From Scottish poet Robert Burns (1759-1796), a poem first published in 1793:

Commemoration of RodneyÂ’s Victory

INSTEAD of a Song, boyÂ’s, IÂ’ll give you a Toast;
Here’s to the memory of those on the twelfth that we lost!—
That we lost, did I say?—nay, by Heav’n, that we found;
For their fame it will last while the world goes round.
The next in succession IÂ’ll give youÂ’s THE KING!
WhoeÂ’er would betray him, on high may he swing!
And hereÂ’s the grand fabric, our free CONSTITUTION,
As built on the base of our great Revolution!
And longer with Politics not to be crammÂ’d,
Be ANARCHY cursÂ’d, and TYRANNY damnÂ’d!
And who would to LIBERTY eÂ’er prove disloyal,
May his son be a hangman—and he his first trial!

Posted by: annika at 04:22 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 138 words, total size 1 kb.

Yes, i was right. Kiss my feet, because i was almost alone in my defiance of "the conventional wisdom." (Which i recognized as liberal spin and never wisdom.) My confidence in the American people never wavered. i also don't think it's wrong to gloat. Go ahead, lets all gloat. Feel free, we've earned it, and until the liberals graciously concede, why should we be gracious in victory?

Update: And don't get me started about the so-called "youth vote." Memo to MTV: We chose, you lose! Jonah Goldberg deserves to be quoted in full here:

Look I don't know what the final tally will be. But it's now clear that the youth vote just didn't show. The liberal blogosphere is grumpy and introspective about it. I love it for reasons I will be writing about for months to come. The cult of the youth voter remains, once again, the most absurd, bogus, childish, romantic and misguided joke of liberal American politics. Period.

Update 2: Kerry is scheduled to concede at 10:00 a.m. PST. i still wanna gloat though. How 'bout i gloat for as long as it took Gore to give in last time? Would that be so inappropriate?

Update 3: Vodkapundit has more on the Nelson Muntz meme. Maybe someone should start a Dick Cheney as Mr. Burns meme. "Eeexcelent."

Update 4: Sarah says "Let them eat cake!"

Update 5: Robbie at Urban:Grounds reveals the dirty little secret behind all that Blue State vs. Red State nonsense.

Posted by: annika at 07:37 AM | Comments (44) | Add Comment
Post contains 251 words, total size 2 kb.

Fox called Ohio at about 9:40 p.m. MSNBC hasn't done so yet. i don't think i've ever seen Chris Matthew look so down. That alone is worth all the aggravation of the last year.

Update: MSNBC just called Ohio and Alaska.

One more point for four more years!

Posted by: annika at 10:00 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 54 words, total size 1 kb.

i took an informal poll of the attendees to the election night party at our house. Admittedly, the results are not scientific since we're all law students, but i thought they were interesting just the same. Keep in mind that my school is decidedly wacky-liberal.

Here are the results, with annotations:

annika: Bush
Colleen¹: Kerry
Charissa²: Bush
Lori³: Kerry
Kathy⁴: Bush
Kimberly⁵: Bush
Monique⁶: Bush
Stacy⁷: Kerry
Erica⁸: Kerry
Mike #1⁹: Bush
Mike #2¹⁰: Kerry
Quan¹¹: Bush
Greg¹²: Kerry
David¹³: Kerry
Marc¹⁴: Kerry
Jeffrey¹⁵: Kerry
Professor M¹⁶: Kerry

Total: 10 for Kerry, 7 for Bush
_______________

¹  Colleen is of my housemates. Her big issue is "the Supreme Court,"� which is code for "pro-choice" voter.
²  Charissa is another housemate. Her family is from Utah. In order to live in Utah, there are two legal requirements, one of which is that you must always vote Republican.
³  Lori is a Democrat from Arizona. i didn't think those existed, but apparently they're about 44% of the voting population.
⁴  Aka Texas Kathy.
⁵  Aka Texas Kimberly. It's no surprise that the two Texans voted for Bush.
⁶  Monique defies conventional wisdom. She's an African-American conservative and voted for Bush.
⁷  Stacy is one of the top students in my class. Her vote surprised me. i thought for sure she was a Republican until i learned she went to UMass. Then i laughed when she told me she pictured me as a Kerry supporter.
⁸  Erica is also a one issue "pro-choice" voter, although she doesn't want to admit it. She repeats all the typical anti-Bush arguments, but without conviction.
⁹  My third housemate Mike is a thoughtful and committed Republican.
¹⁰  My boyfriend. He was afraid to tell me who he voted for. i'm mulling over whether or not to forgive him.
¹¹  Yes, that Quan. His family emigrated from Vietnam and raised him to be a good freedom-loving Republican.
¹²  Lori's boyfriend seems apolitical and i might have swayed him had i known in time that he was undecided.
¹³  David is openly gay and open minded on many political issues, but like Andrew Sullivan, the FMA made up his mind for Kerry.
¹⁴  Marc is liberal Hispanic Catholic Kerry voter who won't forgive the Republicans for trying to take down Clinton.
¹⁵  Jeffrey is brilliant, but sorta crazy. He can't sit still and he's always spouting off some insane opinion, usually conspiracy related. He's fun to have around, but there's no sense arguing with him.
¹⁶  Professor M is an expert on criminal law and procedure as well as a member of the vast left wing academic conspiracy.

Posted by: annika at 08:06 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 449 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Forgive your Carville. Quan ownz. That is all.....

Posted by: reagan80 at November 03, 2004 12:21 AM (hlMFQ)

2 Love the footnotes. Law Review here you come!

Posted by: Daniel Lowenberg at November 03, 2004 05:11 AM (kQ2jY)

3 Dump the boyfriend. I KNEW there was something fucked up about that guy.

Posted by: Casca at November 03, 2004 05:20 AM (cdv3B)

4 #10's a bummer

Posted by: wobots at November 03, 2004 10:40 AM (djVNl)

5 What a bittersweet day! The happiness I feel about Bush's re-election has been offset by the disappointment of hearing that Annika has a boyfriend.

Posted by: Patrick at November 03, 2004 07:08 PM (olOFd)

6 Annie, Just withhold sex; when your boyfriend becomes frustrated, angry and hateful, he'll turn into a Republican. If you don't believe me, just ask anyone at Democratic Underground. They'll tell you. (By the way, DU has "temporarily" closed its discussion forums to "unregistered users." They are biiiiiitter. They claim they closed the discussions because of unusually high traffic volume -- a-holes like me going over for cheap entertainment -- but personally, I suspect they're planning a coup d'etat. Lord knows some of the charming folks at Fat Ollie's seem inclined in that direction.)

Posted by: Matt at November 04, 2004 04:23 AM (eWM9Y)

7 Is Charissa a good mormon? Because otherwise the requirement to vote Republican is lifted...

Posted by: Jordan at November 04, 2004 06:49 PM (dLmIW)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Especially to Californians.

The polls are still open. Don't believe what you read in Drudge, it has been debunked already. Stick with HughHewitt.com for your news. He's based on the West Coast, and his site is still working.

Go out and vote. The fact that our state will end up being blue is no excuse for not doing everything we can to increase the popular vote, and thereby increase Bush's mandate.

Remember, today is more than just a Presidential election. It's a referendum between toughness and weakness. Toughness must win. And tough people don't mind standing in long lines to do what is right.

A virtual blogosphere smooch goes out to all who've already voted Bush today! (Even the girls, except it's on the cheek.)

It's not Poetry Wednesday, but here's an Election Day Special for y'all. It's by John Greenleaf Whittier, the 19th Century American poet, abolitionist and friend to William Lloyd Garrison.

The Poor Voter on Election Day

To-day, of all the weary year,
A king of men am I.
To-day, alike are great and small,
The nameless and the known;
My palace is the people's hall,
The ballot-box my throne!
The rich is level with the poor,
The weak is strong to-day;
And sleekest broadcloth counts no more
Than homespun frock of gray.
To-day let pomp and vain pretence
My stubborn right abide;
I set a plain man's common sense
Against the pedant's pride.
The wide world has not wealth to buy
The power in my right hand!

Posted by: annika at 04:39 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 283 words, total size 2 kb.

Why was George Bush's last campaign stop in Dallas, while John Kerry's last campaign stop was in Ohio? What does that tell you?

That both the President and his challenger share my confidence in a Bush victory.

Why was the one random crowd voice i could hear while Bush was shaking hands after his rally saying "we love you George Bush," while the one random voice i could hear while Kerry shook hands after his rally said "tell Bush to fuck off." What does that tell you?

That no one should discount the number of people who love this President, nor that Kerry voters are motivated by negativity.

Posted by: annika at 10:44 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 116 words, total size 1 kb.

Who the hell voted for Bit-O-Honey? Wassup with that?

Posted by: annika at 08:57 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 15 words, total size 1 kb.

As promised, here's my final pre-election take.

Issue Number Three: The Apparent Dead Heat In The Polls

In short, i don't buy it for a number of reasons. i think the press and the pollsters, out of bias and self-interest, are making this thing out to be closer than it actually is. i also think that polling methodology has not kept up with changes in demographics and technology.

i'm confident that Bush will win the election. If i have any worry, it's that the Democratic get-out-the-vote effort will be very organized and strong. That's because there are more Democrats available to volunteer than Republicans. Students, union operatives and professional activists can easily take the day off to drive voters to the polls and staff the phone banks. Most Republicans still have to go to work. Then of course, there's also Democratic fraud.

But despite these concerns, i still have faith in the common sense of the average American. In fact, i am so certain that George W. Bush will win the election, that i am willing to make the following wager: i will bet this blog on a George Bush victory.

i offer to bet this blog against any liberal blog rated as a large mammal on the TTLB Ecosystem. Winner is the blogger who backs the prevailing candidate, Bush or Kerry. i take Bush. Loser shuts down his or her blog. For good. Effective inauguration day, 2005.

That should be a good incentive for fans of annika's journal to get out there and vote. Not that i expect any bloggers to take my bet, because deep down, everybody knows i'm right.

Update: Obviously, the offer expires when polls open on the East Coast.

Posted by: annika at 11:38 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 286 words, total size 2 kb.

New York Jets vs. Miami Dolphins. Line: Jets by 6½. Take the Jets minus the points.

Posted by: annika at 11:20 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 22 words, total size 1 kb.

i live in the Central Valley and my mom lives in L.A. We're both registered Republicans. We sent in our absentee ballot requests on the same day. i got mine last week and i voted last Thursday.

i talked to my Mom last night.

She never got her ballot . . .

Posted by: annika at 08:05 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 54 words, total size 1 kb.

Yesterday i posted about al Qaqaa, one of three major issues that have been monopolizing the news during this last week before the election. The second major issue is bin Laden's videotaped message to America, and the third is the apparent "dead heat" as shown by the polls. Here's my take on issue number two.

Syphilitic Camel Monkey's Message To America

i think this latest video by Osama bin Laden is very unusual. As far as i know this is the first time he has directed an entire message to the American people. i've heard a lot of analysis about what exactly he was trying to accomplish, and i disagree with pretty much all that i've heard.

The radio and TV pundits i've heard seem to have missed two important points that are obvious to me. One, why did bin Laden send a videotaped message instead of attacking? To me, this was very much out of character for al Qaeda. Although there are still two days left (and i hope i'm not proven wrong), it seems logical to me that bin Laden chose to send a video message because he was unable to attack us.

If that's true, all the credit goes to our law enforcement, intelligence and military communities. i think the War on Terror, as it has been prosecuted so far, has done so much damage to al Qaeda that they simply have not been able to do to us what they did to Spain. i've no doubt that al Qaeda wanted to attack us before our election. Nor do i doubt that they misunderstand Americans so much that they probably thought an attack might achieve the same outcome. But instead we got this message from OBL.

The other thing the pundits seem to have misinterpreted is the intent of bin Laden's message. Most pundits insist on analyzing the message through the prism of this question: "Will the bin Laden video help George Bush or will it help John Kerry?" The question misses the point completely because it assumes that bin Laden has a preference for one candidate over the other. And here i will probably be departing from the Republican party line, but i don't think bin Laden gives a rat's ass who wins.

He said so himself:

Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or al Qaeda.

Your security is in your own hands, and each state that does not harm our security will remain safe.

If you people think you will be safer under a Kerry administration than with Bush, think again. The only thing that will keep you safe is for your leader, whoever he is, to do as I say.

If Kerry wins, the world might see America withdraw from Iraq sooner than otherwise. And some have surmised that Kerry would indeed be less supportive of Israel, not because of al Qaeda, but to placate the Europeans and the U.N. But whatever happens, OBL probably won't be around to watch. Because much as i dislike Kerry, i'm still pretty certain that even with his "more sensitive" War on Terror, that Syphilitic Camel Monkey is gonna be toast.

(But Kerry's not going to win. And you'll see how confident i am about that tomorrow when i discuss issue number three: the polls.)
_______________

* If OBL really thinks John Kerry won't go after al Qaeda, he's mistaken. Although his national security policy is weak, misguided and wrong for America, Kerry is not dovish on getting OBL. But since so many of Kerry's supporters are hate-America cut-and-run wackos, it's easy to see where OBL might get that impression.

Posted by: annika at 09:13 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 803 words, total size 5 kb.

You Should Be a Martini for Halloween!

Well, since i'm not dressing up, i believe i'll just have a martini.

Posted by: annika at 11:37 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 40 words, total size 1 kb.

Happy Halloween to everybody who dares to visit this blog.

SlagleRock has a holiday safety warning for all parents. When i was little, my parents took me around to malls for trick or treat, but even then, i rarely got to eat any candy. Halloween was mostly about the dress up for me.

Last night both myself and Matt Scofield had something to cheer about. Cal humiliated ASU by a score of 27 to nothing. (Matt's a Wildcat fan.) Cal is playing great. Too bad USC is too, but the Rose Bowl is a definite possibility for the Golden Bears this year. If it can't be Cal, i'd love to see USC and Auburn in the Orange Bowl because i think Auburn will spank the Trojans.

i'm not doing anything for Halloween this year. Since i took Saturday off, i need to study today. i had planned to go to the game with Francine and some other Cal friends, except i fucked up my ankle on Friday. i didn't want to walk on it yesterday, since Memorial Stadium requires so much hiking. Thankfully, it's feeling much better this morning.

Posted by: annika at 09:43 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 193 words, total size 1 kb.

Three days left before the election, and i'm tired of all the nonsense. There are three huge stories that i have been too busy to comment on until now. Here's my take on one of them:

Al Ca-ca:

Who knows whether the explosives were there or not? i do know that the mainstream media and Kerry rushed to judgment on this story, when the facts were still hotly disputed. What do you expect? Kerry's losing, and the liberals are desperate for some kind of last minute surprise scandal that will keep them within the "cheater's margin" in a couple of battleground states.

Assuming the truth of the charge - that the explosives were there after our troops arrived and we somehow allowed them to be spirited away under our noses - i don't see that as the huge scandal the left seems to think it is. It's certainly not a reason to reject George Bush this Tuesday.

Mistakes happen in war. Nobody who's not been on the ground during offensive combat - least of all those effete nattering nabobs of negativity, the reporters - can truly understand what is called "the fog of war." Hell, i certainly don't. i only know it exists, and that's only from seven years of studying history and a lifetime of reading books and watching war movies.

In war, especially during fast moving offensive operations, there are no time outs. Not everything that you'd want to get done, actually gets done. Kerry ought to know this, since he's such a big military man. i'm not saying i believe the charges, i actually don't. Today's U.S. armed forces are the most professional in the history of the world. But even if the story were true, Kerry's criticism of George Bush for not sufficiently micromanaging this war makes me worry more about what he'd do at the reins.

Civil war example: Abraham Lincoln's military expertise was negligible when he took office. He was president during our worst war, our biggest crisis, when the actual existence of our country hung in the balance. Lincoln made plenty of mistakes as a wartime commander-in-chief. i can name a dozen off the top of my head. If John Kerry had been around back then, i can imagine the rhetoric:

Lincoln rushed to war without a plan for reconstruction!

He ignored the advice of General McClellan who said we needed more troops!*

He failed to provide the troops with the latest quick firing weapons!

He allowed General Lee to join the secession, and then he let General Lee escape when we had him in our grasp at Malvern Hill!

The bottom line is that Lincoln won the war, and despite all the criticism leveled at him during the war, he's now widely considered our greatest president. And my point is, that like FDR and both George Bushs, Lincoln was a great wartime president because he did not micromanage the war.

By contrast, Confederate President Jefferson Davis was proud of his military background. After graduating from West Point, he served as a lieutenant in the cavalry with a modest record. After a short retirement and marriage,** Davis fought in the Mexican War where he was wounded and returned home as a hero. Later he served in the U.S. Senate*** and as Secretary of War.

Yet despite his military training and expertise, and arguably because of it, Jefferson Davis was a horrible wartime president. His micromanagement of the war cost the Confederacy too many brave and valuable soldiers, ensuring their defeat. Davis often rejected the advice of his generals, believing that his military background made him their equal. And his insistence on offensive Napoleonic tactics at a time when the rifle had made those tactics obsolete, increased casualties and lost the war for the South. Not that that's a bad thing mind you, but it's absolutely true.****

Back to our day. Kerry criticizes our President for not making sure that some bunkers on the tip of the spear were not secured and placed under guard as soon as we got there? Would Kerry have ordered that all offensive operations proceed only after every "i" was dotted and "t" crossed? i remember the ruckus in the media after the so-called "operational pause." You'd think we had lost the war, the way the media carried on about that. How many more "operational pauses" would there have been under a Kerry presidency?

Oh, that's right, none. Because it was the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time. Kerry would rather have left Saddam in control over all his explosives.
_______________

* McClellan, the only general i know of who managed to lose consistently when his force outnumbered the enemy's by almost two to one.

** Like Kerry, ambition might have led Jefferson Davis to marry "up." His first wife was the daughter of President Zachary Taylor.

*** Interestingly, Jefferson Davis was a Senator before he became a traitor, while John Kerry did it the other way around.

**** For more on how Davis's micromanagement of the war lost it for the South, i highly recommend this book.

Posted by: annika at 09:11 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 881 words, total size 5 kb.

annikagyrl: i'm here now with Publicola, who is one of my favorite bloggers, and also one of the oldest visitors to my blog. Hi Publicola...
more...

Posted by: annika at 10:00 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 3880 words, total size 28 kb.

Since nobody wants to interview me, i've decided to institute a new blog feature, where i conduct fascinating interviews over Yahoo! Instant Messenger with some of my favorite bloggers. This new feature will be filed under the rubric "annieconversations." Get it? annie - conversations. annika - nversations? Cute huh?

First up is my recent interview with Munuvian iconoclast Publicola, which i'll try to have up later today. Stay tuned.

Posted by: annika at 09:18 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 79 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Well, this will be fun. In addition to my own interview, I think your interview with the late Angry Clam will be superb.

Posted by: Hugo at October 28, 2004 12:28 PM (VYMbn)

2 I'd love to see an interview with the Angry Clam. I miss him. Whenever I needed a healthy dose of visceral fury, I could always count on the Clam! But he's clerking for the Fourth Circuit now (apparently), so he might be hard to track down.

Posted by: Matt at October 28, 2004 01:16 PM (SIlfx)

3 "Since nobody wants to interview me" I think people got the impression that you didn't want interviewing from your "IM Dialogue" entry on August 15. I don't think anybody else wants to be punk'd like "expletivedeleted" was.

Posted by: reagan80 at October 28, 2004 01:51 PM (hlMFQ)

4 Haha, that was beautiful, wasn't it.

Posted by: annika at October 28, 2004 02:02 PM (zAOEU)

5 Indeed it was....

Posted by: reagan80 at October 28, 2004 02:29 PM (hlMFQ)

6 so many IM convos, so little time

Posted by: Scof at October 28, 2004 07:43 PM (9lWXc)

7 Ooooh, pick me, pick me! But not for the next 14 days. After the husband leaves

Posted by: Sarah at October 28, 2004 08:03 PM (/KC96)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

annikagyrl: the curse is over
annikagyrl: the curse is over
annikagyrl: long live the curse
leaky: nah, they're still cursed
annikagyrl: lol
annikagyrl: yah?
leaky: John Kerry is from their state
annikagyrl: hahahaah

Posted by: annika at 08:45 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 49 words, total size 1 kb.

A fun poem about drinking, by British poet John Masefield (1878-1967).

Captain Stratton's Fancy

Oh some are fond of red wine, and some are fond of white,
And some are all for dancing by the pale moonlight;
But rum alone's the tipple, and the heart's delight
Of the old bold mate of Henry Morgan.

Oh some are fond of Spanish wine, and some are fond of French,
And some'll swallow tay and stuff fit only for a wench;
But I'm for right Jamaica till I roll beneath the bench,
Says the old bold mate of Henry Morgan.

Oh some are for the lily, and some are for the rose,
But I am for the sugar-cane that in Jamaica grows;
For it's that that makes the bonny drink to warm my copper nose,
Says the old bold mate of Henry Morgan.

Oh some are fond of fiddles, and a song well sung,
And some are all for music for to lilt upon the tongue;
But mouths were made for tankards, and for sucking at the bung,
Says the old bold mate of Henry Morgan.

Oh some are fond of dancing, and some are fond of dice,
And some are all for red lips, and pretty lasses' eyes;
But a right Jamaica puncheon is a finer prize
To the old bold mate of Henry Morgan.

Oh some that's good and godly ones they hold that it's a sin
To troll the jolly bowl around, and let the dollars spin;
But I'm for toleration and for drinking at an inn,
Says the old bold mate of Henry Morgan.

Oh some are sad and wretched folk that go in silken suits,
And there's a mort of wicked rogues that live in good reputes;
So I'm for drinking honestly, and dying in my boots,
Like an old bold mate of Henry Morgan.

Posted by: annika at 08:36 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 327 words, total size 2 kb.

Forget those guys throwing pies at Ann Coulter, (which, as my crim law professor will tell you, is both an assault and a battery), forget Elizabeth Edwards tacit approval of rioting as blackmail, SOMEONE TRIED TO KILL KATHERINE HARRIS.

i have no evidence to support this theory, but i blame the lying, hateful, disgusting, race-baiting video, which has been circulating on the internet (which i will not link to), and which demonizes Katherine Harris so severely that it literally made me wince.

And this creep, true to liberal form, says he was merely exercising his right to political expression.

Posted by: annika at 07:03 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 115 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Unfortunately, liberals don't have a monopoly on that sort of thing.

Posted by: Xrlq at October 27, 2004 09:27 PM (6DLYC)

2 BTW, is there anything actually known about this man's politics? And, it appears he was not trying to kill her, since he turned away away and did not even hit her. It would seem that if he were trying to kill her he could have. Not that that would be a loss, mind you, but why call it something it is not? Oh, I forgot, it suits your purpose and really, then, what has the truth to do with it? http://www.ericblumrich.com/gta.html See why she should have gone to jail rather than become a congressperson.

Posted by: mike at October 28, 2004 03:11 PM (0ZdtC)

3 "...which, as my crim law professor will tell you, is both an assault and a battery..." I don't remember: did they hit? It wouldn't be a battery if they missed. Speaking of assault, Mike, yes, he's a Dem (shocker, I know) and has properly been charged with aggravated assault. "I didn't intend to kill you" gets you out of attempted murder, but not out of being a serious felon. Whether it's a car or a gun, pointing a deadly weapon at someone to scare them by threatening their life is hardly just (in his own words) "political expression."

Posted by: Dave J at October 28, 2004 03:19 PM (VThvo)

4 Mike, i don't know if you are a long time visitor or not. But i hope people who come here have noticed my commitment to scrupulous intellectual honesty. If i make a mistake, i will acknowledge it. And i hope i never make a false statement simply to "suit my purpose." (humorous posts excepted, of course) Driving a cadillac into a crowd of people satisfies the elements of Attempted Murder. The word "attempt" is synonymous with "try," therefore i am correct in saying that the asshole "tried to kill Katherine Harris." It's still attempted murder even if you argue that, since he swerved at the last minute, he did not intend to kill anyone. The "intent" element of the crime is satisfied by his "reckless disregard" for human life when he drove a car over the curb, at a crowd of people. The DA apparently made a tactical decision not to charge Attempted Murder, but that doesn't mean his act doesn't fit the legal definition.

Posted by: annika at October 28, 2004 04:10 PM (zAOEU)

5 Hmmmmm...a quick search of the case law by this non-criminal Florida attorney finds that you are, indeed, correct: under the facts of this case, it does appear that the State Attorney could indeed have charged Attempted Second-Degree Murder. See Brown v. State, 790 So.2d 389 (Fla. 2000); Gentry v. State, 437 So.2d 1097 (Fla. 1983). Nonetheless, I personally find Justice Harding's dissent in Brown vastly more convincing: the Florida Supreme Court's jurisprudence on criminal attempt seems to be all over the place, holding inconsistently that it is both a general intent crime and a specific intent crime; moreover, he finds the overwhelming majority of jurisdictions treat attempt as a specific intent crime, with only Colorado joining Florida, and Colorado at least conceding that it is at variance with most of the country. Harding explains why "general intent attempted murder" is logically impossible: "An attempt, by nature, is a failure to accomplish what one intended to do. Attempt means to try; it means an effort to bring about a desired result." Keys v. State, 104 Nev. 736, 766 P.2d 270, 273 (198 . The concept of attempt seems necessarily to involve the notion of an intended consequence, for when one attempts to do something one is endeavoring or trying to do it. Hence, an attempt requires a desired, or at least an intended, consequence. Paul H. Robinson & Jane A. Grall, Element Analysis in Defining Criminal Liability: The Model Penal Code and Beyond, 35 Stan. L. Rev. 681, 747 n.290 (1983). The nature of an attempt, then, is that it requires a specific intent. ... here is a substantial distinction between a completed crime and an attempt. In a case involving a completed crime, the State is punishing a defendant for conduct which was carried out to completion. In contrast, in a case involving an attempt, an inchoate crime, there is no completed offense, so the State is punishing a defendant for conduct preparatory to the offense coupled with the intent to commit such an offense. Unlike the completed offense, mere preparatory conduct without any intent should not be enough to establish an attempt. Therefore, based on the reasons stated above, I would recede from Gentry and conclude that all attempt crimes require a specific intent to commit the underlying offense... ... Murder is a result-oriented crime which cannot be proven without first establishing the "result element" that a person is dead. In light of the conclusion that attempt is a specific intent crime, it follows that a person cannot be convicted of attempted murder if that person did not intend the result of death. It is not enough that the defendant simply intended certain conduct without also intending the result (i.e., although a defendant may have intended to fire a gun at a house, if the defendant did not intend to kill, this should not amount to an attempted murder). See, e.g., [United States v. Roa, 12 M.J. 210, 212] ("Appellate defense counsel have suggested that the government's theory would produce some anomalous results.... [A]n accused who had fired into [a large] crowd with no intent to kill anyone but with a wanton disregard for human life and had injured no one could, under the government's theory, be convicted of a separate attempt to murder every person in the crowd.").

Posted by: Dave J at October 28, 2004 06:00 PM (GEMsk)

6 Interesting. But i hasten to remind you that the quoted language is a dissent, and therefore it is not law. Furthermore, this is the exact same Florida Supreme Court that screwed up the 2000 election. And in fact, there's a pretty glaring misspelled word in the 3rd paragraph of the Brown opinion, which does nothing to change my low regard for that particular court. Anyways, i read the case, and while the dissent does seem persuasive, it does not address the issue as i see it: whether depraved heart or reckless disregard is sufficient to establish intent for the crime of attempted murder. i hold that it is, whether the crime be classified as one of specific intent or one of general intent. In the context of attempt, the distinction between specific intent crimes and general intent crimes, according to the dissent, is that in general intent crimes the state has to prove intent to do the crime only, while under the standard of specific intent, the state would also have to prove intent to commit the overt act in furtherance of the attempt. So as you can see, the Brown court was not asked to decide whether depraved heart or reckless disregard satisfies the mens rea element for the crime of attempted murder. Bottom line: i'm still right.

Posted by: annika at October 28, 2004 06:54 PM (CDVJq)

7 Believe me, you don't have any need to convince me of the shortcomings of the Florida Supreme Court; I've been dealing with their nonsense practically nonstop for the past three years. In fact, you probably have NO idea just how bad they are and, yes, Harding was practically in Gore's pocket throughout the 2000 election debacle, which was hardly one of their most egregious fuckups. The House was getting ready to impeach most of them over Armstrong v. Harris, 773 So.2d 7 (Fla. 2000), when the whole recount mess conveniently (for the justices) intervened. By the time that was all over, the legislators were all either too exhausted to deal with it or had just forgotten about it. Don't even get me started on how term limits undercut separation of powers in favor of the judiciary. I agreed with you, of course, Brown is the law in Florida and thus a defendant can be charged here with "attempted second-degree murder," despite the fact that that still makes no logical sense to me, and would also appear to never be distinguishable from aggravated assault. But when you say you're right, I expect that would vary from one jurisdiction to the next.

Posted by: Dave J at October 28, 2004 08:05 PM (GEMsk)

8 Annika, I was not truly looking for the legal definition of attempted murder; since you said in your lead in that "someone tried to kill KH" I was more interested in what he was thinking about (assassination?) and why you thought he was tiring to kill her. Not whether a prosecutor would be able to make the case for attempted murder. Without any information to contradict his statement confessing to wanting only to scare her, I still maintain that we/you cannot say with certainty "someone tried to kill KH." Also, in my cursory reading about the event, I did not see where he mentioned exercising his right to free speech?

Posted by: mike at October 29, 2004 03:34 PM (0ZdtC)

9 Mike, i think it's freakin hilarious that you can say attempted murder is not the same as "trying to kill someone." Seriously, that's very funny. Did you type that with a straight face. Only a liberal would say something like that. And only a liberal would be "more interested in what he was thinking about" than in the criminal act itself. One of the reasons why i'm not a liberal. Oh, and read the link again. (For pete's sake, it's only five paragraphs long.) In paragraph four you'll find the quote: "I was exercising my political expression."

Posted by: annika! at October 29, 2004 05:46 PM (rJOua)

10 Hi Annika, Well, yes I did miss the fact he said he was exercising his right to political expression. My apologies. But, I am not particularly interested in the ravings of a fellow who does not seem to have his head on straight. I think you have hit an important issue that divides what we loosely refer to as the liberal way of thinking from the conservative. The mind set that will execute children and the mentally deficient. The mind set that views compassion as the joke Bush played to help win the 2000 election. It is what I see as a rigid mind, a law and order perspective that treats all acts as defined by law equally v. a mind set that is interested in motivation and circumstance before determining punishment. The former, the mind set that came up with the Rockefeller drug package in NY or is against removing the federal sentencing guidelines. I recognize that this man can be charged with attempted murder as can an enraged, disenfranchised voter who enters KH's house armed with a length of rebar. He whacks her once and only refrains from killing her because his back goes out and he falls writhing to the floor. I am not an attorney, but I suspect that the charge, ignoring the B&E, is the same as the driver who swerved to miss hitting her. Are they deserving of the same penalty? And did they both try to kill KH? BTW, why did you assume that the car driver was a liberal? And why do you assume it take a race baiting video of KH to make one wince? I winced the first time I saw her. A woman who's psychological damage was worn plainly around her eyes.

Posted by: mike at October 30, 2004 09:33 AM (0ZdtC)

11 "I recognize that this man can be charged with attempted murder as can an enraged, disenfranchised voter who enters KH's house armed with a length of rebar." The latter has specific intent to kill. That makes it attempted first degree murder rather than attempted second degree murder. "I am not an attorney, but I suspect that the charge, ignoring the B&E, is the same as the driver who swerved to miss hitting her." No, see above. Moreover, that's not just breaking & entering: it's first-degree burglary. See Fla. Stat. § 810.02(2)(a). "Are they deserving of the same penalty?" No, since they didn't commit the same crime.

Posted by: Dave J at October 30, 2004 11:51 AM (GEMsk)

12 Joanne Jacobs has a less serious example of knee-jerk liberalism turning into violence on a college campus: A part-time instructor at Fort Lewis College in Colorado kicked the leg of a student wearing a College Republicans sweat shirt at an off-campus restaurant. According to student Mark O'Donnell, his assailant, Maria Spero, then said "she should have kicked me harder and higher." Spero, a visiting instructor of modern languages, apologized to O'Donnell in a letter dated Oct. 29. "I acted entirely inappropriately by kicking you, giving vent to a thoughtless knee-jerk political reaction that should never have happened," she wrote. "Before the incident, I did not know you and that you are a Fort Lewis student."

Posted by: markm at October 30, 2004 05:30 PM (5nK/L)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

The Maximum Leader had a really cute post yesterday, where he confessed to a certain confusion regarding my Fash-ism shoe poll on the sidebar.

Something has been bothering your Maximum Leader for WEEKS now about Annika's site. That damned Fash-ism poll near the top of the sidebar. What the hell are some of those things?

Your Maximum Leader knows they are all footwear. He understands basic pumps and boots. But what for the love of your Maximum Leader are: Mary Janes, d'Orsay pumps, t-straps (which sound quite sexy btw), peep toes, slingbacks, strappy sandals (which sound sexy in a granola-crunchy-Greatful-Dead-chicka way), kitten slides, and mules (which don't sound sexy at all).

. . .

So your Maximum Leader asks you... What are these other things?

Your Maximum Leader will inquire of Annika as well. But he is befuddled.

Posted by: annika at 12:03 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 629 words, total size 6 kb.