November 13, 2005
Okay. Forget the Pose of Detachment.
Hop over to
Aaron's place and vote for me now: I want to maintain the fiction that I don't care, but not at the expense of a respectable showing. And the Hearts suit contest is over at the end of the day on Monday. (Keep in mind that, IIRC, the Jack and King of the suit are reserved for dudes who get along well with the ladies. Which means
Hubris, Beautiful Atrocities, or possibly
Goldstein, if you ask me.)
If you're a regular reader and you don't vote for me, then you have to send me money this winter to underwrite my trip to Washington in February for CPAC. Fair's fair, after all.
UPDATE: I take it back, in my charming-yet-flaky way. I love Michelle Malkin—and she gives me a lot of traffic—but it looks like The Anchoress is pulling even with her, and I'd love to see the deep, meditative chick win. After all, that rarely happens in real life. So vote for her now, and send me money in December/Janurary to support my trip to the East Coast. I'm deadly serious, by the way.
Posted by: Attila at
03:22 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 198 words, total size 1 kb.
1
You were never the same after that weblog nomination
Posted by: beautifulatrocities at November 14, 2005 08:55 AM (S47g+)
Posted by: Hubris at November 14, 2005 11:31 AM (mV7gB)
3
Jeff, you're just still upset about the "women don't soap up their breasts in the shower" revelation. I know that was a big disappointment.
Posted by: Attila Girl at November 14, 2005 02:38 PM (jCk4g)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
"Once Again," I Say, "Our Sources of Information Appear To Be Completely Disjoint."
"Well, mine are newspapers like the
Los Angeles Times, the
Washington Post, and
The New York Times. You know," he replies. "Respected media sources."
Respected by whom? I wonder. Other members of the media? I know those people. I have dinner with them every month. They are just as shallow and intellectually lazy as anyone else.
Out loud, I simply remark that I don't trust them.
"Who do you trust?" he asks me. "Right-wing blogs?"
Well, yes. I trust people I know to be whip-smart and honest. People who correct themselves when they're wrong.
And, by the way: that's whom.
Posted by: Attila at
11:16 AM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
Post contains 126 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Well whatever their faults the conventional media do give a good sample of primary data rather than opinion. So one has a chance for unedited reality.
I noticed you linked to a post on Ge Bush's speech which showed a propensity to accept lies. The *big* criticcs of Bush's behvior in recent weeks were not Democrats, but Scowcroft and Wilkerson. Republicans.
And the right has chosen to defame questioners as traitors for over 2 years, it is working less, it's sad the president has jumped on.
And the Iraqi economy is flattening according to World Bank data, terrorism is not down.
Multiple false statements that will not be admitted, but denied. However your reality is coming down.
As someone else pointed out you haven't written anything of depth and intelligence. You get readers by flaunting yourself as a sexy thing because you have no mind.
You don't even understand that ms. Rice is hurting her chances for presidency by meeting with Chalabi. Cavorting with Iraqi agents suspected of tricking us into given the ayatollahs Iraq is not a good thing.
But you don't care because by the standards you use to judge others you are a traitor as well as a cliche strewn banality.
Unlike you I have served, unlike you I have relatiives who served, America was not a free ride to my family or friends. We grow sick of your kind.
Posted by: hmm at November 13, 2005 12:35 PM (ED1nN)
2
Well whatever their faults the conventional media do give a good sample of primary data rather than opinion. So one has a chance for unedited reality.
That is, because their biases are denied, they are nonexistent.
I can rely on people like Dan Rather to give me . . . well, some clumsily forged documents from an untrustworthy source.
Just as the American people could rely on Walter Cronkite to imply that the Tet Offensive was a defeat for the U.S., rather than a victory.
You're right: I should be more trusting of the Heritage Media: they have my best interests at heart.
I noticed you linked to a post on Ge Bush's speech which showed a propensity to accept lies. The *big* criticcs of Bush's behvior in recent weeks were not Democrats, but Scowcroft and Wilkerson. Republicans.
I'm a big critic, too. And the Protein Wisdom post was all about sorting out fact from fiction.
And the right has chosen to defame questioners as traitors for over 2 years, it is working less, it's sad the president has jumped on.
Nope. I understand that this is a popular meme on the left (along with the "chickenhawk" bullshit) but that doesn't make it true. As a matter of fact, Bush spelled out that not all dissent is unpatriotic. What's unpatriotic is pretending you weren't privy to intel when you were, and that you somehow got "tricked" into voting to use force in Iraq when you knew exactly what you were doing.
That's the new Democrat line: "vote for us; we were duped." Good luck.
And the Iraqi economy is flattening according to World Bank data, terrorism is not down.
Well, at least they have an economy. And the right to vote. And a Constitution. And (finally) some reasonable infra-structure. And an increasing police and military presence of their own.
It took years before we were able to take the training wheels off in Germany and Japan. I'm not worried.
Multiple false statements that will not be admitted, but denied. However your reality is coming down.
Does that mean I'm on acid? How fun. Quite frankly, it's been a while. I'd better go watch TV.
As someone else pointed out you haven't written anything of depth and intelligence. You get readers by flaunting yourself as a sexy thing because you have no mind.
Then why are you here? I mean, my material isn't worth reading, right? So you won't be back.
And you don't know what I'm flaunting; have you even seen a picture of me?
You don't even understand that ms. Rice is hurting her chances for presidency by meeting with Chalabi. Cavorting with Iraqi agents suspected of tricking us into given the ayatollahs Iraq is not a good thing.
Diplomacy is a dirty business, and Dr. Rice will have to do a number of things over the next few years that will hurt her if she decides to run for President. I know that, and she knows it too.
BTW, I don't see how you can maintain that the Ayatollahs were "given" Iraq. It appears that Iraq is run mainly by Iraqis these days.
But you don't care because by the standards you use to judge others you are a traitor as well as a cliche strewn banality.
I like that: I'm not just writing banalities, but I actually
am one myself. You know, you're having a terrible effect on my self-esteem; can I get you to reconsider?
Unlike you I have served, unlike you I have relatiives who served, America was not a free ride to my family or friends. We grow sick of your kind.
Ah, yes. The "chickenhawk" charge. Glad you didn't forget that.
Posted by: Attila Girl at November 13, 2005 01:35 PM (jCk4g)
Posted by: k at November 13, 2005 08:47 PM (M7kiy)
4
Unlike you I have served Color me incredulous.
unlike you I have relatiives who servedSo? How do you know AG doesn't have relatives that served? I have tons of relatives, that have served and
died. Also know at least ONE relative who tried to duck the draft in WWII (by golly, did you know they had to DRAFT people in WWII?)
We grow sick of your kind Hmm, bigot or garbling a quote from
Star Wars Cantina scene? Hmm comments, you decide.
Posted by: Darleen at November 13, 2005 09:15 PM (FgfaV)
5
I had a grandfather who got drafted into the army during WWII (my grandmother took over his truck route for the duration of the war, so he could keep his job). My husband is a (former) Marine. That's about it: most of my "blood" relatives are either hippy-dippy Californians or stern Midwestern Methodists.
So I guess I've got no right to speak out. I got some duct tape because the Administration told me it would help in case of a terrorist attack. I guess I'll go put it over my mouth now.
Posted by: Attila Girl at November 13, 2005 11:08 PM (jCk4g)
6
You blatant Siren, LMA!!!!!
I feel so lured!
Must take a shower now...
My opinion? LMA in a first round TKO.
Posted by: Darrell at November 13, 2005 11:14 PM (dHeFN)
7
Oh, Darrell--you keep me going. I used to have other fans, but I scared them all off!
Posted by: Attila Girl at November 13, 2005 11:48 PM (jCk4g)
8
It's interesting to see the leftist memo play itself out in the 'sphere. Expect to see a lot more flailing of the sort the anonymous coward "hmm" engaged in.
There's a concerted effort to drive a wedge between the conservative base and the Republican Party. They are a day late though. Miers was the wedge and she's out. Everything else is an attempt to conflate Slick Willy's congenital lying with the efforts of this adminstration to deal effectively with very real threats.
Don't know how effective it will be, but I've learned one thing watching leftists--whenever they loudly accuse their opponents of doing something, it is a smokescreen that attempts to hide the fact that they are doing that very thing.
"Lies! lies! lies! lies!" they shout now. But the accusation itself is a lie, and it seems to me from the "chatter" around the 'sphere that they are gearing up for one helluva whopper.
They think they are going to impeach Bush. Unlike the Slickster, there are no grounds for this effort. But like spited schoolchildren they have a desperate need to "get even", whatever the cost to this country.
Posted by: Desert Cat at November 13, 2005 11:54 PM (xdX36)
9
AG if you (or I) cannot comment on the military because we never served, then we cannot comment on the police, because we aren't police officers...or firefighters..or nurses...or...
Posted by: Darleen at November 14, 2005 12:49 AM (FgfaV)
10
Ah. Perhaps we are supposed to keep our mouths shut.
Posted by: Attila Girl at November 14, 2005 01:43 AM (jCk4g)
11
Hmm. I tried that, and I don't like it. Let's pretend that we're every bit as entitled to speak out as the lefties are, okay?
Posted by: Attila Girl at November 14, 2005 02:46 AM (jCk4g)
12
Free speech.. What an interesting concept!
Maybe we shouldn't give the Euros control of all the root servers afterall?
Oh, I am scared! I've started to skip over all the blatant sexuality to get to your thoughts! It isn't easy with all that X-rated stuff!
I served so I can say. Didn't everyone serve in Jimmy Carter's "Moral Equivalent of War?"
Posted by: Darrell at November 14, 2005 10:37 AM (Td5XB)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Lileks on the War of the Discounters
His insight?
Target can be beat. His proposals: remarkably
specific.
Via Insty.
Posted by: Attila at
11:07 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 26 words, total size 1 kb.
Baby Preparations.
"We're guaranteed to get a baby placed with us soon," my husband insists. "After all, we're broke."
He has a point. We need a crib, and a few obvious items: bottles, diapers, onesies. I'm shopping hard, and won't spend a dime more than I have to (beyond ensuring safety issues, of course).
We're gravitating toward an Ocean/Underwater theme, though the Night Sky is still a possibility. (Pale pink and blue are icky anyway, and some of the pastels in many nurseries give me the creeps. Duckies will be acceptable; bunnies are under review.)
As a style snob I do have guilty pleasures, of course: in my personal life it's Mary Englebreit, and with respect to my baby it could turn out to be "classic Pooh" items based on the original Ernest Shepard drawings for the real A.A. Milne books. Those are colorized in pastel shades, and might not fit with the oceanic theme. We'll see.
But here's my real baby furniture/layette question for the night, directed at the parents out there: Are my husband and I supposed to share a diaper bag? Do I get a reasonably masculine one in black or denim blue or some such, and whoever has the baby for the afternoon takes that along? Or will we each have a diaper bag preference? Can I get one for myself that's more colorful than the average guy would carry around?
I guess the answer depends on that whole singleton vs. twins question. I've been suspecting lately that we might have to settle for a singleton, but Attila the Hub is correct: we're broke. Which would make twins a good deal more likely, if you accept that the Universe/God has an excellent sense of humor.
The idea of how much money the first year of parenthood is going to cost makes me crazy—especially after all the infertility treatments, and the adoption fees themselves. But any project can be approached with a spending plan, and I shall simply have to make one up, and find the money to get what we need.
For some reason, I feel it's going to happen in the spring, though there's simply no way to tell at all.
Posted by: Attila at
01:41 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 368 words, total size 2 kb.
1
This is so exciting I can't stand it.
Posted by: k at November 13, 2005 05:04 AM (M7kiy)
2
I can't give you an estimate of first year costs beyond OH. MY. GOD.
As for the diaper bag question you can do one - think of it as the baby's and not your's. As for what it looks like, it doesn't really matter. A guy can get away with just about anything if it is for/with the baby.
I can recommend this, even if you have 2 diaper bags, keep one or two extra diapers and some wipes in every vehicle. Just in case.
Beyond that, it's all good. Very. Very. Good.
Posted by: Stephen Macklin at November 13, 2005 07:14 AM (ics4u)
3
Cost of baby=Annual income. Count on it.
Diaper bags: use a gym bag. Cheaper and carries more. Keep one in each vehicle.
What do I know? I'm a guy. My wife handled all the little details (and most of the big ones since I was deployed when my kids were that small).
Blessings!
Posted by: olddawg at November 14, 2005 09:00 AM (7nc0l)
4
Some advice from an active Frontline...
With the first kid, you can think for a few moments about form over function: colors and patterns of bags; scented vs. unscented wipes; disposable vs. cloth diapers.
But, believe me, by kid > 1 it's function over form: recycled newspapers over disposable diapers.
Go with function and use the saved "decision" time for sleep.
Posted by: littlemrmahatma at November 14, 2005 09:03 AM (SodBL)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 12, 2005
Condi's Birthday on Monday!
It's not too late to have an impromptu party! A lot of Condistas throughout the country will be doing just that.
If you're starting your own local Condi club, there's lots to talk about:
• Parallels between the "draft Condi" movement and the Eisenhower candidacy.
• Dick Morris' new book on the potential showdown ("inevitable," in his mind) between Condi and Hillary. Does he overstate the case? And/or does he have a point about the GOP needing to go after the Democrats' demographics?
• Dr. Rice's career to date: could it be considered the ideal apprenticeship for the Presidency? Which pivotal heads of State is she getting to know right now?
• If the Secretary accepts our charge and runs, at what point should she declare her candidacy? Later is better in terms of keeping her popularity as strong as it is now, but at some point she will have to commit. Would it be inappropriate for her to continue in her present postion? Would Bush have to appoint a new interim Secretary as Condi campaigns?
• To what extent would having two female candidates neutralize gender as an issue in 2008?
• The people whose names have been suggested as potential candidates are not as strong as Condi is. Would any of them help to balance the ticket, however? Would the base support a Rice/Giuliani candidacy, for instance?
• Would those be the funnest debates in the history of the country, or what?
Don't forget to raise funds, and keep apprised of current events via the Americans for Rice. Because AFR is a 527, it's appropriate to send money to help them raise awareness and persuade Dr. Rice that her duty lies in the White House.
Posted by: Attila at
01:33 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 295 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Wow, thanks. I'll wear my shirt in honor of our next president. She's definitely running, she was doing this PR tour of the US - not exactly Sec of State biz - & has been palling around with NFL head Gene Washington in public, a strategic move
Posted by: beautifulatrocities at November 13, 2005 02:45 PM (WEwG+)
2
I'm sure her emotions are still very mixed on the whole issue. But I think she'll come around.
Posted by: Attila Girl at November 13, 2005 03:18 PM (jCk4g)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
No. I Mean Really Cold.
It was freezing here in the hills near Pasadena last night. And by “freezing,” I mean “55 degrees.”
ItÂ’s almost too cold to drink gin and tonics. Almost. I may have to switch to dry mini-Manhattans alternated with room-temp water. I like gin and tonics because I can make ginless tonics as well . . . hm. I could always try some sort of scotch and soda variation with cheaper whiskey and room-temp soda. IÂ’ll see.
Or I could just drink hot Tension Tamer tea with five or six valiums dissolved into it.
[Honey, whaaaaaaaaaaaat?]
Posted by: Attila at
12:21 PM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
Post contains 103 words, total size 1 kb.
1
um...it is NEVER too cold to drink G&T's
Posted by: Darleen at November 12, 2005 01:47 PM (FgfaV)
2
Hills near Pasadena? Some of the happiest years of my life were spent in Sierra Madre.
And Manhattans are correct under any circumstances, though I prefer doubles to the "mini" version. ;-)
Posted by: Mr. Roberts at November 12, 2005 09:38 PM (kcbRI)
3
It's important to remember than I'm a small person; that's why I like to mix my own drinks . . .
Posted by: Attila Girl at November 12, 2005 11:09 PM (jCk4g)
4
I repeated this joke at a party this weekend, and some guy tried to "correct" me about what the freezing point was.
I mean, let's be fair: some people have a Y chromosome and a sense of irony. But some . . . don't.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Posted by: Attila Girl at November 13, 2005 11:13 PM (jCk4g)
5
Since it is well below 55 right now in MT you have my deepest sympathy... NOT. At 55 it is still golfing season but I don't have any black balls to find in the snow so I'm stuck dreaming of next spring.
By the way,... I always prefered hot butter rums on days like this. They even keep the fingers warm.
xy chomobaby
Posted by: Jack at November 14, 2005 09:32 PM (b4Nv4)
6
So you're telling me that when you go outside you don't simply put a flannel shirt over your T-shirt to wear as a light jacket?
Next you'll be telling me there aren't any palm trees around, and houses are available for under a million dollars. How gullible do you think I am?
Posted by: Attila Girl at November 15, 2005 01:03 AM (jCk4g)
7
Pretty gulliable, today I left my house sitting on 30 acres (considerably less then 1 mil) dressed in only my "T" shirt. The thermometer read about 25 F but there was no wind.
And the trees around here have needles on them. The rest used to have leaves but the leaves are all on the ground.
Do palm trees every lose their leaves?
Posted by: Jack at November 15, 2005 02:17 PM (6FeBQ)
8
Please note;
I meant I was not wearing any jacket when I said 'only wearing my "T" shirt'. I did have pants and shoes too.
Posted by: Jack at November 15, 2005 02:38 PM (6FeBQ)
9
Wow. It sound beautiful; I almost wish I could see it, but I'm actually a bit of a weather wimp. I'm sure you hadn't guessed that.

Palm trees are a little like evergreens (which we actually have a few of on our property). They're never without some covering, but when the wind kicks up--especially out here, where the air is so dry--the "fans" dry up, detach themselves from the trees, and blow around in the streets. (Keep in mind that SoCal is a desert with a thin veneer of real soil. We steal water from Northern California and Arizona to keep our cities going.)
My mother once made a Christmas tree out of some old palm fronds: she attached several to the wall, decoreated them, and placed a train set below. It was a fun Christmas tree.
Posted by: Attila Girl at November 15, 2005 10:02 PM (jCk4g)
10
If we get some real snow here I'll send you a picture. It is pretty,.... till you have to start shoveling it off the walkway.
The palm Christmas tree sounds interesting, still prefer the pine and the smell, espesially in the fireplace.
By the way, you are on my blog list, the name is what got me.
Posted by: Jack at November 16, 2005 07:03 PM (W9cbS)
11
The only thing I love about snow is looking at pictures of it.
California, famously, has lots of Washingtonias - gorgeous tall palms that actually don't shed their fronds once they're dead. They can make a skirt of rustly dead fronds all the way to the ground even when they're 50 feet tall.
Here we got a lot of hurricane pruning with Wilma - the wind rips all the fronds off sometimes. But the palms don't seem to mind. The plants themselves bend with the wind so well they almost never snap in half. When they do it's a scary sight, something that gives us the willies just to see.
I defronded my 20-foot queen palm when we were still undecided about whether to try to raise her back up. She came down in the hurricane and landed on the orchid tree and then the roof.
We came so close to chainsawing my pretty queenie. But we hoisted her back up instead with my guy's Kenworth big rig. She's already growing new fronds.
AND!!! Mr. Jack, we have deciduous evergreens here! Bald cypress and pond cypress actually drop their needles for the winter. But never fear! we also have odd shaped pines called slash pines and longleaf and loblolly, who never make a cone shape but are well-behaved in the Keep your Needles field.
We make Christmas wreaths from pine branches wound around with lots of Spanish moss.
Posted by: k at November 17, 2005 03:58 AM (M7kiy)
12
Whoops, forgot the most important part:
The temperature right now is 70 degrees. The high will be right around 80 today. It'll do that for a week or so then drop about 5 degrees when we get this cold front coming through.
:p
Posted by: k at November 18, 2005 03:01 AM (6krEN)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Okay. I Wasn't Going to Buy Into This Contest Dealybopper.
After all, it’s beyond “inside the blogs.” It’s inside inside the blogs.
But Aaron was sweet enough to nominate me for the heart suit in his bloggy deck of cards, so go vote for one of the fine ladies who light up the right. (The actual poll for voting is on his left sidebar.)
I wasnÂ’t willing to waste a vote on myself. I agonized, wanting to vote for Ith, Sissy Willis of Sisu, and the Anchoress all at the same time. Finally I settled on Jane at Armies of Liberation, because she gets results in the Real World: she takes heat from groups that sport ties to AQ. She gets prisoners released from Yemeni jails. She makes dictatorships nervous.
For many of us, blogging can be (at its worst) mental masturbation. JaneÂ’s blog is mental sex.*
* I stole that line. Can you figure out from whom? If you can, you should definitely go vote for me.
Posted by: Attila at
10:47 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 178 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Jane does get results. She's not long for this world
Posted by: jeff at November 12, 2005 01:11 PM (q23kU)
2
Already voted for you. Don't know where the line originated but I remember Woody Allen using it in "Annie Hall" back in the 70's sometime.
Posted by: Jim at November 12, 2005 06:29 PM (J0usP)
3
Thanks for putting me in such awesome company!
Posted by: Sissy Willis at November 13, 2005 01:19 PM (mrcD4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 11, 2005
Allah Nails It.
Here, in this rather, um, rambunctious
thread over at Protein Wisdom.
(Context: Goldstein's discussing the fact that Bush is finally standing up to his critics on the issue of WMD and how we got into the war.)
Posted by: Attila at
11:02 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 43 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Attila, don't miss what Jeff is doing. It's really quite hilarious in the broader context of what he has posted about recently. See, he's pulling a lefty trick on "early" and using it rather effectively.
Ah, the smell of cognitive dissonance in the morning!
Posted by: Desert Cat at November 12, 2005 11:32 AM (xdX36)
2
Oh, I saw what he was doing; I just wanted to inject a cautionary note, since the whole equation of female genitalia with wimpiness is done elsewhere very UNironically in the 'sphere.
I thought it was funny when he did it, and funny when you did it. I was just sort of clearing my throat--but laughing at the same time.
I really can't compete over there in the irony/humor department, so I throw out literal-minded softballs for the others to riff off of.
Posted by: Attila Girl at November 12, 2005 12:16 PM (jCk4g)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
More on Wal-Mart
Glenn
links to the
trailer for
Why Wal-Mart Works, and Why That Makes Some People Crazy.
I'm just as perplexed by the hostility. After all, the same people who complain about Wal-Mart very often make regular runs to Costco, where they buy a little more than they need to for the sake of getting the best per-unit price (storing the excess in their larger-than average homes).
People on restrictive budgets, of course, can't afford to do this. Apparently my anti-Wal-Mart friends would prefer that they live in (even greater) material deprivation, buying fewer products from overpriced local stores. Glenn:
I prefer Tarzhay myself for its more upscale ambience, but my discomfort with Wal-Mart is purely aesthetic, and I think it's odd that some people see it as evil incarnate. [ . . .] I think there's a class issue: Wal-Mart is unavoidable evidence that the American working classes don't think, or live, the way the American thinking classes want to imagine. For this sin, Wal-Mart can never be forgiven.
Posted by: Attila at
08:46 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 171 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Ha! Glenn has it nailed!
Posted by: Desert Cat at November 11, 2005 03:51 PM (xdX36)
2
I argued on another site with a left-of-center who wailed about Walmart's not paying a "living wage", getting goods from China, blah blah blah...and I'm always amazed that Conservatives support the business practices of Walmart - when they preach Christian morals, saving our nations children from gays, abortion and the heretics teaching evolution, but it's okay for Walmart's "Mary Kate and Ashley" clothing line for kids to actually be manufactured by kids in Indonesia.Uh, I don't count on BIG business to teach me morals..especially places like Walmart that instruct their employees to say "Happy Holidays" rather than "Merry Christmas." Big Business, Big Unions, Big Government look at bottom lines, regardless of individual morality.
Still, the essense of capitalism and the American marketplace is freedom of
choice. No one holds a gun to the consumer's head to shop at Walmarts. Why do the anti-Walmartinistas want to figuratively hold a gun to the consumer's head NOT to shop there?
Posted by: Darleen at November 11, 2005 05:40 PM (FgfaV)
3
It's all about Walmart being the biggest. Typical Leftist tactic.
Posted by: Darrell at November 11, 2005 10:03 PM (1A+wa)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Gasoline Prices
We
are being gouged. Michael Demmons
proves it.
[h/t: Outside the Beltway.]
Posted by: Attila at
08:17 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 12 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: beautifulatrocities at November 11, 2005 08:37 AM (TX6xQ)
2
This is silly, especially when many on the right have being proposing some equivalent of sales tax.
Serious fiscal conservatives have been modrately comfortable with a higher gas tax so long as it was matched by reductions elsewhere.
It is believed that the market would then provide more efficient vehicles and alternatives.
This is starting to happen, but the money is going to countries like Iran and Venzuela. Our enemies.
Fortunatly even a little conservation is bringing prices down, still we are sending billions to the terrorists.
We also have a situation where it takes twice as much energy to produce a dollar of product as other industrial countries. This of course gives our competitors an advantage.
Understand your pampered life is going to be less spoiled, your whole attitude is that of a princess so proud she can write 2 paragraphs of cliched banalities. Undoubtedly this worked well for you in what passes for education and there is no question that mediocrity is valued in many instiitutions, but they are threatened. And so is your pampered me me me lifestyle.
Posted by: conservative at November 11, 2005 11:07 AM (fvmvd)
3
I have to agree with conservatives gist. Republicans are no longer conservatiives, we expect the federal government to pay Republican states far more than they give in taxes and then think it normal that Democratic states get less and that the difference is made up in borrowing.
The assumption that the states should stop paying for roads which is were gas taxes go is a further example of this irresponsibility.
Yes I know that in theory Bush could borrow the money, but believe me it's a bad idea. And outside of the land of make believe roads don't build or mantain themselves.
I am saddened by those who think that taxing those who use those roads is gouging. I think you take too much for granted.
Posted by: sensible at November 11, 2005 04:42 PM (+RmzR)
4
The US is more than competetive with the rest of the industrialized world. Energy is still cheaper than Euro-Socialist labor with 35 hour work weeks, 8 week vacations, and all those benefits and low productivity to boot. What do you think Kyoto is all about?
The run-up of oil prices took place in the Futures Market. And all the action was from sources outside the traditional players--producers/consumers hedging. Lots of this action was from the Left. Could someone have been trying to win an election or two? The buggers wound up doubling and tripling their money. Sending lots more to less-than-friendly producers, too. Some of which, of course, comes back to the Left from those agreements the Left made with the Islamofascists...
Posted by: Darrell at November 11, 2005 09:59 PM (1A+wa)
5
Um, "Con"/"Sensible" . . . ? It's a joke.
But thank, Con, for the "proud princess" moniker. Better than the more-shopworn "pampered princess." Of course, I like to think I'm both.
Posted by: Attila Girl at November 11, 2005 10:03 PM (x3SIT)
6
Darrell, that is interesting information. Do you have sources that can show clearly where the atypical buying pressure was coming from? I know big traders have reporting requirements that lag the market by some time. But I didn't know speculators had such requirements.
It was pretty clear to just about everyone that the price spike was speculatively driven. The fundamentals were just not there to support it. Now that the bubble seems to have popped, this is all the more clear.
I really want to believe what you are saying, but...that is part of the problem. I don't want to be too credulous on something that my (admittedly limited) knowledge of commodity markets tells me would be hard to prove.
Of course, as the left has demostrated to us, if you repeat an assertion emphatically and frequently enough, it becomes "fact".
Posted by: Desert Cat at November 12, 2005 11:45 AM (xdX36)
7
I will remember this forever, as the instance of Some Other People taking a joke for serious and getting all riled up.
I'm Not Alone!
Oh, precious, precious. Oh, thank you, Little Miss Attila and Readers.
Posted by: k at November 12, 2005 04:49 PM (6krEN)
8
Just private conversations with traders/brokers in the crude oil futures market. They know who their regular clients are. I agree that it would be difficult to document...if you're not the SEC. Sort of like proving the Dems sold out their portfolios before they started the "talk down the economy thing" after Jan. 2002. Remember when they said for every 100 point drop in the Dow they would get 6(from memory) seats in the House? I didn't see them losing on a personal basis. The only reporter I could get to look into it was Amity Shlaes of FT. Of course her questions went unanswered.
Posted by: Darrell at November 12, 2005 10:18 PM (7JNG5)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 10, 2005
They've Arrived!
My Nancy Drew mysteries from eBay. Some liberry was getting
rid of them until the nice lady in the northwest rescued them; they're marked "DISCARD"!
They are all the revised versions (the 20-chapter format) that were supposedly purged of racism/guns and "refined" in the 50s/60s. I'm pretty sure those are the editions I read as a child: in my day, all Nancy Drew books had yellow spines (these have violet spines).
So, eat your heart out, Hubris. I'll soon be re-reading:
The Mystery at Lilac Inn (1961)
The Clue of the Dancing Puppet (1962)
The Clue of the Velvet Mask (1953/1969)
The Hidden Window Mystery (1956/1975)
and The Mystery of the Brass Bound Trunk (1976)
Then I'll save them for my little girl, so she can have a warped notion of female identity and a fascination for All Things Criminal, too.
("Mom! Your work is so derivative! You can't decide whether you want to be Michael Connelly or Dorothy L. Sayers. I mean, at least get the hard-boiled/tea cozy distinction down. And all that gratuitous sex is just gross!)
Posted by: Attila at
09:04 PM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
Post contains 183 words, total size 1 kb.
1
So...jealous...typing...difficult. Damn you, Attila Girl. Daaaamn yoooou!
Posted by: Hubris at November 10, 2005 09:08 PM (M7kiy)
2
Jealous!!!
Okay, so you would probably know this: there was one Nancy Drew where they ended up in Amish country. And there was some mystery involving the hexes that the Amish paint on their barns -
I was absolutely captivated by that particular story - it was my favorite of all the Nancy Drews -
do you know that one?? I cannot remember the dern title!
Posted by: red at November 10, 2005 09:18 PM (DQC2L)
Posted by: Hubris at November 10, 2005 09:27 PM (M7kiy)
4
Are you sure it was a Nancy Drew?
Posted by: Attila Girl at November 10, 2005 09:35 PM (x3SIT)
Posted by: Hubris at November 10, 2005 09:42 PM (M7kiy)
6
Wow. I don't remember that one at all. Maybe our local liberry didn't have it--or maybe it was one of the few left when my brother and I suddenly got bored and moved on.
Or maybe I'm
over forty and my
memory's failing! Horrors!
Posted by: Attila Girl at November 10, 2005 10:05 PM (x3SIT)
7
Hubris is a lush. How did u feel about Pamela Sue Martin?
Posted by: beautifulatrocities at November 11, 2005 08:40 AM (TX6xQ)
8
I just couldn't think of her as the "real" Nancy. However, I did watch the Hardy Boys, for reasons that had nothing to do with literature.
Posted by: Attila Girl at November 11, 2005 08:54 AM (x3SIT)
Posted by: red at November 11, 2005 09:56 AM (YqCav)
10
You're welcome Sheila!
Jeff, you're a whore (or maybe not, I'm drunk and confused right now).
Posted by: Hubris at November 11, 2005 10:12 AM (oPB+M)
11
How would u know? You been talking to John Hawkins?? GRRRRRR!
Posted by: beautifulatrocities at November 11, 2005 08:54 PM (XuU4L)
12
Boys! Stop making me laugh; I'll wake my husband up.
Posted by: Attila Girl at November 11, 2005 10:26 PM (x3SIT)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
ANWR
I'm sorry. Given that drilling for oil can be done in an environmentally sensitive fashion, and given the price that we pay for dependence on foreign oil, I just don't get it. I do not understand why we aren't using everything in the toolbox to break our dependence on outside energy.
Sure: conservation is part of the solution. New technologies are part of the solution. But we need to develop other options in the meantime. I don't understand the argument that "it won't solve the problem 100%, so it's not worth doing." We should be approaching this from a number of different angles.
Michelle Malkin reprinted this letter to Hastert from her reader Rick, whose blog is here (go to her site for many, many more letters from disappointed people):
I have a neighbor who is a single mother. She struggles, but she gets by with a combination of determination and hard work.
. . . .
Not too long ago she came to my wife in tears, humiliated by the need to borrow money from us; gasoline prices, you see, were high enough to break her meager budget. Thanks to your "leadership", they aren't likely to drop too far, are they?
I served in the Army as an Intelligence Analyst and served in Desert Shield/Desert Storm; I happen to know that dependence on foreign oil has a number of effects- It keeps the price higher; it makes us strategically weaker; it funnels money out of our economy; and it puts some of that money in the pockets of groups like Islamic Jihad, Hamas, and al-Qaeda.
So while the tundra of remote Alaskan coasts may not have a oil derrick, some of the money I spend on gas will be going to the creation of roadside bombs in
Iraq. So while Zarqawi may thanks you, I most emphatically do not.
People are dying because of the terrorism caused by oil money in the hands of despots and outlaw groups. While I understand that energy is essential to economic development—and development is making lives better and safer in the third world, not to mention here—I don't understand why we don't do what we can to ease the suffering just a little.
Drill ANWR. Build refineries. Now.
Posted by: Attila at
08:33 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 377 words, total size 2 kb.
1
You know you areinviting stupid arguments here. tis is one of those debates where there seems to be a set piece openng of dumbness tht must be waded through to get to the actual arguments, either way.
To me, the actual arguments aren't COMPELLING either way. Skipping the arguments, for me, the tiebreaker was that people in the area wanted it.
Oh, did i mention that i was living in Oregon? when i moved here about a dozen years ago, i mentioned offhandedly that i was an environmentalist. luckily my brother-in-law was able to keep me from being killed, and i had to talk my way out of it. Seems that everyone in oregon knows someone who has been hurt by environmental edicts, often to no purpose, in the end.
Oregon has a long history of environmental activism. our beaches cannot be owned, and must be available to everyone. We had the first can law.
but the feds came in and made rulse whch favored animals to the detriment of people. the timber industry was destroyed by a bird. later, new research showed that te bird was never endangered. in the last few summers, the feds have insisted that scarce water goes to save a fish, while farmers crops fail for lack of it.
You see, the federal environmenatlists, unlike the Oregon environmentalists, who looked for fair solutions, do not care about people. People are not in their job description. and this is true of the major environmental groups.
Why this long runaround?
Because, I'm afraid, my tie breaker will mean nothing to the feds or to the environmental groups. the people of the area are no concern of theirs.
Posted by: Averroes at November 11, 2005 07:40 AM (jlOCy)
2
And a lot of people who don't live there fail to realize that Alaska is in a lot of ways a "poor" state. It's underdeveloped, and it's costly to live there.
They could really use this.
Posted by: Attila Girl at November 11, 2005 08:02 AM (x3SIT)
3
Perhaps this specific issue could be argued either way...but the problem is that the "progressives" will oppose *any* form of energy production. Want to build a coal plant? They'll object to the pollution. Maybe gasify the coal before burning it? They'll complain about CO2. Windmills? Views and birds. Nuclear? They think it's a form of black magic. Solar? To the extent that it succeeds on a large scale, I'm confident they'll find something to object to--maybe toxic materials in the storage batteries or in the solar cells themselves.
The whole idea of *tradeoffs* is missing from the worldview of people who want to live in perpetual infantilism.
Posted by: David Foster at November 11, 2005 08:31 AM (7TmYw)
4
Certainly, let's drill in the ANWR.
And let's legally and enforceable reduce oil imports, barrel-for-barrel, for each barrel we extract. After all, if the excess supply just pushes down the price and we consume more, we've managed to achieve the worst of both worlds: We're still sending money to hostile nations,
and we've drilled in the ANWR, and sustained our dependence on both.
OK?
Posted by: Christophe at November 11, 2005 12:51 PM (2rBIo)
5
No. But thank you for playing.
It is interesting that most charges of hypocrisy leveled at either the left or the right can be flipped; I check myself using this "mirror technique" all the time. You appear to be wondering whether I'd go along with measures that would ensure prices stay high, to makes sure the economic incentives were there for conservation and development of other options.
I think the incentives are clear enough, for anyone who's lived through both the 1970s and the double-aughts (the present decade).
But I've always wondered why my local public radio stations bemoan high gasoline prices in one hour, and then discuss why we aren't developing alternatives the next.
Personally, I adore rail and cars with high gas mileage. Don't tell my friends, 'kay?
Posted by: Attila Girl at November 11, 2005 10:22 PM (x3SIT)
6
I think I have entered Bizarro Earth. Republicans are saying that the price of a commodity has to be adjusted downwards by statist intervention in order to avoid hurting the poor and to achieve foreign policy goals. This sounds like a Chirac speech.
The only thing that will cause alternatives to oil to be developed is high oil prices. This is not exactly a revolutionary notion; markets work on price signals. When oil prices go up, alternatives become economical; when oil prices fall, alternatives become uneconomical and the economy drops them like a rock.
This is why OPEC isn't happy at all about the current price spike: OPEC knows full well that the fastest way to get the world off the oil habit is to make oil so expensive that the alternatives look good. Tactically, they're rolling in it, but they've been here before, and seen the result. (In fact, we all are: Saudi Arabia's declining ability to buy off its youth with pseudo-jobs was one of the big creators of radical Islamists in the 1990s.) They'd much rather keep the price moderate so that there is no incentive to do anything but suck up crude. As the oil execs said, they think in decades.
Of all of the reasons that oil has gotten more expensive right now (instability over Iran, the Iraq war, China and India's growth, refinery undercapacity, Katrina and Wilma, etc.), the lack of the ANWR supply is about #3,135. ANWR is a trivial make-work project dressed up in energy patriotism.
A memory of a previous shock does exactly nothing to provide incentives to develop alternatives; a glance at the average fuel efficiency of an American car since the late 1970s will show that, well, graphically. Price increases, though, work wonders, as world+dog rushes to squeeze crude out of Canadian oil sands that couldn't have gotten themselves arrested five years ago.
I'm 100% in favor of sending less money to Saudi Arabia, et al. And this price spike is the best thing that's ever happened for that.
Posted by: Christophe at November 12, 2005 05:22 PM (td8Qe)
7
Why didn't the 1970's propel us to alternative energy sources?
Short and simplistic answer:
CAFE standards.
Posted by: Averroes at November 13, 2005 04:03 PM (jlOCy)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Michael Yon's Work
. . . is being used on the floor of the senate (link
here at the magazine), and he'll be posting the text of Bruce Willis' speech soon. (I hope he got a picture, too!)
Posted by: Attila at
06:28 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 41 words, total size 1 kb.
Light Blogging, Next Two Days
I'll be working at my occasional on-site job today and tomorrow (and very likely the first few days of this coming week).
This will have deleterious effects, on 1) my blog, and 2) my lifestyle of complete and absolute indolence.
Posted by: Attila at
07:04 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 50 words, total size 1 kb.
1
What in the world are you doing up at this hour?
Posted by: beautifulatrocities at November 10, 2005 08:20 AM (OJ9j+)
2
work? what is this foul beast you speak of?
Posted by: caltechgirl at November 10, 2005 09:49 AM (/vgMZ)
3
I had to get up really really early to help the husband haul some of our clutter (broken furniture, mostly) out to the curb. It's "fall clean up day" for our local trash collectors. I'm proud that I was able to get rid of some worthless junk, but even more proud that I didn't drive around town looking for stuff other people were throwing away that might "go to waste" unless I rescued it.
Posted by: Attila Girl at November 10, 2005 04:36 PM (x3SIT)
4
You are another crazy american !
Well, give rice to people, not Rice to USA!
By the way, are the money you are paid to have this blog, enough?
If not, we can offer you another better job...
Think about it...
Posted by: skatoula at November 11, 2005 07:49 PM (Mk7j+)
5
Oh, i LOVE that last comment!! You tell her, skatoula!!!!
PS You might not hire her if you have minimum height requirements
Posted by: beautifulatrocities at November 11, 2005 08:58 PM (XuU4L)
6
This is just more of your discrimination!-- and distortion, and dissembling, and disenfranshisement, and dissing, and other warmonger words that begin with D!
Which stands for Dr. Rice! I mean, it doesn't!
Posted by: Attila Girl at November 11, 2005 10:30 PM (x3SIT)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 09, 2005
Goldstein on the War
Not the war in Iraq: the
war between the Bush Administration and the CIA. Jeff's got an extended quotation from the
Journal Online, and some thoughts of his own on where to go from here.
There's clearly something fishy going on. Whether or not you think that Joe Wilson's trip to Niger was one of the CIA's attempts to embarass the President (Dorkafork at INDC* says no), the CIA does appear to be out of control—and more than a little incompetent.
Bush can't stand above the fray any more: he is the fray.
* Fixed to give credit where it's due. My apologies to Dorkafork; I just can't get used to the fact that some blogs more important than mine have additional writers even when the main blogger isn't on vacation.
Posted by: Attila at
05:38 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 139 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Well, Hayes can sometimes be an idiot. Here he misstates the facts.
While it is true that Wilson never worked for the CIA, this was his SECOND trip to the region for the CIA. Although not an agent, he had some experience inthe area, and had experience with Iraq.
In addition, the CIA ddn't expect to find any evidence of iraq obtaining anything on the trip. the aqmbassador had recently asked for and received assurances from the government that there had been no deals for uranium with any rogue nation. To maintain the diplomatic niceties, she asked Wilson to avoid talking to members of the current government.
Both the CIA and Wilson were aware that the goal of those speaking to him may well be to manipulate.
The problem is not the mission, nor its report, but whith how Wilson has represented its conclusions and what he has done since then.
This notion that the trip was a CIA plot, (or, even more amazingly, a plot by the Dmeocrats!!) to bash Bush is just silly.
If one is going to concoct a conspiracy theory, why not go whole hog and say that the CIA didn't actually have an intelligence failure, but actually invented all that bad intelligence to make the Bush administration look bad?
One could add a cap on such a conspiracy by postulationg that George Tenet, a loyal Democrat appointed by Clinton, actually was the soldier in this Clintonesque stragey to insure that Mrs. Clinton would eventually be lecrted president. (Willy, who appointed Tenet, would be the brains.) Tenet's job was to make sure the faulty intelligence was created and documented, to funnell it to the administration, and to make sure that the administration was convinced. he did the latter by repeating the embarassingly bad intelligence in his daily briefs and by cutting off any doubt with phrases like "It's a slam dunk."
Hayes is sounding like a stupid liberal here. Maybe he has a contract with Oliver Stone.
Posted by: Averroes at November 09, 2005 06:51 PM (jlOCy)
2
But someone referred this to the Justice department.
Posted by: Attila Girl at November 10, 2005 06:44 AM (x3SIT)
3
fyi - my contributor Dorkafork said "no." I'm agnostic on the matter.
Posted by: Bill from INDC at November 10, 2005 06:59 AM (yZMsp)
4
It?
I must here admit that I confused Mr. Rabbin's piece, quoted in the link, with that of hayes. So my commentson hayes should be diverted to the Rabbin piece.
Posted by: Averroes at November 10, 2005 03:54 PM (jlOCy)
5
The evidence is pretty strong that the report of Iraqi uranium purchases was forged.
It is also fairly clear that Wilson wrote his editorial after members of the administration continued to blandish it.
Saying this is illegitimate because Wilson was partisan and a blow hard also invalidates a lot of stuff from the right.
The right has also discredited itself by shunning values that Bill Buckley and others in the mainstream are reminding them of:
http://www2.operationtruth.com/dia/organizations/OpTruth/blog/comments.jsp?blog_entry_KEY=20292
Also note that many of the fiercest critics of the Bush administration have also been fierce critics of the way the CIA was run. THe problem is that the administrations "reform is worse than the disease.
Ignoring Colonel Wilkerson and others may be good partisan politics, but it shows a hostility to the United States. We are at war and need functioning institutions. To rebuild the CIA along the model of Brownies Fema or Bremer's Iraq is to risk our future.
I ask you and your kind, have you no shame?
Posted by: jane at November 10, 2005 04:37 PM (4+JhV)
6
But certainly we needed to have some intel reform, didn't we? Granted, a lot of what we had previous to 9/11 had to do with miscommunication, turf wars between agencies, and FBI failures. But certainly the Church restrictions had something to do with the failures that allowed 9/11 to happen . . .?
Posted by: Attila Girl at November 10, 2005 06:20 PM (x3SIT)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Froggy Says
. . . don't even
bother with
Jarhead. The people who put it together are so ignorant of military matters that none of them even
own clothing in shades of green (or blue).
Posted by: Attila at
01:56 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 37 words, total size 1 kb.
The Commissar
. . . is celebrating two years of blogging
and his millionth hit. In the spirit of celebration, he allowed
Beth to "interrogate" him; it's a lovely
interview. Drop by and add your congratulations!
And, seemingly in answer to my previous request for help in finding the secrets to Allied air superiority during World War II, he comes out of the closet with respect to his main site, Ace Pilots. Which is dedicated to the planes and pilots of that conflict.
I feel like it's Christmas, seven weeks early.
Posted by: Attila at
12:56 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 93 words, total size 1 kb.
1
A very worthwhile source for understanding the war in the air is "The First and The Last" by Adolph Galland, who was a senior officer in the German fighter arm. He offers the following vignette:
When FDR made a speech about the US aircraft production targets, they were mocked: Goering denounced them as propaganda. Galland thought should have been taken more seriously--"Propaganda *may* be horrible, but bombs *certainly* are."
Galland also pressed to have the newly-developed jet aircraft configured as a fighter, but Hitler insisted that it be produced as a bomber. He believes D-Day would have turned out very differently had several hundred German jet fighters been on hand.
Posted by: David Foster at November 09, 2005 02:10 PM (7TmYw)
2
That may go back to Hitler's obsession with getting rid of Jews. Had he been less obsessed with shepherding the Master Race, he might have had more time and inclination to attend to the war(s) he started.
Posted by: Attila Girl at November 09, 2005 04:38 PM (x3SIT)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 08, 2005
He's Back in the Saddle Again.
Jeff of Beautiful Atrocities is shooting
smack blog entries, and has a
stunning little example headlined: "SUPPORT THE INSURGENTS! DEFEND BORED YOUTH!"
But it's not like Jeff isn't willing to put his activism where his, um, html is. Au contraire:
Join us tonight in SF, where the usual spotty crowds of shiftless rabble will assemble with signs reading SARKOZY=HITLER, NO BLOOD FOR CREME BRULEE, & VOULEZ VOUS COUCHER AVEC MOI, then proceed to chant incoherently, torch Peugeots, make jackasses of ourselves, & hopefully get laid.
I love stories with happy endings; they make me cry, but in the good way. Be sure to wear that cute leather jacket, Jeff.
Posted by: Attila at
01:11 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 121 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I'd given up on Jeff so completely that it's been weeks since I checked his site. Thanks for the tip, MsAttila.
Posted by: utron at November 08, 2005 12:38 PM (VVBQC)
2
Given up???
And did I really show my gay jacket?
Posted by: beautifulatrocities at November 08, 2005 05:26 PM (aMxO9)
3
LMA,
I've fallen in love with your cartoon image.
What's it doing this Friday?
Posted by: El Conquistadore at November 08, 2005 10:44 PM (ml+cs)
4
I remember it from when we met for breakfast. It was very dashing. But not, of course, in a hetero-normative way.
Posted by: Attila Girl at November 08, 2005 11:10 PM (x3SIT)
5
Well, it was better than that polyester pantsuit YOU were wearing. Why do you need so many pockets? And no one wears cork platforms. Face it Attila, you're SHORT. No one is going to mistake you for Nicollette Sheridan.
Isn't Tammy Bruce on every morning down there? Patrick Prescott, who used to blog, told me she's only on weekends, but I think he's lying
Posted by: beautifulatrocities at November 09, 2005 11:24 AM (iNPyQ)
6
Next, you're going to be criticizing the way I frosted my hair.
Posted by: Attila Girl at November 09, 2005 04:40 PM (x3SIT)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 07, 2005
France in Flames
The Commissar
links to a few folks who are pointing out that funky social policies, bad economic conditions, and racial segregation have a lot more to do with the French riots than Islam does.
It's a horrific situation; let's try to evaluate it objectively, rather than projecting our fear of Islamo-fascism onto that situation.
Posted by: Attila at
01:01 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 60 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Well, I see one of the "don't blame Islam" links slams anyone that WILL point out of the obvious as "rightwing hate mongers looking for a reason to spread HATE..."
The Euro-style socialist leftism (that Kerry, et al, so LOVE and want in this country) is as much to blame as Islamism. But to pretend that Islamism has nothing to do with these [cough cough] spontaneous riots and is akin to the '65 Watts riots is wildly disengenious.
I read in WaPo (IIRC) interviews with some "youths" and their laments were ... ie they didn't like the "dual" nature of their existence..that they have this "french" identity (partying and drinking) and this "islamic" identity (attending mosque and wearing a beard). And they don't like being "disrespected" by French citizens.
Then add to this that the cheese-eating-surrender-monkeys have been alternately ignoring or pandering to these almost autonomous enclaves...letting the moslems set up their own defacto local governments (women forced to wear habij while in the 'hood, moslem or not, the closing of bars and theaters, the segregation of sexes at public pool) and Chirac admin very publically proclaiming their undying love of Saddam.
11 days of rioting with coordinated attacks and at least one bomb-factory discovered does NOT bespeak "spontaneity".
Posted by: Darleen at November 07, 2005 08:38 AM (FgfaV)
2
I argee, a lot fo thsi is caused by the idiotic policies of the French government and the hatred for western culture foster by community leaders. I made an off hand comment at one point, but thank god my family did live in France, because we'd still be a poor family. With the 35 hour work week my gramps would of never been able to work the two, sometimes three, jobs it took to support the family and generate a savings/personal wealth generation.
Posted by: the Pirate at November 07, 2005 08:51 AM (0ZKi5)
3
But that anti-assimilation you speak of may well be the point., D. And can you imagine us simply allowing people in the slums to make up their own laws?
It's the French government that pays lip service to assimilation but doesn't really promote it.
Posted by: Attila Girl at November 07, 2005 11:02 AM (x3SIT)
4
Oh, by far I lay at least half the blame on the French government. But the "all cultures are the same and who are we to judge?" is a consistent mantra of the left.
We have enough examples of that here in the US to raise concern.
And anyone that points out the dangers of non-assimilation is going to have the brickbats of "xenophobic! racist! nativist! nationalist! imperialist!" tossed at 'em.
Posted by: Darleen at November 07, 2005 11:22 AM (FgfaV)
5
The so called religion of peace and crince charles want to come over here to lecture us on the avantage of the religion of peace why dont he stay home and save himself from getting his foot in his mouth
Posted by: BIRDZILLA at November 07, 2005 11:48 AM (Tl3bz)
6
"...funky social policies, bad economic conditions, and racial segregation have a lot more to do with the French riots than Islam does."
Why can't there be an "All of the Above?"
I personally don't have a dog in this fight. France has been (inadvertantly?) building this for a long time, and Europe is rife with riot-at-the-drop-of-a-hat jerks of all flavors. And I say that as someone who lived there for seven years.
And do you know what the sad part is? I don't think either side is going to take away a lesson from all this.
Eh, whatever. I'm going to go back to revisiting The Sims. It's not less stressful than keeping up with French woes, but it's infinitely more constructive.
Posted by: Chadster at November 07, 2005 05:44 PM (HWr5y)
7
John Stewert had a take on this....we can now understand France's reluctane to take part in the iraqi War. why trvel to the Middle East when you can fight Muslims right there at home?
Rob Cordry opined that the French would soon be surrendering. Stewert asked him how this could be since the rioters themselves were French. cordry remarked that that was what made it exciting, sort of like a contest to see who could surrender first.
Posted by: Averroes at November 08, 2005 01:56 PM (jlOCy)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
113kb generated in CPU 0.2627, elapsed 0.3868 seconds.
223 queries taking 0.3563 seconds, 588 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.