May 16, 2007
Keystone Commandos
Doh
Doh!
This video is captioned "Jordanian Special Forces on an exercise."
Not quite as impressive as it was intended to be.
Update: Watch that dude in the back of the truck. That had to have been fatal.
Posted by: annika at
07:02 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 42 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Sadly, Annika's Journal will soon cease to be the place where I can find such classics.
Sigh.
Hopefully, Miss Annika will post stuff like this at the Buffet...
Posted by: Billy at May 16, 2007 09:23 PM (JQe3J)
2
A former instructor of mine who had worked with the Saudis (and I think the Kuwaitis, too) opined that to most Arab militaries, simple squad tactics are special operations. That was fifteen years ago. I see that little has changed.
Posted by: Matt at May 17, 2007 07:27 AM (10G2T)
3
Why do you think that is? Wouldn't you think that with some training they'd improve?
Posted by: Joules at May 17, 2007 03:20 PM (u4CYb)
4
I think at least part of the problem is cultural. See
"Why Arabs Lose Wars," by Col. Norvell B. De Atkine.
One thing De Atkine doesn't mention specifically is the deep Arab concern for face-saving. Artillery officers I've known who worked with Arab militaries have told me that a simple call for fire -- which should be about a sixty second evolution, start to finish (as long a comms are clear) -- can take ten times that long for Arabs. All the relevant cats and dogs have to politely confer about the exact target location, the proper shell/fuze combination to call for, the number of volleys to request, the type of sheaf, etc. By agreeing on everything in advance, they ensure that no one gets embarrassed by being abruptly overruled later. But guess what: in ten minutes the target has moved, and/or you've been overrun. You can't win wars that way.
Posted by: Matt at May 18, 2007 11:36 AM (10G2T)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Annika's Journal Farewell Tour: Part X, Not That It Really Matters
Not that it really matters now, but I wondered: what would cause someone to de-link Annika's Journal? I mean, if someone blogrolled me at one time, then decided to remove me years later, it must have been something I said right? Because it costs you nothing to keep me on there for old time's sake.
What have I ever done that might possibly be considered de-link-worthy?
Answer: nothink.
My policy regarding de-linking on my own blogroll has always been six months of inactivity. Although for Ginger, I stretched it out longer and a part of me still thinks/hopes she'll return someday.
Posted by: annika at
11:25 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 123 words, total size 1 kb.
1
So after six months of inactivity I should de-link Annika's Journal? Is that what you are saying?
What if I don't wanna de-link? Huh... What then?
Posted by: The Maximum Leader at May 16, 2007 11:52 AM (iJhG9)
2
Ducks always envy the swanns.
Posted by: Casca at May 16, 2007 01:33 PM (Y7t14)
3
Ginger will return to what?
Annika will be gone...nothing to return to...
Posted by: shelly at May 16, 2007 07:59 PM (JQe3J)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
"Eyes look your last..."
No one says good-bye like Shakespeare.
Why art thou yet so fair? shall I believe
That unsubstantial death is amorous,
And that the lean abhorred monster keeps
Thee here in dark to be his paramour?
For fear of that, I still will stay with thee;
And never from this palace of dim night
Depart again: here, here will I remain
With worms that are thy chamber-maids; O, here
Will I set up my everlasting rest,
And shake the yoke of inauspicious stars
From this world-wearied flesh. Eyes, look your last!
Arms, take your last embrace! and, lips, O you
The doors of breath, seal with a righteous kiss
A dateless bargain to engrossing death!
Come, bitter conduct, come, unsavoury guide!
Thou desperate pilot, now at once run on
The dashing rocks thy sea-sick weary bark!
Here's to my love!
Posted by: Victor at
08:02 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 147 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Thanks Victor! But
"Come, bitter conduct, come, unsavoury guide!"
Is that a veiled description of my future occupation?
Posted by: annika at May 16, 2007 11:30 AM (zAOEU)
2
Unless your future occupation is "Grim Reaper" rather than "Ambulance Chaser" then no, that is not a veiled reference to your future occupation :~)
Posted by: Victor at May 16, 2007 11:34 AM (1oGDT)
3
i forgot to add the lol!
Posted by: annika at May 16, 2007 02:09 PM (zAOEU)
4
I did a lot of Shakespeare in the Park stuff in the past (I got big laughs as Sir Toby Belch) But I must say I thought that his comedies were much much better than all of this tragedies or histories with the sole exception of Hamlet which can be grand if done right.
Posted by: kyle N at May 16, 2007 05:38 PM (cWbHs)
5
I better not catch you chasing ambulances!!
With your education and background, they will chase you.
Posted by: shelly at May 16, 2007 08:04 PM (JQe3J)
6
You'll excuse me for taking the life metaphorically for a blog. But the blog doesn't need to breathe 15 times a minute like you do. We can meet every 3 months when you have something you want to say. Besides I'll want to find again, Goldilocks, your favorite weapon (not that we at SMERSH need to be specifically prepared). So leave the body out in the open or the blog.
Posted by: michael at May 16, 2007 09:24 PM (TzQtv)
7
Kyle, what I find curious about "Romeo & Juliette" is that it's basically a comedy, until Mercutio dies (and even then, he's dying with a quip on his lips: "Ask for me tomorrow and you'll find me a grave man," if memory serves). After that, it takes a turn to the tragic. Almost makes one think Shakespeare must've been manic-depressive.
IMO, the comedies are fun...but I much prefer the tragedies. Different strokes, dontcha know.
Posted by: Victor at May 17, 2007 04:46 AM (1oGDT)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 14, 2007
DWTS Blogging
I feel like with six days of blogging left, every post I do should contain wisdom of surpassing profundity.
Instead I got nothing.
So hey, did you catch Dancing With The Stars tonight? Let me tell you, Anton and Julianne's cha-cha was almost pornographic. No, it was pornographic. I watched it three times just to make sure. It was also quite simply the most exciting performance I have seen in three seasons of obsession with that show. Absolutely loved it! The video is here.
Did you know Julianne is Mormon? There goes that stereotype.
And don't give me any more of that "we've got a brother and sister type relationship," Julie. I saw Anton slip you the tongue during that last hold. If you two aren't doing it by now, I don't know what you're waiting for!
Overall, tonight's show had amazing performaces from every couple on every dance. But the standouts for me, besides Anton's cha-cha, were Joey and Kym's jive and Laila and Maksim's cha-cha. I've become a huge Laila Ali fan. She can really shake it.
I don't think any of these four couples deserve to go home next week. If I had to predict, I'd say Ian and Cheryl, despite Ian's breakthrough 30 score. I'd hate to see Cheryl go though. I really think she's the best all around pro of the bunch.
Speaking of stars and pro's getting it on, what's the deal with Kym and Joey staying out 'til 2:30 one night, and then going on a Disney date? Is there more DWTS love in the air? I don't know. Kym recently broke an engagement, but Joey's married.
technorati: dancing with the stars
Posted by: annika at
10:22 PM
| Comments (20)
| Add Comment
Post contains 283 words, total size 2 kb.
1
You know if you really stop blogging entirely I will have to stalk you.
Posted by: kyle N at May 15, 2007 03:56 AM (p56EN)
2
Nice dress she's almost wearing.
Posted by: Victor at May 15, 2007 05:02 AM (1oGDT)
3
Victor returns, and immediately announces that he's gay.
Posted by: Casca at May 15, 2007 06:55 AM (Y7t14)
4
That makes no sense whatsoever.
Posted by: annika at May 15, 2007 07:16 AM (WfR6S)
5
Yes,
And this is the first time Kascha has made no sense?
The video was not available to me. Said "protected by author" will not share.
I never watch the show but have seen plenty of the real contests on PBS. Quite thrilling. Gusess I'm gay too, eh, dipshit?
Posted by: Strawman at May 15, 2007 08:19 AM (et8nf)
6
-Gusess I'm gay too, eh, dipshit?
Indeed, you are nothing more than a chode-munching shitstain.
Posted by: Spanky at May 15, 2007 08:42 AM (iXkL1)
7
Spanky, are you Casca's kid?
Posted by: shelly at May 15, 2007 08:54 AM (JQe3J)
8
I have never watched "Dancing with the Stars." This confirms my heterosexuality.
Posted by: Mark at May 15, 2007 09:12 AM (2MrBP)
9
-Spanky, are you Casca's kid?
If he was in Nevada during the summer of '75, I could very well be. I'm not sure though since I never knew who my father was. My mother worked in a cathouse.
Posted by: Spanky at May 15, 2007 09:58 AM (iXkL1)
10
"That makes no sense whatsoever."
It most certainly does. Any "man" who'd snark about Julianne's dress... well, you do the math.
Posted by: Casca at May 15, 2007 10:38 AM (Y7t14)
11
'75 eh, let me see, nope not in Nevada that year. Must be a cousin. lol, chode = word of the day.
Mark, you don't know what you're missing. Julianne is hot, and shows all the outward signs of being a freak too.
Posted by: Casca at May 15, 2007 10:45 AM (Y7t14)
12
Oh Spanky,
Jesus, pal, sorry!
But, If I were the the product of the fumbled contraception of strangers I might be more descreet. And if my mom had intended for me to be a stain on a sheet, well you do the math!
Posted by: Strawman at May 15, 2007 11:45 AM (et8nf)
13
I don't know what "chode" means. I never met anyone who used that word in the 70's and 80's when I was in Kindergarten thru college.
Posted by: Joules at May 15, 2007 04:03 PM (u4CYb)
14
I usually think watching people dance is boring. I guess there's some amusement in watching DWTS because you wonder if the dresses will fall off.
Posted by: Joules at May 15, 2007 04:16 PM (u4CYb)
Posted by: reagan80 at May 15, 2007 04:20 PM (iXkL1)
Posted by: Radical Redneck at May 16, 2007 09:51 AM (4s36a)
17
"I feel like with six days of blogging left, every post I do should contain wisdom of surpassing profundity."
That's one of the reason that I deleted my blog several days early. Fuck it. Surpassing profundity is damned hard to find anywhere, let alone generate on demand. And if it were really that profound, wouldn't you want it to survive after you hit the delete button in four days?
Posted by: Matt at May 16, 2007 09:55 AM (10G2T)
18
ahh but thanks to the generosity of Pixy, mu.nu is free, so I don't have to delete anything. In the future, I can refer back to my brilliance any time I want to.
Posted by: annika at May 16, 2007 11:14 AM (zAOEU)
19
Truth be told, I'm sure I could've moved us to a free TypePad account. But I derived a kind of sick pleasure from destroying the whole thing.
Posted by: Matt at May 16, 2007 12:06 PM (10G2T)
Posted by: Casca at May 16, 2007 01:35 PM (Y7t14)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Old Joke For A New Rate
Every time the Post Office raises the price of stamps, I trot out an old joke I heard years ago.
[I say] Did you hear the post office just raised the price of stamps again?
[You say] They did?
[I say] Yah, they needed the money to buy more "next window please" signs.
ba-dum-pump. I'll be here the rest of the week.
Posted by: annika at
02:25 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 67 words, total size 1 kb.
1
The first time I heard that joke, I laughed so hard... well, no actually, I didn't.
Posted by: Casca at May 14, 2007 03:00 PM (2gORp)
2
Ha! You could fill in the blank: they needed the money for...ESL classes for the employees.
Posted by: Joules at May 14, 2007 09:26 PM (u4CYb)
3
but notice they never raise the bulk mail rates so that you have to wade trough a mountain of landfill in your box every freakin day. (except weekends and holidays of course)
Posted by: kyle N at May 15, 2007 03:58 AM (p56EN)
4
And yes, I'll tip my server.
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at May 15, 2007 12:55 PM (PmY/U)
5
Nine bucks to mail twelve lbs of sunflower seeds, shaving gel, candy, salsa, eyedrops, beef jerky, pringles, and a Playboy to Iraq... priceless.
Posted by: Casca at May 15, 2007 10:18 PM (2gORp)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Publicola Interview
Who was that brilliant thinker who said this?:
Listen, i'm not saying i think people should have rushed him or anything like that. If i was unarmed, and i was a guy, i'm not sure i would have had the guts to rush him. Even if a couple of other guys went with me. In the spur of the moment, I can understand hesitating, who wants to be the one guy who gets shot so the others can jump him? Bravery like that doesn't exist in our culture anymore, as Professor Librescu demonstrated. What i am saying is that one guy with a gun could have stopped the whole thing. And every. body. fucking. knows. It. One guy. Because, think about it... If you're unarmed, it takes a hell of a lot of guts to jump a guy with two guns, but if you're sitting in that room, and you know you've got a gun in your pocket there is absolutely no way you're not going to use it. How could you live with yourself if 32 people die and you know you could have stopped it? You'd have to intervene. Whereas, unarmed people don't have that kind of motivation. They are more likely to wait for the Librescus of the world to save them.
Guess who.
Update: Part 2 is here.
Posted by: annika at
07:31 AM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
Post contains 224 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Ah, yes, the Germanic thing. Must be some truth to it.
One of my favorite expressions is "Put a gun in the hands of a German and he will turn towards France."
Posted by: shelly at May 14, 2007 07:43 AM (2nDll)
Posted by: reagan80 at May 14, 2007 09:37 AM (iXkL1)
3
Mighty proud of you, Annie.
Six days. Shit, I'm getting all verklempt.
Posted by: Matt at May 14, 2007 11:31 AM (10G2T)
4
Annika,
Wouldn't the same be accomplished and more reliably if every building had at least one armed officer patrolling at ALL times? I am not suggesting that I support that idea but you gun slingers would think nothing of instituting such measures to save thirty people a year in a country of 300 million but are nonplussed each morning by 60 dead IraqiÂ’s and 3-5 GIÂ’s. Maybe there should be gun stations similar to fire extinguisher cabinets in school rooms. The teachers could be trained and given a key so they might shoot the ChoÂ’s of America. A police state at home must be some kind of antidote to the fear the GWOT induces. The RW mentality strives for increased protection and militarism and willingly goes smiling down the slippery slope toward Fascism rather than allocating greater funds to increase mental health services. We know Cho was in the system and 1. Should not have been allowed to buy a gun and 2. Had social services been more proactive and had more practitioners he might have been properly treated.
The point about other means that a sicko might employ is not a strong one for gun defense nor does it convince me that this is not a particularly American phenomenon. Bombs are not effective unless they are made with some skill and are not easy to hide. Without high explosives they are pretty crappy and most pipe bomb makers only have access to gunpowder from emptying bullets or fire crackers. The Columbine kids may have had pipe bombs but it is another thing to say they would have been lethal and that the attack would have gone fwd if there were no guns available. Furthermore, bombs do not give these killers the same psychological involvement that guns do. The actual shooting is very important. A satisfying release of rage and compensation for feelings of sexual inadequacy do not come from detonating a bomb. Why do you think women so rarely commit gun crime?
Posted by: Strawman at May 14, 2007 03:43 PM (et8nf)
5
"We know Cho was in the system and 1. Should not have been allowed to buy a gun and 2. Had social services been more proactive and had more practitioners he might have been properly treated."
shoulda coulda woulda is exactly my point. He wasn't supposed to have a gun, yet he had two. We rely on the system to protect us and the system turns out to be incompetent. Why can't we rely on ourselves instead?
Oh I like your idea about gun stations, actually.
Posted by: annika at May 14, 2007 04:09 PM (zAOEU)
6
Correct as usual lady. This was the first thing I thought when I heard about the shootings.
As an eternal optomist I'd like to think there are still those who would have jumped this guy, but you may be right.
Posted by: Mike C. at May 14, 2007 04:51 PM (2nDll)
7
"A police state at home must be some kind of antidote to the fear the GWOT induces. The RW mentality strives for increased protection and militarism and willingly goes smiling down the slippery slope toward Fascism..."
Do you make this shit up, hoping to get a good laugh? (Cuz sometimes you are hilarious. Really.) How a person gets from a citizen exercising his/her 2nd Amendment right to defend him/herself to a slippery slope towards fascism is beyond me.
Citizens living in democracies, Straw, avoid totalitarianism (i.e. communism, fascism) by the very fact that they are allowed to exercise freedoms such as the 2nd amendment. Interesting how left-wing totalitarian societies always manage to get the guns out of the hands of the people very quickly. (The Left never wants a challenge to State power.)
Straw, I issued you this challenge about a couple of years back and you failed miserably. You only have a few days left, so maybe you can figure it out this time: Please define fascism and then demonstrate how we are slipping down that slope. I'm betting you can't answer the first part of the challenge and the second challenge really can't be answered intelligently because it is not happening. Well, at least not until gov't lovers like you take over and decide you know better than the average citizen.
God help us from all you people who think we are too stupid to take care of ourselves.
Posted by: blu at May 14, 2007 04:51 PM (o6U00)
8
you gun slingers would think nothing of instituting such measures to save thirty people a year in a country of 300 million but are nonplussed each morning by 60 dead IraqiÂ’s and 3-5 GIÂ’s.
Start right off with the non-sequitor yeah! Who needs a fucking warm-up? Appetizers are for pussies.
And your pious "concern" for the GI's is as fake and transparent as a Hitlery Cuntlin smile. You
HATE soldiers and every part of the military (except for being government paid). Soldiers discern between right and wrong - make a stand - and fight for it too. Plus, at least 80% of them vote Republican.
Yeah, leftists
LOVE the troops. We can so feel your genuine care and good intentions.
The RW mentality strives for increased protection and militarism and willingly goes smiling down the slippery slope toward Fascism rather than allocating greater funds to increase mental health services
*Godwin Alert* "First they came for the shrinks, then the loonies, and then everyone else! If only we listened to that brilliant sage Straw!"
*Weeps uncontollably as Halliburton jackboots throw all the humanoids into the ovens*
The actual shooting is very important. A satisfying release of rage and compensation for feelings of sexual inadequacy do not come from detonating a bomb.
No wonder this sage is so afraid of them coming for the shrinks,
HE'S GOT THE ANSWERS! Freud is alive! Hookers for every psycho! No more crime!
Posted by: Radical Redneck at May 14, 2007 11:50 PM (Jq2oa)
9
RR,
Yes indeed, soldiers know from right and wrong. You want to explain the 25 civilians they slaughtered in a vicious rampage in Haditha? Or how they concocted stories about the bravery of J.Lynch and Pat Tillman? Very brave, very forthright.
Yes, right and wrong are definitely getting a workout in Iraq.
I don't hate soldiers Red, I hate what they do. Soldiers are fabricated by government. Young men and women who are fresh from their proms and hitting the bong in their parentÂ’s basement make a career choice. They are not soldiers. They are generally nice kids, a little dim for the most part with the concomitant opportunities, but harmless until their government juices them up with lies, false notions about the global struggle and their role in it, gives them a purpose they lacked six months ago, promises of high tech training, travel and college assistance. Then gives them a weapon, body armor, and a haircut and sends them to some godforsaken shithole and tells them they're on an important mission from god that's linked to protecting the folks back home. Then they get to do bad, morally reprehensible things and think they are doing good and have become better people for it. Some get to be killed, more get maimed and they think it has a purpose. They get shipped back either in a box that nobody is allowed to see, or a hospital plane and are left in the hands of the VA where they disappear into the back wards of Walter Reed. And the fucking republicans accuse the Dems of not supporting the troops because they are insisting that they be spared all of this.
Although, now there are many soldiers and more every day that are coming to the realization that they have been duped. That this war had NOTHING to do with the GWOT and was an attempt by America to reposition its influence over ME resources in the fight with China. That is the real fight of the 21st. century. We will always be skirmishing with the Islamists who will never quite the struggle regardless of how many you kill. But China is a relentless force with a long view that seriously threatens the underpinnings of our way of life and our PBF
Posted by: Strawman at May 15, 2007 10:06 AM (et8nf)
10
"You want to explain the 25 civilians they slaughtered in a vicious rampage in Haditha?"
Conviction first, trial afterward? Not to mention that it is the military holding them accountable in the first place.
Posted by: MarkD at May 15, 2007 01:14 PM (5vbH6)
11
Mark,
The facts seem pretty clear, and yes trial first, but the outcome seems like it will only be a question of sentencing.
The military is holding them ONLY because someone squealed and a reporter followed up. The local comamders were content to put through a report that they all died as a result of the same IED that killed the two GI's in the first place in spite of the inconsistant wounds on the civilians.
Lying is the first thing that goes on in this military, then the truth leaks out, then they get promoted out of the area. Its the real Bush doctrine.
Posted by: Strawman at May 15, 2007 01:25 PM (et8nf)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 13, 2007
Things To Miss About Sacramento
[an Annika's Journal list]
As Dorothy said to the scarecrow, I think I'll miss them the most.
Things I won't miss:
- Stupid traffic on every single freeway
- Stupid one way streets that make no sense
- Stupid unnecessary and counterproductive car-pool lanes
- K Steet
- The Kings
- The mosquito
Posted by: annika at
07:51 AM
| Comments (20)
| Add Comment
Post contains 74 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Not the bar at Dawson's? Or, Frank Fats' place for good Chinese food? Or the Capitol all lit up at night? Or the serenity of South Park while the rascals create chaos just yards away?
The Kings? The River Cats?
Welcome back to LA County...
Posted by: shelly at May 13, 2007 08:59 AM (JQe3J)
2
We were a better city for having ya, Annika! :-)
Posted by: blu at May 13, 2007 10:46 AM (o6U00)
3
Just once, I want somebody to explain to me how shoving more cars into less lanes, which is what adding car-pool lanes does, makes any fucking sense. The crazy car-pool, eco-fascists assure us all that "more people will use car-pool lanes if they are built." To which I say: bullshit! Doesn't happen. It just causes more road rage and make me personally risk the $300 ticket for driving in it from 3 - 7 PM since it's the only fucking lane where traffic is actually moving.
Posted by: blu at May 13, 2007 10:55 AM (o6U00)
4
It's part of the Algore/Democratic Party scheme to help the Global Warming problem that has not been proven to be true as yet. Less cars means less Global Warming (MAYBE). It's an "Inconvenient Truth". Get it?
If you like carpool lanes, be sure to vote the straight Democratic ticket in November.
Posted by: shelly at May 13, 2007 12:35 PM (JQe3J)
5
Annika, this might be a strange read, but I have just GOT to tell you that you were in a very long and weird dream I had last night.
You had been in an auto accident with a flying dinosaur, and you were in the hospital in a coma. I went in to see you, and noticed drool running down your neck. So, as I repositioned you so that it would run out on the floor, I accidentally squeezed one of your tits, AND YOU MOANED!
I ran out into the corridor, right into your doctor, and told him what had happened. He told me to go back in and squeeze the other one, and let him know what happened. So, I did, AND YOU MOANED AGAIN!
I ran back out and told the doc what happened, and he told me to go back in and try oral sex. So, I did. After a few minutes, I ran back out to the doc in a panic to tell him that you were dead. He asked me, "What happened?" And I had to tell him. You choked.
Then you walked across the lake on the water with the flying dinosaur.
Posted by: Casca at May 13, 2007 08:54 PM (2gORp)
6
That was just plain wrong.
Posted by: blu at May 13, 2007 10:13 PM (o6U00)
7
the first time i heard that joke i laughed so hard i fell off my dinosaur!
Posted by: annika at May 13, 2007 11:34 PM (WfR6S)
8
Way to go, Annie!!! That's telling the old pervert refugee from Columbus.
Besides which, the old fart violated his basic rule about two paragraphs.
Posted by: shelly at May 14, 2007 04:52 AM (2nDll)
9
Wait, wait, don't stop me if you've heard this.
Posted by: Casca at May 14, 2007 06:53 AM (Y7t14)
10
LMFAO! That was a hilarious dream, Casca!
Posted by: reagan80 at May 14, 2007 07:46 AM (iXkL1)
11
Cas, did you get your meds today yet? Better take 'em before you hop on your Nazi two wheeler.
You are in no condition to drive
Posted by: shelly at May 14, 2007 07:51 AM (2nDll)
12
I've found getting BJ's from comatose chicks highly overrated. It gets old after a dozen or so times.
Posted by: Radical Redneck at May 14, 2007 09:56 AM (SZgv8)
13
Y'know Red, that's exactly what Andrew Luster said before he took off for Mexico...
Now he's giving, rather than getting...well, at least some of the time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Luster
Posted by: shelly at May 14, 2007 01:44 PM (A5s0y)
14
Heh now, poor Andrew Luster. Convicted of drugging women who had voluntarily drugged themselves. Probably a closet nechrophiliac.
Posted by: Casca at May 14, 2007 03:08 PM (2gORp)
15
Like I said, Andrew is likely learning about sex in an entirely different way than he had earlier planned.
I sure he is making a lot of guys very happy; they love cute little guys like him in Q.
Posted by: shelly at May 14, 2007 03:44 PM (A5s0y)
Posted by: Radical Redneck at May 14, 2007 11:55 PM (Jq2oa)
17
Rad, you are fucking hilarious.
Posted by: Casca at May 15, 2007 11:02 AM (Y7t14)
Posted by: Radical Redneck at May 16, 2007 12:04 AM (DPlaH)
19
Rad:
How do you trace a shitstain? Is there a special DNA test, or does one just use the standard one?
Guys, I'm starting to read Six Meat Buffet; it ain't Annika, but it is amusing. Maybe we all move there and dump the shitstain?
Posted by: shelly at May 16, 2007 03:36 AM (JQe3J)
Posted by: Radical Redneck at May 17, 2007 07:34 AM (nvDGr)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 12, 2007
Scott Card On GW
From Orson Scott Card's* recent column,
"Civilization Watch," on the global warming debate:
How many thousands do you want to spend this year on preventing global warming? And after you find out that there's no proof that humans even cause it, or that it's even a bad thing, how many thousands do you want to spend "just in case"?
Two thousand? Surely you can afford two thousand. What about five thousand?
You're not writing your check. I guess you're not such a true believer after all.
[GW advocate and columnist Andrew] Brod also ignores the fact that the British government report was issued in support of policy changes that are, by any rational standard, pathetic. The changes they are making are ludicrously inadequate to change the levels of greenhouse gases to any significant degree. Given that the results will be near zero, any costs, however divided, might seem exorbitant.
Brod likens this to insurance, but it is not. Insurance is designed to pay you money after a loss. It does not prevent a loss. The valid comparison is to protection money: Somebody comes to you and demands you pay money "or you might have a fire." You pay the money so that they won't burn you out of business.
That's what the global-warming protection racket is about: Hey, we can't prove anything is actually happening, but look how many people we've got to agree with us! You'd better make a whole bunch of sacrifices which, by coincidence, exactly coincide with the political agenda of the anti-Western anti-industrial religion of ecodeism -- or global warming will get you!
Regarding proof, it should be obvious that there can be no proof of a theory that is designed to predict future events. Predictions of future catastrophe can only be proven by waiting to see if it happens. Computerized models that purport to project future events are not proof that those events will take place.
At the most basic metaphysical level, we are all ignorant of the future. I can predict that the earth will continue to revolve as it did today, and thus the sun will come up tomorrow. But to a metaphysical certainty, I have no idea whether I will be proven correct until it happens. If I look out my window, I can't even say for certain that the earth is spinning, or even that it is round. For those facts, I rely on the scientific consensus and my blind faith in the research and observations of others. I have enough confidence in those observations that I don't worry if they are wrong.
But global warming predictions are not based on observations. They can't be, because no one can observe the future. Therefore, when I make a judgment that global warming science is right or wrong, metaphysically speaking, I have no idea what the truth is. Whatever my opinion is, it can only be based on the observations of others, since I have not done the research. But the important point is that nobody has made the relevant observations necessary for proof. Not even the scientists. The data cannot be collected or observed, since the data does not yet exist.
For hundreds of years, Newton's laws were considered to be truth for two simple reasons. First, they accurately described the observed motion of objects and second, they accurately predicted the motion of objects as observed in the future. Based on the technology that existed to detect the necessary proof, Newton's laws were reliable.
Now, of course, we know that Newton's laws are wrong — or at least incomplete. Einstein has superceded them. Only advances in technology have allowed us to see that descriptions of reality based on Newton's work could only approximate reality. Newton gets us close enough for most purposes, but metaphysically speaking, it is not truth.
Yet for hundreds of years, Newton's laws were indistinguishable from the accepted version of reality. (Einstein blew a hole in that by showing us that reality itself is relative.) But the point I'm trying to make is that scientific consensus does not equal truth — even if the scientific consensus, as with pre-Einsteinian physics, conforms to observed reality and appears to predict future observed reality. Global warming theory, since it seeks to predict catastrophes that are far off in the future, doesn't even have those things going for it.†
h/t protein wisdom
_______________
* A science fiction writer. I read his most famous book Ender's Game, and thought it was creepy and over-rated.
† Which is not to say that GW science is wrong, only that we can not presently know whether it's right or wrong. This is why there's such an emphasis on "consensus." But the media, who don't understand the scientific method, continue to misrepresent "consensus" as truth, when in fact it is not. Without the ability to obtain proof, consensus is about the best people can do, but it is still something short of proof.
Posted by: annika at
10:29 AM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
Post contains 826 words, total size 5 kb.
Posted by: reagan80 at May 12, 2007 11:51 AM (iXkL1)
2
The Apollo astronauts got to the moon using Newtonian mechanics, even though that was decades after Einstein, and even though no-one had done that before. The expectation that the atmosphere will get warmer as the CO2 goes up is grounded in physics which is just as fundamental. I think you would be better advised to get behind the
Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, which is a technology-driven Bush initiative for dealing with the problem.
Posted by: mitchell porter at May 12, 2007 11:06 PM (275PL)
3
The error in Newtoninan physics is negligible and only becomes a factor at the extremes, for instance when something travels at close to light speed. That's why I said: "Newton gets us close enough for most purposes, but metaphysically speaking, it is not truth."
I don't deny that there is science behind the predictions of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. I'm making philosophical and rhetorical points here. One, we can't know if the theory is correct without observations. Two, my Newtonian analogy suggests that "consensus" is not always truth, so don't get too excited when you hear the word.
Posted by: annika at May 13, 2007 07:04 AM (WfR6S)
4
Annika,
The problem I have with the reasoning of your piece is that you are talking about living in a material, probabilistic world where "truth" is not relevant. Scientists search for best answers to observable phenomena and then make statistical statements about the outcome of similar events in the future. It generally works and everything we do, drive over a bridge, take an elevator, eat the contents of any package, land on the moon with the confidence that it is there when we have never touched it and only infer its presence from observations made from 235K miles away, etc.
To impose the philosophic idea of "truth" to the realms of science is not productive and cannot be helpful in support any predictions about outcomes in the future.
You, me and the rest all live in a world of probabilities that we, for the most part, reliably predict each moment. To dismiss GW as unknowable because assuming a truth in the future is prohibited by definition advances nothing.
I am not convinced that the activities of humans have caused or exacerbated the global warming that seems to be occurring. I am not sure how much I am willing to spend to attempt to affect it. I am sure that dismissing it is not judicious given the possible catastrophic outcomes, nor am I moving inland or filling sandbags in Battery Park.
Posted by: Strawman at May 13, 2007 09:18 AM (et8nf)
5
In the second paragraph,
Roach makes another point about how Global Warming resembles a religious movement.
Posted by: reagan80 at May 13, 2007 09:40 AM (iXkL1)
6
rAYGUN,
Tell me what does not resemble a religious movement.
The belief that the war in Iraq is important to the GWOT?
The belief that a gun laden America is a safer America?
Posted by: Strawman at May 13, 2007 10:32 AM (et8nf)
7
"
The belief that the war in Iraq is important to the GWOT?"
For all of his faults, Bush had the foresight to confront terror-sponsoring states before they could someday enable a nuclear kamikaze attack on our soil.
Before the invasion, there were at least 4 enemy states suspected of developing nuclear weapons: Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and
Libya*. Now, Iran and North Korea remain. In response to the continued Iranian threat, the
Gulf Arab States are ostensibly pursuing their own nuclear development programs for supposedly civil purposes. Motivated by a history of racial/ethnic (Arab vs. Persian) and sectarian (Sunni vs. Shia) tensions, a nuclear arms race** is underway in the Middle East. If Iran were stopped, this trend could be reversed.
While Saddam may not have had an extensive nuclear program at the time of our invasion, Iran leaves no doubt that they are indeed working to acquire nukes and have announced their willingness and intent to use them. Like North Korea, Iran was developing them before 9/11. If Bush had never invaded Iraq and maintained the regional status quo, Iran would have made the bomb first and Saddam would have inevitably countered his neighboring Persian nemesis by resuming his own nuclear development.
In order to preserve the Middle Eastern balance of power, some realists would say that Iraq would have been justified in pursuing a deterrent in the case of Iran joining the nuclear club. However, Saddam has proven that he wasn't much of a rational actor based on several gross miscalculations (such as invading Iran and Kuwait) he has made. He and his sons could never be trusted to responsibly possess such a capability.
If Bush had let the sleeping dogs of Iraq and Iran lie, we'd have still had to invade, or even destroy, them both later anyway. Like they say, "Either you pay the bill now, or pay it later with compounded interest."
*Saddam was captured a week before the Libyans' revelation, BTW. Make your own conclusions about how that could have factored into their decision.
**I would also like to point out the irony that, despite Israel having most likely possessed a nuclear deterrent for a couple decades now, it is the fear of Iranian domination that pushed the Arab states into starting their own nuclear programs.
Posted by: reagan80 at May 13, 2007 02:04 PM (iXkL1)
8
Raygun,
Stupid conclusions based on lies and more!
The number of fallacious unerlying arguments supporting the crap above is typical of the reasoning that passes for TRUTH around here. Iraq had NO nuculer program to name the first, and the only non-nuke WMD's they had we sold them. Trhey had no capacity to make anything more frightening than discolored powdered milk.
GIve it up, pal. Invasion cover by tattered hankies of trumped up bullshit and fear of GWOT is still a crime that last time I checked my moral compass.
Posted by: Strawman at May 14, 2007 06:22 AM (et8nf)
9
Straw,
That's a rebuttal? Everything he wrote is accurate. You know it and, therefore, couldn't rebut it with anything besides childish, ad hominem attacks. They did not have a functioning weapon, but they did have a nuclear program. And they were actively trying to put the pieces together to develop a weapon.
Stop tring to re-write history to fit your political agenda.
Posted by: blu at May 14, 2007 07:54 AM (o6U00)
10
Anni, you are mixing domains (philosophy and science); briefly put, science is the pursuit of knowledge through observation, hypothesis, analysis, and repetition, not necessarily in that order. Philosophy is too long a topic to espouse on here, but suffice to say, any issue can have any number of arguments presented/asserted with varying levels of support. Let's examine some of yours;
1.
But global warming predictions are not based on observations.
The science of climatology is based on observations of climate trends, leveraging astrophysics, atmospheric physics, chemistry, ecology, geology, geophysics, glaciology, hydrology, oceanography, and volcanology, among others. From these observations, multi-variate climatic behaviors are deduced and trialed against the existing data. The current models have enhanced behavior rulesets that are fairly well calibrated against the best data we have at our disposal. Can they accurately predict the future? Have predictions from early, rough models 20 years ago done well against observations over the same timeframe? See below.
The blurb you quoted from Card is full of empty, baseless claims; he clearly doesn't have anything to offer but emotive cues. Paying attention to pundits and talking heads on this subject is an utter waste of time; they really don't know anything more than they've read from some other pundit or shill. If you want to learn something interesting on this subject in a semi-daily fashion, I recommend reading this
blog by a group of paleoclimatologists and modelers.
You'll see today's article about an early climate model from 1988 and how its predictions almost 20 years ago stacks up to climate observations over that same time period.
2.
the important point is that nobody has made the relevant observations necessary for proof.
We technically haven't proven a link between smoking and lung cancer, though there are definitely clear epidemiological trends. Remember, Newton was very close to being completely correct, just not at the extreme edges. So if climate models are 99% correct, or even just 90% correct, that's enough in the ballpark to make decisions about mitigation and adaptation (the latter not being 'free' by a long shot).
There is not the space in a short message like this to explain the many aspects with any depth of detail. I recommend that you visit RealClimate about twice a week to come up to speed on the subject and stay current. Indeed, I challenge anyone here to do so and stay a denialist for more than 3 months.
Posted by: will at May 15, 2007 11:40 AM (z62e3)
11
Will,
There are many, many men and women much smarter and well-informed than you who are "denialists."
Such arrogance....
Posted by: blu at May 15, 2007 05:08 PM (YIU3p)
12
blu, you make an interesting pronouncement, though there is a dearth of metrics to support your claim. I make it a point to choose to listen to those who know what they are talking about, instead of simply babbling away like Card. Being smarter about sources keeps one from having their head filled with propaganda by the "much smarter and well-informed" pundits, lobbyists, and surrogates.
Afraid to accept my challenge? I'm sure you'll come up with some excuse.
Posted by: will at May 15, 2007 06:29 PM (h7Ciu)
13
No doubt, you are more on top of it than the numerous scientists that don't support your position.
You are a propogandist for a cause. That's it. Unfortunately, your cause will do little more than destroy economies and hurt poor and middle class people while doing nothing for the environment. How many people are you willing to put out of work, Will?
Posted by: blu at May 15, 2007 07:22 PM (YIU3p)
14
blu wrote:
No doubt, you are more on top of it than the numerous scientists that don't support your position.
I appreciate your confidence in my abilities, but you'll find that there are really a tiny minority of scientists actively involved in climate research who support your position. And every year or so, they have to step back from one or more claims; early 90's "It's a LIE that the Earth is warming"; late 90's "Ok, it's warming, but it's a LIE that warming could result from human activities."; early 2000's "Ok, so human warming is taking place, but it's a LIE that it accounts for most of the warming"; now "We just don't know enough".
You are a propogandist for a cause. That's it.
That's it, eh? Ok, I'll humour you; Show me the misinformation I've peddled, and the propaganda techniques I've used to peddle it. Be clear and concise with your analysis. I'll even give you a link for your benefit;
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/546409/posts
Unfortunately, your cause will do little more than destroy economies and hurt poor and middle class people while doing nothing for the environment. >i>
Unsupported assertion. Have the economies of Kyoto nations been destroyed? Let's look at Germany and the UK, two heavily industrialized nations; what impact has this had on their economies? How much debt are they currently carrying and how much do they go in the whole per year?
You find it easy to make specious statements, but unless you have naught but fustian
How many people are you willing to put out of work, Will?
:-) When are you going to stop beating your wife, blu?
Still afraid to accept my challenge? I'm frankly not surprised...
Posted by: will at May 16, 2007 04:18 AM (z62e3)
15
And blu, why not check out how accurate your vaunted climate skeptics really are, starting with the 'esteemed' Patrick Michaels;
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/patMichaels.html
Posted by: will at May 16, 2007 06:04 AM (z62e3)
16
I always find it curious that armchair denialists so frequently base their arguments with appeals to purported scientific authorities. If you're going to make the argument from authority, you need to explain why you choose to ignore the *vast* majority of authorities (climate scientists) who believe the case for anthropogenic global warming has been made.
Regarding Card's article, he seems to claim that all the recent warming is due to solar forcing. I'm going to make my own appeal to authority: see this claim
thoroughly debunked by climate scientists at
Real Climate.
Also, you claim that AGW theory can only be tested by waiting to see what happens in the future, and indeed that future predictions is all that the science is about. This is false. Much of the science involves explaining what forcings caused
recent warming.
Posted by: Samuel Quill at May 29, 2007 11:37 PM (9HjfR)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 10, 2007
Annika's Journal Farewell Tour: Part IX, My Lasting Legacy
When this blog is long gone, its lasting legacy to the world will be enshrined at the
Urban Dictionary.
Posted by: annika at
09:08 PM
| Comments (14)
| Add Comment
Post contains 37 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Speaking for the lurkers: "I couldn't be more proud." I will be disappointed, however, if you never run for Senate.
Posted by: Mark W at May 10, 2007 10:18 PM (AVyfN)
2
It shows that you have too much talent to waste your life as a lawyer. Instead, you should entertain us.
Posted by: Jake at May 11, 2007 06:28 AM (V6rxT)
3
Frankly, I don't care what she does, just as long as she occasionally IM's me to straighten me out.
Posted by: Casca at May 11, 2007 06:35 AM (Y7t14)
4
Say it ain't so! When you have a child - you never plan for them to go first! I remember her first blog and her first poem on www.soulparking.com - and now I am seeing it all just disappear! No way!
Greetings from Hong Kong!
Posted by: GS Jackson at May 11, 2007 08:29 AM (bpGC4)
5
Bronco Bomber seems a veiled reference to OJ and terrorism, an attempt to link Obama with the perils of jihadists, the farce of celebrity justice, and something racial too, which is always makes voters go "ooooh". She's a crafty hatchet lady for the GOP! this beats the willie horton ad by a mile
Posted by: Scof at May 11, 2007 09:09 AM (a3fqn)
Posted by: Radical Redneck at May 11, 2007 07:52 PM (49yM9)
7
Annika, this might be a strange read, but I have just GOT to tell you that you were in a very long and weird dream I had this morning.
We were high school classmates. We were two members of a four-member team. Our assignment was to compete with other teams to be the first to complete a maze made up of paths through a large woods.
At one point we were on a path that ran alongside a small lake -- about the size of a baseball field. There was a large boulder sticking out of the lake about 100 feet from us, and rising about 20 feet of the lake's surface. The boulder was covered with snow on the half that was to our right.
Above the half-snow-covered rock -- from a tree branch above -- hung a wooden box that was about the size of a large microwave oven.
You lit a cigarette and I told you,
"There's no smoking in the woods." You said,
"Oh," and flicked the cigarette out over the lake and it hit the snowy side of the boulder.
The snow burst into flames and the box above was burnt in a flash and a large pterydactl-like bird fell out of the box and into the water. The bird was just below the surface, face-up, and trying to get it's head out of water and it's body upright.
You pointed and shouted,
"It's warring! It's Warring!", which I immediately understood to mean that it was on a personal jihad against drowning.
The bird did manage to get upright and essentially walk along the surface of the lake to the shore to our left. We and the the rest of our team went on to complete the maze and arrive back at school.
That's all I want to tell you because the dream got really weird after that. Dang, I'm gonna miss you.
Posted by: Tuning Spork at May 11, 2007 09:12 PM (3hGnJ)
8
Spork, thanks for sharing that with us.
Clearly, you've found out about Sally D.
Better lay off; it's worse than LSD.
Posted by: shelly at May 12, 2007 04:13 AM (h/YdH)
9
Well, Shelly, I have no idea who or what Sally D is. Alls I know is that is a bright light that shall be sorely missed.
But, she'll be back.
I can dream can't I?
Posted by: Tuning Spork at May 12, 2007 04:31 AM (3hGnJ)
10
Whoops. That should have read:
Alls I know is that Annika is a bright light that shall be sorely missed.
Damn that Sally D.
Posted by: Tuning Spork at May 12, 2007 04:35 AM (3hGnJ)
11
Spork, when you say "the dream got really weird after that," are you implying the first part isn't?
I do understand your angst though, I too shall miss this wonderful Journal and...can I really say this?....I may have found an attorney I like.
Posted by: Mike C. at May 12, 2007 06:48 AM (A5s0y)
12
Thanks for the kind words everybody.
Hey Sporky, I had the exact same dream last night! How weird is that?
Only it looked
more like this.
Posted by: annika at May 12, 2007 07:39 AM (WfR6S)
13
Sally D. or, more correctly, Salvia divinorum - is the current drug de jour of the idiot set.
The laws have not yet made it illegal, so they smoke it. It is a hallogen and much more dangerous than even LSD.
Make sure that your kids are not trying it. It is seriously dangerous.
Posted by: shelly at May 12, 2007 09:30 AM (h/YdH)
Posted by: reagan80 at May 12, 2007 11:16 AM (iXkL1)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Draft Thurl Ravenscroft!
I feel the need to disabuse you all of the myth that is Fred Thompson.
Fred Thompson is not the savior. Repeat. Fred Thompson is not the savior. He does not ride a white stallion. He does not wear a white hat. Thus, he can not ride to the rescue of a Republican party that has lost its way. Stop expecting him to.
I'm not convinced that Fred Thompson will enter the presidential race. Neither am I convinced that if he runs he will win the nomination. He's currently polling third. Third is not first. Third is third. And right now that means he's in the low teens. Despite the fact that a lot of otherwise reasonable people think he's a viable candidate, polling in the teens does not indicate a huge groundswell of support.
I think a lot of people are projecting their own hopes on Fred, unreasonably. Sure, none of the top candidates are perfect conservatives. Sure, George W. Bush has been a disappointment for those of us who idolize Ronald Reagan. But wishing Fred Thompson is another Ronald Reagan does not make him so. And wishing Fred Thompson is another Ronald Reagan does not make him electable.
I've accepted this fact and you should too: We will not see another Ronald Reagan in our lifetime. The best we can hope for is that our presidents try to emulate him, but they will never duplicate him. The man was that great.
Please also remember the following (those of you who know a lot about Reagan should already know this): Reagan was a great man and a great president because above all, he was a great thinker. He thought big things, and he thought about them all his life. Before he entered politics he had his own idea of how the world should work. When he entered public life he put his ideas into practice. But make no mistake, the thinking part came first.
Fred Thompson has it exactly backwards, and too many people are forgetting that. Reagan left acting to enter public service. Fred Thompson left public service to become an actor. That should tell you something about their comparative priorities.
And don't tell me people aren't attracted to Thompson in large part because he is an actor. I'm sure the theory is that his acting experience should give him the ability to connect to the average voter. Reagan was an actor and he was "the great communicator." Therefore all actors who run for office should make great communicators. It sounds silly when you say it out loud because it is silly.
"But," you say, "Fred Thompson agrees with me on all the issues." Yah well, so do I. Why don't you write my name in? Being right on the issues is not enough, and never has been. Running for president is a huge, difficult job and I don't think Fred has what it takes to win.
First, you gotta have the right contacts, and lots of them. What contacts does Fred have? Contacts get you donors, and volunteers, who in turn get you money. You need a lot of money to run for president, and this time around you need a lot more than during past elections because the big states have all moved their primaries up front. Name recognition is not enough.
You still need money because you have to pay big staffs, and consultants, and they all have to travel, and you have to buy ads and computers and cell phones and pay rent on offices in fifty states, and spend your money on countless other expenses that eat it up like crazy. At this late date, Thompson's rivals have too big a head start.
Besides that, all the most experienced consultants are spoken for. Who's going to guide Thompson's campaign? Will he have to settle for some amateur? If you think these things don't matter, you're dreaming. Bush got half his contacts from family and business connections. The other half Karl Rove brought with him.
I'll always remember something I heard Phil Jackson say to his team in a huddle during one of their losing playoff runs. "I know you guys want to win, wanting to win is not enough." I know lots of people want Thompson to win, but it's not enough. He has to have the resources, the money, the people, the contacts, the ideas and the fire in the belly. I don't see him having any of that stuff. All I see is a relatively likeable conservative, who's been flattered way too much for anyone's good.
And as for qualifications, I have as much executive experience as Fred Thompson. What has he ever run in his life? A few months ago I explained one reason why I prefer candidates with executive experience over former legislators.
Theoretically, executives must work in the real world where results are expected. Therefore, they should be more results oriented. Legislators on the other hand, work in a world of theoretical projections, possibilities and imaginary outcomes. When they fuck up, they're rarely held to account because they simply blame the other party, the executive, or both.
Even giving him the benefit of the doubt, Thompson only had eight years experience in the Senate. What are his accomplishments? If you can name any, how do they match up with Rudy's, or Romney's or Huckabee's records as executives. Even more than running for the post, being president is also a huge, difficult job. Thompson would need on-the-job training. I don't care how solid he is on the issues. I'm really not sure I want someone who's never run an organization running the executive branch of the most important organization on the planet.
"But, he's got a great speaking voice..." Okay. He does have a pleasant baritone. But if that's all it takes to get your vote, why stop at baritone? Why not draft a bass? If vocal timbre is all it takes to be president, we should have had a President Thurl Ravenscroft!
Technorati: fred thompson
Posted by: annika at
07:03 PM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1011 words, total size 6 kb.
1
"
The best we can hope for is that our presidents try to emulate him, but they will never duplicate him."
Sadly, you're right about that, but I'm still hoping you are wrong about Thompson.
"
Reagan was a great man and a great president because above all, he was a great thinker.
Indeed.
Gerard Baker recently noted:
[
The President was being briefed on the invasion plans by his senior military officers just before the Grenada operation. As was often the case, Mr Reagan did not seem to be paying close attention, according to one of those present. But when the briefing was over he had one question. He wanted to hear again the number of troops the planners were going to send in. He was told a figure and shook his head. “Make it twice that,” he told a slightly puzzled general. Asked why, the President said calmly: “If Jimmy Carter had sent 16 helicopters rather than eight to Desert One to rescue the US hostages in Iran in 1980, you’d be sitting here briefing him today, not me.”]
To me, however, Reagan's biggest "sin of omission", as far as I know, was not suitably avenging the deaths of those Marines in Beirut. By "suitably", I mean that the administration's response should have been to depopulate the area within a 300 mile radius. It would provide some solace if I at least knew that KGB-styled acts of clandestine retribution were carried out by our gov't against the Hezbos.
Posted by: reagan80 at May 10, 2007 10:16 PM (iXkL1)
2
Never see another Reagan? Hmmmm, well since I lived through the Reagan years as a Reaganite, I'll tell you this. You're seeing one now. Oh, he's not the great communicator, but most of it is there, and he's younger and more vigorous.
Almost nothing happened in the second Reagan administration. Reagan is remembered for confronting the Russkys, thus winning the cold war, an issue much in doubt when he left office, and for making the hard correct decision on tightening the money supply and ending inflation. Controlling inflation unleashed the torrent of economic growth that we live on today, but few recognize this.
Dubyah will be remembered for leading us out of the darkness of 9/11, and confronting Islam. We'll need to wait twenty years to get it in perspective.
Posted by: Casca at May 11, 2007 06:51 AM (Y7t14)
3
I have to agree with Casca on his point. As far as foreign policy and taxes are concerned, Dubya is every bit a Reaganite. His fiscal spending, however, has been a disaster.
The biggest problem with candidates now is that they spend too much time talking about Reagan and not enough time just being a Reaganite. They need to stop talking about how great Reagan was and concentrate on going forward with the conservative agenda.
I don't know that we'll see a Reagan in the '08 election, but if the GOP gets stomped a couple more times like they did this passed November, someone is going to get the message and start acting like a true conservative again.
Posted by: Frank at May 11, 2007 07:35 AM (YHZAl)
4
"
Dubyah will be remembered for leading us out of the darkness of 9/11, and confronting Islam."
You're right, Casca. However, his once
admirable stubbornness to cling to nation-building is bogging down our anti-proliferation efforts. As the
Derb once stated...
[
GWB should borrow a rhetorical figure from the Great Liberator and say: "If I could stop nukes from spreading around the Middle East without democratizing any of their countries, I would do it; and if I could stop it by democratizing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about democratization, and the Muslim Middle East, I do because I believe it helps to stop the spread of nuclear weapons technology to people who should not have it."]
Posted by: reagan80 at May 11, 2007 07:51 AM (iXkL1)
5
Aw shucks Annika, next you'll be telling me that there's no Santa Clause!
Posted by: Janette at May 11, 2007 08:58 AM (5R+zg)
6
re the Santa Clause, Tim Allen has done the most extensive research on that issue.
Posted by: annika at May 11, 2007 09:12 AM (zAOEU)
7
This is a wonderful observation about Reagan's "thinking". The reason Reagan was so great is that he brought true conservatism to the White House, for the first time ever, maybe.
Reagan was a conservative visionary at a moment when few - outside of true believers - believed conservatism would work.
The Laffer Curve was less than a decade old when Reagan embraced it as his raison d'etre for tax cuts. The took some guts.
Reagan was a visionary on the USSR. Reagan did his own thinking - as Annika points out - on a range of social and societal issues. The man was his own thinker, and his own man. Reagan was a talented communicator who could dismiss his critics with a flick of his wrist.
GWB - I should say I am a big, humongous fan of GWB. I literally thank God that GWB is our President. GWB is a visionary about Islamism. GWB has done, maybe, as much as could've been done about Islamism, given the domestic cultural and political forces GWB was dealing with.
GWB is an earnest thinker about issues. He generally makes good decisions, and he generally plays the political knife-fight game well.
But GWB is not the seasoned and independent thinker Reagan was. Reagan made his national tour of public meetings in the early 1960's, when he represented GE. These meetings were the equivalent of talk radio. Reagan matched wits with all comers. I always think this was like graduate school for Reagan's political thinking. I believe it seasoned him, and forged his beliefs, and gave him confidence in his beliefs.
A confident President - a seasoned thinker, with confidence in his own beliefs - would've never signed McCain-Feingold into law; would've never filed a friend of the court brief in favor of Affirmative Action in the Michigan case; would've never allowed U.S. controlled Al Hurra to broadcast Islamist propaganda; would've never allowed Condi to meet with Assad. A seasoned President would've already "slipped", during a pre-speech sound test, and said into a hot mike: "the bombing of Tehran begins in 5 minutes."
I say this with great respect: I love GWB to death. But he is not the visionary, seasoned, confident intellect or talent which Reagan was.
Posted by: gcotharn at May 11, 2007 11:23 AM (Ucsqp)
8
I will say this: Roberts and Alito are about ten zillion times better than Reagan's SC appointees. They are about twenty zillion times better than danged Sandra O'Connor was. If GWB had not come along and defeated Gore, our nation might now be crumpled down upon our knees, groping in the dirt. Thank God for GWB. History will look upon GWB with great favor, I think. Many decades from now, GWB might gain status as one of our nation's finest Presidents. Even if a worst case Iraq scenario occurs, and Iraq falls to an Islamist dictatorship, GWB has nevertheless introduced a vibrant democratic conversation into that region - for the first time in history. You can't keep people down on farm, once they have seen the big city. That vibrant democratic conversation will reap great and historic long term benefits - regardless of what happens in the short term. GWB rocks!
Posted by: gcotharn at May 11, 2007 11:38 AM (Ucsqp)
9
DRAFT CASCA FOR PRESIDENT!!!
Posted by: shelly at May 12, 2007 08:15 AM (h/YdH)
10
DRAFT CASCA FOR PRESIDENT!!!
P.S. I don't think I've got 20 years to wait for GWB to be proclained a great president; I'm ready to do it now.
Posted by: shelly at May 12, 2007 08:17 AM (h/YdH)
11
Even David McCullough wouldn't be able to turn GWB into a great president, if the surge fails.
Posted by: annika at May 12, 2007 08:23 AM (WfR6S)
12
I am a radical in this area: our definition of success in Iraq is skewed. Decades from now, we may see that our venture in Iraq has already succeeded, via introducing a vibrant democratic conversation into the region, for the first time in history.
I think some rocky form of democratic government is likely to succeed long term in Iraq. I think that is a humongous historic achievement, though our Congress and media will, in the immediate, call it failure.
If the worst case happens, and democratic government is a complete failure in the immediate, I say any theocratic government will be eventually overthrown by a more moderate, open, and free government. Even in the worst case, our regional introduction of democracy will take hold, and will win out, eventually.
I'm way out on a limb with my opinion, but that is truly the way I see it.
Posted by: gcotharn at May 12, 2007 09:49 AM (Ucsqp)
13
"
The reason Reagan was so great is that he brought true conservatism to the White House, for the first time ever, maybe."
Don't forget
Coolidge.
"
GWB has done, maybe, as much as could've been done about Islamism, given the domestic cultural and political forces GWB was dealing with."
True. Bush did everything he could to wage a good-intentioned war without having a draft. However, that is everything short of just carpet-bombing the place into submission or
salting their walter supplies. While we may not have enough troops to perform a successful nation-building campaign, we do have more than enough to kill and break anything in their path. The administration should have listened to
Ralph Peters sooner instead of persisting on idealistic, politically correct warfighting.
On getting more troops for the war,
Neal Boortz had this idea:
[
Getting more hardware is easy. Place the order and pay for it. Easy enough. But how do we get more troops? Some in Congress have called for a draft. Bad move. A Military draft is essentially forced labor. Short of an invasion of our shores by an aggressor, there is absolutely no public support for a draft in this country. Period. So we're going to have to recruit more troops.
But Iraq remains a dangerous place. Not too many people are going to want to sign up, knowing that they could come home in a body bag. But there is a way to get more people to sign up, and you can do it in a second. How do you think Halliburton is getting people to fly over to Iraq and drive trucks? You might say nobody in their right mind would do that.
But they're doing so because of one reason and one reason only: money. Private contractors are bringing people in to do jobs like that for six figures. If the U.S. Military announced tomorrow that the recruiting bonus was $50,000 and the annual combat pay was being increased to $100,000, we'd have all the troops we'd ever need. While they're at it, how about jacking up the death benefit to a million dollars? Whatever it takes.]
"
....would've never allowed Condi to meet with Assad...."
I would also like to add to that list, "...would've never frittered away the treasury war chest, several months into the Iraq war, for a prescription entitlement program."
And, finally, I second Shelly's motion.
Posted by: reagan80 at May 12, 2007 01:42 PM (iXkL1)
14
Good Gawd, I go on the road for a couple of days, and good fellowship breaks out. I love you guys too, even when you're wrong. I'm unelectable.
Posted by: Casca at May 13, 2007 09:13 PM (2gORp)
Posted by: Casca at May 13, 2007 09:23 PM (2gORp)
16
Fred Thompson already was President -- didn't you see "Last Best Chance?"
Posted by: Col Steve at May 15, 2007 08:59 AM (WffUy)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 09, 2007
Republican Primary Update
On one issue, I am not a "big tent" Republican. I don't think there should be room for pro-abortion candidates in the Republican party. But I think abortion is a great moral evil, so it follows that I don't think there should pro-abortion candidates in the Democratic party either. Nevertheless, I don't live in a perfect world. Much as I am confounded by
his illogical position on the abortion issue, Rudy Giuliani is still the front-runner for my party's nomination.
But the same can't be said of Mitt Romney, who even after getting rave reviews for his debate performance last Thursday night, still remains mired in fourth place. Gallup even has him losing ground after the debate.
What's the difference between Romney and Giuliani? Both have flip-flopped on abortion. (So did I, by the way. Although I came over from the dark side much earlier than Romney, who "says" he switched in 2004). Giuliani donated to Planned Parenthood three times. Romney's wife donated $150 only once, back in 1994.
Both men supposedly have an impressive record of accomplishments. Rudy's is better known to me. He fixed an unfixable city, I watched him do it. Romney did something or other with the Olympics and as far as I know he was a successful governor of Massachussets.
One might say it's anti-Mormon prejudice. It might be, there certainly is some of that going on. But I don't think that explains all of it. I personally don't have any problem with Romney's religion, yet I don't like him at all. What's up with that?
I think one reason I don't like him is that he polls so badly, and I badly want to win. Would I like him better if he were a stronger candidate? Perhaps. I'm open to voting for Romney in the primary (which is more than I can say for Rudy or McCain), if Romney could somehow prove that he can beat Hillary, but so far he hasn't proven that.
Then there's the intangible slickness factor. Romney seems slick. I'll admit that's a silly reason not to vote for somebody, but I doubt I'm the only one who has noticed it about him. I also doubt I'm the only one who's slick-averse after eight years of Clinton. Would America vote for slick over shrew? I don't know. But I do know Romney's got a lot of work to do if he's going to get my vote.
For now, I'm leaning towards Mike Huckabee. He impressed me* during last week's debate, although he's not good on tax policy from what I understand. He has zero chance in hell of winning the nomination and Hillary would crush him like a bug anyway. But I always vote my conscience in the primary, and save my pragmatism for the general.
_______________
* And a lot of people.
Posted by: annika at
03:57 PM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
Post contains 479 words, total size 3 kb.
1
"But I always vote my conscience in the primary, and save my pragmatism for the general."
Great. I feel all warm and fuzzy now.
If all the one-issue voters do that we could end up with Huckabee or Brownback or [insert any other pro-life, "I love Jesus", uninspiring, white male]and get our asses handed to us by Hillary or Obama.
I know we've already had this debate, but I think '08 is a different sort of year. The country does not support this war, and, fair or not, they are not likely to vote for a person that closely resembles George Bush in social policy or that sounds exactly the same on the GWOT. (Don't get me wrong: I think Bush is correct on the GWOT, but he is probably the worst possible salesman for the job.)
We need a person who is socially moderate enough to attract independent voters - who we have been losing lately - but not so moderate that he loses the conservatives. Rudy fits that criteria pretty well. Yeah, he's pro-choice but so is most of America. Abortion is just not an issue that the majority sit home and worry about.
I, personally, will spend a lot more time worrying about a candidates view on the GWOT, his fiscal policy, his view on illegal immigration, and his ability to kick Hillary's fucking ass. Rudy is the only Republican - currently declared -that can beat Hillary. Nobody else has a fucking prayer.
Reps need to decide if they want to be "right" or if they want to win. Do you want 75% of what you like or 10% of what you want?
I wanna win.
Posted by: blu at May 09, 2007 06:36 PM (NntAN)
2
Greetings Annika,
I like Mitt for a number of reasons and not because he's a mormon, which I happen to also be, but for all the other reasons. I like what he did for the Olympics and that he was a governor of a state. Sadly, he has the same kind of experience that Jimmy Carter had in 1976. I think we are more savy at choosing elected officals than we were then.
I like Rudi, warts and all. No slickness about him that's for sure.
Posted by: Drake Steel at May 09, 2007 11:58 PM (CiU4y)
3
Just found your blog and you rock! Sucks that you are ending this stellar commentary in a few days, I wish I'd discovered it sooner.
Your political commentary made me stand up and cheer, and laugh out loud. Good stuff! Best of luck to you ~
Posted by: Lalah at May 10, 2007 01:41 AM (TYera)
4
I agree with Blu, and I will go even further.
The last two Republican Presidents were both selected partly because of their strong anti-abortion stands and what did it get us? Two clueless blue-bloods with nearly zero fiscal responsibility.
Maybe its time to draw a little from the other side of the big tent.
Posted by: kyle N at May 10, 2007 03:29 AM (uKJF8)
5
Of all the candidates currently in the race, I, too, like Huckabee's politics best. However, we all know he's pretty much dead in the water. I am, however, still holding a place in my heart for Fred. I think that when he finally jumps in, he is going to dramatically alter the landscape for '08. And, we get someone from our side of the tent who is definitely electable.
Posted by: Frank at May 10, 2007 06:07 AM (YHZAl)
6
Woe unto him who ignores the wisdom of Hewitt, and that other prescient Buckeye, Casca.
A poll doesn't tell you shit, unless you have the question asked, and the crosstabs. Without those two ingredients, you know nothing.
Posted by: Casca at May 10, 2007 06:43 AM (Y7t14)
7
Yes, the slick factor likely makes a number of people leery of Romney (though one of my sheep is a
Romney).
Good of you to stand up for your principles and vote your conscience; if only more people did that instead of acted just like sheep.
And I too like many of Huckabee's stances, especially his
answer to this question in the last debate.
Posted by: will at May 10, 2007 07:35 AM (z62e3)
8
I didn't have time to read the entry today but I wanted to ask: how did some of you regulars find Annika's Journal (which I will really miss)? I found this blog while guest-blogging for Doug TenNapel about a year ago. I just wanted to say thanks for putting a good blog out, and you're really smart and talented.
Posted by: Joules at May 10, 2007 11:55 AM (u4CYb)
9
I am just bewildered by anyone who thinks that Rudy is "Moderate". Rudy is as democrat as you can get. I would be completely shocked if someone as gun literate as Annika would give any support to a guy who would prefer to make guns illegal. (That's what he credits for his cleaning up of NYC. Nevermind the fact that it took a large police force to get the guns off the streets. But surely it was just the guns that made the difference. *rolleyes*)
Personally, Rudy and Hillary are synonymous in my mind. If Rudy wins the primary, I'll probably vote third party and that is WAY out of my character.
I really like Mike Huckabee. I think if the hard core Republicans out there actually did some research on the candidates, Huckabee would gain a lot of ground.
I agree with the "slick-factor" on Romney. He reminds me too much of Gore. (More in personality than in politics, but some of both.)
If Fred crashes the party, I'll be voting for him.
Posted by: Trint at May 10, 2007 12:23 PM (SlSdA)
10
Yeah, Trint, it is a sad state of affairs that we are left with such shitty choices. If we're lucky, Rudy will go the "states' rights" route on gun control issues. BTW, remember that Bush originally pledged in 2000 to renew the "assault weapons" ban.
Anyway, I wish I would've been the first to say this to the Lefty shitheads.
Thank you, Ed Kline.
[
Oh, and let's be clear, my feelings about Bush in general are very similar to Lee’s, but I hate it when liberals chime in with their “I told you so” bullshit. It's like all of the sudden I am supposed to agree they were right all along. However, I don't remember liberals warning me in 2000 that Bush wasn't sufficiently conservative enough for me.
I don't like Bush now because half the reasons liberals hated him aren't even true.(not that they ever give him credit for being a big government guy like themselves) And most importantly I don't remember the Democratic party giving me a viable alternative to Bush. As much as BushÂ’s second term has been a bitter pill for me to swallow, I would still prefer him over Gore or Kerry.]
[
Well that's just it, Bob, I didn't do that. I addressed the whole ‘Bush was always incompetent’ thing. Bush turned 800,000 dollars into 15,000,000, in less than 10 years, so when you use his turn as a baseball owner as an indication of his ‘always being an incompetent’, I am going to call you on it. I also addressed the whole Sosa thing because you used that as well.
The problem Bob is you did NOT tell me so. You (and when I say you I mean liberals, the Gore-Kerry advocate press and BushÂ’s Democratic opponents) told me many things. You told me that Bush would appoint Supreme Court justices who would rival Taliban members in how backward they are. Guys like horror of horrors Sam Alito, (which was fine with me). You did not tell me he would betray me by trying to nominate Harriet Myers. You told me that compassionate conservatism was nonsense, and Bush would gut government progams designed to help the poor(again fine by me), not expand entitlement programs like prescription drugs for the elderly.
It's like I said before, you certainly didn't tell me that BushÂ’s conservatism was to be questioned. The case you made against Bush was that he was way too damn conservative. You were afraid he was another Reagan.(oh if only it were so) So you most certainly did NOT tell me so.]
Posted by: reagan80 at May 10, 2007 07:19 PM (iXkL1)
11
Thank you Lalah and Joules.
Good find Reagan80.
Posted by: annika at May 10, 2007 08:58 PM (WfR6S)
Posted by: Che' is my muse at May 11, 2007 12:07 AM (mXI7A)
13
"Rudy is as democrat as you can get."
"Rudy and Hillary are synonymous in my mind."
With all due respect, those are inane comments. Because a former mayor of America's largest city supports various forms of gun control doesn't make him a "Democrat." Neither does being pro-choice. Those are two policy positions that are supported by the majority of American citizens both Rep and Dem. Rudy's stated positions, however, on issues that matter more: GWOT, fiscal responsibility, illegal immigration, and judges are all solidly conservative - and distinctly different from Hillary and Obama's positions.
BTW, having several close friends that are cops, I can tell you that most police officers support various forms of gun control. Does that make them all "democrat as you can get"? I don't think so: Most are very conservative and vote accordingly. (I don't happen to agree with their position, but I'm not silly enough to think because their opinion on a single issue differs from mine makes them liberals.)
But, whatever, go vote third party and enjoy Hillary's 8 years. What kind of judges do you think she's going to select?
Posted by: blu at May 11, 2007 11:13 AM (o6U00)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Citizens For A Better America
The aptly named group Citizens for a Better America is doing work that I support wholeheartedly.
Check them out here. They speak, I believe, for the vast majority of Americans.
Posted by: annika at
03:24 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 40 words, total size 1 kb.
1
There is a way to make her and all of the other inconsequential celebrity ilk disappear from your world: get rid of your cable TV subscriptions.
As long as I have access to the 'Net and my collection of DVD's, I don't miss it.
Posted by: reagan80 at May 09, 2007 08:08 PM (iXkL1)
2
Y U be hatin' on P-slutty?
Posted by: Casca at May 10, 2007 06:48 AM (Y7t14)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 08, 2007
Annika's Journal Farewell Tour: Part VIII, Poll Results That I Never Got Around To Revealing
For those who followed the various sidebar polls, and others who are merely curious, here are some results that I never got around to mentioning, due to a lack of interest on my part.
- The current poll asks, "Annika trivia: If you busted into Annika's house, what would she most likely shoot you with?" The correct answer is Heckler & Koch USP in .45 ACP, not the Sig Sauer 9 mil that 50% of you guessed.
- Do you think the Travelocity Gnome is funny? I do not, and thus I agree with 67% of you. Strangely, ten respondents did not know whether the Travelocity Gnome is funny, which is a "no" vote as far as I'm concerned.
- Eighty-seven percent of you think Ohio State should officially change their name from the Buckeyes to Florida's Bitches.
- On the burning question, "Egg salad sandwich, tuna salad sandwich, or chicken salad sandwich?" the response was evenly divided: 31%, 33% and 33%. So basically, they're all good.
- Which Jessica is best? Thirty-four percent picked Jessica Alba, but I was happy to see that there were at least 23 Frank Herbert fans out there who voted for Lady Jessica Atreides.
- Now that Sam Jaya has been kicked off American Idol, if he takes your advice he should go on one of those Bravo reality shows where everyone's gay. I think he'd be perfect for Shear Genius... as a client!
- Eighty-five percent of you have health insurance. Fifteen percent of you don't. Amazingly, this result is almost exactly congruent with the latest national census figures. So anyone who thinks my blog visitors are not a representative cross-section of America is nuts.
- Regarding the question: "What was the top story of 2006? The one everyone's talking about?" you were given a number of choices, and the majority of you picked, "Jackie Passey." That's crazy. What's even crazier is that "Evil donuts from the future invade Wall Street, reprogram the stock market" got only 14%, and that's only because I kept voting for it about two dozen times. The mere discovery that sentient donuts exist is enough to make it the top story in all of history, let alone the top story of last year. Add to that the fact that they're evil, they traveled through time, they invaded Wall Street, and they somehow managed to reprogram the stock market?!?! I just don't see how you people didn't think that was a major story! I suspect it's because many of you are doing well in the stock market and don't want to rock the boat.
- ¿Qual es la favorita pictura del hombre de sombrero? Esta Alfonso Bedoya.
- And finally, the winner of the Battle Of The Movie Assassins was Nikita from the original La Femme Nikita, starring Anne Parillaud. She got 58% of the vote, compared to Jason Bourne's 42%. I totally disagree with that result but what are you gonna do? View the tournament bracket here.
So now that's over with, I feel a lot better.
Posted by: annika at
06:56 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 527 words, total size 4 kb.
1
Gnome Rules: The gnome has to be experienced on t.v. (he's really irritating on radio) and he's only funny once. Totally unrelated subject: I just saw a music video that's the first one to grab my interest in a while: Dan Le Sac vs Scroobius Pip, Thou Shalt Always Kill. It's very British. Thou Shalt Always Kill doesn't mean murder or killing. I think they said it's slang for ending a song or performance. I'd have to listen to the interview again. Look them up on YouTube!
Posted by: Joules at May 08, 2007 08:42 PM (u4CYb)
2
EFF U, just as soon as Cal makes it to a BCS game.
As for the lovely Miss Passey, I stuffed the ballot box for her, because I KNEW you were stuffing it too. She didn't just win, she OBLITERATED the field, as she should, since she's perfect. I may have to become her bitch soon.
Posted by: Casca at May 08, 2007 10:17 PM (2gORp)
3
Skippy said it best about "Jacqueline Mackie Cougar Mellencamp Paisley Herbert Walker al-Zawahiri Passey":
[
She's the kind of woman who would bite your testicles if she suspected that you were masturbating and not moaning her name, as she so obviously does.]
BTW, the fivehead often makes her look like Rudy G. in drag.
Random YouTube of the Day:
"Brokeback Commie"
Posted by: reagan80 at May 09, 2007 07:03 AM (iXkL1)
4
Damn that explains a lot. Sounds just like my ex-wife.
Posted by: Casca at May 09, 2007 01:43 PM (Y7t14)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 05, 2007
Weather Underground
Forget the
Yahoo weather site, which is really just the Weather Channel's site, which sucks. The most comprehensive internet source for all your weather related needs is
Weather Underground, which I have just bookmarked under my "references" tab. It has complete and searchable almanac information too, for you global warming junkies.
No, I'm not a total geek. But I am the daughter of a former Navy Aerographer's Mate.
On a slightly related note, I want you all to know my electrical usage has decreased compared to last year's kWh for two months in a row! And I haven't even been trying. Of course that might be because last year I tended to forget to turn off the air when leaving the house. Now, I have a Puerto Rican butler who will do that for me.
Posted by: annika at
09:14 AM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
Post contains 139 words, total size 1 kb.
1
There is nothing that brings out apathy in me more than the subject of Global Warming. I'd rather worry about Nuclear Winter, instead.
Anyway, congratulations on snagging the "butler", Annie. You guys look like such a nice couple.
Posted by: reagan80 at May 05, 2007 12:31 PM (gyiuI)
2
I wonder if there's some way we could harness the power of hamsters in their wheels. I think it's on page 85 in Algore's book. My dad is a retired Navy chaplain and I thought I'd heard every Navy job title there was but I don't remember hearing that one! Must have to have a good mind for detail.
Posted by: Joules at May 05, 2007 02:13 PM (u4CYb)
3
I'm glad that pops turned back to women after he was done being an Aerographer's Mate. I guess mom is too. I'm also gratified to see that you've found a man who knows his homefire duties, i.e. turning off everything left unattended/in use, and keeping the hooch from burning to the ground.
Posted by: Casca at May 05, 2007 02:24 PM (2gORp)
4
Been a fan of weatherunderground for many years now. See pics from my deck at http://www.weatherunderground.com/wximage/imagesearch.html?citybox=on&city=Paeonian_Springs&statebox=on&state=VA&submit=go
Good to hear you are doing your part on the conservation front (setback thermostats are very common now, btw).
Posted by: will at May 07, 2007 10:02 AM (z62e3)
5
I always wondered where the Wizard of Oz landed!
Posted by: annika at May 07, 2007 12:34 PM (zAOEU)
6
"No, I'm not a total geek..."
True, but when you're in the high 90's, you just accept, ya know.
C'mon... embrace the geekdom!
"Now, I have a Puerto Rican butler..."
... and for a brief moment, I had a quick visualization of Agador Spartacus. Luckily, I clicked the link.
Posted by: ElMondoHummus at May 07, 2007 01:30 PM (CCvex)
7
I hear ya Reagan! Now that it's warm I'll be wearing my "Fuck Recycling - Just Make More" shirt all the time. I love it! It just dares the moonbats to say something - then die!
I'll make up a few more, of different colors, for the other days of the week.
Over/under on when the journaljizzmers finally reveal the I-Slamic names of the Jersey terrorists? Were they caught with international terrorist surveillance? No wonder Straw and his fellow travelers hate it so much.
Posted by: Radical Redneck at May 08, 2007 07:13 AM (WKULG)
Posted by: Radical Redneck at May 08, 2007 07:47 AM (WKULG)
9
I just can't look at that tornado link. I could not believe the reporter on NPR asking the governor if there was any human error involved in the enormous damage. Yes, as soon as they heard the sirens, the residents jumped into their bulldozers and leveled about a third of their town before the tornado hit, assuming it was going to be destroyed anyway.
Posted by: Joules at May 08, 2007 12:34 PM (u4CYb)
10
Is that the home page of the Weathermen?
Posted by: Mark at May 08, 2007 02:02 PM (krump)
11
"You don't need a Weatherman to know which way the wind blows."
Posted by: annika at May 08, 2007 06:33 PM (WfR6S)
12
only weather site you'll ever need: doineedajacket.com
Posted by: francis at May 08, 2007 11:03 PM (q+y+B)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Milblog Conference Live Video Feed
You can watch the Milblog Conference
video feed here. I think they're on lunch now, but the schedule says they start up again at 1:00 eastern time.
The President spoke earlier today, but I missed it.
Update: Here's the video.
Posted by: annika at
09:00 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 50 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Crap. I want to see the President's remarks. I hope they post the video later.
Posted by: reagan80 at May 05, 2007 11:54 AM (gyiuI)
2
Annie,
I was a sponsor of Milblogs convention and knew in advance of the secret surprise of the POTUS address, what was amazing is that when Andi introduced President Bush, there was a palpable gasp and lots of folks turned expecting him to walk in. He actually was on a taped feed.
Having served as a military officer or cadet under five President's, I still greatly respect the office of the President and regardless of their politics or leanings, will always respect the office holder.
Otto
Posted by: Otto at May 05, 2007 08:42 PM (czVLs)
3
I was one of the dufuses who gasped and looked at the door. I knew it was too good to be true! But the taped speech was amazing, and I was so star-struck through the thing that now I couldn't tell you one word he said. I'd love to see the video again too.
Posted by: Sarah at May 06, 2007 03:44 PM (vrR+j)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 04, 2007
Annika's Journal Farewell Tour: Part VII, The Curse Of Annika's Journal
December 9, 2004: I post
a poem I wrote about Jerry Orbach.
December 28, 2004: Jerry Orbach dies.
Coincidence? You tell me.
March 4, 2006: I post a review of Butterflies Are Free, starring Edward Albert.
September 22, 2006: Edward Albert dies.
Coincidence? Who knows?
November 18, 2005: I call Steve Irwin a goofball in a post about turtles.
September 4, 2006: Steve Irwin is killed by a stingray, which is a distant relative of the turtle.
Coincidence? Is this starting to freak you out?
September 27, 2006: I write a post about Screech from Saved By The Bell.
November 15, 2006: Slater from Saved By The Bell is eliminated from Dancing With The Stars.
Coincidence? Maybe. But maybe it's not. Did you ever think about that?
Posted by: annika at
08:21 PM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
Post contains 149 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I must confess. I have never thought about it, and most likely never will again.
Posted by: Casca at May 04, 2007 09:03 PM (2gORp)
2
A stingray is a "distant relative" of the turtle? Yikes, but yer stretchin' there.
More spookier though: On April 26, 2007 you posted about "weather futures". The next day it rained like a bitch. Dammit, Annika! You and your @#$% blog!
I'm really gonna miss you.
**sniffle**
Posted by: Tuning Spork at May 04, 2007 10:15 PM (d7H4x)
3
You know, Annika, with Screech it got a WHOLE lot worse than anything having to do with Slater. How could you forget the release of "Saved by the Smell" on November 16? That's officially a two-fer for poor Dustin. You've got SPOOKY powers!
Gonna miss your blog, Annika! If you do last one "Wednesday Is Poetry Day," here's one you might enjoy:
Here I sit, broken-hearted;
Tried to fart, but only parted
My new pants from all the strain.
The moral is: All strain, no gain.
Do I gots the skillz to pay the billz, or what?
Posted by: Cameron at May 05, 2007 03:43 AM (3DWOF)
4
With posts like Cameron's, maybe you do need a break...
Posted by: shelly at May 05, 2007 04:09 AM (A5s0y)
5
Dammit Shelly, you're in between me and the target. Get down before I Dick Cheney your ass.
Cameron, survey says......NO!
Posted by: Casca at May 05, 2007 08:40 AM (2gORp)
6
So, I'm thinking, how much would you charge us to write about Strawman, Annika?
I think we can get up a pretty good kitty here.
Posted by: shelly at May 05, 2007 09:51 AM (h/YdH)
Posted by: annika at May 05, 2007 10:34 AM (WfR6S)
Posted by: ccwbass at May 05, 2007 11:34 AM (8Yfhv)
Posted by: reagan80 at May 05, 2007 11:42 AM (gyiuI)
10
D'oh! I'm a jackass. I didn't know that you had already seen the post, Annika.
Posted by: ccwbass at May 05, 2007 11:51 AM (8Yfhv)
11
Well Bass, at least you're in good company.
Posted by: Casca at May 05, 2007 02:27 PM (2gORp)
12
One of my friends, who teaches high school English, recently e-mailed, "Reaching 40 and realizing that you still find body humor hilarious is one of life's great surprises." I'm in that camp.
Posted by: Joules at May 06, 2007 06:13 PM (u4CYb)
13
Annika,
You can't be serious about giving up your post!! But based on your writing history, can you dedicate your last days by writing a LOT about the democrats running for POTUS.
Posted by: Ed at May 07, 2007 07:50 AM (s5qzW)
14
Okay, Anni, what the hell's with you missing your last target? You did Orbach in, you did Albert in, and Irwin... well, we all knew it was gonna come at the hands... er, barbed tails... of some animal, though that doesn't change the influence your karma-cursing post had. But Screech?? You freakin'
missed Screech??!!
Of all people??
Keep posting, goddammit! If one doesn't do 'im in,
keep shooting!
Posted by: ElMondoHummus at May 07, 2007 01:14 PM (CCvex)
15
"Get down before I Dick Cheney your ass..."
Jesus, Cas! You could've said "Vice President your ass", but noooooo... you gotta choose the verbiage that causes spit takes and rereads. Now I gotta wipe this orange juice off my monitor...
Posted by: ElMondoHummus at May 07, 2007 01:20 PM (CCvex)
Posted by: Casca at May 07, 2007 10:10 PM (2gORp)
17
no.........I think I'll miss the picture of feet on the scale, a fetish I just learned I had.
very nice
Posted by: John at May 09, 2007 10:08 PM (D73at)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Annika's Journal Farewell Tour: Part VI, The Agitprop
These are the sidebar agitprops I created during the course of this blog's run.
Number one was my first attempt, using a picture of Kerry doing the "raise the roof" gesture. Pretty self-explanatory.
Number two was a little more sophisticated, and the first time I did the whole top and bottom bar thingie. I like the long face distortion, which is useful anytime one wants to depict the french-looking candidate.
Number three was created soon after Byrd gave his freakish meandering oration against the Authorization for the Use of Force. I'm particularly fond of the vampirish pallor of his skin, which was created by manipulating the hue and brightness settings in photoshop. Great pose too. The caption is a subtle hint at his Klan history. Grand Wizard becomes Grand Poobah.
Number four is Nancy Pelosi at her most strident. For effect I manipulated the size of her eyes and mouth. Not enough to look photoshopped, but just enough to be weird.
Number five is connected to my infamous EJ for Sec Gen post, which got such wide exposure thanks to a mention by Jeff Jarvis on the Ron Reagan show. I totally lucked out when I found that picture of EJ with the blue hair wig. It was perfect.
And number six utilizes the gif animation function, which has given me hours of fun since I discovered how to do it back in January of '05. For those who don't know the references, this was based on the promotional photograph of Kiki Couric, which had been photoshopped by CBS to make her look younger and thinner. Tiffany is a reference to CBS's old nickname, "the tiffany network." I can't deny that I was also inspired by Violet from the old Willie Wonka movie.
So much for the agitprop. Someday, when the time is right, I'm planning to make a "Hillary: the female Nixon" sticker and plaster it all over California. Watch for it.
Posted by: annika at
05:06 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 339 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Ooo, that excites the mind. Haggard & Huffy? Bitchy & Bloated?
Posted by: Casca at May 04, 2007 09:08 PM (2gORp)
2
A joke loses it's momentum/timing when you have to explain it, but for those of you not alive in 1968, one of the Nixon primary campaign slogans was "Rested & Ready".
On the Byrd piece, I always thought that it would have been better if you'd have made it "Grand Kleigle of the Senate".
Posted by: Casca at May 05, 2007 02:45 PM (2gORp)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Rosie Unfazed By Emeryville Freeway Collapse
Rosie O'Donnell is a perfect example of the psychological defense mechanism known as "cognitive dissonance." Here's what she's written in the last few days in response to questions posed at her
"Ask Ro" site.
Teresa writes:
Hey Ro!
I live in No CA and guess what? The freeway near the Bay Bridge is going to be open sooner than expectedÂ…Why? Because the steel didnÂ’t melt!!
HmmmmÂ…Â…Â… Love ya!
[Rosie:]
hmmm
and the concrete didnt pulverize
. . .
Jami writes:
Hey RosieÂ… you should send those who doubt the 9/11 stuff to watch the videos on Youtube about WTC7 fallingÂ… maybe that will make them believe what you are saying!!!! Rock on girlfriend!!!!
[Rosie:]
yup
. . .
Kim writes:
Hey…just watched Loose Change. I didn’t know that 9 of the “hijackers” were found to be alive. Why haven’t I seen this until now? Did the media ever cover that? Loving you from Toronto!
[Rosie:]
the media did not
. . .
amy writes:
rosie- i am horrified. i just googled wtc7 & i am just sick. i have always thought there was more to the story than what the media was saying- but to see actual evidence is frightening. IMPEACH!!
[Rosie:]
go amy
. . .
Dan writes:
U said the last tower on 9/11 couldnÂ’t have fallen by melting steelÂ…it has never happened. Did the recent incident in California where freeway girders melted from a tanker truck change ur mind?
[Rosie:]
no
wtc7
google it
. . .
Jan writes:
Can you explain how fire from an overturned oil tanker in San Francisco melted steel beams and bolts leading to the collapse of part of an interchange on Hwy I-80? But not on 9/11 you said.
[Rosie:]
watch wtc 7 fall
and tell me
it was not a controlled demolition
45 stories
come on
. . .
CYNTHIA writes:
is it plausable that terrorists placed bombs in the WTCÂ’s? y, but the real question is which terrorists,foreign or domestic? if u were a man the news would praise u 4 your views. they r full of shit!
[Rosie:]
loving cynthia
There is no convincing one who has abandoned all reason and logic in exchange for fear and superstition. It's ironic that
she has the nerve to criticize religion.
Posted by: annika at
07:53 AM
| Comments (27)
| Add Comment
Post contains 384 words, total size 3 kb.
1
The problem with the "reality-based community" is that much of it can't handle reality. That's the basic premise of Paul Berman's
Terror and Liberalism, in which Berman essentially says that many liberals, grounded as they are (or at fancy themselves to be) in Western rationalism, simply can't accept the notion that millions of people could subscribe to an utterly
irrational ideology. He cites the French Socialists prior to WWII as another example of this phenomenon:
The anti-war socialists gazed across the Rhine and simply refused to believe that millions of upstanding Germans had enlisted in a political movement whose animating principles were paranoid conspiracy theories, blood-curdling hatreds, medieval superstitions and the lure of murder. At Auschwitz the SS said "Here there is no why." The anti-war socialists in France believed no such thing. In their eyes, there was always a why.
(Berman is a leftist, by the way.) A large portion of the left
needs a "why." No one would fly loaded airliners into skyscrapers without a really good reason; thus the self-immolation of the hate-America crowd.
I think Berman's onto something there, and I think the conspiracy theories may be the flip side of the same coin. If you're not willing to accept the possibility of an irrational, murderous,
evil ideology with sufficient backing to organize a 9/11, and if you also don't accept the proposition that America did something so horrible as to justify 9/11 on rational grounds, then you have to find some other way to explain those three thousand dead people. I think conspiracy theories are another way to do that.
Of course the people who buy into conspiracy theories are themselves falling prey to an irrational ideology -- and they're implicitly accepting the very proposition about people in American government (for example) that they're unwilling to accept about certain foreign Muslims. So much for their commitment to Western rationalism. But that just proves that the human capacity for self-deception is almost unlimited.
Cognitive dissonance indeed.
Of course in Rosie's case the problem may just boil down to the fact that she's a fat, stupid sow.
Posted by: Matt at May 04, 2007 08:47 AM (10G2T)
2
Hey, I am a "lurker" by your own definition. I drop in from time to time, yet rarely comment. I like your spot and mourn its passing in advance. I like your take, and your response most ususally, and when I don't you at least open up a new avenue for me to pursue. Keep up the good work, keep the faith. Jay
Posted by: Jay at May 04, 2007 09:32 AM (JMWr9)
3
Annika,
"There is no convincing one who has abandoned all reason and logic in exchange for fear and superstition."
I donÂ’t know Annie, it seems to me that the foundations and "facts" that stimulate the paranoid delusions that plague Rosie are 1000 times more concrete than the foundation for a belief in a supreme being, his children, his ghost, his intentions, his interest in us as individuals, a virgin birth, reincarnation, heaven, hell and all the other silliness that is stuffed in to the bag(s) of religion. No? She may be drawing wrong conclusions and seeing conspiracies that are not supported by facts but she is at least still in touch with reality
Posted by: Strawman at May 04, 2007 01:05 PM (et8nf)
4
Strawman, how did you determine that the multiplication factor is exactly 1,000? Please cite your source or sources for that figure.
Posted by: annika at May 04, 2007 04:43 PM (WfR6S)
5
Will, are you posting under Annika's name?
Posted by: blu at May 04, 2007 04:56 PM (NntAN)
6
Annika,
Are you familiar with Lorenz's Butterfly effect, Von Neumann architecture and Godel's incompleteness theorms? It can also be gotten at from Gell-man's work in QCD.
Let me know and I'll show you the how this factor was derived. It is a complex and very long winded proof but it is very rewarding more rewarding even than painting your nails, donning gingam wedgies and strutting your stuff around the pool! Well,on second thought, maybe not.
Posted by: Strawman at May 04, 2007 05:23 PM (et8nf)
7
"more rewarding even than painting your nails, donning gingam wedgies and strutting your stuff around the pool!"
Straw, is there something you're not telling us? .......Or maybe not telling yourself?
Posted by: blu at May 04, 2007 05:29 PM (NntAN)
8
Have you ever read "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis? Also, "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel is good for those with massive doubts--not to say that we believers don't have our doubts--that's why I have these books lying around the house. They're good friends on the journey. So, Rosie...hmmm...I think she lost it somewhere along the way. She used to be a lot of fun. My guess is hormonal changes and brain chemistry have something to do with it.
Posted by: Joules at May 04, 2007 06:57 PM (u4CYb)
9
Yes Joules, that, and not coming to terms with her unnatural hatred of men. Early success (money) in life, before forty, tends to arrest emotional and intellectual development, and one risks becoming something bizarre.
Posted by: Casca at May 04, 2007 09:16 PM (2gORp)
10
Perhaps a better question is why you would bother polluting your blog with this MORON'S statements. She's totally beneath anyone with any critical thinking ability.
Posted by: Mark at May 04, 2007 11:44 PM (lJ4LY)
11
Rosie O'Donnell's utterly stupid statements are "concrete" but Catholicism is "silliness."
Straw, when Annika closes shop (what a quitter, by the way), promise us you will learn how to THINK.
Posted by: Mark at May 04, 2007 11:48 PM (lJ4LY)
12
Y'know, posting Rosie's blog is a kind of public service for people who aren't surrounded by irrational people every day. It allows us to practice responding to Rosie-heads in the comfort of our own homes!
Posted by: Joules at May 05, 2007 08:01 AM (u4CYb)
13
CONcrete:
Of or relating to a material thing or group of things as opposed to an abstraction.
Gee Mark, did I miss something?
Joules, I notice you don't have Bertram Russels "Why I am not a Christian" laying around to help you on your journey.
http://englishatheist.org/whynot.shtml
Or:
http://members.aol.com/chasklu/religion/private/whynot.htm
Posted by: Strawman at May 05, 2007 08:08 AM (et8nf)
14
BERTRAND, of course, sorry.
Posted by: Strawman at May 05, 2007 05:19 PM (et8nf)
15
"Are you familiar with Lorenz's Butterfly effect, Von Neumann architecture and Godel's incompleteness theorms? It can also be gotten at from Gell-man's work in QCD."
Strawman, that was amazingly condescending even for you. I am a long-time lurker, and I have before now let you be, but unless you are a mathematical physicist you know a hell of a lot less about those things than I do (I'm a Ph.D. physical chemist).
If you are technically trained then I have no use for that kind of attitude coming from those of us in the technical community when dealing with laymen. But given the shotgun approach I betting you're bluffing. Explain to me what exactly you meant, because I'm at a loss how any of those disciplines gives a probabilistic estimation for the likelihood of the existence of a god. I am most familiar with Quantum Chromo Dynamics, but I have more than a passing interest in Chaos Theory, and while I know little to nothing about CS, I'm still at a loss to how a data / instruction design in a human made computer system sheds any light on this question. Enlighten me. I doubt there's any math that you can throw at me I won't understand.
And apologize to our hostess.
Posted by: John at May 05, 2007 08:12 PM (ct7Ey)
16
John administered what is technically known as a bitch slap.
You feeling OK, Straw? Cuz that had to hurt a lil'.
Posted by: blu at May 05, 2007 10:15 PM (NntAN)
17
Well, duh! (I'd love to see presidential candidates yelling "Duh!" at each other during a debate.) It's primarily a journey of FAITH--the assurance of things hoped for; the conviction of things not seen. I'll look at these links when I have a chance. About all the physics: I have this funny feeling that all the disciplines are easier to understand than I think they are--but try telling that to the rest of my brain. I have a book lying nearby called, "Physics for the Rest of Us"--which is supposed to make Physics easier to understand--but I bogged down in chapter 2 and never finished it.
Posted by: Joules at May 06, 2007 07:22 AM (u4CYb)
Posted by: annika at May 06, 2007 07:33 AM (WfR6S)
19
Dear John and Annie and Joules,
A thousands lardons.
I thought Annie's retort was tongue in cheek (IÂ’m sure it was) and I thought my response was as well. I thought my references were clearly frivolous (to the argument only) and not on any point since belief in a supreme being is the domain of religious belief; not science. I did not intend to be condescending nor do I purport to have more than a passing knowledge of these areas of study, and if anybody, your self included was offended, I apologize. I would never use my extensive knowledge of wood for instance to make someone feel inadequate. When I wish to offend, which is, I hope some may notice, becoming less frequent as my affection my associates and hostess grows, I usually do it with irony not condescension, unless of course its directed at Kasha varnishkas who insists on remaining unlikeable and a truly condescending ass.
I thought the references were clearly humorous because I am, as most around here know, like our lord Jesus Christ, a simple worker in wood laboring not in the rarefied air of quantum chromo dynamics, but rather in a miasma of a thick suspension of sawdust, carcinogenic volatile hydrocarbons, and other unhealthy elements too numerous to list. I am enjoy reading these subjects on the level of the “Dancing Wu Li Masters”, or listening to the wonderful Richard Feynman lectures from Cal Tech and other such lay fare.
Annie, you got it as a joke, right?
"I wish I knew half as much about anything today as I thought I knew about everything
when I was twenty." Bill Ayers
Posted by: Strawman, PHDuh! at May 06, 2007 09:21 AM (et8nf)
20
i always love reading the trash posted on sites such as this. it is amazing that people so utterly unable to comprehend the point of views of others can only deal with this deficit in their own abilities by calling the others names. rosie may be annoying, vocal, and not always politically correct. however, she at least makes judgements for herself. you all, however, find it easier to right her off as a "fat, stupid sow", a "moron" undergoing "hormonal changes", jealously refer to her early successes as responsible for "arrested emotional and intellectual development" and reveal a telling fear of lesbians which does not, in fact, surprise me at all. calling someone names in no way challenges the arguments that they make. you need to look at the facts for yourself and make your own judgements - but i fear that most of you would be too scared by what you might find out. a pity.
Posted by: whatthe? at May 07, 2007 09:39 AM (go1IV)
21
Whatthe,
Comprehending an inane argument (held by Rosie and other "truther" morons) does not require agreement. I and other regulars at this site comprehend their idiocy well.
I've got an idea self-righteous, smug guy: Why don't you go ahead and provide an intellectual defense of Rosie's stupidity. We'll all be waiting with baited breath. Nothing like reading the rantings of deluded conspiracy theorists - for a good laugh anyway.
Now get back to your bong and your latest version of Loose Change.
Posted by: blu at May 07, 2007 10:37 AM (j8oa6)
22
Hey Blu,
So what is your problem with smoking dope? You deride people as bong users and I wnat to be clear if it is the use of a bong that you don't like or just smoking reefer in general.
Whatthe,
You noticed, eh?
Posted by: Strawman at May 07, 2007 11:11 AM (et8nf)
23
Straw,
Was it bong resin that diminished your brain capacity and led to your bizarre and amoral political philosophy?
Regarding your question, I tend to be a libertarian when it comes to drug use. I am not a user myself, however. While I may not agree with current government policy on the matter, I am not, like many who share my policy belief, just looking for an excuse to get high.
Posted by: blu at May 07, 2007 01:29 PM (j8oa6)
24
Bong resin coupled with the plastizer in the PVC tubing. Sometimes we would smoke with nothing in the bowl and never notice a difference.
Posted by: Strawman at May 08, 2007 06:23 AM (et8nf)
25
To Whatthe,
Some of us
have looked at the facts for ourselves and made our own judgements. You want to challenge the ad hom on Rosie, fair enough. But if you want to imply that there's something behind what she says, then
you're the one who needs to look at facts for yourself and make your own judgement.
Besides, what's this defense that she "makes judgements for herself"? Like hell. She's repeating verbatim the 9/11 Conspiracy Fantasy, right down to the terminology and the mistakes. That's not "thinking for herself", that's being a blind savant, echoing only what she's been fed. It's one thing to "look at the facts for ourselves", it's another thing to mistake fantasy for reality, and it's a whole other level of mental laziness beyond that to not even analyze what you read and just parrot it forth. So go ahead and criticize folks saying mean things about her person; that's warranted. But don't make the mistake of defending her intellectual honesty. Regarding 9/11 and the World Trade Center, she has none.
Posted by: ElMondoHummus at May 08, 2007 06:42 AM (WuviG)
26
Strawman, you are totally cool with me. I always have to remind myself that this type of communication means you miss vocal inflection, facial expression, etc. So, what's the best product to use to clean wood that's been varnished, like furniture?
Whatthe, a good, thorough analysis of a person or situation involves looking at it through different lenses, from different perspectives. For example, I'm sure a psychologist would have a field day with Rosie and probably everyone here. We could even analyze Rosie from the perspective of a musician (if Rosie's voice were an instrument, she'd be the sandpaper blocks!) or a microbiologist or a Tupperware Lady, for that matter.
We might learn something about Rosie and ourselves by analyzing her in different ways. Like the rest of us, you don't know Rosie personally so you're as little qualified to comment intelligently as we are. That doesn't keep any of us from doing it, though, which I think may be the most fun part about posting on the internet.
Rosie's ideas remind me of my conspiracy theorist carpet cleaner, who could show you a dollar bill folded so that it makes the twin towers. He thinks the Illuminati (which includes most government heads of state worldwide, according to him) planned the disaster ahead of time so they just printed it on our money...for some reason...which is really dumb and I'm going to go get some ice cream.
Posted by: Joules at May 08, 2007 01:06 PM (u4CYb)
27
I may need the Fabric of the Cosmos to make myself a new pair of jeans. I spent the weekend in Oklahoma City with an old college friend and we ate every meal at a restaurant!
Posted by: Joules at May 08, 2007 02:03 PM (u4CYb)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 03, 2007
Breaking News
GOP DEBATE SHOCKER!
During an inadvertently risque moment, Governor Romney demonstrates his "technique" in response to a question by moderator Chris Matthews.
Posted by: annika at
09:03 PM
| Comments (20)
| Add Comment
Post contains 26 words, total size 1 kb.
1
His knuckleball grip right? Damn you're a pervy little thing, thus very popular. lmao
Posted by: Casca at May 03, 2007 09:07 PM (2gORp)
2
what? you don't think it was risky for him to start talking about his bowling technique?
Posted by: annika at May 04, 2007 06:20 AM (UV9H+)
3
Annika,
How often do the words risque and bowling find themselves in the same sentence?
Romney looks more like RR calling his favorite sheep to the barn for a nooner.
Posted by: Strawman at May 04, 2007 08:02 AM (et8nf)
Posted by: Scof at May 04, 2007 09:11 AM (a3fqn)
5
-Romney looks more like RR calling his favorite sheep to the barn for a nooner.
I have it on good authority Strawman would know about diddling livestock. I heard he was banned from a petting zoo in Jersey several years ago. He walked into the place wearing nothing but galoshes. He grabbed the nearest goat and inserted its hind legs into his boots so it could not run away. He proceeded to give the animal a time it would never forget along with a case of herpes.
Posted by: Spanky at May 04, 2007 10:40 AM (gyiuI)
6
You're such a pervert. That's what I love about you.
Posted by: Trint at May 04, 2007 11:25 AM (SlSdA)
7
Spanky,
Sounds like you are competing with RR for the title of site farm boy?
Posted by: Strawman at May 04, 2007 01:11 PM (et8nf)
8
Amazingly, that's my technique, too! You'd be surprised how well it works,really you would. I've gotten thirty-two marriage proposals that way alone.
And I won't even get started with what I can do with my tongue. Who says that Catholic school didn't have
some benefits?
Posted by: skippystalin at May 04, 2007 02:11 PM (ZSmqU)
9
Whoa. That's so gratuitously perverted that it almost offends even me.
Posted by: Matt at May 04, 2007 02:15 PM (10G2T)
10
Scof, I really liked the "Have a crappy weekend" sound bite.
Posted by: reagan80 at May 04, 2007 02:33 PM (gyiuI)
11
Yes, I know Matt. Its incredibly tasteless and there was no justification for it. This is probably the type of thing that explains why I was never asked to join Pajamas Media and Hugh Hewitt took me off his blogroll.
Posted by: annika at May 04, 2007 04:35 PM (WfR6S)
12
"Hugh Hewitt took me off his blogroll"
I hope none of the comments were a factor in his decision. I know that I've posted some pretty toxic, politically incorrect shit on multiple occasions that people would want to publicly distance themselves from.
With that said, I'm not a big fan of Hugh's sycophantic tendencies.
Posted by: reagan80 at May 04, 2007 05:43 PM (gyiuI)
13
I missed the debate, I've heard from various sources that Romney did well along with a couple of others. Apparently, McCain looked old and tired - not a good TV candidate. Michael Medved suggests that Duncan Hunter was the debate winner (with Romney a close second.)
Opinions anyone?
Posted by: blu at May 04, 2007 05:59 PM (NntAN)
14
Hmmmm, Hunter did himself some good, but Romney was Mr. Kewl. Hunter has a big plus for being VP. Aside from McCain who is too old, and too strident. Who else but Hunter is a vet? On top of his service, he's been the go to guy on defense in the Congress for a long time. Add to that, he's an articulate conservative with major street cred, and any presidential candidate with suspect credentials with his base will want to shore up his bonafides. Plus, he has Buckeye roots.
Posted by: Casca at May 04, 2007 09:27 PM (2gORp)
15
The winner was ..... Fred Thompson.
With no real winner emerging, Fred begins to gain traction.
Looking for RWR reincarnate? Look no further.
And, Fred would not hesitate to name Newt Secretary of State or Defense. I see a Thompson-Giuliani ticket coming.
Beats the Hell out of Clinton-Richardson, doesn't it?
Remember, you read it here on Annie's blog.
Posted by: shelly at May 05, 2007 04:20 AM (A5s0y)
16
I don't know Shelly. I hadn't had a decent look at Romney until Thursday. He's a business lawyer from the East Coast, who sounds pretty damned conservative. Add to that, leading-man looks, and incredible mental quickness. He probably is the one. This is the most superficial part of politics, but Fred looks too old, and Newt too fat and toadish. Romney will make Hillary look like the hag she is in comparison, and Obama would come off like the ersatz looney left nutjob version of Romney.
Posted by: Casca at May 05, 2007 08:53 AM (2gORp)
17
Since Straw is considered the same species as the diversity of 4 legged vermin he penetrates with his Minuscule Man Meat™, it's not beastiality.
Notice he named himself after the material on which he give the old goats a reacharound?
Posted by: Radical Redneck at May 05, 2007 11:55 AM (cOyko)
18
Annie you'll be
shocked to hear that I saw that picture elsewhere earlier,
and thought the exact same thing! :-O
Posted by: Radical Redneck at May 05, 2007 12:02 PM (cOyko)
19
So we're supposed to vote for people now because they don't have the guts to jump in the fray? I don't know. That doesn't sit well with me. Thompson needs to get off his ass if he's going to run. Because he has no money, no staff, and I suspect no ideas either. All he's doing is sucking up oxygen from guys who have been working hard for months.
Posted by: annika at May 06, 2007 07:39 AM (WfR6S)
20
And don't forget he's got a really good side job.
Posted by: Strawman at May 06, 2007 03:34 PM (et8nf)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
A's J Healthcare Survey
Just out of curiosity:
Posted by: annika at
02:23 PM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
Post contains 21 words, total size 1 kb.
1
That's not a good polling question. The question should be, "Do you have an appropriate amount of healthcare coverage for this point in your life?"
Single under thirty? You probably don't need anything. Raising a family, or over forty, of course you need coverage.
Posted by: Casca at May 03, 2007 05:22 PM (2gORp)
2
Excellent point, Casca. The "uninsured" issue is such a load of crap when one considers that the vast majority of those in this group are young, single people who choose not to purchase insurance. Of course, the Lefties mischaracterize the data to try and make us all believe that socialized medicine is the answer.
Posted by: blu at May 03, 2007 05:55 PM (NntAN)
3
Blu,
Relax, and let your head out of your sphincter. The myth is that the younger cohorts don't need it. True they need it less but your characterization about the lefties and the manufactured need pointing to socialized medicine is uninformed.
Have you ever had a hospital stay? Do you have insurance? Do you pay out of pocket or are you infantilized by your employer or had a union bargain for you?
Posted by: Strawman at May 04, 2007 07:18 AM (et8nf)
4
I always find it interesting that some people will spend thousands on a vacation, shell out $300-$400 per month on a their vehicle, or spend $1200 on a television yet balk when asked to pay for their own healthcare and/or health insurance.
Posted by: TinyElvis at May 04, 2007 09:45 AM (6J+P7)
5
-Relax, and let your head out of your sphincter.
I can't believe it. Strawman has inspired me. He has given me an idea for a new creation. I will call it the "strawcolputin". It is like a turducken except the ingredients are different. Creating it requires Strawman, Gary Coleman, and Grigory Rasputin. The instructions for making it are as follows:
-You must first take Rasputin out of the jar ( http://tinyurl.com/2gedkr )
-Stick Rasputin up Gary Coleman's ass
-Continue to stick Gary Coleman up Strawman's ass
-Place the "strawcolputin" in pre-heated oven
-Bake until crispy
Posted by: Spanky at May 04, 2007 11:22 AM (gyiuI)
6
LMFAO, damn I laughed til it hurt.
Posted by: Casca at May 04, 2007 01:14 PM (Y7t14)
7
"The myth is that the younger cohorts don't need it."
"Need" is not even the point, Straw. Don't change the subject. The FACT, however, is that the data on the subject show that the vast majority choose not to purchase health insurance. The Left's Big Lie is that people just can't afford it or that it's unaccessible. Of course, as usual, the Left is purposely deceiving the public in order to try and pull off another power grab.
And, Straw, I'd never have a fucking thug union bargain for me. There are few things I despise more than unions. The damage they have done and continue to do to our economy is an outrage.
Posted by: blu at May 04, 2007 05:40 PM (NntAN)
8
are you infantilized by your employer
Man, Kevlar Irony Proof™ The same freak who wet dreams about the gubmint infantalizing every single person's entire life through a heavy handed nanny state has the gall to call accepting partial insurance premiums (in liu of more pay) from an employer in exchange for productive work.
Posted by: Radical Redneck at May 05, 2007 12:09 PM (cOyko)
9
Straw, infantilized means more than the diaper you wear to The Vault on free night.
Posted by: Radical Redneck at May 05, 2007 12:11 PM (cOyko)
10
RR,
Actually its the left that bothers me about health insurance. There is this belief that it is the obligation of an employer to provide it, and to not makes a company derelict.
I do believe you are correct, that there is no harm and much good if it has been negotiated between employer and employee or collectively between a union and an employer.
So, Red, since you see it as additional remuneration should the value of the employers contribution be taxed? And if not is that fair to stiffs like me who pay entirely out of after tax income?
Posted by: Strawman at May 05, 2007 05:16 PM (et8nf)
11
So, Red, since you see it as additional remuneration should the value of the employers contribution be taxed?
Of course not. As a conservative I'm never in favor of new taxes. Plus, to use one of the leftists' favorite arguments, it is good public policy to encourage (not coerce) employers to use their purchasing power to offer low cost health insurance to their serfs. You know, as well as I, that most people wouldn't bother with
it unless they had a castastrophe staring them in their face. This way we cut back on the deadbeats running up huge hospital bills that end up on the taxpayer's back (like the illegals).
And if not is that fair to stiffs like me who pay entirely out of after tax income?
Nice try. Life aint fair. Again I know you know that medical payments and premiums are deductible for contractors if they exceed a very attainable percentage of one's income. Anyone middle or upper middle class should have no problem meeting this floor.
Are you suggesting additional tax relief should go to...The Rich™?
Bushbot!
Posted by: Radical Redneck at May 08, 2007 11:44 PM (Ch0M0)
12
Strawman is often really funny and kind of genteel and you guys are often...uh, not.
Posted by: Joules at May 15, 2007 04:07 PM (u4CYb)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
195kb generated in CPU 0.1001, elapsed 0.1609 seconds.
80 queries taking 0.0781 seconds, 425 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.