Battle Royal
Memo to Republican candidates: here's one way to get Hillary's goat. Be polite. That was what Rick Lazio got wrong, when he did his famous "space invading" gesture during the 2000 NY senate race.
For more than two hours, France's presidential front-runner needled his challenger during a debate Wednesday, wrapping it in a veneer of chivalry and always addressing her as "Madame."
Finally, Segolene Royal snapped. The woman seeking to become France's first female president erupted in anger toward the end of the prime-time duel with conservative Nicolas Sarkozy.
It was surprising -- and potentially damaging -- that Royal, not Sarkozy, proved quick to anger. During their bitter election campaign, the Socialist has sought to portray her conservative rival as too unstable, too brutal, to lead the nuclear-armed nation.
In front of millions of television viewers, Sarkozy turned the tables. Royal got furious when he started talking about disabled children, saying he was "playing" with the issue. "I am very angry," she said.
"You become unhinged very easily, Madame," Sarkozy said. "To be president of the republic, one must be calm. . . . I don't know why Mrs. Royal, who's usually calm, has lost her calm."
Hey does anybody speak French? I think this is the video.
By the way, I know nothing about French politics, except that Royal is a hottie, and she's a socialist. Sarkozy, I remember, got in trouble during the recent "youth" riots for stating the obvious: that the rioters were thugs.
1
Sarkozy will likely win, Royal is just slinging mud (with the help of the media and celebrities of france). Sarkozy would be an interesting change of pace for French politics (not being a socialist), but uh, depends on how sneaky the democra...i mean socialists will be in trying to stop his agenda after the election.
2
The riots really brought out the worst in the French. (But did anybody expect anything less than the worst from these effete snobs?) As usual, the country's Left (and even some of the Right) refused to acknowledge that the thugs were thugs and that most were Muslim thugs. Funny thing is the Lefties are the same everywhere: it's never the thug's fault.
Posted by: blu at May 03, 2007 03:22 PM (NntAN)
3
[Royal got furious when he started talking about disabled children, saying he was "playing" with the issue.]
Ah, that reminds me of the 2000 presidential debates where Gore was saying that Bush was lying about wanting to spend all of the money on entitlements and shit. Kanye West is wrong: Bush really cares about black people.
Posted by: reagan80 at May 03, 2007 07:08 PM (gyiuI)
4
"Royal is a hottie, and she's a socialist"
Everything epitomized right there. Socialist bitch, keep yo' mouth shut! You/it's mouth, and you, have one purpose; and if you is spewing noise you ain't using it right!
Know your place!
Posted by: Radical Redneck at May 04, 2007 12:35 AM (hRcQE)
5
If you want me to make a transcript & translation of what's said on the video, A, I'll be happy to do so.
Kevin
Posted by: Kevin Kim at May 04, 2007 04:49 AM (1PcL3)
6
Now that I've watched the vid, I can say that this isn't the moment where Royal has her meltdown. The announcer mentions, toward the end of the clip, that Sarko comes off as more precise in his suggested remedies and solutions than Royal does in hers.
At one point in this clip, Royal says, "You're joking!", but this isn't flying off the handle. I'm guessing, from the article you quoted, that her grand moment occurred further on.
Kevin
Posted by: Kevin Kim at May 04, 2007 05:05 AM (1PcL3)
7
thanks for checking that Kevin. Most of the youtube clips seemed to show that one moment for some reason.
Posted by: annika at May 04, 2007 07:02 AM (WfR6S)
8
I'm pretty sure that clip is from a Swiss news channel, firstly because the guy doing the voiceover has a Swiss accent (he speaks in the slow, dopey way that French people mock), and secondly because, early on, he makes reference to the fact that "if 20 million French people watched it [the debate], a goodly proportion of 'romands' won't have missed it, either."
The French term "romands" is shorthand for "suisse-romands," i.e., French-speaking Swiss.
I checked around re: Royal's blowup... it doesn't appear to have been much more than a rash of finger-pointing, followed by Sarkozy's accusing Royal of having lost her temper, to which she replied that there are some things worth losing one's temper about, and that she would likely find reasons to be angry while in office, too (obviously, I'm not quoting this directly).
Final note: you called Royal "hot," but I think I'd call her "handsome" in the 1800s sense.
Kevin
Posted by: Kevin Kim at May 04, 2007 07:19 AM (1PcL3)
9
She is way more than handsome. She's incredibly elegant, with a friendly face, beautiful hair, open and feminine eyes, and an extremely youthful appearance for a woman her age.
Any man with blood in his veins would find her attractive and want to get to know her better.
Possibly The Last Fash-ism Post Ever
So I better make it good, huh?
I predicted the return of the peep-toe, I celebrated the year of the wedge heel, and I got completely blindsided by this season's gingham revival.
Combine all three fabulous trends and this is what you get.
For the girls, here's my recommendation for that upcoming Memorial Day barbecue or pool party, where you know you'll need to make an impression because he might be there.
Combine these wedges with some tailored shorts and sleeveless point collared blouse? I think so! To avoid the inevitable Mary-Ann comparisons, stay with solid colors. Re fabrics, linen adds class and you'll feel as cool as you look holding that fruity drink. Let your outfit do the flirting for you. I know you'll thank me when it's over.
9
There are aspects of a woman's appearance that impress men: a good body, nice hair, stylish and matching clothes that show off her figure, nice skin, cute earrings, tasteful jewlery, tasteful makeup, lip gloss, sunglasses, etc. But shoes aren't one of them. Even those shoes, which are immediately pretty cool, would hardly get noticed. There is a market failure here; get nice shoes, but don't do it because *he* will be there. He won't notice, unless he's gay.
10
Roach,
All the attributes you mention are important although not all of them to all men. But to say an appreciation of womenÂ’s shoes and their feet is only the domain of gay men is untrue.
I think you are missing out on something. I guess you never placed your loverÂ’s feet arch to arch and had you way with them. HavenÂ’t you ever had a set of cute red nailed toes in you mouth?
Posted by: Strawman at May 04, 2007 02:14 PM (et8nf)
11
'Nam Warts, when you aren't sticking your own feet in there the only thing that has ever been in your mouth is man meat.
Roach is wrong though. Any sexual orientation can have a foot fetish. I know because I have seen it here before.
http://annika.mu.nu/archives/069532.html
Posted by: Spanky at May 04, 2007 03:27 PM (gyiuI)
12
Roach is wrong. I'm not gay--and, for that matter, I don't have a foot fetish. But a really cute shoe is still a really cute shoe.
Besides, a woman likes it when a guy notices the things that matter to her.
Posted by: zombyboy at May 05, 2007 08:30 PM (fJr0Z)
13
The best thing about espadrilles is you get all of the sexy with none of the slutty. And the gingham pattern immediately makes one think of either Mary Ann or a farmer's daughter. Great find, annika!
Posted by: Victor at May 08, 2007 07:19 AM (1oGDT)
14
thank you Victor! i ordered them, hopefully they'll arrive in time for graduation parties!
Posted by: annika at May 08, 2007 09:26 AM (CkZDt)
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)
Romney's Book
Does Romney want to be president or not? Because naming Battlefield Earth as his favorite novel was probably not the best choice he could have made. It's not enough that he has that "Mormon problem," now he's got to add a "Scientology problem" to it.
1
He never had a chance to begin with. The only person on the planet who seriously thinks he can win is Professor Hewitt - the same guy who thought Harriet Miers was an excellent choice for a Supreme Court justice. (Don't get me wrong, I like Hugh but sometimes he's "just wrong.")
Posted by: blu at May 02, 2007 10:32 PM (NntAN)
2
Annika,
The article you linked had this quote:
“Mormonism sounds like a science fiction fantasy to some Americans,” Prothero said. “It seems one of the burdens of his campaign is to present an image of Mormonism that sounds more reasonable and less fantastic. This seems to be undercutting that effort.”
I'd love to see any article by Reuters, AP, or any other news service or paper that was willing to take a shot at Islam as easily as they will Christiantiy or its derivatives. (And, I gotta tell you, I think Mormonism is a cult, so it's not like I've got a lotta love for it.)
Don't hold your breath: CAIR has got everybody too damned scared.
1
Armada Republica Argentina
It was just recently ANZAC day too!
Posted by: Col Steve at May 02, 2007 08:50 AM (WffUy)
2
Hey, Annie, speaking of this sort of thing, did you receive that F4 reminiscence that I sent?
Posted by: Matt at May 02, 2007 10:13 AM (10G2T)
3
Annie,
great post, you still amaze me with your military knowledge! Most people don't realize the Falklands/Malvinas fight could have gone either way, I am amazed watching video of those Daggers and Scooters zipping around the Fleet inside the sound.
But the best ever story of the battle (which most have never heard of) is the one where an Argentinian AF C-130 flew out and they rolled a bomb out the back of the Herc and hit a Brit ship! The bomb didn't fuse but what balls is that!??
Cheers
Posted by: Otto at May 02, 2007 01:16 PM (czVLs)
4
Col Steve is correct as usual.
I did recieve that, Matt. Which was the inpiration for that recent F-4 post I did.
Thanks Otto. I never heard that story either.
Posted by: annika at May 02, 2007 06:04 PM (WfR6S)
5
Ah, sorry. I missed that one until just now.
I bet you're a Dogfights geek, aren't you? Best.Series.Ever.On.The.History.Channel.
Posted by: Matt at May 03, 2007 08:50 AM (10G2T)
6
Good article, but a couple of comments if I may:
a. Just as you later say, the Belgrano did not have Exocets. The escorting destroyers did.
b. The Belgrano was not hit at the stern - the first weapon hit midships and the second removed her bow
c. Final death toll was subsequently reduced from 368 to 323
Posted by: Narendra at May 04, 2007 11:50 AM (nVX8n)
Coolest Thing On The Internets Of The Day: The Met's Zoom Function
Here's something I hadn't seen before. It's a very cool zoom function at the Metropolitan Museum of Art's website. I linked to Poussin's The Abduction of the Sabine Women, because there's a lot going on in there. But you can find and zoom in on pretty much everything they have at the Met. It's my favorite museum.
Also, while we're on the subject of art, click on the extended entry if you're interested in a tour of the National Gallery's Jasper Johns exhibition. I thought it was interesting.
more...
1
Perhaps it's my parent's blue-collar DNA, but I just don't "get" modern art. I watched the John's video and just couldn't get over how fucking ugly it all is. And can somebody please explain to me how taking a bite out of a picture is art. I am sure that I'm missing something fundamental, but I can't imagine placing something on my wall that looks like it was created by a bunch of 1st graders throwing random paint colors on a canvass and then haphazardly smearing it.
Oh well, count me as one of those middle-class Philistines who prefers his art to be attractive.
Posted by: blu at May 01, 2007 11:16 PM (NntAN)
2
You are not alone Blu. I think its the most horrible crap, and really it is indicative of a certain type of mental and moral degradation. I suggest you read
Tom Wolfe's "The painted Word". it is a great dissection of modern art.
BTW, I never really understood how mass rape was always considered "heroic" when the ancient Romans did it.
Posted by: kyle N at May 02, 2007 01:47 AM (we5pa)
3
well it is an acquired taste.
others have done the "what is art" subject before, so i haven't done a full post on it. but basically i think one of the essential elements that make something art is difficulty. either in creation or in conception, it must be something that is difficult to do, or that most people would have a tough time duplicating. while this is not true of all art, i do think it is a good rule of thumb, because it draws a line between johns and serrano for instance.
look at johns or rauschenberg, and even though it looks simple, ask yourself if you could duplicate it.
Posted by: annika at May 02, 2007 07:57 AM (WfR6S)
1
IMHO, the Democratic Party isn't co-opted by the Communists. They are EXTREMELY capitalist. Just ask the Clintons. And Al Gore. And John Edwards. I don't think that THEY will lead the masses in burning down the mansions.
2
Sure they will OE, just not their mansions. You're incorrect on them being capitalists too. They're socialists... national socialists. They'll work with capitalists, but only to make a "better" world. You only have to worry if you're not their right kind of people.
Posted by: Casca at May 01, 2007 10:55 AM (Y7t14)
3
Just got around to finishing it. Fabulous, your best work ever!
Posted by: Casca at May 01, 2007 01:22 PM (Y7t14)
4
What a bunch of 12th. grade idiot horseshit. No wonder you love it Kasha. Ku coo ka chu you dolt. Suffice it to say that the small minds that see the dialectic of capitalism, National Socialism, and socialism, unionism through the same lens that 6MB see it ought to be taken out behind the stock exchange, where their true god resides and shot in their pea brains with constitutionally issued firearms. The only thing he forgot to mention was the oversleeping drunk checker player, on his knees asking god how this could have happened to him, two bunks down named George Bush.
I will dance around my maypole this evening and take stock of the enriched lives lived by 10's of millions of Americans due to the power of labor unions, and laugh at the drowsy assholes like Kasha and 6meatloaf who wouldn't know a better life if it was tickling their prostate.
Posted by: Strawman at May 01, 2007 03:31 PM (et8nf)
5
How long will it take Strawman to figure out who he really just insulted? Place your bets, folks!
He shall soon contract foot-in-mouth disease.
Posted by: reagan80 at May 01, 2007 03:45 PM (gyiuI)
6
I think "penis-in-ass" disease is far more likely, Ray.
Posted by: Spanky at May 01, 2007 03:47 PM (gyiuI)
Posted by: annika at May 01, 2007 05:41 PM (WfR6S)
8
And, don't forget I always say them with love in my heart.
Posted by: Strawman, MD at May 01, 2007 06:08 PM (et8nf)
9
LMAO, maybe it's the day, or following on the heals of Anni's hilarious piece at 6MB, but I allowed myself to indulge in the witless diatribe that is Strawman. Surely the jig is up? This is a characature of the left. Who's writing this? RR? El Mondo?
Unions, gotta love 'em. My brother is a member in good standing of the UAW. He's a funny fellow. One of the things he loves to say is, "We could make a Lexus. We choose not to." Of course the funny part is the truth in that statement. The old auto industry is dead. We're watching the death spasms now. The unions and bad management have killed them. The same thing is going on in our cities, where the city managers buy off the public employee unions with grotesquely funded pension plans, where a senior public servant actually loses money if he keeps working. How does a city like San Diego, or a business like the auto industry go bankrupt? Just so. Workers of the world unite!
BTW, my brother submitted his buyout papers last month, along with the President of his local. Guess who's staying on the job? LMAO, I'm glad I like those German cars.
Posted by: Casca at May 01, 2007 06:44 PM (2gORp)
10
Geez, Straw, stop being such a loquacious bore.
Posted by: blu at May 01, 2007 08:24 PM (NntAN)
11
I must confess: Twarn't me. Alas, I am but a 4 Meat Buffet, yet to ascend to the 5 Meatdom status.
But, I do wish I wrote it. Seems pretty dead-on to me.
Posted by: ElMondoHummus at May 02, 2007 06:44 AM (xHyDY)
12
Oh... if any f****r substitutes "inch" for "meat" in my previous comment: I will find a way to deliver an ass-kicking via FedEx, UPS, or local mafia, whoever gets there bestest for the cheapest.
My alter ego shalt not be mocked... and he ascended past 5 "meat"dom status many, many years ago (no prosthetic jokes, dammit!).
Posted by: ElMondoHummus at May 02, 2007 06:49 AM (xHyDY)
13
Not the 6MB thing you idiot. The obvious put-up job that is "Strawman".
Bought that pump eh?
Posted by: annika at May 02, 2007 07:34 AM (WfR6S)
15
Oh. Ooooohhhh. All of a sudden it makes sense now.
Naw... I don't think that's a put on. I've heard so much of that same stuff working for a universtiy, and those folks meant it. Should've seen the "lecture" I got once back when I was working electric/light techie for the campus opera house. Got a shot at a rock concert gig, 'cept I'd have to give up around a quarter of the pay for the union fees.
I wasn't in the damn union. We were students working for the university. My question prompting the lecture was "why do I have to pay the dues?".
20 minute lecture. My ending question was "Okay. So... why do I have to pay the goddamn dues? It's not the local giving me the job, it's the travelling show's management." (Actually, I found out later that it would've been the venue, not the band's management, but I didn't know that at the time).
Never got another invite to work a travelling show again.
Took a while to get over that. But anyway, since stagework wasn't my career choice, no long term harm was done. Still, though... I was steamed. I was supposed to pay dues to a Union I didn't belong to? WTF??
So, Unions... I readily concede their contributions to improving worker conditions and redefining worker/management relations, but let's not pretend everything's all shiny, happy, and unequivacably good about them. There're downsides to the upsides.
Posted by: ElMondoHummus at May 02, 2007 09:50 PM (J+r3D)
16
Anyway, Cas: Pump? What, weights on a string aren't good enough for some folks?
Posted by: ElMondoHummus at May 02, 2007 09:52 PM (J+r3D)
17
Mondo.
I agree, not all shinny and unequivicably good. But, IMHO, far more good has come as a result of unions than bad.
Posted by: Strawman at May 03, 2007 12:14 PM (et8nf)
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at April 30, 2007 12:31 PM (BSx9z)
5
That was really Nicole driving? What a dumbass.
Scof's post reminded me of one of my old Youtube links.
I also want to bring up my old suggestion for an Annika-modeled action figure because there is video of it in...uh...action. Too bad she croaks.
Posted by: reagan80 at April 30, 2007 02:03 PM (gyiuI)
6
Quite a feat of skill and planning, or one lucky mofo.
Reagan, I'll buy one of those Annika action figures. If it's anatomically correct.
Posted by: Casca at May 01, 2007 07:10 PM (2gORp)
7"... but didn't Wile E. Coyote use rocket powered roller skates for that stunt?"
Thought it was a rocket. Or, maybe I'm mixin' my episodes up... I remember a cool one with a batsuit (man, I still want one of those...)
"Reagan, I'll buy one of those Annika action figures. If it's anatomically correct." (emphasis added)
Why? You got a tool shed, don't'cha? Anatomically correct it yourself, man.
Just remember, the rubber band with the Vienna sausage attached is not an acceptible accessory...
Posted by: ElMondoHummus at May 02, 2007 06:32 AM (xHyDY)
8
I can't make any guarantees, Casca. Besides, that doesn't sound very...hygienic.
We'd probably be better off just asking Annika for a sample of her DNA, and then shipping it to Hwang Woo-suk. Unfortunately, we currently don't have the technology to speed up aging and physical development. So, we will have to be cryogenically frozen for 18 years until the clones mature.
That is, of course, assuming she didn't really give us the genetic material of a collie or something.
Posted by: reagan80 at May 02, 2007 10:45 AM (gyiuI)
1
You're just soooo beggin for the truthers to show up, aren't ya?
Article to laugh about:
http://911conspiracysmasher.blogspot.com/2007/04/stupid-paranoid-hilarious-take-your.html
Quote that 9/11 Conspiracy Smasher gathered from the conspiracy fantasist's post:
"What is very weird is just a month back or so, I posted on a similar fire where the overpass DIDN'T collapse, and I made special note of that fact.
NOW, we have an example where there is a collapse!
Isn't that special? It's almost as if someone was reading this site and was determined to prove me wrong."
That quote from the same genius who - get this - built a chicken-wire frame of a single WTC tower, put a bowl of kerosene at the bottom, lit it, and said in so many words 'No melting, no collapse, WTC collapse was fake'.
Brings to mind something a customer at an old job told me: She was a guard at the county jail. She told me that the lengths the inmates went to in order to circumvent or "creatively interpret" the rules so clearly demonstrated their considerable intelligence and will that she was just flabbergasted that those folks were in jail. Her point being that, if they'd just applied that considerable intelligence and willpower to constructive pursuits, they'd be successful, but they keep wasting it on responding to the provocation they perceive in societal and prison rules. They're intelligent, but they misguide themselves.
That brings me to these conspiracy fantasists. They have the ability to see the truth - those sites I linked in the previous posts for 9/11 Myths and Debunking 9/11 aren't that hard to understand - but they go out of their way to construct their own world because they see themselves as responding to the provocation from events which they refuse to admit are illusionary (the "provocations", I mean, not the events themselves). They pride themselves on intelligence, but they don't stop to analyze their sloppy thinking, like the folks who seize on any story mentioning how the Bush Administration was warned ahead of time, but then, one thread later, resurrect the old canard about how the terrorists identities were stolen or faked. It's just painful to watch folks who could be smart intentionally lower their intelligence by subscribing to such drivel without critically thinking about it. It's as if they didn't pay attention in their science classes and note the other "observed" phenomena in history that didn't pan out, like the ether, or phlogiston. Juxtaposition is not thinking, it's merely a tool, one of many building blocks on which you organize data to analyze. Yet, for these folks, juxtaposition is evidence enough to leap to conclusions. It hurts the brain to see logic abused so.
Anyway, end of rant. Are you just beggin' for some fantasists to come and "just ask questions" again? You thrill cheaply, babe.
Posted by: ElMondoHummus at April 30, 2007 11:27 AM (xHyDY)
2
Yes it does raise questions. Why didn't they burn more of Oaktown?
Posted by: Casca at May 01, 2007 06:56 AM (Y7t14)
3
Yo, El, the mind can only absorb what the seat can endure.
Posted by: Casca at May 01, 2007 06:58 AM (Y7t14)
4
I dunno, it does seem like a lot of damage and gas truck do not explode, gasoline is not an explosive. Yes, the vapor if contained in a closed chamber with oxygen added, would explode but this is not what happens when a truck crashes. Gas leaks all over the place and burns.
On the off ramp from 695 West to 83 north (baltimore) a similar event took place. Gas truck took the exit ramp too fast and crashed to the right wall while under 695 crossing overhead. Lots of fire, scorched concrete, melted steel but nothing collapsed, not even close. Overpass was a total loss and had to be replaced but I just cannot fathom how burning gas took out that many structures some of which were 30 feet above. Lets not forget that within 10-15 minutes there was water being sprayed. It looks to me like an explosion.
Posted by: Strawman at May 01, 2007 03:53 PM (et8nf)
5
here's some good video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tjs5ILNkJc
draw your own conclusions.
it was probably just shoddy bay area workmanship, most likely due to labor unions.
nyahahaha!
Posted by: annika at May 01, 2007 05:45 PM (WfR6S)
6
Well, quit sittin' on them damn nails, Cas.
Jeez... do I gotta do all the thinkin' fer ya??
Posted by: ElMondoHummus at May 02, 2007 06:25 AM (xHyDY)
1
Rats. Now that you are quitting the rest of us will have to get a life.
Posted by: Jake at April 30, 2007 08:29 AM (V6rxT)
2
you are right Beth. I will have to make that a subject of a future post on my Farewell Tour.
Posted by: annika at April 30, 2007 08:53 AM (WfR6S)
3
Don't quit. Just allow yourself to succumb to the temptation to blog something every once in a while, and the rest of the time, pull a Bill Whittle.
That'll give you plenty of time for the Bar exam, and you get to participate in at least one aspect of a life (Note: Not a normal life, just a life).
Posted by: ElMondoHummus at April 30, 2007 12:58 PM (xHyDY)
4
Bill Whittle gets thousands of hits a day, even when he hasn't posted something for months!
Posted by: annika at April 30, 2007 01:03 PM (zAOEU)
5
Then just post some skin shots. You'll get thousands of hits too. Better yet, secretly annoint me as co-blogger-in-chief, and I'll take care of everything. You'll be really popular then. lmao
Posted by: Casca at May 01, 2007 07:24 AM (Y7t14)
6
I'm getting a picture here...it's dim, but it is coming into focus. Here it is; I can see it clearly now...
"Annika and Casca's Journal"
Hey, I'd stick aound and we might even loose that weirdo liberal who keeps gadflying in...
Posted by: shelly at May 01, 2007 01:40 PM (2nDll)
Sunday Morning Jet Porn
Have you seen the History Channel's Dogfights on Randy Cunningham? That guy was bad-ass. Skill, too much balls and just enough luck. He and his RIO William Driscoll became the first and only US Navy aces of the Vietnam War.
Cunningham and Driscoll's May 10, 1972, sortie was one of the legendary dogfights of all time. Despite several tactical errors, and lacking a gun which would have been useful, they shot down three MiG-17s that day. The team became America's first "all-missile" aces.*
They flew the McDonnell Douglas F-4J Phantom. The navy plane in the video is not one of Cunningham's F4Js. The plane from the May 10 dogfight never made it back to the USS Constellation after Cunningham and Driscoll shot down their last MiG. They ejected over the ocean on the way back, after taking damage from an SA-2 ground-to-air missile.
_______________
* Trivia: of the four American aces from the Vietnam War, the top scorer (with 6) was a back-seater, USAF Capt. Charles DeBellevue.
1
I saw that show on History Channel, and was riveted. I was mad they kept going to commercials, as I was eager to find out the resolution of the action.
You mentioned some tactical errors. This is one thing which makes me crazy about the condemnation of the OIF leadership: strategic and tactical errors always occur, in every conflict. Always. It is impossible to perfectly foresee conditions. Also, the enemy always adapts. Some commander, can't remember who, famously said: "The plan never survives the first shots."
It looks, now, upon seeing the success of the surge, as if Rumsfeld and his generals stayed too long with their "small footprint + maintain stability" strategy. Patreus proactive counterinsurgency strategy is, so far, massively successful. But, consider: Rumsfeld and his generals were determined to leave us in a strategically flexible position, at all times, and they did that. They tried the small footprint, it didn't work very well. But, to me, it looks as if they held down overall American casualties, and they left us with the strategic flexibility to now implement the surge. It looks as if Rumsfeld and his generals did a mediocre job, at best. Yet they still did a professional job. They were not "incompetent". Many generals in history have done worse, with more disastrous results. Even, for instance, in WWII, where some of Adm. Bull Halsey's decisions bordered on actually incompetent - yet he is still considered -even by me, a fine and skilled and honorable naval commander. Stuff happens.
Foreseeing the future is impossible. On third and three, should you run or pass? After the play fails, all fans know, in their hearts, that the coach made an incompetent playcall.
Posted by: gcotharn at April 29, 2007 12:31 PM (Tw4oT)
2
I originally meant to lift the truncated quote, but thought a little more might be digestible in this hour.
"...Let the man of learning, the man of lettered leisure, beware of that queer and cheap temptation to pose to himself and to others as a cynic, as the man who has outgrown emotions and beliefs, the man to whom good and evil are as one. The poorest way to face life is to face it with a sneer. There are many men who feel a kind of twister pride in cynicism; there are many who confine themselves to criticism of the way others do what they themselves dare not even attempt. There is no more unhealthy being, no man less worthy of respect, than he who either really holds, or feigns to hold, an attitude of sneering disbelief toward all that is great and lofty, whether in achievement or in that noble effort which, even if it fails, comes to second achievement. A cynical habit of thought and speech, a readiness to criticise work which the critic himself never tries to perform, an intellectual aloofness which will not accept contact with life's realities - all these are marks, not as the possessor would fain to think, of superiority but of weakness. They mark the men unfit to bear their part painfully in the stern strife of living, who seek, in the affection of contempt for the achievements of others, to hide from others and from themselves in their own weakness. The rôle is easy; there is none easier, save only the rôle of the man who sneers alike at both criticism and performance.
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat. Shame on the man of cultivated taste who permits refinement to develop into fastidiousness that unfits him for doing the rough work of a workaday world. Among the free peoples who govern themselves there is but a small field of usefulness open for the men of cloistered life who shrink from contact with their fellows. Still less room is there for those who deride of slight what is done by those who actually bear the brunt of the day; nor yet for those others who always profess that they would like to take action, if only the conditions of life were not exactly what they actually are. The man who does nothing cuts the same sordid figure in the pages of history, whether he be a cynic, or fop, or voluptuary. There is little use for the being whose tepid soul knows nothing of great and generous emotion, of the high pride, the stern belief, the lofty enthusiasm, of the men who quell the storm and ride the thunder. Well for these men if they succeed; well also, though not so well, if they fail, given only that they have nobly ventured, and have put forth all their heart and strength. It is war-worn Hotspur, spent with hard fighting, he of the many errors and valiant end, over whose memory we love to linger, not over the memory of the young lord who 'but for the vile guns would have been a valiant soldier.'" -TR
Posted by: Casca at April 29, 2007 07:38 PM (2gORp)
3
OK, Cas, that's just two paragraphs, but two of the longest I've seen in years.
Still, full of truths. Who can disagree except for the butthead who just does it for attention?
Posted by: shell at April 29, 2007 07:46 PM (LEMQc)
4
I only wrote one sentence. TR wrote the rest, better yet, know where he delivered it? To the French, mwahahahaha.
Posted by: Casca at April 29, 2007 10:42 PM (2gORp)
Posted by: Radical Redneck at April 30, 2007 12:23 AM (pMJBC)
6
Thanks for reminding me how much I love TR, Casca.
Posted by: annika at April 30, 2007 06:33 AM (WfR6S)
7
Thanks, Radical Redneck. I shall immediately gouge my own eyes out with fish hooks.
Hopefully, your intended target will be compelled to do the same.
Posted by: reagan80 at April 30, 2007 07:55 AM (gyiuI)
There Must Be Some Mistake
It's simply not possible for a guy to hit fourteen home runs when the season is only 20 games old — and his team still be in last place?!?!
And how is it A-Rod only has 8 walks? Where's the respect?
1
Less to do with respect than to do with who's batting behind him in the line-up.
Posted by: shelly at April 28, 2007 03:56 AM (h/YdH)
2
Jeter in front of him and Giambi behind him doesn't hurt, does it?
Posted by: shelly at April 28, 2007 08:29 PM (NBcnM)
3
- Abreu is 0 for 20+ and batting around .250. Giambi is hitting okay, but trend last couple of years is hit/miss (30+ hrs, but only mid-200 avg). No 6 batters so far are little threat.
- A-Rod is also tied for 9th in Strikeouts.
- With NYY starters only averaging 4+ innings, the other teams know they'll get a shot at the dismal NYY relief staff
- A good portion of his homers have come in blow-outs (MIN/CLE) or when his team is behind (like TB) or when a BB is not an option (2 on or bases loaded like against BAL)
Posted by: Col Steve at May 01, 2007 08:00 AM (WffUy)
4
Not to worry though: He won't hit 'em when it actually matters.
Annika's Journal Farewell Tour, Part IV: Searches, We Got Searches
I've seen lots of bloggers post their search terms for a laugh, but I've never done it. Until now.
Here are some of the most recent Google searches that brought people here, according to my Sitemeter.
hot tub girl
jessica alba feet (from Italian Google)
imus & andy joke
nancy sun, naked
cher 2007
crazy subaru
strappy shoes (from British Google)
fortune cookie
favorite flowers of marie antoinette
brittany goes
hot nude blondes videos (which took them here, to a post I called "Hardball Hardon")
sexy naked (which took them, coincidentally, to the same post)
Lessons From The Iraq Experience
Allow me to recommend two essential articles from Armed Forces Journal that I think are necessary reading for those of us not on the fringes, who strive to understand rather than shout slogans back and forth. I find little to disagree with in either piece.
The first is "A Failure In Generalship," by Lt. Col. Paul Yingling. Colonel Yingling places blame squarely on Rumsfeld and his generals, for the failure to achieve our goals in Iraq.
The intellectual and moral failures common to America's general officer corps in Vietnam and Iraq constitute a crisis in American generalship. Any explanation that fixes culpability on individuals is insufficient. No one leader, civilian or military, caused failure in Vietnam or Iraq. Different military and civilian leaders in the two conflicts produced similar results. In both conflicts, the general officer corps designed to advise policymakers, prepare forces and conduct operations failed to perform its intended functions. To understand how the U.S. could face defeat at the hands of a weaker insurgent enemy for the second time in a generation, we must look at the structural influences that produce our general officer corps.
My only criticism of Yingling's article would be against his proposal that Congress assert more control over the selection and promotion of general officers. On the contrary, while Congress has a role, it's the executive's job to select military leaders who can get the job done. I believe Yingling is correct to criticize the culture of conformity that produced sub-par generals at the war's outset. But that's common in every major conflict. War is a results-oriented game, and typically the dross is burned away after the first few months of battle.
In the case of Iraq, we had an unusual tendency towards inertia that can only be blamed on Bush and Rumsfeld's management styles. Whether you want to call it admirable loyalty or excessive stubbornness, neither Bush nor the SecDef were willing to change horses when necessary to get results. Of what other successful wartime administration can this be said? Not Lincoln's, not FDR's, not Truman's.
To be fair, one reason for this President's inertia was the withering and omnipresent criticism from the left, whether by Democrats or internationally. Bush, rightly or wrongly, made the decision that sticking to his original plan and personnel was better than adapting midstream to the changing situation on the battlefield. His enemies so vehemently accused him of being wrong, that he overcompensated in an effort to prove that he was right.
I don't give Bush a pass on this. It's no excuse to say that he did what he did because the left made him do it. It's the commander-in-chief's job to husband the souls of those men and women serving our country as wisely as possible. I'll grant him the best of intentions; I know the President feels every loss of life personally and deeply. But, good intentions are not enough. As I've said many times before, what we need is results, and the responsibility for getting results lies ultimately with the president. If Franks, Casey and Abizaid were not getting the job done — and I don't think they were — Bush should have been quick with the hook. (Bush knows baseball; he should have taken a lesson from old Sparky Anderson.)
The essential constraint that the entire war team missed is the constraint of time and patience. In a democracy, this constraint is strict and onerous, especially now in our hyper-political environment where the opposing party turns every issue into a power-play. Time and patience are part of the battlefield, and Bush's advisors were negligent in failing to stress that fact. Success in Iraq, if it was/is to be had, must be had quickly, with sufficient force and resources to get it quickly. Unfortunately, Bush and Company acted like they had all day long. Instead, time has now nearly run out.
The second article, by Lt. Col. Ralph Peters (ret.), is called "Wanted: Occupation Doctrine." His point of view is decidedly Machiavellian, but in a good way. Peters catalogues some lessons we should take heed of when planning for the next counterinsurgency campaign.
Consider just a few essential rules for successful occupations — all of which we violated in Iraq:
• Plan for the worst case. Pleasant surprises are better than ugly ones.
• All else flows from security. Martial law, even if imposed under a less-provocative name, must be declared immediately — it's far easier to loosen restrictions later on than to tighten them in the wake of anarchy. This is one aspect of a general principle: Take the pain up front.
• Unity of command is essential.
• The occupier's troop strength should be perceived as overwhelming and his forces ever-present.
• Key military leaders, staff officers, intelligence personnel and vital civilian advisers must be committed to initial tours of duty of not less than two years for the sake of continuity.
• Control external borders immediately.
• Don't isolate troops and their leaders from the local population.
• Whenever possible, existing host-country institutions should be retained and co-opted. After formal warfare ends, don't disband organizations you can use to your advantage.
• Give local opinion-makers a stake in your success, avoid penalizing midlevel and low-level officials (except war criminals), and get young men off the streets and into jobs.
• Don't make development promises you can't keep, and war-game reconstruction efforts to test their necessity, viability and indirect costs (an occupation must not turn into a looting orgy for U.S. or allied contractors).
• Devolve responsibility onto local leaders as quickly as possible — while retaining ultimate authority.
• Do not empower returned expatriates until you are certain they have robust local support.
• The purpose of cultural understanding is to facilitate the mission, not to paralyze our operations. Establish immediately that violent actors and seditious demagogues will not be permitted to hide behind cultural or religious symbols.
• Establish flexible guidelines for the expenditure of funds by tactical commanders and for issuing local reconstruction contracts. Peacetime accountability requirements do not work under occupation conditions and attempts to satisfy them only play into the hands of the domestic political opposition in the U.S. while crippling our efforts in the zone of occupation.
• Rigorously control private security forces, domestic or foreign. In lieu of a functioning state, we must have a monopoly on violence.
Many of the above precepts have been adopted by Gen. Petraeus and his staff, now in charge of the war effort. For that reason, I'm hopeful that success is not yet beyond our grasp.
In the article, Peters uses the word "occupation," but he doesn't apologize for it.
The first step in formulating usable doctrine is to sweep aside the politically correct myths that have appeared about occupations. Occupations are military activities. Period. An Army general must be in charge, at least until the security environment can be declared benign with full confidence. Historically, the occupations that worked — often brilliantly, as in the Philippines, Germany and Japan — were run by generals, not diplomats. This is another mission the Army doesn't want, but no other organization has the wherewithal to do it.
It's obvious that Colonel Peters has a distinct pro-military, anti-Foggy Bottom bias. I share that bias.
Consider the prevailing claim that an occupation is a team effort involving all relevant branches of government: The problem is that the rest of the team doesn't show up. The State Department, as ambitious for power as it is incompetent to wield it, insists that it should have the lead in any occupation, yet has neither the leadership and management expertise, the institutional resources nor the personnel required (among the many State-induced debacles in Iraq, look at its appetite for developing Iraqi police forces and its total failure to deliver).
The military is the default occupier, since its personnel can be ordered into hostile environments for unlimited periods; State and other agencies rely on volunteers and, in Iraq, the volunteers have not been forthcoming — even when the tours for junior diplomats were limited to a useless 90 days and dire warnings were issued about the importance of Iraq duty to careers.
These two articles deserve wide readership. Print them out and read them on your lunch hour.
Posted by: reagan80 at April 27, 2007 05:13 PM (gyiuI)
2
On Yingling, Neptunus Lex has it right:
http://www.neptunuslex.com/2007/04/27/the-contrarian-point-of-view/#comments
Ralph Peters is right as usual, but with the benefit of hindsight. Until Petreus, we had the COTS solution in the CentCom Unified Commander du jour. Read Lex's analysis.
Posted by: Casca at April 27, 2007 11:58 PM (2gORp)
3
Casca, he says at the end "Time and patience. Virtues in short supply, unfortunately." GMTA again!
Posted by: annika at April 28, 2007 08:31 AM (WfR6S)
4
Not to diminish my respect for both of your intellectual abilities, that's a firm grasp of the obvious.
Posted by: Casca at April 28, 2007 10:28 PM (2gORp)
5
I read the first few paragraphs of the Ralph Peters article (need to follow up later) and caught a nuance that you didn't highlight. Peters starts off by talking about the real war - not the one between the U.S. and the terrorists, not the one between the Department of Defense and the other departments, but the one between the military services. Peters basically says that the ARMY needs to figure out what to do during the next occupation. Montezuma, Schmontezuma.
For me, the biggest lesson of the war is at a much more basic level. When comparing this war with the 1991 war, it's clear to see that the 1991 war had a clear objective (get Iraq out of Kuwait) from which we did not deviate.
Will the next President of the United States, whoever he or she may be, be able to enunciate what our Iraq policy is?
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at April 29, 2007 07:23 AM (P8ktI)
6
Jeez, there's nothing new here folks, except the players. In WWI, the Brits had to fight off their homegrown peaceniks, including some exhausted soldiers like Siegfried Sassoon, who demanded that the government publish it's "War Aims". Evidently "victory" is an insufficient concept.
Six months ago Anbar was written off as lost. Today huge steps toward pacification have been made. To borrow from a great lady, now is not the time to "go wobbly".
Posted by: Casca at April 29, 2007 07:54 PM (2gORp)
7
Generals like Wes Clark and John Abizaid had the educational and cultural pedigrees Yingling recommends. Clark didn't exactly distinguish himself in the Balkans (almost expanding the conflict against the Russians). While I have great admiration for Gen Abizaid, he was ultimately responsible as the CENTCOM CDR for most of the "Phase IV" campaigns in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Yingling's right in that one of the "fall on your sword" perogatives of Service Chiefs is control over the selection of 1 star flag officers. Just like it took the debacle over Iran in 1980 to get momentum for the Goldwater-Nichols Act, the current campaigns are setting the foundation for a GNA sequel -- hopefully both dealing with senior military leader selection and larger interagency problems. Congress doesn't need to micromanage, but breaking the service cultures requires new approaches (joint promotion boards for example).
A better work on wartime promotion was done by a very bright Army LTC a few years ago --
http://usacac.army.mil/cac/milreview/download/English/NovDec04/markle.pdf
Ralph Peters is right as usual, but with the benefit of hindsight -- you got it Casca... and I add "without much consideration for realistic implementation"
Posted by: Col Steve at May 01, 2007 08:50 AM (WffUy)
8
I find the idea of breaking the service cultures in a word, disconcerting. If you're talking about the sailors, I'm all for it. They haven't corporately fought a war since WWII, and they're a hodgepodge of at least a half-dozen intramurally waring cultures to begin with.
How about we create a promotion process that doesn't reward ass-kissing? How would one do that? I don't know how you divorce the process from the relationships that people have, even if those relationships elevate those averse to risk. There's that great scene in Lawrence of Arabia where Olivia says, "Young men make wars, and the virtues of war are the virtues of young men: courage, and hope for the future. Then old men make the peace, and the vices of peace are the vices of old men: mistrust and caution."
Posted by: Casca at May 01, 2007 07:55 PM (2gORp)
9
Olivia was a great actress. Loved her in all those Errol Flynn movies.
Posted by: annika at May 02, 2007 07:37 AM (WfR6S)
Annika's Journal Farewell Tour, Part III: My Favorite E-Mail
I treasure all the correspondence I've had with y'all over the last four years, and I really mean it. I know not all readers participate in the comments section and it's nice to get e-mails from those whom we bloggers affectionately call "lurkers." You're like Nixon's "silent majority." I know you're there, and I'm glad.
I often suspect there are some famous lurkers who occasionally cruise my blog. At the beginning, before his Townhall re-design, Hugh Hewitt had me on his blogroll. That was an honor which I knew I did not deserve, but which gave me a lot of pride while it lasted. Anyways, even if Professor Hewitt didn't read me regularly, I'm pretty sure Duane did, which still qualifies as a "brush-with-fame" in my book.
Another big name who came here once, after reading my most infamous blog entry, was New York Post columnist John Podhoretz. He wrote me a very short e-mail that said simply "You crack me up." That was way cool.
Casca once told me he thinks Laura Ingraham reads me, but I'm not yet convinced. Michelle Malkin routinely ignores me, and has never deigned to put me on her blogroll (which for the life of me I can't understand, since that freak Schlussel is on there), but that's okay. I love Malkin anyway.
And to this day, I suspect that Wonkette stole one of my rubrics.
But of all the lurkers and quasi-lurkers that have come here to read my nonsense, there is one whose email makes me most proud.
To set the scene. It's the afternoon of November 2nd, 2004. Faulty (and I believe fraudulent) exit polls have just been leaked and posted by Drudge, which show John Kerry leading George W. Bush in several must-win states. For weeks, the MSM has been predicting a Kerry victory. Now it seems true and conservatives are panicked. It looks like that jackass is going to be president.
you and hugh hewitt are the only two who helped keep my anxiety in check during pre election days. i'm embarrassed at my lack of confidence. the urge to find drudge and bitch slap him still burns in me. thenks for the encouraging words. . . . there's enough smart pretty cynical woman pundits, your writing is honest and funny w/out trying to sound clever or too sarcastic. keep it nice and real
best,
Mike
That's the best e-mail I've ever gotten. I'm so gratified that I could have contributed in some small way on that fateful day, when we all needed to keep our wits about us. Despite the post election disappointments, and there have been many, I'm still proud of that post and happy that we all showed up and won.
So as I prepare to join the ranks of lurkers in about 24 days, may I say to all the lurkers at this blog, thank you for visiting!
1
Love reading your blog. It's a blast.
I listen to Laura Ingraham, love Michelle Malkin, but to call Debbie S. a freak. I dunno. Good luck to you.
Posted by: Lurker at April 26, 2007 09:04 PM (A5s0y)
2
I thought messages from PayPal giving you money would have been your favorite email.
Posted by: Jake at April 26, 2007 09:36 PM (V6rxT)
3
Just tell us you'll conider re-upping post 7/26/07.
Then we can all rest easy, except the liberals, of course, who never rest easy because of the vast right wing conspiracy.
Posted by: shelly at April 26, 2007 10:38 PM (h/YdH)
Posted by: Radical Redneck at April 27, 2007 12:11 AM (QSWwX)
5there is one whose email makes me most proud.NOT one of mine? :-(
Posted by: Radical Redneck at April 27, 2007 12:19 AM (QSWwX)
6I was still in law school when John Kennedy was elected President, and although a Republican, I was moved to go work for RFK in the AG's office in D.C
Shelly, You are much older than I thought. But very, very cool.
I went to Law School myself. Figured out real soon practicing wasn't for me. When asked to brief a case, those Nazi bastard professors would NEVER accept a used condom (to explain my lack of time) in liu (sp) of a real brief!
They must have been (were) fags (or dykes).
Posted by: Radical Redneck at April 27, 2007 12:37 AM (QSWwX)
7
Hey, RR, I understand. I had a torts professor who didn't understand an extra week absence at spring break. The girl I was seeing went to Cal and they were on different schedule from USC. You could still water ski at the Salton Sea in those days, and between the skiing and the nights, I couldn't pull myself away.
I tried to tell him that she was worth it for the grief he gave me, but he saw no humor in that at all.
I'll say this for the Kennedys; they all understood missing work for sex. Washinton D.C., in those days, was a vitual buffet for a guy; the ratio was about nine single women to every single male.
Posted by: shelly at April 27, 2007 04:34 AM (A5s0y)
8
This place has been a blast, but for the record, Annika quit blogging? I just don't see it. It would be like the alcoholic turning from the bottle. Oh it happens, but just with the quitters. She'll be guzzling in the basement in no time.
Posted by: Casca at April 27, 2007 06:41 AM (Y7t14)
9
"I thought messages from PayPal giving you money would have been your favorite email."
Wait a minute. There's a PayPal tip jar on this site? Where?! Tribute must be paid!!!
Anyway, I first "discovered" and turned to blogs in the summer of '04 after I got fed up with all of my Che* T-shirt wearing peers flooding the forums with their Leftist bullshit. Finally, I could chill with my ideological peeps without the deluge of pre-teen Moore-ian sophistry. Blogs helped soothe my anxiety during that election.
*(He's dead, motherfuck3rs! D-E-A-D!!)
Posted by: reagan80 at April 27, 2007 09:52 AM (gyiuI)
10
I have never had a Paypal button on this site. Holding one's hand out for money seems so uncouth. Instead, I held my hand out for fabulous gifts off my Amazon wish list.
Posted by: annika at April 27, 2007 10:12 AM (zAOEU)
11
Annika, please tell me you will still post occasionally over at 6MB. I have stains all over my keyboard from coffee sprays after reading some of your posts.
Never commented much here, but I love your stuff.
Posted by: Billy at April 27, 2007 11:16 AM (JQe3J)
12
Well, keep the Amazon list here when you "retire", and you could still update it. I'll try to contribute sometime in the near future.
Soon, I'll move out of my parents' basement. Figuratively speaking, of course.
On the 19th of May, I finally graduate.
*crosses fingers*
Posted by: reagan80 at April 27, 2007 11:27 AM (gyiuI)
13
-Soon, I'll move out of my parents' basement. Figuratively speaking, of course.
That either means you aren't moving out of your parents basement or you were never in there to begin with. Which is it?
Posted by: Spanky at April 27, 2007 12:36 PM (gyiuI)
14
I'm probably your most consistent left-wing fan, Annika; I started reading you in the fall of 1993 when you were "annikagyrl" and I was "hugoboy".
It's been a blast, sister.
Posted by: Hugo Schwyzer at April 27, 2007 02:42 PM (ApisT)
15
Hey Raygun,
Now that you are getting out of HS and your parents basement what do you think you're gonna do with your life? Wanna come to Brooklyn and let me teach you a trade?
Posted by: Strawman at April 27, 2007 05:57 PM (et8nf)
16
Spanky:
Geezus, what is with you? First, you guys were asking about whether I'm "in the closet" or not. Now, this? No, my parents don't even have a fucking basement. They don't even live within a hundred miles of my current residence. It was merely an attempt at self-deprecation, and nothing more.
Straw:
Have you already forgotten where I was enrolled, before Mother Nature decided to try turning the place into Atlantis? Thanks for the offer, but I'm not a big fan of snowbelt states. Warmer climates also cause fewer headaches for those employed in the engineering and construction industry, anyway.
Posted by: reagan80 at April 27, 2007 07:17 PM (gyiuI)
17
Well excuse me. I forgot that most trailers don't have basements. Next time you try self-defecating, film it and post it on Youtube. I hear Will is into watching scat vids.
I keed. I keed. Lighten up, Ray.
P.S. But the part about Will having a scat fetish is true.
Posted by: Spanky at April 27, 2007 09:32 PM (gyiuI)
18
Reagan, come to San Diego my boy. California is a land of incredible opportunity. Even if it is run by leftists.
Posted by: Casca at April 29, 2007 08:00 PM (2gORp)
19
I'll have to think about it, Casca. If I move to San Diego, it would make pilgrimages to Simi Valley easier for me, since it is only about 150 miles away from there. I'd also like to help put that state back in the "Red" column.
Unfortunately, such a move will have to wait for at least a couple years. I need to beef up my resume and ensure my own fiscal solvency before heading to greener pastures out West.
One of the things that horrify me about residing in California are the restrictions against AR-15 owners. I'll need an arsenal of them, if there is ever a Mexican insurrection or another riot. Afterall, I would want to go out like the Omega Man.
Posted by: reagan80 at April 30, 2007 07:34 AM (gyiuI)
20Wanna come to Brooklyn and let me teach you a trade?
If Reagan wanted to learn how to wear a sandwich board
he could do so online. Now if it was sucking on the gubmint teat, maybe your kind
could teach him.
Jizzbag.
Posted by: Radical Redneck at May 01, 2007 12:07 AM (OKbc4)
Due to the intense boredom initiated by "a very special American Idol," I began channel flipping and became transfixed by the excellent PBS documentary called ENRON: The Smartest Guys In The Room.
[Aside: Let me note for the record that chief Enron assholes Lay, Skilling and Fastow were all baby boomers.]
Anyways they mentioned that Enron was a major promoter of the early "weather futures" market. When I heard that, I thought, weather futures? wtf? now I've seen everything.
But it's a real thing, and apparently weather futures have exploded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. In fact, volume on the CME jumped 64% in the last year alone. It's now a 45 billion dollar market.
But what is it? How do you trade weather? According to CME's website:
CME created a weather derivative market which enables those businesses that could be adversely affected by unanticipated temperature swing or unusually high snowfall, to transfer this risk. It is estimated that nearly 30 percent of the U.S. economy is directly affected by the weather. As a result, the earnings of businesses can be adversely impacted by summers that are hotter than normal or winters that are much colder than anticipated. Just as professionals regularly use futures and options to hedge their risk in interest rates, equities and foreign exchange, now there are tools available for the management of risk from extreme movements of temperature. This sector of hedging and risk management products represents today's fastest growing derivative market.
I guess the deal is that you can buy insurance to protect against catastrophic things that have a low probablility of occurring. But you can't easily insure against high probablility, low risk events like variations in the weather. Playing this market is a way for businesses to offset weather related losses. For example:
A ski resort depends on cold weather to stay in
business. To protect against the possibility of a warm winter, the resort can sell (go short) CME HDD contracts at a level they decide upon with assistance from a
weather-analysis company. A warm winter will result in a low HDD index, and the resort will hope to buy back its contracts at a lower price and use the profit to offset losses in the business.
I still don't get how it works though. I confess I don't understand futures trading as well as Hillary Clinton, but is this all smoke and mirrors bullcrap, or is it the wave of the future? And how, if at all, can this market be used to mitigate the effects of global warming?
1
-That means you, Will.
Great. Why don't you say "candyman" five times in front of a mirror while you are at it?
Posted by: Spanky at April 26, 2007 07:42 PM (gyiuI)
2
I'll tell you everything you need to know about commodities. Ever been to the craps tables in Vegas? Of course you have. Same thing.
I couldn't help but watch that hit-piece either. I love the way they made Boxer look smart reading her cue card statements, and huffing and puffing. THAT is skill. Also had to admire they way the chiseled soundbites out of the traders' tapes to make them sound like they were doing something illegal, when they were only using the market to fuck California for only deregulating one side of the equation in their "deregulation" bill. Ahh, and the rehabilitation of Gray Davis was superb! You see, all his shit was in our imaginations. He was really a wonderful fellow brought low by the evil Ken Lay, and GEORGE BUSH. Thank God for PBS, I mean now that CBS just lays there and pisses themselves all the time. Shelly, get the pillow.
Posted by: Casca at April 27, 2007 06:53 AM (Y7t14)
3
Sorry, but work is doubletime, now it's time to plant the garden all at once (and the latest addendum of fruit and nut trees [6, at least less than the 40 last year]), mowing, kids' sporting/music activities, started writing a second book, and we've just started lambing (twins yesterday, triplets so far today, 15 more ewes to go).
I've seen many references to insurance firms identifying climate change as a major risk of their's, and now this appears to be the way for them to hedge their bets (cover their asses, er margins actually, while taking advantage of a new market). Undoubtedly, many standing standard policies have likely been 'updated' to remove any language that might have bearing on impacts from climate changes, and they've added this new category to their portfolio.
I'd like to add more, but that's all I know and have no time to dig into it. See what happens when you announce your bloggeretirement? Everyone suddenly starts spending more time out of doors, with their family/SO, doing actual work at the office, etc.
Spanky, say "toy boat" ten times very fast...
Posted by: will at April 27, 2007 10:00 AM (z62e3)
4
Casca,
Who needs Gray when Arnold charts a centrist course? Indeed, I'm sure many conservatives think he's a liberal in too many categories. I'm amazed and impressed on his ability to reassess his stance on transportation/energy and come out with a relatively coherent approach.
Posted by: will at April 27, 2007 10:02 AM (z62e3)
5
-Spanky, say "toy boat" ten times very fast...
I can still say something at least. That will no longer be the case for you when a sasquatch comes to give you a teabagging as he repeatedly asks, "How do you like them apples?" It won't be very easy responding to his query while you have a mouthful of Chewbacca scrote.
Posted by: Spanky at April 27, 2007 10:54 AM (gyiuI)
1
...Oh yeah, it's easy if you try.
I make my own DDT in the garage.
Posted by: Casca at April 26, 2007 08:01 AM (Y7t14)
2
No, it wouldn't. In fact, it would be a humane request.
I know Ellen is rich as hell, but I was still impressed that she busted out the wallet to the tune of $100 K. That was pretty damn cool.
4
If an author publishes a work that is remembered for generations, then that author is still considered "living" in some weird way. And even if that weren't the case, there's a whole slew of lawyers that is paid to make sure that John Lennon's money goes to the right place (which may not be Julian - he sold rights to his income from his father's songs).
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at April 26, 2007 12:29 PM (y2frB)
5
Kash,
I think its more likely you smoke the DDT out in the garage.
And what the f is this thread about anyway? Telethons for artificial inteligence? Is this to raise money for DIck Chaney so next time he can go over to Langley and buy the good stuff (by good I of course mean real).
Posted by: Strawman at April 26, 2007 03:36 PM (et8nf)
6
Since I haven't seen any of this season's episodes, I can't tell if this topic is based on some Aqua Teen Hunger Force reference. The thing about mosquito nets sounds like something Carl would say.
Posted by: reagan80 at April 26, 2007 06:08 PM (gyiuI)
7
Ah, the syphillitic ramblings of strawfuck will not be missed.
Posted by: Casca at April 27, 2007 07:06 AM (Y7t14)
8
Kash,
It's nice to know they make your heart skip a beat.
Why don't you put down the DDT pipe, try focusing your bloodshot eyes and go read what George Tenant has to say about that criminal Chaney.
Posted by: Strawman at April 27, 2007 07:50 AM (et8nf)
Skadefryd Part 2: Rosie O'Donald Is Out
According to TMZ. Good news, I guess, but why don't they just cancel The View? While she was there it was easy to blame Rosie, but the show sucked long before she arrived.
Rosie hasn't announced yet, but how much you wanna bet she's going to spin it as "her decision," to "pursue other interests," blah blah blah. It won't be the fact that nobody likes a bully and she's a bully.
Rosie is the left's equivalent of Michael Savage — a loud, bigoted, egotistical, ignorant clown. The only reason Rosie gets away with it on tv and Savage is relegated to after-hours radio is that tv execs agree with Rosie's bullshit.
1
Not sure who The View's target audience is, but my guilty pleasure when I'm not working is to watch the first few minutes of Regis and Kelly.
I hadn't heard this story. Is she leaving immediately?
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at April 25, 2007 08:02 AM (YWsCw)
2Speaking of nuts, Straw, you've got to find a more socially appropriate way to worship your hero!A Canadian man was busted for celebrating Adolf Hitler's birthday Friday by walking around with nothing but a swastika taped to his body.
Concerned Vancouver residents called police after witnessing the naked memorial to the tyrant.
The suspect was held for psychiatric evaluation.
Posted by: Radical Redneck at April 25, 2007 09:02 AM (KcKYf)
3
I've only caught glimpses of The View while watching programs that showed snippets of it - usually Rosie saying something ridiculous and the others agreeing. (The lone "conservative" generally being too gutless and/or dumb to respond.) Based on those few snippets, the show appears to be something only an idiot could enjoy. So, imagine my amazement when I read it was nominated for an Emmy. Who the fuck decides these things?!
Oh, Ontario, I've never watched Regis and Kelly, but I saw her on the cover a magazine recently - my God the woman has an AMAZING body! I had no idea she was so damn hot. Won't make me watch the show but did tempt me to buy a trashy, chick magazine ;-)
Posted by: blu at April 25, 2007 10:12 AM (j8oa6)
4
Blu,
Yep, Kathy is a cute number. Remember she had a career as a singer and dancer before she was a footballerÂ’s wife. I like her raspy voice.
Oh, gosh Blu, another thing we have in common. Where will it end?
Did you see Richard Clarke take apart the puerile Bush "puppy doctrine"? You know the theory that if we don't toilet train them in Iraq they will follow us home and crap on our beautifully mowed lawns.
A theory only a moron could speak out loud and only cretins would nod their heads at, shrug and go yea, that's right, fight them there not here, then scratch, spit and wonder what keeps them from coming now and just side stepping Iraq where they might get shot. You don't hafta know how to score bowling or have an IQ higher than the wheelbase of you pick-up to laugh at the holes in this theory. Yet, George gets up each day and Dick and Karl tell him he's got to out and keep flogging it. Just keep saying it George, fuck'em, they won't ask you to explain it and if they do who better than you to talk circular bullshit about it. Look real grave George, give 'em that Bush squint when you say the part about fighten'em here, ina 'merica.
Aren't you embarrassed yet Blu?
Posted by: Strawman at April 25, 2007 03:51 PM (et8nf)
5
I stopped reading after I saw the name Richard Clarke. (Is he hawking some new lies to try and make a buck? The word is that the guy is a pompous asshole with whom nobody wants to work.)Still, it's good that you know a nice piece of ass when you see it, Straw.
Posted by: blu at April 25, 2007 04:12 PM (xPHoc)
6
Radical Redneck,
While it's true that Hitler was a socialist, I don't think Straw would find his nationalism appealing. That doesn't jibe well with Strawman's prevailing "I'm a citizen of the world" sentiments.
And, no, it's not the whole killing-the-Jews thing that turns him off to ol' Adolph. Stalin did it too. Just ask Trotsky about icepicks sometime.
Though, I wouldn't be surprised if this old Soviet axiom applies to Straw: "In Soviet Russia, the ass fucks you!"
Posted by: reagan80 at April 25, 2007 07:08 PM (gyiuI)
7
Annie,
Similar, but not exact. I think she's fatter than Savage, but I could be wrong as he has better access to In n' Out. Get back to me on this if you can.
Pursuit
Posted by: Pursuit at April 25, 2007 07:23 PM (N155d)
8
Reagan, it was an ice AXE. The thing you climb mountains with.
Posted by: Casca at April 25, 2007 07:49 PM (2gORp)
9
Casca,
I'm sorry. My mistake. Please forgive the error.
Posted by: reagan80 at April 25, 2007 08:05 PM (gyiuI)
10
Hey Ray gun,
Kasha is right-ice ax. I was in Trosky's home in MC where the dirty deed was done. His house is a few blocks from Diego and Frida's house.
Posted by: Strawman at April 26, 2007 07:42 AM (et8nf)
4
I assumed it was alcohol, but perhaps "stoned" is correct.
One time in college, we filled up someone's dorm room with wadded-up newspaper. She had to swim into her room. Luckily, a leaf blower was not involved.
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at April 25, 2007 08:00 AM (YWsCw)