Per the National Federation of Republican Women, apparently. Send those letters in today!

Governor Sarah Palin
P.O. Box 110001
Juneau, AK 99811

Via Double Plus Undead, who remarks to the Ace of Spades "morons":

No sticky, gooey, vodka-stained, hobo-corpse-smelling fantasy fanfic please. This is a lady we're talking about. A lady who probably handles a shotgun much better than you.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 08:53 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 70 words, total size 1 kb.

Reposted something she wrote several months ago that seems quite appropriate.

It just seems to me that within those little ideological spheres which are full of ideas, a president must be permitted to listen to ideas and debate them and perhaps even to choose portions of ideas from each position, left, right and center, in order to formulate policies which are best FOR AMERICA, and which address the concerns of all the country, not just “the party,” and which serve the whole citizenry, not just “the base.” The best recipes call for more than one ingredient. The best policies do, too.

If we are determined to shut out whole blocks of people because their thoughts are not ours, their ideas are not ours, their beliefs are not ours, then we’re doing democracy wrong - we’re turning it into something else. And I don’t think the “something else” is necessarily a good thing.

Thomas More, the patron saint of politicians, was a good and trusted adviser to King Henry VIII, but his faith and conscience took precedence over that fealty. When Rome refused Henry a divorce, Henry broke away and formed the Church of England. More could not go where Henry went, saying at his arrest, “I am the King’s good servant, but God’s first.”

I am by no means comparing President Bush to St. Thomas More, but it does seem to me that part of his problems within his own party stem from a similar attitude: Love him or hate him, he is the partyÂ’s good servant, but AmericaÂ’s first. And AmericaÂ’s good servant, but GodÂ’s even before that. Or, as I have written elsewhere,

It does not surprise me that he is a Christian man living a creed before he is a President, that he is a President before he is a Conservative. It seems to me precisely the right order of things.

Those priorities seem like good ones to me, and perhaps in a healthy society, they would be appreciated. But we’re not healthy right now - I doubt anyone would truly suggest we are - and in this society, sadly, the precedence of “the parties” and “the movements” over everything else is disconcerting.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

How can an undesirable candidate suddenly become an acceptable, good-faith alternative? I know there is a school of thought that says, “well, that will teach others and they’ll be more loyal to the party, next time.”

But thatÂ’s being too clever by half, isnÂ’t it? One of President BushÂ’s errors was in thinking he could sign a campaign finance reform into law and count on the Supreme Court to find it unconstitutional. The Supreme Court did not meet his expectations.

Signing off on this election while counting on people to “do the right thing” in the next one seems to me equally hazardous and just as likely to disappoint. And it feels a little bit like putting one’s ideology before all else, and trusting in it, alone.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 08:00 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 520 words, total size 3 kb.

Goldstein gets it right.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 09:49 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 22 words, total size 1 kb.

"I like writing the songs because sometimes I want to be more than just a timekeeper."

—Hog Beatty

At dinner a few weeks ago with a few bloggers I mentioned that a certain Eminent Blogmistress was married to a bassist, and another web denizen at the table took this to be some sort of shot at her. Which of course it wasn't; in point of fact, the gentleman in question is a charming hottie. But, of course, someone then had to make the obligatory joke: "what do you call someone who knows lots of musicians?"

"Right, right; a drummer," I responded, rolling my eyes.

"A bassist," another blogger else replied.

"Like Paul McCartney?" I should have responded, but did not, because I'm socially inept and slow on the uptake.

As far as I'm concerned, however, it is those two elements—bass and drums—that make rock and roll what it is. And timekeeping is underrated; it undergirds Western Civilization, after all.

What songs rely most heavily on interesting drumwork or bass playing? I mean, beyond "In-a-Gadda-Da-Vida"? When do those two instruments transcend "timekeeping" and deepen the complexity of a musical composition? (Many anthropologists may have to sit this one out: both Count Linguist and Professor Musicology appear utterly indifferent to rock and roll, which strikes me as odd in the same way that I strike others as odd for not "getting" football.)

I listened to War Child on my way home from work last night. As usual, when I have an album in the CD player I let it run a couple of times in succession. (Food usually bores me after a few bites, but music retains its appeal for hours.)

"Queen and Country" was terrific, but "Bungle in the Jungle" still stands out. I mean, I understand that liking the song marks me as a second-rate Tull fan, but I cannot help it: there is certain perfection in the thing. As usual, the flute-playing thrills me, and the violin is exciting. But the bass guitar provides structure and spice.

(If my husband is reading this, I'd just like to request that we put off our argument about Ian Anderson's hatred of organized religion, manifested in the early Tull albums, until the weekend. Is Saturday afternoon good for you? I have to dust and do laundry in the morning, but I have time to squabble in the early afternoon.

P.S. Anderson's concerns, as I read them, had more to do with what he felt were the failures of organized religion to help "the least among us." He was not angry at God, per se, but rather bitterly disappointed at the unfairness of life, and unable to reconcile what he saw around him with orthodox conceptions of the Deity.)

Posted by: Attila Girl at 08:22 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 462 words, total size 3 kb.

I think the critical thing is that it would be physically difficult, age-inappropriate, and culturally alien for him to make that "jerking-off" motion with his hand while the campaign's slimy gossips were being discussed I really think Johnny Mac's point was that they were small people who weren't worth the time and attention they're getting.

The fact is, someone knows who they are, and won't want to deal with them in the future. For the same reasons Red America cancelled its Us subscriptions in droves. For the same reason I'll be letting my Atlantic subscription lapse: life's too short to support—or even spend a lot of time discussing—bottom-feeders.

We don't have to make these people "lepers." They've done that to themselves.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 10:48 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 141 words, total size 1 kb.

Other than that, Ace points out, Obama's Civilian Defense Corp is a terrific idea.

Even if you aren't a charismatic head-of-state who wants to get around Posse Comitatus, or find a way to coax young liberals into carrying guns, when they would normally be loathe to do it.

By the way, we already do have a civilian defense organization: it's called the militia, and every able-bodied adult who owns a firearm is part of it.

We also have more guns than Obama's pansy-ass armed Americorp will possess; we're better shots, too.

Oh, I dunno: maybe we should give the man the benefit of a doubt. Perhaps it isn't a question of wanting to install an authoritarian regime, with Big O as dictator: perhaps he merely wants a decade-long civil war, red on blue, with massive bloodshed that will make the Civil War of the nineteenth century look like day at Disneyland. (And I mean off-season, with no brutal sun beating down on you, short lines for the best rides, and you remembered to wear your best walking shoes.)

Posted by: Attila Girl at 10:25 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 186 words, total size 1 kb.

1 He just wants to turn ACORN into a federal agency.

Posted by: John at November 13, 2008 04:39 AM (e73ze)

2 Okay; that's reasonable. What could go wrong?

Posted by: Attila Girl at November 13, 2008 07:08 AM (TpmQk)

3 We are going to have way more guns then them, based on the 374,000 federal handgun background checks between the 3rd and 9th of November. I'm not sure if I would want all those liberal Barney Fife's carrying guns. It might be humorous for them to shoot themselves in the foot, but, bullet's richochet

Posted by: William Teach at November 13, 2008 09:04 AM (7yTel)

4 Wait, wait, wait. A federal agency is going to issue guns to its employees? Where do I sign? Seriously, this is something conservatives should infiltrate.

Posted by: John at November 15, 2008 09:41 AM (q0qzQ)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

In The Know: Should The Government Stop Dumping Money Into A Giant Hole?

Via Write Enough.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 09:31 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 34 words, total size 1 kb.

And possibly for the next few months, though I don't think it'll take that long. (Mastering the new gig, that is; the job itself will last anywhere from four weeks to four months.)
Of course, between the need to balance this assignment against the demands of my other main client and the need to get some blogging done, it could be argued that I should up my time-management game.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 07:26 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 137 words, total size 2 kb.

That's how I've been seeing it, but people from Chicago seem to be more depressed by this than I am.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 07:59 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 26 words, total size 1 kb.

This is a fairly depressing thread.

We seem to have some perverse version of the criminal justice system working at the polls: not "innocent until proven guiley," but "a voter until proven a fraud—and then, still a voter."

Read the comments. The best one was that Republicans should start engaging in voter fraud on a mass scale. Only then would it be perceived as an actual problem.

h/t: Insty.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 04:14 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 75 words, total size 1 kb.

Here we go: interrupt churches during worship with "actions," and disrupt prayer by defiling the altar.

There are people out there who suffer a lot less from any supposed inequality than they do from boredom.

Tips for the truly courageous: try this in a mosque. C'mon. It'll be fun!

Posted by: Attila Girl at 06:31 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 83 words, total size 1 kb.

Ah . . . someone has finally brought up Virginia v. Loving in the "gay marriage" debate. That case has definitely been on my mind.

Ultimately, however, I just don't see the analogy as being that strong in the real world: the Lovings were burst in on in the middle of the night in their bedroom in the good-old-boy version of a SWAT-style raid.

Perhaps I am ill-informed, but how often are gay couples separated by force in that manner?

I mean, naturally I see the theoretical link, but those who claim that they are prevented from "being with the person they love" have to be aware that no such thing is happening. I believe the argument boils down to Federal benefits in most cases, and hospital visitation in a handful of states. And a word.

This is not nothing—but neither is it anything like what the Lovings were up against.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 04:20 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 163 words, total size 1 kb.

Either one would be a breath of fresh air.

Each of 'em has the candlepower to bring sorely needed new ideas to the RNC.

We can't have co-chairs, can we?

Posted by: Attila Girl at 03:40 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 36 words, total size 1 kb.

But I'm old-fashioned enough to prefer voluntary volunteerism, and there is, indeed, something creepy about some of Obama's proposals so far with respect to children, teens, and young adults.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 03:28 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 43 words, total size 1 kb.

Or, as Jim Treacher puts it, "from the 52 I.Q.'s to the 49th State."

Execution by Batton Lash, whose comic site looks excellent.

Via Ace.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 02:54 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 41 words, total size 1 kb.

Libertarianism in the arts, over at Dr. Helen's place.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 02:21 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 19 words, total size 1 kb.

And apparently, it is quite a quite a good one.

I think it rawks that she was born on the same day as the U.S.M.C.!

Posted by: Attila Girl at 01:30 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 33 words, total size 1 kb.

Semper Fi!

More here.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 06:25 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 10 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I love my Devil Dog.

Posted by: TMQ at November 10, 2008 09:59 AM (aMu45)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Dan Blatt of Gay Patriot, writing at PJ Media:

Whenever state courts mandate recognition of gay marriage, it leads to a backlash at the ballot box. By November 2004, not even a year after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (the Bay StateÂ’s highest court) handed down the Goodridge decision finding it unconstitutional under the state constitution to limit marriage to different-sex couples, voters in thirteen states enacted constitutional provisions defining marriage by its traditional definition: the union of one man and one woman.

This year, after the California and Connecticut Supreme Courts handed down rulings similar to Goodridge, voters in Florida and Arizona joined those in California and amended their state constitutions.

Following the passage of Proposition 8, Jonathan Rauch, author of Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America, wrote that gay marriage advocates need to rethink “the wisdom of mindlessly pushing lawsuits through the courts without adequately preparing the public.” Since state courts began mandating gay marriage, thirty states have amended their constitutions to define marriage so as to prohibit recognition of same-sex unions as marriage.

In only one state, Arizona in 2006, did voters defeat a popular initiative defining marriage, but that measure was rather draconian as it would have blocked civil unions as well. This past year, Arizona voters approved a less sweeping amendment, limited only to marriage.

It is thus clear that success for gay marriage in the courts leads to a popular backlash. Those serious about gay marriage need to spend more time trying to convince their fellow citizens of the merits of changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples and less time making that case to unelected judges.

Thirty-five years after the U.S. Supreme Court deprived citizens and our elected representatives of deciding how to regulate abortion, we are still debating the issue. The record of this past week shows that when state courts attempt to deprive citizens of the right to define marriage, citizens will act to overturn their decisions.

What Justice Ginsburg said about abortion applies to gay marriage as well. We need a dialogue with state legislators — and those who elect them. Such conversations may not yield gay marriage this year, or even next, but should lead to state recognition of same-sex civil unions and domestic partnerships. This has already happened in such states as Connecticut, New Hampshire, Oregon, and even California.

If gay marriage advocates succeed in making a more persuasive case to the American people, then states will start calling those unions and partnerships marriage. It may not happen as rapidly as some would like, but when it does, it will not meet with the backlash that follows court decisions mandating marriage. Hearing a better case for gay marriage and seeing well-adjusted gay couples, Americans will slowly begin to accept a broader definition of this ancient institution.

Read the whole thing. (Just in case, here's the link for the Rauch quote.)

CalTech Girl was just a little more blunt:

You're here, you're queer, GET OVER YOURSELVES

For the record, I voted NO on Prop 8, folks.

Now that THAT's out of the way, let me get to my point. Last night's protest rallies in West Hollywood and elsewhere did NOTHING to help the No on 8 cause.

The election is OVER. The ballots have been counted. The "No on 8" side lost.

Sitting in a busy intersection, holding up traffic and waving signs from an election that's past now doesn't make people want to support you. It makes people think you are a bunch of whiny crybabies with nothing better to do than to hold them up in traffic. Which, as we L.A. folks ALL know, is shitty without protesters blocking up the main intersections.

So get over it. Wipe your tears. Get up and fight back. The RIGHT way. The SMART way. Don't make your opponents so upset that they resent you. That's no way to "win friends and influence people."

You looked like a bunch of sissies in front of a big bully last night. Seriously. Do you WANT to play to stereotypes? Do you think that's any way to bring people to your cause? Sure it rallies people who agree with you, but the majority of Californians (at least according to the vote) probably thought it was pathetic and predictable . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I feel your pain. I know, it's really sad. In some cases, it's devastating, and I know you want to be able to cry and rage together, but YOU CAN NOT DO IT in the middle of the street. Sure, it's your right to peaceably assemble, and I'm proud that 99% of folks last night WERE peaceful, but it's just not a smart strategy.

Acceptance of gay relationships has always been an uphill battle, so in order to get this changed, the strategy has to be smart and focus on getting the opposition to see gay people as simply PEOPLE. Not whiny, childish idiots. There's a lot of stereotype to get past. This kind of disruptive public display doesn't help.

From the MOMENT the polls closed on 11/4 and the first announcements showed 8 running behind, it was going to be a long and difficult campaign in the next election. But the goal, and what will END this endless cycle of "gay marriage propositions," should be acceptance and tolerance in general. By everyone. We should be working to help people come together across CA and the world.

Not just for or against one ballot proposal or another. Which it seems HAS been the strategy.

Wouldn't it be smarter (albeit harder, I admit) to work on people's thoughts and attitudes in a LONG TERM sense, rather than playing on their fears regarding their senses of self (e.g. "only bigots vote yes on 8"). People will vote their consciences. Help them understand what they fear.

And, as Sejanus pointed out on one of my earlier "gay marriage" threads, televising the Halloween parade and pride parades does not necessarily make homosexuality appear less threatening to the average person. I'm not sure what the solution is there, since I do think it's fair for drag queens to party in West Hollywood—there is, after all, the Beastie Boys principle to contend with—but it's a shame that there are cameras there, and maybe showing one's piercings on television isn't the way to go.

At the very least, it means that more outreach is needed, in part to make up for the lost ground.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 06:18 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1123 words, total size 7 kb.

Well, if we don't like losing, what can we do to start winning? We could use some soul-searching, a little new blood. Oh, and—we could stop behaving like assholes (my word; not Rubin's). From her latest at PJ Media:

The Republicans have just taken a beating. They lost the White House, at least six Senate seats, and approximately twenty House seats. They have not a single House member from New England. They have no West Coast senators (other than Alaska). So what do they do?

Well, in the days following the election they engaged in the same petty, irrelevant. and ultimately self-destructive behavior which got them into the political ditch to begin with.

Let’s start with the petty. The RNC spent its time sending out “oppo” memos as word of President-elect Obama’s White House staff picks (e.g., Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod) came out. “Too partisan!” screamed the press releases. “He’s hiring political people!” Oh, the horror! Not many people in the country, other than staffers at the RNC with too little to do, begrudge the new president selecting competent political advisers, especially ones which proved discreet and capable during the campaign. And even the Wall Street Journal editors were not buying the hysteria — correctly noting that Emanuel was a free trader and economic moderate.

Next, we were treated to the sight of a group of old Washington insiders meeting at a Virginia estate to discuss the future of the GOP. This hardly seemed the way to refreshen, revive, and enliven the party. And by shutting out young conservative bloggers, they ensured that the most significant impact of the confab was to start another intra-party fight.

But much of the week was taken up by former McCain staffers, snooty columnists, and unnamed sources continuing the vendetta against Sarah Palin. It seemed utterly incomprehensible why they would want to tear down the favorite 2008 Republican candidate and an able spokeswoman for reform, one who actually still holds office.

Nor did Congressional Republicans fully appreciate the need to clean house. Young Turk Eric Cantor (R-VA) did step into the position of minority whip. But John Boehner (R-OH), hardly the model of reform and innovation, remained ensconced as minority leader. Was this the way to communicate to Republicans and the country as a whole that it would no longer be business as usual? If so, it was a strange way to show it.

None of this suggests that those inside the Beltway appreciate the predicament the GOP is in. The election returns were filled with bad news: Republican lagged in party identification (39-32%), got a fraction of the Hispanic vote (31%), and lost multiple red states (e.g., Ohio, North Carolina, and Florida). Young people are flocking to the Democratic Party. Sniping at the new presidentÂ’s White House staff, circling the rickety wagons of Washington insiders, and attacking their former VP nominee are not going to ameliorate any of those problems.

There were a few isolated signs of life. Mitt Romney gave an interview which provided a cogent assessment of the economy and outlined sound fiscal policies, without engaging in a trace of partisanship. And a group of young bloggers put forth a game plan for web organizing and communication. These hints of progress and forward-looking thinking suggest that the best ideas wonÂ’t be coming from Washington, at least not from the Old Guard of leaders who led the party into ruin.

In the weeks and months ahead Republicans will need to craft a tone which does not reek of excessive partisanship. Republican strategist Todd Harris explained: “In terms of the long-term prospects for our party, the tone we take now is in many ways even more important than the tone we took during the election. The country has spoken and pretty overwhelmingly elected Barack Obama president. We can either learn from our own mistakes, in terms of the things we have done in the past that compelled a center-right nation to elect a liberal Democrat as president, or we can do what some seem to want to do, which is to point fingers, double down on failed strategies and leaders, and continue our decline.”

Unfortunately, from pundits there was too little of the gentlemanly tone which Bill Kristol displayed: “We pledge our support for those of his policies we can support, our willingness to give him the benefit of the doubt in cases of uncertainty, and our constructive criticism and loyal opposition where we are compelled.” Republicans will need to develop an agenda in Congress which distinguishes them both from their own past (e.g., pork barrel spending) and the new administration, should it go down the tax-and-spend road preferred by Congressional Democrats. Will they support a bailout of the auto industry or sound the clarion call about creeping government ownership? Will they oppose a stimulus package filled with pork? In these and many other questions they will need to determine whether to oppose the Obama administration at all costs or try to carve bipartisan compromises.

As for the aspiring 2012 contenders, they would do well to follow the lead of both Palin and Romney. For Republicans who still have jobs, they should perform them well and demonstrate that some Republicans can competently govern and legislate, make bipartisan deals, and remain politically popular. For Republicans who are no longer in office, they would do well to explain, educate, and bolster rather than sneer and back-bite.

My emphasis.

Amen, sister. (Though we do need to talk about this "which for that" verbal tic of yours.)

This reminds me of a Glenn Reynolds observation about the Emanuel appointment:

Emanuel will serve as Obama's hatchet-man and Dr. No, but the main targets will be Congressional Democrats and Democratic interest groups. Obama realizes that he's promised a lot more than he can deliver, and Emanuel's job will be to stave off all the claimants who—as they realize that too—will try to get to him before it's too late. Obama can stay the good cop, while Emanuel will be the bad. Republicans flatter themselves if they think they'll be the focus of Emanuel's attentions; they'll be an afterthought.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 05:22 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 1028 words, total size 7 kb.