This is Tom Jones. Enjoy!

I actually saw Tom Jones in Vegas once. I went as a joke, but came out a believer. The man puts on a fantastic show! We got seated at a table in the front row too. I was so close I could see the spit and sweat flying. We got such great seats due to a tricky move by my boyfriend at the time. As we stood in line he kept a twenty clutched in his hand so the usher could see it. Then while the guy led us down front, my boyfriend palmed the twenty and handed him a five. I'm sure the usher was pissed, but what the hell. Oh by the way, chicks really did throw underwear up on stage for Tom to wipe his sweat with. I thought that was just an icky legend, but it's true. I managed to stay fully clothed though.

Posted by: annika at 08:45 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 161 words, total size 1 kb.

I have discovered amazing evidence that Global Warming is real, that it is caused by human activity, and that we are quickly approaching the end of the world.

I looked at my TTLB stats tonight, and the graph for average daily visits to my blog looked frighteningly familiar. By consulting my scientific sources (i.e. I googled it) I was able to find a graph showing the recent increase in average global temperatures.

Sure enough, when I superimposed the two graphs, an inconvenient truth emerged!

The debate is over, the science is in: My blog is at fault for global warming.

Well, as soon as I realized this, my first thought was, "how embarrassing." My second thought was, "If I am to blame, what can I do to save the planet?"

So now you know why, in sixty days time, I will retire this blog. Sorry about that.

Posted by: annika at 08:30 PM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 160 words, total size 1 kb.

Posted by: annika at 05:54 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 14 words, total size 1 kb.

Posted by: annika at 09:26 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 14 words, total size 1 kb.

Cliff filling in for Big Pussy.

I guess when Ratzenberger got the call from ABC, it was a short conversation.

"So what you're sayin' is, I get to dry grind with the hottest body on the show, who's basically wearing a bikini and heels, but you can only pay me scale? Umm— I just have one question, can I borrow your pen?"

Posted by: annika at 07:32 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 66 words, total size 1 kb.

Posted by: annika at 08:44 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 14 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Heh, you're getting funnier! Are there going to be more pork pulling jokes, or are you headed down the chicken choking route?

Posted by: Casca at March 19, 2007 10:28 PM (2gORp)

2 Lemme guess...the pig picks up a lamp that is filled with newspaper - Danish cartoons soaked in alcohol. I'll nominate *you* for a Nobel Peace Prize...

Posted by: Ontario Emperor at March 20, 2007 08:55 AM (BSx9z)

3 I don't like where this is going Annie.... Over and out, X

Posted by: Major X at March 20, 2007 06:43 PM (N155d)

4 Dear Mr. Casca, I've always been partial to "waxing the dolphin". I mean not actually waxing the dolphin myself, but you know using the term. Although, I've been out on sortie many a times and it does get lonely, but I'm not admitting anything. Beating the Bishop, thats a good one too! Over and out again, X

Posted by: Major X at March 20, 2007 06:45 PM (N155d)

5 Waxing the dolphin??... No matter how hard I try, any attempt to regard that in an off color sense gets erased by a mental image of someone with an electric buffer by the side of a pool, powerbuffing a Tursiops truncatus. Now "Beating the Bishop": That I can picture as self-flagellation.

Posted by: ElMondoHummus at March 20, 2007 07:12 PM (J+r3D)

6 Is the author implicitly referring to the narrator in first person?

Posted by: wil at March 21, 2007 07:30 AM (GzvlQ)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Watch the whole thing, spread the word.

Posted by: annika at 02:00 PM | Comments (21) | Add Comment
Post contains 17 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I've watched 10 minutes so far and don't have time to see the rest tonight. Who put this together? Does it say at the end? I've often suspected that global warming hysteria is just like the Emperor's New Clothes.

Posted by: Joules at March 18, 2007 08:58 PM (u4CYb)

2 Oddly enough, when your previous article reviles Time Magazine for being biased, you've wholeheartedly swooned over this piece where one of the scientists presented as supporting its thesis stated the video was "grossly distorted" and "as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two." But I can understand how persons who are not close to both sides of the issue can be swayed by such disinformation. This presents a very narrow skeptic perspective from the same old global warming critics, who previously used to say, "Global Warming is a LIE". Now they say, "Ok, it's warming, but to claim human influence is a LIE". And the majority of those have been funded by oil and coal companies. Some of the claims are wildly preposterous, such as the claim that volcanoes release many more times the amount of carbon dioxide that human activity does. From the USGS; "Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 199 - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2.]. Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year)." http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html Over and over again as the main thrust of the video, they completely ignore the thorough explanation of the 1940-1975 cooling, something that Lindzen should be ashamed to have pretended not to know. There's so many goofs in this polemic that I will simply direct you to a debunking for futher scientific discussion. And not that tost of the time in the video is spent with non-climate scientists, such as : * Phillip Stott - Although he presents himself as an expert debunker of environmental myths, Stott does not appear to have had a single paper published in a scientific journal in the fields in which he most frequently applies this 'expertise', eg climate change or tropical ecology. His views are also generally at odds with the scientific consensus on such issues. * Patrick Moore is not a scientist but an activist. * Nigel Lawson is a journalist who became a member of Parliament * Nigel Calder is a author, editor, and TV screenwriter, not a scientist. * Paul Driessen is lobbyist and currently a senior policy advisor for the Congress of Racial Equality and a senior fellow with the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise and the Atlas Economic Research Foundation. * James Shikwati is a Kenyan libertarian economist. * Piers Richard Corbyn is a British meteorologist, not a climatologist. He is best known for his controversial claims of an ability to predict the weather up to one year in advance through the study of solar activity, specifically sunspots. I can understand why you were drawn in by this video, because many conservatives feel as strongly about this as they do abortion; however, emotion should not be the process by which the science is vetted. And yes, I know you just love to yank my chain...

Posted by: will at March 19, 2007 03:59 PM (h7Ciu)

3 ERRATA: "not that tost" should be "note that most"... My laptop screen is acting up, and I can only view pages in a tiny window.

Posted by: will at March 19, 2007 04:02 PM (h7Ciu)

4 Thanks for the tour of that great bastion of academic knowledge,Wikipedia, Will. I wonder how many of the people who worked on those links you so graciously supplied lied about their credentials? And for all of you that like to casually surf the web, there are a ton of links out there that will take you through the lies, half-truths, and blatant propoganda that was Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth."

Posted by: blu at March 19, 2007 04:48 PM (jcmjk)

5 blu, why not list one of your URLS, so that we can examine one that you hold to be true, so that we can debunk it for you? And feel free to find fault with any of the "Swindle" bios, since you questioned the veracity of those who provided the information.

Posted by: will at March 19, 2007 05:19 PM (h7Ciu)

6 Question the veracity of Wikipedia. Oh certainly not! Who in their right mind would question an open-source website that requires absolutely no credentials for posting. Certainly not I. Hey, didn't Al Gore invent Wikipedia?

Posted by: blu at March 19, 2007 05:29 PM (jcmjk)

7 Well since they haven't released the '07 IPCC report yet, just the Summary For Policy Makers which is created by gov't beauracrats and not scientists, we have to look at the '01 IPCC report for the actual science here that the man-made global warming crowd is relying on. Now if you made it through that incredibly long sentence, there is no "evidence" that man is causing this warming. It is an mix of computer models, incomplete computer models, which say this warming shouldn't be normal, ergo man must be causing it. This is the only "evidence" for man's role in global warming. If anything we should focus on adapting rather than fool hardy attempts to mitigate what is a natural process. I agree we should find better power sources than the internal combustion engine and reliance on fossil fuels, but the global warming crowd is using propaganda to try to achieve this goal.

Posted by: Scof at March 19, 2007 07:44 PM (nE8Mg)

8 Very interesting vid with very interesting points. Much gravitas thanks to the preponderance of British accents. Thanks, A. Kevin

Posted by: Kevin Kim at March 19, 2007 11:24 PM (HSp2k)

9 Still waiting, blu, if you have anything substantial to contribute. And Scof, all we have of the movements of the Solar System is computer models based on observations. For that matter, the same goes for link between tobacco and cancer; there is no absolute proof, only overwhelming evidence.

Posted by: will at March 20, 2007 04:12 AM (h7Ciu)

10 Here ya go, Will. Happy reading. http://www.sitewave.net/news/s49p1523.htm http://www.ncpa [dot] org/ba/ba230.html http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/Environment/debunking.htm http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1655856/posts

Posted by: Frank at March 20, 2007 05:10 AM (fxGzi)

11 Give it up, Frank. Your mere links have no effect on our mighty platitudes. Like Kuato, we shall liberate Annika's mind from the arch-conservative camp. Before we're finished here, she'll be voting for Nader in no time! Now, do what Kuato commands! Let me feel it, peons!

Posted by: Swill at March 20, 2007 09:02 AM (I0gpu)

12 "Still waiting, blu, if you have anything substantial to contribute." Back at ya, Will. So far, you've managed to link to an open source, slacker website whose credibility has been called into question numerous times. It's fun playing the Will game: never respond with substantial thought - simply say that your opponents are wrong without debating specifics points and then say something about where their funding might come from. Your game is old, Will, and that's why nobody takes you seriously. Well, accept for you. No get back to that mirror so you can continue admiring yourself.

Posted by: blu at March 20, 2007 09:37 AM (jcmjk)

13 Frank, http://www.sitewave.net/news/s49p1523.htm is just a rant site, no science (the 'author' is a Ruskie radiology scientist, no evidence of climate research), just bald assertions. http://www.ncpa [dot] org/ba/ba230.html More extensive, and I will address this when I have time (running out the door to an embassy event). Still waiting, blu, even after you attack the messenger...

Posted by: will at March 20, 2007 02:04 PM (GzvlQ)

14 Hey Will, One of your global warming pimps took part in a Waxman's media circus. (The fact that the taxpayers have to pay for this crap ought to offend every American.Gotta give the Dems credit, though, they know that they have the MSM in their pocket and they use it will.) Dr. Hansen, political activist and global warming whore, who likened the Bush administration to Nazi Germany. The same man who openly campaigned for Dems; has given 1400 interviews pushing his point of view while working within the government; and recepient of a quarter million bucks from Dem activist, Teresa Heinz Kerry's, foundation. (You know, one of those non-political institutions with no political agenda or bias.) Darrell Issa tore this pimp a new rear-end and called him out as the political activist that he is. This guy has spent the last few years accusing the gov't of "politicizing" science all the while setting a standard for it. The global warming movement is nothing more than a well-excuted marketing campaign.

Posted by: blu at March 20, 2007 03:58 PM (jcmjk)

15 Full disclosure: I'm not typically an Issa fan - for reasons associated to the GWOT - and sure wish somebody else would have stepped and took the pimp to task.

Posted by: blu at March 20, 2007 04:00 PM (jcmjk)

16 http://www.ncpa [dot] org/ba/ba230.html This is a 1997 article that is grossly out of date and easy to refute; "Myth #1: Scientists Agree the Earth Is Warming." This is in fact true and has been addressed in countless postings here. Even the Lindzen/Spencer/Christy skeptics now readily admit it, though at one time called it a lie. "Myth #2: Humans Are Causing Global Warming. " Again, out of date, as likely less than 1% of climate researchers deny anthropogenic warming. The article mentions the Meteorlogical Society and the American Geophysical Union specifically as disbelieving. Here are current statements by those organizations; Meteorlogical Society (2003): "There is now clear evidence that the mean annual temperature at the Earth's surface, averaged over the entire globe, has been increasing in the past 200 years. There is also clear evidence that the abundance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased over the same period. In the past decade, significant progress has been made toward a better understanding of the climate system and toward improved projections of long-term climate change... Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases... Because greenhouse gases continue to increase, we are, in effect, conducting a global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant impacts on our natural and societal systems." American Geophysical Union (2003): "Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate. These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth's history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century. Human impacts on the climate system include increasing concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases (e.g., carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons and their substitutes, methane, nitrous oxide, etc.), air pollution, increasing concentrations of airborne particles, and land alteration. A particular concern is that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide may be rising faster than at any time in Earth's history, except possibly following rare events like impacts from large extraterrestrial objects." "Myth #3: The Government Must Act Now to Halt Global Warming." From the 2007 IPCC 4th Assessment Summary: "For the next two decades a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected. Since IPCC’s first report in 1990, assessed projections have suggested global averaged temperature increases between about 0.15 and 0.3°C per decade for 1990 to 2005. This can now be compared with observed values of about 0.2°C per decade, strengthening confidence in near-term projections. " (which confirm the models' predictions of warming) "Myth # 4: Human-Caused Global Warming Will Cause Cataclysmic Environmental Problems." They talk about the lack of increase in hurricane activity, though this was to change dramatically after 1997. From the 2007 IPCC Assessment Summary: "It is very likely that hot extremes, heat waves, and heavy precipitation events will continue to become more frequent. it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds and more heavy precipitation associated with ongoing increases of tropical SSTs." Conclusion: This article has been proven to be inaccurate in all of its claims. Little to no scientific research was referenced, so it was little more than a policy puff piece now discarded on the rubbish heap of history. Scof, "there is no "evidence" that man is causing this warming. Your claim is unsupported. Even the majority of the 1%-2% of those scientists identified as skeptics now agree that humans are influencing the climate, though they are simply saying 'we don't know how much'. Blu, When will you learn that ideological rants provide no basis for a serious discussion of scientific issues? Why should anyone care what Issa (or any pundit) says on this subject?

Posted by: will at March 21, 2007 04:49 AM (GzvlQ)

17 More debunking of 'debunkers': http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/Environment/debunking.htm This is just an opinion piece published in the Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology with no references to scientific findings (and rife through and through with fallacies itself). http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1655856/posts This finally gets to the points of "An Inconvenient Truth". Let's take the points one at a time; most of Florida will most likely still be above water in 2100. What kind of claim is this?? How much? What will be submerged? Hardly a debunking of the movie. Gore shows that many mountain glaciers are melting away all around the world—glaciers in Alaska, Europe and Mount Kilimanjaro—are responding to increased warming. (Though the glaciers on Mount Kilimanjaro seem to be melting away because of changes in rainfall patterns rather than to increased heat. Of course, it is possible that the shift in rainfall is the result of global warming.) Is this 'debunking'? Very weak to non-existent. Global glacier mass balance has dropped significantly in the last 50 years. See the data and a striking graph of the data. "The temperatures in central Siberia are thought to have increased by 3 degrees Celsius over the past 40 years. A Russian study in 2004 found that the average temperatures in Siberia during the Holocene Climatic Optimum around 6000 years ago warmed up by 3 to 9 degrees celcius in the winter, and by 2 to 6 degrees celcius in the summer. Due to changes in the earth's orbit which affect how much sunlight reaches the surface, pretty much the entire Arctic was warmer than now 6000 years ago." The Russian study was not referenced, so we have no idea of its source, methods, or overall veracity, hence this is an empty claim. "Gore shows an animation of a polar bear (very reminiscent of the Coca Cola bears) swimming pitifully in the sea trying to haul itself up onto the last piece of ice floating in the Arctic Ocean. In 2002, the World Wildlife Fund issued a report warning that global warming was endangering polar bears. Arctic sea ice is thawing sooner and this means that the bears who hunt seals on the ice have fewer opportunities to feed themselves. This week saw an alarming report that hungry polar bears are turning cannibal. Yet, the WWF report itself found that most bear populations are either stable or increasing (see page 9 of the report). And remember, polar bears evidently survived when Arctic temperatures were warmer 6000 years ago. " The report is not referenced, yet this article wanders off track by referring to bear populations in general, not just polar bears. And the 6000 year claim from the one Russian 'paper' was not substantiated above. Building houses of cards with shaky findings does not lead to conclusive findings. "Gore points to the devastation of the Hurricane Katrina and flatly says that global warming is increasing the intensity of hurricanes. But that claim is hotly contested by climate scientists." I would agree with this. The models predicted it, and it seems to be happening, though the data is not completely out of the margins of errors yet, so there is not a consensus among key hurricane researchers in the US. "Gore traces a red temperature line inexorably increasing while he declares that 10 of the hottest years on record occurred in the last 14 years. Then he asserts that 2005 was the hottest ever. Pause for effect. Basically, Gore's general point is right but it's just irritating for him not to acknowledge that 2005 is statistically indistinguishable from 1998." Not much of a point here, especially since the article does not contend with the point that 10 of the hottest years on record occurred in the last 14 years. Trends are what are important, and the trends are clear. That's all I have time for now (I really must work for a living), but its clear that much of the 'debunking' that's been going on is more directed at public opinion that at addressing the science itself. And that, my friend blu, is called 'spin'.

Posted by: will at March 21, 2007 05:24 AM (GzvlQ)

18 Guys, Go read the entire piece. Goebbels, errr, I mean Will, cherry-picked his response as you will see. The piece destryoys Gore's propoganda piece in a very detailed and devastating fashion. And this is just one of many that I've seen. By now, you should all know Will's "m.o.", so ignore him. BTW, op-eds rarely if ever cite references.

Posted by: blu at March 21, 2007 10:21 AM (j8oa6)

19 Anybody can blather rhetorically and claim to "destroy" their opponent; having solid references to back oneself up with is required just to get in the door of a scientific debate. And an op-ed piece is just an opinion statement intended to sway readership. If unsupported opinions are what you are basing your argument on, then those claims are groundless until shown otherwise. Which might be fine in a debate between ideologues in politics, religion, or philosphy, but they're not the subject domain at hand.

Posted by: will at March 21, 2007 12:46 PM (GzvlQ)

20 the scientists are right! Global Warming is real. Here is proof: in 1955, Ansel Adams took this picture of Half Dome. Now look at it today! Where's the snow?

Posted by: annika at March 21, 2007 07:11 PM (lMqjc)

21 News flash: the scientists have discovered the real cause of global warming!

Posted by: annika at March 21, 2007 07:33 PM (lMqjc)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

My mom gave me a gift subscription to Time Magazine last year. I've tried, I've really tried to read it every week, but it's damn near impossible. It's like they deliberately try to insult me every week. I know it's the thought that counts, but I think I'm going to have to cancel my free subscription.

The problem is that Time is a liberal op-ed magazine, masquerading as a non-partisan news source. I could respect them, and even read it occasionally, if they would just admit the truth. But to do so might reduce the effectiveness of the subliminal propaganda they spit out each week. There's no way to avoid it, unless you stop grocery shopping and visiting the dentist.

If I read something in the Village Voice, or Mother Jones, or the LA Weekly, saying "all conservatives are evil" I can take it with a grain of salt, it's no big deal. But when Time Magazine, in a "news" cover story starts out like this, I get mad.

George Bush's sense of humor has always run more to frat-house gag than art-house irony, so he may not have appreciated the poetic justice any more than the legal justice on display in the Libby verdict.

Or, to be more precise, the Cheney verdict.

You know, there's a lot of folks in this country who voted for the President, and like the President. There's a lot of folks who really like Dick Cheney, and we're not stupid. We understand that there are people who don't think so, but it's insulting to read a supposedly unbiased news magazine calling the Vice President a criminal, as if I'm supposed to agree. Like saying the Dow was at 11000, or the temperature in Minneapolis yesterday was 53°.

A few weeks ago I tossed the magazine with the pro-abortion cover in the trash without even opening it. I didn't open the one that asked "Does sending more soldiers to Iraq make any sense?" either. I knew the answer to that question. I also knew their answer, and that it was different from mine. But next week's cover really takes the cake: Ronald Reagan crying. First of all, they have no right to touch, let alone re-touch that great man's picture. Second, I simply don't trust them to write about conservative discontent without it being a 3000 word essay on schadenfreude.

And it's not even well written, or well reported. Lately they've taken to using introductory phrases like "here's how..." and "here's why..." As in "With the U.S. tied down in Iraq, a new superpower has arrived. Here's how to deal with it." Or, "The Iraq Study Group says it's time for an exit strategy, Why Bush will listen." Of course, when the President rightly ignores the ISG's report, Time ignores its faulty prediction. But that doesn't stop them from continuing to use that annoying phraseology. Another example: "As the U.S. strikes al-Qaeda, a new government tries to restore order. Here's what it will take."

That phrase bugs me so much because it's like they're assuming some sort of know-it-all status, without ever demonstrating to me that they know anything. When you're wrong as often as Time's writers are, they shouldn't be so presumptuous.

The Time story intro has become so formulaic, I could probably write a script for it if I knew how to write code. All you do is take some story that is happening, insert some anti-Republican or anti-war spin, then promise the reader that you'll have all the answers in the article by saying "here's how."

Here are some examples, just off the top of my head:

A story about JetBlue delays might be introduced like this:

While JetBlue executives struggle to regain passengers' confidence in the wake of storm caused delays, experts say global warming could damage airline stocks even further? Here's how you can protect your portfolio.

With the U.S. bogged down in Iraq, new questions surround pre-war intelligence as Valerie Plame wows Congress. Here's why her testimony will doom the Bush admistration.

Millions of Americans have fallen in love with the new Wii gaming platform. Here's how Alberto Gonzales intends to ruin their fun.

Posted by: annika at 10:56 AM | Comments (22) | Add Comment
Post contains 761 words, total size 5 kb.

Is it me, or does Greg Oden look like he's about a thousand years old?

Posted by: annika at 12:25 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 19 words, total size 1 kb.

If anyone is smart enough to capitalize on it, the big issue that may decide the next presidential election is not the war. It's the mortgage crisis. I say this because it's a pocketbook issue that will affect every voter regardless of whether they rent, own, or live with their parents. The combination of balooning payments and falling house values has a wide ranging effect on business as well as ordinary people. It could hurt all of us because the long awaited housing crash just might bring on another recession.

And guess what, we've known it was coming for at least five years but like with the dot coms, nobody wanted to say anything because too many people were making money. Everybody and their brother wanted to get in on the housing boom, and lenders were all too happy to throw cash at them. Realtors weren't going to say anything. They were like, "don't worry man, you're equity is going to skyrocket." And the lenders just said, "hey, when the adjustable hits, you can always refinance."

But as I watched this all unfold from the sidelines, I always predicted that it couldn't go on forever. Didn't the 1929 crash happen because of easy credit? And there's no way people should be spending 50% of their take home pay on a mortgage. I thought the rule of thumb was 25%, one third tops. How is your average Californian supposed to afford $450,000 for a first home? Just because some crooked lender will give you the loan with no money down, doesn't mean you should take it. But people do, because everybody's doing it.

Sacramento is a prime example. I read somewhere that this city was second only to Palm Beach, Florida in overblown housing prices. My boyfriend, God bless him, did everything wrong. When we first started going out, he was in the process of dumping a house that he had bought at the very top of the market, when properties were selling almost the day they got listed. He put it up for sale a year later, just after everything slowed down. There were about six houses with his exact same floor plan for sale within a radius of a couple of blocks. Luckily, after four months of waiting, and hardly any lookers, he sold to an investment buyer who ended up renting the house. Christopher bought at the crest and sold at the trough. Thus ended his foray into the "get rich through home ownership" scheme.

If my boyfriend hadn't sold when he did, the value of his house was in danger of falling below the amount of his mortgage. He ended up with a tiny profit, but lots of people aren't going to be so lucky. When the adjustable rate goes through the roof, and people aren't able to sell because of falling prices, look out. A lot of folks are going to get hurt.

(I also wondered what was going to happen to all those Gulf Coast homeowners, especially in New Orleans. I imagine there are going to be a lot of foreclosures down there, if there haven't already been. What if you got screwed by the insurance company, the bank still wants their money, and they don't care if you're living out of a trailer (or not) and you still haven't got your job at the liquor store back because that place went out of business too?)

Maybe I'm being too pessimistic, but I think the mortgage crisis is going to be a real problem. Hillary thinks so too, and savvy politician that she is, she's already made it a campaign issue. This is exactly the type of issue that Democrats win elections on because the conservative response is usually to let the free market sort itself out. People don't want to hear that. If things get really bad, Hillary will score points being the first one to call for a homeowner's bail-out. Predictably, she faults Bush for doing nothing while sub-prime lenders dug us into this hole. And you know what, I can't say she's wrong about that.

Posted by: annika at 04:36 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 695 words, total size 4 kb.

You thought my nickname for him was silly? No, this is silly.

Posted by: annika at 01:23 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 20 words, total size 1 kb.

WTF?

Please please let Edwards win the nomination.

Posted by: annika at 02:18 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 10 words, total size 1 kb.

You know who you are.

Look, I like Newt. Don't get me wrong. But you know what I like more? A Republican in the White House.

In the latest Gallup poll, which of the top candidates from both parties is the only one whose unfavorable rating is higher than their favorable rating. I'll give you a hint. It's not Hillary.

Okay, well maybe Newt hasn't been out in public enough. He should write some books. Check. He should go on Fox News. Check. He should call Hannity's show. Oh, check.

Okay, well at least there's twenty months between now and election day. That's plenty of time for Newt to change people's minds, right?

Oh, well, except that he's decided to save money by waiting until September before he gets in the race. And with a bunch of big states moving their primaries up to February 5th, that gives Newt only five months to change his image.

Okay, well maybe Newt can use the time between now and September to ramp up his public image. Do a full court press on the public. Show everybody what a great guy he is. He should start today. Give an interview with Dobson or somebody.

Oh, he did? Ouch. That's not exactly moving in the right direction, but it's a start, I guess.

Sorry Newt lovers. Stick a fork in the salamander, he's done.

h/t Hot Air

Posted by: annika at 09:59 PM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 239 words, total size 2 kb.

In case you haven't heard, the big news today is that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.

I know, it's a shock.

The language of the decision is so out of step with the type of wishy-washy "living document" bullshit theory of Constitutional interpretation I've become resigned to, I want someone to pinch me to make sure I'm not dreaming.

We start by considering the competing claims about the meaning of the Second Amendment’s operative clause: “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” Appellants contend that “the right of the people” clearly contemplates an individual right and that “keep and bear Arms” necessarily implies private use and ownership. The District’s primary argument is that “keep and bear Arms” is best read in a military sense, and, as a consequence, the entire operative clause should be understood as granting only a collective right. The District also argues that “the right of the people” is ambiguous as to whether the right protects civic or private ownership and use of weapons.

In determining whether the Second AmendmentÂ’s guarantee is an individual one, or some sort of collective right, the most important word is the one the drafters chose to describe the holders of the right Â— “the people.” That term is found in the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments. It has never been doubted that these provisions were designed to protect the interests of individuals against government intrusion, interference, or usurpation. We also note that the Tenth Amendment Â— “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people” Â— indicates that the authors of the Bill of Rights were perfectly capable of distinguishing between “the people,” on the one hand, and “the states,” on the other. The natural reading of “the right of the people” in the Second Amendment would accord with usage elsewhere in the Bill of Rights.

The DistrictÂ’s argument, on the other hand, asks us to read “the people” to mean some subset of individuals such as “the organized militia” or “the people who are engaged in militia service,” or perhaps not any individuals at all Â— e.g., “the states.” . . . These strained interpretations of “the people” simply cannot be squared with the uniform construction of our other Bill of Rights provisions. Indeed, the Supreme Court has recently endorsed a uniform reading of “the people” across the Bill of Rights. . . .

. . .

It seems unlikely that the Supreme Court would have lumped these provisions together without comment if it were of the view that the Second Amendment protects only a collective right. The CourtÂ’s discussion certainly indicates Â— if it does not definitively determine Â— that we should not regard “the people” in the Second Amendment as somehow restricted to a small subset of “the people” meriting protection under the other AmendmentsÂ’ use of that same term.

In sum, the phrase “the right of the people,” when read intratextually and in light of Supreme Court precedent, leads us to conclude that the right in question is individual.

Parker v. District of Columbia at 18-19.

The wording of the operative clause also indicates that the right to keep and bear arms was not created by government, but rather preserved by it. . . . Hence, the Amendment acknowledges “the right . . . to keep and bear Arms,” a right that pre-existed the Constitution like “the freedom of speech.” Because the right to arms existed prior to the formation of the new government . . . the Second Amendment only guarantees that the right “shall not be infringed.”

Id at 20-21.

"People" means people, people. That's what originalism is all about. First you determine what the Constitution says (not what you wish it said), then you determine if the law in question departs from the Constitution. If it does, then there is a mechanism for changing the Constitution, specified within the Constitution. You don't simply disregard the Founding Document and make up a lie about what it really means.

This decision will make its way to the Supreme Court, and thank George W. Bush, we'll have Roberts and Alito on our side hopefully.

Posted by: annika at 08:37 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 836 words, total size 5 kb.

Why are the Democrats so afraid of Fox News? It's a live debate, what do they think will happen? It's not like Fox News might superimpose an X over John Edwards' face while she's talking. Nobody would do that.

Posted by: annika at 07:55 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 45 words, total size 1 kb.

Sundance and Jared are such nice guys, and Sabrina was my favorite.

So like everybody, I guess, I'm floored by the upsets on American Idol tonight.

But Cal beat UCLA, hooooyah!!!

Posted by: annika at 10:24 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 39 words, total size 1 kb.

People are making a big deal about Bronco Bomber's recent surge in the polls against Hillary, most notably among black voters. Hillary made a fool of herself in Selma, and Bomber is clearly making her scramble earlier than anyone thought she would. But she'll survive that embarrassment.

I still don't see Bronco's insurgent campaign winning the nomination in the long run. I like Bronco Bomber, I'm reading his book. I don't like his politics, but for me, he represents the end of the baby boomer stranglehold on American political leadership, which can only be a good thing. Too bad he's going up against the Clinton machine.

I'm sure that Hillary and her staff have been behind the growing list of thinly veiled attacks on the Bronco Bomber campaign. The list includes:

• Claiming that he attended a radical Islamic school in Indonesia.
• Trying to hold him accountable for the (well taken) anti-Clinton comments of David Geffen.
• The brouhaha over Bronco's pastor being dis-invited from his announcement ceremony.
• The so far unfounded allegation of a quid pro quo stock transaction.

That's just crazy. Republicans need Bronco Bomber to mount a strong campaign. It doesn't make sense to knock him down. Every serious political observer knows that Bronco won't win the nomination unless something catastrophic happens between now and the beginning of next year. Given a choice between an establishment front-runner and a populist challenger, Democrats will always nominate the establishment candidate. I think the only modern exception to that rule was McGovern, so you can see why they wouldn't want to make that mistake again.

From my long range vantage point — almost 20 months from election day — I'm beggining to see two general strategies that each party should use to ensure victory.

For the Democrats, it's easy. Hillary will be the nominee, and she will have a fight on her hands if she goes against Giuliani. That's because she won't be able to take the big blue states for granted. But Giuliani's weakness among social conservatives can be Hillary's secret weapon if she practices a bit of political judo. All she needs is a far right third party candidate, and she will cruise back into the White House. Some say the Republicans were behind Ralph Nader's candidacy back in 2000. I don't know, but it's obvious that Gore would have been president if he'd had Nader's 2% in Florida. I think a Republican Nader, like Pat Buchanan or someone of his ilk, would be just what the doctor ordered for Hillary's ailing campaign. She needs to stop worrying about Bronco and start looking for a social conservative to funnel money to.

For the Republicans, the key is in preparing the general election battlefield by defining Hillary now. She's giving them all the help they need, as she stupidly attacks Bronco through her surrogates. Every time another sneaky negative story appears in the New York Times or some other pro-Clinton organ, the Republicans should take note and tie it to her campaign. The key is to define Hillary as a female Nixon. Devious, sneaky, mean, and unlikeable. You want people thinking these things when the general election comes around.

She'll do anything to win.

That Obama guy seemed nice, and look what she did to him.

You don't want to cross her.

She has an enemies list, just like Nixon.

Her past history fits in well with this narrative. Remember Travelgate?

I had thought that Hillary's left flank might be her undoing, but now I don't think so. Other than a few scattered hecklers, I haven't seen the unhinged protesters that I expected to follow her around. I think even the true believers know that she's their best chance if they want to avoid repeating the humiliations of 2000 and 2004. That may change as Bronco gets stronger, though. Another reason why I'd like to see him continue the charge.

Posted by: annika at 04:54 PM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 701 words, total size 5 kb.

A USC free speech group was fined by the university for posting flyers outside USC's free speech zone, which say "This is not a free speech zone."

Story at LAist.

Posted by: annika at 09:46 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 48 words, total size 1 kb.

Things you can do when you have a country estate:

"Pretty unimpressive," he says? Now there's a dude with ambition.

Via Maximum Leader

Posted by: annika at 08:25 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.

I thought this one was interesting. I was looking for poems about hamburgers, because I just ate one.

Burger King

by Henry Burt Stevens

"At Burger King, Midday Sunday, Ft Myers, Florida"

Moving slowly not
to spoil their raiment

moving calmly
still otherworldly,

they do not see any of us
white, brown, or black

sitting with our families
eating burgers and fries,

though they smile gently
to one another.

We know who we are
and why we are not seen.

If it happens while
we're all together

we'll see them taken up
leaving us behind

but for now the saved
have joined with us for lunch.

Posted by: annika at 02:42 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 114 words, total size 1 kb.