Annika's Journal Film Festival: Elizabeth Taylor, Part 3
A happy belated birthday to Elizabeth Taylor, who was born February 27, 1932, in Hampstead, London, England.
Today's movie needs no introduction.
Cleopatra, 1963
This is the big one. Cleopatra is the most expensive American film ever made. Adjusted for inflation, it cost more to make than either Waterworld or Titanic. Only the Russian made War And Peace from 1968 cost more. The 44 million Cleopatra's producers spent by 1963 translates to over 285 million dollars today.
Cleopatra almost destroyed 20th Century Fox. For a time, it was the only movie in production from the studio. It's an example of how not to make a movie, if you want to save money. First, they completely rolled over for Elizabeth Taylor. Not only did they pay her million dollar asking price, with no counter-offer, they agreed to all her other demands including that it be made outside the U.S. When all was said and done (including a lawsuit filed by 20th Century Fox against Taylor and Burton) she ended up taking home 7 million.
Twentieth Century Fox originally started filming at Pinewood Studios in London, constructing a huge outdoor set of Alexandria. Taylor got sick (she almost died from pneumonia) and the production sat idle while she recuperated. They couldn't film because she was in mostly every scene. England's weather wouldn't cooperate either. It seems Rome and Alexandria in the fog just wasn't convincing enough for a big budget epic, so they finally destroyed the set and moved the production to Italy. By the time they were finished with it, cameras had rolled in England, Italy, Egypt and Spain.
Because of the delays, they also had to replace the original director and their two male leads, who got sick of waiting around doing nothing. Meanwhile, the script was written as the filming was going on, which required the production schedule to follow the script. That's not the most efficient use of sets and personnel because it requires that everybody stick around collecting paychecks, whether or not they're going to be used that day.
And the sets were extravagant. If you look at the details in the background, you can see they spared no expense. The gold leaf was real gold. Even the props were beautifully hand crafted. One minor actor had a sceptre made for him, which cost a shitload of money. After one rehearsal he said to director Joseph Mankiewicz "Joe, do I need this stick?" Mankiewicz said, "No, get rid of it." The actor later grumbled, "That's the trouble with this picture. It's full of such sticks." Another example — one of Elizabeth Taylor's 65 costumes was made out of spun gold.
Producer Walter Wanger (who did four months in jail for shooting a guy in the dick) seemed like the perfect guy to handle an iconic female biopic, since he made Queen Christina with Greta Garbo back in 1933. He wasn't up to the task. After Cleopatra, he never made another movie. Studio head Spyros Skouras was accused of cooking the books to hide the runaway spending from Fox's shareholders. When one accountant refused to cooperate, Skouras fired him and got one who would.
The scene in the YouTube video below is one of my favorites from the movie. Here Queen Cleopatra makes her triumphant entry into Rome with Caesarion at her side. It's a pretty good example of how the filmmakers spared absolutely no expense on this picture. There's no CG animation of course. So when you see Queen Cleopatra riding on a 50 foot sphinx being pulled by a hundred men through the Arch of Titus, she's really riding on a 50 foot sphinx being pulled by a hundred men through the Arch of Titus.* When they originally started filming this scene the shadows were unacceptable to DP Leon Shamroy, so they had to wait another six months before trying again.
Cleopatra is an incredible motion picture, as befitting an incredible woman, Cleopatra VII, the last Pharoah of Egypt. It's over four hours long (cut down from the original six hours) and even I couldn't watch it in one sitting. Its strengths include the spectacular pageantry, costumes and majestic score, which you can see and hear in the above YouTube clip. The battle scenes are great, and some of the matte paintings are indistinguishable from reality. The movie's weaknesses include the plodding script, which never seems to get into the character of its main subject. We learn a lot about what Cleopatra did, but we never really seem to get to know her.
By contrast, we learn that Marc Antony was kind of a loser, while Gaius Julius Caesar was a real winner. Rex Harrison (pre-Henry Higgins) was surprisingly convincing as the Dictator of Rome. Richard Burton, on the other hand, played Marc Antony as if he had just graduated from the William Shatner school of acting. For some reason, Burton's Roman skirt is about six inches too short throughout the movie. It looks silly, and his legs weren't that great.
In this next scene you can see the assassination of Julius Caesar through Cleopatra's eyes. Yes, that's Carol O'Connor sticking the first dagger in. (How fitting that Casca would be played by Archie Bunker.)
There are some great scenes that unfortunately I couldn't find on YouTube, including the one where Cleopatra has a public spat with Marc Antony, who comes to her seeking grain and an alliance.
Cleopatra: Without a treaty of alliance with Egypt, you could not hold the territories under your command. True?
Antony: Possibly.
Cleopatra: Then Lord Antony, you come before me as a suppliant.
Antony: If you choose to regard me as such.
Cleopatra: I do. You will therefore assume the position of a suppliant before this throne. You will kneel.
Antony: (incredulous) I will what?
Cleopatra: On... your... knees.
Antony: You dare ask the proconsul of the Roman Empire...
Cleopatra: (pissed) I asked it of Julius Caesar. I demand it of you.
Oh, he kneels.
Elizabeth Taylor's performance did not earn her an Oscar nomination, as Rex Harrison's did. She was inconsistent and seemed lost with such a big script. Some of this might not be her fault, of course. After she saw the film, Taylor complained that her best work had been edited out when Daryl Zanuck insisted that it be cut down to a manageable four hours.
When the real Cleopatra first met Caesar, after sneaking into his room in a rolled up carpet, she was only nineteen years old. She died at age 39, legend says from a self inflicted asp bite. Yet, Elizabeth Taylor never seems to grow in the film. Her nineteen year old Queen acts the same as her 39 year old Queen. Only the costumes are different.
The most fantastic scene for me was the depiction of the Battle of Actium. Roman history buffs know this was the naval battle off the coast of Greece between the forces of Octavian and the forces of Marc Antony, which ended the Roman Civil War and signaled the end of the Roman Republic. Watching the movie, I knew the ships were all models, but it's such an unfamiliar scene I found it believable.
I gave Cleopatra four Netflix stars (really liked it). I did really like it, even while I wished it could have been better. It's just so big, it's an accomplishment getting through the whole thing. And I feel like all the effort they put into such an epic does count for something, although it is ultimately unsatisfying. I suspect that if they ever find and restore all that lost footage, the original six hour version will probably be a lot better.
_______________
* Never mind that the Arch of Titus was built a hundred years after Cleopatra's death.
Posted by: Casca at March 06, 2007 07:34 AM (Y7t14)
2
I own this movie. I watched it about two weeks ago with my wife and both daughters (aged 9 and
. They all loved it. Frankly, we all like it a lot. I agree that Taylor and Burton aren't at their best in this one. But the film is so lavish it makes viewing something of an experience.
My eldest daughter liked it better than Taylor and Burton in "The Taming of the Shrew" which we watched at Christmas.
Posted by: Radical Redneck at March 06, 2007 11:30 AM (VxchV)
4
For some odd reason, on my first reading I thought Redneck's comment said Liz was a "harpie" and thought "WTF?? Fine piece of harpie??".
This quit caffeine thing just isn't working out right...
Posted by: ElMondoHummus at March 07, 2007 09:12 AM (xHyDY)
5
I thought it said "harpie", too, but that still leaves me confused about what's being said. I've never heard the word "hairpie". I'm going to look it up on the urban slang dictionary site.
Posted by: Joules at March 07, 2007 10:46 AM (u4CYb)
6
Well, I'm back. The definition of hair pie (spelled as two words on this site)is what I thought it might be. Gross. Men should have more respect for women and today's women need to remember respect for men. And I don't care if this sounds like the 42-year-old minister's daughter and mom that I am.
Posted by: Joules at March 07, 2007 10:53 AM (u4CYb)
7
Yes, and the shrubs should be trimmed once in a while too.
Posted by: Casca at March 07, 2007 01:47 PM (Y7t14)
8
If hair-free bodies are the aesthetic ideal then the need for trimming goes both ways; however, if letting nature take its course is the desirable aesthetic then let the garden grow.
Posted by: Joules at March 07, 2007 02:59 PM (u4CYb)
9
Joules, you're SUCH an extremist. I'm talking good grooming. Girls like it too. You need a few Laura Corn books.
Posted by: Casca at March 07, 2007 03:41 PM (2gORp)
10
Oh, I was just trying to think of something interesting and provocative to say on the blog. Nothing provokes like extremism. Seriously, don't you think it's a matter of individual preference?
Posted by: Joules at March 07, 2007 04:38 PM (u4CYb)
Posted by: Casca at March 07, 2007 11:15 PM (2gORp)
12
Hehe... no use calling them "privates" anymore, huh? Not when someone's talking about the social impact of "well manicured" vs. "freely grown".
Posted by: ElMondoHummus at March 08, 2007 09:12 AM (xHyDY)
13
Good point. Another example of the freedom of the internet. I wouldn't likely be discussing this topic with strangers--unless I was with my husband's co-workers (he does background art for videogames) and conversation is pretty much a free-for-all once you get out of the office.
Posted by: Joules at March 08, 2007 09:48 AM (u4CYb)
14
I've never heard this slang before. I learn so much here!
Posted by: Mike C. at March 08, 2007 04:23 PM (86QII)
15
Try this link. This is where I look up everything I've never heard. I learn so much here and at the urban dictionary!
http://www.urbandictionary.com/
Posted by: Joules at March 08, 2007 04:27 PM (u4CYb)
Hansbrough's Nose Is Broke
We all went to bed last night thinking Tyler Hansbrough's nose was bloody but unbroken. However, x-rays today confirm a non-displaced hairline fracture, which is surely painful but not as bad as it could have been.
I've watched the replay of the flagrant foul several times and it's really hard to decide what to think. Looking at the camera angle from behind the basket, Henderson's elbow easily looks intentional, and flagrant. From that viewpoint the way he twists his body appears unnecessary, unless he were trying to throw the elbow. It also looks almost like he's got a closed fist too. But when I look at the replay with the camera angle from the left of the key, it looks totally accidental. From that angle, Henderson's hand is open, and it does appear that his mid-air twist was an attempt to maintain his balance as he came down from his jump.
1
Let me say right up front that I am a North Carolina fan, and I dislike Duke. (The reverse is true with women's basketball, but that's another story.) I watched ESPN last night, and your video today, and it seems a reckless foul, a stupid foul, an excessively rough play -- but not an intentional foul. The distinction is a narrow one.
Posted by: Hugo Schwyzer at March 05, 2007 03:53 PM (Yu24L)
2
I thought it was intentional. He seems to come out of nowhere and is not going for the ball at all. It looked as if he was definitely throwing the elbow. However, I was drinking beer and eating pizza at the time, so I wasn't paying that close attention.
Posted by: Preston at March 05, 2007 09:11 PM (HZZuA)
3
Somebody should look at it," Krzyzewski said. "If they see it different, then we accept it. I know there was not the intent to (hurt Hansbrough)."
No, but there was an intent to send a message to Roy Williams about having one of his stars of the game still playing hard with only 14 seconds left and the game well in hand..
Even if the act was Henderson's decision (probably given Duke is down this year and Henderson is a top sub), recall Coach K said last year about the GMU player who punched another player in the crotch
We need more coaches to have the courage to step up in situations like this and say to our kids, ‘That's wrong; I’m not making excuses for you..
Coach K only focuses on intent not to hurt..still no excuse for the player's action.
Posted by: Col Steve at March 06, 2007 01:26 AM (8Wfq8)
4
He threw it and looked right at the guy as he went down.
It was no accident. He wasn't even going for the ball.
Posted by: shelly at March 06, 2007 06:46 AM (JQe3J)
5
I grew up on Tobacco Road and bleed Duke blue. Having said that, I've watched the video from several angles and have some thoughts:
1) Henderson meant to foul Hansbrough extremely hard, up to and including knocking him to the turf.
2) It doesn't appear like it was an intentional elbow to the face, but rather a flagrant, overkill foul attempt that didn't slow down at all when the basketball was long gone.
3) It was unbelievably stupid. Sending a message? Sure, that you're a dumbass. Now a top sub is out for a game that Duke might want to win.
Anyway, I think that Henderson swung as hard as he could to foul Hansbrough, but it wouldn't have been such a big deal if the ball were still there, which would likely have prevented the broken nose. Unfortunately, the ball was, so Henderson ended up acting like a goon.
In unrelated news, my alma mater VCU won its tournament title last night, so I'm at least somewhat happy.
Posted by: physics geek at March 06, 2007 09:12 AM (KqeHJ)
6
Annika,
I agree with the points of the Physics Geek and the rest. I too, have no love for Duke (my son is graduating Maryland this year). This was a suspendable infraction. Way to hard, the ball long gone. If not specifically designed to hurt someone it was reckless and looked more like a corner back trying to dislodge the football ofter a catch. Not a basketball move.
Posted by: strawman at March 06, 2007 10:03 AM (9ySL4)
7
Speaking of hoops Annie, how thrilled are you that the Kings got Artest? He grew up down the street (and in a different universe) than me.
Now he's got much more time to plug his wonderful(c)rap album.
I'll say this, he plays a mean synthesizer - with his tail!
Posted by: Radical Redneck at March 06, 2007 11:28 AM (VxchV)
8
Damn, Anni, you're right. It's hard to believe that the two different angles were of the same play; they look so different. The underbasket cam makes the hit look completely thuggish and intentional, but the courtside zoomed in cam makes it look like it was just a followthrough, as if Henderson were expecting the ball to be there but ooops! Johnson swatted it away first and there was nothing there.
Then again, the halfcourt camera - the one giving the wide view at the beginning of the clip - does make it look like Henderson was deliberately shoving Hansbrough down.
I dunno... but that's weird: I never would've thought different angles of one event could lead to such different conclusions. If I had to choose, I'd agree with Hugo and Physics Geek: No, not intentional, but yes, flagrant.
Posted by: ElMondoHummus at March 06, 2007 12:25 PM (xHyDY)
Annika's Journal Now Selling Carbon Offsets
[What the hell is a carbon offset?]
SAVE THE WORLD!!!
Buy carbon offsets from me.
Even though I don't know what a carbon offset is, I know a moneymaker when I see one.
You, guilt ridden Annika's Journal reader that you are, can save the world! One book at a time. One DVD at a time. One moderately priced cheese sampler at a time.
First, a description of the problem.
All scientists agree that:
The Earth is warming.
It's your fault.
You can do something about it.
If you don't do something about it, the animals will die.
If you don't do something about it, the good rich people will have to move away from Malibu, Palm Beach and the Upper East Side.
Doing something about it should somehow involve penalizing the bad rich people like those evil corporation men.
Doing something about it will make you feel good, even if the world ends up getting destroyed anyway. Or not.
[N.B. Anyone who disagrees with any of the above propositions statements of incontrovertible fact will be immediately banned from this site, and your comments removed. This is not an example of censorship. No not at all. Its just that there are certain prerequisites of intelligence and knowledge that all commenters to this blog should possess. It's what my readers expect, after all. By disagreeing with what I say is incontrovertible fact, you are demonstrating that you do not possess the minimum intelligence and knowledge required, and therefore in order to maintain the credibility of this weblog — you must be smacked down sucka!!!]
Now that you understand the problem (animals dying, good people moving), I'm sure you want to know how to help. After all, Al Gore recently said that all we need in order to solve the problem is in our very own hands, except for the will to act, which we also have. Which means that we have everything we need.
But although we have everything we need, we don't have everything we want. This might seem unrelated at first but if you keep reading you'll see that the two points are very related.
When I say we don't have everything we want, what I really mean is I don't have everything I want. For instance, I don't have:
Hawaii Five-0 - The Complete First Season. I love this show, and I've been waiting for the DVD set to come out for years! Coincidentally, Hawaii is another place that will probably be destroyed because of you and your decadent lifestyle.
A Storm of Swords by George R. R. Martin. I've been working my way through Martin's "Song of Fire and Ice" series, and I'm halfway through it. This is the next book in the series and I want it. By the way, a song of fire and ice is what you'll be singing if you don't get off your ass and do something to stop global warming.
Two pounds of Spanish cheese. This item doesn't necessarily have anything to do with global warming, but who doesn't love Manchego cheese? I know I do. It's great with just a sprinkle of olive oil on it. Of course, if we don't stop global warming, all the olive trees will die.
There are plenty of other things I want too. You can find them here.
To sum up what I'm trying to say, we have everything we need to stop global warming but I don't have everything I want.
So here's the deal. You can save the world and help stop global warming by buying me shit. Your purchases will help pay for carbon offsets that I will do, or make, or whatever. For every dollar you spend on me, I promise to reduce the carbon footprint of my apartment by turning off all non-essential electrical devices for one hour.* This could add up to some serious non-electrical usage depending on how many offsets you buy.
So save the planet — buy me stuff. If they knew how much you cared, I'm sure the polar bears would thank you. (Assuming they could talk, and wouldn't eat you first, which they probably would, but you get my point — it's for the animals.)
_______________
* Up to a maximum of 8 hours per day, weekends excluded. Non-essential electrical devices does not include refrigerators, clock radios, and any device that uses a clock or would be a hassle to unplug like my cable box.
1
Heh, I'm selling carbon offsets too. I will stop eating baked beans with my steak, thus reducing methane emissions. I want cash though. Your contribution of $100 will keep me from eating beans for an entire day! $500 will get me to forego sauteed onions.
Posted by: Casca at March 04, 2007 04:06 PM (2gORp)
2
Oh ... I agree with both of you. By the way, is there anyone who has not seen the item on Al Gore's personal electrical/gas usage at his mansion in Tennessee? Apparently, his monthly consumption rivals the average American household's yearly usage.
Way to go, Al. Way to show us the way!
Also by the way, we have the greatest collection of semi-moronic global warming types up here in the Great White North. Of course, we just want to see the end of winter right now. So I guess we're not deniers as much as wanters.
Regards,
George
Posted by: George at March 04, 2007 06:37 PM (ZFlBR)
3
Carbon Offsets are what you sell to an environmentalist who can't stop his own massive consumption of fossil fuels, so you start a company to encourage someone else to reduce their consumption to offset yours. It alleviates what I have dubbed "green guilt".
In that vein, I am starting a company to sell Calorie Offsets, to help with out nations problem with obesity.
Details here: http://speaking-frankly.blogspot.com/2007/03/im-promoting-calorie-neutral-lifestyle.html
Posted by: Frank at March 04, 2007 08:36 PM (mordM)
Posted by: shelly at March 05, 2007 08:27 AM (JQe3J)
6
Wait just a minute here, lady. Are you saying you'd forgo use of your vibrator for an hour for each dollar donated?
It's gonna be a long year.
Posted by: shelly at March 05, 2007 09:34 AM (JQe3J)
7
I think it was John and Ken on KFI who were talking to some organization that planted trees for carbon offsets. I heard the pre-conversation, but didn't hear the conversation itself.
Regarding George Martin, I think his work with America was underrated. Obviously one can understand the fascination with his Beatles and Goons work, but the America stuff truly defined the 1970s (a period of predicted global cooling, by the way).
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at March 05, 2007 01:31 PM (BSx9z)
8
I want to get ahead of the curve here. I'm selling solar credits. For $100, I won't use any sunshine for a day.
You do know that the Martian polar caps are melting also, so sunlight is the culprit, not Al Gore's emissions.
In Syracuse, it's not like we get much sunlight anyway, so your order will be quickly and easily filled.
Posted by: MarkD at March 05, 2007 02:07 PM (5vbH6)
9
> Even though I don't know what a carbon offset is,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offset
Sadly, I see you've chosen to take the polemicist route this time, instead of actual informed discussion. You'll get the dittoheads onboard, but thoughtful people won't pay much mind. If you're trying to change the way people think, this didn't do it.
Again, the consensus in the scientific community is overwhelming, no matter how the pundits, fiction authors, and politicians try to spin it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Posted by: will at March 05, 2007 03:42 PM (z62e3)
Posted by: Casca at March 05, 2007 04:27 PM (2gORp)
11
Yeah, the weather dude can't get the temp right a week from now, but a bunch of enviro whores paid to come up with the results the envionmentalist orgs ask them to are going to predict the earth's temp.
The same community said we were heading for an ice age not too long ago. They were likely closer to being right than the current crop of guys and gals trying to keep the research money flowing.
Will, even if you are right - time, though, will prove you're not - what do you propose? How many people are you willing to put out of work? How many poor people are you willing to starve so you and your liberal elites can feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
The arrogance of you people is stunning...
BTW, as you folks listen to people like Will and the rest of the Global Warming Jihadists keep in mind that their movement is totally political, and its ultimate aim is more socialism and bureaucracy. They want your money.
The social marketing techniques they use are very similar to those used by the political whores. (I worked in the non-profit industry for a long time and have been "media trained." So, I know all the tricks of pushing your agenda to the media.) When these people are in the media, the stick to their talking-points - no matter the actual question. They are trained to spread their propoganda and to always - and keep an eye out for this - attack the credibility of those who disagree with them. They will mix in ad hominem attacks with subtle insinuations that "industry" is behind everthing -you know those "evil" corporations who are trying to destroy the planet. (They act as if the foundations that fund their side's research is agenda free. Yeah, right.)
Posted by: blu at March 05, 2007 06:22 PM (FQ15n)
12
Oh yeah I'm shamelessly jumping on the bandwagon. Brilliant Annika. Wonder if I can get my liberal treehugging brother to buy in...
Posted by: Stew at March 05, 2007 08:18 PM (swd4s)
13
Round 5 with blu...
> Yeah, the weather dude can't get the temp right a week from now, but a bunch of enviro whores paid to come up with the results the envionmentalist orgs ask them to are going to predict the earth's temp.
1. Meterology and Climatology are very different sciences. Conjoining the two is a ploy by vested interests to confuse the uniformed.
2. Which environmentalist organizations paid all of the science academies listed in my post above? In fact, which scientists researching climatology at universities and research institutions are paid off by environmental organizations? If you list any, list the amounts and their source. For a exemplar, see www.exxonsecrets.org
> The same community said we were heading for an ice age not too long ago.
There were some scientists that identified a trend we now know as the cooling effects of aerosols (now regulated). Since the regulation, temperatures returned to a warming trend. For a short lesson, google "aerosols" "climate" "NASA".
> They were likely closer to being right than the current crop of guys and gals trying to keep the research money flowing.
You are making unfounded assumptions. Indeed, this is a recycling of early tobacco company complaints about cancer researchers.
>Will, even if you are right - time, though, will prove you're not
Unsupported assertion.
> - what do you propose? How many people are you willing to put out of work?
You have not established that any or all measures to reduce global warming will put significan numbers of people out of work.
> How many poor people are you willing to starve so you and your liberal elites can feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
How many people are starving so that fat conservatives can pig out on all-you-can-eat buffets? Are conservatives doing everything they can to help feed starving peoples? How many more will starve as more and more land undergoes desertification? The world's deserts are growing, not shrinking, as the climate continues to heat up.
> The arrogance of you people is stunning...
I simply quote the climatology community; you seem to quote Rush, and have the temerity to assign arrogance...
> BTW, as you folks listen to people like Will and the rest of the Global Warming Jihadists
Blatant propagandist name-calling ploy.
> keep in mind that their movement is totally political,
If you believe the bulk of the world's climatology scientists are political, and conversely Rush, Inhofe, ACE, etc are scientific entities, then there is little reason to aportion merit to your position.
> and its ultimate aim is more socialism and bureaucracy. They want your money.
FUD. "It's" has no meaning.
> The social marketing techniques they
Who is "they"? The science academies of the world? The US National Research Council? The American Meteorological Society? The American Geophysical Union? American Chemical Society?
> use are very similar to those used by the political whores. (I worked in the non-profit industry for a long time and have been "media trained." So, I know all the tricks of pushing your agenda to the media.)
So you have skipped a discussion of the science basis and are attacking those who are disseminating the message.
> When these people are in the media, the stick to their talking-points - no matter the actual question. They are trained to spread their propoganda and to always - and keep an eye out for this - attack the credibility of those who disagree with them.
These scientists are skilled propagandists who are lying to us on TV? Or are you refering to others?
> They will mix in ad hominem attacks with subtle insinuations that "industry" is behind everthing -you know those "evil" corporations who are trying to destroy the planet. (They act as if the foundations that fund their side's research is agenda free. Yeah, right.)
I've given you a reference to www.exxonsecrets.org (and Exxon has admitted to funding such organizations, paying for papers attacking climate change science). Please share references you have to your claim above. And Rush diatribes do not count as evidence. And 'yeah right' carries no weight in a debate...
Posted by: will at March 06, 2007 08:28 PM (/sKxm)
14
Annika,
In the 1970s, it was "Song of Ice."
Now it's "Song of Fire."
Albertus Magnus told me so.
____________
Will,
A website which names itself "Exxon Secrets" is legit, but Rush Limbaugh is not? OK!
Just prior to citing a conspiratorial, anti-corporate website (how original can you get?) you blame someone else of skiping "a discussion of the science."
Double standards are fascinating.
Meanwhile, in about 24 hours, 18,000 children will die of malnourishment/starvation, but the environmental community's scaremongers poison the air (ironic) with paranoia about a problem which we don't understand and whose effects will not be felt for a century or more.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,253899,00.html
On the other hand, enviros have made clear their infatuation with Mother Earth and need to "eliminate" human beings.
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/j/jacquesyve204407.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/700229/posts
Posted by: mark at March 07, 2007 09:15 AM (2MrBP)
15
"Did you even access the information tying Exxon's contributions to organizations that are attacking climate change science?"
For brevity's sake, I'll just link Lee's take on that.
Posted by: reagan80 at March 07, 2007 03:49 PM (I0gpu)
16
Not much here, I'm afraid;
>the IPCC is doing exactly what the Bush administration did on Iraq, finding the answer they wanted then picking the data to support it.
He may be right about the Bush Administration, but has no support for his statement about the IPCC. Does he even discuss what the data sources are? No, he simply makes this blanket statement hoping that that no one understands what he is talking about.
> The process itself is inherently biased and unfair.
Simply because he says so? Does he even know what the process is? He shows no signs of even the vaguest clue.
> Sierra Club gives money to researcher? Good. Exxon gives money to researcher? Ooooh, bad, evil!
Another weak attempt at deflection. Look at the scientists involved and identify the ones that the Sierra Club funded; The science academies of the world? The thousands of scientists of the IPCC? The US National Research Council? The American Meteorological Society? The American Geophysical Union? American Chemical Society?
It's absurd to make such a broadsweeping statements that have no basis in reality; after all, what kind of people would lend any credence to this lack of evidence? If there is evidence, let's see it.
On the other hand, I typing this while listening to a stirring message by King Abdullah of Jordan, once a young monarch thrust into his position, now a maturing leader with a moving appeal. Of course, I prefer democratic leaders, but a ME leader such as he is a welcome example.
Posted by: will at March 07, 2007 06:17 PM (/sKxm)
17
Will:
1. Think tanks need money to survive, and most are supported by major contributors, some of which are corporations. Should we discard all research because a corporation is supporting it financially and might have a vested interest in the outcome? Or is it just when ExxonMobil wants research done on an area which impacts their business? THEN we should be suspicious?
2. Assuming that Exxon is pouring money into such research, you have not proven that Exxon has any fraudulent/evil intent, nor have you proven that the research must therefore be incorrect.
3. Anyone who opposed Kyoto is 100% correct. If the intent of the Kyoto Treaty is to help the environment (which I doubt), it is a tragic attempt at doing so. Among the plethora of problems with it, it exempts 1/3rd of the global population by ignoring pollution from China and India. It is so cost prohibitive that countries are having trouble complying with it already. It will have virtually zero impact on temps. The Senate voted down this disaster in 1997 (?) during the Clinton years by a razor thin margin of 95-0.
4. No, I never blamed enviros for starving children! I brought them up to illustrate a tremendous lack of priorities on the part of environmentalists. If your toddler is about to be hit by a car, which would you do first: (1) try to save his/her life immediately, or (2) set up a college trust fund?
5. Your apologizing for Cousteau is depressing and you again misunderstand my point. Cousteau assumed that population must be "stabilized;" it does not. The problem is not the numbers of people but overcrowding. Again, 1/3rd of the global population is concentrated in 2 countries. Much available land mass is EMPTY.
Even if Cousteau was 100% correct that population must be stabilized, to suggest that 350,000 people need to be "eliminated every day" means EXACTLY that. He believed that 350,000 people must lose their lives every day in order to achieve some greater goal. Whether he wanted them killed, or just wished away in a cornfield like a certain Twilight Zone episode, is irrelevant. His quote fits with the enviro general belief that humans are a pestilence consuming and wasting too much. (Of course, such a suggestion would never include HIM.)
6. Placing Rush Limbaugh and Hitler in the same sentence is not worthy of a response.
7. My reaction from your quotes from Roosevelt: "So what?" Of course, the environment must be protected. Of course, wildlife must be protected. No one disagrees with this and conserving is not the issue. The issue is whether currently rising temps are an anomaly and if they are, will they cause the doomsday scenarios that Al Gore and others believe it will. I might agree with them if they had the science to support their claims; they don't. Theirs is a purely political agenda of wealth re-distribution, of power and control. If Gore truly believed what he preached, would he consuming 20 times the amount of electricity than the average American? I suspect not. Libs cannot speak on any topic without the word "hypocricy." If Gore is not a prime example of it, the word has no meaning.
Posted by: Mark at March 07, 2007 06:18 PM (5JjYB)
18
"Simply because he says so?"
Lee did a follow-up on my previous link. Timothy Ball would back him up.
"King Abdullah of Jordan, once a young monarch thrust into his position, now a maturing leader with a moving appeal."
I wouldn't get too attached since he might get Shah't depending on the ultimate outcome in Iraq.
"Of course, I prefer democratic leaders, but a ME leader such as he is a welcome example."
Agreed.
Posted by: reagan80 at March 07, 2007 07:58 PM (I0gpu)
19
Hey Will,
Please tell everybody how much the temperature in the US has gone up since the time of the Industrial Revolution. It must have gone up 5 or 10 degrees, right? After all, we are the world's biggest polluter. So, clue us all in, Will. How much has the avg temp gone up?
While you are at it, give us your excuse for why the avg US temp went down from around 1940 through the early 70's.
Posted by: blu at March 08, 2007 02:09 PM (j8oa6)
20
> 1. Think tanks need money to survive, and most are supported by major contributors, some of which are corporations.
Precisely the point: Think tanks generate the ‘analysis’ needed by corporations for eyewash, and they get rewarded by saidorganizations. Only too frequently, the results are so predictable that the think tanks get paid in advance.
>Should we discard all research because a corporation is supporting it financially and might have a vested interest in the outcome?
Any critical thinker would be highly suspicious.
> Or is it just when ExxonMobil wants research done on an area which impacts their business? THEN we should be suspicious?
Covertly buying shill scientists through indirect payoffs should raise alarm bells in any citizens mind. Why would they have to pay for such research if it were not obvious or at least had convincing data support? First, it was “There is no global warming”. Then it was “There is
no human contribution”. Now it’s “we simply don’t know exactly how much human contribution there is”. The line has moved so many times it isn’t funny, but each time, we are supposed to believe them??
> 2. Assuming that Exxon is pouring money into such research, you have not proven that Exxon has any fraudulent/evil intent, nor have you proven that the research must therefore be incorrect.
It is not my job to prove them incorrect, because they have simply said, “We don’t know”. One can’t
disprove a negative. Conversely, the scientific community has established a 90% link that humans are causing the major portion of global warming, so I invite you to present evidence that will convince them that they are wrong. HereÂ’s where we have an exercise in expert testimony that Anni may have already studied in school.
> 3. Anyone who opposed Kyoto is 100% correct. If the intent of the Kyoto Treaty is to help the environment (which I doubt), it is a tragic attempt at doing so. Among the plethora of problems with it, it exempts 1/3rd of the global population by ignoring pollution fromChina and India.
You first statement is simply a bald pronouncement. You are correct about the population that is currently exempt. The first stage (Kyoto) is intended to reign in the excesses of the developed world.
Remember, the average American uses about 20 times the energy that the average Chinese uses. So sitting in one’s SUV and pointing out that there are still a few places for Chinese and Indian people to hang off the outside of buses is a pointless argument. The second stage is where the developing world is encouraged by the carrot and stick (technologies and trade) to implement the next round of emissions reductions.
> It is so cost prohibitive that countries are having trouble complying with it already.
Most of the European countries are significantly below their 1990 emission levels, while the US
has seen a 16% rise from 1990 to 2004.Â
In the same time period, the UK
greenhouse gas emission dropped 14.6%.http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climatechange/uk/ukccp/pdf/ukccp06-pt3.pdf
http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html
> It will have virtually zero impact on temps.
The Senate voted down this disaster in 1997 (?) during the Clinton years by a razor thin margin of 95-0.
Of course, the language of the bill stated ”the United States should not be
a signatory to any protocol toÂ…which would would
result in serious harm to the economy of the United States”;
 this was the poison pill that no one would
stand up and say, “I’ll vote for that!”.
> 4. No, I never blamed enviros for starving children! I brought them up to illustrate a tremendous lack of priorities on the part of environmentalists.
And what are the priorities of the conservatives with respect to starving children around the world? Those pundits that started this assumed their followers would not recognize hypocrisy…
>5. Your apologizing for Cousteau is depressing
And your attempt at spinning CousteauÂ’s words are even more depressing.
> 6. Placing Rush Limbaugh and Hitler in the same sentence is not worthy of a response.
I take it you’ve never uttered or typed the word, "feminazi"? Or is that ‘different’ in your mind, hmm?
> 7. My reaction from your quotes from Roosevelt:"So what?" Of course, the environment must be protected. Of course, wildlife must be protected. No one disagrees with this and conserving is not the issue.
Then you are at odds with the former GOP majority that sought to turn the park service into Walmart temps and sell off park and BLM land at firesale prices.
> The issue is whether currently rising temps are an anomaly and if they are, will they cause the
doomsday scenarios that Al Gore and others believe it will. I might agree with them if they had the science to support their claims; they don't.
Yours is a minority view, a minority that has shrunken drastically in the last fifteen years as drove after drove of reasonably skeptical scientists have considered, evaluated, and accepted the data and analysis behind global warming. Note that they don’t get their information from Fox News or New Republic.
> Theirs is a purely political agenda of wealth re-distribution, of power and control.
On the contrary, scientists have in mind the pursuit of insight and knowledge. One doesn’t get a PhD in geeky science fields to be a political string puller, or a stock market manipulator. While science is not completely free of politics, the influence of money from vested corporate interests is completely and irrefutably bent on dominating the scientific discussion in the direction of profits, at the expense of the truth.
>Â If Gore truly believed what he preached, would
he consuming 20 times the amount of electricity than the average American? I suspect not. Libs cannot speak on any topic without the word "hypocricy." If Gore is not a prime example of it, the word has no meaning.
>You have a good point here; if Gore doesnÂ’t practice what he preaches, does that mean that all those scientists are wrong? Think about that.
And Al Gore purchases green power, from wind, hydro, solar, and biomass. So while he spends quite a bit of money, he does not pollute the way some would like you to believe.
I myself have put my money where my mouth is. Our house is passive solar heated (with
efficient woodstove backup), powered by photovoltaics, and the entire house is highly energy efficient, from the refrigerator to the
dishwasher to the building insulation and clothesline.
Â
We both have hybrids, though I take the bus
to work. Etc, etc. And I bought my Honda Insight while still a stalwart Republican (as did Pat Michaels, who still is).
So when the president says that "America is addicted to oil", I agree with him, and have taken steps for my part to free America from dependency on expensive foreign oil that helps to fund terrorists. Who here is helping to fight terrorism in such a way, by deed instead of word? Let them cast the first stone...
Posted by: will at March 08, 2007 06:38 PM (/sKxm)
21
>> "Simply because he says so?"
> Lee did a follow-up on my previous link. Timothy Ball would back him up.
One Canadian complains about one environmentalist? Not much when compared to;
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-11-02-white-house-scientists_x.htm?csp=34
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/311/5763/917
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minutes/main1415985.shtml
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-06-21-kerry-ideology_x.htm
Posted by: will at March 08, 2007 06:59 PM (/sKxm)
22
I asked about the US.... where temperature has SKY ROCKETED ABOUT (drum roll) half a degree and much of this can be attributed to heating around urban areas.
With regard to the .7 or .8 claimed for global temperatures, we know that the data for most of the planet was highly unreliable until only recently.
So, the enviro-nazis have set about to scare children and bankrupt economies for a rise in temp of about half a degree.
I can't wait to sit back and laugh at you people in about 20 years. I'll be Simon; you, Will, will be Ehrlich.
Posted by: blu at March 08, 2007 07:46 PM (FQ15n)
23
> I asked about the US.... where temperature has SKY ROCKETED ABOUT (drum roll) half a degree
Global temperatures are what truly matter, as those will provide indications of how the entire system is reacting. If you want to zero in a few specific areas, then you miss the big picture. For example, if you zeroed in on Alaska, you'd see significant permafrost melting to the point that roads are buckling and housed foundering on their foundations.
Alaska’s climate has warmed about 4°F since the 1950’s and 7°F in the interior during winter. The state experienced a 30% average increase in precipitation between 1968 and 1990. The growing season has lengthened by two weeks. Sea ice has retreated by 14% since 1978 and thinned by 60% since the 1960s with widespread effects on marine ecosystems, coastal climate, and human settlements. Permafrost melting has caused erosion, landslides and damaged infrastructure in central and southern Alaska. Recent warming has been accompanied by “unprecedented increases in forest disturbances, including insect attacks. A sustained infestation of spruce bark beetles, which in the past have been limited by cold, has caused widespread tree deaths over 2.3 million acres on the Kenai Peninsula since 1992, the largest loss to insects ever recorded in North America” (US Global Change Research Program, National Assessment, 2001).
For more recent information that shows a continue of the damage, see http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/nationalassessment/overviewalaska.htm
> and much of this can be attributed to heating around urban areas.
No, this excludes the urban heat island effect. Data points are purposely adjusted to account for higher amounts of asphalt, fewer trees, etc. The few denialists scientists know this, but repeat it because they know most of the people the are victims of their propaganda won't take the time to look it up.
http://www.ucar.edu/research/climate/warming.jsp
> With regard to the .7 or .8 claimed for global temperatures, we know that the data for most of the planet was highly unreliable until only recently.
You make this claim, though you provide no evidence to back it up, so this is simply a bald assertion.
> So, the enviro-nazis
Oh, so it IS ok to refer to Rush and Hitler in the same sentence? But now you are talking about the scientist that specialize in climatology, and such words ring hollow.
>have set about to scare children and bankrupt economies for a rise in temp of about half a degree.
The research is targeted at adults, and bankrupting is already underway via the Bush Administration. If you plan to reference any economic models that support your latter statement, be careful to cite ones that don't come from institutes that Exxon has funded.
Posted by: will at March 10, 2007 05:10 AM (h7Ciu)
24
spruce bark beetles?! hit em with a little DDT. problem solved!
; )
Posted by: annika at March 11, 2007 08:04 AM (lMqjc)
25
"No, this excludes the urban heat island effect."
Actually, Will, it doesn't. Not to the proper extent. There are cities within a 200 miles of NYC that have seen almost no warming over the past 100 years. If your global warming theory were correct, this would not happen since the rise in heat in NYC has been significant. Hey Will, I'm curious do computer simulations count as "scientific proof" in other fields? LOL. You guys haven't proven anything.
Will, one thing I know for certain after debating you is that you are not a scientist. I suspect you are a marketing schmuk with a BA. You do a good job plagerizing other people's ideas but have virutally zero independent thought and almost zero analytical abilitiy. I've graded papers of graduate students similar to you - people without their own voice. So, arguing with you is pointless. You will just parrot the ideas of those with whom you agree. When the day comes that you have actually graduated with a Masters degree or higher in ANY subject, please let me know.
Posted by: blu at March 11, 2007 07:00 PM (FQ15n)
26
>>"No, this excludes the urban heat island effect."
> Actually, Will, it doesn't. Not to the proper extent. There are cities within a 200 miles of NYC that have seen almost no warming over the past 100 years. If your global warming theory were correct, this would not happen since the rise in heat in NYC has been significant.
You have misunderstood the heat island effect. Why do you believe it would effect reading 200 miles away? And why would readings in one small area of the world extrapolate to the rest of the world? That's called cherry picking data, and is unrelated to global climate patterns.
>> Hey Will, I'm curious do computer simulations count as "scientific proof" in other fields? LOL. You guys haven't proven anything.
Hmm, you ask a question, then provide your own answer. Models are used throughout the scientific community from epidemiology to astrophysics. Most are used to make projections, and normally require attention to assumptions and unknowns in order to establish margins of error.
>> Will, one thing I know for certain after debating you is that you are not a scientist. I suspect you are a marketing schmuk with a BA. You do a good job plagerizing other people's ideas but have virutally zero independent thought and almost zero analytical abilitiy. I've graded papers of graduate students similar to you - people without their own voice. So, arguing with you is pointless. You will just parrot the ideas of those with whom you agree. When the day comes that you have actually graduated with a Masters degree or higher in ANY subject, please let me know.
My undergrad is in Electro-mechanical engineering and my masters is in Computer Science, with a focus in Scientific Computation (physics, specifically). I am technically not a scientist in the traditional sense, so make no direct reference to scientific findings of my own research. Indeed, referencing the work of scientists is the only way to debate the subject, unless you simply want to get into layman speculation, which isn't work the time to key in.
So 'independent thought' is a desirable trait when discussing philosophy, politics, and other opinion-driven topics, but simply pontificating about unsupported, unscientific opinions concerning a scientific domain is pointless and unfruitful.
Ask a lawyer why they have to call in subject matter experts on some topics in court.
Posted by: will at March 11, 2007 07:47 PM (h7Ciu)
1
While I agree with the sentiment, I'd hope that guy's flightplan has more detail than that.
Posted by: ElMondoHummus at March 05, 2007 06:27 AM (xHyDY)
2
As Annika walked down the street, she had to dodge the planes that careened toward her every few seconds....
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at March 05, 2007 01:44 PM (BSx9z)
3
Good point ElMondoHummus. But as you can see from the instruments, I was able to hold the plane somewhat straight and level, find a blank piece of paper and a Sharpie, scan for near misses and take the picture- all while only climbing 200 feet off my altitude. With pilotage like that who needs a flightplan?
It's so easy I may start flying from the backseat where I can get more comfortable.
Posted by: Mike C. at March 08, 2007 04:06 PM (86QII)
Amendment To Earlier Pledge
I have already publicly pledged that I will not vote for John McCain in the unlikely event that he gets the Republican nomination. I stand by that pledge, but I'm adding this addendum: If the Republican Party is stupid enough to nominate McCain, I plan to write in "Preston Taylor Holmes."
1
Newt will be in the fray, and he will be the candidate.
Posted by: Casca at March 01, 2007 01:57 PM (Y7t14)
2
Annie, NEVER say "never".
Imagine Hillary v. McCain. You gonna sit on your hands and let her waltz in and steal what's left of the silver, furniture and flatware?
She'll probably steal all those typewriters that are missing the "W's" as well.
Hey, I'm for Newt, but if the nominees are John and Hillary, I'm backing John.
Posted by: shelly at March 01, 2007 02:29 PM (JQe3J)
3
I know virtually nothing about McCain so fill me in. What is so bad about him?
Posted by: Andy at March 01, 2007 03:45 PM (zGJwm)
4
McCain has a lack of wisdom. He believes he can romance the media, and they will like and support him. He doesn't realize the media only build him up to suit their purposes of preveting conservatives from being elected. If he got the Repub nomination, the media would slay him with a thousand vicious cuts. He would be the most surprised man in America to see it happen.
McCain has a vague quality of trying too hard to please. It's as if he never grew up, never grew out of this aspect of the awkward teen-ager phase. It's as if he is constantly, frantically seeking approval. Amateur psychology: he may be unconsciously seeking the approval of the father he idolized. Don't get me wrong: McCain is tough. Yet, the over-trying to please and over-seeking approval aspect of his personality remains.
McCain is not wise enough/conservative enough, as evidenced by McCain-Feingold. When you thrash the 1st Amendment, you thrashing just about the most sacred thing around.
All that said, if McCain wins, I will vote for him, and I will work for his election. No damn way I'm going to support protest votes which may elect Obama or Hillary. McCain is not my preferred candidate, but he is far better than the light as fluff man or the shrew.
Posted by: gcotharn at March 01, 2007 04:09 PM (rkq1p)
5
Casca,
I will buy and ship a case of your favorite beer if Newt wins the nomination. Sorry I can't wager that man-on-boy porn you're so fond of but I wouldn't know where to begin looking for it.(Perhaps, some good ol' fashion girl-on-girl?)
Posted by: blu at March 01, 2007 04:30 PM (wv4pD)
6
Casca, forget the beer. If Newt wins the nomination, you 'n me are gonna kill a bottle of MacCallans 25 year old, all by ourselves.
And, a monkey will jump out of your ass...
Posted by: shelly at March 01, 2007 05:41 PM (JQe3J)
7
Hey go talk some sense into that 6 meat feller. Voting for Hillary is no solution.
Also, I'm a little disappointed you didn't propose writing in Major X. Although we've never met, I assure you I am a man of great distinction.
That, and I'm not John McCainiac!
Over and out,
X
Posted by: Major X at March 01, 2007 07:32 PM (N155d)
8
Whew, a fellow takes a nap, and the rest of the world goes by.
Andy, G is mostly right, I'd just put it this way. He's an egomaniacal jackass. If a man were all the things the left says about Nixon, only stupid, he'd be McCain.
Blu, sadly, the recent onset of gout precludes my enjoyment of most alcohol these days. I'm now reduced to a Cabernet drip. As you might imagine, this is a great hardship. Pervert porn? I draw the line at beastiality, but who with an IQ over 110 has paid for porn in the past ten years? Just send me a bottle of Elyse Shiraz.
Shell, what, you've never seen a monkey fly out of my ass? Although scotch is the prime suspect in my last attack, I will endure the rigors. I have a half bottle of Indomethracin here to chase it with.
Generally, on this subject, the smart people are right: Shelly, me, Limbaugh, Newt, et al. The information age has compressed the OODA loop of everything we know, including the news cycle. What have the pols done but exactly the wrong thing. When they should be announcing later, they're doing it earlier. All are going for what the economists call first mover advantage, but before a fickle public, that only works for the Clintonistas. They can hold their galaxy of whores with a gun to their collective head. The longer you're out there, the longer people have to get tired of you. Much better to come late, and be the fresh face.
Consider this, if that buffoon Obama hadn't announced, nobody else would have at this point in the race. We're over a year and a half out. For the next year, the msm will beat this stuff to death, and the people who care will ultimately support their party's candidate. The mush-brained 15% in the middle will start paying attention a couple weeks out from November '08.
Posted by: Casca at March 01, 2007 09:38 PM (2gORp)
9
Cas, forget the Indomethracin.
Tell your doctor to prescribe 200 MG's of Zyloprim (or Allopurinal, which is the generic) every morning. And stop eating grapefruit and drinking grapefruit juice. Watch the gout go away...
Newt's playing it right, so far, but I am afraid he is going to step it up too early trying to keep up with the pack.
Posted by: shelly at March 02, 2007 06:00 AM (JQe3J)
10
OK so I get now why McCain blows. Do the republicans have anyone to put up for president that is worth a damn? Is there some one that everyone would like to see run and isn't or is there some candidate out there I haven't heard of who is super great?
Posted by: Andy at March 02, 2007 03:12 PM (zGJwm)
11
It's N - E - W - T.
What part don't you understand?
Posted by: shelly at March 02, 2007 04:25 PM (JQe3J)
12
actually its looking like it will be Rudy. Now a rudy-newt ticket would be great.
As for McQueeg. He is not sane, not conservative, not honest, and not nice. I also, would never vote for him.
Posted by: kyle8 at March 02, 2007 07:57 PM (pipwg)
13Do the republicans have anyone to put up for president that is worth a damn?
Fred Thompson perhaps?
Posted by: reagan80 at March 02, 2007 08:59 PM (6zy4L)
14
I think either Rudy or Romney would be outstanding. I very much like the Congressman from California - though I can't now think of his name! It's a crazy idea, but I'd love to see Michael Steele rehabilitated as a VP - maybe a Giuliani-Steele ticket, or Romney-Steele. I'd love to see either ticket run against Hillary. Steele is charismatic and intelligent, with enough financial scuff in his history to make him real and down to earth. Kinda crazy, but that's who I like.
I don't understand what's behind Andy's question: "Do Repubs have anyone who is worth a damn?" Is Andy's question intended as criticism of Repubs? I'll take Rudy, Romney, & California Congressman, and I'll be very pleased with their quality. You can have George H.W. Bush, Dukakis, Perot, Bill Clinton, Bob Dole, Gore, George W. Bush, Kerry, Obama, and Hillary. Excepting W, there's not a good President in your crowd. My three guys will kick your guys ass all day long. Excepting Bill Clinton, my guys will also kick your guys ass in candidate charisma. That includes Obama, who will be shown to be an intellectual fluff. Obama's "charisma" is very thin meringue(sic), with no pie underneath.
Posted by: gcotharn at March 03, 2007 10:51 AM (rkq1p)
15
casca and shelly keep forgetting to use newt's last name, which is cantwin. or his middle name, which is wontwin.
gcotharn likes the calif congressman whose name he can't remember. i don't know who you mean, but my guess is he probably wont win due to a weakness in name recognition.
Posted by: annika at March 03, 2007 12:48 PM (fTYM9)
16
Indeed, Newt is even more unelectable than Hillary. The Allens and Santorums of the party are in the dustbin for now.
I'm a little surprised you wouldn't vote for McCain against Hillary or Obama. Remember, when one doesn't vote, their complaints are ignored...
Posted by: will at March 03, 2007 01:36 PM (h7Ciu)
17
Duncan Hunter!
Probably can't win this cycle, but I really like him as a candidate.
Posted by: gcotharn at March 03, 2007 02:57 PM (rkq1p)
18
It is starting to look like you are safe, Annie. John seems to be following Douglas MacArthurs' statement:
"Old soldiers never die, they just fade away..."
Posted by: shelly at March 03, 2007 05:05 PM (JQe3J)
19
gcotharn,
No, I wasn't criticizing the republicans I was being honest. I wanted to know who they have who is worth a damn so I know who to go look up more info on. Same reason I asked the McCain question in the first place. I was honestly curious about why he isn't a good candidate.
I find if I ask on blogs like Annika's I get more honest opinions and better explanations than if I just go out and read the news spin on this candidate or that one. I even get opposing opinions from the vocal dissenters that comment on her blog. All in all it is a much more informative forum then say CNN's political pages.
In the end I'll form my own opinion but I like to hear different views from real people who have a vested interest in what happens to our country not spin doctors on the local or national news.
Posted by: Andy at March 03, 2007 08:04 PM (zGJwm)
20
You guys need to read Jim Belushi's book; it is entitled "Real Mean Don't Apologize".
Posted by: shelly at March 04, 2007 12:12 PM (JQe3J)
Posted by: Casca at March 04, 2007 04:10 PM (2gORp)
22
Annika, kyle8, gcotharn:
Sorry to say but Rudy's detractors have begun their mudslinging over the weekedn and just last night Rudy's son inferred that his father lacked character and family values.
I give him till September.
Posted by: michele at March 05, 2007 06:39 PM (Lrt1F)
23
I will not support McCain under any circumstances. The "John sucks, but the Dems are worse" campaign ad just won't fly with me.
McCain not only supported an assault on the 1st Amendment, he co-authored it. Sure, he had a co-sponsor, but I expect the left to try and curtail free speech. I will not tolerate it from someone on my side of the political aisle.
Also, he loves to mock, lampoon and ridicule the people who are his nominal base, especially when he wants some good coverage from the NY Times.
My brother-in-law is one of those arch-conservative fellows. He hasn't failed to vote GOP in any general election since 1980. He has stated that he would vote 3rd party if McCain wins the nomination. Now I know that the plural of anecdote isn't data, but I will bet that in the unlikely event McCains wins the Republican nomination, the outcome will make the McGovern landslide look tame by comparison.
I'm working on some possible McCain campaign slogans:
1) "I love the GOP base, except for the coservative godbags who won't vote for me."
2) "Wiping my ass with the US Constitution, one page at a time."
I'm leaning towards #2.
Posted by: physics geek at March 06, 2007 09:33 AM (KqeHJ)
I Was Totally Right!
I totally picked Alan Arkin. I should have put money on it! He was 4:3, but the favorite was Eddie Murphy at 1:2. I was in Reno this weekend and I told people I was going to bet and then I chickened out, damn.
My theory was that Arkin would win because Little Miss Sunshine was the only nominated movie out on DVD until just a few weeks ago. Therefore a lot of the voters were probably too lazy to go out and see the other movies, but I'm sure they had Netflix.
1
The voters get copies of all the nominated movies. They don't have to do anything.
Posted by: zuska at February 25, 2007 08:16 PM (qH9Xw)
2
That does not take away from your accurate call Annie.
How did you do on the rest of your calls?
Posted by: shelly at February 25, 2007 09:14 PM (SLFj+)
3
I saw The Departed on Friday. Maybe there's a reason Scorsese didn't have an Oscar. It was a pimple on the ass of The Godfather. Seems like Scorsese falls back on violence when he runs out of ideas. It would have been a much better movie if Leo & Matt (what's with the penchant for faggy actors?) decided to maintain the status quo, and Leo became the head of the gangsters, and Matt rode to the top of the department with his mob connections.
Posted by: Casca at February 26, 2007 07:58 AM (Y7t14)
4
I partially agree with Casca, that The Departed was undeserving. But I have no interest in gangster films in general. The Godfather is surely the most overrated film ever, even though expressing that sentiment leads to invariable howls of indignation.
Loved "Sunshine", every last second.
Posted by: Hugo at February 26, 2007 11:19 AM (yLeev)
5
you were in Reno and didn't let me know?
in the words of Bill the Cat, pthhhpthpppp.
Posted by: jcrue at February 26, 2007 11:29 AM (ZDQoM)
6
Hugo, you've been squating to piss too long. The Godfather is the definition of art/truth. Everything you need to know about being a man is contained in The Godfather I & II. Leave the gun. Take the cannolis.
Posted by: Casca at February 26, 2007 12:14 PM (Y7t14)
7
Scorsese's directing award and The Departed were make-ups for Raging Bull and Goodfellas.
I guess some academy voters could bear to see the words "academy award winner" next to Eddie Murphy's name on the Pluto Nash DVD cover..
or remembering Jackie Earle Haley as Kelly Leak on the Bad News Bear's..
Posted by: Col Steve at February 26, 2007 01:13 PM (pj2h7)
8
I thought everything I needed to know as a man came out of R. Lee Ermy's mouth in Full Metal Jacket.
Or was it out of Bugs Bunny's mouth in any given cartoon?...
-ElMondoHummus
"...Are you quitting on me? Well, are you? Then quit, you slimy fucking walrus-looking piece of shit. Get the fuck off of my obstacle. Get the fuck down off of my obstacle. Now. Move it. I'm going to rip your balls off, so you cannot contaminate the rest of the world. I will motivate you, Private Pyle, if it short-dicks every cannibal on the Congo."
Posted by: ElMondoHummus at February 26, 2007 02:45 PM (J+r3D)
9
There u go thinkin' El. No, it was The Godfather. Coppola is a genius. Ermy made FMJ, the rest of the movie is a Hollywood circlejerk.
Posted by: Casca at February 26, 2007 04:03 PM (2gORp)
10
My "huh?" of the evening was how can Melissa Etheridge's partner be a wife? "I'd like to thank my wife..." She'll have to invent a new word if she doesn't like partner--unless she plans to start her own dictionary.
Posted by: Joules at February 26, 2007 07:54 PM (u4CYb)
11
Well, Melissa was wearing the pants last night, what's her name was wearing the dress. Ergo, she's the wife.
They'll swap roles next week.
Posted by: ElMondoHummus at February 26, 2007 09:12 PM (J+r3D)
12
Joules, Mondo,
What is the point of resisting this segment of our society by constantly carping and showing your discomfort and disappointment as if somebody is listening or gives a shit? The tide has rolled in, like it or not; the “gay lifestyle” is firmly entrenched in our society. Television, print media, advertising, car manufacturers, the travel and leisure industry, are all adjusting to it and trying to make money off of this affluent, educated segment of our society. Your free markets don’t have moral objections to people with money in their pockets. People like you two are more like disgruntled 10 year olds standing on the shore picking your noses and wondering why others are fishing in their favorite spot.
Gay women call their significant others wife, husband, partner, sweetheart, etc. Who, except the emotionally halt and lame, could seriously give a ratÂ’s ass what they call each other?
Posted by: strawman at February 27, 2007 10:52 AM (9ySL4)
13
As you know, I never read Strawfuck, but since he strayed within my two paragraph attention limit... reminds me of the words of an old Colonel, who I used to work for. Whenever he wished to describe a valiant effort gone a'glee, he'd say, "Like two old lezzies, they tried real hard."
Posted by: Casca at February 27, 2007 12:18 PM (Y7t14)
14
Kashca,
I think that as long as you continue to rely on the thinking of military men, yourself included, you are doomed to suffer in ignominity.
But, on the other hand, now that I know I have a two para limit for you to hang on I may have a new lease on life.
Posted by: strawman at February 27, 2007 12:54 PM (9ySL4)
Posted by: strawman at February 27, 2007 02:14 PM (9ySL4)
16
Wow. Two posts ago, I traded what could be construed as misogynic posts with Cas. Not a peep out of Straw. Here, I make an equally un-PC joke with an equal level of seriousness - read: None - and poor Straw decides this is the opportunity to fight for social justice.
Immaturity is often displayed as looking anywhere for a righteous fight. Such as what's displayed by Straw here.
You know nothing about me, yet you mistakenly assume that the gay lifestyle gives me "discomfort"? That'd come as a shock to my gay friends.
Preach elsewhere, Straw. One of the marks of comfort is being able to joke about something. I joke about my race, I joke about my religion, I joke about my countries, and yes, I joke about sexual orientation. Both straight and gay. But I guess humor is the first thing sacrified by those who style themselves as fighters for causes.
So, who's more uncomfortable with homosexuality between the two of us? The one who's relaxed enough to joke, or the one who's so corn-cob-up-his-ass uptight he feels the needs to break out a moral lecture in the middle of a comedy routine? The one who's traded and laughed at far harsher jokes with the very crowd that supposedly is offended, or the one who thinks he's defending them? I don't even know if Straw is gay or straight, but I can tell this: He's the one more uncomfortable with the subject, if he thinks a joke like that is any threat to the concept of gay tolerance.
Posted by: ElMondoHummus at February 27, 2007 06:16 PM (xHyDY)
17
I know that I wouldn't be comfortable with a corncob up my ass. Probably the other guy.
Posted by: Casca at February 27, 2007 11:32 PM (2gORp)
18
Oh please Mondo,
You doth protest too much. Your unfunny quip about pants and dresses was if done in good humor, just lame and certainly would have embarrassed any of your dyke friends, and if, as I suspect, the comment was fraught with underlying suspicions about the validity of gay relationships, then you are not as comfortable as you claim.
And for your information, some of my best friends are black.
Kascha, I wouldn't think you would notice a corn cob in you ass.
Posted by: strawman at February 28, 2007 08:40 AM (9ySL4)
19
Annie, what were the odds on the Goracle? I was looking for a place to bet on it given that was the closest you'll ever see to a sure thing. Given the anti-American nanny state shitbirds running Whoreywood™
Straw they filled in your 1/8" glory holes down the Port Authoritie. Get the smallest drill bit and get back to work.
Posted by: Radical Redneck at February 28, 2007 09:01 AM (HyOrk)
Posted by: Radical Redneck at February 28, 2007 09:15 AM (HyOrk)
21
Oh, please Strawman. Self righteousness is such a tired, cliched thing nowadays.
And my comment stands. You're the one who's uncomfortable. No one else has spoken up, have they?
Two words: Lenny Bruce. Except the supposed liberal in this thread's actually the reactionary.
Posted by: ElMondoHummus at February 28, 2007 10:17 AM (xHyDY)
22
My apoligies dear readers. I should never have dignified this miserable self-loathing soul with comment.
Posted by: Casca at February 28, 2007 12:35 PM (Y7t14)
23
Yeah Cas, I'm beginning to think the same thing.
Anyway (going back to a previous comment): I don't know if I'd write off the whole rest of the movie:
Private Joker: I think I was trying to suggest something about the duality of man, sir.
Pogue Colonel: The what?
Private Joker: The duality of man. The Jungian thing, sir.
Pogue Colonel: Whose side are you on, son?
Jesus, I know it's smart ass dialogue, but I can't help laughing every time I hear that.
Posted by: ElMondoHummus at February 28, 2007 01:40 PM (xHyDY)
24
I have but one word to sum up all the Oscar detritus
and all award show in general.
UGH
Posted by: kyle8 at February 28, 2007 04:41 PM (6ZikT)
25
"My apoligies dear readers. I should never have dignified this miserable self-loathing soul with comment."
Thanks. I thought we had agreed on that some time ago.
Posted by: shelly at February 28, 2007 05:35 PM (JQe3J)
26
This year's lineup of nominees was among the more boring ones in recent years. I can barely muster a desire to see four of the five nominees, and of course the only halfway interesting one didn't stand a snowball's chance in hell at winning since it's a comedy. Heaven forbid we admit that making people laugh a lot harder than making them sad or pissed off.
But I guess the reason to watch the thing is for the funny moments and great quotes anyway.
"Jennifer Hudson was on American Idol, America didn't vote for her, and yet she's here with an Oscar nomination. That's incredible....And then, Al Gore is here, America did vote for him, and..."
Aw, Ellen...
Posted by: The Law Fairy at February 28, 2007 06:16 PM (XUsiG)
27
cheer up Casca
the indignity
that dignifying can bring
is dignifying
...and if that doesnt help, at least this Haiku kept Poetry Wednesday's alive - barely
Posted by: jimi at February 28, 2007 06:40 PM (0r5qc)
28
Awww, whud ja wanna go and do that for? I mean a week without a co-blogger is a week without... meaningless drivel. I wouldn't have noticed if you hadn't said anything. Maybe nobody else will down here at the end of the comment thread.
Posted by: Casca at February 28, 2007 08:59 PM (2gORp)
1"I plan to wear only cow-print clothing. Might as well dress the part."
I don't get it. Do you have four tits?
Kevin
Posted by: Kevin Kim at February 25, 2007 12:42 PM (1PcL3)
2
If that is your mode of dress, I will make a perfect traveling companion for you as I always wear my cowboy boots and hat on the airplane.
Posted by: Jake at February 25, 2007 12:43 PM (V6rxT)
3
Nice blog, I'll have to stop by more often. You are your readers come check out mine as well. I am always looking for new conservatives and liberals who like to comment
Posted by: The Game at February 25, 2007 01:08 PM (Geh7J)
4
Hey, great. We've got a couple of liberals you can have for nothing.
Take them. Please.
Posted by: shelly at February 25, 2007 09:16 PM (SLFj+)
5
Teats. On cows, they're called "teats".
And someone keep Casca out, before he comes up with some sick fantasy of milking Annika.
Posted by: ElMondoHummus at February 25, 2007 10:50 PM (J+r3D)
6
ElMondoHummus,
"Teats. On cows, they're called 'teats.'"
True, but on women, I think they're called tits.
Kevin
couldn't help myself
Posted by: Kevin Kim at February 26, 2007 05:48 AM (1PcL3)
7
Those of weak character, always trying to lay their own shortcomings on others.
Posted by: Casca at February 26, 2007 07:31 AM (Y7t14)
Posted by: ElMondoHummus at February 26, 2007 08:55 AM (J+r3D)
9
But if you'll hold her by the horns, I'll give it a try.
Posted by: Casca at February 26, 2007 12:19 PM (Y7t14)
10
How about trying calf roping instead?
Hehe... so if I hold the horns and accept complicity in the - err... milking - does that make me Annika's Bitch II? Annika's Bitch Jr.? Annika's Other Bitch?
Posted by: ElMondoHummus at February 26, 2007 02:27 PM (J+r3D)
11
No, I believe the police report will read "accomplice".
Posted by: Casca at February 26, 2007 02:37 PM (Y7t14)
Annika's Journal Film Festival: Elizabeth Taylor, Part 2
Today we take a look at the slutty movies: BUtterfield 8 and The Sandpiper.
The Sandpiper, 1965
This movie is set in the beautiful Central Coast of California, from San Simeon to Big Sur. The restaurant Nepenthe even makes an appearance. You may remember I wrote a poem about Nepenthe. In case you don't remember, this is a good excuse for me to re-post it.
At Nepenthe
At the edge of a deep
Verdant crevasse
The hissing ocean so far below
Barely seen this morning
Through the fog
Cool gentle breeze, and
Green strands among blue waves
Of the pacific, sea of forgetfulness
Calming spirit and mind
As you sit waiting
Pale rays of gold
The sun from your left
Warms your arm and lights
This contented respite
On your journey south
Sailing through the mist
Wings teetering, acute dihedrals
Vultures float like seraphim
Two hundred feet beneath
Your outdoor table, where
You eat your nine dollar hamburger
And quaff oÂ’ quaff this diet coke
The Nepenthe of 1965 looks pretty much the same as it did the last time I was there, about ten years ago. I see from their website that they've bumped the price of their hamburger up to $13 since then! In The Sandpiper, it was a hippie hangout too, and the scene of some minor fisticuffs between Charles Bronson and Richard Burton.
Elizabeth Taylor plays Laura Reynolds, a free spirited artist/feminist/atheist who's moved to a cozy shack on the beach in order to raise her son far away from the evil influence of traditional values. She doesn't have a high opinion of men, most especially Richard Burton's character Dr. Hewitt, an Episcopal priest.
Taylor's son gets in trouble with the law for shooting a deer, and the judge orders Taylor to send him to the private religious boarding school run by Burton. Single mom and school principal soon clash over child rearing philosophies, as in this scene.
Dr. Hewitt: It may be hard for you to believe Miss Reynolds, but boys like children of their own age. They also like some order in their lives. Given just a little time, Danny will adjust beautifully.
Laura: Adjust to what?
Dr. Hewitt: To himself, to other people, to society.
Laura: That's just it, I don't want him to adjust to society!
Dr. Hewitt: Well if you want Danny to be a non-conformist, San Simeon is the best place that could happen to him, we'd give him a set of values there that he can rebel against later. Otherwise, he may rebel against yours.
Laura: Oh I see. You mean you teach children evil, so they can rebel against it when they grow and become good.
Despite the parent/teacher friction, Burton quickly becomes smitten by the new MILF, even though he's a priest, and he's already married to another hottie, Eva Marie Saint. It doesn't take long before Burton abandons his scruples and they fuck while a little broken-winged sandpiper looks on.
The Sandpiper is not a particularly good movie. It's really slow and there's some corny "oh God how I want you" dialogue. The best thing about it is the Oscar winning theme song "The Shadow of Your Smile," and of course the scenery. Check out both in these opening credits.
I expected better from director Vincente Minnelli (An American In Paris, Gigi) and writer Dalton Trumbo (Roman Holiday, Spartacus). I gave it three stars on the Netflix scale, "liked it," but just barely.
BUtterfield 8, 1960
I'll tell you right up front, BUtterfield 8 is one of my favorite Elizabeth Taylor movies. Beautifully shot, amazing performances, great characters, and no Richard Burton! Instead we get Laurence Harvey in the best performance of his career. He plays the same self-important prig that you saw in The Manchurian Candidate and The Alamo, only this time with a lot more depth. He's a playboy who married well, but messes around on his wife out of self-loathing and boredom. He treats his women like whores, until meeting Elizabeth Taylor's character, a nympho by the name of Gloria Wandrous. As in The Sandpipers, Elizabeth Taylor gets cast as the "other woman."
Interestingly, Elizabeth Taylor is at the apex of two love triangles in this one. It's more of a love bowtie, I guess. A subplot involves Taylor's best friend, a writer played by Eddie Fisher, her real life husband at the time. Fisher's girlfriend wants to get married, but he's having trouble getting past his barely concealed crush on Elizabeth Taylor, who toys with his affections mercilessly. Again, she's the "other woman," this time preventing a marriage.
But it's the fiery relationship between Taylor and Harvey that provides all the action in this movie. It opens with Elizabeth Taylor waking up alone in Harvey's bed the morning after their first tryst. She wanders around the mansion, and after brushing her teeth with whiskey, finds a thank you note from Harvey with a wad of cash for her trouble. In retaliation, she scrawls her response in the mirror and steals one of his wife's furs.
The second time they meet is at a bar. I love the dialogue in this scene because they spar like two champions in a draw match. You wonder, has the playboy finally met his match? Has the man-eater finally met hers? At the climax of the scene, Harvey grabs her wrist in a vice-grip, while she crushes his instep with her heel.
Ouch. They both retire to neutral corners after that, but by the end it's Harvey's character who throws in the towel. Can you blame him? It's Elizabeth Taylor! He's so in love he vows to change his life around for her, leave his wife, and get a real job. Taylor cleans up her act too, and it looks like she's become a one man woman at last. But, and there's always a but, in the end their high hopes all come crashing down. Quite literally.
Elizabeth Taylor won the Best Actress Oscar for this role, and she totally deserved it. (She was up against Shirley Maclaine for The Apartment that year. Wow, I'm glad I wasn't voting.) Remember this was 1960 and frank treatment of sexuality was still pretty daring. There's a scene at the end when Taylor breaks down in front of Eddie Fisher, telling him a dark secret. Even by today's standards, that scene still blows me away. That's all I'll say about it.
Hollywood still makes movies about slutty women, but nowadays it's all about shock value and appealing to the sickest impulses of the criminal mind. It's enough to make me turn into a feminist. "Hey let's chain a naked chick to a radiator for the whole movie?" How disgusting. I'll take the classics and Elizabeth Taylor over Christina Ricci and fetish porn anyday.
I gave BUtterfield 8 four stars on the Netflix scale, "really liked it."
Posted by: Blake at February 24, 2007 09:42 PM (+5nrU)
2
I'd rather have Christina Ricci chained to my radiator than Liz.
Posted by: Casca at February 24, 2007 10:23 PM (2gORp)
3
Well yeah, Liz is what like 75?
But if she was like 25? Sorry Christina, nice knowing you!
Just speaking for myself, of course.
Posted by: Brad at February 25, 2007 07:53 AM (9ADYb)
4
I never saw 'The Sandpiper' but I must admit I have a thing for opening sequences like this. In fact alot of my dreams seem to start this way, perhaps a product of my sixties childhood, and I've come to love the flying camera. The perspective implies utter calm looking down on the chaos that is the world below. Somewhat like the newscopter of recent but gussied up, soundtrack complete, without the dire images.
Posted by: Mike C. at February 25, 2007 02:04 PM (GQv1b)
5
This is uncanny. This morning, in anticipation of Algore getting an Oscar for reasons having nothing to do with film making, I recalled the first time I remembered that happening. Butterfield 8. It bored me to tears, but Taylor won because she had just recovered from a life threatening illness. The one thing everyone talked about afterwards was the sportscar she drove, I think it was a Sunbeam. Of course puberty hadn't quite set in at the time. I like these reviews of yours.
Posted by: Rodger Schultz at February 25, 2007 07:42 PM (aRoWG)
6
Whatsamattayou? AMERICA VOTED FOR HIM!!!
Hw could we forget? The problem is, Bush got 100% of the black vote on the Supreme Court of the United States, and, just like Joe Stalin said, it isn't the voters that count, it is the counters that count.
Al got the Oscar and George got the White House. Lemme think, whiich one would I want?
Posted by: shelly at March 01, 2007 06:22 PM (JQe3J)
7
Stalin is also alleged to have said, "If I had Hollywood, I would control the world." So he set about taking control of it.
Posted by: Rodger Schultz at March 04, 2007 08:06 AM (WMbC5)
8
Great work! That is the kind of information that
are meant to be shared around the net. Disgrace on Google for now not positioning this publish higher!
Come on over and seek advice from my web site . Thanks =)
Another One
Among the requirements for admission into the Skankwomen sorority is an inability to learn simple lessons from personal experience, most specifically evidenced by poor driving judgment.
to wit:
Nicole Richie, with a previous DUI on her record, not to mention a heroin bust, decides to smoke weed, pop vicodin, then get in her SUV and drive the wrong way on an L.A. freeway. Luckily, nobody got killed as a result of that brain fart.
Not to be outdone, Nicole's pal Mischa Barton, whose sister just went into rehab, and whose OC character got killed in a car crash, borrows Nicole Richie's car, slams into another car in a parking lot, then a few days later gets photographed smoking a j while driving her own car.
Congratulations, Mischa, you're in the club. Hopefully you won't kill anyone either. Not that you care, you stupid skank.
P.S. In unrelated Brittany news, it's impossible to pick a favorite in Stereogum's photoshop contest, but #11 is up there.
The Top 12 American Idol Women Summarized
Pictures are here, so you can follow along at home.
Stephanie Edwards: Two words: Loved her.
Amy Krebs: Cute girl, big pores, didn't like the dress, loved the shoes, hated the song choice. Maynard had more personality.
Leslie Hunt: I like Leslie. I think her personality is a little quirky, maybe a little bizarre. I love the pirate boots. She should do some sixties hippie material, Michelle Phillips or stuff like that. I think she could be good even though her voice really lacks range.
Sabrina Sloan: Very pretty girl. Great style. Smart song choice. Love love love the black patent stack heels. Nice job with a difficult song. I think I have a crush on her. But on my scorecard, Stephanie was just a notch better, despite what Simon said.
Antonella Barba: Overrated. Safe song choice. She was out of tune. And the red top with the cut-out shoulders was sooo New Jersey.
Jordin Sparks: Impressive. Maybe my favorite so far. With a song that is not vocally challenging, the temptation is to sing it safely, but she made it her own. Very nice. Jordin could win this thing; I wouldn't be surprised. Good personality too, and she managed to kiss up to Simon without making it obvious.
Nicole Tranquillo: Randy said it was "rough," Paula said "she can sing," and Simon thought it was "indulgent." I think they were all right. There's nothing wrong with her instrument, but that performance was odd at best. The words were indecipherable and her facial contortions were completely unnecessary. Honestly, it was painful and embarrassing to watch. Prediction: she may not be here next week.
Haley Scarnato: So many Italian girls representing tonight! That song was so boring I completely forgot to listen. Her outfit was hideous. Black strapless jumpsuit with an Eighties big-belt. Nauseating. She may survive to next week, but it won't be on the strength of that performance.
Melinda Doolittle: Someone is lying to us. This is not a shy girl with no self-confidence. You can't fake that kind of stage presence. I don't believe that whole shtick, but the storyline will probably win fan loyalty. She doesn't need the gimmick though, because she might be the best singer in the competition. She'll make it to the top six, easy. Maybe even final two.
Alaina Alexander: Bye-bye.
Gina Glocksen: I like her, but I hated the song, "All By Myself," what a boring song choice. It's boring in the original version. Who does it even? See, I don't even remember the original artist. I know Celine Dion did it, but someone else did it first, and I can't remember who.
LaKisha Jones: Very nice. She sounded like she'd been in the business for years. Professional. I hesitate to make the comparison to Mandisa from last year, whom I loved. But the judges were obviously thinking the same thing when they picked her. She's better than Mandisa was, which is very good indeed.
Even the worst of tonight's women were better than the men last night. Easy prediction: this year's AI champ will be one of the girls.
1
Gina Glocksen's hometown is about a half hour west of yours truly.
Posted by: Mark at February 22, 2007 08:45 AM (2MrBP)
2
As for Antonella Barba and Haley Scarnato, I'd hit it in a heartbeat, lol.
Posted by: Mark at February 22, 2007 08:46 AM (2MrBP)
3
I think "All By Myself" was done by Eric Carmen in the mid-70's. And as far as the men not going too far, I tend to agree, but whoda thunk Taylor Hicks was going all the way last year?
Posted by: dhammett at February 22, 2007 10:49 AM (J7BEJ)
4
I thought Stephanie Edwards had red hair and was white. And that she pushed Key Buys until Lucky got sold. I didn't realize that after KTLA dumped her from the New Year's parade coverage that Stephanie Edwards would become an American Idol singer.
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at February 22, 2007 05:57 PM (GT9eg)
5
That's okay, I'm old, so I never knew All By Myself was done by anyone BUT Eric Carmen.
Posted by: Jay at February 22, 2007 07:50 PM (BX9hK)
6
I think I missed something. Why does your countdown clock (sidebar) say "The End of Annika's Journal"? Is this serious or just a lark?
Kevin
Posted by: Kevin Kim at February 23, 2007 10:57 AM (1PcL3)
7
No doubt the beginning of her new grownup life. She's entering a new era, and wants to minimize the downside risk, so she's dumping the detritis of her life. We all do it sometime, well most of us. She'll be back. But I won't have to be her BITCH anymore, mwahahahaha.
Posted by: Casca at February 23, 2007 02:19 PM (Y7t14)
8
F__K FOX!
Rumple Pervertir and the NUTTEN of SCYTHE MESSAGES!
It is put up inside above!
Fascist pigs!
One and everything.
The system is broken terriblly!
He was in addition-selected by Fascists!
The billionaires are the USA!
They run the drill tightened on the Americans the shoes!
This country ruin!
Flight of everything!
The unrestricted wealth brings unrestricted problems!
For the whole of the inhabitants.
First the wealth belongs to the citizens.
Not the FASCISTS!
It is everyone!
The technology is a tool,
which was used by it against us at the rule!
It is regularly released.
Under the order of the system delicate meal salesmen.
The strength map (the weapons),
kept the secret for an urgency:
Rebellion.
Without pupils there is no system.
Without workers there is no king.
The system must introduces in the future!
With us.
Redefines in modern terms.
The current technology tendencies consider.
To use itself and it in favor of all.
Since at the beginning of modern history.
The war was a plague on mankind.
To terminate it.
Socialism now!
We ensure only also well for the fact that:
The mountain worker among us is!
It is our judge.
A living salary!
Full employment! Health!
A clean environment! Renewable means.
Of end of for sale!
The privatisation eliminate! (and CRapitalism) to put the American
energy sources under state control!
It is fairly a beginning.
Construction on this!
With your own recommendations!
One must eliminate the personal wealth for the common property.
The Geiz is a negative human course,
which is cleaned by the system for the renewal which can be begun.
We must look at the larger picture!
which includes mankind in the whole.
PRIVATE CHARACTERISTIC OF BAISE!
We are all connected we come from a common ancestor.
We all are children of the creator.
Before the universe out-pour.
The earth nourishes us.
Similar brother and sisters.
Taken of no preference!
All likewise treated!
It is the model.
Use yourselves!
With a common goal!
In order in the peace and harmony
to live for to work
the increase in value from all to!
And RACISM of FIN! ! ! !
Posted by: true patriot at February 23, 2007 10:26 PM (Uhwtg)
9
No doubt you'll sing in tune after the revolution.
Posted by: Casca at February 24, 2007 08:27 AM (2gORp)
10
Evidently Antonella has some photographs floating around. The local radio station says this will help her chances if she survives the week.
I'm glad I was young before digital cameras came out...
Posted by: MarkD at February 26, 2007 05:58 AM (5vbH6)
Clinton, Bomber Trade Jabs Early
Presidential politics just might be my favorite spectator sport. And the Democrat league, like the AFL, is inevitably where you'll find the most action. Damn I love the Democrats.
I hope you've heard about the latest Clinton-Bomber skirmish. It's a sure sign of the even worse backbiting to come.
The latest row was sparked by music mogul and former Clinton toady David Geffen, now a Bomber groupie, whose comments were a knife in the back of Mrs. Clinton. He said:
Everybody in politics lies, but they [the Clintons] do it with such ease, it's troubling.
The gossip passed around by those who follow Hollywood and politics holds that Geffen fell out with Bill Clinton much later over the then-president's refusal to pardon Leonard Peltier and over Clinton's subsequent allusion to Geffen's thwarted lobbying effort to demonstrate that he didn't dole out pardons as favors to certain friends.
Anyways, Hillary didn't like what Geffen said and her campaign wants Bomber to disavow the statement and return Geffen's money. Bomber, perhaps deciding it was best to draw a line in the sand early against the Clinton machine, said no.
At a candidate forum in Nevada today, Hillary played the "politics of personal destruction" card, which I think Bill invented:
I sure don't want Democrats or supporters of Democrats to be engaging in the politics of personal destruction.
She said, no doubt hiding an ironic smile.
I'm fascinated by Bronco Bomber. If I was a liberal, I'd totally jump on his bandwagon, and not just because I love making fun of his name. He's got a lot of strengths. He's very personable and yes, I hear he's articulate and clean too. I think we all want a candidate who bathes regularly, regardless of our party affiliation.
I'm not yet convinced however, that Bronco Bomber is not this season's Howard Dean. Being a media darling means nothing to the Iowa caucusers. Serious political junkies have to admit that raising a ton of money means nothing if your organization doesn't know how to use it.
People like David Geffen may represent the vocal face of the Democratic party. But they don't represent the majority of voting Democrats, who are more centrist than the press corps realizes. That's why Dean came in third in Iowa last time, even though the media kept treating him like he was the front runner. Rank and file Democrats were rightly suspicious of Dean's electability, and they went for the safer bet, John Kerry. The trouble was, they didn't inspect the goods well enough before switching to Kerry, and they got burned.
Not that I place much stock in the "Hawkeye Cauci," as Rush calls it. I don't. New Hampshire has always been a more reliable indicator of party preference, historically. And Bronco Bomber is no Howard Dean; they don't share the same negatives. That's good for Bronco. Unfortunately his poll numbers are not in a range where he should be getting the kind of press he's getting right now. The latest polls have him losing to Hillary by an average of 18.2 points. That's a lot of ground to make up, even for a media darling.
For now, Bomber's just not a credible challenger, though I love watching him make Hillary sweat.
Posted by: Casca at February 22, 2007 07:30 AM (Y7t14)
5
I once knew an executive who had tremendous enthusiasm and competitiveness, but little content. She was always talking about her big plans to kick competitive ass, but never was able to identify quite what these plans *were*.
I hadn't thought about her for years, but Obama reminded me of her...
Posted by: david foster at February 22, 2007 12:58 PM (ZD/CA)
6
Selv om jeres imødegå er på dansk , jeg mene jer forstod mig besked
Posted by: Arik at February 22, 2007 04:22 PM (bACRg)
7
For all the talk of the primaries being dominated by the extremes of the political parties, it's interesting to note that the Democrats have nominated both Carter and Bill Clinton, who are more centrist than others in the party.
Hard to tell whether Obama is this cycle's Howard Dean. Or perhaps Hillary is this cycle's Ted Kennedy (the anointed heir who doesn't get the crown).
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at February 22, 2007 05:53 PM (GT9eg)
8
Hey, Arik: I need some help with the Ikea catalog.***My 16-year-old daughter suggested the other day that Barak Obama might be the Anti-Christ. We'll just have to keep an eye on him, won't we?
Posted by: Joules at February 22, 2007 06:30 PM (u4CYb)
9
Hey Annie, this is a great idea for a money making web site. Icky Journalist Sluts web cam!
Posted by: kyle8 at February 22, 2007 07:22 PM (z86sf)
10
Annie, you aren't icky, but the web cam is a great idea.
Think how exciting it will be to watch you studying for the Bar later in the year!
Posted by: shelly at February 24, 2007 08:49 AM (SLFj+)
11
> People like David Geffen may represent the vocal face of the Democratic party. But they don't represent the majority of voting Democrats, who are more centrist than the press corps realizes.
Interesting observation. Most of the reader comments I see on these pages would suggest otherwise. Of course, Gorbachev once thought that the US was populated primarily by Nazis and drug addicts, because the news sources he focused on told him just that. It's unfortunate that Tom Vilsack left the race, as he was one of the few voices of moderation in the Dem candidate list (though too far back in the pack in name-recognition and funding). Of course, that strengthens McCain's and Guliani's positions as centrists and makes a Republican ticket more likely to succeed. I'd be happy with either of the two, as they are both reasonably rational and have the ability to reach across the aisle.
Posted by: will at February 26, 2007 06:34 AM (z62e3)
12
Well Will, hopefully one of them will win, but why reach over the aisle??? The Dems sure don't reach for anything other than the money in our pockets...
Posted by: Arik at February 27, 2007 05:15 PM (bACRg)
Posted by: will at February 28, 2007 02:49 PM (z62e3)
14
Hey there! I randomly stumbled upon your blog out of Yahoo.
Your content is filled with interesting info, and I will probably use it at some point in my career.
Keep up the excellent work!
Iran PlanThe BBC announced that the U.S. has a plan to attack Iran and they know the details. No shit, so do I. Anybody with a brain knows we have a plan, and that it would be negligence if our military did not have a plan.
The BBC seems overly concerned with this little bit too:
US contingency plans for air strikes on Iran extend beyond nuclear sites and include most of the country's military infrastructure, the BBC has learned.
It is understood that any such attack - if ordered - would target Iranian air bases, naval bases, missile facilities and command-and-control centres.
Well, duh. One of the arguments against attacking Iran's nuclear research sites is that they might retaliate against our ships in the Gulf, and threaten shipping. Therefore, it makes sense that any attack plan address that threat too, by targeting "air bases, naval bases, missile facilities and command-and-control centres."
1
Funny, Annika, I had the same reaction: DUH! No shit, Sherlock.
The BBC is even worse than PBS, so I guess that I shouldn't be surprised.
Posted by: blu at February 21, 2007 06:51 PM (wv4pD)
2
Alternative headline: "Bush Admin has No Plan for Iran"
You can't parody these people.
Posted by: MarkD at February 22, 2007 01:51 PM (5vbH6)
3
I half-recall a story (probably from the 1970s) in which the US downscaled its military preparation. Rather than having the ability to fight 2 1/2 wars at once, the US changed its strategy and only anticipated that it would have to fight 1 1/2 wars at once. The People's Republic of China, who always wanted the US to be strong to counter the Soviet threat, asked us why we were weakening our posture. We replied that the other war plans were for China.
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at February 22, 2007 05:47 PM (GT9eg)
4
No plan will be good unless it involves wiping out the Islamic ruling council.
Posted by: kyle8 at February 22, 2007 07:25 PM (z86sf)
5
Ontario -
The Kennedy administration had a 2.5 major war standard that the Nixon administration changed to 1.5. Both of these standards had little connection to actual employment and development of forces except against the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact.
The Clinton administration adopted a 2 MRC (changed in the 97 QDR to MTW - major theater of war) force sizing construct in 1993 since the previous Bush administration had generally abandoned a specific number of wars approach. The current administration refined the Clinton administration force sizing construct to 1-4-2-1 (two major wars, win decisively only in one) in the 2001 QDR and now to a 1-1-1 approach in the 2006 QDR (one major war and one irregular campaign such as GWOT or two major conventional operations).
Stand by as the next administration, regardless of political party, will repudiate most of the current administration's security strategies..
As for the BBC, you don't think it was by accident information got leaked to them, do you?
Posted by: Col Steve at February 23, 2007 08:03 AM (pj2h7)
The Top 12 American Idol Men SummarizedRudy: Two words: utterly sucked.
Brandon: Not a note in tune. Perhaps he'll get it right eventually.
Sundance Head: WTF? "Like Dad at a wedding" was spot on. He's unusual enough that he'll last into the final six, but tonight was not good.
Paul Kim: Kevin, tell your bro to put some shoes on. Sucked.
Does anybody belong this season? What the hell is going on? And please, someone tell the contestants that the whole holding your hand up like a phone and mouthing the words "call me" has been done to death.
Boy Band Wannabe #1, Chris: Check out his dad in the audience. Now we know where he got his moves. Baaaaad.
Nick "Vote For" Pedro: Dude, instead of slouching, try moving the mike up. It might also help if you found at least one note too.
Everybody sucks tonight. I don't remember a season that has started out this bad. But I had a feeling after getting a taste of these losers last week.
Boy Band Wannabe #2, Blake: His dad is the disastrous byproduct of a cloning experiment using Bill Cowher and Victor French's DNA.
Sam Jaya: I didn't think he was that bad. The judges all beat up on him. But a little vocal coaching and he could be good to go.
Paula looks like she's either had a cervical fusion recently and is unable to move her neck, or someone injected botox directly into her carotid artery.
Chris "The Funny Gigh" Sligh: With that hairstyle, he's gotta do at least one Weird Al song before he gets kicked off. He was okay. I expected more. Like Sundance, his personality might carry him probably into the final six.
Jared "Welcome Back" Cotter: Best so far, and he wasn't that good. I'll pick him to make it to the final six though.
Boy Band Wannabe #3, A.J.: Luther Vandross? What's going on here? Doc, you gotta help me! I came here in a time machine you invented, and I need your help to get out of the year 1985!
Phil The Navy Guy: Gollum can sing.
Tonight's show was the worst AI ever. I hope the girls will be better tomorrow, but about half of them are Barbies who don't belong up there either.
Brittany Headed For The BottomBrittany is disintegrating in public view. It is very sad. Odds are even that she won't make it to 30. If she does, it will be as some other unrecognizable creature, in the way that ultra-celebrity transformed Howard Hughes and Michael Jackson. Some say she's "crying for help." Unfortunately, the only hope for her would be if everyone completely ignored her from now on. I think this post proves that that is not going to happen.
1
I knew this was too juicy for you to ignore. I'd like to go on record as predicting her demise. It will end in a trailer park in Hemet, CA. Legal guru Howard Stern will be at her bedside.
Posted by: Casca at February 17, 2007 07:12 PM (2gORp)
2
She's already at the bottom; now she's starting to dig...
Posted by: shelly at February 18, 2007 08:29 AM (SLFj+)
3
Britney is DA MAN!
How'd that line go?
Oh, yeah--
"I just wanna slap yer bald head and lick it!"
Kevin
Posted by: Kevin Kim at February 18, 2007 11:00 AM (1PcL3)
4
Annika,
This is pretty hard to watch. She clearly has some serious problems and nobody around her that is able to direct her toward some help. Maybe by shaving her head she is getting closer to a state of mind where she will fail to recognized herself and ask why.
This is a moment when it would be humane if the media would ignore her. People stop all the time to get some mangey dog out of traffic what's the problem here? Dog got too much money?
Posted by: strawman at February 18, 2007 11:22 AM (9ySL4)
5
I agree that it's sad. I just keep hoping that someone she can respect will step in and give her some insight, direction, and support so she can get herself into a better state of mind and take care of her mom duties.
Posted by: Joules at February 18, 2007 05:00 PM (u4CYb)
6
Yeah, and this time she should let ALL of her hair grow back.
Posted by: shelly at February 18, 2007 06:59 PM (SLFj+)
7
Almost makes me want to watch WWF instead of read the news. One day I was wondering, "Why is Zsa Zsa Gabor's husband involved in Anna Nicole's death?" Once I found out the answer, I wished I hadn't asked. I intentionally didn't click on your link, but I assume it has to do with Britney shaving her head and getting tattoos. If this keeps up, Kevin Federline will get custody, no contest. I remember a couple of years ago when you had an "American Skankwoman" category. Things have progressed far beyond that...
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at February 18, 2007 09:40 PM (P8ktI)
8
Consumers of pop culture hit rock bottom
THE transformation of John Q. Public from music fan into freak with no life gathered pace this week as pop icon Britney Spears made headlines for the simple act of shaving her head.
Spears, 25, was the most searched-for topic at Technorati.com, a search engine for weblogs, indicating that many net-users shared Public's obsession.
There are increasing fears that Public and others like him are wasting hours of their lives in pondering the implications of Spears's choice of coiffure, and other, similarly insignificant events in the lives of celebrities.
Friends of Public originally took comfort by blaming mainstream media for his unusual degree of interest in the issue. He was first alerted to Spears's new haircut by his local television station, and subsequently used Google News Alerts to supply himself with a steady stream of reportage and punditry about the affair. But since then he has found ways to proactively waste his time through his own efforts, such as musing on his blog about the possibility of shaving his own head "out of solidarity with Britney".
Regular readers of the blog are not yet certain whether the comment is sincere, or only intended ironically.
"The first step to regaining a sense of perspective comes when the pose of victimhood is put aside", said Dr Souljah Nitsyn, president of the Making A Mountain Back Into A Molehill Foundation. "If only there were evil media somewhere, talking about trivia as if it were important, and it were necessary only to change the channel and never tune in to them again. But the line dividing common sense and unhealthy obsession cuts through the heart of every weblog. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own weblog?"
Spears herself could not be reached for comment.
Posted by: mitchell porter at February 18, 2007 11:45 PM (8pdZD)
9
Isn't shaving all your body hair standard when receiving treatment for crabs? LOL
Posted by: BobG at February 19, 2007 10:12 AM (pqIcU)
10
You know Bob, that's what I was thinking. She's trying to get rid of the last traces of the Kevster. Sadly, since she spent fifteen minutes crying in her SUV, after a tumultuous argument with her mother, it's pretty clear that she's stuck somewhere in adolescent rebellion, very sad. She doesn't appear to be equipped to pull out of the emotional nosedive. Why aren't there analysts chasing after a fee like lawyers? Where is Dr. Handy when you need him?
Posted by: Casca at February 19, 2007 11:02 AM (2gORp)
11
For once, I agree with Strawman: If only the entertainment media would stop publicizing ever little bit of what Brittany does...
But, getting them to do a humane act is like converting a dog to vegetarianism: It's against their basic nature.
I forgot where I read this, but in referene to the Grammys, or some recent MTV event, some columnist said "Whodathunk we'd see the day when Christina Aguilera would look better, more classy, and less skanky than Brittany Spears?".
Posted by: ElMondoHummus at February 19, 2007 11:36 AM (xHyDY)
12
On a funnier note:
Ooops she did it again.
She proved that she's dumb.
She's not that smar-ar-ar-ar-art.
Posted by: Casca at February 19, 2007 05:40 PM (2gORp)
13"She's trying to get rid of the last traces of the Kevster."
True, but she didn't count on my ability to ejaculate Velcro-tipped sperm.
Kevin
Posted by: Kevin Kim at February 20, 2007 06:01 AM (1PcL3)
14
Kevin... ummm: EWWWW!!!
Bad enough you talk about ejaculation, worse that you say it was Brittany involved, but the story is that she shaved her head man.
Just what were you aiming at?
Posted by: ElMondoHummus at February 20, 2007 07:16 AM (xHyDY)
15
Poor girl, you've driven her to rehab.
She checked in yesterday to Malibu retreat, the flavor de jour of the shaved private parts flashers club.
That means you are supposed to leave her alone now, right?
So, who's got the kids? Maybe Paris and Nicole?
Posted by: shelly at February 21, 2007 03:22 AM (SLFj+)
16
Now THAT would be a fucking hilarious show. Who's Got Britney's Kids? It could be a different set of fuckups each week. Can you imagine the week Howard Stern gets to watch them in the Bahamas?
Finally the truth is out. She shaved her head to dodge the drug test. Kinda makes sense.
Posted by: Casca at February 21, 2007 07:52 AM (Y7t14)
Valentine's Day is Poetry Day: Shakespeare
A simple and beautiful sonnet, expressing love using some of the simplest words in the English language. Only Shakespeare could have written this poem.
SONNET 116
Let me not to the marriage of true minds
Admit impediments. Love is not love
Which alters when it alteration finds,
Or bends with the remover to remove:
O no! it is an ever-fixed mark
That looks on tempests and is never shaken;
It is the star to every wandering bark,
Whose worth's unknown, although his height be taken.
Love's not Time's fool, though rosy lips and cheeks
Within his bending sickle's compass come:
Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks,
But bears it out even to the edge of doom.
If this be error and upon me proved,
I never writ, nor no man ever loved.
Posted by: Scof at February 15, 2007 11:04 PM (nE8Mg)
3
I love the blog that you have. I was wondering if you would link my blog to yours and in return I would do the same for your blog. If you want to, my site name is American Legends and the URL is:
http://www.americanlegends.blogspot.com
If you want to do this just go to my blog and in one of the comments just write your blog name and the URL and I will add it to my site.
Thanks,
Mark
Posted by: J. Mark English at February 16, 2007 02:43 PM (+OxYx)
1
What puzzles me is why anyone gives a rat's ass about Tim Robbins or what he says or thinks.
He's just an actor, you know, a guy who recites someone else's lines.
Posted by: shelly at February 12, 2007 05:59 PM (SLFj+)
2
The Global Warming is coming straight from the Libs all blowing sunshine up each other's asses at the Grammies last night. Shouldn't last too long...no matter WHAT that damned groundhog said.
Posted by: seejanemom at February 12, 2007 07:02 PM (jmTO5)
3
Exactly. Note to Dixie Chicks: no one cares if you make nice or back down. You're boring us to death already with your whiny, nyah-nyah song.
Posted by: Joules at February 12, 2007 10:48 PM (u4CYb)
4
You would like to think these awards shows are based on talent only but this proves they are as much political as anything else. We already knew this about the Nobel Peace Prize.
Posted by: Mike C. at February 13, 2007 04:29 AM (GQv1b)
1
LMAO!
I wish Jack would say, "Boy, I haven't bitch-slapped someone since Tucson. Now, prepare for a pride obliterating bitch-slap!"
Posted by: reagan80 at February 12, 2007 06:06 AM (qjCPY)
2
I never have gotten hooked up the 24 bandwagon, and I meant to watch ATHF after all the unpleasantness but I couldn't find it in the satellite guide. Incidentally, you should check out Peter Berdovsky's moves to get asylum in the U.S. (from Belarus) if you haven't already done so.
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at February 12, 2007 04:17 PM (B0VZe)
3
Ontario, do you get the Cartoon Network? I think ATHF is on pretty much every night (although they recently messed with the schedule... if you can't find it maybe try again in a month or two).
If not, you can also watch episodes at [adult swim]'s website.
And you could always see the movie, which comes out March 16.
I swear I'm not paid by Turner, although perhaps I should be
Posted by: The Law Fairy at February 15, 2007 05:06 PM (XUsiG)
4
"And you could always see the movie, which comes out March 16."
Flaming Chicken FTW!
Posted by: reagan80 at February 15, 2007 05:39 PM (qjCPY)
I'm sure there's lots of guys working in thinktanks and war colleges whose job it is to figure these things out, but so far I haven't seen nor heard of any effective way to fight guerrillas other than by total unrestricted warfare — which we won't do. How do you counter the weighty advantage they've claimed for themselves by co-opting the machinery of world public opinion? How do you beat an enemy that has perfected the use of civilian deaths both offensively and defensively, if your one achilles heel is the fear of civilian deaths?
By researching the bio of Lt. Col. David Kilcullen, whom I quoted in my last post, I found this essential article by George Packer in the December 2006 issue of The New Yorker. It may contain the answer to my question, namely "is there another way?"
The article is New Yorker length, unfortunately. But it's Sunday Morning, so why not print it out and read it with your coffee instead of the funnies.
Lt. Col. Kilcullen and Dr. Montgomery McFate* are two people who may provide the "new way" I've been talking about. I have read about the social sciences approach to counter-insurgency before and I was very skeptical. The New Yorker article is detailed enough to be persuasive. The anthropological approach is more than just "hearts and minds" b.s. Properly implemented, it's an integrated and adaptable strategy that includes force, coersion, propaganda, and all those other fun things I've said we need to be doing. But it also recognizes that we're in a new "information age" and we need to understand and adapt to the advantage this gives our enemy.
Another very important concept, which I've not considered before, but which makes perfect sense to me, is this:
“I saw extremely similar behavior and extremely similar problems in an Islamic insurgency in West Java and a Christian-separatist insurgency in East Timor,” [Kilcullen] said. “After 9/11, when a lot of people were saying, ‘The problem is Islam,’ I was thinking, It’s something deeper than that. It’s about human social networks and the way that they operate.” In West Java, elements of the failed Darul Islam insurgency—a local separatist movement with mystical leanings—had resumed fighting as Jemaah Islamiya, whose outlook was Salafist and global. Kilcullen said, “What that told me about Jemaah Islamiya is that it’s not about theology.” He went on, “There are elements in human psychological and social makeup that drive what’s happening. The Islamic bit is secondary. This is human behavior in an Islamic setting. This is not ‘Islamic behavior.’ ” Paraphrasing the American political scientist Roger D. Petersen, he said, “People don’t get pushed into rebellion by their ideology. They get pulled in by their social networks.” He noted that all fifteen Saudi hijackers in the September 11th plot had trouble with their fathers. Although radical ideas prepare the way for disaffected young men to become violent jihadists, the reasons they convert, Kilcullen said, are more mundane and familiar: family, friends, associates.
I think it's really more complicated than just saying "kill the enemy." As a spectator, I've been as guilty as anyone in believing that our problem was an insufficiency of ass-kicking. Kilcullen sees radical Islam as just a template that the terrorist assholes plug into when they decide to dedicate themselves to their particular brand of assholery. But it's social networks, i.e. their friends, family and local communities, that are the avenue towards jihad. I think about gang members here in the U.S. These are "military age males" who would probably be joining al Qaeda if they were in Pakistan. Why, because they're assholes, and gangs or al Qaeda are what their particular social networks would drive them towards.
We need a strategy that understands and targets those social networks with a flexible and multi-faceted approach. The correct strategy should work not only in Iraq but also in the "long war," which includes Afghanistan, Africa, Europe, Southeast Asia and wherever else radical Islam is making inroads. But as the article points out, not many in government understand the problem or have the expertise to tackle it. Another obstacle is the decades long antipathy of social science academics to any endeavor that might be considered patriotic.
1
I only disagree with your conclusion. No strategy? I assure you there IS a strategy. The danger is in having more than one, or not fully developing/following your strategy.
The template for unconventional warfare is as old as the Romans. In the modern era, the Brits in Ceylon were the experts. Honestly, our Civil Action Program teams in Vietnam did a great job. It takes time to win, and one can't ignore the conventional component, i.e. one can not ignore the Iranians.
Posted by: Casca at February 11, 2007 02:48 PM (2gORp)
2
ANNIKA,
The theory that the observable connection or what may look like the cohesive force that drives people in their radical, violent, antisocial and non democratic quest is not of primary but rather of secondary importance is a terribly important revelation.
It is almost a universal paradigm for understanding the nature of the movements that people join and use to explain the violent, enraged behavior they are engaged in. I was in many violent demonstrations in the 60’s, clubbed and gassed numerous times. I know today that my goals were mostly correct, the war in Vietnam was as bad and evil an idea conducted by men equal to those conducting the obliteration of Iraq today, but I have come to understand that my methods and strategies were in large part justified by aspects of my nature that nothing to do with the “war machine” and the inhumane nature of Government.
If our country were to look at hardcore drug uses through this lens they might do much better in shaping the battlefield where the "war on drugs" is fought. Nothing was more damaging in the battle to curb drug abuse in this country than was the simplistic drivel “just say no" campaign of Nancy Raygun. It was so narrow, so lacking in understanding and of course ultimately such a failure I was dumbstruck at its stupidity when it was launched.
The same “Nancy thinking” is in effect now with the nonstop harping on the nature of Islam. How Islam is the enemy and that it creates its acolytes from air as if it had the power to genetically alter young men and women such that they will give their lives to kill freedom and Americans who purportedly love it.
The thinking in the west about the forces that create those who join the army of jihad is shallow and one dimensional. The article you reference, which is open in my bathroom, is a deeper and more important way of analyzing any struggle of the sort where disaffected youth join movements and hang their rage on the rhetoric at hand. What you say about LA gang members is absolutely true; if they were in Gaza they would be Hammas and Israel would be the cause of their disaffection and her destruction their goal.
A friend once said to me in the late 60Â’s during the period of inner city riots in Watts (65) Newark(67) , Detroit(67) etc. that if you want to put an end to this violent outraged community (JihadistÂ’s) fighting against America you need only install air-conditioning in every apartment and you problem will be over. I was pretty pissed off at this seemingly shallow and callus and possibly racist remark, but knowing what I do today it was a true. Of course, AC would have done nothing to adjust the racist social policies that fueled the anger but it would have corrected a deeply held belief by the dwellers of these horrible neighborhoods that the government had an interest in their comfort and cared enough to do something about it. No riots and possibly an avenue created toward peaceful social changes that could alleviate the pernicious sense of entitlement that motivates the have-nots whose lives are surrounded by the haves.
Posted by: strawman at February 11, 2007 02:55 PM (9ySL4)
3
Strawman:
You forget one thing in your tirade against "Just Say No." There was a dramatic drop in drug use among the young during that campaign. You are a testimony to why leftists should never be allowed to dictate social policy as their solutions always fail and make problems worse.
Posted by: Jake at February 11, 2007 03:18 PM (V6rxT)
4
The driving force in the jihad is sex-the strongest drive there is. In the 90's Bin Laden repeatedly said that Western culture is corrupting Muslim women by giving them ideas of freedom and independence. Bin Laden believes the only way to keep their dominance over women is to destroy Western culture.
It is not a coincidence that almost every man in the Guantánamo prison hates or fears women. Their perverted view of sex mixed with religion is an explosive force.
Theodore Dalrymple is a prison psychiatrist in the UK, and he has interviewed many captured suicide bombers whose missions failed. He says they all have sex as a motivation for their crimes:
"However secular the tastes of the young Muslim men, they strongly wish to maintain the male dominance they have inherited from their parents. A sister who has the temerity to choose a boyfriend for herself, or who even expresses a desire for an independent social life, is likely to suffer a beating, followed by surveillance of Stasi-like thoroughness. The young men instinctively understand that their inherited system of male domination—which provides them, by means of forced marriage, with sexual gratification at home while simultaneously freeing them from domestic chores and allowing them to live completely Westernized lives outside the home, including further sexual adventures into which their wives cannot inquire—is strong but brittle, rather as communism was: it is an all or nothing phenomenon, and every breach must meet swift punishment."
Posted by: Jake at February 11, 2007 03:40 PM (V6rxT)
5
Jake,
I think you are wron. While the number of casula and first time users may have dropped the number of serious and habituated uses remained constant or increased and the number of tons, kilos or whatever of interdicted and hence the estimated amounts received unimpeaded in the US increased.
Statistics, Jake, That's why most social scientists do not trust the RW. They are too inlclined to fuck with the numbers to suit their wished for result. Just look at the no child left behing numbers and the commentary of teachers that have been forced to implement it. Or more recently the NOAA scientists whose research has been edited to shift the meaning by WH hacks.
Posted by: strawman at February 11, 2007 04:11 PM (9ySL4)
6
The new Sheriff in town, Praetus, reputedly "wrote the book" on counter-insurgency.
Anybody here ever read it?
It ould be intersting to know what he is thinking.
But then, I'll bet the insurgents have read it; as Patton said as he was routing Rommel, "I read your book you son-of-a-bitch".
I hope Praetus has some new tricks up his sleeve.
Posted by: shelly at February 11, 2007 04:56 PM (SLFj+)
7
Strawman:
Two problems with your last comment:
"No child left behind" is our only hope of school reform. Because of that program we now know the following about Minneapolis public schools.
Minneapolis spends $15,780 per pupil and only 40% of the students pass their gradeÂ’s standardized test. Only 40% of black males graduate from high school. The teacher's union has unbridled political power in the city so there is little hope of reform.
Before then no one was aware of the problem that the corrupt teachers' union had created. Based on these statistics, black parents acted. Parents moved over 50,000 black children to alternative schools. Private individuals including me gave scholarships so over 1000 could attend private elementary schools. None of this would have happened without "No child left behind."
As to NOAA, a few left-wing activists in NOAA created those false stats and the White House insisted that real science was reported instead.
Posted by: Jake at February 11, 2007 04:59 PM (V6rxT)
Posted by: shelly at February 11, 2007 04:59 PM (SLFj+)
9
Probably this thing, Counterinsurgency Field Manual - U.S. Army Field Manual on Tactics, Intelligence, Host Nation Forces, Airpower - Petraeus and Amos.
There was a Marine Colonel in Vietnam by name of Corson. He's one of the Godfather's of US Counter-Insurgency warfare. Trouble then was that he couldn't be heard above the din of the ticket-punchers.
Petreaus is probably the right General Officer for the job. He has the vision. Let's see how good he is at making it happen. So far the McClellens have been setting the stage. Now is the hour of Grant.
Posted by: Casca at February 11, 2007 05:35 PM (2gORp)
10
Jake,
This admin. does not know real science. It only knows politiczed science taylored to meet their distorted wishes and promises. To label the NOAA scientists whose data and conclusions were "adjusted" to the party line as "Left wing" and therefore unreliable is the symptom of the blindness you suffer from.
The school data has been cooked as well. the school superintendent in Houston upon whoes sucess with the pilot run has been dismissed and proven to have "adjusted" his data to tow the party line.
The administration is corrupt and dishonest when it comes to science and education policy. Training students and having teachers and administrations force the curriculum to meet the goals is denying children an education. I watched a teached drill 6 year olds on the subway as they traveled to a museum on a field trip, in their times tables. It was completly ludicris. six is, child psychologist agree, far too young to be taught these types of things. And I am sure if I asked any of these children to think mathematically they would be unable. They know 8 x 8 is 64. But ask what is the sum of 8 groups of horses each group having 8 members and see what happens. It is bullshit teaching being passed off as an education. I am an employer of people who need basic match skills and I haved proved this point time and time again during my hiring procedures.
Posted by: strawman at February 11, 2007 05:47 PM (9ySL4)
11
Let's hope Petraeus has a drinking problem like Grant. And that he brings plenty of his brand of hooch with him for the other general staff officers.
Posted by: shelly at February 11, 2007 05:56 PM (SLFj+)
12
Straw,
I knew my multiplication tables through 12 by the conclusion of 2nd grade. I wasn't unusual. Children can certainly learn mathematical concepts at that age. My younger brother could read whole words before age 3. My parents and his siblings simply worked with him.
Typical left-winger: The "people" are always stupid. Except of course for the left-wing elite who will save us all for ourselves.
Posted by: blu at February 11, 2007 07:00 PM (duPNB)
13
Sorry Shelly, these UW guys tend to be warrior monks, abstaining from all vices save killing the enemy.
Posted by: Casca at February 11, 2007 07:50 PM (2gORp)
14
"six is, child psychologist agree, far too young to be taught these types of things"
Ironically, Straw, my best friend since high school is a child psychologist and he wouldn't agree.
I'm not suggesting that all kids learn at the same rate. IQ is certainly not democratic. But most children are plenty capable by the 1st grade to begin grappling with basic math concepts like addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division.
Let me guess: You are also agree with the whole language idiots who don't think kids need to learn to spell.
Posted by: blu at February 11, 2007 08:19 PM (duPNB)
15
Blu,
You mean coincidentally. Classic misuse of irony. I guess you were absent from school that day.
Posted by: strawman at February 12, 2007 01:04 PM (9ySL4)
16
Hey, I just found this blog.
Who is this idiot Strawman? Why does anyone even respond to his idiocy?
Posted by: AntonioVdeLA at February 13, 2007 03:15 AM (SLFj+)
Posted by: strawman at February 13, 2007 08:41 AM (9ySL4)
18
Well Antonio, it's like this. Strawman is a self-loathing queer, literally. Nobody talks to him except Blu, who gets some sort of titilation arguing with him. Closet queen? You make the call.
Posted by: Casca at February 13, 2007 04:17 PM (2gORp)
19
Ah, that explains it. Put me down for the "nobody talks to him" group.
Posted by: AntonioVdeLA at February 14, 2007 04:00 AM (SLFj+)
20
Ah,
More intelligent discourse from the cheap seats.
What is it with you and queers Casca? Had an uncle roll you over and put your face in the pillow when you were ten? Or was it your cell mate or the guy in the upper bunk at Camp What-the-fuck.? When will it dawn on you that when you insert (pardon the image) your sexual-orientation-fixation into political discussions it only serves to indicate which muscles you tighten when you think about Rep Foley doing some 15 year old.
You haven't even noticed that whatever I have said about the debacle in Iraq the last few years has been true and that every wish you have had about Iraq over the same period has been just that; the wish of a deluded 'merican. Gee, I guess that does make me queer and you? Just another ignorant, frightened, lie loving American true believer who thinks he should have a gun in his hand instead of his flaccid dick, sitting home on the 50 yd line, cheering the team on. You are pathetic. You don't have the courage of your convictions like that fellow from Sacramento who took the money but at least, you would say, went into the fray. Although for all we know he was transporting BP oil guys, making a payroll run to the local Mullah who was protecting their wells, thatÂ’ll make his kids happy some day. But you do have the courage to get angry at me for hanging out in your playground, which, of course ainÂ’t your playground, you presumptuous ass. You sit here tapping out what you think passes for smug commentary with he tips of your fingers and your ass firmly in the seat passing judgments, while 50-100 humans die each day, and you are musing about my ass, my dick, my mouth and my closet. What the fuck is wrong with you, man? You are one sick puppy Casca.
Now you can give your stupid one line retort.
Posted by: strawman at February 15, 2007 06:24 PM (9ySL4)
21
This fool strawman must be a blonde; the inner woman is emerging.
Posted by: AntonioVdeLA at February 16, 2007 08:10 AM (SLFj+)
22
Straw man
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.
Its name is derived from the practice of using straw men in combat training. In such training, a scarecrow is made in the image of the enemy with the single intent of attacking it.[1] It is occasionally called a straw dog fallacy[2] or a scarecrow argument.
Posted by: AntonioVdeLA at February 17, 2007 04:52 PM (SLFj+)
23
Antonia,
And...........the point is.......other than demonstrating that you can read and type?
Posted by: strawman at February 18, 2007 11:03 AM (9ySL4)
24
Antonio, take a cue from Casca and me; ignore the fucktard. Your post was apt, but all it does is encourage him to dialogue insipient crap.
Let it go.
Posted by: shelly at February 18, 2007 07:02 PM (SLFj+)
25
Shelly,
I hope you had good clerks when you were sitting because a good education is clearly not in evidence when you use insipient (d.beginning to appear) to mean insipid. Not to mention that insipid means lacking flavor or zest. You were clearly a jellybean appointment. RR was insipid. Also, like Bush, he was a liar, (which is a character flaw you seem to admire) RR was also as puerile as GB (his open mic Â…let the bombing of MoscowÂ….) GeorgeÂ’s flight suit and Mission Accomplished stunt. RR sold weapons to Iran for cash to support murderous thugs in Central America. It is conceivable that the weapons sold to Iran are contributing currently to American deaths in the streets of Bagdad and will to a greater degree in the near future if the conflict escalates. You would be howling if the transfer of weapons to Iran was of Carter or Clintons doing?
Posted by: strawman at February 19, 2007 11:31 AM (9ySL4)
26
Before you put stupid comments on Russian poetry on-line, you should better read the original before you judge the translation (or don't you speak Russian???), as common sense would call for.
Posted by: Jenny at February 25, 2007 08:36 AM (TF+Jv)
. They all loved it. Frankly, we all like it a lot. I agree that Taylor and Burton aren't at their best in this one. But the film is so lavish it makes viewing something of an experience.
My eldest daughter liked it better than Taylor and Burton in "The Taming of the Shrew" which we watched at Christmas.
Hehe... so if I hold the horns and accept complicity in the - err... milking - does that make me Annika's Bitch II? Annika's Bitch Jr.? Annika's Other Bitch?
