provocation. I'm angry, I wish he had acted better and I look for new ways to teach him how to behave but I don't hate him. It appears this complexity has eluded the great thinker Evan Sayet.
SInce when is indiscriminate the opposite of descrimination? Maybe to the indiscriminate.
Posted by: strawman at April 02, 2007 07:59 AM (9ySL4)
25
Did straw reply to anything I posted, or did he just change the subject 180 degrees and resort to insults and smears?
Posted by: Mark at April 02, 2007 08:14 AM (krump)
26
Mark,
You said well documented and I say lies.
You said ton of sense theory of Liberalism and and i said it is not well reasoned.
Where is the shift?
Posted by: strawman at April 02, 2007 08:35 AM (9ySL4)
27
I'd love to meet this spamming twat and show him why I was called Vlad the Impaler in the washroom at Angola State Pen. He will soon go from "true patriot" to "Ben Dover".
Posted by: Spanky at April 02, 2007 09:58 AM (I0gpu)
28
Slight twist on the same old damage-control rant.
WE ATTACKED IRAQ FOR ACTIVE SPONSORSHIP OF TERROR, WHICH HAS BEEN HEAVILY DOCUMENTED, AND LED TO 9/11.
The evidence is so miniscule and irrelevant that even the Duchy of Grand Fenwick would have declined to send their army.
Posted by: will at April 03, 2007 05:01 AM (GzvlQ)
29
straw,
The "shift" is that "lies" is not a response, (it's more of an knee-jerk accusation). Kindly explain why those statements were "lies."
Again, "not well reasoned" isn't a response. Anything you disagree with could be "not well reasoned." Why is it "not well reasoned?" I'm not suggesting that his presentation was 100% flawless. Of course not. But what exactly did he say that was incorrect in your view, and what are your reasons for thinking that those statements were incorrect? If you rather not give me a point by point rebuttal, that's fine, but don't call statements "lies" when they are not, and don't claim that an argument is "not well reasoned" unless you can (attempt to) prove it.
__________
will,
It was hardly "miniscule" and hardly "irrelevant." Saddam had huge connections to global terror: he housed the bastards, he fed them, he gave them places to train, he met with them, he supported them and their families financially, etc. Apart from mailing you a signed and notarized letter, I'm not sure what else the man could have done.
Posted by: Mark at April 03, 2007 10:47 PM (LfDKS)
30
Mark, I'll take you up on your offer;
- Which terrorist organizations, specifically?
- Of those, which did he house (and for how long)?
- Met = support, even if he blew them off? Please provide substantive rationale.
We'll dissect the evidence to see how well it stands up to scrutiny.
Posted by: will at April 04, 2007 05:37 AM (GzvlQ)
31
MArk,
If you read my first post you will see my arguments. The method he uses to support his conclusions is a tried and true tool of the propogandist. He finds and common thread to join to elements than switches to a non common element then claims that the second and most outrageous idea is also shared when it is not.
If a person wishes the US to leave Iraq he must hate America, love the terrorists and bask in delight that America is losing a war. He must also be a supporter of Saddam and rape rooms and torture chambers.
To Sayets way of arguing all these things follow from a dissagreement about the reasons we went to war with Iraq and how we might resolve the problems that have resulted from that decision.
Is that how you feel Mark? I love Saddam, I think his reign should be continued, that I enjoy soldiers dying and that the misson of the Islamist radicals is something I wish success?
This make sense to you and must be the nature of my beliefs because I think the reasons for going to war were trumped up and that there were altnative actions that could have been taken.
Posted by: strawman at April 04, 2007 08:23 AM (9ySL4)
32
What a coincidence! Doug TenNapel sent us this just the other day, trying to influence my husband away from his Democratic leanings. I thought the same thing--brilliant--and I've been comparing every liberal I hear to this theory ever since. Pretty freaky! I love his phrase "9/13 Republican."
Posted by: Joules at April 04, 2007 09:40 PM (u4CYb)
Confrontation can be avoided through capitulation, and no Western nation is willing to insist that Iran adhere to any norms of behavior.
. . .
Why put European ships or planes outside of European territorial waters when that will only guarantee a crisis in which Europeans are kidnapped and held as hostages or used as bargaining chips to force political concessions?
Indeed. Why do the Europeans bother pretending that they have any spine at all?
Royal Marines don't apologize. Not willingly. But so what? They don't need to, eventually their government apologizes for them.
What we need here is not "de-escalation" rhetoric. The Iranians are playing the same hand they played in '79, because they know it works. Somebody needs to look them in the eye and say "not this time." But nobody is willing to do it. And so if nobody has the guts, why bother pretending? They should all just go home.
1
Exactly. Well said by both VDH and Annika. The left-wing jibberish spouted by the Euros places them in a tough position when the barbarians start acting out. These effete appeasers don't know what to do if pandering and blaming the Jews doesn't work. (Actually, at some point, I'm sure the "Palestinian Issue" will somehow be weaved into the Iranian demands.)
Posted by: blu at March 30, 2007 11:10 AM (Z0MKU)
2
Iran has declining oil output and is facing bankruptcy. Every time they create an incident oil shoots up from $55 a barrel to $70 a barrel.
In effect the West pays Iran to raise hell, and Iran will continue to do so to keep oil prices up.
Posted by: Jake at March 30, 2007 11:32 AM (V6rxT)
3
We're not at the endgame yet. Let's see what happens. If nothing has been done after a couple more weeks, I'll have to agree with you. It takes time to arrange something big, and this is a great opportunity to hit their nuke sites, along with their navy.
Posted by: Casca at March 30, 2007 05:23 PM (2gORp)
McCain Was Almost A Democrat?
Who knows if this story is true? The source is two former Democratic lawmakers, who say that McCain's chief of staff approached them in 2001 about McCain switching parties. The chief of staff denies it, although he's now a Democrat himself, which is bad enough for McCain. Of course in these types of things, it doesn't really matter if the story is true, all that matters is that the story is out there, and it fits the narrative.
McCain may be done.
My prediction for the next big Republican drama: H. Ross Thompson. Will he or won't he? (Fuck everything up, that is.)
1
Does having a good candidate fuck things up? For who?
This race is a long way from the finish; how can our host justify leaving in 60 days (or less)?
Annie, you will have to answer to a higher authority. Maybe I should grade your Bar Exam answers?
Posted by: shelly at March 29, 2007 04:42 PM (JQe3J)
Posted by: reagan80 at March 29, 2007 05:18 PM (pTNVX)
3
McCain has to be a Democrat because MSM loves him. That disqualifies him from every job except for night watchman in a girls' dormitory.
Posted by: Jake at March 29, 2007 07:17 PM (V6rxT)
4
I don't see that he can pull a Perot. If anything, he'll be a solid conservative candidate that the Republican base can finally rally around. He won't have the liberal social issues to face that McCain and Giuliani have, and the people who have no idea what his name is will remember his face from Law and Order.
I think Thompson may fuck things up for the current front runners, but only by the fact that he will sprint passed them both at the finish line.
Posted by: Frank at March 29, 2007 08:45 PM (Jk/pP)
Posted by: Casca at March 29, 2007 08:47 PM (2gORp)
6
I'll tell you how H. Ross can fuck things up. According to the latest Fox News poll, he is already stealing 10% from the legitimate candidates, YET 53% of respondents never heard of him!
Posted by: annika at March 29, 2007 10:49 PM (WfR6S)
7
My gut feeling is, he won't get into the race, but any of the front runners would do well to connvince him to be a running mate. Personally I am OK with either Giuliani or Romney. In a perfect world we get another Ronald Reagan, but it aint a perfect world. And either one would be a better president IMO than G W Bush.
I carried water for Bush because he was right on a few important issues, but the incompetance and fecklessness of this administration is horrible.
Posted by: kyle N at March 30, 2007 03:44 AM (dPrxc)
8
Kyle, you also carried water for Bush because the alternatives (Gore, Kerry) were too horrible to imagine.
That's why most of us will support the Republican candidate this time around as well, because Shillary Ramrod will be too horrible to imagine as President of the United States of America.
Casca, Newt will be Secretary of State, and I predict, a great one. He has forgotten more history than most of our Secretaries ever knew.
But, sadly, he just isn't electable as President, maybe VP for Rudy might just work.
Posted by: shelly at March 30, 2007 06:47 AM (JQe3J)
9
Shelly, don't let the CW wash what you know to be true out of your brain. It's too early to be predicting a winner, let alone who will be in the race. He's one televised Republican debate away from being the frontrunner.
Posted by: Casca at March 30, 2007 07:26 AM (Y7t14)
10
Shelly's right.
Bush may have been possessed by LBJ, but the GOP has plenty of Nixon wannabes to replace him while the Dems only have McGovern-ites.
Posted by: reagan80 at March 30, 2007 07:30 AM (I0gpu)
11
Hey all. Maybe it's the long hours I've been pulling, but I can't stop giggling when I think about my new dream ticket:
Newt & Joe. The lizard and the Jew. Raw, inside-the-beltway political effectiveness meets principled, independent respectibility. I like the combo so much I still don't know which one would be my prez & which would be my veep. It makes *such* a good t-shirt.
Between Obama & Hillary, democrats are getting all the "First [X] President Ever" attention. First Jewish president ever? First reptilian president ever? Can't beat that.
Posted by: max at March 30, 2007 09:03 AM (dLe9c)
12
Still too early one way or another, except for those candidates that have dropped out. A number of candidates have come from the middle or back of the primary pack, i.e, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, for starters. What a circus we are in the midst of indeed.
Posted by: will at March 30, 2007 09:25 AM (GzvlQ)
13
I really hate it when Will is right.
Still too early to tell. (But, my bet regarding Newt still stands, Casca.)Rush just spent a few minutes talking about how the MSM is beginning to hammer Rudy. So, we will soon learn how firm his support actually is. (He's my preferred candidate, so I hope he survives.)
Another right-wing, Southern white boy ain't gonna cut this time folks. The Dems are either going to come with a female or a black on some part of their ticket. PC or not, our side needs to show a similar capacity to move beyond the standard red/blue tie, white male for both Prez and VP.
Be interesting to see how it all shakes out. Regardless, '08 is gonna be a tough sell for Reps - especially the way this war has been executed and is being portrayed by the media.
Posted by: blu at March 30, 2007 10:26 AM (Z0MKU)
14
Hillary/McCain vs. Giuliani/Thompson or Giuliani/Newt
who wins? ack.
re: kyle's comments on Bush: we don't have to revere Geo Bush as Geo Washington, yet, I believe, he will be very well regarded by history. He deserves better than to be casually dismissed. Perhaps you are too young to remember the venomous in office criticisms of Clinton, Bush I, and Reagan(!). I remember them. These Presidents were excoriated. Apparantly Jerry Ford as well. Now, having passed, both Reagan and Jerry Ford are respected as they never were while in office. The job is tough. DC is a nest of vipers. The electorate is fickle. We could be doing a lot worse, a LOT worse, than having Geo Bush in office.
Posted by: gcotharn at March 30, 2007 10:44 AM (n+fl+)
15
"He deserves better than to be casually dismissed."
I agree.
However, he might have invented perpetual motion...
...in the form of Reagan spinning in his grave.
Posted by: reagan80 at March 30, 2007 11:36 AM (I0gpu)
16Countdown To The End Of Annika's Journal...Søndag 20 Maj 2007 23:59:59 [-08:00]WTF? Why? Are you spending the summer groupying for Phish?
Posted by: Radical Redneck at March 30, 2007 01:59 PM (qlNCk)
17
Where have you been, Red?
She has to study for the California Bar Exam. Three years of school and three months of prepping for three days of testing.
Pass rates usually in low 40's.
It is daunting to face; give the girl a break.
Posted by: shelly at March 31, 2007 01:13 AM (JQe3J)
18
Gothern,
Sure, we coulda had Strom or an autistic child after that I'm ata loss unless you will admit Warner cartoon characters.
Posted by: strawman at April 02, 2007 10:14 AM (9ySL4)
Bronco Bomber Polling
Is it racist for a liberal to say "I like Obama, but I'm supporting Hillary because America's not ready to elect a black president?"*
Whether or not it's racist, that kind of attitude betrays a characteristic pessimism and contempt for America that many liberals hold but won't admit. The psychological term is called "projection," where a person attributes oneÂ’s own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts and emotions onto another. Liberals are famous for projecting their own faults, so it wouldn't surprise me if there were a few closet racists in the Democratic party.
I know it's early, but Hillary still isn't beating Giuliani in head-to-head matchups, and I can't understand why Obama isn't gaining traction with Democrats. In almost every aspect, he's a better candidate for the liberals. Consistent on the war (despite the latest Clinton lie, he never flip-flopped), more likeable, a better speaker, less political baggage, got more integrity, etc., etc. And because he's from a new generation, nominating Obama over Hillary represents a step forward, not a step back.
Plus, if Giuliani gets the Republican nomination, I think Obama is the tougher matchup. Let's look at the polling.
The RealClearPolitics average has Obama losing to Giuliani by only 2.2%, whereas Queen Hillary loses to the Mayor by 4.5%. Those numbers seem close, but remember they're averages of about 4 or 5 different polls. The key is that Obama wins two of the five polls averaged in the Giuliani/Obama matchup, with Giuliani winning the other three. By contrast all four polls in the hypothetical Giuliani/Clinton matchup swing for Giuliani.
Both Hillary and Obama run neck-and-neck against McCain, but I'd give Obama the edge. RealClearPolitics has Obama beating John McCain by 1%, while Hillary loses to McCain by 1.6%. I know, I know, margin of error. But in McCain vs. Obama, McCain has the same problems as Hillary. There's a large swath of people who will never vote for the man (myself included), and his generation represents a step back, not forward.
In other matchups, while Clinton beats Romney convincingly, Obama beats Romney going away. Obama's average lead over Romney is almost 20%, and is 7.1 points higher than Hillary's lead. Actually, even John Edwards polls better against Romney than Hillary does. There's no chance that Romney could ever beat any Democrat in the general election.
Things are changing on the Democratic side, however. In the west and the south, Obama has apparently pulled dead even with Hillary. She still retains a two to one lead in the northeast. With the new über-Tuesday election giving more weight to the big states, it's going to be anybody's race, especially if Obama can take California. Even though I'm voting Republican, I'd so love to see Obama beat Hillary. I hate coronations.
_______________
* I realize I'm vulnerable to the same criticism, since I have always scoffed at the Romney candidacy. But the reason I don't think Romney can win is not because he's a Mormon. It's because he's a nobody, he looks plastic, and the country is in the middle of an anti-conservative backlash right now. Romney's been marketed as the conservative's conservative, and that's not going to go over well in the general. By contrast, Giuliani has crossover appeal because he's the anti-conservative conservative. His liberal social views make him more acceptable to the average general election voter, who fancies him or herself more "tolerant" than the typical primary voter.
1
I am on record as having said, a long time ago, that I do not believe Hilary could ever be elected president. I stand by that. Presidential candidates, when it gets close to election time, are scrutinized very closely by that part of the public who normally are not very political. And they are the swing voters.
They will never vote for such a shrill woman.
Posted by: kyle N at March 24, 2007 02:25 PM (b3yka)
Posted by: annika at March 24, 2007 02:38 PM (WfR6S)
3
It's TSTT, too soon to tell. That's why we have campaigns. The Clintonistas own the levers of power in the D party. O'bama will be the VP candidate if he plays nice. He'll be stupid if he doesn't take that deal, since he probably isn't in a position to win reelection in Illinois against a real candidate.
The Clintons should both be getting out of prison about now. Instead, they're in position to move back into the White House to steal more furniture. It's a mistake to dismiss them, no matter how venal and grating they may be to the sensibilities of anyone who has their eyes open.
Posted by: Casca at March 24, 2007 03:15 PM (2gORp)
4
As one who has been married many times, I have to say I like the idea of a Giuliani White House where the president and the First Lady each have two ex-spouses.
And I still believe John Edwards is the most electable of all three major candidates on the Democratic side. He'll team up with Bill Richardson as his Veep; Giuliani can pick up Mike Huckabee, and it'll be a very interesting battle.
Posted by: Hugo at March 24, 2007 04:09 PM (ApisT)
5
Giuliani does have crossover appeal. Maybe I'm projecting - b/c I calmly accept that no candidate will ever agree with every one of my own beliefs - but I don't think conservatives will stay away from voting for Giuliani, assuming he is the Repub nominee. There are lots of issues, and conservative voters are accustomed to their candidates disagreeing with them on some issues. Giuliani will be no different.
I hear one liberal commenter after another proclaim that conservatives will not vote for Giuliani. I think they are scamming, and/or projecting their own rigidity. They have zero self knowledge. They cannot see it is them who are truly the rigid voters. They cannot see it is them who would vote their abortion views above all else. Every time they scornfully denounce some perception they have about "the religious right", they are opening a window for us to look inside them.
I still love Giuliani. But, I would have to look hard at Fred Thompson also. Things are awfully entertaining for March, 2007.
Posted by: gcotharn at March 24, 2007 05:36 PM (n+fl+)
6
Giuliani with Gingrich could beat anyone the Dem's throw at them.
Can it happen? I don't think so, bu5 I'd go to the wall for that slate.
Posted by: shelly at March 24, 2007 10:59 PM (JQe3J)
7
Giuliani Gingrich would be a great ticket. But anybody who thinks Thompson is the savior is dreaming. Sure, he's a solid conservative, but he can't beat Hillary.
Posted by: annika at March 26, 2007 02:19 PM (zAOEU)
8
Fred Thompson is like the back up QB, he is always the fan's favorite, until he gets on the field.
Posted by: kyle N at March 26, 2007 04:11 PM (frqsE)
9
I'm "anyone", and I'm dreaming of Fred Thompson kicking Hillary's ass. Fred has charisma, and he looks at many issues exactly as I do.
Buuuut, what do I know? I liked George Allen, I like Mitt Romney, and I think Duncan Hunter might someday be me President.
Posted by: gcotharn at March 26, 2007 05:39 PM (n+fl+)
Posted by: gcotharn at March 26, 2007 05:40 PM (n+fl+)
11
Duncan is an honest to goodness white knight. On the downside, he's from a solid R district, and one doesn't learn political skills running against weak opposition. Sadly, it shows.
Posted by: Casca at March 26, 2007 06:23 PM (2gORp)
12
How about Giuliani and Thompson? I am on record as thinking Giuliani will be the next President, but I haven't really come up with a good VP candidate for him. Thompson would be a good choice in many ways--As a southern Conservative he balances the ticket geographically, and would reassure those Republicans who are worried about Giuliani's social views, he is a serious individual who is respected on both sides of the political divide, etc. Personally, I think a Giuliani-Thompson ticket would be very difficult for the Democrats to counter. OTOH, I wonder if Thompson is serious about running for President, much less willing to consider the second spot, and he has a few stumbling blocks in his past, too.
Posted by: DBrooks at March 26, 2007 08:01 PM (VA3Jg)
13
It is time for Barack to implode. The articles calling attention to his lies in his Selma speech are the beginning of the end.
The Clintons are getting ready to bury him; there will not be enough left of him to get him reelected back to the Senate.
Mark my words; Bronco Bomber is done. Put a fork in him.
Posted by: AntonioVdeLA at March 27, 2007 03:28 AM (JQe3J)
14
Can someone explain to me how Giuliani is a "conservative"?
Posted by: Mark at March 27, 2007 12:12 PM (2MrBP)
15
Mark,
He's not. He is a law and order democrat who supports a womenÂ’s right to choose, gun control because protecting cops is more important to him than some vaporous and childish idea about a "right" to bare arms and he will impose fiscal responsibility unlike spend the spend thrift conservatives. He will, I feel, retreat from the pointless non-war on terror in Iraq and maybe make stabilizing Afghanistan a priority. Nor is he a religious man and the lobbying efforts of the christo-fascist segment of our populace will fall on deaf ears. No ten commandments in his courtrooms, and a great deal of other religious bullshit that permeates our current whorehouse of a Whitehouse. Rudy will not withhold money from clinics that don't preach abstinence, will spend on stem cell research because he doesnÂ’t suffer from that brain lock about protected life beginning at first division of cells. In other words he is neither frightening nor an insult to reasonable people. I received a fund raising letter on behalf of Rudy the other day from a friend who supports him. A wealthy, liberal, NY Jewish lawyer (Doc PomusÂ’s brother) who like most people I know has nothing but distain for the Republican Party and the Imperial Chimp but who is a good friend of RudyÂ’s and thinks highly of him.
So I don't know what you are all wishing for? I would not be happy if he won but neither would I be a tenth as appalled and embarrassed as I am now with this ignorant and inept son of a bitch whose administrationÂ’s biggest challenge, and one that they blow every time, seems to be keeping their lies straight. Goodbye Speedy G.
Posted by: strawman at March 27, 2007 01:02 PM (9ySL4)
16
I will never give up my right to "bare" arms...
Posted by: gcotharn at March 27, 2007 06:22 PM (n+fl+)
17
goth,
Skin cancer, don't forget is not protected by the constutition.
Posted by: strawman at March 28, 2007 01:05 PM (9ySL4)
18
straw,
It's takes real talent to insert falsehoods, distortions, half truths, or angry insults into every sentence. I guess this is the "tolerance" and "compassion" I keep hearing about.
Anyone who still resorts to this mindless "right to choose" slogan without admitting that it's an utterly dishonest and thinly veiled euphemism has not thought much about the topic. Ironically, those who elevate choice into a sacrament are strongly against choice in other matters.
Regarding gun control, COPS SUPPORT the right to BEAR arms. Where gun control is weak, crime tends to be low. Where gun control is oppressive (D.C. and Chicago) crime is high. (See John Lott from University of Chicago who has proven this in two books. See also, "Law of Unintended Consequences.")
To call the Invasion in Iraq a "pointless non-war" could only come from someone who has not followed the Invasion since Day 1 with any honesty or consistency. Despite the many problems (inherent in all wars, by the way) much has also been accomplished.
Regarding stem cell research, Republicans support ADULT stem cell research, which have merely resulted in 72 (or more) treatments, cures, etc. Embryonic stem cells? NOTHING, NADA, ZERO. Have you pondered WHY researchers in embryonic stem cells are begging at the public trough? Because the private sector (investors) knows what you don't: embryonic stem cells are fraught with valid moral problems and are a scientic failure.
When you're not making uninformed comments, you drop rather vicious insults. Your mother must be proud.
I fail to understand what you get from regularly polluting this blog with misinformation and very little independent thought and research. Perhaps you take great pleasure in making consistently invalid, incomplete, illogical statements. If so, you must be approaching orgasm.
Posted by: Mark at March 28, 2007 01:59 PM (2MrBP)
19
Annika, I would support this whole post, except I'm not ready to suppport the views of a woman. I don't feel America is yet ready.
Otherwise I would say that this was a good post.
Posted by: RightWingDuck at March 28, 2007 02:43 PM (pl1ju)
20
Good one Mark, but it is the custom here to ignore the fulsome strawfuck.
RWD, it's always good to meet a brother in the He-Man-Woman-Haters Club.
Posted by: Casca at March 28, 2007 04:24 PM (2gORp)
21
Mark,
You have not heard about tolerance and compassion from me for those who don’t need it The people of Iraq need some but not fools sitting by their keyboards all over this country blowing smoke up each others asses. They need a blow to the side of their heads so the crap can seep out their ears. The world is spinning out of America’s control as the huge populations of China and India are developing a consumer class and we have nothing to sell them. Our influence is diminishing as any bully’s does because a stick is only emblematic of his lack of imagination. “To a man whose only tool is a hammer all problems look like nails” The current and many past administrations have been hobbled by their reliance on the paucity of tools they are willing to bring to bear on the problems we and the world face. We are acting scared and have created a policy out of fear. Grabbing Iraq was the policy of a cabal that feared for the demise of America, saw an opportunity to insert our influence in a part of the world we think is vital to our continued growth and they completely fucked it up. Iraq is now a corrosive canister threatening to explode and spatter its tainted innards around the region and cause deeper and more profound wounds than the WTC and we refuse to open our fist and let go or to at least look for alternate solutions.
Please do not pitch the superior morals crap. You are comfortable watching Iraq dissolve in a pool of blood and tissue at the hands of our military and the Iraqi people yet you insist a woman be compelled against her will to gestate a child because you think not doing so is a trespass against god. What a bull shitter. What do you say to your god on Sundays when He asks you what part donÂ’t you understand of his admonitions about killing and his other clear messages? Pick the ones you like, shuck and jive around the others.
Oh, Mark, please stop thinking about my orgasms, it's gross, man.
Posted by: strawman at March 28, 2007 07:04 PM (9ySL4)
22
Casca's right; sooner or later the attention whore will go ply some other street...
Posted by: shellly at March 28, 2007 08:29 PM (JQe3J)
23
Or, the parasite shall lose its host on May 20th.
Posted by: reagan80 at March 28, 2007 08:58 PM (I0gpu)
24
Egads; just when I thought it safe for the kids to come out and play again.
Lock up the kids and the wives. Break out the assault weapons.
Posted by: shelly at March 29, 2007 07:12 PM (JQe3J)
Paraphrased Quote Of The Day
Is by Frank J, paraphrased by me:
[Al Gore] got Cs in Yale in political science -- a type of science -- [yet he's] angry at the world [for] not submitting unquestioningly to his wisdom.
1
A type of science? I was endlessly derided by the physics majors in my dorm for majoring in economics. I imagine they would have believed that political science is an oxymoron. And they're probably right.
And, for what it's worth, the fact that someone with C's in political science could become a Senator and Vice President says more about our educational process than it does about our political candidates. School is not going to make your career for you, and it's not going to hold you back.
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at March 22, 2007 10:03 PM (P8ktI)
2
Algore's problem isn't his grades, or his major. He was the only son of an old powerful political hack, and some arm candy. He was the original Fortunate Son, thus his egomaniacal behavior, and confidence in his own rectitude and right to power.
Posted by: Casca at March 22, 2007 10:11 PM (2gORp)
3
He is a fat fool who has become a caricature of himself. That he has any following at all is a surprise to me.
George W. Bush is not perfect, but the thought that Gore might have become President of the United States if it were not for a few hanging chads gives me shivers.
Posted by: shelly at March 23, 2007 07:20 AM (JQe3J)
4
"He is a fat fool who has become a caricature of himself. That he has any following at all is a surprise to me."
when i first read this comment, i read it off my phone and didnt know which post it was attached to, and i assumed you were talking about tom jones. lol
Posted by: annika at March 23, 2007 09:49 AM (zAOEU)
5
It's not unusual to be dissed by anyone, dadadadadada.
Heh Shelly, Ohio State v USC on the 31st.
Posted by: Casca at March 23, 2007 01:09 PM (Y7t14)
6
Al is not sane, its just that simple, and he really has not been sane for quite some time.
Posted by: kyle N at March 23, 2007 03:02 PM (/1wbO)
7
Well, I still root for USC basketball, except when they play UCLA. My undergrad school is UCLA and I was there during the Wooden years.
In football it's different, as I spent eight years on the Coliseum Commission, and UCLA was playing at the Rose Bowl, so I am a die hard USC Football guy.
So, I'll still be rooting for the Trojans to kick the Nutmeg's butts on the 31st, but will not be suicidal if OSU pulls out another lucky win.
On th eother hand, Columbus will shut down if their darlings don't make it to the last.
Posted by: shelly at March 23, 2007 03:14 PM (JQe3J)
Posted by: Casca at March 23, 2007 09:42 PM (2gORp)
10
He got an A in Political, and an F in Science. That averaged out to a C in Political Science.
Posted by: BobG at March 24, 2007 09:24 AM (sGD8S)
11
Did you ever see that "Kiss me, I'm Al Gore" web site? At the time, when he'd just given Tipper that huge, stagey smooch, it was really funny.
Posted by: Joules at March 24, 2007 11:59 AM (u4CYb)
12
Reading Anni's description and Casca's first comment, it seemed the subject was the current President. Funny about glass houses and all that...
Posted by: will at March 26, 2007 05:00 AM (GzvlQ)
13
Hey Will,
Well, at least, you found one person at this site that takes you seriously. Too bad, he's an anti-semite. Nice company.
Posted by: blu at March 26, 2007 10:58 AM (jcmjk)
14
I just realized, if Annika stops blogging, and Al Gore gets his wish, we will have a global ice age. Only unicellular organisms such as ice algae, Will and Al Gore will survive.
Posted by: Joints at March 27, 2007 06:59 AM (Dh/a/)
15
As a physical chemist, I deeply resent political "scientists" being lumped in with us hard-core geeks. Political science is to science what metaphysics is to physics. ;-)
Posted by: John at March 28, 2007 11:59 AM (ct7Ey)
16
Good call on getting rid of those bigoted comments, Annika.
Posted by: blu at March 28, 2007 03:00 PM (j8oa6)
17
I thought the story was that Al Gore and actor Tommie Lee Jones were roommates during their undergrad years at HARVARD.
Yale has a lot to be ashamed of, but I don't think you can blame Yale for Al Gore.
Posted by: David March at March 29, 2007 08:32 PM (a/QW9)
I have a somewhat different take on the whole Imus debacle. I've always thought he was totally overrated and I never understood his appeal or influence. Happily, living in California, I don't have to listen to him.
influence of his paterfamilias might predispose him to life as a leatherneck, but then again, maybe he's all about blazing his own path and needling his old man about it. 'Specially given that dig 'bout his mom ("Yeah, pop, but funny thing is, I'm the same height as the mailman...").
Buuuut, what do I know? I liked George Allen, I like Mitt Romney, and I think Duncan Hunter might someday be me President. 
