just trying to eat my waffles

October 05, 2005

Hello Love...

mmmmm wow.

Posted by: annika at 10:38 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 6 words, total size 1 kb.

It Was Bound To Happen...

Brittany Sex Tape release feared.

My prediction: she still has no talent.

Update: Her lawyers concur.

A copy of the original tape viewed by the couple's lawyers elicited laughter and disgust.

That's harsh, dudes.

Update 2: My sources in the media have obtained for me a copy of the tape. It's dark and filmed in night vision green, but i was able to transcribe some of the audio for you.

Brittany: "is that better hun?"
Kevin: "uh-uh"
Brittany: "here let me..."
Kevin: "I don't..."
Brittany: "it's not..."
Kevin: "just..."
Brittany: "uhhh..."
Kevin: "maybe if you just..."
Brittany: "huh?"
Kevin: "ow"
Brittany: "sorry, I..."
Kevin: "no keep going..."
Brittany: "I'm..."
Kevin: "there... no... "
Brittany: "ow"
Kevin: "what?"
Brittany: "let's try it this, uh..."
Kevin: "wait..."
Brittany: "how about now?"
Kevin: "it's gone..."
Brittany: "what?"
Kevin: "it's no good..."
Brittany: "huh?"
Kevin: "sorry I'm just..."
Brittany: "huh?"
Kevin: "you're..."
Brittany: "i can't..."
Kevin: "ow"

It goes on like that for several minutes. Quite boring, actually.

Posted by: annika at 06:47 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 170 words, total size 2 kb.

Wednesday Is Poetry Day: More O'Hara

Typically Frank O'Hara. The setting for this poem starts out in bed and ends up in the street.

Poem
That's not a cross look it's a sign of life
but I'm glad you care how I look at you
this morning (after I got up) I was thinking
of President Warren G. Harding and Horace S.
Warren, father of the little blonde girl
across the street and another blonde Agnes
Hedlund (this was in the 6th grade!) what

now the day has begun in a soft grey way
with elephantine traffic trudging along Fifth
and two packages of Camels in my pocket
I can't think of one interesting thing Warren
G. Harding did, I guess I was passing notes
to Sally and Agnes at the time he came up
in our elephantine history course everything

seems slow suddenly and boring except
for my insatiable thinking towards you
as you lie asleep completely plotzed and
gracious as a hillock in the mist from one
small window, sunless and only slightly open
as is your mouth and presently your quiet eyes
your breathing is like that history lesson

Posted by: annika at 06:40 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 198 words, total size 1 kb.

October 04, 2005

Just A Little Pet Peeve

i was listening to Hugh Hewitt's show on the way home tonight and i heard a conservative caller from San Francisco say something that really bothered me. The caller paraphrased Bush the Elder's response to criticism that he had flip-flopped on his famous "voodoo economics" quote after Reagan selected him for VP. Supposedly, G.H.W. Bush said something to the effect that "Before Reagan picked me I owed him my discretion, afterwards I owed him my loyalty." The gist of the caller's analogy was that we conservatives owe the president our loyalty, i.e. our trust.

We owe him no such thing. i voted for president Bush twice. He serves at my pleasure and at the pleasure of the American voter. i don't owe him or any other politician my loyalty. On the contrary, they owe me. That is our system of government. i just want this to be clear, because i think most Americans suffer from a fundamental misunderstanding of the most basic philosophy by which our nation was founded. It's not just a cute little theory that some old guys in powdered wigs made up. I believe it is Truth.

Do these words sound familiar?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. [emphasis added]

In other words, they work for us. If any loyalty is owed, it is owed by the government, including the executive, to the people. We hold all the cards because we have rights, which come from God Almighty. The government has no rights, only powers, which come from us.

So anyone who says i owe my loyalty, or my trust to any government official, evan a president whom i like a lot, is simply mistaken and needs to take a refresher course in American History, preferably by a professor who knows what he's talking about.

Now i'm just taking the long way around, to make a minor semantic point. But these things do piss me off because i often wonder how people can be so dense.

Posted by: annika at 06:39 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 440 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Technically you're right. Practically, you're wrong. There's a war out there, and we are on one side of it, whether we want to be or not. He's our general, good, bad, or ugly. We don't have to love him right or wrong. We can be disappointed, pissed even, but we're not going to go support the midnight channel swimmer Ted.

Posted by: Casca at October 04, 2005 08:12 PM (qBTBH)

2 Annie: If you are talking about me, let me clarify. You do not OWE George W. Bush anything, but you OWE yourself the opportunity to at least wait for the hearings to see what you can learn about the woman to whom he has entrusted his place in history. I have enough faith in his choice, one made based upon vastly more knowledge of the individual than most appointments, that my President, the guy to whom I entrusted my sacred vote, my money and my name, will make the right choice. Remember these words: "...our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor..."? Our Founders trusted each other; I choose to place my trust in God and his present messenger who is delivering us from Evil. Remember, it could have been Gore or Kerry. Me, I like it right where it is right now. My prediction is (liberally quoting Rich Galen in Mullings)that the Liberals will cool to her and the Conservatives will warm, but we shall see.

Posted by: shelly at October 04, 2005 08:17 PM (6mUkl)

3 Great point Annie. There is something deraded on the nationalist right these days that wants to engage in a sort of hero-worship of Bush. Not only is he in particular unworthy of such praise, but such treatment is anathema to our Republican traditions. Further, on this choice in particular, it is owed no deference whatsoever. There are hundreds of other more obviously qualified people than Miers and there is no other reason to assume Bush picked her other than a strong personal working relationship and friendship and the fact she's a woman. That relationship is completely irrelevant to her task as an independent judge with life tenure, and it requires one to suspend reason to think this person with no signficant government, academic, writing, or other appellate and constitutional credentials is up to the challenge. The choice of Miers is sickening.

Posted by: Roach at October 05, 2005 07:30 AM (MRlvg)

4 Speaking of Professor Hewitt.....is it just me, or will he defend anything the Bush Administration does? At times, he appears mortified by the possibility of diverse opinions on the Right. He talks the talk about "a big tent" yada yada yada. But listen to his show and pay attention to how he responds to conservatives who don't tow the Republican party line. Regardless if the person makes a reasonable argument, he will respond like the person suggested 2 + 2 = 5. Don't get me wrong, I like and usually agree with Hugh; but,personally, I find Medved and Praeger to be more interesting and provacative.

Posted by: Blu at October 05, 2005 10:07 AM (j8oa6)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

October 03, 2005

Supreme Court Pick

i know everybody's been patiently waiting for my opinion on this chick Bush picked for Supreme Court. i wanted to read a little bit about her and listen to some other opinions before i weighed in.

i am a little disappointed that Bush did not take my advice. i have a pretty good idea that he or one of his aides reads this blog. My advice was to pick an in-your-face conservative. My personal choice would have been either Mike McConnell or Janice Rogers Brown. i like McConnell because he's a historian, and i like Brown because she's a Californian.

Of course, if i had my way, and i could give the Supreme Court an extreme makeover, things would be way different. i imagine there would be a huge exodus of liberals from this country, and that wouldn't be such a bad thing. Except for Canada and France, that is.

If i had my way, Roe would be overturned. Kelo would be gone. The Lemon test: gone. Oregon v. Smith: gone. Fifty years of establishment clause jurisprudence: gone. i wouldn't stop there either. The exclusionary rule? History. Miranda? Toast. 1A protection for Child Porn? Dead. The Second Amendment? Reborn. Federalism? Hell yah.

Regarding Miers, i'm adopting the wait and see approach. Maybe she'll be okay. Maybe not. The whole idea about wanting a known conservative is so that members of the Republican base, like me, won't have to worry. Now we have reason to worry. Two reasons, if you count Roberts.

Another disappointment is the likelihood that we won't get rid of that stupid filibuster rule now. i wanted a fight, because i wanted the nuclear option. But it's easy to forget that Bush is at heart a conciliatory kind of guy. All this talk about him being an evil warmonger has obscured that fact. It really should be no surprise that if Bush sees a way to do something without a fight, he'll do it. Again, if it were up to me, i'd have liked to see the Senate Democrats get straight-armed on this nominee, and losing the filibuster would have been gravy.

i'm not as worried as some people are about Miers having been a Democrat. Reagan was a Democrat once too. So was my dad. Still, neither of them would have ever given money to a freak like Gore. But the real problem is that Miers is not an idealogue. And the Court can change a person; i believe that. Unless a justice has a strong belief system, i'm afraid the pressure to get along can lead to a leftward drift over time.

So, should we trust Bush's judgment on this one as Professor Hewitt counsels us to do? Well, what choice do i have? Miers will probably be confirmed easily and i will have to hope for the best. But i can't help thinking this was a wasted opportunity.

Posted by: annika at 07:57 PM | Comments (33) | Add Comment
Post contains 489 words, total size 3 kb.

1 OK, for the record. This is NOT Souter redux. David Souter was the number two to Senator Warren Rudman when he was the AG of New Hampshire. Rudman swore on a stack of bibles that Souter was a confirmed conservative. Bush 41 trusted Rudman. Souter wasn't and isn't. Rudman's Senatoral career came to screeching halt. He is no longer the Senator from New Hampshire. Harriet Miers has been Bush 43's attorney for more than ten years. She counselled him in private industry and then when he was Governor. She cleaned up the dirty Texas Lottery as his hand picked Chairwoman. She got herself elected to the Dallas City Council. All the while, after putting herself through college and law schoiol at SMU, she got a job as the first woman in a 200 man firm that she ended up running, then merging into another 200 man firm which she co-chaired. In her spare time she was elected the first woman president of the Dallas Bar, then, the first woman president of the Texas Bar. When Bush went to Washington, she went with him, rising to be his counsel, replacing Alberto Gonzales when he became AG. As such, she's been vetting judges and getting them confirmed, counselling with the President about them. Every piece of paper that gets to his desk is vetted by her. I trust my President; I worked my ass off to get him elected and then reelected, and gave the maximum and raised a lot more. I trust him now when he says he knows her heart. Why doesn't every other good conservative? Because Harry Reid says he likes her? Hell, he said he liked Roberts, too, then voted against him. I am backing Harriet Miers. Damn the torpedos.

Posted by: shelly at October 03, 2005 09:20 PM (6mUkl)

2 No not Souter, more like the airhead she replaces. Pat Buchanon called her a cipher. I think that describes the intellectually dull Mandarin set who are untroubled by ideology because their connection to life is not intellectually rigorous. To borrow a phrase, they always vote at their party's call and never stop to think for themselves at all. The upside is that she doesn't seem like the kind of gal who is interested in hobnobbing with the Washington social scene. She's a crapshoot, and that's not what we deserve.

Posted by: Casca at October 03, 2005 10:19 PM (qBTBH)

3 Events have weakened this presidency to the point where the filibuster is a reality that the President must face and deal with. He has. He knows what this woman thinks; for him it is no crapshoot, for all the reasons I set forth earlier. Me, I'd rather have her than some of the others that he does not know. The ones about whom we could be sure, Janice Rogers Brown for one that I know personally, are not confirmable right now without further erosion of the presidency. He's just got too much on his plate with Iraq and the hurricanes to stop and fight one out right now. If he sails her though like I think he will, the next one, (John Paul Stevens), if and when it comes, may be the place to make the political stand. It may also be better timing for the next president, be it McCain or Guiliani, to make his case and to beat up on Hillary and the Kerry clones. For now, I back Harriet, until I learn something really bad about her, which I deem unlikely, since she's been in the spotlight a long time without any scandal being attached to her name. People thought Roberts was a bad choice when it began and look how it turned out. I say, trust the man, it's better than the other alternative. Remember, he won Ohio. More than I can say for California.

Posted by: shelly at October 04, 2005 03:20 AM (6mUkl)

4 CASCA, i am going to scold you now. I am not an anti-intellectual, in fact I am returning to college after many years for further education. But I don't think you have to be a graduate from an Ivory league school like most of the other justices, to be smart and know what the hell is going on. In fact, I think it refreshing to get someone with a mid-west, or southern sensibility in the court, instead of the northeast corridor thinking which has ruled everything for centuries.

Posted by: Kyle N at October 04, 2005 03:53 AM (J1uif)

5 LOL, Kyle, that's what they said about O'Conner. She's a pragmatist... politically sound... The trouble with that argument is that people who are unwedded to ideas are so for a reason. Ideas are not a part of who they are, and they never will be. Without the tether of ideology, why the whole field of maneuver is open, and one is free to embrace the sophist fancy of the moment. As for which battles to fight... the only good of political capital is when it is spent. It is always better to fight in the first ditch than the last.

Posted by: Casca at October 04, 2005 06:17 AM (qBTBH)

6 Shelly, if Bush wanted someone with State Bar experience, he should have picked you. At least one blogger would have been totally behind that pick!

Posted by: annika at October 04, 2005 06:59 AM (Ku+kp)

7 Thanks Annie, I'm flattered, but you forget that I used to be a judge. I hated the regimented life and resigned after three and a half years to return to doing what I like and actually getting paid for it. So, I would not qualify, nor would I be interested. On a hot day, those robes are murder. I know most of the California judges, know Janice better than most because of her work in the Governor's office. The travesty that occurred in the State JNE Commission during her confirmation for the State Supreme Court has haunted her even to today. Because of it, I will monitor the Commission's deliberations of the Governor's possible picks to be sure that political considerations will not enter into the ratings. Actually, the leadership of the JNE Commission today is a far cry from the old one, so we will have no further outrages, I think. I also know Tony Kennedy. Sometimes I like him, other times I wonder why we supported him. He's not far from Sandra, and will replace her as the leader of the center, I believe.

Posted by: shelly at October 04, 2005 07:31 AM (6mUkl)

8 You had me at "Roe would be overturned." Check my blog out; I trash this chick, and as a former Dallas lawyer, I know the type all too well.

Posted by: Roach at October 04, 2005 07:34 AM (MRlvg)

9 I agree with Shelly. Annika, we don't know you very well but we know how you would vote on most issues. Surely, Bush who has known Miers for 12 years knows how she will vote on every issue.

Posted by: Jake at October 04, 2005 08:18 AM (r/5D/)

10 Jeez, I just read David Frum's piece in NRO: http://frum.nationalreview.com/archives/09292005.asp#077899 That's all I need to know. The President has no better friend than the vast majority of people who come to this blog. Our disappointment is not because we desire anything less than success for his administration. This is one of his greatest missteps because at a time when the dogs are at his heels, what does he do but throw his allies from the sled? These SCOTUS appointments are a defining moment of his administration. In Churchill's words, "You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war."

Posted by: Casca at October 04, 2005 08:19 AM (qBTBH)

11 Michael Savage was right. Bush is really moving to the Left. I thought that Bush would be more Reagan-esque in his last term, but it appears that he just wants to be another Nixon or a substitute for his mediocre father's lost term. Not only do I have to worry about Bush's apparent Supreme Court blunder, but Ann Coulter is giving me reasons to HATE Karl Rove now. After all of these years in the political wilderness, the GOP wants to screw up their rennaissance by emulating Nixon and becoming lite Democrats. The dream of a Reaganism rebirth died on Jan. 20, 2005 even without Kerry's inauguration. When 2008 rolls around, I won't be biting my nails again over the fate of the GOP. The GOP better hope that Hillary is the Dem's candidate because I'm thinking about staying at home on election day if she isn't.

Posted by: reagan80 at October 04, 2005 08:50 AM (K9tdw)

12 I agree with every word of this post. I think some criticism of Miers is culture-based. She comes from a southern/Christian/Texas nicey-nice culture which aims to please, and values acting like a decent person in public - as opposed to acting like an asshole. I come from the same culture. What this means is your dingbats and your hard as nails people are all walking around aiming to please and acting like decent people, because both are "the Christian thing to do." From a distance, there's absolutely no way to tell if Harriet Miers is a dingbat, or is hard as nails - except, if you trust G.W. Bush not to promote the career of a dingbat - which we have to do at this point. I'm hoping Harriet Miers will be what I originally hoped O'Connor would be - before the long O'Connor nightmare began. All that said, I am disappointed in Bush. I believe this pick is a political move designed not to frighten the electorate of the 2006 Mid-term elections. I disagree with the "don't frighten the electorate" political strategy, and believe the Republicans would've been better off swinging haymakers in a huge political fight, then going into 2006 Mid-Terms from a position of strength. A huge political fight tends to get everyone's cards on the table. The more that happens, the better it is for the Republicans. A lot of them can't even remember what cards they have in their hand.

Posted by: gcotharn at October 04, 2005 09:32 AM (3Bn47)

13 "If i had my way, Roe would be overturned. Kelo would be gone. The Lemon test: gone. Oregon v. Smith: gone. Fifty years of establishment clause jurisprudence: gone. i wouldn't stop there either. The exclusionary rule? History. Miranda? Toast. 1A protection for Child Porn? Dead. The Second Amendment? Reborn. Federalism? Hell yah." A sincere round of applause to Annie, who understands the Constitution better than some Justices do.

Posted by: Mark at October 04, 2005 10:30 AM (Vg0tt)

14 Some justices? How about most justices? The only ones that seem to fully get it are Scalia and Thomas. I think Roberts will be a strict constructionalist as well. If Miers follows in the same mold, it sets the stage for WWIII when Stevens dies or leaves.(I hope soon) They can still get Kennedy some of the time, but he is wobbly at best. I give up on Stevens, Souther, and the ACLU Twins. The build up has been over the "swing vote center" of O'Connor, so try to imagine the controversy if one of the Four Horse's Asses of the Apocalypse were to leave in this administration. Katie bar the door...

Posted by: shelly at October 04, 2005 12:37 PM (6mUkl)

15 that brings up an issue i've never heard anybody talk about. The left has argued that Bush should replace moderate for moderate (i.e. O'Connor mold) and center right for center right (i.e. Rhenquist mold). The implication is that under no circumstances would the Senate Democrats accept a replacement who is to the right of the justice being replaced. How would this work if Stevens leaves and there's an opportunity to turn the ideological balance of the Court upside down? Would the left argue that Bush must nominate a liberal? As ridiculous as that sounds, i wouldn't put it past them.

Posted by: annika at October 04, 2005 01:42 PM (zAOEU)

16 Annika, I am confused. Why would you wish to overturn Oregon v. Smith? It seems inconsistant with your other stands. Other than the fact that we both agree that Peyote is a cool and probably should be decriminalized, I think of you as someone who would have ruled against the two NA's and denied them UE benefits. SInce when do you think religious beliefs trump the criminal statutes or more to the point an employers right to terminate an employee for engaging in criminal behavior especially if they agreed to not imbibe as a prerequisite of employment? I find Scalia's reasoning to be OK. What's your problem?

Posted by: Strawman at October 04, 2005 01:56 PM (0ZdtC)

17 in Smith, the court declined to give religious freedom the highest standard of judicial scrutiny. i believe the free exercise of religion is so fundamental a right, that it deserves such protection. Congress agreed, and passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, only to be smacked down again by the supreme court.

Posted by: annika at October 04, 2005 02:16 PM (zAOEU)

18 I ALWAYS find Scalia to be persuasive. The man's a genius and is able to simplify any issue so that even I can understand it. Oh, to have had 60 votes this year...

Posted by: shelly at October 04, 2005 02:17 PM (6mUkl)

19 Annika, Do you remember who struck down this precious act? An act that was vigorously put forth by your pal Bill Clinton? Supremes ruled 6-3 Breyer, O'Conner, SOuter desenting. I love that act! Actually, now that I researched it a bit the one I really love is a spin off called the Native American Graves and Repatriation Act (NAGRPA) Same difference though. It was the basis for a suit by NA's to have the Williamette Meteroite moved from the Museum of Natural History back to Oregon where it was dug out in 1908. They claim it belonged to them, did not come from outer space and was an important part of their relgion and culture. http://salmonriver.com/lightscience/willamettemeteorite.html They lost the case but were granted a day each year to dance around it, commune with it and generally stay aquainted whilst it stays in place at the ROse Planetarium on 81 street. But, and this is a big one, should the Museum decide it is no longer needed it will be returned to them. Nice. The other case that made me fall in love with this act was that of another NA tribe of the Pacific Northwest that demanded that the remains of a human "Kennewick Man" discovered in a riverbank, and determined to be 9,300 or so years old and was of non-asian decent and supported another theory of the migration of humans to the New World, be returned for reinternment. They argued sucessfully that the science be damned, that it came from a river on their land and it was one of them. The bones were reintered and the origin of this early explorer was never fully determined and the clocks ran backwards for a few days. http://www-tech.mit.edu/V119/N52/col52schne.52c.html I love religion and how it re-dedicates itself time and time again to the shackling of human curiosity and the quashing of human potential. Your absolutely right Anni, the practice of religion should be held back by no laws of man.

Posted by: strawman at October 04, 2005 03:09 PM (0ZdtC)

20 Strawman once let his anti-religion sentiments become known in a more amusing way at Moxie's: "And don't forget that until the people of Earth give up the idea of a supreme being in any form, nobody on the galactic council will ever vote to let us into the Federation. The council thinks the refutation of a belief in a supreme being is an important marker in evaluating the cultural evolution of a planet. Just as you think your kids are getting more sophisticated and grown up when they give up the tooth fairy and Santa Claus." Aren't Jews supposed to be religious? Mike's Jewish, right?

Posted by: reagan80 at October 04, 2005 03:33 PM (K9tdw)

21 Raygun, Once more dedicates himmself to and renews his membership in the head up my ass and loving it society. But seriously Ray, have your parents gotten through to you yet about the tooth fairy? I know your not old enough to have all you permanent teeth and need the money to buy the God cut of the "Passion of Christ" with commentary by Pilate and Mary and never before scenes of the blood spatter anaylized by David Caruso and Melina Kanakaredes. I hear is it amazing.

Posted by: Strawman at October 04, 2005 03:45 PM (0ZdtC)

22 Anni, Please change precious to pernicious in my first sentence. Sorry for the confusion. Thanks

Posted by: Strawman at October 04, 2005 03:49 PM (0ZdtC)

23 FUCK involved IT NAZIS! shrub and Chaney of the mornings NOT in this scandal, however in CONSEQUENT the CPar mornings behind 9-11! what to make you sheep think, which, if it of the Songtonnenehmen-Custom-Ton illegaly, immoral war and they, which this to help, IT And to examine, TREASON by Outing means has the to fix, then they not in 9-11, also to include? How that other our gov' T! With LU IF the CIA or FBI this one, RULE CVos arbeit and RESEARCH HOWEVER ALSO ALSO CVotre CPossible INCLUSION of the SUPERIORS in HIGH the CEn cover CPeut-to be CVotre INCLUSION NOTCNur SHRUB, cheney CEt RUMMIE, in 9-11!If which has everyone in CChaque groups Eingeweihtinfo with the REQUEST the CPour REQUEST WHICH LOVES of CNotre COUNTRY, to ruin HIM to it QUALITY CDehors CEt NOW!CONGRESS TO LEAVE TON of the CEt SHRUB of CHENEY GESICHTSCAnklage of ODER Itself WISHES CMaintenant CHARGES! HEY, IF HIM NOT CHARGES, LEGEND ME CHARGE YOUR ASSES SANS.VALEUR TOO! AND TO LEAVE YOU SHRUB AND CHENEY-bezahlung ALSO OF CHEEK VON OF The PATIENT TO RECEIVE PROFIT YOU IT LARVA, The OVER AND SMART ROOFRIDGE THEIR Golf IN WATER THUNDERS YOUR APPROACH WITHOUT FOOD, IN ANY WATER AND ASSISTANCE NO, THEN LIKE PUNISHING FOR 9-11, Etc... IF YOU SEND The TONS OF GITMO, THEN AFTER CELUI-Ci, YOU ARE MADE ASSASSINATE PAYMENT OF CHEEKS, AROUND THEN With SLOPES OF YOUR EVIL AND ASS AND NOW! JUSTICE ONLY RIGHT UNIVERSE OF THESIS THINGS! AS MUCH OF SETTING WITH DIED AND MURDER AND BADLY HIM THOUSANDS OF THE PEOPLE CAUSES A CREDIT! IF YOU TEST YOURSELVES, RK LA HAGUE WAS ALSO FOR CRIMES! AND NOW! DO NOT LEAVE you to the REMAINDER of CAutre richter! AND ROBERT RECALL, NOW! The European Council, NOTCZaehlimpuls! AND IMPEACHEMENT AND NOW! If IT There A OF, EACH POSSIBLE PIECE WISHES JUSTICE SE FINDING IN AMERICA, THAT the ASSASSINATION, NO GOOD, BAD FASCISTIC MISCHLINGS SHOWN On the left AND FOR TREASON, With OF HUNG ECTcC.

Posted by: cb at October 04, 2005 04:17 PM (V2eAR)

24 So, tell us how you really feel......

Posted by: reagan80 at October 04, 2005 04:21 PM (K9tdw)

25 OK, Annie, some maniac has found our blog. Do your duty. Hit the "delete" button, immediately, if not sooner.

Posted by: shelly at October 04, 2005 04:46 PM (6mUkl)

26 Damn, that reminds me. I forgot to go to the gunshow and buy ammo last week. Ah hell, I usually shoot what I'm aiming at, and I got more than I can carry anyway.

Posted by: Casca at October 04, 2005 04:53 PM (qBTBH)

27 Sorry Annika, One of my multitude of repressed personalities got the better of me for a minute. But, fear not, my sane and reasonable self is back. See how bad it could really be if I had no observing ego? Straw.

Posted by: Strawman at October 04, 2005 04:58 PM (0ZdtC)

28 Annie, looks like CB is on to us. Damm, I just got through to Karl Rove and he assured me that the guy has already been identified and the Men In Black are on the way.

Posted by: Kyle N at October 04, 2005 05:13 PM (gPomq)

29 Here's two of my favorites from Von Bismarck: "Politics is the art of the possible." "To retain respect for laws and sausages, one must not watch either being made." Those who are new to the process of making judges should turn off their TV's and forget about the newspapers for a while. It is different when it is the Democrats doing the choosing, for we play the game differently. We actually measure the merit without the agenda of killing off every qualified person who is suggested due to some identifiable agenda. I once asked Senator Orren Hatch why it was that we were so generous in our confirmations of obviously left wing liberals, and it was he who told me the above. For the Demoncrats, the end justifies the means, no matter how ugly it is getting there. Maybe that's why we keep getting majorities elected, year after year; the people are on to them. I hope.

Posted by: shelly at October 04, 2005 05:41 PM (6mUkl)

30 Shelly, I'm curious; what "left wing" liberal has been confirmed for anything in the past twenty years?

Posted by: Strawman at October 04, 2005 06:35 PM (0ZdtC)

31 Guess you never heard of Breyer and Darth Vader Ginsburg?

Posted by: Kyle N at October 04, 2005 06:38 PM (gPomq)

32 I'm more interested in Annie's Second Amendment conversion. Last I heard, Annie, you were a skeptic.

Posted by: Matt at October 04, 2005 07:33 PM (BkVa4)

33 Well, yes, Breyer and Ginsburg, to name a couple of Supreme Court Justices, but also a whole bunch of 9th Circuit and other Appelate Judges, and another passel of District Court Judges. I could name a lot more, but Richard Paez in the 9th, Bill Fletcher in the 9th, Marsha Berzon in the 9th. Kim Wardlaw in the 9th, Ray Fisher in the 9th and a passel of District Court Judges we just let go through without any shenanigans. But, the Dems all but stopped a bunch of ours, Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen, to name a couple who benefited from the deal by the Gang of 14. It took a real threat of a nuclear option to do it. Caroline Kuhl dropped out of the 9th appointment after being frustrated for years at being unable to get a hearing. Judge Charles Pickering dropped out of the 5th. He was stopped cold, but Bush finally gave Pickering a recess appointment just to piss off Leahy, Kennedy and Schumer, after they stopped him twice. And, of course, there is Robert Bork, himself, who the Democrats changed the rule from 51 to 60 votes required, just to keep off the Supreme Court. They also damn near got Thomas. We've never done what they have done, and I hope we never get in a position where we are on the outs again, but they are so frustrated about having no cachet in the House, the White House, or the Senate (other than an ability to filibuster with their meager 45 votes. (44 plus Jeffers). Now, they are losing some more control of the one place where they used to make a difference, their Judicial Legislators. So, what you see is a bitter bunch of losers, trying to protect the last liberal bastion, the refuge of liberal legislation, the Judiciary. The liberal democrats are literally in danger of becoming the permanent minority party in the US, and one more eight year Republican President will all but wipe out their stranglehold on the courts. Is it any wonder they fight so hard and so dirty? Well, maybe, if they'd act a little more civil, they might appeal to more voters and actually gain some seats in the House or Senate, instead of losing more and more each election. We shall see how this next confirmation goes, but, like I said earlier in another place in this blog, when Stevens goes, if it is in this Administration, it will be WWIII and Armageddon combined to replace that liberal old goat with someone to Bush's liking. Katie bar the door.

Posted by: shelly at October 05, 2005 01:50 AM (6mUkl)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

MNF Pick, Week 4

Week 4? Is that right? i guess so. It seems like the season just started. But it's been going on long enough for one thing to be clear: both Green Bay and Carolina suck this year.

Carolina, at home, is favored by a big 7½ points. Will they cover? i been burned by Brett Favre and the Packers on Monday Night before, but i've also won too.

The Packers and 7½ points is too tempting to pass up. i'll go against conventional wisdom and say that Carolina will not cover. Bet Green Bay, take the points and laugh at the suckers later. ha-ha.

Update: i'm now 1 and 2.

Update 2: What? No "congratulations annika on your amazing prognosticative powers?" No "annika you're so awesome?" No "annika, we're sorry we ever doubted you?"

Posted by: annika at 02:30 PM | Comments (29) | Add Comment
Post contains 141 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Annie, I'd advise to re-evaluate your position. I admit I'm not a big football fan (football fields are a waste of a perfectly good short rifle range) but I have it on good authority (i.e. a redneck uncle - like I have any other kind? - who's been eating & breathing football since Garands were still standard issue) that the Panthers have a very strong team this year. Course he mumbles hastily "despite them getting their asses kicked so far" but I think it's a valid point; they have a lot more potential than they're showing & now would be the time they start to realize it. Besides, a Carolina team defending their home (turf) against a bunch of Yankees? & this time we have decent shoes???? Wanna make a side bet? If the Panthers lose I'll devote a whole post to saying nice things about the AR rifle platform. If they win though send me a pic of you at the range that I can post first. Even a fully clothed pic will do as long as you're identifiable - & the firearm is too (my readers - both of them - are bitchy about that kinda thing). No points - just a straight up win/lose outcome. Care to put your pic where your pick is? (damn, that just sounds wrong lol)

Posted by: Publicola at October 03, 2005 03:22 PM (vC8Ev)

2 Carolina will cover easy, the Pack is hellaisous bad right now. (thats a southern term you might not have heard before.) BTW- check some of the lefty blogs right now, they have heads exploding all over the place.

Posted by: Kyle N at October 03, 2005 03:24 PM (8SRlp)

3 LMAO, I'm laughing at the suckers right NOW!

Posted by: Casca at October 03, 2005 04:35 PM (qBTBH)

4 BTW, do you understand now why he's avoided at cocktail parties?

Posted by: Casca at October 03, 2005 05:07 PM (qBTBH)

5 suckers bet. fuck.

Posted by: annika at October 03, 2005 07:32 PM (/z9ik)

6 Not to worry, there is value in knowing to compute the back azimuth.

Posted by: Casca at October 03, 2005 08:15 PM (qBTBH)

7 32-13 in the fourth? What GB needs now is Joe Montana.

Posted by: annika at October 03, 2005 08:42 PM (/z9ik)

8 Nope, just Pacman. They're coming back.

Posted by: Casca at October 03, 2005 09:10 PM (qBTBH)

9 U always were a niners fan. So let it be written, never miss a Monday night 4th quarter.

Posted by: Casca at October 03, 2005 09:14 PM (qBTBH)

10 You losers need to stick with the Buckeyes and the Bears. It's less comlex.

Posted by: shelly at October 03, 2005 09:23 PM (6mUkl)

11 Man that old bastard gets feisty at night when his Geritol kicks in. Who am I talking about Shelly or Favre? Your guess is as good as mine.

Posted by: Casca at October 03, 2005 09:26 PM (qBTBH)

12 I don't know about Geritol, but it looked like Favre slipped some Metamucil into the Panthers gatorade in the fourth quarter.

Posted by: Trevor at October 04, 2005 06:55 AM (RwZxT)

13 Look at me, i'm LAUGHING AT THE SUCKERS! hahahahahahaha! Carolina didn't cover!

Posted by: annika at October 04, 2005 07:01 AM (Ku+kp)

14 U NUMBA WON, U NUMBA WON, U NUMBA WON, U NUMBA WON, U NUMBA WON, U NUMBA WON, U NUMBA WON, U NUMBA WON Now what's your call on the Cal v USC?

Posted by: Casca at October 04, 2005 11:18 AM (qBTBH)

15 Even a blind rat cuts the cheese sometimes, annika. neener, neener

Posted by: Victor at October 04, 2005 11:57 AM (L3qPK)

16 Cal v. USC? too early to tell. i liked what i saw last week against Arizona, but i'm not sure we've really seen the Bears tested yet.

Posted by: annika at October 04, 2005 01:46 PM (zAOEU)

17 Hey Numbnuts: Can OSU beat Penn State at home, or cover 3? Not even me, the premier Cool-Aid drinker of SC football thinks it is worth betting SC -37 against a weak Arizona team.

Posted by: shelly at October 04, 2005 02:13 PM (6mUkl)

18 Actually, they're rather sensitive. Now is that any way for an educated intelligent man to talk? Aw, that's right, nevermind. I jumped on that 3 point spot already, cause I don't think that it is that close of a game at all. The Buckeyes have really developed offensively since settling on Smith at QB. They literally destroyed Iowa, allowing only 9yds rushing, while running over the Iowa line on offense. Penn State showed they could stop Minnesota's one-dimensional run offense, and beat a shitty coach. They have a couple true freshman in the backfield on offense, and they haven't been welcomed to the big time yet. You know, like that up-the-gut hit on Leinart that took him out for a play last week. Three of PSU's wins are against punk teams too low to note, and the Northwestern game was a true squeaker where the best team lost. I call it 27-17 Ohio State. (In my heart I think that it'll be bigger than that, but I'm trying to who restraint.) How much of my 3 pt money do you want? You are sitting on a boat in territorial waters while writing this aren't you? As for USC v AZ? I'd take USC and give the pts. This is a blowout. 55-6. First qtr 21-0. Cal v USC, too close to call. One never knows WHAT kind of team USC will show up with. (Bad coaching)

Posted by: Numbnuts at October 04, 2005 05:22 PM (qBTBH)

19 We always know what kind of a team USC will show up with. We just don't know exactly when they will show up. Lately, it's been after the half time festivities; I am beginning to think they like being ripped to shreds by Pete Carroll, or maybe they just like to piss off Mike Garett, the luckiest man alive today, if he is really alive. Look for Booty to play a lot against Arizona; that'll also keep the score down under 37 margin. Bet is not worth it this week. I'll bet with my own offshore person, since I am in Aruba looking for Natalee. Somehow, I don't think she's actually here anymore, poor girl. She must have hitched a ride to Venezuela, like Joram says.

Posted by: shelly at October 04, 2005 06:26 PM (6mUkl)

20 Mental declination, I meant UCLA v Cal, and UCLA is the ?.

Posted by: Casca at October 04, 2005 06:32 PM (qBTBH)

21 Actually, playing the backups against AZ is even worse. They've got something to prove. I'd still give the pts and take the favorite. Heh, arent' you supposed to be celebrating Rhoshashana or boomshakalaka or something like that? Isn't that all about trying to live a good life and be nice to people? Ooops, I forgot, you're a lawyer.

Posted by: Casca at October 04, 2005 07:24 PM (qBTBH)

22 Yeah, that makes more sense. I actually went to UCLA as well, but root primarily for USC...I still like to see UCLA win except against SC. Cal is infiniitely more dangerous in Strawberry Canyon; too close quarters and way too loud. UCLA is showing some talent, but as you say, the coaching sucks. Bet they never thought they'd wish for the good old days of Pepper Rogers and Terry Donahue. Booty is primarily taking snaps and not throwing much. Timing issues, so I don't look for the subs to really run it up, plus, if there is weakness in depth, it is in the D. And, we've got a Santa Ana coming in and it is gonna be over 110 on the floor of the Coliseum. I wouldn't lay the points this week; too many. I found the Aruba OTB and bet a few shekels on the chance that you are right. Natalee wasn't there, either. Could Joram be telling the truth? Me, I'm splitting for the deseret first thing Friday morning, so as for the game, (In the immortal words of Darryl F. Zanuck) "include me out".

Posted by: shelly at October 04, 2005 08:36 PM (6mUkl)

23 "Could Joram be telling the truth?" Naaaaaaah!

Posted by: Casca at October 04, 2005 09:17 PM (qBTBH)

24 Some salient facts, I've been browsing the NCAA defensive stats. OSU is #1 against the run, allowing only 41 yds a game, and 5th overall. The highest ranked PAC 10 team is Cal at 20 followed by Arizona (No not state) at 47 and USC at 50. One imagines that those last two will flip come next week. Notre Dame pops in at 92, just below Akron, yay Zips.

Posted by: Casca at October 05, 2005 06:03 AM (qBTBH)

25 No one fropm Arizona is looking forward to this weekend in the Coliseum. But I suspect Carroll will not let them run rampant. Thirty seven points are a lot to run up in only one half. It will be a laugher, but not by 37. Don't bet, or take the points.

Posted by: shelly at October 05, 2005 08:55 AM (6mUkl)

26 I just remembered that a good friend told me last year that University Park, Pa. is a drinking town with a football problem. Everyone wants Paterno to go, but he wants to die on the sidelines in the middle of a game. Maybe the hidden offense can help him this week, that is, if they don't hide it too much.

Posted by: shelly at October 07, 2005 07:02 PM (6mUkl)

27 LMAO, fuck you. It will be a tough game, but we're going to lay the woopass on them. As for JoPa is there any way to go but to drop in the harness? That would be my choice too. Think about THIS... first incredible game of the year, Ohio State v Tejas. The second? Ohio State v Penn State.

Posted by: Casca at October 07, 2005 07:21 PM (qBTBH)

28 Yeah, two incredible games, and OSU hid their fucking O both times. This coach hides his O so effectively that NO ONE ever sees it. Carroll, on the other hand, comes to play the second half, exclusively. OSU is done; put a fork in them. USC and the Horns in the Rose Bowl. Take the Trojans and, by the way, don't bet them to cover against The Irish, either. This is a team that can't get going early. I am thinking that Leinart doesn't want Booty to play much. Casca, seppeku is an honorable way to go; I'll take the broadsword.

Posted by: shelly at October 08, 2005 08:13 PM (6mUkl)

29 Yep, you'll take the broadsword... up the ying-yang!

Posted by: Casca at October 09, 2005 06:16 PM (qBTBH)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Miers

Yah, sure. But what does she know about Arabian horses?

Posted by: annika at 02:23 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 12 words, total size 1 kb.

1 A. She's fugly. B. Not as fugly as Ruth Bider-Meinhoff Ginsburger. C. I don't want a spinster on the bench. Much of life's wisdom is gained through raising your own children. I pity the fool who doesn't know this. She may be OK, but I'm guessing that she's another political operative ala Sandra Dee O'commie. Beware those with experience in State politics. D. I want a forty-something conservative ala Roberts. WTF is the white house thinking?

Posted by: Casca at October 03, 2005 04:39 PM (qBTBH)

2 Reliable? Confirmable? Ever been in the pit in Washington? (I have) Ever worry about getting Judge confirmed? (I have) Things are a lot more complex than they appear. The Beltway is one complicated place. Easy to criticize until you need to make it work. Stick with OSU; it is simpler to just hit the line and have good D.

Posted by: shelly at October 04, 2005 03:28 AM (6mUkl)

3 Condescension is so unflattering. Some things really ARE simple. I can see how a lifetime of legal quibbling might diminish one's clarity. "It's judgment that defeats us." -Kurtz

Posted by: Casca at October 04, 2005 06:59 AM (qBTBH)

4 It's time to get back to running the country. Harriet is a lock for confirmation. They'll never lay a glove on her. The Dems are disappointed because they were gearing up for a fight, so were the conservatives. So were all the fringe loony organizations, who won't be able to collect millions to support their cause, and divert half of it to other loony stuff. (What do you call assassins who accuse assassins? Kurtz) Bush knows her; he knows how and what she thinks. If you support Bush, relax; if you don't, beware. She's gonna hurt ya. Forget 1988 donations to Gore; he was thought to be the conservative candidate against Dukakis. There were no Republicans in Texas then, remember? She is the Man. A great appointment, as you will all learn in the hearings.

Posted by: shelly at October 04, 2005 07:48 AM (6mUkl)

5 She's a great "political" appointment, at least inside the beltway. That's how we got most of the clowns on the court NOW. The court we have NOW is a Republican court. Seven of nine are Republican appointees! She is not even a good appointment politically, because when all he had left was his base, dubyah stupidly offended it deeply.

Posted by: Casca at October 04, 2005 08:36 AM (qBTBH)

6 I'm getting sick of the groussing from conservatives on this appointment. Picking a fight right now over a judge would have been a boon to democrats next September, and while it would have been red meat for the base, it would have only alienated the center, which is where elections are WON. The president made a very judicious move, throwing out a candidate that the left had no good reason to oppose other than for the sake of being oppositional. And what does he get for it? Mutiny from his own party. You guys are turning into chicken little. Do you believe the crap in the media about the president being on the ropes? His poll numbers are improving consistently. Everything going on in the news is serving to discredit the media and their democrat masters. Contrary to popular opinion, when you have the enemy down is not the time to strike a blow for partisanship, it is the time to use your advantage to sooth the great body of centrists in America who actually decide elections and who are getting very tired of the partisan grousing from the left and the right. It's thermodynamics in politics. Every action results in an equal and opposite reaction. Going overboard in either direction results in the massive center of the electorate shifting to the other side. Centrists, as wishy washy as they can be, decide all elections except the Democratic presidential primaries (which is why the Dems keep nominating unelectable moonbats). Do we want to start taking lessons from McCauliffe and Dean? Rather than twisting the knife to "reassure the base", the President knows that reassuring the center that he can govern with moderation is more important for those Republicans running in the mid-terms next fall. Cramming a right-wing zealot down the country's throat would simply convince the great undecided that the left is right about W and Rove, and leave the "sane and moderate" middle ground to the Dems to take away our majorities in the house and senate next fall. Instead of abandoning ship and joining the moonbats in backstabbing the President, "the base" needs to get used to the idea that if they want a President and legislature that are nominally on their side, they are going to have to accept that those elected officials occasionally have to act moderately to stay in office. Because "the base" has never won a national election in this country, but they can certainly deprive their side of national office by throwing a tantrum and letting him fall from power while they are pouting over a nomination.

Posted by: Scot at October 06, 2005 07:20 AM (GDOa/)

7 Thanks for the instruction Scot. Now I know how to think. She's not the issue. The issue is that we're at a point where we are ready for the battle, and dubyah has pulled away. This was the time to allow the D's to identify themselves, and for the Senate to identify what squishy fucks they are. Politics is about conflict. Go read Sun Tsu, when you're strong you attack. All the bullshit aside, we're strong now.

Posted by: Casca at October 06, 2005 10:27 PM (qBTBH)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

October 02, 2005

My Top Five Bookstores, Plus A Few Others

The Upper West Side B&N. On Broadway in the 60's, i think. Three floors. Even on Saturday night it's packed with people not just browsing, but actually reading. You have to wade through readers just to walk upstairs. i'm confident that if i asked any patron or employee "would you recommend Turgenev?" i'd get a lucid answer. i'll bet Tom Hanks' megastore in You've Got Mail was based on this B&N.

Powell's Books in Portland, Oregon. They simply have everything. i found an old astronomy book that we had when i was a kid, but got lost in one of my family's moves. i found an original play by Edna St. Vincent Millay. They had a vintage copy of Grover's The Monster at the End of This Book, which i loved as a kid.

Strand Books, Downtown Manhattan. World famous. i aspire to buy something here. i was there once, but didn't buy anything because i was traveling with carry on bags only, and didn't want to pack a book back. The next time i was in NY, i looked and looked but couldn't find the store. i thought it was by the Library. i asked one of those dudes that sells books on the sidewalk and he, quite predictably, told me he'd never heard of the place.

The Fisherman's Wharf B&N, next to the original Cost Plus World Market (which Callahan staked out in the first Dirty Harry.). i spent so many wonderful hours browsing in this B&N. It's light and airy and comfortable. Nothing bad can ever happen there. The store has good karma.

The Calabasas B&N, on the outskirts of the Valley. Two stories. Not the greatest selection, but the weather was always perfect whenever i went there. All the shoppers seem rich. There's a pretty good fish restaurant in the shopping center. Anne of Straight From The Hip used to blog about working there.

Vroman's near Cal Tech. Pleasant. Has a nice card selection and a decent cafe, and sells lots of pen stuff. Nice gifts too. You can sign up so that a portion of each purchase goes to charity. Good local interest section.

B&N in Twin Falls, Idaho. That and the Evel Knievel jump site are the only interesting things to see in that town. i bought something by Thomas Merton there on a Good Friday. Ironically, i read it while eating a steak at a local greasy spoon. Don't ask me what the fuck i was doing in Twin Falls, Idaho.

City Lights, on Columbus in North Beach. i always stop in there even though i never buy anything. Ferlinghetti owns it. Afterwards, you can drink a Guinness next door at Vesuvio's. If you do, sit upstairs, look down at the store and imagine Kerouac walking in the alleyway. He probably did once.

Posted by: annika at 10:07 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 486 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Tattered Covers Denver Clorado

Posted by: trigger at October 02, 2005 10:23 PM (4KZfM)

2 Please forgive me, annika, but now I'm genuinely curious: Just what the puck where you doing in Twin Falls, Idaho? Should you ever make it to Washington, you should check out Kramer Books & Afterwords (bookstore/cafe combo) and Politics & Prose (it's not a DC bookstore if it doesn't have an ampersand in the name.). There's also a really good used bookstore in Dupont Circle, easy walking distance from KB&A.

Posted by: Victor at October 03, 2005 04:49 AM (L3qPK)

3 Not a single Chicago bookseller? Let me suggest a place on the corner of Clark & Wellington. The proprietor is John, and there are books stacked all over the place. I have twice been there when the fire marshall came in to give him hell. Powell's Chicago store is just down the street on Clark too, as are many others. I don't know what you see in all of these "NEW" bookstores, give me the old seedy places anyday.

Posted by: Casca at October 03, 2005 06:52 AM (qBTBH)

4 Strand is at Brdway and 12th..but there are other locations as well. Just let me know what you want, I'll be happy to pick it up for you or just fondle it. (haha I couldn't resist). http://www.strandbooks.com/home/ Welcome to New York City's legendary Strand Book Store. In 1927 Benjamin Bass opened Strand Book Store on 4th Avenue, New York's famous Book Row of America. Named after the famous publishing street in London and an old literary magazine, Strand Book Store has long been known for remarkable deals on great books. Ben's son Fred began working in his father's store when he was ten years old. After a tour of duty in the Armed Forces, Fred returned to the family business and took over its management in 1956. Soon after, he moved it to its current location at the corner of Broadway and Twelfth Street. When Mr. Bass moved the store to its Broadway site he rented 4,000 square feet of the building. Now, four and a half decades later, he owns the building with Strand taking up five of the eleven floors, and a second store on Fulton Street in New York City's financial district.

Posted by: jim at October 03, 2005 07:34 AM (y9UuV)

5 My husband wants his ashes spread at Powell's--second floor, third aisle.

Posted by: Pam at October 03, 2005 09:21 AM (4wugR)

6 I just bought The Monster at the End of This Book for my niece. I loved that book!!!

Posted by: ginger at October 03, 2005 04:05 PM (jK/kA)

7 Kewl, is she gonna read it to you ging?

Posted by: Casca at October 03, 2005 05:09 PM (qBTBH)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

September 30, 2005

Today's Coffee Cup Wisdom

On my Starbuck's cup today was the following blurb:

The Way I See It #53
Be exceptional. Make tremendous efforts to be extraordinary. What a privilege to be here on the planet to contribute your unique donation to humankind. Just make sure you do so...
--Shelby Lynne

Hmm. My response?

Blah blah blah blah. zzzzzzzzzzzzzz. clunk.

Shaddap.

Posted by: annika at 10:55 AM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 61 words, total size 1 kb.

San Francisco Builds A Ski Jump

This event reminds me of something Annikus Gibbon once wrote:

And the great Emperor, deaf to the woes of his people, said unto them, 'lo, let us build a great ski slope in the middle of the village, and let them jump off it with skis, and afterward, they shall have sourdough bread, and circuses.'

San Francisco is falling apart, but hey, at least they got a ski jump.

Posted by: annika at 06:56 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 79 words, total size 1 kb.

September 29, 2005

BCS Poll Changes

To improve and simplify the system, The Onion reports that the BCS Committee is considering some changes.

Hat tip to Casca.

Posted by: annika at 07:38 PM | Comments (36) | Add Comment
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Shelly, make sure you pay close attention to the last one. Obviously, others have noticed.

Posted by: Casca at September 29, 2005 08:21 PM (qBTBH)

2 What would the world be like without sore losers? We pay these guys off for twenty years, and nothing. Finally we have a team that can go over .500 all by itself and we get a few good calls, and the world starts to whine. It is our turn; get over it. This is USC's birthright; whine away, we'll get you some cheese. See somebody in Pasadena on January 4. P.S. This guy's stature is slightly below the Austin sportswriter.

Posted by: shelly at September 29, 2005 08:47 PM (6mUkl)

3 OK Shell, you can lie to your wife. You can lie to the IRS, but never ever lie to yourself. USC has been lionized in a way that we haven't seen since the unbeatable 'Canes who lost to that mediocre team with a brand new coach from the Big Ten. At some point, the man comes around. It's OK. Every dynasty needs to be knocked on their ass once in a while. It teaches us humility.

Posted by: Casca at September 29, 2005 09:16 PM (qBTBH)

4 You're right; all good things come to an end, and, indeed, USC's streak will as well. None of us have forgotten what happened in Berkeley two years ago. I, myself, was within shouting distance of the stadium, but decided it wasn't worth leaving the Sonoma Inn and giving up a day of golf to see a routine bashing of the Bears. Turned out the Bears bashed back. But, they had a great QB that year, a far cry from what we're looking at this year. Nonetheless, it cost one-half of the National Championship. Carroll regularly reminds the team of it. I'll bet he mentioned it at halftime last week. I'll bet he has to do so again. But, my point is simply that they have the horses. Like every Carroll team, they are superbly conditioned and they are so deep that they platoon and just beat the other team on sheer staying power. Check out their games, most are blowouts in the second half. So yes, we're used to getting a little behind in the first half these days while the other teams burn off their adrenaline, but in the end, talent and conditioning pay off. As Vince Lombardi was fond of saying "The harder I work, the luckier I get". Don't bet the house against USC this year.

Posted by: shelly at September 30, 2005 02:43 AM (6mUkl)

5 USC is indeed a powerhouse and has been the best team in football for at least one and a half seasons. But I would have loved to see them play LSU two seasons ago, the way LSU was playing at the end of that year it would have been hard to beat them. The big problem with USC is that they play in a poof conference. Even as good as they are if they had to take the regular pounding of an SEC,ACC,or big twelve schedule chances are they would have lost at least one game a season, possibly two.

Posted by: Kyle N at September 30, 2005 03:15 AM (UEnyt)

6 Kyle, you may be right, but I think Oklahoma has had just about enough of that "poof" conference for a while. Just ask the Sooners and Boomers how soft it is in Southern California.

Posted by: shelly at September 30, 2005 06:45 AM (6mUkl)

7 I don't buy the conference inferiority thing. The worst thing about BCS is that it ended the Big 10 Pac 10 century of tradition of sending their best teams to the Rose Bowl on New Years day.

Posted by: Casca at September 30, 2005 07:38 AM (qBTBH)

8 Well, well, well. We finally find something to agree upon in the realm of the pigskin. The Pac 10 and the Big 10 caved in; they are the losers; it is much more fun to go to Pasadena EVERY year, than to have to go to different bowls. Although, it was fun in Miami in January, at least for the poofs from the Pac 10. By the way, what ever happened to Woody Hayes' model of not throwing the ball because three things can happen and two of them are bad?

Posted by: shelly at September 30, 2005 10:02 AM (6mUkl)

9 I'm always confused by this argument that the Pc 10 is a weak conference. Four teams in the conference are rank this week in the AP and USA Today polls. And Oregon was ranked until they played USC (and they still recieved votes). So, someone explain to me please, how a conference with almost half of it's members in the top 25 is weak? And yeah, I miss the old format - and not just in regards to the Rose Bowl.

Posted by: KG at September 30, 2005 10:33 AM (YPmsQ)

10 You two need to pay attention. In your case KG, it's called West Coast Bias. The sportswriters would rather hang in Cali the center of the universe, than in Ottumwa. Who can blame them? It worked the same for Miami. Think about it. Where do you want to work a game this weekend, or interview a coach, or hang with Jessica and Nick? Well, I might rifle her underwear drawers in search of homebrew porn to post. As for Woody, Jim Tressel is a protege. You clearly have not paid attention to OSU. There is a thing called "Tresselball". The dictates of which are; powerful defense, time management, field position, get a lead and sit on it. Tressel is an artist. You know how the CW is always, "One game at a time"? Tressel maps the entire season, and only shows as much offense as he needs to win. Passing is a component of the offense, and not the lifeblood. It can be irritating to watch, but his formula of success has been dramatic. Four national championships in a dozen years at Youngstown State, and one in his first year at Ohio State. His dad coached at Baldwin Wallace in Cleveland, and was a football fixture in NE Ohio. He was the guest speaker at my high school football banquet each year, and one hell of a guy. Jim looks and acts like an accountant, never swears, never says anything that he doesn't want either his team, or the opposition to know. It's the same way he runs his offense, very controlled, lots of discipline.

Posted by: Casca at September 30, 2005 12:18 PM (qBTBH)

11 Now I'm drooling for a chance to play OSU. I just changed my rooting, and I will be rooting for USU to win every game and Texas to lose, just so the Trojans can take the Bucks to the woodshed. It is now a dream match. Go Buckeyes; get to Pasadena!

Posted by: shelly at September 30, 2005 03:06 PM (6mUkl)

12 I agree. Go watch the Ohio State v Texas game. Vince Young was shut down. Buckeyes dominated in every way, and led until the last moments of the game when the officials put Texas back in it. Ohio State v USC would be the battle of the best defense against the best offense. The dirty little secret is that Ohio State has a great offense too. Jim Tressel spends a lot of time and effort hiding it.

Posted by: Casca at September 30, 2005 03:31 PM (qBTBH)

13 Yeah, he hid it from Texas, right?

Posted by: shelly at September 30, 2005 03:49 PM (6mUkl)

14 I sometimes wish more teams would bring back the wishbone, Nothing is as exciting as some good running. Back in the early nineties I used to love to watch texas A&M play Nebraska, no wussie throwing in those games!

Posted by: Kyle N at September 30, 2005 07:42 PM (9bm/9)

15 That's right Shelly, he did, but if you watched the game, then you saw it. Quit being a punk. You're right Kyle, but you'll never see it because wishbone backs have no future in the NFL, so any school running that offense won't be able to recruit the best talent, or so the thinking goes. Here are my picks for tomorrow: Michigan State over U of M. State's giving 5.5 pts, but they're playing at Spartan Stadium, and this is their year. (These guys whomped Notre Dame in overtime). Lloyd Carr will be lucky if it isn't five touchdowns they lose by. BTW, Stanton is the REAL Heisman QB in this country. Minnesota giving 2.5 over Penn State. Perdue was supposed to be the powerhouse of the big 10 until they lost to Glenn Mason's Gophers last week. Northwestern has returned to doormat status, and proved it by losing to this Penn State team. Even though it's an evening game in Happy Valley, take the gophers and give the pts. Finally, I'm sitting here watching Knute Rockne All American, plus Perdue is coming off the Minnesotta loss last week and still a 3 pt favorite over the Irish. Ya gotta be kidding me! Bet against Notre Dame? Are you fucking NUTS? Bet the moneyline and as Anni would say, "Laugh at the suckers later." This Weis guy is the real deal, and he aint losin' to Perdue. Cheer, cheer for old Notre Dame...

Posted by: Casca at September 30, 2005 08:19 PM (qBTBH)

16 Casca goes with some safe bets; I especially like N.D. to beat up on the Boilermakers (better than "Perdue"). Didn't mention that OSU cannot possibly lose this week as they further hide their offense. USC, on the other hand does not hide their offense. It is so strong and balanced that they can go at you with stuff you know is coming and still be successful. Look for them to beat the stuffing out of the Sun Devils today. Also look for a lot more of John David Booty and LenDale White. And, keep your eyes on Dwayne Jarrett. Oh yeah, there are a couple of other lesser guys to look out for, Reggie Bush and Matt Leinart aren't bad, even if "Stanton is the real Heisman Quarterback in this country."

Posted by: shelly at October 01, 2005 03:44 AM (6mUkl)

17 That's not a pick! That's partisan gushing. Worse yet, it is your one note. Bring something interesting to the table. Call the score. Is USC going to beat the 15 pt spread? I can see them wilting in the desert sun. It's gonna be a scorcher.

Posted by: Casca at October 01, 2005 06:41 AM (qBTBH)

18 Yes, they'll beat the spread and then some. They have every game this year and most of the last two as well. The spread is 16 1/2 as of now. The Coliseum is regularly anywhere from 105 to 120 degrees on the field for afternoon games; Carroll likes to run them up and down the stairs in practice, and then practice all afternoon there when he can. If the game was in LA, it'd be over 100 today for sure. The heat will not wilt them, again, because of their ability to substitute freely without losing much in talent level. Look for SC to step it up about the middle of the third quarter on... (Booty wants to put some numbers on the board, too) LA doesn't need a pro team, we already have one.

Posted by: shelly at October 01, 2005 08:58 AM (6mUkl)

19 Speaking of no D, how about Spartans? Looks grim for them right now...

Posted by: shelly at October 01, 2005 10:09 AM (6mUkl)

20 casca, is worse than hugh hewitt with the osu shit. except, unlike hugh, you know something about the game. shelly is worse than my favorite undergrad history professor, who was a usc grad. every monday, he'd spend the first half hour of class rehashing saturday's game.

Posted by: annika at October 01, 2005 10:18 AM (nGY1H)

21 "The horror, the horror..." Kurtz

Posted by: shelly at October 01, 2005 02:47 PM (6mUkl)

22 Alabama is putting a major ass whuppin on Florida, that was unexpected.

Posted by: Kyle N at October 01, 2005 03:42 PM (C6iC4)

23 Fucking Spartans, played a great game, but couldn't close the deal. Watch them when they play the Buckeyes in two weeks. It will be a great truth-teller. Fucking Glen Mason, I'm just glad that we didn't hire the fucktard to replace the fucktard Cooper. He's the guy that the administration wanted, thank God the Alumni hung in there and hired Tressel.

Posted by: Casca at October 01, 2005 03:51 PM (qBTBH)

24 Fucking syphalitic retard Keith Jackson, one day I will publicly piss on him.

Posted by: Casca at October 01, 2005 04:32 PM (qBTBH)

25 So, Okay, they didn't cover, but they showed the kind of balance that can win against anyone. And, down 21-3 they came back in the second half and outscored ASU big time. Thunder and Lightning; better hope OSU doesn't get to Pasadena. The Defense may gel by then. It is young, but they hung in there and got five (5), count'em, FIVE picks on Keller. Good game; ASU may be the second best in the Pac 10 and they are gonna beat someone in a bowl, too. Trojans RULE...

Posted by: shelly at October 01, 2005 04:51 PM (6mUkl)

26 never seen you sweat like that, Shelly. SC is taking their reputation for being slow starters to a whole new extreme. Reminds me of the 'flip the switch' Lakers of a few years ago.

Posted by: annika at October 01, 2005 05:45 PM (nGY1H)

27 Casca, You wrote, "Vince Young was shut down." The first time Texas had the ball, Vince Young ran for 10, 32, and 10. Ohio State adjusted to take away his running, and Vince passed for 270 yards. Vince had 346 yards of total offense for the game. Ohio State *** AS A TEAM *** had 255 yards of total offense. If 346 of total offense for a single player is "shut down," what is 255 for the WHOLE BUCKEYE TEAM? Is having almost 100 total yards more than the ENTIRE BUCKEYES OFFENSE what passes for being "shut down"? You also said wrote, "Buckeyes dominated in every way." More points? Texas. More first downs? Texas. More rushing yards? Texas. More passing yards? Texas. More total yards? Texas. More time of possession? Texas. Is that what passes for domination in your world? Texas went into Columbus in front of a record Ohio Stadium crowd and dominated the statistics and scored more points, even without getting credit for Melton's TD. Ohio State had its chance and failed.

Posted by: Amy at October 01, 2005 05:57 PM (8Rqqf)

28 Hey, leave Casca alone; he's mine to pick apart. Ohio State did not fail. They just didn't totally succeed. Also, you forget to mention that they totally succeeded in hiding their offense. From everyone. OK, gotta go watch the Irish bail my sorry ass out of a bad afternoon at the bookie.

Posted by: shelly at October 01, 2005 07:35 PM (6mUkl)

29 Excuse the fuck out of me Amy (who is clearly not my next friend), but if you think that stats tell the story your understanding of the game is jejeune. Perhaps you didn't see the game? I'll be glad to send you a DVD. You see, Texas trailed until late in the 4th Qtr until a bogus pass interference call on third and long gave them a fresh first down past midfield. That's what gave them their score, and put them back in the game. Seems like stopping the unstoppable Vince Young from running IS shutting him down. Your vaunted cheesedicks won't make it through the season undefeated. Now get out of my way, I'm here to fuck with Shelly.

Posted by: Casca at October 01, 2005 07:40 PM (qBTBH)

30 Has anyone else noticed that there doesn't appear to be a real defense in the entire PAC-10? Michigan State defense? What a bunch of pussys. Arm tackling doesn't stop real football players. It was like watching the ASU defensive backs trying to tackle Bush & White, pathetic. Watch how Notre Dame tackles, that's how the Buckeyes do it. They put their hat on the ball carrier. USC v Notre Dame is going to be great! I'm taking the domers and the pts.

Posted by: Casca at October 01, 2005 07:50 PM (qBTBH)

31 SC v. Notre Dame, always a classic, but this year, maybe even more. There is a serious mindset here in LA about USC coaches; they can lose every game but two and still have a successful season. All they need to do is beat UCLA and Notre Dame, and the world is right. And lately, the world has been more than right. Notre Dame does not have the horses to beat SC this year, but they will give them a game for a while; there is no one they'd rather beat, either. There is a story about the guy who took his dog into a bar to watch the SC-Notre Dame game. After the SC won the game, the dog started doing back flips on the bar. The owner says "He always does this after SC beats Notre Dame". The barkeep asks "What happens when Notre Dame wins?". The owner responds "I don't know, I've only had him for three years." USC may not end up Number 1 at the end of the season, but they are there until someone else finishes a full game ahead, not when people play a good quarter, or even a good half agaisnt them. And, their Defense just gets better every week, especially when they have to rally from behind. Admit it, Casca, they showed real heart this week, while OSU just watched on TV. Next week is not the week that someone will beat them, nor is the week of October 15.

Posted by: shelly at October 02, 2005 02:58 AM (6mUkl)

32 My comments intention was not to piss Casca off, but to point out the Texas was not shut down. I was there at Ohio to see the game and both sides played a good game. But it was not a shut down on any side. Look at the stats and interpet them how you want. Pretty even on face value, without looking at who earned them. OSU wupped Texas on kick off returns, Texas did better on offense, yet no one dominated the game. It was close to the bitter end. Stats can be found here. Casca, thanks for the nice "Steer and Queers" comment on my blog.

Posted by: Amy at October 02, 2005 11:20 AM (1k32s)

33 Call it what you want, character, mental toughness, not laying down and let the other guy kick you. That's really what a great coach brings to a team, and every great team has it. Some of the ASU players had it, but not enough of them. Leinart shows it, but USC hasn't really been in a position to show it as a team yet. Notre Dame doesn't have the horses? People have been saying that all season. I'm inclined after last nights performance to believe that they do. If I were you, I'd start praying right now that it doesn't rain Oct 15 in South Bend, because all skill is in vain if an angel pisses in your flintlock. ND will play a full game, and like their song says, they'll be "Shaking down the thunder from the sky".

Posted by: Casca at October 02, 2005 11:25 AM (qBTBH)

34 Lighten up Amy, I didn't invent the line. I'd suggest that you take me up on the DVD offer if you think the game was that close. If you want to look at stats, look at this one: Turnovers, OSU 1 (fucking Zwick's fumble at the end of the game) UT 3 (Two interceptions of the unstoppable one, and a fumble).

Posted by: Casca at October 02, 2005 11:31 AM (qBTBH)

35 Save your money, Casca. No speed. The only reason ASU got game was their speed. When they tired, it was over. But when they really needed it, no one to hit the line really hard. The QB was the only guy over 220 in the backfield. ND doesn't have the speed to stay with USC. Save your money, or, give it to me.

Posted by: shelly at October 02, 2005 09:50 PM (6mUkl)

36 "Save your money, or, give it to me." Now THERE's a thought.

Posted by: Casca at October 03, 2005 07:04 AM (qBTBH)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Netflix 5 Star Movies A to C

One of the cool things about Netflix is a feature that lets you rate movies on a scale of one to five stars. Their computer makes recommendations for future rentals a member might like, based on the memberÂ’s ratings. i donÂ’t find the recommendations very helpful, but i do like rating things.

Five stars means Â“I loved it.Â” i reserve five stars for movies i love that are generally considered classics, or which deserve to be classics; also for movies that i donÂ’t mind seeing again and again or from which i have memorized much of the dialogue.

A fine example of my thinking on five star movies is my list of such movies from A to C in alphabetical order. i just copied and pasted the list from my Netflix page, so you will notice that there are some TV shows in there, which are not technically movies, but otherwise fit my criteria.

12 Angry Men (1957)
24: Season 1 (2001)
Ace Ventura: Pet Detective (1994)
Airplane! (1980)
All About Eve (1950)
Annie Hall (1977)
The Apartment (1960)
Apollo 13 (1995)
Arthur (1981)
Austin Powers 1 (1997)
Austin Powers 2 (1999)
Back to the Future (1985)
Band of Brothers (2001)
Beverly Hills Cop (1984)
Black Hawk Down (2001)
Breakfast at Tiffany's (1961)
Bullitt (196
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969)
Caddyshack (1980)
Captain Blood (1935)
Casablanca (1942)
Charley Varrick (1973)
A Clockwork Orange (1971)
Cold Mountain (2003)
Cool Hand Luke (1967)

The Netflix rating thing is an ongoing project, so donÂ’t be surprised if there are some omissions from my list. It might mean that the movie didnÂ’t come up as i was going through the recommendations (which i often did when i was bored at work) and clicking on the star ratings.

Update: There's an interesting discussion going on in the comments about whether my 5 star list contains more guy movies or chick movies. First of all, let me admit that my tastes have always included guy things, from sports movies to war movies to historical movies and sci-fi. But i think it's a mistake to say that movies which are obviously marketed towards the male audience do not appeal to women just as much.

If i had to guess, i would say i know more chicks than guys who watch 24 religiously. And comedies like Airplane, and the Ace Ventura and Austin Powers movies can't be categorized. i think both sexes enjoy them equally.

Additionally, i would look askance at any guy who could not appreciate The Apartment or Breakfast At Tiffany's. And All About Eve is just so darn good that every male should be forced to watch it for his own cultural enrichment.

Posted by: annika at 01:58 PM | Comments (32) | Add Comment
Post contains 464 words, total size 3 kb.

1 A clockwork orange was a great movie with a really important message. Hard to think of hollyweird turning out anything like that today. Of course your list includes a few movies that are rated much higher by chicks than by dudes. But I guess thats understandable.

Posted by: Kyle N at September 29, 2005 03:22 PM (CkwDS)

2 Not that it matters, but I kinda disagree with Kyle on Annie's list. I don't see any gender influence in the picks. Aside from (maybe) Breakfast at Tiffany's, where are the decidedly female movies? Annie Hall is a classic comedy equally accessible to anybody, (who can handle Woody Allen). Cold Mountain was a fucking depressing movie (though a great read), so I'm not sure it fits the mold either. Does it get any more male than "Cool Hand Luke?" Great fucking movie!

Posted by: Blu at September 29, 2005 03:54 PM (j8oa6)

3 Breakfast at Tiffany's proved that Capote was a genius. Believe it or not, he was friends with WFB. There's a new movie out about his research for In Cold Blood, "Capote". It's release date is tomorrow. http://www.themoviebox.net/movies/2005/0-9ABC/Capote/main.php I predict a Capote revival.

Posted by: Casca at September 29, 2005 04:13 PM (qBTBH)

4 Blu u r obviously an unreconstructed cretin.

Posted by: Casca at September 29, 2005 04:15 PM (qBTBH)

5 Amen!

Posted by: Blu at September 29, 2005 05:20 PM (cYHv/)

6 I just think if we are talking five star movies, not four star mind you. Most men would not have Breakfast at tiffanies, All about Eve, Author, Annie Hall, or even Butch Cassidy (which dies not wear well and is not really such a good picture although it was all the rage in the early '70's. A lot of her other pics though were fairly masculine leaning. BTW while I am inflicting anger upon people let me slay another sacred cow. Cool Hand Luke also does not wear well, and after seeing it again last year I downrated it in my own movie list. It was manipulative, tenditious, it steriotyped people from the south (one of my pet peeves) and had a typical hollywood slam against religion.

Posted by: Kyle N at September 29, 2005 06:19 PM (CkwDS)

7 "...it steriotyped people from the south", as what Kyle, illiterate mouth breathers? Breakfast at Tiffanys a chickflick? Clearly you've never seen it, or your opinions are...

Posted by: Casca at September 29, 2005 07:06 PM (qBTBH)

8 Er... what? No Back To The Future?

Posted by: Tuning Spork at September 29, 2005 07:23 PM (q3IVH)

9 May I recommend 12 O'Clock High. It is a great management training film. The company I work for makes it's managers watch it every other year. It is also a great war film. So it belongs on your list.

Posted by: Jake at September 29, 2005 07:59 PM (r/5D/)

10 The Marine Corps has used 12 O'Clock High for the past fifty years to teach combat leadership to 2nd Lt's at The Basic School. Talk about testosterone, there isn't a single woman in the cast. It's a great study in human nature, relationships, and stress. Ya gotta love Dean Jagger. Before DOPMA, there used to be a guy like him on every staff.

Posted by: Casca at September 29, 2005 08:30 PM (qBTBH)

11 Yes I saw Breakfast at Tiffanys, I stand by my comments, very few men would rate it a full five stars. Of course there are always the "sensitive" types out there.

Posted by: Kyle N at September 30, 2005 03:19 AM (UEnyt)

12 Interesting list. I'd question your Ace Ventura inclusion, but we're all entitled to a not-so-secret shame. I also second your thoughts on guys and The Apt., Breaky, and Eve. There is one huge omission in this list however that I'm sure you'll agree must be rectified. "The Blues Brothers" should be here. Quoatable, singable, danceable and amusing it is a wonderful movie that introduced a generation to the Blues when blues needed saving.

Posted by: Pursuit at September 30, 2005 06:24 AM (n/TNS)

13 Ahem. There are many "C" movies you left out, annika. Allow me to remedy that: Congo Complex of Fear Citizen Cohn Cape Fear The Children Criminal Law Checkered Flag or Crash In addition, you forgot these "A" movies: Adam at 6 A.M. The Abduction of Kari Swenson *Now* your list is complete!

Posted by: Victor at September 30, 2005 06:35 AM (L3qPK)

14 Spork, BTTF is one of those movies that i didn't rate because the Netflix random recommender never suggested it. i will now search it out just so i can give it five stars. i own 12 O'Clock High on DVD. i gave it three stars. And Pursuit, my view on The Blues Brothers Movie was made public over a year ago.

Posted by: annika at September 30, 2005 06:44 AM (qBVjN)

15 Victor, the only one of those that i have seen is Cape Fear. The original was much better than the DeNiro remake.

Posted by: annika at September 30, 2005 06:46 AM (qBVjN)

16 Kyle - FU. More importantly, how can The Big Lebowski not be in the B's? Beverly Hills Cop?

Posted by: Casca at September 30, 2005 06:52 AM (qBTBH)

17 That may be true, annie, but the DeNiro update also stars Joe Don Baker! That simple fact automatically makes it Better Than Citizen Kane.

Posted by: Victor at September 30, 2005 07:28 AM (L3qPK)

18 i thought that was Fred Thompson.

Posted by: annika at September 30, 2005 07:50 AM (qBVjN)

19 Joe Don Baker! I don't give one of my rat's asses about this so-called "Fred Thompson" guy! Moving on--I clicked on the NEXT BLOG feature of BlogSnot and found this guy who doesn't like Breakfast at Tiffany's. He also writes some pretty funny stuff, so he's OK in my book. His opinion just different from mine and from annika's.

Posted by: Victor at September 30, 2005 10:39 AM (L3qPK)

20 Annie, What is wrong with us? Nothing more than an appreciation for the greats! Aretha, Ray, Cab, John Lee Hooker....Songs from Shake Your Tail Feathers to Peter Gunn to Minnie the Moocher.....and quotes that have entered the cultural lexicon. Oh, today we weep for your incomplete education. I guess that is why Sam and Dave titled their song Soul Man, not Soul Woman. Oh, did I mention it was performed in the movie too?

Posted by: Pursuit at September 30, 2005 10:44 AM (n/TNS)

21 if by "Cab" you mean Cabernet, i'm with you.

Posted by: annika at September 30, 2005 11:01 AM (zAOEU)

22 Well, that's not exactly what I meant, but then I must say that works too!

Posted by: Pursuit at September 30, 2005 11:55 AM (n/TNS)

23 Speaking of Cab Calloway (I'm not a Philistine!), I watched his (and his orchestra's) earliest filmed appearance during lunch today. It opened up a Betty Boop cartoon, and it was absa-fucking AWESOME! I'll blog about it over the weekend, if I find some time. Till then, you'll just have to feel shame that you haven't seen it. Also featured in a Betty Boop cartoon: some dude named Louis Armstrong. It was waaay cool.

Posted by: Victor at September 30, 2005 12:54 PM (L3qPK)

24 i loved your list. one movie you might not have seen but it's on my top ten list: The Scarlet Pimpernel -- the original, with leslie howard, made in the 1930's. outstanding!

Posted by: patrickhenry at September 30, 2005 01:17 PM (BXNL3)

25 i saw Cab Calloway perform at the hollywood bowl when i was little. i don't remember much except it was fireworks night so it must have been july 4th.

Posted by: annika at September 30, 2005 02:19 PM (/+WOD)

26 Amazing coincidence, this July 4th I drank a Cabernet.

Posted by: Pursuit at September 30, 2005 02:45 PM (n/TNS)

27 funny, on July 4th I got drunk and fell off a cabinate.

Posted by: Kyle N at September 30, 2005 07:39 PM (9bm/9)

28 I think I was there... both places.

Posted by: Casca at September 30, 2005 09:36 PM (qBTBH)

29 you are the reason the star system on Net Flix is not helpful.

Posted by: kyle at October 03, 2005 01:29 PM (x7Ooa)

30 Annika, I was struck by a weird coincidence in your list between Breakfast at Tiffany's and Charlie Varrick. Walter Matthau, a former neighbor of mine, was married to Carol, who was supposedly the inspiration for Holly Golightly (and she was married to Saroyan before that). Meaningless trivia, to be sure . . . Breakfast at Tiffany's and All About Eve(favorites of mine) and Annie Hall are chic flicks in the sense that the male roles therein are 'feminized', but that doesn't mean that men can't (and don't) enjoy the movies.

Posted by: Fred Jacobsen (San Fran) at October 03, 2005 07:27 PM (WxQ4l)

31 George Peppard femininzed? I think the point is that they both became who they really were.

Posted by: Casca at October 03, 2005 08:24 PM (qBTBH)

32 Patrickhenry: If you enjoyed the old 'Scarlet Pimpernel', you'd probably also enjoy 'Pimpernel Smith', which sets the story in the buildup to WWII and also stars Leslie Howard. But we digress.

Posted by: SteveGW at October 05, 2005 12:22 AM (1La6f)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

September 28, 2005

Speaking Of Monsters

Remember my Job post from a few weeks ago, where i made reference to the giant squid? [to great rhetorical effect, i might add] Turns out that about a year ago some Japanese scientists obtained film of a live giant squid ― the first time any human being has ever seen one alive! You may have seen the story. It's listed among the most popular links at Yahoo news.

People are fascinated by giant slimy things i guess. The giant squid has always held a particular mythological importance. Mainly, i think, because so little is known about it. As a monster it was known as the Kraken, and you can see it in the corners of those old time maps, usually clutching a square rigger within its tentacled death grip.

Maybe it's the fact that those things can grow to the length of a football field. Or those ten snakelike tentacles, all studded with suckers the size of pie plates. Or the fact that it spews forth black ink when it gets excited. Or that vicious parrot beak that can bite off the head of a pig.

As for me, i like 'em sliced up and fried in beer batter with tangy cocktail sauce on a Sunday afternoon and a football game on the big screen. An effective seafood cocktail sauce should always contain a generous amount of horseradish, tabasco and lemon in it. But i digress.

Here's an fascinating passage about the mysterious deep sea monster from an otherwise boring book called Moby Dick: more...

Posted by: annika at 06:41 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 1210 words, total size 8 kb.

1 Please, please let this be the last reference to Moby Dick here. A truly awful, excruciatingly boring book, not to mention down right weird I forced myself to read every word. I hope to expunge the whole sorry incident from my memory one day.

Posted by: Pursuit at September 28, 2005 07:22 PM (n/TNS)

2 I'm partial to rather small slimy things that taste like seafood.

Posted by: Casca at September 28, 2005 07:40 PM (qBTBH)

3 I loved Moby Dick. We knew these Kraken existed for years because of the gaint sucker marks found on sperm whales, living and dead. It seems that they eat the squids, but they don't always win the fight.

Posted by: Kyle N at September 29, 2005 03:34 AM (3g8jc)

4 I'm a little confused why we're only just hearing about it now when it happened so long ago. Still, better late than never, I guess.

Posted by: Christiana Ellis at September 29, 2005 03:45 AM (msLwL)

5 You think Moby Dick was boring? Try reading another Melville classic, "White Jacket." No need for Sominex if you start reading this book.

Posted by: Tim at September 29, 2005 06:44 AM (PJ4Iq)

6 This incident in Moby Dick was based upon a real life incident.The ship Essex, out of Nantucke,t was destroyed by a whale in 1819. If you go to Nantucket, you will learn all about the whaling industry and this incident. I love to go to Nantucket because of the history and because everyone wears preppy clothes like I do.

Posted by: Jake at September 29, 2005 08:11 AM (r/5D/)

7 "God bless Captain Vere!" oops...wrong book. but, hey, at least it's a Melville novel that definitely does not suck.

Posted by: Blu at September 29, 2005 08:42 AM (j8oa6)

8 Oh, Anni, you're breaking my heart! I loved Moby Dick in school; I was the only one in my class who read the whole book, including the chapters our teacher said we could skip. The book I really hated in high school was Hawthorne's "The Scarlet Letter". Although I wonder now that I'm older how I would take it if I ever reread it. Maybe I'd be more forgiving. And (heh!), maybe I wouldn't handle Moby Dick the same way; who knows?. Even back then, I noticed that Melville tended to go on and on with his descriptions; he gave verbosity a whole new meaning to me.

Posted by: E.M.H. at September 29, 2005 10:36 AM (xHyDY)

9 No doubt you also received a few ass beatings on the playground too.

Posted by: Casca at September 29, 2005 11:11 AM (qBTBH)

10 Nooo, no. "Boring" is not the proper adjective. I graduated with an English BA. I LOVED reading novels and writing essays, for which the alma mater gave me a degree. I could read even boring novels and give them the benefit of the doubt, but not Moby Dick. The book started pretty strong, but the middle/bulk was damn near coma-inducing. To read chapter after chapter about whale's skulls, and whale sperm, and whale blubber, and blah, blah, zzz....

Posted by: Mark Moby at September 29, 2005 11:20 AM (Vg0tt)

11 i wouldn't say the Scarlet Letter is as overrated or undeserving of its hype as as Moby Dick is. But it was not an enjoyable read, and i have no desire to.

Posted by: annika at September 29, 2005 11:31 AM (zAOEU)

12 I'm loving these monster posts too.

Posted by: Amy Bo Bamy at September 29, 2005 12:25 PM (kxatG)

13 "no doubt you also received a few ass beatings on the playground too." that's some pretty funny shit, casca. bit edgy, but,hey, if the nancy boys can't handle it, screw 'em. what ever happened to the huge comment of the week, anyway?

Posted by: Blu at September 29, 2005 01:20 PM (j8oa6)

14 The Scarlet letter blew chuncks. Most early american novels were not that good but the art form was only just being created. From the same period, but much better written was anything by Alexander Dumas.

Posted by: Kyle N at September 29, 2005 03:26 PM (CkwDS)

15 I can remember reading The Count of Monte Cristo in about a week over summer break when I was 13. I could never make it through The Scarlet Letter although it was one tenth the volume. Hawthorne turned illict sex into a snore.

Posted by: Casca at September 29, 2005 04:21 PM (qBTBH)

16 Well, the Leatherstocking Tales can be difficult reading, but they are way more enjoyable than Scarlet Letter was. And i think Cooper predated Hawthorne, if i'm not mistaken.

Posted by: annika at September 29, 2005 07:06 PM (llWIi)

17 Hawthorne's House of the Seven Gables was very good, and it's not overhyped like The Scarlet Letter is. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0553212702/qid=1128096921/sr=2-2/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_2/102-6229300-0112159?v=glance&s=books Also The Blithedale Romance was great. It's about communal living. Although Hawthorne is critical of it all, it's amazing how he almost foresaw some of modern liberalism's talking points.

Posted by: Mark at September 30, 2005 09:18 AM (Vg0tt)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Is GB Russia?

This sounds like a joke.

Tony Blair is facing a possible police investigation over an alleged slur against the Welsh.
. . . [T]he Prime Minister repeatedly referred to them as 'f****** Welsh'.
It is said to have happened while he was watching the disappointing results of the Welsh Assembly elections in 1999.
. . .
North Wales Police said: 'A complaint has been received and is being reviewed.
'We will be seeking the advice of the Crown Prosecution Service in relation to the content of the statement of complaint.'
The CPS is expected to apply standard tests before deciding whether an investigation is viable and worthwhile.
The tests include whether an investigation would be in the public interest and whether there would be a reasonable chance of conviction.

This is a fucking joke right? It's illegal to say fucking Welsh in Great Britain. i knew they were a tolerant sort of people, but i was unaware that the Taliban had taken seats in Parliament. Someone please tell me this is an Onion story that got posted on Sky News by mistake.

If using the word fuck in reference to a Welshman is a crime, why isn't Elizabeth Taylor in jail?

Posted by: annika at 02:40 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 205 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I think the word was used often in connection with Tom Jones.

Posted by: MarkD at September 28, 2005 04:54 PM (X9njN)

2 Nah, in Russia you can say anything you want about anyone, as long as they're not in power. The immortal lines of Flanders & Swann spring to mind: The English, the English, the English are best I wouldn't give tuppence for all of the rest. The rottenest bits of these islands of ours We've left in the hands of three unfriendly powers Examine the Irishman, Welshman or Scot You'll find he's a stinker, as likely as not. The Scotsman is mean, as we're all well aware And bony and blotchy and covered with hair He eats salty porridge, he works all the day And he hasn't got bishops to show him the way! The English, the English, the English are best I wouldn't give tuppence for all of the rest. The Irishman now out contempt is beneath He sleeps in his boots and he lies through his teeth He blows up policemen, or so I have heard And blames it on Cromwell and William the Third! The English are noble, the English are nice, And worth any other at double the price The Welshman's dishonest and cheats when he can And little and dark, more like monkey than man He works underground with a lamp in his hat And he sings far too loud, far too often, and flat! And crossing the Channel, one cannot say much Of French and the Spanish, the Danish or Dutch The Germans are German, the Russians are red, And the Greeks and Italians eat garlic in bed! The English are moral, the English are good And clever and modest and misunderstood. And all the world over, each nation's the same They've simply no notion of playing the game They argue with umpires, they cheer when they've won And they practice beforehand which ruins the fun! The English, the English, the English are best So up with the English and down with the rest. It's not that they're wicked or natuarally bad It's knowing they're foreign that makes them so mad! For the English are all that a nation should be, And the flower of the English are Casca (Annika) Casca (Annika) and Me!

Posted by: Casca at September 28, 2005 05:29 PM (qBTBH)

3 Brilliant! (Drinks sloppy Irish beer)

Posted by: Kyle N at September 28, 2005 05:35 PM (RobwQ)

4 And if Blair is convicted, Prince Charles will administer the punishment and hit him over the head with a dead albatross.

Posted by: Ontario Emperor at September 28, 2005 10:43 PM (V6D5w)

5 The EU has hate speech codes. You cannot say anything derogatory about any class of people even if what you say is true. Most American universities have the same speech codes. These hatred laws are used to stifle dissent against the government and are the main reason for existence. For instance: 1. A group of Brits demonstrated against the proposed EU constitution in Brussels. They were charged with a hate crime. 2. The second largest party in Belgium was outlawed using hate crime laws because they spoke against unlimited Muslim immigration. 3. In France, you can be jailed for criticizing the President. Is the EU Russia? If you mean Russia under Stalin, then the answer is yes.

Posted by: Jake at September 29, 2005 07:59 AM (r/5D/)

6 That is because long ago the Europeans lost all desire to even continue to exist. They have negative reproduction, they will not fight their enemies, they are ashamed of their own culture. In short, they will soon be in the ashheap of history.

Posted by: Kyle N at September 29, 2005 03:29 PM (CkwDS)

7 I wonder... There is a beautiful line by Whittaker Chambers. In 1955 Chambers wrote, Â“It is idle to talk of preventing the wreck of Western Civilization, it is already a wreck from within. That is why we can do little more now than snatch a fingernail of a saint from the wrack, or a handful of ashes from the fagots, and bury them secretly in a flower pot against that day, ages hence, when a few men begin again to dare to believe that there once was something else, that something else is thinkable, and need some evidence of what it was, and the fortifying knowledge that there were those who, at the great nightfall, took loving thought to preserve the tokens of hope and truth.Â” I have lived through darker days than now, and doubtless will again. When I was looking this line up, I found it quoted by Ronald Reagan in an anecdotal obituary of RR with him quoting the line before he was elected President. Those were very dark and hopeless days. I suppose the point is that God always leaves a remnant, and there is surely one in Europe, no matter the foolishness of the masses.

Posted by: Casca at September 29, 2005 04:38 PM (qBTBH)

8 Perhaps, but I certainly cannot see it. At least in Western Europe. Now Eastern Europe is another matter.

Posted by: Kyle N at September 29, 2005 06:13 PM (CkwDS)

9 If you're under 30, it's hard to know how dominant the left was here in the 1960's and 1970's. It's worth remembering that Europe is still dominated by their old media, and the peculiarities of their cultures.

Posted by: Casca at September 29, 2005 08:45 PM (qBTBH)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Another Dumb-Ass Political Quiz

You are a
Social Conservative
(30% permissive)

and an...
Economic Conservative
(71% permissive)

You are best described as a:

Republican

Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid
Also: The OkCupid Dating Persona Test

Via Matt.

Posted by: annika at 10:15 AM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 43 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Hah, it says I'm socially and politically permissive. Probably because i'm "against" the war on drugs. BTW, there are chicks over there posting their nekid pictures. Better go and tell Roger.

Posted by: Casca at September 28, 2005 11:50 AM (qBTBH)

2 Thanks, Annie. Pretty interesting. You came out about where I'd expect based on what you write. I was tagged a "social moderate," and "economic conservative," best described as a Capitialist. So, they pretty much pegged me. Casca, I'm with you on the "War on drugs." What a fucking joke.

Posted by: Blu at September 28, 2005 01:25 PM (j8oa6)

3 I'm where you are, only at 38% and 80%. Oddly, that put me between Trump and Reagan on the famous people chart. I wonder what answers would get you on top of Osama?

Posted by: Pursuit at September 28, 2005 01:49 PM (n/TNS)

4 They had the Unabomber as economically and socially permissive. The guy that wanted to eliminate modern technology is economically permissive? Sheesh.

Posted by: Trevor at September 28, 2005 02:48 PM (GtBBB)

5 It says I'm socially and economically liberal (socialist), but what really surprised me was that my "you" circle was smack dab on Hillary's face. I was not expecting that in the slightest.

Posted by: Amy Bo Bamy at September 28, 2005 05:23 PM (3VzAd)

6 WOO HOO! I am a strong republican, at least I know its not a total piece of crap. I got 36% socially permissive and 80% economic. guess most of us are about in the same place.

Posted by: Kyle N at September 28, 2005 05:46 PM (RobwQ)

7 Yeah, don't take this one too seriously; it's got lots of flaws. Earlier today I took it again, and answered all the questions like a hardcore, Kool-Aid-drinking Stalinist (Mike, you out there?) and only ended up as a "Socialist." Geez. The fact that you're a proabort doesn't mean you're not a totalitarian!

Posted by: Matt at September 28, 2005 05:51 PM (jXLSe)

8 Mike might say we're both socialists, Matt. National Socialists, that is.

Posted by: annika at September 28, 2005 05:57 PM (73+Kr)

9 Mel Brooks said it best: "Don't be stupid! Be a smarty! Come and join the Nazi Party!"

Posted by: reagan80 at September 29, 2005 08:10 AM (k0ik3)

10 Lotsa them questions were hatrd to answer cuz they were so vague and I didn't know the answer woiuld be judged. I came out out a "centrist", prolly cuz I was trying to outguess the liberally biased quiz. Funny how that celebrity chart had John Kerry smack dab in the center...

Posted by: Tuning Spork at September 29, 2005 08:47 PM (q3IVH)

11 Crikey, lemme try that agin. A lot of those questions were difficult to answer because they were vague and I didn't know how the answer would be judged by the quizbot. I scored as a "centrist", most likely because I was unwilling to grant the quiz it's own territory. Interesting, in't it, that John F Kerry was dead center in the "famous person"s chart? PIMF

Posted by: Tuning Spork at September 29, 2005 08:53 PM (q3IVH)

12 Yahoo, it's ME! You are a Social Conservative (13% permissive) and an... Economic Conservative (75% permissive) You are best described as a: Strong Republican You exhibit a very well-developed sense of Right and Wrong and believe in economic fairness. loc: (-138

Posted by: shelly at September 30, 2005 02:58 AM (6mUkl)

13 I tried this test from a couple of different sites, to see what different answer sets might reveal. One outcome seemed to be repeated, even when the answer came up Democrat; "You exhibit a very well-developed sense of Right and Wrong and believe in economic fairness."

Posted by: will at September 30, 2005 07:33 AM (GzvlQ)

14 I scored almost exactly the same spot as Anika although a little closer to W's chin versus Reagan's ear. Interesting that Fascism is placed on the the social conservative side of Republican, but I got a chuckle that Anarchist was seen as an extreem of Libertarianism and John Kerry was a dead center Centrist! Bwa, Ha, Ha! Gosh, you can't tell the thing was wrtitten by a flaming lefty or anything can you? In the real world, Libertarians are probably in the right place, but all of the anarchists I see look more like an offshoot of the DNC. One last point in response to Trevor above. I strongly recomend that people actually read the Unabomber's manifesto. I don't even remember seeing the rant about technology anywhere in it. (Though if we are to believe our betters in the MSM, it must be there!) What I did see was the vast majority of his 5000 or so words devoted to a remarkably well written explaination of why Liberalism is a mental illness. Can't argue with him there.

Posted by: Scot at October 01, 2005 08:10 AM (GDOa/)

15 Technology = Progress, right? According to the Left, being against "progressives" = being against technological advancements. Gore invented the Internet, right?

Posted by: reagan80 at October 01, 2005 10:07 AM (K9tdw)

16 Annika and I got very similar results. We're telepathically connected obviously.

Posted by: Mark at October 01, 2005 01:34 PM (Vg0tt)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Wednesday Is Poetry Day

i had a nightmare last night in which monsters and evil things were featured. i half woke up and thought to myself "why am i dreaming in horror?" Then i rolled over on my other side, which allowed my unconscious to switch genres.

i was always fascinated by monsters as a kid. When i was in fourth grade i did a school report on mythological beasts. i made a chart on poster board with drawings of each monster and little descriptions, written by me. The chart included the hydra, basilisk, chimaera, kappa, phoenix, griffon, manticore, medusa and cerberus. i wish i had saved those drawings; i was so precocious back then.

Maybe i'm thinking about monsters because Halloween is coming up. Or maybe because the radio guys i listen to in the morning were talking about hell. Or maybe i'm just going crazy.

Cerberus is a pretty scary beast. He inhabits the Third Circle of Hell, where gluttons are punished. Here is how Dante Alighieri describes him in Canto VI of The Inferno.

In the third circle I arrive, of showers
Ceaseless, accursed, heavy and cold, unchanged
For ever, both in kind and in degree.
Large hail, discolorÂ’d water, sleety flaw
Through the dun midnight air streamÂ’d down amain:
Stank all the land whereon that tempest fell.
Cerberus, cruel monster, fierce and strange,
Through his wide threefold throat, barks as a dog
Over the multitude immersed beneath.
His eyes glare crimson, black his unctuous beard,
His belly large, and clawÂ’d the hands, with which
He tears the spirits, flays them, and their limbs
Piecemeal disparts. Howling there spread, as curs,
Under the rainy deluge, with one side
The other screening, oft they roll them round,
A wretched, godless crew. When that great worm
Descried us, savage Cerberus, he oped
His jaws, and the fangs showÂ’d us; not a limb
Of him but trembled. Then my guide, his palms
Expanding on the ground, thence fillÂ’d with earth
Raised them, and cast it in his ravenous maw.
EÂ’en as a dog, that yelling bays for food
His keeper, when the morsel comes, lets fall
His fury, bent alone with eager haste
To swallow it; so droppÂ’d the loathsome cheeks
Of demon Cerberus, who thundering stuns
The spirits, that they for deafness wish in vain.

It's interesting that Dante describes Cerberus as "trembling." You'd think it would be Dante who was trembling more during the encounter. Another translation says the monster's "body was one mass of twitching muscles." What a frightening image! i also like how Virgil distracts the monster by throwing a glob of mud into its "ravenous maw." That's a great descriptive term. The stuff of nightmares.

Here's another, perhaps easier, translation of the scene:

In the third circle am I of the rain
Eternal, maledict, and cold, and heavy;
Its law and quality are never new.
Huge hail, and water sombre-hued, and snow,
Athwart the tenebrous air pour down amain;
Noisome the earth is, that receiveth this.
Cerberus, monster cruel and uncouth,
With his three gullets like a dog is barking
Over the people that are there submerged.
Red eyes he has, and unctuous beard and black,
And belly large, and armed with claws his hands;
He rends the spirits, flays, and quarters them.
Howl the rain maketh them like unto dogs;
One side they make a shelter for the other;
Oft turn themselves the wretched reprobates.
When Cerberus perceived us, the great worm!
His mouths he opened, and displayed his tusks;
Not a limb had he that was motionless.
And my Conductor, with his spans extended,
Took of the earth, and with his fists well filled,
He threw it into those rapacious gullets.
Such as that dog is, who by barking craves,
And quiet grows soon as his food he gnaws,
For to devour it he but thinks and struggles,
The like became those muzzles filth-begrimed
Of Cerberus the demon, who so thunders
Over the souls that they would fain be deaf.

i like that translation because the image in lines 14-15 is clearer: the damned souls using their own backs as shields from the horrid rain. They keep rolling over in vain, but unlike me, they can't end their nightmare.

Posted by: annika at 08:12 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 710 words, total size 4 kb.

September 26, 2005

ABC Endorses Hillary For 2008

Am i the only one who sees ABC's new weekly Hillary propaganda show for what it is? They even have a fake blog to promote the thing.

Apparently President Allen is supposed to be an Independent, who was picked for VP to balance out a Republican ticket. The fake blog describes her as a "centrist." The plan is clear: get middle-of-the-roaders used to the idea of a female president in time for Hillary's run.

i won't watch that show with Emelio Estevez as president. But i'm a big fan of both Geena Davis and Donald Sutherland, so i'll have to give this propaganda reel a chance tomorrow night. Hopefully it won't be too sickening.

Posted by: annika at 07:40 PM | Comments (53) | Add Comment
Post contains 124 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I always got wood for Gina Davis, but really, why bother. You know it will suck a lot. Its not worth your time. Let me fill you in. Evil old white conservative Donald Sutherland will be the foil, while virtuous progressive Gina Davis at first stumbles a bit, and then manages to get a new big socialist medical bill through.

Posted by: Kyle N at September 26, 2005 08:44 PM (22maq)

2 Hey, Kyle, didn't you get the memo? New, big socialist medical bills are Republican territory now. My guess is that she negotiates peace with all our enemies after doing something to prove that she's not afraid to take forceful military action when it's "necessary" (to "free child laborers, perhaps?). Then everyone sings Kumbaya and lives happily ever after -- or would, if it weren't for those evil, power-grubbing, Talibanesque Republicans wanting to subjugate women and repeal the Thirteenth Amendment. Speaking of Emilio Estevez, what happened to that guy? His career has been in the shitter since, what? The Breakfast Club?

Posted by: Matt at September 27, 2005 03:45 AM (knVLu)

3 Never ceases to amaze me how people can be sharp enough to see thru thinly disguised propoganda, but still wanna to give it ratings anyway.

Posted by: Mark at September 27, 2005 06:42 AM (Vg0tt)

4 Your analysis is surely dead on the mark - similar to Geanna Davis in an Olympic qualification shooting event.

Posted by: gcotharn at September 27, 2005 07:12 AM (ywZa8)

5 "Talibanesque Republicans wanting to subjugate women and repeal the Thirteenth Amendment", hawt damn, where do I sign up?

Posted by: Casca at September 27, 2005 07:17 AM (qBTBH)

6 Gee, Anni, I woulda thought that Donald's stoner, acid taking hippy previous life would have put him off your A list. Or is it because his son stars in a silly RW Â“save AmericaÂ” melodrama that promotes torture as an effective law enforcement tool?

Posted by: Strawman at September 27, 2005 07:47 AM (0ZdtC)

7 Oddly enough, I would say this rings just as equally of a Condi push. She's certainly not as conservative as Bush (even though they are certainly working on her), and who knows, maybe Bush will ask her not to run when he's choking on a pretzel on Air Force One. And I don't know anyone who would call Hillary an Independent. I would certainly welcome an Independent woman candidate, as I don't see my self voting for either of the two female frontrunners. And I have a history of voting for someone other than a Rep/Dem candidate.

Posted by: will at September 27, 2005 08:04 AM (GzvlQ)

8 Will, its much more subtle than that. Polls show that many Americans still have lingering (though unfounded) doubts about a woman's fitness for the job. My own observations bear this out. One might say that ABC is trying to help out Condi, but Condi has been very clear about not wanting to run. Hillary on the other hand, everybody knows she's going to run. Strawman, being a stoner or a hippy is no bar to getting on my A list...

Posted by: annika at September 27, 2005 09:29 AM (zAOEU)

9 Anni, That's good to know! Now, if being a lying crook were enough to get people off your A list I would be having a nicer lunch than I already am.

Posted by: Strawman at September 27, 2005 09:37 AM (0ZdtC)

10 Lying crook? So, are you talking about Bill or Hillary?

Posted by: Blu at September 27, 2005 11:58 AM (1XoU0)

11 ... or Jimmy, or Lyndon, or Harry, or FDR?

Posted by: Casca at September 27, 2005 12:05 PM (qBTBH)

12 I'm actually shocked that Annie thinks America is not ready for a woman President. I won't say I disagree with her, as I've given little thought to the subject. It just caught me offguard. I thought hype over America being ready for a woman was just Dem/media propaganda which was designed to pump up both ratings and Hillary's chances. I figured America was ready not just for a woman, but for a black woman! After all, Britain has already had Thatcher, why would America not be ready? Mulling this over...

Posted by: gcotharn at September 27, 2005 12:30 PM (6krEN)

13 g, the parenthetical in my above comment was meant to indicate that i disagree with those Americans who think a woman should not be president.

Posted by: annika at September 27, 2005 01:04 PM (zAOEU)

14 gcotharn, When I read your post, I agreed with you. But then I started thinking that maybe I agreed with you because I am a GenXer who has grown up in California his whole life and who, due to the field in which I work, has had as many females bosses as males. My point is this: one's perception of a female leader is likely informed by his particular cultural surroundings and experiences. I know that I have spoken with people who have told me very candidly that they would never vote for a woman----and most of these people were woman! Regardless, I don't give a shit if our President is a man or a woman----just as long as he or she is a solid conservative and qualified. Discussions about race/gender tend to get folks off-track about what is important: philosophy, policy, and competency.

Posted by: Blu at September 27, 2005 01:13 PM (1XoU0)

15 I'll bite, there is no way in hell that there ever should be a woman President. Hell, they make piss poor military officers. Most jobs like that require masculine virtues, not feminine ones, and the female vices would be our undoing because, "The female of the species is more dangerous than the male".

Posted by: Casca at September 27, 2005 01:19 PM (qBTBH)

16 Casca, I would vote for an American version of Margeret Thatcher in a heartbeat.

Posted by: Kyle N at September 27, 2005 01:53 PM (tlVeb)

17 I have been noodling a post on how this is an effort to soften the culture to the idea of a woman president. Something they wouldn't be doing if there wasn't a woman around the desperately want to be president. I mean I doubt they are trying to pave the way for Condi Rice.

Posted by: Stephen Macklin at September 27, 2005 03:32 PM (ics4u)

18 casca, I wonder what you would have said had a women president sat on her ass gazing like a dear grazing for for 5-7 minutes while America was under attack? Guess she would have been demonstrating her feminine nature and lack of fitness for command, eh?

Posted by: Strawman at September 27, 2005 04:46 PM (0ZdtC)

19 ...or if a woman sat around banging interns and playing with cigars all the while having specific information about the whereabouts of Bin Laden but refusing to act on it in order to capture or kill him. actually, i guess they are not the same. the former made absolutely no difference while the latter has ultimately led to the deaths of thousands.

Posted by: Blu at September 27, 2005 05:03 PM (dK7EU)

20 Christopher Hitchens said it best: [More interesting is the moment where Bush is shown frozen on his chair at the infant school in Florida, looking stunned and useless for seven whole minutes after the news of the second plane on 9/11. Many are those who say that he should have leaped from his stool, adopted a Russell Crowe stance, and gone to work. I could even wish that myself. But if he had done any such thing then (as he did with his "Let's roll" and "dead or alive" remarks a month later), half the Michael Moore community would now be calling him a man who went to war on a hectic, crazed impulse. The other half would be saying what they already sayÂ—that he knew the attack was coming, was using it to cement himself in power, and couldn't wait to get on with his coup.] Wow, Bush was stunned for 7 whole minutes! At least he wasn't petrified for several hours(like Clinton?) like the time Nixon got drunk while the 1973 Arab-Israeli War was going on! http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5069430/

Posted by: reagan80 at September 27, 2005 06:06 PM (K9tdw)

21 I'm afraid that you're wrong about this; "At least he wasn't petrified for several hours(like Clinton?)". It was eight years.

Posted by: Casca at September 27, 2005 06:17 PM (qBTBH)

22 As if there's any doubt that the shows writers might support Hillary, Steve Cohen used to work for her. Madam President Not that it means the show will be entirely pro-Billary, but if it does become that will it be accounted for under campaign financing? OK, OK, even I know the answer to that one...

Posted by: Trevor at September 27, 2005 06:24 PM (GtBBB)

23 Oh Ray and Casca, You are such dumb and crazy guys. All the shit you throw, to blur the TRUTH. It says NOTHING about the bush moment. He sat. End of discussion. He did not lead or exibit leadership qualities. Not a general, not a commander in chief. A joke of a put up job talking chip of the Right. A duty doger, an almost pilot, an almost businessman, an almost President. Fuck Clinton. whatever he did it does not make Bush a better president because he did not do as badly? I don't care and it has nothing to do with what BUSH DID DO. Clinton was an ass, made many mistakes and lied to the country about sex. Bush is na ass, made plenty of mistakes and lied to get the country into a war. I guess thats comprable? Not what others would have said about it had he did something different, not that his only (HItchens) move would have been to jump to his feet like a crazy guy and grabbed a gun, this is all BULLSHIT- just rehtorical attemps to change the argument, shift the picture of the dumb ass sitting on his ass. HIS ASS, not Clinton's ass. Not Moore's description of a different behaviour had he chossen to move. Yea, I guess your right, he sat there because he thought if he stood to fast the liberals would paint a picture of him charging off to war. Hitchen's is such an ass, such simpleton logic. And you Ray are by association a simpleton too. This is all retorical bullshit. Tell me why he sat? Tell me if you would have sat? Sorry I had no time to spell check and re-read. You get my points non the less.

Posted by: Strawman at September 27, 2005 07:14 PM (0ZdtC)

24 You need to absorb some reality strawboy. I have a highly developed BS/Dumbass/flamebait detector, and I simply don't read past the first few lines and sometimes even words of some child's egotistical rant. That's why I never read Publicola. You rank somewhere way below him. If America were a just country, you'd be in a ditch somewhere. Universal suffredge has done this to us.

Posted by: Casca at September 27, 2005 08:45 PM (qBTBH)

25 Mike, You again? I honestly don't know why I bother, given your propensity for quietly skulking off in the middle of a discussion. If Bush had been sitting on the shitter when the second plane hit, and had stopped to wipe his ass before charging off -- to do what, exactly, in those seven or so minutes? -- I suppose you'd find something to criticize in that, too. Much better if he'd run in circles shrieking like a little girl and tearing clumps of hair from his head. You goofy fuckers never cease to amaze me.

Posted by: Matt at September 27, 2005 10:13 PM (jXLSe)

26 Matt you are a guffy fucker if ever I read one. If if if if if if if if if if if, that's all you have to offer? Just answer the question. DOn't tell me about what I would have said had he done this or that. He DID do one thing, not wipe his ass, not get blown by Karen Hughes, not excuse himself from a classroom of children, nothing, he did nothing but wait for his boss to tell him what do. I know this is hard, but what are the implications of that behavior? DEAL with it you cowards and stop talking about all the crap that did not happen. What children. Same for you CASCA you piece of RW detritus. What is the answer to the question on the table. Not the questions you wish were on the table, not the actions of Bill CLinton, and not reactions that never happened, just the facts in evidence or is that too difficult. Answer the fucking question.

Posted by: Strawman at September 28, 2005 10:47 AM (0ZdtC)

27 You really do have a full-blown case of BDS, don't you? You're so fucked-up that you can't even identify a non-issue. Let me help you. I'll take this slowly. Try to follow along. The "implications of that behavior" are that when you're sitting in a classroom in Saratoga, Florida, and two airplanes have just hit the World Trade Centers, 900 miles away, there's not a single goddamned useful thing you can do in the next ten minutes except to stay out of the way of the people on the scene who're responding. And if you have even a tiny clue about leading large organizations in crises, you know that the worst thing you can do is to start trying to micromanage those people from nearly a thousand miles away, especially since you don't know shit about what's actually happening on the ground and necessarily won't for quite a while. (The fact that all of this is so far beyond your imagination tells me that you've never worked in an organization of more than ten people -- or not, at least, one that ever operated under any real stress.) If you have any personal leadership qualities you also know that bearing counts, and the second-worst thing you can do is start acting like a blithering, deranged ninny in front of cameras and a classroom full of little kids during a national emergency. So you finish what you're doing, excuse yourself, and move on to deal with the emergent situation. Yeah, it's pretty mysterious all right -- to a fruit bat.

Posted by: Matt at September 28, 2005 12:31 PM (10G2T)

28 OK, Strawperson. First of all, the fact that the President of the United States didnÂ’t leap off his chair upon hearing of an extraordinary event, the details of which were not yet known, is hardly an indictment of his intelligence, decisiveness, leadership, or cognizance. It is more likely evidence of his command presence for remaining cool under fire, his intelligence for not leaping to conclusions and assuming a completely erroneous perpetrator, his leadership for maintaining a cool demeanor even in a situation that would have driven others, perhaps even you, to assume the Â“Chicken LittleÂ” posture of pure panic, and his self-control for not leaping from his seat, scaring the children, and running out to expose himself to an unknown, perhaps deadly, situation that had not been cleared by his Secret Service Agents. He must have felt like jumping up and Â“doing something,Â” but denied himself that childish luxury in the interest of not projecting the image of the leader of the most powerful nation on earth, who was sitting in the glare of international media cameras, being sent into an Â‘out of controlÂ’ frenzy by a bit of bad news. We had no way, at that time, of knowing that the World Trade Center would collapse. We knew that planes had crashed into the WTC, but we didnÂ’t even know at that time whether the planes were CessnaÂ’s or airliners, or even military aircraft. At the time that concerns you and your partisan political cronies, no one, not even you, knew what was going on. How can you criticize President Bush? The Secret Service has specific security procedures for handling such situations. One of the considerations is to provide for the eventuality that sudden events that would tend to motivate the president to Â“runÂ” in a certain direction may be a setup for an assassination attempt. Therefore, in the interest of protecting the president, there are procedures that are strictly followed in such situations. The president cooperates with the Secret Service unless there is clear reason to not do so, which is his prerogative as president. During the couple of minutes (seven?) that it took for the president to conclude his meeting with the children, President Bush was obviously concerned about the implications of the incident that had been described to him by his aides; you could see it on his face. But, he avoided showing panic while he gave the Secret Service time to ensure that the path to his vehicle and subsequent road to Air Force One were secure. Upon being informed by the Secret Service that it was safe for him to leave, President Bush excused himself and calmly walked to his vehicle. He did precisely the correct thing in all instances. I am absolutely amazed by the ability of Michael Moore, MoveOn.org, George Soros, and their propaganda machine to brainwash the simple-minded masses of asses into believing their fairy-tales about how President Bush was Â“frozen like a deer in the headlights,Â” frightened out of his wits, and Â“unable to get out of his chair.Â” What kind of simpleton would believe such drivel? I would be embarrassed to let anyone know that I was so lacking in common sense and ability to think for myself that I actually allowed myself to be used as a stooge for Democrat propaganda Â… poorly done propaganda at that. To believe that George W. Bush, a man who has more testosterone than the entire Democrat Party leadership combined, who was an accomplished fighter pilot, who is a real Texan, and who is not known for being a Â‘scaredy-cat,Â’ would let some nut crashing an airplane into a building in New York Â“freeze him to his seat,Â” you would have to be a genetically challenged idiot. This is nothing but a bunch of Democrat propaganda designed to feed the simplistic political fantasies of their core constituency, morons.

Posted by: Nono Namo at September 28, 2005 12:34 PM (Jf28C)

29 That's a nicely put-together discussion of the relevant facts. But, dude, you give Mike way too much credit.

Posted by: Matt at September 28, 2005 01:13 PM (10G2T)

30 Over a lifetime I've cultivated the ability to ignore the noisome child until at that precise moment when nobody is watching, one may strike him a blow ala Mr William C. Fields.

Posted by: Casca at September 28, 2005 01:25 PM (qBTBH)

31 You're right, Matt. I guess it's like my old Grandpappy always said, "Never argue with an idiot. People watching can't tell which is which."

Posted by: Nono Namo at September 28, 2005 03:16 PM (Jf28C)

32 Casca, Matt, Self congratulatory claptrap. As if I said, Â“he should act like a blithering idiotÂ” or micromanage the staff, or get in the way, or Â“leap from his seat and scare children", or anything of the sort. But that is the way you guys argue, put words an ideas in my mouth and then rebut. Why do you think I changed my name from Mike to Strawman? Casca your whole post is idle speculation. You have no fucking idea what he was doing as he sat there. You wish it was the result of his great executive skills and the futility of the moment but you have to admit it could be something else. The fact is that as things were unfolding no one could say, as you have, that it would have taken a long time to know what is going on. You are using hindsight and calling it prescience. Decisions, serious presidential decisions, might have been necessary. Shooting down a plane full of Americans is a pretty serious decision. I KNOW only one thing, the putative leader of the free world sat in a chair, unable or unwilling to communicate: un-needed by anyone, while the country he is putatively the commander in chief of, was under attack. You can sing the silly rationalizations all you want no other facts than what I describe are in evidence. You choose to think it was a wonderful example of his deep inner strength and discipline, I think it was an indication of his superfluous relationship to the actual team that runs this country. (Btw he is no expert fighter pilot, just a dropout from the ANG training program.) Why you think the alternative was for him to run amok and get criticized for being a ninny? Do you think he sat calmly laughing at his critics who he thought expected him to act badly? There obviously was another course of action and that was to politely disengage from the kids and join his staff in assessing the data, analyze what the next short term steps should be and so forth. It may sooth your tortured soul to think sitting was strategic but it is a childish fantasy. He sat comfortably because he knows he is not part of the team, he knows his limitations, why canÂ’t you see them? This is not a non issue-its about his relationship to government and the illumination of the scam. He sat like the actor he is waiting for new lines. He is the front man, a shill who, time and time again demonstrates his weak grasp of government and ignorance of the issues every time he attempts to speak off the script, repeatedly embarrassing himself and this country.

Posted by: Strawman at September 28, 2005 07:35 PM (0ZdtC)

33 Oh, substitute Nanu Nanu for Casca in my last post, you RW sycophants all look alike.

Posted by: Strawman at September 28, 2005 07:37 PM (0ZdtC)

34 Yes, yes we do. So I'm putting together my Christmas card list, and I'd like to include you Strawboy. Got an address? Next of kin? Anni, could you forward me his IP?

Posted by: Casca at September 28, 2005 07:50 PM (qBTBH)

35 Mike, "Self-congratulatory claptrap"? A thoroughly thought-out and convincing retort. Where do I sign up? Oh, never mind -- I found it. I'm so glad you finally deigned offer something slightly more substantive than your usual, uninformative, infantile squalling. Now we no longer need speculate about what the great and magnificent President Mike would've done. You've finally put some words in your own mouth. But the operative words here are "slightly more substantive," because your brilliant retort consists of nothing but a lot of meaningless buzzwords that boil down to, "hurry up and hold a fucking meeting!" and "Assess the data!" But a meeting for what purpose, precisely? To engage in uninformed speculation, like the rest of the world? To conference call Giuliani and Petaki, who were neck-deep in shit and didn't need anyone fucking with them? To slow down the Joint Chiefs with asinine, unanswerable questions while they were trying to start making things happen? And what data, jackhole? "The data" was what you and I saw on CNN, which repeated every ten minutes or so. You think the Director of the CIA had a brief for POTUS 10 minutes after Tower Two was hit? Or perhaps you think he should've held a press conference to reassure the likes of you -- even though there was nothing meaningful to say. But hey, if so, that's OK: I'd fully expect you to elevate form over subtance. Furthermore, suppose the guy needed a few minutes to collect himself. So what? What did you do for the first ten minutes after the second plane hit? What did your hero, John Kerry do? What did Roosevelt do for the first eighteen minutes after he received news of Pearl Harbor? What did Eisenhower do the morning of D-Day? (Hint: He sat with his thumb up his ass, waiting for information while arguably the most critical events of the 20th century -- which he had personally set in motion -- unfolded just a few tens of miles away. 90 minutes after the first wave hit the beach he wrote Bradly, saying, "I don't know if we have troops ashore." 90 minutes. And we had the initiative!) Fuck off, Mike. You're a petulant child, so absorbed in your tantrum that you don't even realize how pathetic you sound. Go tell it to Michael Moore. At least he'll take you seriously.

Posted by: Matt at September 28, 2005 09:04 PM (jXLSe)

36 Oh, and Casca: You disappoint me. Mike/Strawman always uses the same e-mail address: mb@mbda.com. Mbda.com is the website for Michael Bernstein Design Associates, Inc. What're the odds that Mike is anyone other than Michael Bernstein himself? I mean, it's possible -- e.g., he could just be some disgruntled employee roaming the Internet under his boss's identity, trying to piss people off -- but it seems unlikely.

Posted by: Matt at September 28, 2005 09:58 PM (jXLSe)

37 Hi Matt, Thanks for the link and the PR. I wonder why people like you think that breeching a personÂ’s anonymity on the net is such a hoot or more to the point a way to smack them. I have always been transparent. As you say I have used my real email address and name. My address and phone number are there as well. How about you? Give me a call some time-we'll have a chat. Oh, and the christmas cards are more than welcome, atheists love christmas cards, especially the one with the cuddly baby J on them-cute little jew boy that he was. Anyway, you seem so stuck in your hypotheticals that I think it is pointless to continue shaking the tree to see if I can break you grip on the fantasy. You of course no nothing more about the incident than you saw on TV. Just like me. But you WISH to think multitudes about what it meant while I gleaned only one thing-a disengaged leader, indecisive and superfluous. That is what the film tells us. You can cling to whatever you want and tell me long stories about good managers and their style, staying clear of the fray whilst others take care of business, and all the crap you hoped took place. I didn't see any of that so I won't speculate. Why don't you try to isolate the picture of the man sitting and feel in your gut what you are looking at and forget how much you love the GB and need to defend him against any criticism? And mostly stop the comparisons to Historical figures. It is a meaningless exercise and only supports the theory that your guy is as bad as a bunch of other people who may have acted badly. It don't make him OK.

Posted by: Strawman at September 29, 2005 07:06 AM (0ZdtC)

38 Shit Matt, I never read far enough, or was curious enough to look at the email address. As for the self-loathing shitstain by any other name, in the words of Kirk Douglas in "In Harm's Way", "Bums like him are with us always". Ignore him, and he'll wander off to a Cindy Sheahan site.

Posted by: Casca at September 29, 2005 07:48 AM (qBTBH)

39 Mike, So you claiming it was a "breach" of your "privacy" for me to have pointed out something that -- as you acknowledge -- you've never shown any desire to hide? That pointing out the silliness of a silly question was an effort to "smack" you? You see, that's what makes you entertaining: Your funhouse-mirror view of reality; the nearly unique way you mentally isolate meaningless little factual nuggets from any sort of context, then distort them into something entirely new and unrecognizable. Bravo, sir! Bravo!

Posted by: Matt at September 29, 2005 10:22 AM (10G2T)

40 LMAO, I went to the site! This guy is a bonafide gerbil stuffer. Who buys that Ikea shit?

Posted by: Casca at September 29, 2005 11:17 AM (qBTBH)

41 Casca, you make me laugh. "Bonafide gerbil stuffer"? That's friggin' priceless. I'm almost in tears. You just don't hear people say stuff like "bona fide gerbil stuffer" or "shut your man-pleasin' mouth" often enough in the civilian world.

Posted by: Matt at September 29, 2005 12:32 PM (10G2T)

42 Ah laddie, that is my aim, ya shoulda been one a mine. My oldest reports to an OCC class on 9 October. How close are you to Quantico these days?

Posted by: Casca at September 29, 2005 11:08 PM (qBTBH)

43 Go Matt!! Casca, Matt is right. You crack me up, man. "Bonafide gerbil stuffer," indeed. I laughed out loud when I read that and my wife had to come and see what I was laughing at. The problem with 'Strawputz' is that he is suffering from the liberal Democrat disease. It rots your mind and corrupts rational thought. It also apparently destroys literacy and your ability to apply English grammar, express coherent thought, or use your computer's spell-checker. Of course, this may be a "chicken and egg" question. Which came first, being an idiot or being a Democrat? i.e., Does being an idiot make you a Democrat, or does being a Democrat make you an idiot? It's hard to tell. So, which is it, "Gerbil Stuffer?" OK. Here's my theory about why the Dems are running around doing ridiculous stuff, like trying to make a big deal about GWB's seven minutes, or whatever it was. The Democrats are practically hyperventilating in their panic at watching the American electorate desert them in droves and, as a result, they are grasping at every political straw that floats by. Yes, they represent mainstream New York City and Hollywood, but they are woefully out of touch with the vast majority of Americans out in "flyover country." Each election sees them lose more seats in Congress, in state legislatures, and governorships across the country. Democrat party leadership is out of control. The Democrat party was hijacked by the radical left and Americans have witnessed the scary result of this. [http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16284] "In a December 9, 2004, e-mail signed by Â“Eli Pariser, Justin Ruben, and the whole MoveOn PAC team,Â” the Soros front group stated: Â“In the last year, grassroots contributors like us gave more than $300 million to the Kerry campaign and the DNC, and proved that the Party doesn't need corporate cash to be competitive. Now it's our Party: we bought it, we own it, and we're going to take it back.Â”" As a consequence of such disturbing arrogance, average patriotic, God fearing, honest Americans have become disgusted by and disaffected from the Democrat party. To the rest of us, they seem like a bunch of goggle-eyed, reptillian, space-aliens, babbling nonsense in some other-world language. America is rapidly becoming a Republican country and this trend is not likely to reverse anytime soon. Why? Because the Democrat party doesn't "get it." After losing one election after another, they remain unable to understand why Americans don't accept their loony leftist ideas, so they respond by lurching even farther to the left, becoming even more strident in promoting nutty political positions that deeply offend mainstream America, such as same-sex "marriage," partial birth abortion, attacking the Boy Scouts, euthanasia, socialism, political correctness, thought control, radical feminism, racial quotas, outlawing private ownership of guns, and eliminating God from the public square. And, that is only a very short list of actively promoted Democrat positions antithetical to mainstream American values. The more ferociously Democrats defend these scurrilous positions, the wider the gulf becomes between them and mainstream America. Hence, the more elected offices they lose. George W. Bush has become an iconic target of Democrat party desperation and frustration. He confounds them. They have literally spent BILLIONS trying to defeat him by painting him as the illiterate, ineffectual, dishonest, bumbling buffoon son of a rich family, and they keep failing to make these absurd charges stick with the voters. Why? Because GWB is anything BUT the person that Democrats try to accuse him of being and it doesn't take long for voters to figure that out. The result is that the Democrats end up discrediting THEMSELVES by their vicious lies instead of discrediting GWB. So, they end up HELPING him get elected instead of defeating him. For the last twenty-five years, Democrats have consistently failed to understand that they hoist themselves on their own petard by their hubris and dishonesty when they tell these incredible lies. Now, it's too late. Bush is in the last office he will ever hold and the Democrats are STILL barking up that old tree. Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Like a brainless dog barking at the moon, they go on and on and on with their ridiculous noise, still trying to make their ancient, discredited lies stick to the political wall. But, their lies wonÂ’t stick because everyone has already heard these tired old baseless-accusations so often that it sickens them to have to listen to them yet another time. These partisan morons should do themselves a favor and realize that GWB isn't going to run again. No matter how much money they spend or how many lies they tell, it is no longer possible for them to defeat him. It's over. They would be well served by getting over it and getting on to the next political war instead of continuing to fight the last one, which they already lost ... miserably. But, they won't. They have become CONSUMED by their hatred of George W. Bush. The Democrat party has SO successfully focused their simpleton stooges on HATING BUSH that the very intensity of that hatred is preventing them from refocusing their efforts. Oh, well. Once again the Dems are going to run themselves on their own political sword, and it couldn't happen to a more deserving bunch. I can hardly wait to watch them squirming as they rip out their own guts with their lies and radical leftist propaganda, like a delusional, self-destructive psychopath who imagines himself murdering other people while he is actually enthusiastically stabbing himself. Sweet.

Posted by: Nono Namo at September 30, 2005 12:14 AM (Jf28C)

44 Do I accurately understand from the above banter that Casca and Matt are Marines? Same here. Been to Quantico, done that, instructed OCs. 1st MarDiv Rifle Pistol Team. Japan. Assigned to the staff unit to reactivate the 5th MarDiv at Twentynine Palms. 3rd Mar Div in 'Nam, I Corps '68-69 ... Nav Sec Group ... noname, snoopin' an' poopin' in unknown places with weird unknown others, from unknown organizations, doing unknown things, for unknown reasons. What you don't know you can't tell. All very mysterious. Semper Fi

Posted by: Nono Namo at September 30, 2005 01:04 AM (Jf28C)

45 Casca, Actually, I'm only about fifteen miles north of Quantico. If there's anything Casca, Jr. needs, let me know and I'll see what I can do. Nono: Indeed. My own seven years were fairly uneventful, though. A tour at Lejeune in an arty battery, a Med float, and a tour with a security force company at a Naval sub base. That's about it.

Posted by: Matt at September 30, 2005 04:43 AM (BkVa4)

46 Hey, Annie, John Fund is right with you.

Posted by: Matt at September 30, 2005 05:51 AM (10G2T)

47 Putting aside for the moment Hillary's likely run on a Dem ticket, do you think the Republican Party would be less likely to field a woman candidate than other Parties? I realize that women are placed in certain high visibility positions in the Bush Administration; do you think that this could signal a change from the good old boy networks, or that there is still a glass ceiling in that Party?

Posted by: will at September 30, 2005 06:29 AM (GzvlQ)

48 Thanks Matt, for the record he's not "Jr". He's Casca Model 82A2. Yes Nano, Misguided Children. I'd only differ with you on some minor points. Nearly every seat held by a Democrat is held by someone elected from a rotten burough where there is a dysfunctional electoral process (read ballot box stuffing). The roof is about to fall in on these folks as certain voting reforms take hold that will make it impossible for the D's to continue as they have for the past seventy years. Federal Law says that voter records must be computerized by January. California votes Republican with the exceptions of LA & San Francisco. I posit that it is voter fraud that maintains this pattern.

Posted by: Casca at September 30, 2005 07:19 AM (qBTBH)

49 Matt, Casca, Nono, Now I undestand why there was so much talk and love of gerbils- You are all marines! Figures.

Posted by: Strawman at September 30, 2005 07:34 AM (0ZdtC)

50 Women of Quantico, look out! i've seen pictures.

Posted by: annika at September 30, 2005 07:46 AM (qBVjN)

51 Mike, sometimes you make me laugh, too. Unfortunately, in your case it seems to be unintentional, and you apparently are oblivious to the humor in your own best lines. But then again, if it were intentional it wouldn't be interesting. So you just keep on keepin' on, man, and don't let us wingnuts get you down.

Posted by: Matt at September 30, 2005 08:12 AM (10G2T)

52 Is it just the women of Quantico that have to worry? Tremble before the ex-Marine below! http://www.lisamariebickels.com/gallery/lisamariebickels17.jpg You can see the USMC tattoo in this pic: http://www.lisamariebickels.com/gallery/lisamariebickels20.jpg

Posted by: reagan80 at September 30, 2005 08:26 AM (k0ik3)

53 Shit, and she lives in the neighborhood. No fear of the 82A2 chasing tail for the next three months. The Marine Corps will keep him occupied to the state of exhaustion until Christmas.

Posted by: Casca at September 30, 2005 03:54 PM (qBTBH)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

MNF Pick, Week 3

Kansas City plus 2½ points? That's a no-brainer. Sure, Mile-High is always a factor, but so are Trent Green and Priest Holmes. Take KC over Denver. Insist on the points so you can laugh at the suckers later.

First Quarter Update: Fuck.

Halftime Update: Double fuck.

(That Clay Aiken's got a pretty good arm. Who knew?)

Third Quarter Update: Looks like we're going to need the greatest comeback in MNF history for those 2½ points to matter.

Final Score Update: Okay, so i'm 0 and 2. Denver was 0 and 2 before Monday Night, but i don't see you mocking them now. Just wait until next week.

Update to the Update: Crap, wrong again. Denver was 1-1.

Posted by: annika at 01:33 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 125 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Agreed, no-briner. After drafting Clarett in the third round, it's hard to believe that Shanahan can EVER find his ass with both hands.

Posted by: Casca at September 26, 2005 02:10 PM (qBTBH)

2 The Rat never was a great coach, funny how having a hall of fame QB can make you look like an offensive genius.

Posted by: Kyle N at September 26, 2005 02:43 PM (EUwEI)

3 Actually, the line is 3 at game time. The money line is +120/-140. If you are so sure, why not bet the money line and forgo the points? I'm sure, but not so sure as to do that, so I took the three.

Posted by: shelly at September 26, 2005 05:52 PM (M7kiy)

4 You're pretty sure of yourself this time, Annie. based on your track record .........

Posted by: wayne at September 26, 2005 06:58 PM (sOqkQ)

5 GODDAMMIT! LSU blew a three touchdown lead to loose to Tennesee in OT. God that sucs

Posted by: Kyle N at September 26, 2005 08:41 PM (22maq)

6 I think USC could have beaten Kansas City tonight; Heck, even the Quarterbackless Wonders pf Strawberry Canyon might have been able to roll them. Nice call, Annie. Don't give up your day job...

Posted by: shelly at September 26, 2005 09:10 PM (ywZa8)

7 DOUBLE GODDAMN IT!! I was going to tape the LSU game, while I went to watch the Padres snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Hehhehe, it's ok though. Anyone ranked ahead of the Buckeyes needs to lose and get out of the way of destiny.

Posted by: Casca at September 26, 2005 10:27 PM (qBTBH)

8 OSU? Rose Bowl? Nah.

Posted by: shelly at September 27, 2005 03:15 AM (6krEN)

9 Anni, where do you get your information???? The Broncos beat San Diego last week and were 1 and 1 going into last nights game. Now they are 2 and 1 and in control of the AFC West. I know its hard for a Raider fan to believe it but the Broncos are back and as long as the injury bug doesn't bite too hard, they are going to make a run!!!!

Posted by: Thomas at September 27, 2005 09:12 AM (xuYrh)

10 Crap. You are right. : ( But of course, i could have meant that Denver was 0-2 at some unspecified point in the past, not necessarily this season. So there.

Posted by: annika at September 27, 2005 09:33 AM (zAOEU)

11 Go back to the law books. The pay's better and steadier.

Posted by: shelly at September 27, 2005 12:29 PM (6mUkl)

12 The only thing that makes being a Broncos fan is the Broncos drinking game. You get sloshed when they win and stay sober when they loose. As long as AFC West teams loose to the Broncs, the rest is just fun to watch.

Posted by: jcrue at September 27, 2005 02:51 PM (ZDQoM)

13 Re Clay Aiken, I especially enjoyed Kimmel's "instant replay." Watch out what you say in your blog. The Welsh might be monitoring it now. (Not to be confused with Raquel Welch)

Posted by: Ontario Emperor at September 28, 2005 10:46 PM (V6D5w)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

September 25, 2005

Celine Dion Visits The Hot Tub Friends

Guess who dropped in on the Hot Tub Friends' latest party? It's mega-star Celine Dion!

Let's listen in, shall we?

Posted by: annika at 11:23 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 34 words, total size 1 kb.

Breaking News

MOTHER NATURE IS A RACIST

"Rita's victims wealthier than Katrina's"

Via Associated Press, the people who brought you "Black folks are looters."

Developing...

Posted by: annika at 12:39 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.

227kb generated in CPU 0.0996, elapsed 0.2344 seconds.
80 queries taking 0.169 seconds, 503 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy

Monthly Traffic

Pages: 50109
Files: 107
Bytes: 264.9M
CPU Time: 51:38
Queries: 2826296

Content

Posts: 2168
Comments: 17090

Feeds

October 05, 2005

October 04, 2005

October 03, 2005

October 02, 2005

September 30, 2005

September 29, 2005

September 28, 2005

September 26, 2005

September 25, 2005

Search Thingy

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Monthly Traffic

Content

Feeds