just trying to eat my waffles

May 17, 2007

Necessity Is The Mutha

Twenty-five bucks will get you this device, which will do what you might normally do by counting "one hippopotomus, two hippopotomus" for free.

Comes in blue or red! What will they think of next?

Posted by: annika at 08:53 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 42 words, total size 1 kb.

May 16, 2007

Keystone Commandos

Doh Doh!

This video is captioned "Jordanian Special Forces on an exercise."

Not quite as impressive as it was intended to be.

Update: Watch that dude in the back of the truck. That had to have been fatal.

Posted by: annika at 07:02 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 42 words, total size 1 kb.

May 04, 2007

Annika's Journal Farewell Tour: Part VII, The Curse Of Annika's Journal

December 9, 2004: I post a poem I wrote about Jerry Orbach.

December 28, 2004: Jerry Orbach dies.

Coincidence? You tell me.

March 4, 2006: I post a review of Butterflies Are Free, starring Edward Albert.

September 22, 2006: Edward Albert dies.

Coincidence? Who knows?

November 18, 2005: I call Steve Irwin a goofball in a post about turtles.

September 4, 2006: Steve Irwin is killed by a stingray, which is a distant relative of the turtle.

Coincidence? Is this starting to freak you out?

September 27, 2006: I write a post about Screech from Saved By The Bell.

November 15, 2006: Slater from Saved By The Bell is eliminated from Dancing With The Stars.

Coincidence? Maybe. But maybe it's not. Did you ever think about that?

Posted by: annika at 08:21 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 149 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I must confess. I have never thought about it, and most likely never will again.

Posted by: Casca at May 04, 2007 09:03 PM (2gORp)

2 A stingray is a "distant relative" of the turtle? Yikes, but yer stretchin' there. More spookier though: On April 26, 2007 you posted about "weather futures". The next day it rained like a bitch. Dammit, Annika! You and your @#$% blog! I'm really gonna miss you. **sniffle**

Posted by: Tuning Spork at May 04, 2007 10:15 PM (d7H4x)

3 You know, Annika, with Screech it got a WHOLE lot worse than anything having to do with Slater. How could you forget the release of "Saved by the Smell" on November 16? That's officially a two-fer for poor Dustin. You've got SPOOKY powers! Gonna miss your blog, Annika! If you do last one "Wednesday Is Poetry Day," here's one you might enjoy: Here I sit, broken-hearted; Tried to fart, but only parted My new pants from all the strain. The moral is: All strain, no gain. Do I gots the skillz to pay the billz, or what?

Posted by: Cameron at May 05, 2007 03:43 AM (3DWOF)

4 With posts like Cameron's, maybe you do need a break...

Posted by: shelly at May 05, 2007 04:09 AM (A5s0y)

5 Dammit Shelly, you're in between me and the target. Get down before I Dick Cheney your ass. Cameron, survey says......NO!

Posted by: Casca at May 05, 2007 08:40 AM (2gORp)

6 So, I'm thinking, how much would you charge us to write about Strawman, Annika? I think we can get up a pretty good kitty here.

Posted by: shelly at May 05, 2007 09:51 AM (h/YdH)

7 More Screech here.

Posted by: annika at May 05, 2007 10:34 AM (WfR6S)

8 Okay, okay. I apologize for the last poem. Here are some moderately better, definitely cleaner, poems. Well, the first four, anyway. Feel free to ignore the fifth since, um, you've already seen it.

Posted by: ccwbass at May 05, 2007 11:34 AM (8Yfhv)

9 That link brought up a Paris Hilton vid first, but I found the Screech-ness. It looks like he is due for a "blanket party". Gratuitous Visual Example Here

Posted by: reagan80 at May 05, 2007 11:42 AM (gyiuI)

10 D'oh! I'm a jackass. I didn't know that you had already seen the post, Annika.

Posted by: ccwbass at May 05, 2007 11:51 AM (8Yfhv)

11 Well Bass, at least you're in good company.

Posted by: Casca at May 05, 2007 02:27 PM (2gORp)

12 One of my friends, who teaches high school English, recently e-mailed, "Reaching 40 and realizing that you still find body humor hilarious is one of life's great surprises." I'm in that camp.

Posted by: Joules at May 06, 2007 06:13 PM (u4CYb)

13 Annika, You can't be serious about giving up your post!! But based on your writing history, can you dedicate your last days by writing a LOT about the democrats running for POTUS.

Posted by: Ed at May 07, 2007 07:50 AM (s5qzW)

14 Okay, Anni, what the hell's with you missing your last target? You did Orbach in, you did Albert in, and Irwin... well, we all knew it was gonna come at the hands... er, barbed tails... of some animal, though that doesn't change the influence your karma-cursing post had. But Screech?? You freakin' missed Screech??!! Of all people?? Keep posting, goddammit! If one doesn't do 'im in, keep shooting!

Posted by: ElMondoHummus at May 07, 2007 01:14 PM (CCvex)

15 "Get down before I Dick Cheney your ass..." Jesus, Cas! You could've said "Vice President your ass", but noooooo... you gotta choose the verbiage that causes spit takes and rereads. Now I gotta wipe this orange juice off my monitor...

Posted by: ElMondoHummus at May 07, 2007 01:20 PM (CCvex)

16 I live to serve.

Posted by: Casca at May 07, 2007 10:10 PM (2gORp)

17 no.........I think I'll miss the picture of feet on the scale, a fetish I just learned I had. very nice

Posted by: John at May 09, 2007 10:08 PM (D73at)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Rosie Unfazed By Emeryville Freeway Collapse

Rosie O'Donnell is a perfect example of the psychological defense mechanism known as "cognitive dissonance." Here's what she's written in the last few days in response to questions posed at her "Ask Ro" site.

Teresa writes:
Hey Ro!
I live in No CA and guess what? The freeway near the Bay Bridge is going to be open sooner than expectedÂ…Why? Because the steel didnÂ’t melt!!
HmmmmÂ…Â…Â… Love ya!
[Rosie:]
hmmm
and the concrete didnt pulverize
. . .
Jami writes:
Hey RosieÂ… you should send those who doubt the 9/11 stuff to watch the videos on Youtube about WTC7 fallingÂ… maybe that will make them believe what you are saying!!!! Rock on girlfriend!!!!
[Rosie:]
yup
. . .
Kim writes:
HeyÂ…just watched Loose Change. I didnÂ’t know that 9 of the Â“hijackersÂ” were found to be alive. Why havenÂ’t I seen this until now? Did the media ever cover that? Loving you from Toronto!
[Rosie:]
the media did not
. . .
amy writes:
rosie- i am horrified. i just googled wtc7 & i am just sick. i have always thought there was more to the story than what the media was saying- but to see actual evidence is frightening. IMPEACH!!
[Rosie:]
go amy
. . .
Dan writes:
U said the last tower on 9/11 couldnÂ’t have fallen by melting steelÂ…it has never happened. Did the recent incident in California where freeway girders melted from a tanker truck change ur mind?
[Rosie:]
no
wtc7
google it
. . .
Jan writes:
Can you explain how fire from an overturned oil tanker in San Francisco melted steel beams and bolts leading to the collapse of part of an interchange on Hwy I-80? But not on 9/11 you said.
[Rosie:]
watch wtc 7 fall
and tell me
it was not a controlled demolition
45 stories
come on
. . .
CYNTHIA writes:
is it plausable that terrorists placed bombs in the WTCÂ’s? y, but the real question is which terrorists,foreign or domestic? if u were a man the news would praise u 4 your views. they r full of shit!
[Rosie:]
loving cynthia

There is no convincing one who has abandoned all reason and logic in exchange for fear and superstition. It's ironic that she has the nerve to criticize religion.

Posted by: annika at 07:53 AM | Comments (27) | Add Comment
Post contains 384 words, total size 3 kb.

1 The problem with the "reality-based community" is that much of it can't handle reality. That's the basic premise of Paul Berman's Terror and Liberalism, in which Berman essentially says that many liberals, grounded as they are (or at fancy themselves to be) in Western rationalism, simply can't accept the notion that millions of people could subscribe to an utterly irrational ideology. He cites the French Socialists prior to WWII as another example of this phenomenon: The anti-war socialists gazed across the Rhine and simply refused to believe that millions of upstanding Germans had enlisted in a political movement whose animating principles were paranoid conspiracy theories, blood-curdling hatreds, medieval superstitions and the lure of murder. At Auschwitz the SS said "Here there is no why." The anti-war socialists in France believed no such thing. In their eyes, there was always a why. (Berman is a leftist, by the way.) A large portion of the left needs a "why." No one would fly loaded airliners into skyscrapers without a really good reason; thus the self-immolation of the hate-America crowd. I think Berman's onto something there, and I think the conspiracy theories may be the flip side of the same coin. If you're not willing to accept the possibility of an irrational, murderous, evil ideology with sufficient backing to organize a 9/11, and if you also don't accept the proposition that America did something so horrible as to justify 9/11 on rational grounds, then you have to find some other way to explain those three thousand dead people. I think conspiracy theories are another way to do that. Of course the people who buy into conspiracy theories are themselves falling prey to an irrational ideology -- and they're implicitly accepting the very proposition about people in American government (for example) that they're unwilling to accept about certain foreign Muslims. So much for their commitment to Western rationalism. But that just proves that the human capacity for self-deception is almost unlimited. Cognitive dissonance indeed. Of course in Rosie's case the problem may just boil down to the fact that she's a fat, stupid sow.

Posted by: Matt at May 04, 2007 08:47 AM (10G2T)

2 Hey, I am a "lurker" by your own definition. I drop in from time to time, yet rarely comment. I like your spot and mourn its passing in advance. I like your take, and your response most ususally, and when I don't you at least open up a new avenue for me to pursue. Keep up the good work, keep the faith. Jay

Posted by: Jay at May 04, 2007 09:32 AM (JMWr9)

3 Annika, "There is no convincing one who has abandoned all reason and logic in exchange for fear and superstition." I donÂ’t know Annie, it seems to me that the foundations and "facts" that stimulate the paranoid delusions that plague Rosie are 1000 times more concrete than the foundation for a belief in a supreme being, his children, his ghost, his intentions, his interest in us as individuals, a virgin birth, reincarnation, heaven, hell and all the other silliness that is stuffed in to the bag(s) of religion. No? She may be drawing wrong conclusions and seeing conspiracies that are not supported by facts but she is at least still in touch with reality

Posted by: Strawman at May 04, 2007 01:05 PM (et8nf)

4 Strawman, how did you determine that the multiplication factor is exactly 1,000? Please cite your source or sources for that figure.

Posted by: annika at May 04, 2007 04:43 PM (WfR6S)

5 Will, are you posting under Annika's name?

Posted by: blu at May 04, 2007 04:56 PM (NntAN)

6 Annika, Are you familiar with Lorenz's Butterfly effect, Von Neumann architecture and Godel's incompleteness theorms? It can also be gotten at from Gell-man's work in QCD. Let me know and I'll show you the how this factor was derived. It is a complex and very long winded proof but it is very rewarding more rewarding even than painting your nails, donning gingam wedgies and strutting your stuff around the pool! Well,on second thought, maybe not.

Posted by: Strawman at May 04, 2007 05:23 PM (et8nf)

7 "more rewarding even than painting your nails, donning gingam wedgies and strutting your stuff around the pool!" Straw, is there something you're not telling us? .......Or maybe not telling yourself?

Posted by: blu at May 04, 2007 05:29 PM (NntAN)

8 Have you ever read "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis? Also, "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel is good for those with massive doubts--not to say that we believers don't have our doubts--that's why I have these books lying around the house. They're good friends on the journey. So, Rosie...hmmm...I think she lost it somewhere along the way. She used to be a lot of fun. My guess is hormonal changes and brain chemistry have something to do with it.

Posted by: Joules at May 04, 2007 06:57 PM (u4CYb)

9 Yes Joules, that, and not coming to terms with her unnatural hatred of men. Early success (money) in life, before forty, tends to arrest emotional and intellectual development, and one risks becoming something bizarre.

Posted by: Casca at May 04, 2007 09:16 PM (2gORp)

10 Perhaps a better question is why you would bother polluting your blog with this MORON'S statements. She's totally beneath anyone with any critical thinking ability.

Posted by: Mark at May 04, 2007 11:44 PM (lJ4LY)

11 Rosie O'Donnell's utterly stupid statements are "concrete" but Catholicism is "silliness." Straw, when Annika closes shop (what a quitter, by the way), promise us you will learn how to THINK.

Posted by: Mark at May 04, 2007 11:48 PM (lJ4LY)

12 Y'know, posting Rosie's blog is a kind of public service for people who aren't surrounded by irrational people every day. It allows us to practice responding to Rosie-heads in the comfort of our own homes!

Posted by: Joules at May 05, 2007 08:01 AM (u4CYb)

13 CONcrete: Of or relating to a material thing or group of things as opposed to an abstraction. Gee Mark, did I miss something? Joules, I notice you don't have Bertram Russels "Why I am not a Christian" laying around to help you on your journey. http://englishatheist.org/whynot.shtml Or: http://members.aol.com/chasklu/religion/private/whynot.htm

Posted by: Strawman at May 05, 2007 08:08 AM (et8nf)

14 BERTRAND, of course, sorry.

Posted by: Strawman at May 05, 2007 05:19 PM (et8nf)

15 "Are you familiar with Lorenz's Butterfly effect, Von Neumann architecture and Godel's incompleteness theorms? It can also be gotten at from Gell-man's work in QCD." Strawman, that was amazingly condescending even for you. I am a long-time lurker, and I have before now let you be, but unless you are a mathematical physicist you know a hell of a lot less about those things than I do (I'm a Ph.D. physical chemist). If you are technically trained then I have no use for that kind of attitude coming from those of us in the technical community when dealing with laymen. But given the shotgun approach I betting you're bluffing. Explain to me what exactly you meant, because I'm at a loss how any of those disciplines gives a probabilistic estimation for the likelihood of the existence of a god. I am most familiar with Quantum Chromo Dynamics, but I have more than a passing interest in Chaos Theory, and while I know little to nothing about CS, I'm still at a loss to how a data / instruction design in a human made computer system sheds any light on this question. Enlighten me. I doubt there's any math that you can throw at me I won't understand. And apologize to our hostess.

Posted by: John at May 05, 2007 08:12 PM (ct7Ey)

16 John administered what is technically known as a bitch slap. You feeling OK, Straw? Cuz that had to hurt a lil'.

Posted by: blu at May 05, 2007 10:15 PM (NntAN)

17 Well, duh! (I'd love to see presidential candidates yelling "Duh!" at each other during a debate.) It's primarily a journey of FAITH--the assurance of things hoped for; the conviction of things not seen. I'll look at these links when I have a chance. About all the physics: I have this funny feeling that all the disciplines are easier to understand than I think they are--but try telling that to the rest of my brain. I have a book lying nearby called, "Physics for the Rest of Us"--which is supposed to make Physics easier to understand--but I bogged down in chapter 2 and never finished it.

Posted by: Joules at May 06, 2007 07:22 AM (u4CYb)

18 You might like this one Joules, I'm reading it now. The Fabric of the Cosmos

Posted by: annika at May 06, 2007 07:33 AM (WfR6S)

19 Dear John and Annie and Joules, A thousands lardons. I thought Annie's retort was tongue in cheek (IÂ’m sure it was) and I thought my response was as well. I thought my references were clearly frivolous (to the argument only) and not on any point since belief in a supreme being is the domain of religious belief; not science. I did not intend to be condescending nor do I purport to have more than a passing knowledge of these areas of study, and if anybody, your self included was offended, I apologize. I would never use my extensive knowledge of wood for instance to make someone feel inadequate. When I wish to offend, which is, I hope some may notice, becoming less frequent as my affection my associates and hostess grows, I usually do it with irony not condescension, unless of course its directed at Kasha varnishkas who insists on remaining unlikeable and a truly condescending ass. I thought the references were clearly humorous because I am, as most around here know, like our lord Jesus Christ, a simple worker in wood laboring not in the rarefied air of quantum chromo dynamics, but rather in a miasma of a thick suspension of sawdust, carcinogenic volatile hydrocarbons, and other unhealthy elements too numerous to list. I am enjoy reading these subjects on the level of the Â“Dancing Wu Li MastersÂ”, or listening to the wonderful Richard Feynman lectures from Cal Tech and other such lay fare. Annie, you got it as a joke, right? "I wish I knew half as much about anything today as I thought I knew about everything when I was twenty." Bill Ayers

Posted by: Strawman, PHDuh! at May 06, 2007 09:21 AM (et8nf)

20 i always love reading the trash posted on sites such as this. it is amazing that people so utterly unable to comprehend the point of views of others can only deal with this deficit in their own abilities by calling the others names. rosie may be annoying, vocal, and not always politically correct. however, she at least makes judgements for herself. you all, however, find it easier to right her off as a "fat, stupid sow", a "moron" undergoing "hormonal changes", jealously refer to her early successes as responsible for "arrested emotional and intellectual development" and reveal a telling fear of lesbians which does not, in fact, surprise me at all. calling someone names in no way challenges the arguments that they make. you need to look at the facts for yourself and make your own judgements - but i fear that most of you would be too scared by what you might find out. a pity.

Posted by: whatthe? at May 07, 2007 09:39 AM (go1IV)

21 Whatthe, Comprehending an inane argument (held by Rosie and other "truther" morons) does not require agreement. I and other regulars at this site comprehend their idiocy well. I've got an idea self-righteous, smug guy: Why don't you go ahead and provide an intellectual defense of Rosie's stupidity. We'll all be waiting with baited breath. Nothing like reading the rantings of deluded conspiracy theorists - for a good laugh anyway. Now get back to your bong and your latest version of Loose Change.

Posted by: blu at May 07, 2007 10:37 AM (j8oa6)

22 Hey Blu, So what is your problem with smoking dope? You deride people as bong users and I wnat to be clear if it is the use of a bong that you don't like or just smoking reefer in general. Whatthe, You noticed, eh?

Posted by: Strawman at May 07, 2007 11:11 AM (et8nf)

23 Straw, Was it bong resin that diminished your brain capacity and led to your bizarre and amoral political philosophy? Regarding your question, I tend to be a libertarian when it comes to drug use. I am not a user myself, however. While I may not agree with current government policy on the matter, I am not, like many who share my policy belief, just looking for an excuse to get high.

Posted by: blu at May 07, 2007 01:29 PM (j8oa6)

24 Bong resin coupled with the plastizer in the PVC tubing. Sometimes we would smoke with nothing in the bowl and never notice a difference.

Posted by: Strawman at May 08, 2007 06:23 AM (et8nf)

25 To Whatthe, Some of us have looked at the facts for ourselves and made our own judgements. You want to challenge the ad hom on Rosie, fair enough. But if you want to imply that there's something behind what she says, then you're the one who needs to look at facts for yourself and make your own judgement. Besides, what's this defense that she "makes judgements for herself"? Like hell. She's repeating verbatim the 9/11 Conspiracy Fantasy, right down to the terminology and the mistakes. That's not "thinking for herself", that's being a blind savant, echoing only what she's been fed. It's one thing to "look at the facts for ourselves", it's another thing to mistake fantasy for reality, and it's a whole other level of mental laziness beyond that to not even analyze what you read and just parrot it forth. So go ahead and criticize folks saying mean things about her person; that's warranted. But don't make the mistake of defending her intellectual honesty. Regarding 9/11 and the World Trade Center, she has none.

Posted by: ElMondoHummus at May 08, 2007 06:42 AM (WuviG)

26 Strawman, you are totally cool with me. I always have to remind myself that this type of communication means you miss vocal inflection, facial expression, etc. So, what's the best product to use to clean wood that's been varnished, like furniture? Whatthe, a good, thorough analysis of a person or situation involves looking at it through different lenses, from different perspectives. For example, I'm sure a psychologist would have a field day with Rosie and probably everyone here. We could even analyze Rosie from the perspective of a musician (if Rosie's voice were an instrument, she'd be the sandpaper blocks!) or a microbiologist or a Tupperware Lady, for that matter. We might learn something about Rosie and ourselves by analyzing her in different ways. Like the rest of us, you don't know Rosie personally so you're as little qualified to comment intelligently as we are. That doesn't keep any of us from doing it, though, which I think may be the most fun part about posting on the internet. Rosie's ideas remind me of my conspiracy theorist carpet cleaner, who could show you a dollar bill folded so that it makes the twin towers. He thinks the Illuminati (which includes most government heads of state worldwide, according to him) planned the disaster ahead of time so they just printed it on our money...for some reason...which is really dumb and I'm going to go get some ice cream.

Posted by: Joules at May 08, 2007 01:06 PM (u4CYb)

27 I may need the Fabric of the Cosmos to make myself a new pair of jeans. I spent the weekend in Oklahoma City with an old college friend and we ate every meal at a restaurant!

Posted by: Joules at May 08, 2007 02:03 PM (u4CYb)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

May 03, 2007

Breaking News

GOP DEBATE SHOCKER!

During an inadvertently risque moment, Governor Romney demonstrates his "technique" in response to a question by moderator Chris Matthews.

Posted by: annika at 09:03 PM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 26 words, total size 1 kb.

1 His knuckleball grip right? Damn you're a pervy little thing, thus very popular. lmao

Posted by: Casca at May 03, 2007 09:07 PM (2gORp)

2 what? you don't think it was risky for him to start talking about his bowling technique?

Posted by: annika at May 04, 2007 06:20 AM (UV9H+)

3 Annika, How often do the words risque and bowling find themselves in the same sentence? Romney looks more like RR calling his favorite sheep to the barn for a nooner.

Posted by: Strawman at May 04, 2007 08:02 AM (et8nf)

4 the shocker, that's friggin sweet!

Posted by: Scof at May 04, 2007 09:11 AM (a3fqn)

5 -Romney looks more like RR calling his favorite sheep to the barn for a nooner. I have it on good authority Strawman would know about diddling livestock. I heard he was banned from a petting zoo in Jersey several years ago. He walked into the place wearing nothing but galoshes. He grabbed the nearest goat and inserted its hind legs into his boots so it could not run away. He proceeded to give the animal a time it would never forget along with a case of herpes.

Posted by: Spanky at May 04, 2007 10:40 AM (gyiuI)

6 You're such a pervert. That's what I love about you.

Posted by: Trint at May 04, 2007 11:25 AM (SlSdA)

7 Spanky, Sounds like you are competing with RR for the title of site farm boy?

Posted by: Strawman at May 04, 2007 01:11 PM (et8nf)

8 Amazingly, that's my technique, too! You'd be surprised how well it works,really you would. I've gotten thirty-two marriage proposals that way alone. And I won't even get started with what I can do with my tongue. Who says that Catholic school didn't have some benefits?

Posted by: skippystalin at May 04, 2007 02:11 PM (ZSmqU)

9 Whoa. That's so gratuitously perverted that it almost offends even me.

Posted by: Matt at May 04, 2007 02:15 PM (10G2T)

10 Scof, I really liked the "Have a crappy weekend" sound bite.

Posted by: reagan80 at May 04, 2007 02:33 PM (gyiuI)

11 Yes, I know Matt. Its incredibly tasteless and there was no justification for it. This is probably the type of thing that explains why I was never asked to join Pajamas Media and Hugh Hewitt took me off his blogroll.

Posted by: annika at May 04, 2007 04:35 PM (WfR6S)

12 "Hugh Hewitt took me off his blogroll" I hope none of the comments were a factor in his decision. I know that I've posted some pretty toxic, politically incorrect shit on multiple occasions that people would want to publicly distance themselves from. With that said, I'm not a big fan of Hugh's sycophantic tendencies.

Posted by: reagan80 at May 04, 2007 05:43 PM (gyiuI)

13 I missed the debate, I've heard from various sources that Romney did well along with a couple of others. Apparently, McCain looked old and tired - not a good TV candidate. Michael Medved suggests that Duncan Hunter was the debate winner (with Romney a close second.) Opinions anyone?

Posted by: blu at May 04, 2007 05:59 PM (NntAN)

14 Hmmmm, Hunter did himself some good, but Romney was Mr. Kewl. Hunter has a big plus for being VP. Aside from McCain who is too old, and too strident. Who else but Hunter is a vet? On top of his service, he's been the go to guy on defense in the Congress for a long time. Add to that, he's an articulate conservative with major street cred, and any presidential candidate with suspect credentials with his base will want to shore up his bonafides. Plus, he has Buckeye roots.

Posted by: Casca at May 04, 2007 09:27 PM (2gORp)

15 The winner was ..... Fred Thompson. With no real winner emerging, Fred begins to gain traction. Looking for RWR reincarnate? Look no further. And, Fred would not hesitate to name Newt Secretary of State or Defense. I see a Thompson-Giuliani ticket coming. Beats the Hell out of Clinton-Richardson, doesn't it? Remember, you read it here on Annie's blog.

Posted by: shelly at May 05, 2007 04:20 AM (A5s0y)

16 I don't know Shelly. I hadn't had a decent look at Romney until Thursday. He's a business lawyer from the East Coast, who sounds pretty damned conservative. Add to that, leading-man looks, and incredible mental quickness. He probably is the one. This is the most superficial part of politics, but Fred looks too old, and Newt too fat and toadish. Romney will make Hillary look like the hag she is in comparison, and Obama would come off like the ersatz looney left nutjob version of Romney.

Posted by: Casca at May 05, 2007 08:53 AM (2gORp)

17 Since Straw is considered the same species as the diversity of 4 legged vermin he penetrates with his Minuscule Man MeatÂ™, it's not beastiality. Notice he named himself after the material on which he give the old goats a reacharound?

Posted by: Radical Redneck at May 05, 2007 11:55 AM (cOyko)

18 Annie you'll be shocked to hear that I saw that picture elsewhere earlier, and thought the exact same thing! :-O

Posted by: Radical Redneck at May 05, 2007 12:02 PM (cOyko)

19 So we're supposed to vote for people now because they don't have the guts to jump in the fray? I don't know. That doesn't sit well with me. Thompson needs to get off his ass if he's going to run. Because he has no money, no staff, and I suspect no ideas either. All he's doing is sucking up oxygen from guys who have been working hard for months.

Posted by: annika at May 06, 2007 07:39 AM (WfR6S)

20 And don't forget he's got a really good side job.

Posted by: Strawman at May 06, 2007 03:34 PM (et8nf)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

May 02, 2007

The Heatbreak Of Immigration

Immigration: The Human Cost

Posted by: annika at 06:46 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 12 words, total size 1 kb.

1 That reminds me of another story about an unemployed, angry white man.

Posted by: reagan80 at May 02, 2007 08:51 PM (gyiuI)

2 i love how that guy walked from Downtown LA to Santa Monica Pier in two hours. That would take like 3 days in real life. He must have been running on 24 time.

Posted by: annika at May 02, 2007 09:10 PM (WfR6S)

3 Indeed. What really made me toss out my suspension of disbelief was the part where he fired the L.A.W. rocket. The trajectory was unreal. It should have detonated 10 feet in front of him.

Posted by: reagan80 at May 02, 2007 10:18 PM (gyiuI)

4 Raygun Annie, Yup, that was my big complaint with the movie as well. It's those Hollywood lefties who just can't get it through their commie heads that ordinance needs respect too! Actually my favorite is when Mel the anti-Semite, and donÂ’t get me wrong, I think he can be a brilliant actor, takes a bunch of blankets into a bathtub next to Danny Glover, who is sitting on a rigged toilet seat, to create a blast matt. He then yanks Danny off the can, really fast, into the tub, before the c-4 blast (30K feet per second) can catch up to them. Could happen! That suspends way more belief than a too quick a trip to the Pier. But, whenever we refuse to allow a director his/her conceits it is we who have lost our way.

Posted by: Strawman at May 03, 2007 07:30 AM (et8nf)

5 Straw, I think it must be slow fuses. If the bad guys ever figure that out, all the heroes will die horrible deaths as they try to hit the ground before the mines they are standing on can explode. Don't tell anyone. Actually my biggest complaint is these giant gasoline fire explosions.

Posted by: MarkD at May 03, 2007 01:51 PM (5vbH6)

6 "ordinance" Commies don't respect gubmint decrees?! You are even further removed from reality than Annie thought!

Posted by: Radical Redneck at May 04, 2007 12:39 AM (hRcQE)

7 Red, WTF are you trying to say? You are more garbled than usual. Why don't you just continue to grunt and point at pictures, you are very good at that. Now this time try peeling the banana

Posted by: Strawman at May 04, 2007 07:32 AM (et8nf)

8 That was just his way of saying, "Check your spelling, Straw."

Posted by: reagan80 at May 04, 2007 11:41 AM (gyiuI)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

62kb generated in CPU 0.0195, elapsed 0.0581 seconds.
65 queries taking 0.0462 seconds, 230 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy

Monthly Traffic

Pages: 3847
Files: 50
Bytes: 38.6M
CPU Time: 1:56
Queries: 235040

Content

Posts: 2168
Comments: 17090

Feeds

May 17, 2007

May 16, 2007

May 04, 2007

May 03, 2007

May 02, 2007

Search Thingy

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Monthly Traffic

Content

Feeds