October 06, 2004
Law Students Can Be So Competitive
If you had been in the cafeteria today, you might have overheard a conversation that went something like this:
"Hey Quan, where've you been?"
"Oh . . . uh . . . hi Annika."
"i haven't seen you in, like, weeks. Where'd you go? i thought you quit after the test or something."
"No . . . uh . . . I just moved seats."
"You did? What for?"
"Umm."
"Didn't you like sitting behind me?"
"Well . . . uh . . . to be honest . . .uh . . . I had to move."
"Oh come on. What, did i smell bad?"
"No . . . uh . . . no it's just . . . uhh . . . "
"You're fucking kidding me. Quan? You're kidding, right?"
". . . uhhh no it's not . . ."
"Please tell me you're fucking shitting me. Aren't you Quan? i really smell bad?"
"No . . . uh . . . you see it's . . . uhhh . . ."
"What the fuck? Just tell me!"
"It's . . . uh whenever you wore those uh blue warm-up pants . . . it got . . . uh . . . kinda distracting uhh . . . 'cause I could see your uh . . . your . . . uhh . . ."
"Oh . . . well . . . uh . . . sorry about that . . . uh . . . Quan . . . i uhh . . . "
"No problem, Annika. Don't worry about it."
The lesson to be learned from that little vignette is this: When the professor grades on a curve, consider converting butt cleavage into extra points.
Posted by: annika at
06:51 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 304 words, total size 2 kb.
1
You have no idea how familiar that story sounds. Back in first-year torts . . .
But it'd be really nice if you could fix all the " " stuff. It'd make the post a lot easier to read.
Posted by: Matt at October 06, 2004 08:55 PM (eWM9Y)
2
What was supposed to be inside those quotes was "& n b s p" (without the spaces).
Posted by: Matt at October 06, 2004 08:56 PM (eWM9Y)
3
Quan is clearly the slave of his masturbatory fantasies.
Posted by: Casca at October 06, 2004 09:59 PM (Y671w)
4
"Quan is clearly the slave of his masturbatory fantasies."
yea blame the guy for this god given hormones.
not blame the woman for sexual harrasment....
Posted by: cube at October 07, 2004 07:23 AM (nyNr0)
5
Poor Quan.
But it's still funny.
Posted by: ken at October 07, 2004 03:37 PM (xD5ND)
6
Um, isn't there a problem with the plan due to blind grading?
I have to admit, I'd probably would have been in Quan's situation, but for having OC standards while going to school in SF.
Posted by: Tony at October 07, 2004 06:14 PM (tjFjH)
7
Aha, Tony, see the beauty of the plan is that it doesn't involve the professor at all. The key is to distract the competition in order to lower the curve and thus move one's self up in rank comparatively. And theoretically, of course.
Posted by: annika! at October 07, 2004 08:00 PM (Gy1zC)
8
How deliciously devious of you.
Posted by: Tony at October 08, 2004 10:08 AM (QwFky)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
New Political Blog
RightViews.com is only a week old, and it looks like it may be a pretty good group blog.
Here's an excerpt from OJ's first post, which echoes my own thoughts (while watching that a-hole Keith Olberman the other night).
Why no one in the media is holding these politicians accountable for inconsistencies and in some cases absolute contradictions is beyond me. Clearly the media is traditionally liberal but these extremes are bordering on misrepresentation. Turning a blind eye, the Media is misleading the public by not reporting the whole story and as a result, is knowingly censuring the truth as it relates to the forum. Someone needs to hold the Left responsible for what they are saying.
That someone is the blogosphere, OJ. Welcome, and good luck with your new blog.
Posted by: annika at
06:21 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 135 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Thank you for your kind words Annika. We hope that your readers will like our content!
OJ
Posted by: OJ at October 07, 2004 01:06 PM (kcQMV)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
How Does He Do It?
Bill Whittle posted yet another gem.
Teaser:
[W]eÂ’ll look at what both men said, and through a very specific filter: not their Aggregate Presidentiality, or their respective Molar Charm Ratio. WeÂ’re going to look at what both men believe in respect to deterrence: whether their positions increase or decrease the likelihood of further attacks on the US.
. . .
And all of this rage and fury and spitting and tearing up of signs, all of these insults and spinmeisters and forgeries and all the rest, seem to come down to the fact that about half the country thinks you deter this sort of thing by being nice, while the other half thinks you deter this by being mean.
ItÂ’s really just that simple.
. . .
And although we can not run an experiment to look into the alternate futures to glean the best result, to determine the relative benefits of being nice or being mean – for those, ultimately, are the choices, believe it or not – we can at least look back to see which seems to have produced the best results in the laboratory of history.
Thus begins another intellectual journey, Whittle style. Set aside a couple of hours and read it all the way through.
Posted by: annika at
06:11 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 218 words, total size 1 kb.
October 05, 2004
Notes On The Vice Presidential Debate
i live blogged the debate on my crappy laptop. i don't think i'll be doing that again. It's too hard to watch and type at the same time. Here's my notes:
more...
Posted by: annika at
11:18 PM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
Post contains 2212 words, total size 13 kb.
1
A valuable read, Annika. Thanks.
Kevin
Posted by: Kevin Kim at October 06, 2004 12:04 AM (7rEaY)
2
"Who gets to keep the notes they scribble afterwards? The Smithsonian? The National Archives? It's not like they're going to need them after it's over, but the notes are historically valuable."
My guess would be the Commission on Presidential Debates, the non-governmental, non-partisan body that's sponsored these things since 1988.
"The gay marriage issue. Cheney says the issue is judges. i wish he would say the words: full faith and credit clause."
Well, unlike Edwards, who has no excuse whatsoever, Cheney's not a lawyer, so I don't think you could really expect him to get into the details.
"And how does the federal government impose such a tort control plan on a federal system? i dont understand it."
To a far lesser extent than most politicians who support tort reform seem to think, but primarily I would guess by expanding the diversity jurisdiction of the federal courts, especially in the context of class actions.
Posted by: Dave J at October 06, 2004 07:45 AM (VThvo)
3
i didnt know what diversity jurisdiction was until a few weeks ago.
Posted by: annika at October 06, 2004 07:53 AM (yHmot)
4
Annie,
Yeah, that liveblogging stuff is hard, isn't it? I tried, but did a terrible job.
"And how does the federal government impose such a tort control plan on a federal system? i dont understand it."
Presumably the same way they do lots of other things that they probably have no business doing under a federal system: They call it a commerce issue and pass a statute that directly regulates the field. That'd be my guess, anyway, but maybe they're more subtle than that. (I doubt it, but who knows?)
I was heartened to note that Cheney at least seems
aware of the concept of federalism, even if he conveniently ignores it in the tort reform context. ("Traditionally, that's been an issue for the states. States have regulated marriage, if you will. That would be my preference.") Some of my colleagues think federalism is too metaphysical a point to raise in a national debate, and that it will turn most voters off. They may be right, but it warmed my heart anyway. Sadly, though, Bush doesn't seem to have much respect for federalism. (Neither, of course, does Kerry.) This is one of my biggest complaints against W.
Posted by: Matt at October 06, 2004 08:47 AM (SIlfx)
5
I enjoyed your perspective.
A personal aside: Because of his personal story and his cute kids, I would like to like John Edwards, but I do not. He is all about cleverness and none about substance. He is insincere sincerity. He is cotton candy. He promotes class warfare for his benefit, with nary a thought of the nation's benefit-- this is detestable-- John Edwards is actually being part of the problem when he does this. He is being part of the problem with his cleverness masking his lack of substance.
My group of XXL men friends is much different than we would've been 30 years ago. We are more "sensitive." We don't yell at the Little Leaguers we coach, and we talk about stuff our fathers never would've touched. But one thing has not changed: a cotton-candy ass poser like John Edwards gets no respect from us. Neither I nor a single one of my friends like this guy.
Posted by: gcotharn at October 06, 2004 09:08 AM (hoo48)
6
Something else. Cotton-candy ass is not that effing clever! If he was that effing clever, me and every friend I have would not see through his bullshit with such ease.
The media infatuation with Edwards has an underlying theme: "Edwards is so good at fooling the rubes." That pretty much says it all about the media, and about Edwards.
Posted by: gcotharn at October 06, 2004 09:14 AM (hoo48)
Posted by: Amy at October 06, 2004 09:33 AM (RpVKX)
8
Wow Amy, that was a big screw up! Yuck, Soros.
Thanks for the great work, annie.
Posted by: d-rod at October 06, 2004 09:59 AM (CSRmO)
9
"Vice presidential debates decide nothing, but this year, Cheney went a long way to reassure Republicans after Bush's dismal perfirmance last Thursday."
what would you base your decsion on if you were an undecided voter. The VP debates? maybe.
you could try to expand you knowledge of the entire ticket by looking at the VP debates, or by doing more research.
Basically, the VP debates could decide a few people's minds.
Posted by: cubicle at October 06, 2004 11:39 AM (nyNr0)
10
"i didnt know what diversity jurisdiction was until a few weeks ago."
Heh, Civ Pro's the "insider" class, now isn't it? The one that most separates lawyers from laypeople, I mean, more so than the substantive subjects.
"Presumably the same way they do lots of other things that they probably have no business doing under a federal system: They call it a commerce issue and pass a statute that directly regulates the field."
But with respect to this area, then you'd almost certainly just have a federal statute sitting alongside preexisting state law, since you're just not going to see Congress preempt whole swathes of the general law of torts even if the courts were to let them get away with it: hence, that would still not make much difference, since plaintiffs could sue under either state or federal law or both, and state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over federal questions unless Congress specifically excludes them.
The reason I said I expected an expansion of the diversity jurisdiction of the federal courts to be the key to any federal tort reform is that Congress legitimately has much greater leeway to do things there than its (essentially non-existent) power re: the state courts. Because the federal constitution establishes only the US Supreme Court, Congress as the creator of the lower federal courts has the last word on their rules of procedure (I could go into snore-inducing detail on the 1934 Rules Enabling Act, but I'll spare you), so anything with respect to, just for example, limitations on attorney fees or punitive damage awards could at least be argued to be procedural even with respect to state-law tort claims. Moreover, at a practical level, the jury pool for a federal district court even in the same state's going to be much larger and less hospitable than in some notoriously plaintiff-friendly rural county where those of Senator Edwards' ilk typically go shopping for clients.
And Congress does have the power to do this: the US Constitution allows for "partial diversity," i.e., federal courts hearing state-law cases where at least one party differs in citizenship from the party or parties opposite, but Congress has never authorized this, never expanded federal jurisdiction to the maximum scope allowed. The statutory diversity jurisdiction of the federal courts has been the same since the Judiciary Act of 1789: "total diversity," wherein all the parties on one side must differ in citizenship from all the parties opposite. This makes it VERY easy for a plaintiff's attorney to keep a case in state court if wanted, simply by finding just one client who's a resident of the same state as any of the defendants and/or naming as a defendant a party from the same state as a plaintiff.
Posted by: Dave J at October 06, 2004 11:40 AM (VThvo)
11
Nice, Dave.
While we're at it, anyone wanna help me on the scintillating subject of the difference between rules vs. statutory class action?
Just kidding, of course! That would drive away all visitors.
Posted by: annika at October 06, 2004 11:49 AM (zAOEU)
12
Scintillating indeed, at least compared to what I'm working on now. ;-) But that's NFPC (Not For Public Consumption) until it's finished and published--not that you'd likely have much idea what it was about anyway until you're well into Property next semester. Or is that a first-semester class for you? I know different schools vary the first-year curriculum somewhat.
Great job on this, BTW: an insightful but also fun read.
Posted by: Dave J at October 06, 2004 12:48 PM (VThvo)
13
Annie,
Wanna know a dirty little secret? . . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
Even now I don't understand the difference between "rules" and "statutory" class actions! I don't think I ever really did. You should try to learn it, though -- it may be on the exam! (And if you figure it out, let me know. I'm not interested enough to research it myself at this point. The odds that I'll ever end up litigating a class action are roughly the same as the odds that God will give me two stone tablets to take down to the Israelites.)
Dave,
You might be interested in
this.
Fair enough, but why fiddle with diversity jurisdiction?
Posted by: Matt at October 06, 2004 01:16 PM (SIlfx)
14
Matt, thanks for that. As staff of a state legislature, it strikes me as a useful if rather disturbing read: I'm a supporter of tort reform, but still. Congress couldn't get rid of jury trials in the federal courts and, while the Seventh Amendment doesn't apply to the states, as far as I know every state constitution has an analogous provision, so for the feds to step and abolish civil jury trials in the state courts for specific causes of action, while CRS may be correct in saying it's not strictly unconstitutional per current US Supreme Court case law, still seems blatantly contrary to the principles underlying those constitutional provisions, an overly-convenient end-run around them.
I don't think we even discussed class actions in my Civ Pro class. The professor was too obsessively interested in diversity jurisdiction. ;-) Why fiddle with it? I'm not actually sure that I would, just that if Congress did seriously pursue tort reform, it might be a means to do so without raising as many of the federalism concerns as some other proposals do.
Posted by: Dave J at October 06, 2004 02:01 PM (VThvo)
15
Nicely done, Annika. I enjoyed reading your thoughts.
Posted by: Margi at October 06, 2004 02:40 PM (MAdsZ)
16
I don't know if the VP's couldn't direct questions to each other. Besides I really doubt that Bush could back out of the last two debates and save face. His failures of his administration and his failed debate would make it look real bad if he dropped them. So, truthfully Kerry and Edwards don't really have to follow the rules. Then again Bush broke the rules when he went to war. I just want to know what is Bush afraid of, that he had to write up so many rules, and didn't want to talk to the 9-11 commision. I seriously think he is hiding something that still hasn't come out yet. Think Watergate.
Posted by: Sean Carter at October 06, 2004 03:17 PM (T+5Co)
17
The "new" annika doesn't get involved in comment debates.
oh what the hell...
Sean said:
I really doubt that Bush could back out of the last two debates and save face. His failures of his administration and his failed debate would make it look real bad if he dropped them.What are you smoking dude? Has any rational person suggested that Bush back out of the last two debates?
And i simply can't follow the logic which leads you to conclude that "
truthfully Kerry and Edwards don't really have to follow the rules." Oh i get it, they're democrats and the rules never apply to democrats. (See recent disputed elections in FL, NJ, MO, CA etc.)
I just want to know what is Bush afraid of, that he had to write up so many rulesThe rules were agreed upon by both campaigns. You could just as easily ask what Kerry is afraid of, since his campaign agreed to the rules.
I seriously think [Bush]
is hiding something that still hasn't come out yet.Actually, i know what Bush is hiding "that still hasn't come out yet":
it's yo momma!
Posted by: annika! at October 06, 2004 05:40 PM (txBoO)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
i Can't Wait To See This One
Brittany is busy
writing a letter to her fans.
[Spears] has worked so hard on her letter that she says, she 'feels like I'm at Harvard.'
i can't wait to see
which of the 26 she will pick.
Posted by: annika at
10:29 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 50 words, total size 1 kb.
1
She's just following the Madonna career path, as viewed through her inbred redneck roots.
Posted by: Casca at October 05, 2004 04:17 PM (Y671w)
2
Madonna doesn't have redneck roots, but I guess you could consider her inbred with this funky combination........Her father is Italian, her mother was French-Canadian.
What was he thinking?
Posted by: reagan80 at October 05, 2004 07:02 PM (hlMFQ)
3
Casca, calling someone from Kenner a redneck would be worn as a badge of pride. Britney, OTOH, is white trash. The two can overlap, but they're not the same thing.
Posted by: Dave J at October 05, 2004 07:36 PM (GEMsk)
4
Oy vey. Too funny, Annika!
Posted by: Margi at October 06, 2004 02:28 PM (MAdsZ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 02, 2004
Monday Night Football Pick
No posting this weekend, so i'm giving you my Monday Night Football pick early. The upcoming game is between the surprisingly sucky Kansas City Chiefs and the Baltimore Ravens, at Baltimore. According to USA Today, the oddsmakers have Baltimore favored by 4½ to 6 points.
After last weeks pick, i'm hesitant to go with the favorite again. (An SI.com poll says the Chiefs are the most likely 0-3 to bag a win this week.) But Kansas City's offense seems really disorganized this year,* and MNF or not, i don't see them solving their problems against the Baltimore defense.
i'd be comfortable picking Baltimore minus five points.
* Although, statistics-wise, Baltimore's doesn't seem much different, and their QB is even worse than Trent Green has been. But the Ravens appear to have a better run defense, which they'll certainly need against Priest Holmes, and a better pass defense.
Posted by: annika at
06:29 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 155 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Passion for the Raiders may cloud my judgement so hating the Chiefs and Ravens for good reason, umm go with the chiefs because the Ravens offense is not that good besides the running back.
Posted by: Dex at October 02, 2004 12:46 PM (eEvJi)
2
remember great O versus great D cancels out sucky O.
Posted by: Dex at October 02, 2004 12:49 PM (eEvJi)
3
I hope you had the VCR set, because Cal is crushing Oregon State in the first half. Clearly there is no concept of defense in the PAC-10. Beat the snot out of USC next week, and we'll go for a Cal vs Ohio State matchup in the BCS. The Trojans' feet are made of clay.
Posted by: Casca at October 02, 2004 02:36 PM (Y671w)
4
I am SOOOOOOOOOO ashamed.
Posted by: Casca at October 02, 2004 10:07 PM (Y671w)
Posted by: annika! at October 04, 2004 09:38 PM (byCte)
6
Well i tried to school ya annika, you will learn in time grasshopper.
Posted by: Dex at October 04, 2004 10:31 PM (eEvJi)
7
I think you're blocking, annika. How do you *really* feel?
Rested, I'm sure. At least you're on the left coast, when MNF starts at dinnertime and ends before bedtime. Try staying up on the right coast to watch your hometeam play when the game ends 4 1/2 hours before the alarm goes off.
If I want to watch the 'Skins play on Monday night, I take Tuesday off.
Posted by: Victor at October 05, 2004 04:51 AM (L3qPK)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 01, 2004
Debate One Deconstruction - Substance
Last night John Kerry said "The president just talked about Iraq as a center of the war on terror. Iraq was not even close to the center of the war on terror before the president invaded it."
If Kerry thinks Afghanistan is the real center of the War on Terror, it occurs to me that Iraq is just on the other side of Iran. Maybe that's not close enough for Kerry, but i think Iraq is definitely in the right neighborhood. And that's why Iraq is so important.
Kerry also said: ". . . I would not take my eye off of the goal: Osama bin Laden. Unfortunately, he escaped in the mountains of Tora Bora."
If you examine Kerry's insistence on finding Osama as the real goal of the War on Terror, you'll see the central flaw in his thinking. He still looks at this conflict as a law enforcement and containment problem. i believe most Americans realize we can't play that game anymore, just as most Europeans think that the law enforcement model is the only possible solution.
Europeans think that way because they lack the military strength for any alternative strategy. We don't suffer from that limitation. We can fix the problem of terrorism with a real long term solution. Our might allows us to do what the Europeans cannot. Like Bush said, it's hard work, but it's not an impossible task for Americans.
But Kerry thinks like a European; we all know that. He's an internationalist at the core, and always has been. Despite his hawkish double-talk, he mistrusts the use of American power the same way Europeans do. We - and i mean you and i - can't afford to mistrust our own power. The stakes are too high now.
Why? Because our enemy wants to kill us.
This is a new kind of war. Our enemy isn't like Imperial Japan in WWII. They don't want access to oil so they can create a new Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere.
Our new enemy's goal is much simpler: They want all Americans to die.
Capturing Osama will not solve the problem of terrorism. The bad guys will still have the capability and the desire to kill Americans, with or without Osama. John Kerry must not win because if he is elected, we will lose our focus on the real goal of the War on Terror.
The real focus is long term. It is the transformation of the Islamic world. The only way - the only way - we can stop this enemy is to change the societies in which they live into free and democratic societies.
If the Islamic world does not change, we will be forever on defense in the War on Terror. Bringing democracy and freedom to Iraq is the first step in a long term strategy to protect America from future 9/11s. That's what i mean by being on offense.
John Kerry and his followers miss that very important point. They would have us abandon Bush's strategic goal and substitute the short term tactical goal of hunting down the sick and probably dying Osama bin Ladin. Not that we shouldn't bring him to justice, but it won't solve the problem of terrorism. Bush's strategy is designed to be a permanent solution.
Hugh Hewitt wrote:
Would the many terrorist attacks since 9/11 in Bali, Madrid, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Beslan and elsewhere have occurred had the United States focused all of its efforts on Afghanistan? Yes. Would Zarqawi still be roaming freely throughout Iraq and the middle east, building his parallel networks? Yes. Would killing Osama at Tora Bora have stopped the Islamist fanatics around the globe? No.
John Kerry does not understand the enemy. He does not understand the war we are in, or how it must be waged. He doesn't understand the reason Libya disarmed. He doesn't get what's going on at all.
Kerry calls Iraq the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time? Sorry Kerry, President Bush was right (even when he flubbed the line) when he said "It's not a grand diversion, this is an essential that we get it right."
One more point. Despite Kerry's occasional hawkishness, don't forget that something like seventy percent of Kerry's support comes from the ant-war left. That's a big umbrella that contains few reasonable people, and a lot of kooks. We cannot allow Kerry to open the government up to this anti-American fifth column, which he will undoubtedly do. Remember, he was one of them once.
Posted by: annika at
04:55 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 764 words, total size 4 kb.
1
Kerry may talk about Afghanistan, but...I remember that, before the Afghan war started, very large numbers of leftists were against it, using terms like "genocide" (to refer to what the Americans were about to do, not what the Taliban was already doing.) As you point out, these people are a key part of Kerry's base. Would a Kerry administration, had it been in power, do what needed to be done in Afghanistan? I think it's highly questionable.
Posted by: David Foster at October 01, 2004 08:56 PM (XUtCY)
2
I tend to think that even a Kerry Administration would have done the right thing in Afghanistan, more or less. I say more or less because the knee-jerk political reaction may have been to immediately fire a few missiles to blow up a few empty tents and hit a camel in the
ass, rather than to take our time and do the job right.
Posted by: Xrlq at October 01, 2004 11:54 PM (6DLYC)
3
my question is when do the country fully commit to the war effort. This must be done I think.
Posted by: Dex at October 02, 2004 12:53 PM (eEvJi)
4
All his life up to 2002, Kerry has shown himself to be a pacifist.
Under no circumstance, will Kerry use the military. He was very consistent up until he started his campaign.
In 2003 Kerry started his war talk so that he would have a chance to be elected. Since then Kerry has vacillated between being a warlord and a pacifist-hence the flip-flopping. This week he is a pacifist-his true self.
Posted by: Jake at October 02, 2004 02:29 PM (h4tU8)
5
What's the problem here?
I feel so much safer with the thought that if North Korea or Iran threatens us, President Kerry will call a summit to solve the problem. Those guys will cave in when he brings out his spitballs and protesters.
Don't you all feel warm and fuzzy at that prospect? He can also talk them to death; wait until he unloads the Senatespeak and reverts to his Boston Brahmin nasal superior accent. They'll line up to surrender.
Posted by: shelly s. at October 03, 2004 01:24 PM (s6c4t)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 30, 2004
Debate One Deconstruction
Part of blogging for me is honesty. There's no room on my blog for spin, and i hope long time visitors know that about me. So it pains me to say that, in my opinion, President Bush was bad tonight. Not fatally bad, but still bad.
Sure, the president scored some points. His approach to North Korea clearly makes more sense than Kerry's. He was effective in highlighting Kerry's tendency to insult the same allies he says he wants to court. He was reassuring on continuing the all volunteer armed forces. And he struck the right tone when criticizing Putin.
But the president was also repetitive, hesitant, and defensive. He slouched, his ears seemed to stick out more than i remembered, and he pounded the podium too much, which i hate because Hillery does that too. He also missed numerous opportunites to point out major Kerry contradictions, passing them up in favor of repeating the same conclusory slogans.
Why didn't Bush list all the anti-military votes that Cheney reviewed in his convention speech? He should have hammered on Kerry's "87 billion" vote at least two more times. And it still boggles my mind why Bush can't or won't effectively explain the reason why we have to be on offense in the War on Terror (like Giuliani did so beautifully at the convention) and why Kerry's plan is solely and dangerously defensive.
(And why did the president have to buy into Kerry's "war should be the last resort" bullshit. After 9/11, the last resort is too late. Isn't that part of the Bush Doctrine? Yeah, yeah, i realize that Bush has to agree with that "last resort" line for political reasons, but in this new world of terrorist sleeper cells on our soil, i'd much rather have war be the third or fourth from the last resort.)
i cringed a number of times watching the president search for words. But i do that every time he speaks formally. He doesn't do that on the stump, so i can't understand his difficulty in debates, speeches and press conferences. The truth is that the president is just not the best spokesman for himself. In fact, i think i could have done a better job tonight than he did.
But tonight i also realized that this election is more of a battle of surrogates than any other election i can recall. The greatest vulnerabilities of both candidates are things that neither candidate can talk about.
Bush couldn't talk about Kerry's betrayal of this country while he was in uniform. He couldn't bring up the questions about Kerry's medals. He couldn't equate Kerry with the loony America-hating left that supports him. He couldn't put down Teresa.
Kerry couldn't accuse Bush of having been AWOL. He couldn't accuse Bush of being a religious fanatic, like so many of his supporters do. He couldn't call Bush evil, or Hitler, or even use the word "liar." And because Kerry still has to win over pro-war voters, he had to straddle the fence on Iraq.
Actually, i thought Kerry's reconciliation of his various Iraq policies was rhetorically pretty effective - at least on the surface. As i understand it, Kerry now says he is for the war, wants to win the war, but thinks that Bush is doing it all wrong and he'd do it better. The problem is, Kerry's new position still contradicts his many old positions, and maybe even some new ones too.
The blogosphere is already compiling a pretty good list of Kerry's contradictions. Right on Red names a few:
He said Saddam was a threat, but the war was a mistake, we shouldÂ’ve brought allies on board, but the allies we did bring were not enough. He said that he would never ask permission to defend the country, but then later said that any preemptive action must pass 'the global test'. He said he would increase troop strength but would decrease it in Iraq. He said that something must be done about Darfur, including possible deployment of some kind I suppose, but criticized the President for over-committing troops!
At any rate, i still think Bush could have done a better job of confronting Kerry on his record. Kerry sidestepped Bush's repeated "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" attacks. But i would have asked rhetorically why Kerry voted
for the 2003 war, when we didn't have France and the UN on our side, yet he voted against the 1991 war, when the UN approved and the French contribution was considerable.*
As for Kerry's performance, i was impressed. If one ignores every contrary thing Kerry has said in the past, and his lackluster political career, and his demonstrated arrogance and unlikeability, you might almost think he looked presidential tonight. He certainly gave the impression that he was the more knowledgeable and relaxed candidate.
However, the biggest flaw in Kerry's perfomance to me was one that might not be obvious to the casual debate observer (by that i mean, those idiots who still, for some insane reason, have not yet made up their minds). It's one thing for Kerry to insist that he has a plan. But i still need to hear what that plan is. Kerry couldn't tell us. i guess you could call it the six million dollar man plan: "better, stronger, faster." But when Lehrer asked Kerry to be more specific, he wasn't.
The bottom line is this: Kerry didn't lose tonight. He stayed alive by exceeding expectations. Bush didn't lose tonight either. He kept Kerry alive by reminding us all that we should not have high expectations of Bush in a debate. i only hope people remember that debating skills are not necessarily reliable predictors of presidential leadership. And i expect Bush will watch the tape, cringe like the rest of us, hopefully work on his presentation, and show some improvement next time.
* In 1991 the French sent their 6th Armored Division and two regiments of Foreign Legionnaires (their only really badass troops), among other forces.
Posted by: annika at
08:44 PM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1007 words, total size 6 kb.
1
Annie,
I'm less pessimistic about Bush's perfomance tonight than you are. He stayed the course. He ummed and ahhed much more than Kerry did. He slouched. He stammered. He banged the podium. (So I heard driving from work at the beginning. So I saw later on TV when he visibly came to the word "nuclear" and froze.)
Kerry sounded great on the radio. Kerry looked great on TV. He is the best polished turd I have seen in a long time.
He flippered all over that debate. At one point he called Bush reckless for invading an Iraq lead by a non-threatening Saddam. Later, he called Saddam a threat. I'll leave the detailed fisking as an exercise for the experts.
When asked to clarify why he in effect called Bush a liar, he said he never called him a liar, just that Bush "misled" the American people. "Let's talk about those Nigerian reports ..." It depends on what the meaning of "is" is. The arguments were "fake but accurate".
The biggest sidesplitter in my mind was the notion that Kerry will be better at diplomacy -- at alliance building than W.
Bush pointed out that 30 other countries signed up to the war in Iraq. Kerry's reply: they were either second bananas or Johnnie-come-lately's. Wow! So some British family or some Polish family or ... etc ... who just buried a cherished loved one can rest assured that the United States appreciates their loss.
Oh, and then Kerry says he'll build a better coalition? Hard to do given that he already blew off Kalawi's speech to a JOINT SESSION OF CONGRESS. And then has Lockhart dissmiss Kalawi as, literally, a puppet. Some rhetoric from an alleged master diplomat!
Need I even mention that the French and Germans have exlpicitly stated that they will never commit troops to Iraq. Even is Kerry is elected!
--HH
Posted by: go 4 TLI (formerly HH in Hollywood) at September 30, 2004 11:28 PM (MngVr)
2
Annie:
Your assessment is hypercritical. remember, the masses of people are trying to figure out WHO THEY TRUST and WHO THEY LIKE.
John Kerry did nothing to win the trust of the people last night; nor did he do anything to make people like him. He is still the Boston Brahmin with the unmistakable air of a privileged class snob. He still pounds the podium also (but escapes your critical eye, while Bush gets it) with his hand and slips and uses the pointing finger despite his handlers' instructions to not use it, using his hands incessantly and keeping his hands clenched and showing the thumb. I wondered if he was Italian, he used them so much.
But, Bush spoke to the people directly on several occassions, connecting solidly; Kerry never connected.
These things take a few days to settle, but I'm betting that Kerry did not connect and the polls will not improve for him...if anything, he'll be lucky to stay where he is, in my opinion. Remember, he needed to knock it out of the park, while Nush just needed to make contact. Bush will still be at leat 5 or 6 ahead in the real polls, not the spinners' contests.
Posted by: shelly s. at October 01, 2004 01:09 AM (s6c4t)
3
I hate to say it, but I think Annika is correct on this one. Maybe I had higher expectations for the President, but I felt he didn't come back hard enough at Kerry. Frankly I wish he had taken some shots at Kerry. Bush had better be ready to unleash his ownership concept at the domestic policy debate. I think ironically, Bush might do best in the Town Hall debate.
Posted by: Ag at October 01, 2004 07:22 AM (AuGkz)
Posted by: Um Yeah at October 01, 2004 07:49 AM (SZgv8)
5
LOL That's pretty funny. Huh? You were serious?
I heard Senator Kerry admit that he shot a man in the back.
Posted by: Ted at October 01, 2004 08:11 AM (blNMI)
6
I'm pretty much with you on this, Annie. I expected some ums and ahs, because that's just the way Bush is. He's not as polished a speaker as Kerry is (and it
is possible to be polished and still convey warmth and folksiness). He's not The Great Communicator. We know that. What bothered me was that, to my mind, he pulled his punches during several counterattacks that could have been more productive for him. Kerry seemed more in command of the facts, and only a couple of times did Bush challenge him on the facts.
I hope Bush doesn't hold back like that on the domestic policy debate. I'm afraid that debate is going to play to to his weaknesses and Kerry's strengths, and Bush is going to need to be really on the ball to do an effective job. Most importantly, I think, he's got to be prepared to counter with hard, detailed facts when Kerry starts unloading propaganda about how bad the economy is, how "outsourcing" and free trade are hurting America, etc. What I saw tonight didn't fill me with confidence that he'll be able to do that effectively. (Of course to tell the truth, I'm not at all sure how much of our economic performance, good or bad, can be attributed to the president. It depends on such a huge variety of variables, many of which the president seems to have little or no influence over. But that's irrelevant for purposes of the debate, as long as a significant number of Americans
think the president somehow controls the economy.)
That said, let me say for the record that I
don't think Bush blew it last night. I think he lost a little ground, but it wasn't a route.
Posted by: Matt at October 01, 2004 08:21 AM (SIlfx)
7
Our friend still isn't taking his antipsychotics, I see. That's OK. His defective psyche just provides additional justification for sending him to the camps.
On that note, if any fellow VRWC members need the secret web address for the concentration camp guard and/or secret police job applications, please let me know. We start rounding up the lefties on January 21, 2005. Halliburton is already building the camps in secret desert locations, under the personal supervision of
Reichsmarschall Cheney. The pay is really good and you get a plunder quota, too, so you can keep part of the assets of any lefties you arrest. The policy on the use of deadly force is extremely relaxed. It's a great deal.
Posted by: Matt at October 01, 2004 08:33 AM (SIlfx)
8
I largely concur with your analysis, Annika. Check my blog.
Posted by: roach at October 01, 2004 11:16 AM (DHoAQ)
9
I agree with you Anni, Bush didnÂ’t show nearly as well as I would have liked. Way too many UhÂ’s, UmÂ’s and too repetitive to my overly-sensitive, political-geek ears. Bush swallowed his tongue - and only barely recovered - at least three times and boy, CNBC and CNN wasted no time in rolling out those hi...erÂ…lowlights.
And similar to you, I sat there thinking, “Man, I would absolutely cream Kerry in this debate.” (Of course every Sunday I think I can out-coach half the NFL’s head coaches. The losing half.) I think Jim Geraghty over at Kerry Spot said it best, “Every time Kerry opened his mouth, conservatives thought of the eight different responses and attacks that they wanted to see, and Bush mostly didn't use them.” I would like to have seen Bush take the word “summit” and that asinine “global test” line and spin donuts with them on Kerry for the rest of the debate.
I watched most of it twice (I’m a glutton, I know) and it struck me that maybe the Bush camp didn’t anticipate this format allowing for the type of exchanges that occurred. Or maybe they didn’t think Cicero would leave the openings that he did – Bush genuinely seemed surprised at a few of the Kerry gaffes.
In any event, for all his lows, I felt his highs were much higher than KerryÂ’s, and of an emotional nature that I think appeals to people. Kerry appeared polished and
***aaack*** presidential. But Bush connected, which is what he does best. Overall, a draw, I think.
Posted by: Kurt at October 01, 2004 11:27 AM (/7AX2)
10
Annie:
Check with Rush today, he's on track.
Yes, we all wished for a little more polished effort, but W made the points he needed to make, and Rush has counted over 50 wrong statements of fact by Kerry. Some of them big enough to drive a truck through, especially the "global" permission thing, Trebklinka instead of Lubyanka, etc.. If it were Bush, they'd say he was lying and misleading them, but Rush just calls it the way it is, mistakes of fact.
Kerry is also walking the line with his base, 70% want him out of Iraq NOW. Those lines will run good in future commercials by the RNC.
The market is up over 100 points, so the smart money says Bush is still way ahead.
Put away the poison and wait for the Monday and Tuesday polls. Betcha we're still ahead by at least 5. The folks in the flyover states like straight talk, not Senatorial gobbledegook.
Posted by: shelly s. at October 01, 2004 12:06 PM (s6c4t)
11
Yeah, sKerry was smoother, but I really LIKE the fact that Bush is a WYSIWYG kind of guy. I know where he stands, I know he won't wobble and waver when the wind blows from a different direction. I can depend on him. I may not always agree with him - I think he's entirely too liberal on a number of issues - but I admire his staunchness, his honesty, and his steadfastness. And I admire his faith and the fact he is not ashamed of it!
Elizabeth, the sinner
and Perennial Student
Posted by: Elizabeth at October 01, 2004 01:13 PM (psR4n)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Keys To The Debate
It is a cliché, but worth repeating: A candidate can't win the election with a debate, but he can
lose it. The only exception to that rule i can think of was Ronald Reagan, but he was exceptional in so many ways.
Tonight, watch for Kerry's zinger. i'd be very surprised if he didn't work in a Bentsenesque sound bite, hoping it will become water cooler talk tomorrow. He has to try, he's losing the election and his only chance to turn things around is to be aggressive.
But Kerry, and his team, are also desperate. And desparation breeds disorganization, which breeds failure. Look at Gore in 2000. Remember how he had a different persona for each debate? There was "sighing Al," and "friendly Al," and "macho Al." None of them worked, and he ended up looking silly, like he was trying too hard.
Bush needs to simply stick to his game plan and let Kerry self destruct. i hope Bush doesn't do anything out of character because he doesn't need to. He just needs to hammer the same points he's been hammering on the stump for the last month, and Kerry should start to come apart.
Look at the Superbowl Raiders of two years ago, if you like sports analogies. Or this week's Cowboys - Redskins game. Or any Muhammad Ali fight. When you got your opponent on the run, he tends to fuck up more.
You like war analogies? Patton knew this trick, as did Guderian. And Napoleon was a master of the rout. So was Schwarzkopf in 1991. But these men kicked ass by careful planning and a wise reliance on the incompetence and/or unpreparedness of their opponents.
Tomorrow, if all goes well, try to resist the temptation to boast that Bush won the debate. In presidential debates, it's the loser that matters. If Kerry looks silly, or arrogant, or desperate, or if he tells a whopping lie a la Al Gore, emphasize that aspect to your co-workers during your lunch break.
Keeping my fingers crossed.
Posted by: annika at
10:50 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 347 words, total size 2 kb.
1
What about the Raiders i did not get it?
Posted by: Dex at September 30, 2004 12:12 PM (Z0iXs)
2
Annie:
You need not cross your fingers, because George W. Bush is nothing, if not consistant. You can count on him to stay the course, and be the same person tomorrow as he was yesterday and today.
Bet the house on this; it is a surer thing than any Monday night football game you can think of.
Posted by: shelly s. at September 30, 2004 12:25 PM (s6c4t)
3
You've got a really good analogy about letting your opponent make mistakes, and then compound their mistakes.
Bobby Knight and Bill Parcells coached at West Point during the same time period. They were enthusiastic young coaches, they became close friends, and they spent time discussing coaching philosophy.
The cornerstone of their philosophy is to be fundamentally sound and not beat yourself-- let your opponents beat themselves. Mike Kryzewski coached with Knight, and invited Knight to speak to Duke before and NCAA Final. Knight's message: Don't let adrenaline induce you to make spectacular yet unaccustomed plays. Play within yourself. Do what you know you can do well.
George Bush would be well advised to follow this dictum.
Posted by: gcotharn at September 30, 2004 01:45 PM (AaBEz)
4
A teacher in the Barpassers study course has a great piece of advice. He says "Don't go doing anything weird on the bar exam!" To Kerry I would say "Don't go doing anything weird in the debates." That was Al Gore's big mistake.
Posted by: Francine at September 30, 2004 02:01 PM (zAOEU)
5
Jeez you people are full of advice. My favorite aphorism is one from old BF "Be cherry about giving advice. A fool won't listen, and a wise man doesn't need it"
Seems to me that we're going to watch a perfect example of it tonight. John Kerry's weakness is the weakness of the rich and stupid, hubris. He doesn't know HOW to take advice. W might be a lot of things, but one of them isn't stupid.
Posted by: Casca at September 30, 2004 05:57 PM (Y671w)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 29, 2004
Wednesday Is Poetry Day
No commentary is necessary on this one. It's just a really fine poem, by
Alice Corbin Henderson (1881 - 1949). Enjoy:
Muy Vieja Mexicana
I've seen her pass with eyes upon the road --
An old bent woman in a bronze-black shawl,
With skin as dried and wrinkled as a mummy's,
As brown as a cigar-box, and her voice
Like the low vibrant strings of a guitar.
And I have fancied from the girls about
What she was at their age, what they will be
When they are old as she. But now she sits
And smokes away each night till dawn comes round,
Thinking, beside the pinyons' flame, of days
Long past and gone, when she was young -- content
To be no longer young, her epic done:
For a woman has work and much to do,
And it's good at the last to know it's through,
And still have time to sit alone,
To have some time you can call your own.
It's good at the last to know your mind
And travel the paths that you traveled blind,
To see each turn and even make
Trips in the byways you did not take --
But that, `por Dios', is over and done,
It's pleasanter now in the way we've come;
It's good to smoke and none to say
What's to be done on the coming day,
No mouths to feed or coat to mend,
And none to call till the last long end.
Though one have sons and friends of one's own,
It's better at last to live alone.
For a man must think of food to buy,
And a woman's thoughts may be wild and high;
But when she is young she must curb her pride,
And her heart is tamed for the child at her side.
But when she is old her thoughts may go
Wherever they will, and none to know.
And night is the time to think and dream,
And not to get up with the dawn's first gleam;
Night is the time to laugh or weep,
And when dawn comes it is time to sleep . . .
When it's all over and there's none to care,
I mean to be like her and take my share
Of comfort when the long day's done,
And smoke away the nights, and see the sun
Far off, a shrivelled orange in a sky gone black,
Through eyes that open inward and look back.
Posted by: annika at
04:39 PM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
Post contains 417 words, total size 4 kb.
Posted by: Casca at September 29, 2004 06:43 PM (Y671w)
2
Enjoyable poem. Why do I have to be old to live like that? ...I guess because otherwise you'd have to live alone. Takin' it easy ain't easy to live with.
Posted by: Scof at September 30, 2004 07:55 AM (XCqS+)
3
You know, Annika, this is the first selection of yours that made me wince. It's not the poem -- it's the presumptuousness of a well-intentioned but affluent white woman that bothers me... doesn't the poem seem just a little patronizing to you?
Or maybe the PC police have taken over my mind for the umpteenth time!
Posted by: Hugo at September 30, 2004 04:48 PM (3Hy+w)
4
Hugo, it helps if you picture Joe Don Baker as the little old lady.
Posted by: Ted at September 30, 2004 05:41 PM (ZjSa7)
5
Joe Don Baker as a shrivelled orange?
Posted by: Hugo at September 30, 2004 06:53 PM (3Hy+w)
6
Hugo, i'm surprised at you. It's art. The poem was written long before PC became the scourge of art that it is now. If poets throughout history followed PC rules like the one that says you can't write about a hispanic if you yourself are not hispanic, we'd be deprived of some of the greatest art. Byron couldn't write Don Juan for example.
Posted by: annika at September 30, 2004 08:23 PM (iYOg/)
7
Joe Don Baker would play the sourest, thickest-skinned, gauranteed-to-squirt-in-your-eye orange you ever saw, even shriveled.
Posted by: Ted at October 01, 2004 08:15 AM (blNMI)
8
Annika, I think what gets me is the presumptuousness of knowing what someone so radically different from you is thinking -- the poet assumes a very intimate knowledge of her subject's inner life.
But you're right. I do have an ahistorical PC lens. I still love your poetry Wednesdays, Annie dear, and am grateful that you inspired my Thursdays!
Posted by: Hugo at October 01, 2004 08:52 AM (3Hy+w)
9
"the presumptuousness of knowing what someone so radically different from you is thinking"
We're all human beings, we all share the same fate, so how different are we? Besides poetry isn't journalism.
Posted by: Scof at October 01, 2004 10:41 AM (XCqS+)
10
poetry is more truthful, scof
Posted by: annika at October 01, 2004 06:27 PM (pSE7U)
11
Hello folks nice blog youre running
Posted by: lolita at January 19, 2005 05:39 PM (yM4u5)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 28, 2004
Lynx
Tony gives us the good news and the bad news about changes at The Tonight Show.
Dawn debriefs us on her visit to Panama.
Congratulations to The Physics Geek family on their new little physics geeklette!
Jen resists the siren call of the waffle king.
Thomas Galvin picked last night's MNF winner, and a few others, too.
Moxie, Paul, and Kin are among the many bloggers making fun of Kerry's latest attempt to become (his words not mine) the second black president. And Ann Althouse provides a historical perspective on this issue.
It's Victor's birthday today! If he and Nic decide to go out for dinner, who do you think will be picking up the check?
i have to agree with Professor Hewitt on the great tie controversy. That thing is butt ugly. (scroll down to see it)
Posted by: annika at
09:15 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 140 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Cool. Thanks for the link, Annika.
Posted by: Thomas Galvin at September 28, 2004 03:06 PM (9psyx)
2
Babe! That tie rocks! No matter what Hugh says.
Posted by: Kin at September 28, 2004 03:29 PM (GsifQ)
3
She did, and she was pleased the server was paying attention and gave her back her credit card.
Posted by: Victor at September 29, 2004 05:18 AM (L3qPK)
4
Skankkitten gazes
poetically waiting as
summer turns to fall
Posted by: d-rod at September 29, 2004 11:45 AM (CSRmO)
5
Thanks for the linkage Annie. I've got a picture up now, too.
No, I'm not a proud father. Why do you ask? :->
Posted by: physics geek at September 29, 2004 07:11 PM (/xFcu)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 27, 2004
Monday Night Football, Week Three
Tonight it's Dallas at the Redskins. Both teams are led by elite coaches trying to restore some former glory to their respective teams. Both teams have one and one records. The spread is 1.5 points, with Washington as the favorite. It sounds like a close one, but i need only one reason to pick Washington to cover the spread:
Vinnie Testaverde sucks.
Update: Testaverde still sucks. Defense won that game. Like Dallas, i'm now 2 and 1 on Monday night. In Fantasy Football, DFMoore kicked my butt on the strength of Peyton Manning's performance Sunday, and i've now fallen to 2 and 1.
Posted by: annika at
07:48 AM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 113 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: Dex at September 27, 2004 10:15 AM (RrwOg)
2
Amen, sister. On all counts!
Posted by: Victor at September 27, 2004 10:59 AM (etHvD)
3
Tuna factor
I loooooooove the tuna factor.
We are talking about women right?
Posted by: Radical Redneck at September 27, 2004 11:31 AM (zT6ac)
4
annika you must be working too hard dear! you see vinnie used to suck, but now he plays for the Cowboys, so he's better. See? The Cowboys, as has happened throughout history, will kill off the Redskins, or at least make them retreat into their casinos. Enough with the bad jokes! Go Cowboys!
Posted by: Scof at September 27, 2004 03:01 PM (XCqS+)
5
The Big Tuna is the difference. Sorry lady, but this time, the Skins are going down.
General Custer will not be a factor tonight, either.
Posted by: shelly s. at September 27, 2004 04:47 PM (s6c4t)
6
Defense didn't win that game, God-awful officiating handed it to Dallas--with a wrong call that gave Dallas a TD, and a no-call that didn't give Washington a chance to score.
Posted by: Victor at September 28, 2004 07:30 AM (etHvD)
7
True, but Brunell was on his ass every time i turned around, too.
Posted by: annika! at September 28, 2004 08:56 AM (zAOEU)
8
Well, mismanagement of timeouts didn't help the 'Skins, either. I just about wanted to cry watching Rod Gardner lie there on the Dallas 21, pounding the field in frustration while time ran out.
Posted by: Matt at September 28, 2004 09:57 AM (SIlfx)
9
Heh. Peyton and Jevon Walker. Have to love 'em!
Posted by: Daniel at September 28, 2004 02:28 PM (Oc6V9)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The Winner, Part 2
way to increase hits
hold a contest then withhold
ha ha the winner
more...
Posted by: annika at
12:32 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 201 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Come grab ewe elations, gcotharn!
Kevin
Posted by: Kevin Kim at September 27, 2004 02:03 AM (x0zxU)
2
An excellent choice, annika. Congrats, gcotharn!
Posted by: Victor at September 27, 2004 02:43 AM (etHvD)
3
Kick Ass! Champagne! I once won a gift certificate for the best call to a radio talk show. That pales in comparison. Thanks.
Posted by: gcotharn at September 27, 2004 08:56 AM (AaBEz)
4
Yay! Congrats gcotharn.
Posted by: Ted at September 27, 2004 09:08 AM (blNMI)
5
Congrats! But:
reading annika
total defeat revealed
winter grips my heart
Posted by: Hugo at September 27, 2004 09:15 AM (9ndHD)
6
That's it! I'm swearing off poetry! A promising career cut short by a broken heart. I hope you monsters sleep well knowing the pain you've wrought!
;-)
Congrats, gcotharn.
Posted by: Matt at September 27, 2004 10:16 AM (SIlfx)
7
...except that annika didn't exactly "hold" the contest. It's more like she tolerated it.
Posted by: Victor at September 27, 2004 11:00 AM (etHvD)
8
As Bulldog says on
Frasier, "This is complete and
total bullshit!". sike.
Posted by: Scof at September 27, 2004 03:10 PM (XCqS+)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 24, 2004
Who Said It?
Update: The following post is apparently fake, and not so accurate either. Sorry.
Who said the following quote:
We know we can't count on the French. We know we can't count on the Russians . . . We know that Iraq is a danger to the United States, and we reserve the right to take pre-emptive action whenever we feel it's in our national interest.
If you guessed George W. Bush, you are wrong.
If you guessed Dick Cheney, you are wrong.
If you guessed Don Rumsfeld, you are wrong.
If you guessed Condi Rice, you are wrong.
If you guessed Colin Powell, you are wrong.
If you guessed Paul Wolfowitz, you are wrong.
In the words of THK, wrongk, wrongk, wrongk.
It was the Democratic candidate for president, John Kerry, who said it way back in 1997 on CNN's Crossfire.
You anti-war liberals, i've said it before, Nader is still your best option.
Via Powerline
Posted by: annika at
01:08 PM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
Post contains 160 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Sounds like a good time to put together another ad by the Bush team! (Hopefully, they can find the video of it though.)
Posted by: Blake at September 24, 2004 04:08 PM (aCDxI)
2
It's hard to argue with someone who takes every side of an issue.
Posted by: Casca at September 24, 2004 05:53 PM (Y671w)
3
Hard to respect him too.
Posted by: Casca at September 24, 2004 05:54 PM (Y671w)
4
Instapundit's linking to bloggers who think this might be a fake quote. I suppose one could reply that, like the Bush documents, the quote might be fake but they remain true in spirit...?
Kevin
Posted by: Kevin Kim at September 25, 2004 02:41 AM (7rEaY)
5
Whoops-- "they remain" should read "it remains."
Damn. There go my haiku contest prospects.
Kevin
Posted by: Kevin Kim at September 25, 2004 03:50 AM (7rEaY)
Posted by: d-rod at September 25, 2004 10:18 AM (fJUNf)
7
I must agree with the previous responders. My question is, why were Britain (as someone we can't count on) and Saudi Arabia (danger obviously) not included in that comment? I guess a fortune teller does not a politician make.
Posted by: singlegalnyc at September 25, 2004 10:44 PM (LA34N)
Posted by: Lynn at September 26, 2004 05:41 AM (h5xcH)
9
Rah-bert,
"What a wonderful country Bush has turned Halliburton subsidiary Iraq into."
I could say the same thing about Clinton's operations in the Balkans, could you? After all, Clinton did give Halliburton no-bid contracts there as well.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/richlowry/rl20030918.shtml
Thanks for the link, Moxie.
"A dismal place where xenophobia abounds and non-white people are guilty until proven innocent."
If I'm not mistaken, the Iraqis aren't white, but dark-skinned like the Syrians. You have proven your ignorance by confusing Arabic Iraqis with white Klansmen here.
What the hell were those Syrians doing there at a small Iraqi town in the middle of nowhere then? Tourism instead of terrorism?
"Or what the occupiers did to them in a windowless room."
You didn't give a shit about what happened in Abu Ghraib for decades when Saddam was in control of Iraq, but you get outraged now when some Americans use harsh or humiliating methods against captured terrorists that have been killing Iraqis as well as our troops.
"Ameri-con"
Go toss Tom Green's salad.
Posted by: reagan80 at September 26, 2004 11:33 AM (hlMFQ)
10
sorry Reagan80. i've decided to institute a zero tolerance for Mclellan policy. But i didn't discover his comment until after you commented.
Posted by: annika! at September 27, 2004 12:59 AM (oy4z+)
11
Your story is not so false. Tom Bevan at RealClearPolitics.com has Kerry's actual speech on his website and has refered to it several times in the past.
Posted by: bob at September 27, 2004 07:55 PM (m19r8)
12
Hello folks nice blog youre running
Posted by: lolita at January 19, 2005 05:38 PM (yM4u5)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The Winner
The winner of the Joe Don Baker Haiku contest is . . .
more...
Posted by: annika at
12:01 AM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
Post contains 555 words, total size 4 kb.
Posted by: Victor at September 24, 2004 05:08 AM (L3qPK)
2
The obvious choice is:
Annika's secret
she's got a Joe Don tattoo
on her inner thigh
Why else would you sponsor a Joe Don contest?
Posted by: The Maximum Leader at September 24, 2004 07:28 AM (jmfvP)
3
I thought about leaving a comment, but then I decided not to.
Kevin
Posted by: Kevin Kim at September 24, 2004 07:40 AM (NUZM3)
4
One wonders what a fella has to do...!
Posted by: Scof at September 24, 2004 08:50 AM (XCqS+)
5
Wouldn't be a competition without a little controversy.
Posted by: annika! at September 24, 2004 09:52 AM (zAOEU)
6
I voted for Kevin's before I voted for Victor's.
Posted by: Ted at September 24, 2004 10:34 AM (blNMI)
7
A gentleman never advocates for his own; I vote for the "Nascar" one.
Posted by: Hugo at September 24, 2004 01:29 PM (3Hy+w)
8
The delay in deciding the winner is due to the number of lawsuits filed by the contestants. i guesss that was to be expected, in this litigious society of ours. i hope to have them all settled soon, and be able to disclose the winner.
Posted by: annika! at September 24, 2004 03:17 PM (OZ8wy)
9
Evil enjambers
"Mistress Endstop" clears the room
A hard summer test
Posted by: gcotharn at September 24, 2004 04:25 PM (AaBEz)
10
What fresh hell now?
waiting prolonged for a season
joe don prize unclaimed
Posted by: Hugo at September 25, 2004 05:27 AM (3Hy+w)
11
Damn, drop the "for" in my second line above.
Posted by: Hugo at September 25, 2004 05:28 AM (3Hy+w)
12
Oh crap. Just redo the whole thing:
And what fresh hell now?
waiting prolonged a season
joe don prize unclaimed
Posted by: Hugo at September 25, 2004 06:17 PM (3Hy+w)
13
While I'm patial to the last entry and Ted's entries, I gotta say that what satisfies the form best is:
Baker, broad-shouldered:
late-night tv heroics,
stuff of my childhood...
Posted by: Tuning Spork at September 25, 2004 06:54 PM (3bmI8)
14
I agree with Tuning Spork about "Baker, broad-shouldered" satisfying form. "Late-night" and "childhood" hint of season. "Heroics" hints of spirituality.
Posted by: gcotharn at September 25, 2004 09:28 PM (AaBEz)
15
My vote goes for Ted's. It's more a real haiku then the rest of them.
Posted by: Victor at September 26, 2004 07:33 AM (etHvD)
16
Gollum offers his haiku'ed opinion about the contest:
nassssty poetses!
they tries to steal the Precious!
kill them all! gollum!
Kevin
Posted by: Kevin Kim at September 26, 2004 09:34 AM (71h+p)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 23, 2004
Pimpin' For 300K
Brittany's not actually married, according to
this NY Post article, which also contains details of her pre-nuptial agreement.
Spears' rep, Leslie Sloane Zelnick, who had thought the singer was officially married, told The Post:
'Her marriage is not technically legal. But as far as Britney and Kevin [Federline's] union is concerned, it is a marriage and they are married. The papers were filed, but because the wedding date was switched so quickly, they didn't come through, and the marriage hasn't become legal yet.'
Another source said when — and if — the papers do come through, Britney will not stage another white-dress wedding when she's officially and legally married next month.
Assuming they're still together, i would add.
Us Weekly said Spears' prenup caused the 'technical' delay, as Federline was 'unhappy with how much he stood to gain if the marriage dissolved.'
The prenup gives Federline only '$300,000 a year for exactly half the tenure of their marriage' — a pittance, considering Spears' $32 million bank account.
A pittance? Hell, for 300 grr, i'd marry the bitch.
This is the most deplorable clause, though:
'Britney shall have no financial obligation to contribute to the support of [Federline's] two children.'
She's got all that money, she stole the dad from those two innocent kids and their mother, and she won't even cough up a little child support?
American Skankwoman, is right.
Via Wind Rider.
Posted by: annika at
11:14 AM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
Post contains 231 words, total size 2 kb.
1
This is the most deplorable clause, though:
"'Britney shall have no financial obligation to contribute to the support of [Federline's] two children.'
She's got all that money, she stole the dad from those two innocent kids and their mother, and she won't even cough up a little child support?
American Skankwoman, is right."
Man, you are on the money here! There's just some things you do. There's just some things that are right.
Britney's actions reveal her objective: Instant gratification from a short fun marriage with a guy she thinks is hot; and her lack of values: Zero consideration for anyone else-- not even a now abandoned mother-- not even two children! Britney is a lost soul behaving like a pure c***. She is a sickening car wreck one cannot turn away from.
Posted by: gcotharn at September 23, 2004 11:44 AM (Pbs6a)
2
Normally, annika, I agree with your anti-Britney screeds, but I have to disagree with you on a few points here.
First, she didn't "steal" anyone. Saying that he was "stolen" places the blame on Britney and absolves Kevin. Kevin left the mother of his children of his own volition. No one forced him at gun-point to do so. The responsibility for his choice and his children is primarily his. If Britney started seeing him while he was married (I don't know the actual details so I can't honestly say) then she
is guilty of participating in adultery, but the primary responsibility is still his and his alone.
Second, I think that you are completely wrong about the clause that you declare to be "deplorable." This is a pre-nup. As I understand the nature of pre-nuptual agreements, it applies only at such time as the marriage dissolves. This is not saying that she
won't help him with the children while they are together. It isn't even saying that she
won't help him with his children should they get a divorce. It simply states that she is not
legally responsible for them in the event of a divorce. There is a world of difference between the two. My belief, having parents who divorced when I was young and who both later remarried, is that the step-parent
does have responsibilites to the step-children during the marriage, and it would be deplorable for Britney to not live up to those responsibilities. An attempt to make her legally responsible for those children for the rest of her life if it turns out that he is only marrying her for her money would be equally deplorable.
Posted by: Jerry at September 23, 2004 12:14 PM (C34kV)
3
Jerry,
This is a question of class and taste and principles and values. Britney Spears has millions of men willing to make fools of themselves in her service. She does not need to grandly swoop in on someone else's fledgling relationship- especially when kids are involved.
And I don't want to hear "the fledgling relationship was struggling." EVERY SINGLE TIME someone wants to stray in a relationship, they justify it by saying the "relationship is struggling." "The relationship is struggling" is not an excuse for extracurricular play-around.
Secondly, when you're worth tens of millions of dollars, and you've just swooped in on some idiot, and encouraged him to ditch the mother of his children, you set up a little trust fund to take care of the children. Its just the right thing to do.
Britney gives away more than that in tip money. She spends more than that on salt rubs. Heck, she could cut down on charity donations for one year and set up a trust fund- I don't care- but she could stand to show the teensiest bit of class.
You're not thinking about the millions of guys Britney could choose from, or the tens of millions of dollars she controls. Heck with legalities. She could legally protect herself and still show a bit of class. Some things are just the right things to do.
Posted by: gcotharn at September 23, 2004 02:58 PM (Pbs6a)
4
GC: I will not say that "the fledgling relationship was struggling" because, as my comments clearly indicate, I do not know the details of the relationship between Federline and his ex. You are wrong, however, in your assertion that "is a question of class and taste and principles and values." It is none of those things. It is a question of a pre-nuptual agreement. The main purpose of a pre-nup is to protect the material assets of each member of a marriage in the event of a divorce. As I pointed out very clearly in my comments, I agree that Britney has responsibilities to the children of her husband. Fulfilling those responsibilities will be the classy, tasteful, principled, values-based thing to do. None of this has any bearing on her
legal responsibilities. Nothing in the pre-nup (based, of course, on the limited portionsof it quoted in the article) prevent her from doing any of the things that you suggested. Nothing in the article states or even
implies that she won't. You are making brazen assumptions by implying that she will do nothing for those children.
As to the question of Britney "swooping" in on Federline, I also clearly stated in my comments that she is likely guilty of participating in adultry and that this is immoral. The key issue, which you fail to even
mention in your rebuttal, is that federline could have simply said "no." He has free will and the right to exercise it. The
primary responsibility for the situation that his children are now in his his. He doesn't get absolved of all wrongdoing just because Britney has "has millions of men" and "tens of millions of dollars" at her disposal.
Posted by: Jerry at September 23, 2004 07:34 PM (97+nP)
5
Of COURSE the idiot dancer is responsible and culpable(I've got NOTHING against dancers. But I have seen photos of THIS dancer, and he is an idiot.) I don't care about the idiot. I can't believe I'm even writing another comment about the skank!
Pretend you are Britney Spears. Would you use your fame and your millions to swoop in on this idiot, his children, and their mother? No. No. A thousand times no. You, Jerry/Britney, seem like a decent and sensible person. You would couple with another of your many admirers, and hope that the idiot could somehow find it within himself to forthrightly straighten out or get out of his relationship. Long odds, that.
You would heed a more civilized code than Skankwoman, because you have more class, more sense, and more decency.
Its true that skankwoman may quietly take care of the kids. However, nothing about her gives me confidence in that happening. I saw her using the one girl as a prop in a People Magazine cover. It turned my stomach.
Posted by: gcotharn at September 23, 2004 09:21 PM (Pbs6a)
6
GC: Then my original comment stands:
1) Federline is responsible for his own actions, not Britney, although she does have to take responsibility for her own bad behavior.
2) The "deplorable" clause in the pre-nup merely offers Britney a reasonable level of legal protection in the event that Federline is simply using her for her money and it does not, in any way, prevent her from meeting the responsibilities that she has to the family of her husband and nothing in the article either states or implies that she won't meet those responsibilities.
Posted by: Jerry at September 24, 2004 06:22 AM (C34kV)
7
annika's journal:
we editorialize, you decide.
Posted by: annika at September 24, 2004 09:53 AM (zAOEU)
8
[rant] OK, a quick rundown.
1) Federline is the "baby daddy" to these two kids. He never married their mother.
2) Federline started f***ing Skankwoman while Shar Jackson was pregnant with his child.
3) Skankwoman started f***ing Federline while another woman was pregnant with his child.
4) Shar Jackson let herself get knocked up twice by a man to whom she wasn't married.
5) Shar Jackson apparently also has two children by at least one father other than Federline.
6) I can find no evidence that Jackson has
ever been married.
So, what does all this tell us:
(a) Federline is a degenerate scumbag who knocks up women not his wife, doesn't marry them, and will stick his d*** in any available slut at any time -- including when another woman, already the mother of one of his children, is bearing his child.
(b) Shar Jackson is at best guilty of very bad judgment, and at worst a stupid whore.
(c) Skankwoman is a cheap, amoral slut, and stupid enough to marry a known philanderer.
These people deserve each other. Federline deserves to have his $300K/year shoved up his a** a penny at a time. Hopefully, en route to that happy denouement he will (1) knock up Skankwoman; (2) f*** some nasty whore behind Skankwoman's back; (3) bring home an incurable (non-fatal), sexually transmitted disease -- herpes would be good -- and transmit it to Skankwoman; and (4) have his d*** shrivel up and fall off immediately after he infects Skankwoman. Skankwoman deserves to be impregnated, cheated on, infected, and divorced, and to have her career go down the sh**ter as well. Shar Jackson deserves to be cheated on by virtue of repeatedly displaying piss-poor judgment.
The only innocent parties here are Jackson's kids. But I see no reason Spears should pay for them. Their idiot/whore mother and degenerate father chose to bring those kids into this world, and they should have to support them. In fact, I'd be much happier if both natural parents had to work themselves into early graves doing backbreaking work on a daily basis in order to support the results of their stupidity/irresponsibility. They shouldn't be able to pass the responsibility off on Daddy's wife, even if she is a dirty slut.
[/rant]
Posted by: Matt at September 24, 2004 09:13 PM (eWM9Y)
9
Annie:
Doncha think we've all wasted enough time on this person?
Let's follow the Michael Jackson saga...at least justice should be coming to him a little more swiftly.
Posted by: shelly s. at September 25, 2004 01:00 AM (s6c4t)
10
I'm so weak. I swore I would lay off this comment thread, yet I'm coming back to it like an addict. I hate myself. But gimme the crackpipe.
Imagine Federline is en flagrante delecto with Jackson. Skankwoman saunters in au natural, and purrs for Federline to come across the room and delecto a bit with a blond temptress. Federline, in the process of disengagement and redeployment, knocks two beautiful vases to the ground- shattering both into many pieces.
Now, Federline knocked over and shattered those vases. Its HIS responsibility. It IS NOT Skankwoman's fault. It IS NOT her responsibility. But, the classy thing, the decent thing, is for Skankwoman to grab an extra broom and help sweep up the mess.
I'm not advocating that Skankwoman show moral responsibility. I'm advocating that Skankwoman show some common decency.
Since prenups have been instituted into this situation, its disingenious to say "This should be covered by prenup, but this other should not be covered by prenup." If you're going to bring prenup into the picture, go all the way.
Skankwoman has a legal case that she's not responsible for the kids. If she was a waitress at Chile's, I would absolutely say she has a moral case that she's not responsible for the kids. But she's not a waitress at Chile's. When fortune smiles, the classy thing is to share a bit of your good fortune with others. To not do so is bad juju, bad karma, and just an all around lack of class.
As soon as I sober up, I will never touch this intoxicating subject again. I swear.
Posted by: gcotharn at September 25, 2004 12:54 PM (AaBEz)
11
To all that's been said, I'd also add that anything in a prenuptial agreement relating to child support is likely to be held by a court to be unenforceable. Just as with custody, courts typically use the "best interests of the child" standard, and I'd expect there are plenty of statutes to govern this that would trump the prenup regardless.
Posted by: Dave J at September 29, 2004 10:37 AM (VThvo)
12
britney doesn't have to pay child support for the asshole's kids. it's the asshole's responsibility to pay child support. they are the jerk's kids, not hers. and britney didn't steal anyone, it was that fuckin' bastard who started dating her. kevin is so cheeky. he says the cash he will receive in case he and brit split is too little. he doesn't deserve even a penny.
Posted by: alazobbi at August 06, 2005 02:59 PM (aKIoq)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 22, 2004
No Poetry Today
No Poetry Today, but be sure to check out Poetry Thursday on
Hugo's blog tomorrow.
Update: Victor the Rat has unilaterally decided to turn this into Joe Don Baker Haiku Day, which is such an absurd idea that i have to give it my hearty endorsement.
annika isn't celebrating Poetry Day today. In protest, I'm turning her comments into Joe Don Baker Haiku Day. Frequent annika commenter Scof has already submitted an excellent one that offers an insight into JDB that I hadn't realized before. I, of course, have submitted a couple and I'll do a couple more before the day is over.
i will judge all haikus submitted before 7:00 a.m. PDT tomorrow (for the benefit of my overseas visitors -
Kevin Kim, that means you) and the winner gets a prize from my stash of highly coveted annika's journal merchandise!
Don't know who Joe Don Baker is? Click here.
Update: Deadline extended to 10:00 p.m. Thursday night.
Posted by: annika at
07:36 AM
| Comments (32)
| Add Comment
Post contains 163 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Boo!
I'm going to turn this into "Joe Don Baker Haiku" day:
Vegas: C-O-D
Such a God-awful movie
Straight to D-V-D
Posted by: Victor at September 22, 2004 08:51 AM (L3qPK)
2
Thanks. Way to put the pressure on, though... sheesh!
H
Posted by: Hugo at September 22, 2004 09:25 AM (9ndHD)
Posted by: Scof at September 22, 2004 09:37 AM (XCqS+)
4
In "Charley Varrick"
Joe Don Baker is Molly!
What's with the girl's name?
Posted by: Victor at September 22, 2004 10:09 AM (L3qPK)
5
Charley Varrick is one of my all time favorite 70's action flicks. In fact, i'd put it up there with Bullitt, Mr. Majestyk, and The Getaway. And i'm pleased to see i'm not the only one who noticed the resemblance between Joe Don Baker and Fred Thompson. For a long time i thought they were one and the same.
My favorite Joe Don Baker line from Charley Varrick: "I didn't come all this way for the amusement of idiots."
Posted by: annika! at September 22, 2004 10:19 AM (zAOEU)
6
Quote: I didn't come
all this way for the amuse-
ment of idiots.
Posted by: Victor at September 22, 2004 10:59 AM (L3qPK)
7
NHL Ref'ree
Koharski looks like Joe Don.
He likes doughnuts, too.
Posted by: Victor at September 22, 2004 12:00 PM (L3qPK)
8
Large is joe don's head
Which makes this all funny since
I thought he was
dead
Posted by: Scof at September 22, 2004 01:47 PM (XCqS+)
9
Remake Willard flick
Joe Don Baker in the lead
Victor's fantasy
Posted by: Ted at September 22, 2004 05:03 PM (ZjSa7)
10
Distracting Victor
From fantasy football league
Look! Joe Don Baker!
Posted by: Ted at September 22, 2004 05:12 PM (ZjSa7)
11
Dictionary page
Joe Don Baker defined as
Genius with a sneer
Posted by: Ted at September 22, 2004 05:17 PM (ZjSa7)
12
Baker, broad-shouldered:
late-night tv heroics,
stuff of my childhood...
Posted by: Hugo at September 22, 2004 05:33 PM (3Hy+w)
13
Joe Don walked tall
When Dwayne Jonhson wore diapers.
Johnson is his bitch.
Joe Don, sixty-eight,
Lion in winter. Still not
One to trifle with.
Joe Don, hero of
MS3K for Mitchell.
At his worst, still fun.
I can't seem to get away from that "Joe Don" opening!
Posted by: Matt at September 22, 2004 08:06 PM (eWM9Y)
14
orphaned and feral
Joe Don Baker stopped drooling
only yesterday
but nobody knows:
Joe Don made a porno flick
it's called "Talking Balls"
Annika's secret
she's got a Joe Don tattoo
on her inner thigh
Joe Don Baker's ass
known throughout all Hollywood
as The Butt Unplugged
ask Joe Don nicely
give him lots of cash and he'll
gladly spoo your tits
I once saw Joe Don
tear a wolf in two using
only his nipples
Kevin
Posted by: Kevin Kim at September 22, 2004 08:14 PM (7rEaY)
15
Joe Don Baker is
Gary Cooper in High Noon
for the Nascar set.
Joe Don Baker ain't
no faker like Sly Stallone,
who is five eight, maybe.
Groesbeck, Texas sits
sleepily west of Waco,
until the bar fight.
Like Joe Don Baker,
I'll need Double X Large size
from Annika's stash!
Posted by: gcotharn at September 22, 2004 11:04 PM (ubeXj)
16
Kevin/gcotharn,
Strong. Fuckin' strong.
Posted by: Matt at September 23, 2004 03:40 AM (eWM9Y)
17
Gary Cooper is
Gary Cooper in High Noon
For the NASCAR set.
Joe Don is the king
Of redneck cops and puffy,
Drunk anti-heroes.
Just a guess: Joe Don
Has polished off many a
Bottle of
Dickel.
I really like the Gary Cooper comparison though, gcotharn. I tried to do something similar and failed.
Posted by: Matt at September 23, 2004 04:19 AM (eWM9Y)
Posted by: Victor at September 23, 2004 05:09 AM (L3qPK)
19
Talk about
Wacko!
Andrew "Dice" Clay's first movie!
Another stinker.
Wacko shows pics of
Joe Don Baker in a dress!
Please take me now, Lord.
Posted by: Victor at September 23, 2004 05:15 AM (L3qPK)
20
Victor,
You, sir, are a god. And you pull it off without alluding to secretory functions or vaguely autoerotic discussions of Annie's inner thigh. (Not that there's anything wrong, per se, with either of those things.) I tip my hat to you.
And I just got lucky on Porkapalooza.
Posted by: Matt at September 23, 2004 07:10 AM (SIlfx)
21
Joe Don Baker: the
Brian Dennehy of 'necks.
First Blood needed him.
I am not the first
To notice the resemblance.
See TV's
Hard Stick.
Posted by: Matt at September 23, 2004 07:54 AM (SIlfx)
Posted by: annika at September 23, 2004 09:08 AM (zAOEU)
23
Ring of Steel! Joe Don
wants you to face your dest'ny!
At least it has boobs.
Posted by: Victor at September 23, 2004 09:34 AM (L3qPK)
24
Matt, thank you for the comments. In case you hadn't noticed, I'm a huuuge JDB fan. I'm actually holding back a bit, if only because I'm at work.
Posted by: Victor at September 23, 2004 09:47 AM (L3qPK)
25
The haiku is done
Where is Annika now that
We need her wit now?
Posted by: shelly s. at September 23, 2004 11:03 AM (s6c4t)
26
Shelly? Is that you? Is that the same long-lost little lamb from the JDB Discussion list?
Posted by: Victor at September 23, 2004 11:07 AM (L3qPK)
27
I don't know what's more disturbing; the fact that someone from the JDB discussion list found their way here just because of the JDB haiku, or the fact that a JDB discussion list even exists.
Posted by: Ted at September 23, 2004 11:42 AM (blNMI)
28
Instead of working,
I'm checking to see if I
scored Annika graft!
Sadly, XXL
costs too much to be conferred
by a law student!
Matt- Thanks for the compliment! You have a point: Gary Cooper is Gary Cooper for people like me:
gcotharn: Bubba
watching High Noon late at night
and tapping keyboard.
But sometimes Gary Cooper is only a rumor:
Some Bubbas are not
awake to watch High Noon on
TCM Late Night.
Some Bubbas do not
visit Black and White Classics
at the Blockbuster.
To the contest!
Isn't it sad when
Joe Don and Fred Thom are more
real than: Kerry, John?
I can pay bills if
I go back to work now. Its
what Joe Don would do.
Posted by: gcotharn at September 23, 2004 11:50 AM (Pbs6a)
29
It's been asked
before:
W.W.J.
D.B.D., really?
Posted by: Victor at September 23, 2004 12:28 PM (L3qPK)
30
Great shades of Elvis,
Rocking the gates of Graceland.
Who is this Joe Don Baker?
Posted by: GEBIV at September 23, 2004 03:26 PM (BQDCT)
31
I don't know Joe Don.
Don't really give a rat's ass.
Wrote a haiku, though!
Posted by: Tuning Spork at September 23, 2004 07:53 PM (APIH8)
Posted by: annika! at September 23, 2004 10:02 PM (vf7R8)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 20, 2004
"Hi Mom, College Is Fun, And I Finally Found A Diet I Can Stick To!"
Is the following a joke, or is it serious? Probably both.
From a site called College Sex Advice comes this:
The Freshman Sex Diet
The dreaded Freshman Fifteen - those infamous extra pounds that new college arrivals inevitably pack on. This weight gain typically results from a diet of dorm food, pizza parties, keggers, and junk-food fueled all-nighters, coupled with reduced physical activity. Luckily there is a fun and easy solution that can keep you in shape - have sex!
Sounds reasonable? Wait, it gets better:
Sex is great exercise and it's more fun than going to the gym. Sex is good for your circulation, improves aerobic fitness by increasing heart rate and respiration, and exercises many major muscle groups. Each time you have sex, you burn between 100 to 300 calories per hour, depending on how vigorously you go at it. If you can't find a partner, don't worry; masturbation burns calories too.
To get the most fitness value out of sex, be sure to include lot of different activities in your session . . . To spot-tone problem areas of the body, here are some specific exercises you can do during sex. Your partner doesn't even need to know that you're working out while you screw. Try to avoid counting reps under your breath - it could spoil the mood.
Some PG rated examples: "Cowgirl Quad Lifts," the "Inner Thigh Scissors Squeeze," and "Missionary Push Ups." You get the picture.
Chilling in front of the TV is prime snacking time for lots of folks. Same goes for listening to music or watching movies. Next time you settle down in front of the tube, instead of reaching into that bag of chips, reach down your pants and spank the monkey or pet your kitty. If you're with friends, don't be shy; try to get them in on the act too.
Umm, Ohhh-kay . . .
My days at Cal were pretty wild, but i think any guy who tried that, even at Berkeley, would've gotten a different kind of beat-down pretty quickly, and often.
i don't know. Has college changed that much since i was a freshman?
Link via Life of Brian.
Posted by: annika at
11:07 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 388 words, total size 3 kb.
1
I don't know if it would be wise for women to adopt that as a method to reduce the "freshman fifteen" when they could possibly gain another 15 lbs. in their uterus's...........
Posted by: reagan80 at September 21, 2004 02:28 AM (hlMFQ)
2
Uh, no, it doesn't seem to have changed that much. It's asinine, really, but disturbing too. There is an element among today's college students that sees anything private as essentially pathological. In other words, anything worth doing is worth doing publicly -- or at least worth discussing in public. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Posted by: Hugo at September 21, 2004 10:22 AM (xlJnL)
3
Hmmmmm, you know, I WAS thinking of heading back to school.
Posted by: Casca at September 21, 2004 04:22 PM (Y671w)
4
More importantly, where do you get the flip-flops?
: )
Posted by: Jennifer at September 21, 2004 05:46 PM (6DHk9)
5
i just spanked my monkey!
Posted by: Um Yeah at September 21, 2004 07:40 PM (blqvG)
6
Women were and still are verbotten in the men's dorms where I went to college except for a few hours on weekends. If they wished to use the common rooms they had to be escorted and the guys were required to declare: "Lady in the Hall as they walked through." So, as you can see, sex in the dorms would likely not be received well.
This "sex advice" (or is that diet advice?)is so far removed from my college experience that I can't even imagine it. I mean, I can imagine it...oh never mind.
Posted by: Patrick at September 22, 2004 05:55 PM (MDQPq)
7
As a thirty-something back in college to finish up a few last classes, I can only imagine this isn't too far from the truth - however, I'm not that, ahem,
close to the undergrad population to know for sure, nor will I ever be. They're rude and bratty enough to be offensive fully clothed.
But I can tell you I've seen enough ass crack and thong while I'm wandering around the campus,
trying to mind my own frickin' business to last me the
Rest. Of. My life.
Posted by: willow at September 23, 2004 09:52 AM (+vY9/)
8
Do the "enlightened" folk at College Sex Advice mention anything regarding the consequences of their advice? You know, like unwanted pregnancies and disease?
Or am I thinking WAY too far ahead?
Posted by: Mark the Sex Therapist at September 23, 2004 03:21 PM (Vg0tt)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Rather Caves
Now that CBS News and Dan Rather
have accepted the obvious, i think its an excellent time to hit them with another round of
e-mails calling for Rather's resignation. Throw Mapes in there too, for good measure.
In case you haven't seen it, here's the statement:
STATEMENT FROM DAN RATHER:
Last week, amid increasing questions about the authenticity of documents used in support of a 60 MINUTES WEDNESDAY story about President Bush's time in the Texas Air National Guard, CBS News vowed to re-examine the documents in question—and their source—vigorously. And we promised that we would let the American public know what this examination turned up, whatever the outcome.
Now, after extensive additional interviews, I no longer have the confidence in these documents that would allow us to continue vouching for them journalistically. I find we have been misled on the key question of how our source for the documents came into possession of these papers. That, combined with some of the questions that have been raised in public and in the press, leads me to a point where—if I knew then what I know now—I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question.
But we did use the documents. We made a mistake in judgment, and for that I am sorry. It was an error that was made, however, in good faith and in the spirit of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of investigative reporting without fear or favoritism.
Please know that nothing is more important to us than people's trust in our ability and our commitment to report fairly and truthfully.
Contact CBS News by clicking here.
More: Why does it take "extensive additional interviews" (presumably referring to CBS's upcoming Burkett interview) for Rather and company to discern what anyone else can see, simply by looking at the documents for five minutes.
That's the problem with "journalists." They don't have the brainpower to understand technical issues (which the bloggers grasped immediately), so they rely on hearsay almost exclusively. They would make horrible lawyers.
He that liveth by hearsay, must perish by hearsay.
Send those e-mails, please.
Update: A rather amusing poem by Smallholder at Nakedvillainy.com.
Posted by: annika at
09:40 AM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 377 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Dan Rather certainly got snookered. Just goes to show that relying on your employees to figure things out for you can be disastrous if you are not paying attention. Does anybody have any evidence that he participated in this fraud, or do you think it was so obvious a fraud that he must have known?
I've been writing letters to the White House asking Bush to resign, too. He either got really snookered by the intelligence community, otherwise know as his employees, or he was in on the fraud all along. Nothing he presented as evidence turned out to be true either!
I guess I better start writing to CBS too, but I fear the same outcome as my letters to the WH.
What to do!!
Posted by: mike at September 20, 2004 10:15 AM (0ZdtC)
2
Please do write to CBS, Mike.
Your analogy is interesting, but unsound. You make the mistake of so many others, by focusing entirely on WMD as the justification for the war in Iraq. It's understandable that you would make that mistake, since the administration has done such a piss poor job of explaining why the Iraq War was necessary. But it's clear to me, and to anyone who had done the necessary analysis, that the War was and is justified as part of the "War on Terror." i've posted on this extensively, so i won't repeat my arguments in this comment. But i would add that Krauthammer's AEI speech is a good place to start your research, if you're really open-minded on the issue, which i doubt.
Posted by: annika! at September 20, 2004 10:43 AM (zAOEU)
3
If you read between the lines, you'll notice subliminal messages in the statement........
"It was an error that was made, however, in good faith and in the spirit of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of investigative reporting WITHOUT FEAR or FAVORITISM."
Translation: ......in the spirit of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of courageously making reports that depict conservatives unfavorably.
Now, where's my tin foil hat?
Posted by: reagan80 at September 20, 2004 11:48 AM (O7itv)
4
I tried to converse with folks on the Kerry blog and they kicked me off. They don't want to hear that the docs were fake.
Posted by: Paul at September 20, 2004 12:29 PM (9/Szu)
5
Yah Paul. It reminds me of the days before Clinton admitted to the Lewinsky thing, when everybody was saying they believed him. Then they all had egg on their faces after Clinton admitted it.
Posted by: annika! at September 20, 2004 12:44 PM (zAOEU)
6
Thank God for these media outlets (like this one), kicking butt and dispelling rumors.
No longer can the mainstream media have a field day with their own liberal agenda.
Oh well, have a good day.
- Paul
Posted by: Paul at September 20, 2004 12:55 PM (9/Szu)
7
It's too bad CSI, I mean CBS, is keeping him on the air, this was a golden opportunity for them to shake things up. I'll send another email, I hope it does the job.
Posted by: Scof at September 20, 2004 02:09 PM (XCqS+)
8
I want DubYuh to do an interview with him, and when Dan gets snotty as he surely will, look him in the eye and say, "Dan, what did you know, and when did you know it?"
Posted by: Casca at September 20, 2004 06:49 PM (Y671w)
9
Let's see ... Rather used information he thought was accurate and reported on it. He was mistaken, the information was wrong. The potential damage-- possibily a slight blemish on President Bush. Now consider this. Bush used information he thought was accurate and acted on it. He was mistaken, the information was wrong. The potential damage-- tens of thousands of people are dead. So based on this logic shouldn't they both resign?
Posted by: thebigo at October 10, 2004 05:00 PM (IwZ9f)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Gimme A Quick Pick, Cash Value
Quickly, tonights game, Vikings at Eagles, McNabb and Owens vs. Culpepper and Moss, blah blah blah. The difference for me is Westbrook over Onterrio Smith, though the Vikings might have a better run defense.
Spread is Eagles minus three. i think the Eagles will cover, go with Philly.
Update: Eagles over Minnesota, 27-16. Moss and Owens were roughly even in effectiveness. But Brian Westbrook rushed for 69 yards and caught for 69, including several big plays. Whereas Onterrio Smith only had 28 yards rushing.
Go ahead and say it: i fucking rock!
Update 2: Oops, i just checked out this weeks results for the Blogger's Bowl fantasy football league. My opponent this week is Victor's Rats of Chaos (what is it with that boy and rats?), and while i currently lead him by a hefty margin, Yahoo has not yet updated the stats and he has four Philly players on his team. He's predicting an additional 60 points based on McNabb and company's performance tonight.
As Charlie Brown would say: "Rats!"
Posted by: annika at
06:56 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 183 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: Dex at September 20, 2004 08:12 AM (xTho8)
Posted by: Victor at September 20, 2004 11:13 AM (L3qPK)
3
69/69? &you more than covered your spread (all'n 1 nite?).
You're awesome!
Posted by: d-rod at September 20, 2004 11:42 PM (9/zDO)
4
With all this talk of 69 and the spread, maybe this post should be filed under the "sex please" rubric.
Posted by: annika! at September 20, 2004 11:53 PM (mGLSq)
5
I wuz wrong, annika. My boys put up 74 points! Go Rats!
You may take some consolation in the fact I'm now in second place in Blogger Bowl 2004, by ten points, but this season is *far* from over.
Posted by: Victor at September 21, 2004 04:59 AM (L3qPK)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
160kb generated in CPU 0.1357, elapsed 0.1977 seconds.
79 queries taking 0.1664 seconds, 382 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
){kind=link}