The purpose of this blog is to:

1. Bloviate.

2. Increase awareness and appreciation of good poetry.

3. Make fun of people, especially celebrities.

4. Interact with like-minded folks.

5. Promote my own ego-satisfaction.

It is not the purpose of this blog to:

1. Present ironclad arguments in favor of my stated positions, although i sometimes try to do that.

2. Regurgitate the party line, as all long-time visitors should know.

3. Sacrifice honesty to the god of consistency or slay the demon of fallacious reasoning, although i tend to favor those ideals.

4. Be nice, although i often am.

5. Promote your agenda; your website; your point of view; or your online gambling/porn/prescription drug scam.

i've successfully avoided posting a Statement of Blog's Purpose for over two years, but i think its time has come. i'm sick of people telling me what i should and shouldn't do with my own bandwidth. [Well... Pixy's bandwidth.] If i want to make fun of Lindsay Lohan, i will. If i want to do a non-religious post on Easter Sunday, i will. If i want to drop a subtle hint that i might not be celibate, i fucking will. If i want to run your ass out of the comments because i don't like you for no good reason at all, i will. Even though i almost never do that, i reserve any and all rights.

That is all.

More: Wow. i thought i was pissed off. Check out Beth. Right on girl!

Posted by: annika at 03:18 PM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 257 words, total size 2 kb.

At the risk of being accused as a mindless parroter of conservative talking points, let me quote Jeff Goldstien's deconstruction of the "chickenhawk meme," which is so clever i plan to adopt it and mindlessly parrot it all over fucking creation.

HOWS THAT ASSSHOLE?! THAT FUCKING PASSIVE-AGGRESSIVE ENOUGH FOR YOU YOU PRETENTIIOUS HYPOCRITICAL DICK?!!

[N.B. The above flip-out was directed at a troll, not you, Jeff.]

But i digress. Here's the quote:

Sadly, the chickenhawk argument, though logically puerile, can prove quite rhetorically effective—in the same sense that charges of homophobia and racism have proven effective in debates over gay marriage and government funded affirmative action programs: such charges, cynically delivered, tend to stifle substantive discourse, forcing one side of the argument onto the defensive by changing the focus of the debate from the issues themselves to the character of certain professors of those issues—and in that regard, they help to sustain the status quo.

The bottom line is, the chickenhawk argument is an impediment to legitimate discourse and debate—and legitimate discourse and debate over national security is a necessity in a free society; and for that reason, those who raise the chickenhawk argument should be treated by everyone—right and left—as intellectual pariahs.

. . .

The gist of most of the 'arguments' in support of the [chickenhawk] meme’s righteousness is that people so willing to speak vociferously in favor of the war should put their money where their mouths are—and merely advocating for the cause doesn’t count. Which means, of course, FDR should’ve strapped on a helmet, picked up a rifle, and had one of his aides wheel his crippled ass in front of a Panzer. BECAUSE OF THE HYPOCRISY!

Posted by: annika at 01:55 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 281 words, total size 2 kb.

1 thats why i keep coming back great post

Posted by: troll? at June 30, 2005 02:28 PM (7exp2)

2 I used to work with someone who, when accused of being this or that, would say: "Ok, I'm this or that. But lets stay focused on the point we are discussing..." They handled that type of thing as well as anyone I've ever seen. It is an exasperating thing to have interjected into a conversation. Its difficult not to roll one's eyes and give back some attitude. But that's what they actually want. You give attitude; the conversation is sidetracked; they win.

Posted by: gcotharn at June 30, 2005 03:25 PM (F5ahJ)

3 The "chickenhawk" slur is uber-illogical: If you dislike crime, why aren't you a police officer? If you don't like homes on fire, why aren't you a firefighter? If you hate the idea of stray pets, why don't you adopt a cat or 10? I am sure you think up your own examples, but none of the ones I have given (as well as the "chickenhawk" bomb) even attempt to deal with the real underlying issues. Just diverts it to the people involved in the conversation.

Posted by: Mark at June 30, 2005 03:46 PM (or801)

4 "If you are so against the ChimpyMcBushHitler-Halliburton war, then why haven't you gone to Fallujah to sign up for the insurgency? Why not help out where help is most needed to end teh IllegalWarForOil? I mean sitting on the Web carping about it isn't doing a single thing to end it. It's about Direct Action ma-an! Go put your action where your mouth is."

Posted by: Desert Cat at June 30, 2005 04:36 PM (n/TmV)

5 Heh, a good evening for me is whiping a gunny sack full of hairball makers off the bay bridge, but that was a good one DC.

Posted by: Casca at June 30, 2005 06:49 PM (qBTBH)

6 Each time someone lobs the chickenhawk rhetoric at me on my blog (almost daily, it seems), I've found the best way to shut them up is to mention that I have already pulled a tour in Iraq. The usual respone (because they don't know when the hell to give up), is why don't I re-enlist if I believe so much in this current war. The fact that I'm now disabled from my first tour usually shuts them up. But now I'm going to have to use that "wheel my his ass in front of a Panzer" quote. Brilliant!

Posted by: Robbie at June 30, 2005 09:27 PM (htx4h)

7 The original chickenhawk term specfically referred to the pussies (like Bush) who actively dodged the draft, but still supported the war. Folks like Limbaugh, Cheney, G. W. Bush, Tom Delay, et al. ad nauseum, who were as gung ho as they could be about 'Nam except for the part where they might be drafted themselves. BTW, hearing you spout off about the use of the term stifling debate has a wonderfully comic effect. Lanks for the laughs.

Posted by: sigh at July 11, 2005 10:03 PM (n5EIB)

8 The original chickenhawk term specfically referred to the pussies (like Bush) who actively dodged the draft, but still supported the war. Folks like Limbaugh, Cheney, G. W. Bush, Tom Delay, et al. ad nauseum, who were as gung ho as they could be about 'Nam except for the part where they might be drafted themselves. BTW, hearing you spout off about the use of the term stifling debate has a wonderfully comic effect. Thanks for the laughs.

Posted by: sigh at July 11, 2005 10:03 PM (n5EIB)

9 no, thank you!

Posted by: annika at July 11, 2005 10:19 PM (iXY4D)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Please check out this week's Cotillion Ball, hosted by the following lovely and talented ladies:

Rightwingsparkle
Not a Desperate Housewife
Maxed out Mama
Janette and Jody

This is some of the best stuff on the blogosphere, so don't miss it.

And while i'm at it, please go to fellow Munuvian Oddybobo's blog and read "I've Been Thinking, and That Is Bad!" Her thoughts on the Supreme Court are so close to mine, that i don't need to do that anti-establishment clause post i was going to do. Now i can take the night off, thanks Bobo!

Posted by: annika at 12:12 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 104 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Do they wear anything under those skirts?

Posted by: Casca at June 29, 2005 04:48 PM (qBTBH)

2 What about my take on it? huh?

Posted by: Scof at June 30, 2005 04:36 AM (x8hF4)

3 Laziest case of plagiarism I've ever seen ;~)

Posted by: Victor at June 30, 2005 04:50 AM (L3qPK)

4 Forgot to mention--I *love* the graphic you've got for your Cotillion link. Looks almost like an Erte print.

Posted by: Victor at June 30, 2005 04:52 AM (L3qPK)

5 Thank you for the linky-love. I needed a good rant.

Posted by: Oddybobo at June 30, 2005 05:17 AM (6Gm0j)

6 Thank you Victor, i stole it. Can't remember from whom.

Posted by: annika at June 30, 2005 07:14 AM (NCFFn)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

i wanted to see what bloggers were saying about the death of 58 year old Wal-Mart heir and Silver Star awardee, John Walton. He died in Wyoming today, when his experimental ultra-light crashed.

i looked up "John Walton" on Technorati and saw a pretty disgusting LiveJournal entry by a "blogger" (LJ blogs aren't real blogs, as you all know.) whom i won't link to. This ignorant bitch requires registration to read her drivel, so i couldn't read the whole entry. But the Technorati robot pulled this quote, which was quite enough:

The 11th richest asshole in the world ($18 billion) was killed in some kind of plane crash in Wyomning. John Walton (of Walmart), 53, is plunging towards the bowels of hell at this very moment.

Like most Americans with his kind of wealth, Mr. Walton was known as a philanthropist. The foundation he ran donated over 700 million dollars to education related causes over the last six years. i wonder how much LiveJournal bitch has contributed to charity.

Oh annika, you don't understand; the Waltons are rich, conservative, anti-union and Christian, so that makes them the embodiment of evil.

[As i continue to bang my head against the wall.]

Update: Zombyboy plumbs the depths of depravity known as the Democratic Underground, where many comments are in a similar, bigoted and hateful vein.

Posted by: annika at 11:35 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 269 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Annie, While you and I, and no doubt Mr. Walton's fellow soldiers, may be impressed and thankful for his courageous service, the left would view it as just further evidence that he was a "killer".

Posted by: Pursuit at June 28, 2005 05:10 AM (n/TNS)

2 annie, stop banging your head on the wall; I find it better to mutter, "Tut, tut," while shaking my head ruefully. It's less painful, doesn't leave scars, and is just as effective in dealing with those who do not see.

Posted by: Victor at June 28, 2005 05:16 AM (L3qPK)

3 yes, pursuit, but medics are non-combatants! for pete's sake.

Posted by: annika at June 28, 2005 06:57 AM (aQZcw)

4 Ah, but he was saving the lives of killers!

Posted by: Pursuit at June 28, 2005 07:06 AM (n/TNS)

5 Ms. Annie... You might want to check with Matt over at Blackfive but I don't think Special Forces medics are noncombatants...

Posted by: davek at June 28, 2005 07:07 AM (oBH+P)

6 Yes, it seems that John Walton committed the biggest crime against humanity, he had money. It's a shame, I am sure. It's too bad that he isn't as talented as Micheal Moore because he is such a positive role model for society. He has money, but he is all about helping out the poor - right? I'm sorry, I am digressing. Actually you are spot on. The LJ'er couldn't be bothered about finding out the actual truth about the man. All she needed to know was that he had money. But it's odd, I doubt that she will ever say anything nasty about all those celeBRATies who have all that money...

Posted by: ethne at June 28, 2005 07:26 AM (miAG4)

7 Since when do idiots permit facts, reason, and logic to get in their way? And talking ill about a man who died a day prior in a PLANE CRASH -- how classy can you get?

Posted by: Mark at June 28, 2005 09:20 AM (bToiD)

8 sure - she/it was way to busy hating the man for being successful to actually research what he was all about ... and being a proud member of the lower 49%. /TJ

Posted by: TJ at June 28, 2005 09:22 AM (9Rmby)

9 annie, take victor's advice. i wonder if this guy was the guy/father that got into that naming fiasco at the u of mizzou a couple years ago. although i don't condemn the rich, i do wonder out loud sometimes how people that are as dumb as dirt, read as THK, can fall into a pile of shit and come out smelling like a lincoln rose. trust fund babies.

Posted by: louielouie at June 28, 2005 10:54 AM (xKfMm)

10 It makes me so sick that someone could make that kind of statement. Disgusting.

Posted by: ginger at June 28, 2005 12:33 PM (g2QG2)

11 Annie, Thank you for the additional information about John Walton. It gives us information on the kind of man he was. It is wrong that some people assume because a person has a lot of money, that person is a jerk. Appears to me to be just the opposite. Again, thank you.

Posted by: N Diane at June 28, 2005 02:54 PM (CAT+l)

12 Don't hurt your head! Its such a pretty head. And filled with Civil War knowledge....

Posted by: gcotharn at June 28, 2005 05:34 PM (U/NfN)

13 i'm new to this site. it's so much fun to see passive-aggressive right-wingers pat each other on the back! it's almost so obvious that we shouldn't speak ill of this man who died the other day that you all shouldn't have to reassure yourselves so much. almost. it's great to watch though, you all took that one disgusting comment from some clueless webmonger and used it not only to defend something that hadn't been attacked (the monied class, or whatever) but to attack the imaginary attackers. you rightwingers have used this imaginary-attacker-siege-mentality to great effect recently, mostly defending yourselves from the phantom "attacks" by the left on things like marriage (gasp! gay marriage will kill america!) and religion (gasp! we're under fire because everyone doesn't agree with us!). don't you realize that defending something that hasn't been attacked makes you seem weak? anyway. i look forward to your snarky, passive-aggressive pile-on of responses. it'll be funny to see what happens when you aren't in the majority anymore and you have to figure out what you're really about again. endless power and enlargement of government aren't exactly bedrock republican principles, but you seem to have made an exception for bush. by the way, however full of shit that LJ bitch was, the reason some reasonable people don't like wal-mart is that it has put small businesses out of business and basically shuttered whole regions of the country. in the red states mostly. where's the outcry. now answer a question i didnt ask, defend against something that wasn't attacked, and spew the party line! it's fun and simple!

Posted by: eric at June 30, 2005 11:34 AM (hiCir)

14 how about i just fucking ignore you?

Posted by: annika at June 30, 2005 12:56 PM (Y4qg6)

15 well you're enlightened and that's what bush wants so enjoy. so much anger.

Posted by: eric at June 30, 2005 01:31 PM (hiCir)

16 Here's the accusation: (Take a) comment from some clueless webmonger and use...it not only to defend something that hadn't been attacked...but to attack the imaginary attackers. And here's the accuser doing that very thing: don't you realize that defending something that hasn't been attacked makes you seem weak? anyway. i look forward to your snarky, passive-aggressive pile-on of responses. Nice!

Posted by: Desert Cat at June 30, 2005 05:31 PM (n/TmV)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Read part one of a story of the Old South, by Christina of Feisty Repartee. i'm hooked now.

Posted by: annika at 07:30 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 20 words, total size 1 kb.

Doug Tennapel interviewed United States Air Force Major Steven A. Givler, who served during both Iraq wars as an intelligence officer.

Some highlights:

As far as ethics and rules of engagement are concerned, we take greater pains than any military in the world to safeguard civilian life. We actually incur a good deal of risk in order to avoid hurting people or damaging property. People donÂ’t realize what a change this is from how war has been waged throughout history. Civilian populations have always born the brunt of war, and suffered from the after effects. Look at WWII.

To destroy a single factory in Germany we might have had to destroy the entire city surrounding it, just because of the inaccuracy of our weapons. In Japan, we had to destroy even more because of JapanÂ’s decentralized industries. In Iraq though, I stood on a bridge that had been destroyed with a single laser-guided bomb. The mosque next to the bridge was completely unscathed. We could have carpeted the entire area with a B-52 full of dumb bombs from a safe altitude, but instead we sent in a fighter that risked surface to air fire just so we could be precise and spare any unnecessary damage. This in spite of the fact that our enemy makes no distinction between military and civilian, and has time and time again, used mosques and churches for military purposes such as fighting positions or places for hiding weapons caches.

. . .

When I see those 'war is not the answer' bumper stickers, I always wonder 'what was the question?' Because maybe weÂ’re talking different questions. Certainly, if the question is 'What do you do about a group of men who believe in slavery, who are completely dedicated to killing every one of us, and who cannot be negotiated with,' the war is definitely the answer.

People with those bumper stickers remind me of people who think meat comes from a grocery store. They have completely forgotten that something had to die in order for them to eat, and before it found its way to that sterile Styrofoam tray, that steak went through a very messy process. They have forgotten too, that our founding fathers said that occasionally the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of patriots. It amazes me that they seem unaware that, were it not for war, their bumper stickers, if they were allowed to have them, would be printed in German, or Japanese, or Russian. War, and our success at it, is precisely what has earned them the freedom to be so naïve.

Unfortunately, the world is an imperfect place. Evil exists. Some people are so given over to it that there is nothing else that can be done with them other than to kill them. I know this is difficult for some people to believe. I wish I could show them what IÂ’ve seen, like the Brothel Palace, outside of Baghdad, where Saddam and his friends imprisoned women they kidnapped off the streets. Or maybe I could introduce them to Iraqis who were forced to watch their family members fed feet-first (to prolong the suffering) through plastic shredders. Maybe that would change their minds, but probably not. ThatÂ’s alright. IÂ’ve been there. I know that 5 million Iraqis owe their freedom to a war fought for them by Americans. I know that for them, war has definitely been the answer.

Posted by: annika at 11:07 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 578 words, total size 3 kb.

Congratulations to the 250,000th visitor to my site. You found me via a google search for "sex poems." i'd call you a perv, except that my site comes up as the number two link for "sex poems," so what does that say about me?

Posted by: annika at 02:20 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 48 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Sex poems? Where?

Posted by: Casca at June 25, 2005 03:56 PM (qBTBH)

2 funny!! oooh i failed miserably at the 4 question QUIZ!! 1.How do you put a giraffe into a refrigerator? cut it up... 2.How do you put an elephant into a refrigerator? get a bigger fridge! 3.The Lion King is hosting an animal conference. All the animals attend... except one. Which animal does not attend? the human. 4.There is a river you must cross but it is inhabited by crocodiles, and you do not have a boat. How do you manage it? ...still thinking on that one! i had to like scratch my head for like 45 min... heee... but being sick it kept the thoughts of pain away... thanks...

Posted by: maizzy at June 25, 2005 05:32 PM (FbHOJ)

3 feel better sweetie

Posted by: annika at June 25, 2005 09:41 PM (95PTW)

4 250, 000? My Blogger blog got over 15,000. I can't even get Sitemeter to work on my new site. *sigh*

Posted by: Mark at June 26, 2005 02:00 AM (gsO4u)

5 Barbara Boxer is naked? WHERE?

Posted by: mark at June 26, 2005 05:10 PM (Vg0tt)

6 Congratulations...doesn't matter to any of us how you arrived at 250K...just that Crystal Clear you have arrived time and time and time again...Here is hoping the next 250k are even sweeter than the last!

Posted by: Crystal Clear at June 26, 2005 09:23 PM (CQDk7)

7 Congrats, for making it hapen, anyway.

Posted by: Shirazi at June 27, 2005 05:56 AM (G8Pvj)

8 Gotta be the poetry, man. CongRATulations!

Posted by: Victor at June 27, 2005 06:02 AM (L3qPK)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Posted by: annika at 08:10 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 8 words, total size 1 kb.

Over at The Sheila Variations, there's a very interesting excerpt from the book Dot.Con: How America Lost Its Mind and Money in the Internet Era, by John Cassidy. Here's an excerpt from the excerpt:

On the morning of March 30, 10 million shares of Priceline.com opened on the Nasdaq National Market under the symbol PCLN. They were issued at $16 each, but the price immediately jumped to $85. At the close of trading, the stock stood at $68; it had risen 425 percent on the day. Priceline.com was valued at almost $10 billion -- more than United Airlines, Continental Airlines, and Northwest Airlines combined.

. . .

Priceline.com started operating on April 5, 1998. By the end of the year it had sold slightly more than $35 million worth of airline tickets, which cost it $36.5 million. That sentence bears rereading. Here was a firm looking for investors that was selling goods for less than it had paid for them -- and as a result had made a trading loss of more than a million dollars. This loss did not include any of the money Priceline.com had spent developing its Web site and marketing itself to consumers. When these expenditures were accounted for, it had lost more than $54 million. Even that figure wasn't what accountaints consider the bottom line. In order to persuade the airlines to supply it with tickets., Priceline.com had given them stock options worth almost $60 million. Putting all these costs together, the company had lost more than $114 million in 1998.

How could a start-up retailer that was losing three dollars for every dollar it earned come to be valued, on its first day as a public company, at more than United Airlines, Continental Airlines, and Northwest Airlines put together?

Posted by: annika at 11:11 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 309 words, total size 2 kb.

1 I remember those days well. Seemed like everyone threw caution (and their money) to the wind.

Posted by: Mark at June 06, 2005 11:26 AM (Hk4wN)

2 It ranks up their with the Tulip bubble 1593 as one on the great follies of mankind. At one point, a single tulip bulb was selling for more than the cost of a mansion. The end of the dot.com bubble started when an analyst in the Fall of 2000 stated that 200 dot.coms would run out of cash within a year and fail. He was somewhat wrong as 206 companies failed in 2001.

Posted by: Jake at June 06, 2005 11:58 AM (r/5D/)

3 Thanks for the link, Annika!

Posted by: red at June 06, 2005 12:00 PM (qxKkx)

4 Annika - Why do unproven (in professional competition) draft picks in major team sports get paid big bucks? Same reason - potential. Actually, the IPO seemed fairly well priced at $16 in hindsight - the stock now makes accounting profits and I don't think that 114M loss was accurate (given the way the author notes the 60M option as a direct 60M loss). Of course, the business model didn't pan out to support the post-IPO market price..but then again, I bought Microsoft in summer 1987 after an already large price gain and saw its net income fall for two consecutive qtrs (but the stock price did okay - fell 25% on that Oct 1987 day) because "the model" made long-term sense even given the price. The difference, a decade plus later, is more people and more money chasing promising results drives the price up faster, ahead of the company delivering, or showing greater promise to deliver. Remember, in the same draft, both Peyton Manning and Ryan Leaf got a 11M + signing bonuses!

Posted by: Col Steve at June 06, 2005 01:59 PM (DmFF+)

5 This sounds like piling on, but the airline business is not exactly a money maker either. There are plenty of 3rd world countries that can't even feed their people that run national airlines at a loss. In this country, until one major carrier goes bust, don't look for a lot of profit from the others either.

Posted by: Mark at June 06, 2005 03:34 PM (nQAo8)

6 The Fed mucked with the economy by lowering interest rates back in the 90's to help create an expansion of credit in order to fuel an economic boom. What this did was to create an environment of easy money where business which didn't look profitable before now became attractive (at the marginal level) and drew resources away from firms that were very likely better suited to have them. One may say "well if the market worked like it was supposed to that money would've gone to the right people" and you would be right, but with the aforementioned expansion of credit provided by the Fed, lenders have easier terms so to speak (witness the boom of Venture Capitalists, the number of failed startups -- hmm, where did this extra money come from to invest in BuildYourOwnCar.com and advertise on the Superbowl for it?) Credit expansion does not create real wealth so the boom that resulted in the 90's lacked a solid base. Again witness stock prices as an indicator, as the anectdote with Priceline shows. There was too much cash on the market. Eventually interest rates will rise to reflect the scarcity of real resources. What we have been seeing lately is deflation marked with contrasting incredibly low interest rates, but this is still failing (somewhat) to stimulate the economy. What the gov't needs to do is let the bad capital wash away, figuratively speaking, so that a solid base can re-establish itself. Also regulate in an intelligent manner (i.e. do more like Sen. McCain's words and less like Eliot Spitzer's actions).

Posted by: Scof at June 06, 2005 04:40 PM (7z8ua)

7 Pretty good Scof.

Posted by: Casca at June 06, 2005 07:22 PM (qBTBH)

8 good comments, all. And glad to see you back Col. Steve.

Posted by: annika at June 06, 2005 07:28 PM (wSNSb)

9 The credit boom really did not come from lowering interest rates. Whether a bank borrows at 2.00% or 2.01%, it still loans the money out at interest rates which today routinely exceed 30%. (And it makes fully 25% of its money from fees and penalties.) The dot-con days were a bubble, just like the tulips, and they created the same problem: a massive amount of "cash" in people's hands which really has no basis in fact. A massive amount of lending which will produce loans that can never be repaid. And today, a massive effort on the part of banks to cover-up the true extent of those loans. Loans that should never have been made. Loans that were made using Federally insured money.

Posted by: Mike at August 02, 2005 04:20 PM (K2Nfr)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Big time Munuvian Rusty has an excellent post that examines three questions:

What exactly is a gulag and how widespread was the gulag system? What were the Soviet gulags like? And how do the worst and yet unproven allegations of abuse at Guantanomo Bay compare to what happened in Soviet gulags?

Posted by: annika at 11:05 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 113 words, total size 1 kb.