Warning: include(/home/annezook/public_html/sidebar.php) [function.include]: failed to open stream: Permission denied in /home/annezook/public_html/archives/week_2004_02_29.php on line 23

Warning: include() [function.include]: Failed opening '/home/annezook/public_html/sidebar.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/lib/php:/usr/local/lib/php') in /home/annezook/public_html/archives/week_2004_02_29.php on line 23
March 05, 2004
Here we go again

To the lazy bum in search of "best democracy money can buy the cliff notes" let me advise you to read the book itself. Firstly, I abominate Cliff's Notes (unless they're saving you from James Joyce or Hemmingway), and secondly the book is an easy read. Slacker.

I think there's a certain redundancy in searching for "psycho goes mad" but apparently not everyone agrees.

I regret I do not know the "meaning of national pig day" and I'm scratching my head over what the person searching "rudeness sex" was really looking for.

I almost never write about sex. I find it bizzare that so many searchers after information on the topic wind up here.

For instance, I don't know anything about "porn in England" although I do remember my amusement, walking down a London street, when I saw my first, "sex shoppe."

Someone typed "nytimes if you want to totally change the healthcare system i m not your guy" and wound up on my blog, so let's be clear. I'm not anyone's guy.

I don't deny anyone's right to believe "the battered women's movement has outlived it usefulness" but I'd advise you not to hang around here.

Some ghoul was looking for "pictures of eva braun's dead body." No pictures. No autographs. No dead bodies. Move along.

On the other hand, someone was looking for "nekkid man" and while I don't have one to spare, I applaud the thought.

There are no "bobble headed rush limbaugh dolls" to be found on this site. In any case, one would be redundant.

I don't understand it, but someone seems to have wanted "free stories from the national enquirer" and came to my site in expectation of finding them. Not.

Someone searched "arm or footstep or negotiation or cancers or conservatism" and once again I'm going nuts trying to figure out what they really wanted to find.

And I'd like to object to my site being pulled, several times, on a search for "egotistical." I'm not. Not as much as I sound, anyhow.

"zev chafets moron" - I can't think of much to add to that, I guess.

I don't have any "navy ncis goodies" but I do very much enjoy the show.

I don't even understand what "nutball pot" means.

I don't understand what "andy grove speech war for eyeballs" is about, either.

And what does "type in saying and say it back" mean?

Someone was looking for "m is for maple syrup." When I posted an entirely irrelevant blather under the title of "Maple Syrup Day" I had no idea it would stir up any interest but there were no less than seven searchers after information on maple syrup who found themselves at my site. I also had to delete and ban around ten comment spammers from that one post.

Today is "Multiple Personality Day" but I was afraid of the hits I'd get, using that as a post title, so I didn't.

As always, though, I get the most searches on book titles. I'm heartened by the continuing interest in The Best Democracy Money Can Buy (aside from the fool searching for a Cliff Notes version, of course) and interested to see that A Cook's Tour invariably tops the list of books my site pulls a hit for. It's a fascinating book. Fascinating.

And now...brace yourself. This actually showed up in my "search keyphrases" list:

man i must be a real idiot! even studying i m failing french class! well i needed to pass the class to stay on my football scholarship so there was only one thing to do suck it up and take mrs. vogue up on her offer for some weekend tutoring. had no idea how this was going to work but when i got a look at her cleavage and her sexy legs i knew i was acing this final exam!

Boggles the mind.

Posted by AnneZook at 02:27 PM | Comments (4)
Back-assward Kansas

As scary as the determination to continue discrimination is, I think Justice Green's written opinion is scarier.

Apart from the idiocy of pretending that punishing someone for being gay will make them straight, we're favored with this:

In his opinion, Justice Henry W. Green Jr. noted: “Throughout history, governments have extolled the virtues of procreation as a way to furnish new workers, soldiers, and other useful members of society. The survival of society requires a continuous replenishment of its members.”

Throughout history, until very recently, governments have failed to understand that they exist for the care and security of their citizens. People are no longer to be considered in the light of "fodder" for cannon, factories, or other useful roles in society. These days, the survival of government requires that it remember this.

Aside from that, can someone slap Justice Green upside the head until he realizes this isn't the 15th century?

Posted by AnneZook at 01:19 PM | Comments (0)
Some People

Some people find the presidential election politicking inside the Senate in in rather poor taste.

Note how "retired GOP Sen. Alan Simpson" refers to opposition against Bush as "stoking the crematorium." Interesting how they still keep trying to sell us on the idea that not wanting Bush in the White House is criminal, isn't it? I'm only afraid some idiots are going to start believing it. (Well, let's be honest. A fair number of the anti-intellectual, right-wingnut population is already behind the idea, heart, soul, and bad grammar.) And why is it always WWII imagery?

Oil, oil, oil, oil. Why does everything about the Bush Administration seem to come back to oil, whether it's at home or abroad?

Do some people miss the original Ralph Nader?

Kevin points out that Bush is trying to invoke the magic (not) of the 80s by running as Reagan-lite.

(By the way, I head about those Bush campaign ads exploiting 9/11 on the way to work yesterday morning and I knew instantly they were a bad, bad idea. What I keep asking myself is how people can be as stupid as whoever is in charge of Bush's PR seem to be?)

On the other hand, some people find Bush's campaign funny.

Dionne praises Edwards.

And this is an interesting twist in our 'war on terror.' This former Guantanamo detainee says he was recruited by the CIA and the FBI to do what he done.

Bored now.

On March 5, 1770, the infamous Boston Massacre took place.

American kids threw rocks. A mob gathered. More items were thrown. British soldiers reacted. Five people died. We've called it a massacre ever since.

"Wounded Knee" (December 29, 1890) on the other hand, is a vague event in the minds of most of us. When I was in school, it was referred to as, "The incident at Wounded Knee." Very few us of know that our troops opened fire on an almost completely unarmed crowd of Indians, killing as many as 300 men, women, and children.

I'm just saying. If you think spinning events to suit political gain is a new pastime, think again.

Posted by AnneZook at 08:40 AM | Comments (0)
March 04, 2004
Do you know where your Constitution is?

On March 4, 1789, the Constitution of the United States of America went into effect.

This week, after being held incommunicado for almost two years, "suspected enemy combatant Jose Padilla" finally gets to see a lawyer, but not everyone being held is going to be that lucky.

All over the country, people are arguing over legalizing discrimination.

"Torture-lite" is becoming an accepted way of doing business for our intelligence agencies.

The rule of law is a fine thing, isn't it?

Our reputation as the shining beacon of hope for human rights and equality is a bit tarnished these days, and we don't get the respect we used to.

Maybe it's just that I don't feel well, but I'm not impressed with us these days.

(By the way, on March 10, 1876, Alexander Graham Bell placed the world's first telephone call. He dialed up his assistant in the next room, proving once and for all that there is nothing a man won't do to avoid actually getting up off the couch and making his own stupid sandwich.)

Posted by AnneZook at 09:25 AM | Comments (0)
March 03, 2004
Speaking of sex....

Hmmm...anyone but me noticing that almost 100% of the pictures of smooching couples gracing the same-sex marriage stories are of women?

Seems that the media is trying awfully hard to avoid freaking out the right-wing with any suggestions of legal, man-on-man sex that might be going to be taking place. Legally. All married and stuff, you know.

Or are they hoping to fuel those hot girl-on-girl fantasies that are the secret delight of so many erstwhile moral defenders and perhaps soften (heh) some of the rigid (heh) opposition to this inevitable next step?

Or maybe just a bit of both.

I'm in a very trashy and tasteless mood today, aren't I?

The picture on this article shows two men, but not in a liplock. (Their kids are adorable, though.)

Bill Frist does not, of course, have hot, man-on-man sex, and he doesn't want anyone else indulging, either. We gotta pass a law agin it, he says, or they're all gonna be doin it.

People, you see, are about to run out and start getting married and this has to be stopped. What do those stupid voters think this is, anyhow? A country run by the people, for the people, and of the people or something?

But don't misunderstand the gov'mint. Not all kinds of same-sex activities are disallowed. There are a few that are even going to be encouraged. Like same-sex schools.

I look forward, with great amusement, to the school-age crushes from those institutions.

How weird is this? I'm thinking...if she was doing what she said she was doing, surely the forensic team would have been able to tell. Assuming they didn't get all squicky because it was a man's body and refuse to look.

There are a lot of tasteless jokes I could make, but I won't. Even that last remark was a bit out of line.

In Colorado, CU has been suffering from a little sex scandal. Seems there are allegations that athletes were wooed to the school with sex and drugs. And that just maybe not all of that sex was consensual. However, this is the only link I'm offering today.

And in the "only in Texas" category, this one isn't quite as much about sex as about, well, sexless. I think the problem was in his head, okay? This might help with his control, but it's not a cure.

I wonder how long it's going to be before we learn to really deal with these problems? We always seem to go after the symptoms instead of the disease.

Still in Texas, we learn that cookies and sex don't mix. That's Girl Scout cookies and sex education.

On a slightly lighter note, I'd heard this was happening but I barely believed it. Now it's confirmed. They've arrested him on 19 counts of criminal behavior for performing 25 gay weddings.

The thing that's bothered me ever since I first heard this story. Which six couples was he not charged with a crime for marrying?

From Simpson, Kentucky, the BigDailyNews tells us that the county has finally passed an ordinance to regulate 'sexually oriented businesses' and now we're all wondering if there's anything in the news that's not about sex today, aren't we?

So, we'll close for the day with the idea of men not wanting sex.

Posted by AnneZook at 02:56 PM | Comments (4)
Check it out

Gay marriage comes to Portland. (Link via Chris.)

If you feel like getting involved, even just to the extent of forming an opinion, read this and contribute an idea, should one occur to you.

And check out this post from Jeff who reminds us that Bush wasn't backward about his intention to make war on Iraq. He was telling us as early as the 2000 debates.

Where is Salam Pax?

Posted by AnneZook at 09:20 AM | Comments (0)
No Particular Theme

This appears to be a serious article, but my brain is fixated on a picture of Bush as the "L'il Pretzel." I may have to rescind my self-imposed ban on name-calling for that one.

“We are literally here at the direction of the president of the United States to make sure that each and every one of you has the opportunity to be involved in one of the truly major business undertakings of this century,” said Gen. Patrick Rea, regional administrator of the SBA. And it’s some undertaking. The total value of contracts, Rea assured, “could move to the figure of a half a trillion dollars.”

Reducing the Iraq war and subsequent occupation to a business opportunity is disconcerting enough, but far more bizarre was the subtle yet consistent message that Iraqi reconstruction constitutes a comprehensive domestic economic policy agenda. “We’re all looking for what are those 21st Century jobs,” Rea told the crowd. “You’re sitting in a room where they’re going to unfold by the thousands.”

That's the Bush Administration, inviting small business to join in the fun and profiteering in Iraq.

China seems to think the Bush Administration's nation-building in the middle-east could work, but the article worries me by how casually it accepts the (really, astonishing) scope of what the current administration wants to do.

Men, women, pr0n, and computers and suddenly I'm sort of glad I stuck with the GameBoy and didn't ever get game-geeky enough to want a PlayStation. But maybe I'm just old-fashioned.

Also, Aristide may, indeed, be "Castro-lite" (as Elayne said in earlier comments), but I'm completely and entirely underwhelmed by the ragtag collection of murderers, drug-dealers, and torturers that make up the ranks of the "rebels" claiming power in Haiti.

Last night on NPR, a commentator argued convincingly that the biggest problem in Haiti is that we installed Aristide and then washed our hands of the situation, as though one man, no matter how democratically elected, would be able to single-handedly create and support the democratic framework the country would need to thrive and survive in freedom. I'm not sure any of us who rely upon the USofA press know who Aristide is but, I'm not prepared to join the ranks of those opposing him.

Disturbing reading.

Andrew Greeley, writing from another planet, insists that celibacy (and the lack thereof, accompanied by a frenzy of child-molesting and a massive, world-wide, decades-long cover-up by authority) isn't what's wrong with the church. After all, a bare 4% of priests actually assault underage parishioners and priests, when asked, say that life is good under the robe, so clearly there ain't no problems there.

No, no, what priests need to do to rehabilitate the church is write better sermons.

Did anyone at the NYT read this stuff before they agreed to publish it? Did it occur to anyone to take Greeley's temperature, on the chance that he might be feverish and delusional?

Posted by AnneZook at 08:33 AM | Comments (0)
March 02, 2004
Once again

The mind boggles.

Posted by AnneZook at 03:53 PM | Comments (6)
Soooooper Tuesday

I'm thrilled. Really. It may be hard to tell in between the coughing and sneezing, but I'm thrilled.

Obviously I'm less thrilled that our plan to wipe out weapons of mass destruction in Iraq seems to be causing massive destruction, but whatever.

Also, death in Pakistan is in the news.

No wonder I don't understand what's going on in Haiti. If half of this is true, we've been muddying the waters for years. But then, other stories insist we've been trying to bring Aristide down forever, which hardly aligns with the fact that we were largely responsible for putting him back in power after the military coup. (But I have doubts that we kidnapped Aristide. I mean, surely even we understand that if you kidnap someone, you don't hand them a telephone and invite them to tell the world about it?)

Seriously. Reading about Haiti, I feel like I'm straying far too close to the wingnut side of the left and since I'm still on three or four medications at this moment, I don't think my brain cells really need that kind of aggravation.

Moving on....

David Brooks is kind of an idiot and he shows it when he repeats those tired, old, conservative clichés about how all you need is to be sober and industrious and virtuous and you'll be successful. Forget helping the poor to education and jobs. What they really need are moral lessons.

Aack! Forgot my conference call....

Posted by AnneZook at 09:39 AM | Comments (2)
March 01, 2004
We Are Not Amused

My mother always said that a bad attitude would get you into trouble but even she thinks the TSA is way out of line.

Nor would she approve of intimidating confessions out of the innocent.

We need to be very clear on this, people. We're supposed to be fighting terrorists and evildoers, not imitating them.

So, Aristide fled the country and the rebels are taking control of Haiti. I still can't figure out the rights and wrongs of that situation. It seems clear that Aristide isn't the force for tolerance and freedom many people had hoped he would be but are the rebels any better?

I do have to say that the fact that the OpinionJournal approves of Aristide stepping down leads me to think it may be a bad thing. That has more to do with how much I distrust the OpinionJournal than anything else, though. I generally find that opposing anything they support is a safe bet.

Muzzling the opposition.

Holding a grudge.

Is our government delusional or is it just their foreign policy?

The attention to the question of gay marriage continues to increase. Sometimes the issue arises in unexpected places.

I doubt that opposition to gay marriage is really increasing here in the UsofA, though. I think the religious right is just mustering its forces at the moment. In the long run, I'll bet most of these people care a lot less about whether or not Judy and Jane get married than they do about health care, jobs, and Social Security.

This reminds me that someone said to me last week they don't think the government's opposition to gay marriage has as much to do with biblical so-called morality as it does with Social Security. Seems that the government's trashing of the surplus, money that could, of course, have been used to fulfill government obligations on Social Security, as well as a host of other projects, means that Social Security is in trouble, which is news to no one. But this person believed that the government is terrified of the additional demand on social security funds that being forced to pay "surviving spouse/partner" benefits to gay couples would create.

For a group of people out to bankrupt the Federal government in order to bring about their dream of...whateverinthehell those people think they're building, you'd think they'd welcome such an opportunity.

Anyhow, most of the arguments against gay marriage are demonstrably stupid. As are, I can't resist pointing out, a number of the most vocal opponents.

Personally, I think the wingnuts are seizing on the whole situation because they're dismayed by the dissention in their own ranks over the Bush Administration. It's no secret that a significant percentage of Bush's religious constituency is disenchanted with what they've seen over the past three years and Rove&Co need a unifying issue to keep conservative voters in the fold.

John McKay amuses us, then discusses the (gay marriage) issue seriously.


In addition, I continue to be amazed and appalled by the way the Bush Administration illustrates this country's fundamental schizophrenia. No to sex, a peaceful, life-affirming activity if ever there was one, but yes to death and dying.

And, speaking of medicine, not that we were, if I had three billion dollars, I know how I'd spend it.

And in spite of everything, I continue to find the U.K.'s secret service fascinating.

(P.S. If Elayne has a cold, it's not my fault. I have a sinus infection and I've been very careful not to infect anyone else.)

Posted by AnneZook at 09:16 AM | Comments (3)