December 16, 2005
Amazing Yemeni Article
. . . on Jane's work to help the people of Yemen.
She has an English translation of it up on her site.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
05:06 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 29 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Isn't it so great? I can't believe it.
Thank you Joy, again, still.
Posted by: Jane at December 16, 2005 05:49 PM (ywZa8)
Posted by: Attila Girl at December 16, 2005 07:03 PM (zZMVu)
3
Amazing! And even more amazing that the geniuses at Pajamas Media Clearinghouse have'nt noticed her. Have you noticed that Reynold's every other link is to PJM ?Wonder how much he poor down that toilet....
Posted by: beautifulatrocities at December 17, 2005 01:46 PM (hR3ut)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Back in L.A.
We flew back in Wednesday evening, and spent the day yesterday getting re-acquainted with our home—in as physically passive a way as we could manage it.
I did end up going to a clinic while I was in Honolulu. Actually, I was taken there by a husband who didn't like it when I tried to throw up into the hotel trashbasket. (Nothing happened, since my tummy was empty at that point. The incident may not, however, have been the erotic high point of our relationship.)
Now I'm on Tamiflu and an anti-nausea medication. I still have the flu, but the symptoms are easing up at a rapid rate, so I'm semi-functional aside from being very tired.
Posting may be sporadic until the last of the virus has been driven, screaming, from my body.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
12:05 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 139 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Oh, no! how awful! God, I'm so sorry!
Posted by: k at December 16, 2005 04:26 PM (ywZa8)
2
Get better soon! So you can start a blogwar, or something. Or comment on those Blog Award results. Or just so we can seethe about you going from sunny So Cal to even sunnier Hawaii while we're shoveling snow...
Posted by: Darrell at December 16, 2005 09:07 PM (banYP)
3
good for hubby.... in this day of bird flu and gods know what else, the flu is nothing to take lightly
Posted by: Zendo Deb at December 18, 2005 06:33 AM (S417T)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 14, 2005
The Sorting Hat
Odd. I would have sworn I'd be in Slytherin.
 | You scored as Ravenclaw. You have been sorted into Ravenclaw- you value intelligence, and love the chance to use your cleverness (and maybe even show it off- just a little). You're keen and incisive, and you just love a challenging problem to solve.
Ravenclaw | | 85% |
Gryffindor | | 75% |
Hufflepuff | | 60% |
Slytherin | | 55% |
The Hogwarts Sorting Hat! created with QuizFarm.com |
Via Mikal.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
11:38 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 75 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Hmm. Also Ravenclaw, and by almost identical percentages. I have my doubts about some of these quizzes. Which is the kind of arrogant mistrust you'd expect in someone from Ravenclaw.
Posted by: utron at December 15, 2005 01:05 PM (CgIkY)
2
Yep, Ravenclaw, too.
Wazzup with that?
BTW, welcome home, AG!
Posted by: Darleen at December 15, 2005 05:32 PM (FgfaV)
3
I HATE THESE THINGS! THEY ARE DESTROYING THE BLOGOSPHERE! STOP!
Posted by: beautifulatrocities at December 16, 2005 08:42 AM (J/Gf0)
4
I got Slytherin too. And how the hell are you supposed to return a wallet without even opening it?????????????
Posted by: beautifulatrocities at December 16, 2005 08:45 AM (J/Gf0)
5
I know. That was badly phrased. I chose to interpret it as "open the billfold section with ill intent." The ID is in front of the billfold.
Or perhaps the question presupposes that there is a lost and found nearby, attended by people so honest-looking that you can't help but trust them with this stranger's money.
Posted by: Attila Girl at December 16, 2005 11:33 AM (zZMVu)
6
http://enphilistor.50megs.com/sorting.htm is a far, far superior Sorting Hat.
Yeah, it's mine.
I was 100% Ravenclaw, 75% Gryff, 65% Huff, and only 15% Sly.
Posted by: John at December 24, 2005 09:40 PM (3sCAd)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Remember Homer's swear jar?
Looks like a couple of high schools are trying their
versionHARTFORD - Reprimands did not work. Neither did detentions or suspensions. Frustrated over their inability to stop high school students from cursing aggressively, educators and police officials decided it was time to get tough.
In November, they authorized police officers assigned to two of the city's public high schools to begin issuing tickets to students who hurl expletives. The fine: $103.
The officers have issued about 60 tickets to students at Bulkeley and Hartford High Schools in what several experts think is the first such effort in the country. There are already signs that the new approach may be working, some teachers and principals said. Fights have decreased, classrooms are calmer and there is less cursing in the corridors.
"Has it gone away completely? No," said Zandralyn Gordon, the acting principal of Hartford Public High School. "It is helping a whole lot."
I'm by no means a prude, but it is jaw-dropping how much open swearing there is on high school campuses.
Posted by: Darleen Click at
12:02 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 179 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Oh...it was hurling *expletives*...I first read it as hurling *explosives*, and thought a ticket actually seemed pretty light.
Gotta get some more coffee.
Posted by: David Foster at December 14, 2005 07:53 AM (7TmYw)
2
Any bets as to when the first lawsuit is filed?
Posted by: Darrell at December 14, 2005 12:33 PM (bDU5V)
3
we swore constantly. In fact, my friend was nicknamed "the bastard" because he said bastard so often. Just didn't let the teachers hear us. In one class there was a "cuss jar" and you had to put a nickel in if you got caught. Quite a price hike in 10 years.
Posted by: caltechgirl at December 14, 2005 12:40 PM (/vgMZ)
4
It is telling that people think of the punitive fiorst, when the research shows that the punitive doesn't work very well.
Years ago, back when every teenager discovered the power and usefulness of swearwords, the average teenager knew enough not to use them with those adults in power at the school. it is a simple matter of coding.
In those days, when your parents found out that you swore at Mrs. Teacher, you were dealt with at home. That is not true today.
One young man liked to brave repercussions by pulling out a handkerchief whenever he went to the board, and fake sneezing into it, something like, "fug-SHOO!" All us mature teenagers would giggle. One day, he happened to actually sneexe as he did this, and the words "fuck you" came out after, clear as a bell. The teacher could not help but laugh. Then he simply pointed to the door, and the young man took hgimself to the principal's office, where he spent the rest of the period.
Nothing much was made of it. The teacher involved seemed to remember when he was a lad.
A better approach might be to give tickets for foul language, then every month (perhaps), hold a drawing for a $50 prize for everyone in a particular grade who had not gotten a ticket in that time. (The time peroiod and population can be adjusted, of course.)
It might even be possible to have local businesses donate gift certificates in the amount, which would make it a no-cost program for the schools. Even the PTA or localk churches could chip in.
The trick is to reward the proper behaviour.
Posted by: Averroes at December 14, 2005 02:17 PM (jlOCy)
5
Police officers? Issuing tickets for swearing?
Just one more reason to homeschool. Sorry, but that is just absurd!
Posted by: Desert Cat at December 14, 2005 05:48 PM (xdX36)
6
Shades of Demolition Man!
Actually I do not mind swearing as such, but it's depressing when a stream of profanity and vulgarity substitutes for articulate speech. Swearing is a crutch and eventually, if overused, becomes the default mode of communication.
I recall a Navy officer's manual (might have been the old Division Officer's Guide) that said an occasional profanity was useful for emphasis or as an attention getter but overuse became monotonous and diluted whatever one wished to communicate.
But you add in the typical discretion and maturity of schoolkids, who will giggle uncontrollably for fifteen minutes after somebody says "shit" and here we are.
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at December 14, 2005 06:23 PM (eguza)
7
I can't get excited about any of this, I'm afraid: I grew up on the
Hair soundtrack. My mother cut us a deal: we could say whatever we liked, as long as we didn't do it in front of our friends. Mom didn't want to take any, um, stuff from their parents.
Posted by: Attila Girl at December 16, 2005 08:05 PM (zZMVu)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 13, 2005
Now I understand
what my German Shepherd, Misty, was thinking when she saw I caught the cat in the kitchen trash can, yet again.
*
Posted by: Darleen Click at
08:05 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 28 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I just love this story!
But let me ask -- If you and I were stuck in jail and they suddenly started playing a tape of people laughing wouldn't we quiet down? I know I would. I'd be trying to figure out what kind of loons had me locked up and how much trouble I was really in!
Posted by: Janette at December 13, 2005 08:42 PM (OcgcA)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The Cotillion -- Dressing up for Christmas
Tammy of
A Mom and Her Blog is hosting this week's dance of
The Cotillion. As usual, the offerings of writing runs the gamut of topics from gun rights to the reason for the season.
Well worth the read!
Posted by: Darleen Click at
07:41 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 53 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Wanted to request to vote the final couple of days for Mazurland in the Best of 5001-6750. This is a fine blog and slightly trailing candidate Army of Mom. Why vote against Army of Mom? She is calling Beth with Vast Right Wing Conspiracy a B____ and has urged her readers to vote against Beth. This stems from a battle Army of Mom created a few months ago after her e-mails requesting to join the Cotillion were allegedly ignored.
Mazurland is a nice blog and her closest competitor. Please help in this close race and spread the word.
Thanks.
Posted by: scott at December 13, 2005 08:50 PM (xzpkQ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 12, 2005
Feverish in Waikiki
Yes. Attila the Hub finished the
Honolulu Marathon yesterday, raising thousands of dollars for cancer research. I cheered him on at mile 5, and near mile 25—along the final incline below Diamond Head.
Based on his projected time of arrival, I had a few hours to kill in that second location, so I ate breakfast (Starbucks coffee, string cheese, cut-up papaya from the local ABC mart). Then I joined with a couple of the locals in cheering the runners up the hill. We clapped and clapped as thousands of people ran, walked, and limped by, and because I'm rather stupid I didn't stop yelling even after it became clear that I was losing my voice. I was having too good a time with my bilingual friends, who taught me how to cheer the runners on in Japanese. (No. I don't remember the phrase I yelled out hundreds of times, exhorting the Japanese to "keep going," because I have a mind like a sieve. However, I'm told I got the pronunciation better than a lot of round-eyes do.)
And when Attila Hub came up the hill I jogged alongside him, even though I was wearing tennis shoes—not running gear. I even tried to sprint to the finish line, though I didn't make it, of course: he was running downhill by then, and he's a good deal taller and fitter than I am. No matter: his sister cheered him over the finish line, quickly repositioning herself after offering some encouragement at the 21-mile mark.
I didn't realize that supporters have to dress as though they are themselves running: wear the proper shoes, for one thing. And train a bit. I guess that means a minimum of four 20-minute workouts during the week, when I'll be cheering, clapping, and jumping up and down. Then there will be a "long cheer" on Sunday afternoons, wherein I'll hold a sign, act excited, and yell for two hours straight. This will take place in my backyard, of course, and ensure that the neighbors continue to give us a wide berth.
Walking along the course early yesterday morning, I passed by the finish line, so I got to see some of the top-50 finishers—those who managed to complete the event in the first few hours. They all looked svelte and young. Whassup with that?
Now I have some sort of vicious mini-bug, so Attila the Hub is sightseeing around the island with his sister while I cough in our hotel room, read a little Richard Miniter, and doze.
No matter. There's a beautiful view from the balcony, and my fever seems to have gone down. In a while I'll go out again and walk by the water. It's safe here: it just doesn't get cold like it does at home. Being sick in paradise is better than being depressed at home.
There is that lovely moment when you know you're getting better, but still need to take it easy. And avoid coughing very wetly on other people.
Sightseeing tomorrow, if I'm up to it and the cough eases up.
Congratulations, Honey.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
06:03 PM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
Post contains 520 words, total size 3 kb.
1
it just doesn't get cold like it does at home.
See? Tol'ya! Enjoy!
Posted by: Desert Cat at December 12, 2005 08:12 PM (xdX36)
2
Congratulations from sunny Florida on picking a nice warm place to have a cold! I always knew you were sensible.
And John did it. Boy oh boy. That is great.
Posted by: k at December 12, 2005 08:29 PM (M7kiy)
3
Glad to hear from k. I was beginning to worry not hearing from that insurance adjuster or k for so many days!
LMA, go ahead and pretend to be sick so that we will feel sorry for you in paradise! Yeah. I'll forget about the foot of snow I've been shoveling!
Posted by: Darrell at December 12, 2005 09:21 PM (UNBDo)
4
I rode the bus back from the finish line with AH and the other finishers. The humidity here—and the grade—led to a lot of collapses, but fortunately none were serious and none occurred within the charity AH was running for.
There weren't two seats together, so I talked to the finisher I found myself sitting with. He was from Omaha, and he told me his friends back home probably wouldn't want to hear about the heat and how it affected his marathon time.
My brain won't work: I'm completely off-kilter. Feels like a drug trip, actually. Not that I'd know.
Posted by: Attila Girl at December 12, 2005 10:17 PM (Japql)
5
Hi Darrell!
I'M still here.
http://ksquest.blogspot.com/2005/12/insurance-adjustor.html
http://ksquest.blogspot.com/2005/12/not-hide-nor-hair.html
Posted by: k at December 13, 2005 04:56 AM (6krEN)
6
Congrats to Hub! I'm in awe since I found I'm fairly...er...
allergic to running.
;-)
Sorry to hear 'bout the cough, but heck, sick with a view?
Take care and I hope the bug is shortlived.
Posted by: Darleen at December 13, 2005 07:45 AM (FgfaV)
7
Would the Japanese happen to have been "Gambatte!"?
David
Posted by: David Harr at December 13, 2005 08:06 AM (C/3FW)
8
That looks right: it was Gam-bah-tay, with the G pronounced really hard, almost like a K sound. But there were tones in it, of course, that I can't spell phonetically.
And that final syllable was right between an "ay" sound and an "eye" sound.
Posted by: Attila Girl at December 13, 2005 08:24 AM (Japql)
Posted by: caltechgirl at December 13, 2005 10:44 AM (/vgMZ)
10
The amusing thing is that, even 20 years after learning Japanese and living in Japan, I find myself occasionally trying to tell someone "Gambatte!", because there is absolutely no good English translation for it. I guess that means that you have really immersed yourself in the language...
David
Posted by: David Harr at December 13, 2005 01:22 PM (C/3FW)
11
I ran the Honolulu Marathon in 1987 and thought the humidity would kill me. There were points that year when it felt like you were running in soup.
Posted by: Matt at December 13, 2005 03:15 PM (N9CSD)
12
Well! that's because you ARE.
Thick, hot, enveloping, cozy soup.
People who say the dryness of desert air doesn't make it feel any cooler at the same temp. just don't get it.
That humidity wraps you up and snuggles you tight like a warm blanket.
Posted by: k at December 13, 2005 05:34 PM (6krEN)
13
k,
I wonder if that insurance adjuster felt that way when you had him tied up in the shed?
Oh, the humanity!
Posted by: Darrell at December 13, 2005 09:10 PM (AoD1i)
Posted by: Attila Girl at December 13, 2005 11:41 PM (Japql)
15
Shed?
What shed?
Hurricane ate the shed.
AAAALLLLLLLL gone...
Posted by: k at December 14, 2005 03:31 AM (6krEN)
16
I find an imaginary shed even more traumatic...LMA, you're right...Oh the humidity!
Posted by: Darrell at December 14, 2005 12:31 PM (bDU5V)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Feminism Kerfuffle
No, I haven't read all the posts and cross-posts; I'm on vacation. But I do like
Darleen's summary of the current blogstorm.
I continued to call myself a feminist right up to the point that some self-proclaimed leaders of the women's movement publicly justified William Jefferson Clinton's exploitation of Monica Lewinsky. Then I backed off for a few years.
Since I've started blogging I've used the label on occasion—to distinguish myself from conservatives of the LaShawn stripe—but I generally like to remind people that the word feminist has about as many interpretations as there are people hearing the word.
What do I mean when I say it? I mean sexists are icky. That's all.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
05:29 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 118 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Well there went three hours of my life...
Actually it was rather educational. And Jeff's endless patience and rhetorical skill is nothing to sneeze at. I'm more than pleased that someone of his caliber, steeped in the terminology and techniques of academia, is willing to duke it out for the conservative/libertarian corner.
If that's the essence of your feminism though, beware--you are probably an "anti-feminst" by the terms of the non-establishment establishment feminists (just don't you dare call them "gender feminists"!).
I guess by their terms I am an "anti-feminist" too, though I was comforted to realize that this is not necessarily the same as "sexist trogolodyte", depending upon how you define your terms.
Geez Louise!! Now that my brain is all in a pretzel, I have an urge to grab a crowbar and beat the hell out of some unfortunate hobo, just to clear out my testosterone channels and reassert myself as an Alpha Male member of the Patriarchy.
Posted by: Desert Cat at December 12, 2005 10:59 PM (xdX36)
2
I have the advantage of having the flu, and knowing I can't follow anything too intricate at the moment.
Bottom line: I am what I am. I probably strike a lot of people as a gender traitor, but that's fine.
Posted by: Attila Girl at December 13, 2005 08:37 AM (Japql)
3
I'm not sure anyone can say Clinton exploited Monica. She was of age and decided to make out with a big powerful daddy figure.
There was of course the "stalking" charge. Of more relevance was Paula Jones. Her charges were serious if unverified. But the "you never know what you'll find if you wave a hundred dollar bill in a trailer park" remark was certainly unjustified.
But monica as feeble exploited victim, I guess you see yourself in this, nice middle class girl, not working class trash like Paula. Clinton was sleezy, but so was she.
Posted by: cathy at December 13, 2005 11:43 AM (PYzke)
4
No one denies that Monica was the initiator in those encounters. Or that she was technically an adult. But I believe a lot of people would prefer that the commander in chief of the U.S. be made of stronger stuff, and be able to resist such temptations.
And I found it rather ironic that a lot of women who had previously asserted that extreme power differences made consent less meaningful suddenly reversed their thinking when it came to Clinton. This applies to Jones even more than Lewinsky, of course.
Posted by: Attila Girl at December 14, 2005 09:29 AM (Japql)
5
"No one denies that Monica was the initiator in those encounters. Or that she was technically an adult. But I believe a lot of people would prefer that the commander in chief of the U.S. be made of stronger stuff, and be able to resist such temptations."
Technically an adult? Do you want to raise the age of consent? Do you think she could consent to an abortion?
The counter argument is that if the Commander in chief can't get a BJ, who can?
Actua;lly, rather than prim puritans, people have always admired charismatic lusty leaders in politics. The Europeans were quite berfuddled about why we were making a fuss over monica.
Can anyone say J-F-K?
The difference is that in those days, there was a bit of restraint in the press. Polirtical correspindents knew enough to report on just those things that were vital to the country.
Having said that, it would be interesting to think about how or if a woman president would be treated differently.
Maybe Hillary will both get back at Bill and proivide us a real world opportunity to see about it!
Posted by: Averroes at December 14, 2005 02:29 PM (jlOCy)
6
The point is, it was almost whiplash-inducing to watch feminists change their stance regarding power differences and consent in sexual situations--or at least carve out a hefty exception for sexist members of the Patriarchy who happened to favor abortion rights.
I can't remember where it was I read--maybe one of JeffG's long articles--about how Clinton may have singlehandedly undone a whole lot of what Anita Hill did. I don't know about that, but he certainly managed to expose a huge vein of hypocrisy.
Posted by: Desert Cat at December 14, 2005 05:54 PM (xdX36)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Breaking news
Banner on CNN.com -- Gov. Schwarzenegger denies clemency for Tookie Williams.
Posted by: Darleen Click at
12:41 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 15 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I've been ambivalent about this from the very beginning. On the one hand, as a Christian I believe in redemption--that there is a certain level at which it is possible to redeem oneself not through good works, but by grace. And good works provide evidence of grace.
On the other hand, I don't think it's the State's job to enforce my notions of grace, or to weigh someone's legacy of good and evil to determine his/her worth. The state is there to enforce the law.
Posted by: Attila Girl at December 12, 2005 05:13 PM (Japql)
2
And Jesus is not a "get out of jail free" card. It should be a comfort to know you've settled the score with the Almighty before the State zaps you into the hereafter, but nothing more.
Posted by: Desert Cat at December 12, 2005 11:04 PM (xdX36)
3
It is true that capital punishment is a political question. Yet Christians should be free to vote their case on their own morals.
And NO Christian can be in favor of the death penalty.
Does this shock you? And coming from a non-Christian, no less. Here is the argument....
You may have noticed some Christians wearing those WWJD bracelets. of course this stands for "what would jesus do?" The import is to ask oneself what jesus would do in any situation in order to try to discern the right, Cheristian thing to do.
With the death penalty, we don't need to speculate. We can ask instead what Jesus actually did. You know the story. jesus came upon a legal carrying out of the death penalty, fuylly formed under the law. What he proposed was that anyone without sin cast the first stone. It is reported that no stones were cast.
What does this mean? It does not mean that jesus was against the death penalty, of course. Elsewhere it is written that "Veangence is mine, sayeth the Lord." So we know that the death penalty is not forbidden. It simply muyst be carried out by someone without sin, someone like God himself.
So the Christian attitude would be to oppose a death penalty carried out by mere humans, ahnd leave such vengeance to the Lord.
I see no way for a Christian to avoid this concluwsion, and i find it quite amusing that those of the "turn the other cheek" religion should be so bent on killing people for their faults.
At this point, i usually get a series of bible quotes which can be read to support the death penalty, often from the old testament. What i find interesting is the effort these "christians" will go to justify their desire to see the death penalty carried out, all in the face of the clear example of their founder and leader, Jesus Christ.
But we DO live in the day of cafeteria Christianity.
Posted by: Averroes at December 14, 2005 02:47 PM (jlOCy)
4
Nice try, Averroes, but so very wrong.
Plenty of opportunities to speak out against the State taking a life in the Gospel story of the Crucifiction, but we get "Render to Caesar"...The State has every right to set the penalties, and Christians have every right to support them. The "Good Thief" said (parphrased) "I deserve what is happening to me, but surely you do not." Jesus said "I assure you this day you will be with me in Heaven." Note he didn't say "No one deserves this."
I say you are the one eating at the cafeteria. And thanks for the non-Christian view as to what Christians should believe. Maybe you can tell Buddhists what they should believe next. Care to try for Muslims?
Posted by: Darrell at December 16, 2005 08:30 AM (n8BVp)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 10, 2005
Richard Pryor - RIP
the groundbreaking comedian whose profanely personal insights into race relations and modern life made him one of Hollywood's biggest black stars, died of a heart attack Saturday. He was 65.*
However the rollercoast of his life and the ebb and flow of his career, Pryor was rock-solid funny, something a lot of flash-in-the-pan "comedians" put second to shock.
IIRC the first time I saw him was as a guest on The Glen Campbell show back about 1969 or 70. He was one of my faves of the show, along with another little known (at the time) comedian, George "Wonderful World of WINO" Carlin.
Posted by: Darleen Click at
03:51 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 111 words, total size 1 kb.
1
He proved profanity can be very funny. Those that followed have proven that profanity isn't enough, there is a certain amount of talent required as well.
Posted by: tommy at December 10, 2005 04:10 PM (Qmfgc)
2
tommy, i disagree, WADR.
I think what he proved, if anything, is that Richard Pryor was funny. He happened to be profane.
of course there ARE those who are immature enough to giggle anytime someone says 'cunt' or something. But a "cpomedian" who caters to that audience alone will find only a restricted career.
Posted by: Averroes at December 14, 2005 02:52 PM (jlOCy)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Dean screams the US is a loser,
Kerry says American troops are terrorists, Pelosi and Murtha call for immediate troop withdrawal starting Dec 16, but that's not what
concerns Democrats...Democratic colleagues see him [Lieberman] as undercutting their party's efforts to wrest control of Congress from the GOP next fall.
Ahh, they sure have their priorities straight, don't they?
Posted by: Darleen Click at
08:02 AM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
Post contains 63 words, total size 1 kb.
1
They're just showing their usual ability to cleary focus on their real problems.
Posted by: Janette at December 10, 2005 09:13 AM (OcgcA)
2
CNN did one good thing on December 9, and showed the Republican´s computer ad sent to millions of Bush supporters. With Howard Dean acting like the leader of the Democrats, he thinks he sets policy and has vision for the leftwingers. The truth is that everything Dean whines about will only become more ammunition to how pathetic the Democrats under his wing. Even Wolf Blitzer and Lou Dobbs mentioned how the Democrats are at war inside their own party, I would call it implodding. The leftwing-antiwar side with Pelosi and Kucin-itch are linked to Howar Dean. President Bush is correct to mention Senator Joe Lieberman as often as he can in speeches to remind the Democrats that until they understand voters will not support a pacifist or a weak president candidate, their party will continue to lose. Even Al Gore has become a shell of his own empty suit on the war issue, and he think screaming is the way to show passion. All it shows is anger and another reason our nation should count its blessings that Gore lost in 2000. Yes, GORE LOST. The election turmoil was headed to the House of Representatives, as happened to settle the dispute for Jefferson, and Rutherford B Hayes in 1876. With a clear Republican majority in the House elected in 2000, Bush was going to be our president. The Democrats are so full of anger they can not organized and unite, so let them wallow in their own confused and bitter debate. Maybe Howard Dean will get dumped in 2006 if the party wakes up to see him as hindering the party, not helping to build the party.
Posted by: Crystal Dueker at December 10, 2005 11:01 AM (F69Ii)
3
In today's Washington Post, an un-named Democratic leader is quoted as saying that Lieberman is out for himself rather than for the Party. The idea of a person being out for the *country* doesn't seem to even exist in their mental world.
Posted by: David Foster at December 10, 2005 12:07 PM (7TmYw)
4
Actually, Darleen, I have a contrarian view. yOU see, i am really old, and i remember when the two main political parties were not ideologically aligned, as they tend to be today. This meant that all ideeologies were represented in both parties.
If your district was conservative, for instance, you would get a choice between a Republican and a Democratic conservative. There would be some minor differences in presidential years according to platform, but mostly you would vote the man, or, more likely, the district would go the way it traditionally did.
Within the dealings of the backroom, politicians were much freer to stake out their own position. The party was much more of a fund-raising club which set uyp linkages to aid each others' elections, with the understanding that on at least the routine votes in Congress, party loyalty would count for something.
When i was young, I disliked this system as too political and not pure enough. The smoke-filled room and all. But now I see the defastation wrought by aligning the major parties with ideologies. It means that those outside the ideology are increasingly less welcome in the party, and the party is less open to new and/or different ideas.
Not only does a moderate liberal like Lieberman get spanked by this, but so does a moderate conservative like Spector.
We have also lost the old method for the adoption of extreme ideas, whereby they used to be adopted from one of the outlying minor parties by some fringe memnbers of the main parties. This was a safe way for America to slowly adopt ideas. Often they would be adopted at the state level first. the radical and predicted-to-be calamatous notion of females voting was adopted this way.
What i fiond sad is that we have lost the "let every voice sing out" notion of Democracy, rather to have two monolitihic parties attempt to speak as one voice each, stifling any other voices which might have some nuance.
It makes one olong for the old parties, fuoll of cigar smoke, but each full of a bubbling diversity.
Posted by: Averroes at December 10, 2005 02:17 PM (jlOCy)
5
Undercutting their party's efforts to wrest control of Congress from the GOP next fall.
Am I missing something? I don't see them having a prayer. In fact, the way things are going, it could be 2002 redux, where they buck every trend & lose seats. All they have to run on are hating Bush & higher taxes.
I don't agree the 2 parties are ideologically aligned. The Republican base is finally demanding spending & tax cuts from a spendthrift administration. The Democrats will always vote against tax & spending cuts on principle, because they see govt workers & people dependent on govt programs as their constituency. This is the only reason that oppose Social Security privatization.
Posted by: beautifulatrocities at December 10, 2005 04:10 PM (utjN+)
6
i remember when the two main political parties were not ideologically aligned, as they tend to be today. This meant that all ideeologies were represented in both parties.
Well, I'm
not "really old," but the fact is that ideology was the reason the party system first began to develop in this country back in the 1790s, and at every point in history where serious (glances around, sees no cuss jar) stuff was happening, the extant political parties of the day were in fact divided ideologically on how to deal with those issues.
Slavery? Reform? The League of Nations? The Great Depression?
If the only view one has of the major political parties is the local congressional campaign, particularly as they were fought prior to 1994 (and mostly since), it's easy to conclude there's not a dime's worth of difference.
But I wouldn't give a dime for the opinions of people who are so little informed.
Posted by: McGehee at December 11, 2005 06:01 AM (lAOTn)
7
The Republican party stood for civil rights to end the ownership of people by another group of people. Abraham Lincoln was able to pass the 13rd Amendment outlawing slavery and the 14th Amendment in 1866, as well as the 15th guaranteeing blacks the right to vote. That is standing up for something. Susan B Anthony also believed the Republican party provided the best path for women winning the right to vote nationwide. In fact, the first woman elected to Congress was a Republican Jeanette Rankin in 1916 from Montana. McKinley and Teddy Roosevelt have a longer history of support for women as full citizenship than Democrats as well. Warren G Harding was not the first person on the minds of Republicans to become the next president, it was his wife Francis in 1920. She helped create the League of Women Voters in Washington DC, and helped her husband with policy in the Senate. Imagine what our nation stood for in the 1920 election? With all female citizens of voting age winning the right in 1920 to vote in the upcoming election in November,, she refused to be considered and passed her support to her husband. Again, by efforts of Republcians standing up for the rights of women, that was something to stand for as well. And today, the best political party which welcomes me at the table is the Republicans. Even President Ford told reporters that he believed the first woman president would be a Republican. He prediction has more of a chance at coming true in 2008 than at any other time in our nation´s history. FDR and Truman stood for defending our nation from enemy forces, and that is why the Democrats today are seen as WIMPS and PACIFISTS. Kerry, Howard Dean, Pelosi and Barbara Boxer do not show strength or power, only complaining and only naysaying. The political parties of today are not monolithic, they have stand for different issues. Only the non-political would ever link the GOP with the Dems, ever ever ever. That is my two cents for today.
Posted by: Crystal Dueker at December 11, 2005 01:07 PM (F69Ii)
8
It's an interesting question: when are we going to be pragmatic enough to align with others and try to get things done? When is it pivotal to stand up for a principle? Which issues are so important, they cannot be compromised upon?
That's why I don't use the word "Rino." First of all, given my socially "liberal" perspective, I can be accused of being one myself. Secondly, it's not useful: each individual gets to decide what is so important to him/her that he/she is willing to break with the party on that particular point.
For instance, I don't assume that John McCain has no principles when it comes to gun control. I merely think he's a northeastern guy in a southwestern state, and honestly doesn't understand how important the second amendment is. (Pardon my stereotyping: I mean "northeastern" like Massachusetts, rather than Vermont). But when it comes to first amendment issues, I really expect any American--especially one with an "R" after his name--to understand how paramount they are. Hence, my assertion that McCain is a constitution-shredder, and my sympathy to the viewpoint that he's hooked on MSM attention and needs to go into detox.
In Lieberman's case, he thinks there's something to be said for the idea that a muscular defense will help to keep us safe in a dangerous world. Not a shocking idea, and certainly one any JFK Democrat should comprehend.
Of course, I have an easier time trusting Lieberman's ethical foundation vs. Hillary's, so I'm more likely to see his "centrism" as a case of standing up for principle vs. putting on a veneer in order to run for President in 08.
Posted by: Attila Girl at December 11, 2005 10:27 PM (Japql)
9
beautiful atrocities: "I don't agree the 2 parties are ideologically aligned."
Really? let me goive you some facts that support the notion:
The Republican base is finally demanding spending & tax cuts from a spendthrift administration. The Democrats will always vote against tax & spending cuts on principle, because they see govt workers & people dependent on govt programs as their constituency. This is the only reason that oppose Social Security privatization.
Add to this that it is nearly impossible for a "pro-choice" candidate to get the presidential Republican nod, nor for a "pro-life" candidate to get the Democraitc presidential nod.
That's what we meand by ideologically aligned.
The present primary system skews both party's candidates toward the ideological base.
Of course you allude to the fact that the current president was elected by a socially conservative base, but is continuing the liberalism of proior presidents. And the ideological base has revolted.
Take Harriet Miers.
Posted by: Averroes at December 14, 2005 03:04 PM (jlOCy)
10
McGehee: "Well, I'm not "really old," but the fact is that ideology was the reason the party system first began to develop in this country back in the 1790s, and at every point in history where serious (glances around, sees no cuss jar) stuff was happening, the extant political parties of the day were in fact divided ideologically on how to deal with those issues.
Slavery? Reform? The League of Nations? The Great Depression?"
It is true that political parties tend to be formed around ideology, and around one that is opposed to those championed by extant parties. But i did not claim to be so old that i would be referring to the 1790s. I'm sorry if you misunderstood that point.
But i am so old that i remember when both parties had liberals, moderates, and conservatives. The Republicans, for instance, had Nelson Rockefellar and Jacob Javits while the Democrats had Strom Thurmond. Here in oregon, the liberal union friendly laws and the extreme environmentalism were pushed by Republicans. (Coors beer could not be sold here for many years because it was non-union. There are no private beaches in Oregon, and all must be available to the public.) Much of this was pushed by Republican governor Tom McCall. He was resonsible for the country's first bottle bill, and a very restrictive land planning law.)
There is a reason that FDR refused to back the anti-lynching legislation proposed by some in congress, and which his wife pushed in a series of speeches across the country.
As for Lincoln, you should realize that he was a great politician. When he was pressed to free the laves, he said that he was in business to save the union, and he would free the slaves only if that wold help save the union, and that he would refuse to do so if that would help save the nation. Remember that his Emancipation Proclamation did not apply to four states in the north which allowed slave holding, such as Delaware.
It is always easy to pick out one or two issues around which national pary platforms differ. This is even necessary to identification of the party. But in history, politicians have been pragmatists. Read sometime, if you will, about LBJ's magnificent effort to pass the 1957 Civil Rights Act, which ultimately hinged on his making promises and twisting arms.
When the 1964 Civil Rights ACt came up for vote, the parties split, as one might expect at that time. Goldwater, who favored the ends of the qct, voted against it because he thought that it eroded states rights. This was a tough decision for a man who had desegreated the Arizona Air national Guard, an act not popular in Arizona.
It was later in the 60s that the parties first started to become more ideologically aligned. that is when many southern Democrats moved to the Republican party in line with Nixon's "southern strategy."
There is no question, young man, thayt nowadays, one can more accurately call the Republicans the conservative party and the Democrats the liberal party than 40 or 50 years ago. You might become better informed about these matters, son.
"If the only view one has of the major political parties is the local congressional campaign, particularly as they were fought prior to 1994 (and mostly since), it's easy to conclude there's not a dime's worth of difference."
Of course, that was not my argument. there have always been differences. And you MIGHT ponder the truth pof the old saw that all politics is local.
My point is that in the old days, the candidates' views tended to reflect those of the voters, NOT some ideology endorsed by the national party. for instance, in 1965 both main parties had al spectrums of people for or against civil rights for Blacks. If you made your voite contingent on your view of this issue, you could not simply rely on the national party platform. Today, on the red-button issues, you are much more likely to be able to do so.
Of course, i must caustion that i am speaking in general terms. There are now, and were then, people and issues which counter the generality. My argument is that the generality that the parties are more ideological now is more true to day then it was 50 years ago.
if you have evidence for the contrary, please bring it. Otherwise you are merely expressing uninformed opinion.
btw, this is not uncommon in the young. on another board a few months ago, a young person (that means under 40) asserted that "the sixties were the heyday of conservatism." He based this on the fact of the Vietnam War. interestingly, my grandfather, who dabbled in conservative politics at the time, and was a Republican, told anyone who would listen that Vietnam was "none of our business," and that that war was another example of the old axiom that the Democrats stood for "taxes, spending, and war."
I would like to note that the 1994 congressional elections were a unique event in our history. One party, the Republicans, listed a number of specific things they would do if elected. they got most tf their party's candidates to sign on to the whole list. And when they were elceted, they actually followed through on the promise! of course, this entrenched the ideology in the party.
This can be contrasted with Wilson running on "he kept yus out of war," FDR crisscrossing the country in support of Democratic candidates in 1938 promising that "so long as I am president, no American boy will die in a war on foreign soil," or, for that matter, a more conservative Bush running for president saying that America "should not be in the nation-building business."
I would say that the social conservatives now hold the Republicans by the scrotum. But i would also note that Bush has been as liberal a president as anyone in modern times, and Congressional Republicans, for the most part, have followed him.
For my money, if you are looking for conservatives in Congress, you will find very few. Anyone for Texas Congressman Ron Paul for president?
I believe even Atailla the Little miss could support him. Rather than those suddenly liberal congressman and senators who supported bush's liberal education program, his medicare addition (when any conservative knows that Midecare is more likely to knock us from the list of powerful nations than China), his "bear any burden, pay any price in defense of liberty" globe-trotting.
You see, the first duty of those in power is to consolidate their power. And due to the liberal governments of the past 70 years, that has come to mean consolidating power in the federal government, and then using it.
Posted by: Averroes at December 14, 2005 04:03 PM (jlOCy)
11
Crystal: " Even President Ford told reporters that he believed the first woman president would be a Republican."
Wm. F. Buckley predicted this in 1965. Unfortunately, he thought it would happen by 2000.
"FDR and Truman stood for defending our nation from enemy forces, and that is why the Democrats today are seen as WIMPS and PACIFISTS."
Traditionally, , before FDR, defense meant defense, and was rallied in response to some perceived threat. The classic liberals (not to be confused with FDR liberals) who founded the c ountry were mainly isolationists, ;ike their descendents, the Libertarians, who had to take a new name when FDR stole the 'loberal' tag. Conservatives tended to be isolationists except 3hen business was concerned. one thinks of Commodore Perry steaming into Japan in 1854, not to take the country, not to take land, not to subjugate the people, not to expand an empire, but to open the markets of japan to American trade. this is a conservative act. Remember, conservatives could say, at one time, in good conscious, "what's good for GM is good for America."
(FDR) liberals have always thought that the roile of government was to do good, here and abroad. But the Vietnam war made many of them reconsider military force as an option for doing this.
btw, during WWII, the opposition to the war and naysaying came from Republicans. there are certain duties of a party out of power. But it has usually been true in the past that such opposition "ends at the border."
You see, the question with the present military action is that whether it was defensive is in question. That usually gets lost in the name-calling.
Posted by: Averroes at December 14, 2005 04:19 PM (jlOCy)
12
Attila: "In Lieberman's case, he thinks there's something to be said for the idea that a muscular defense will help to keep us safe in a dangerous world. Not a shocking idea, and certainly one any JFK Democrat should comprehend."
The simple history is that when the "wimp liberals" took over the Democratic party (the wimp liberals being those who wanted to categorically reyule out the use of military might to do good in the world), the JFK-FDR-LBJ-HHH-Scoop Jackson liberals drifted out of the party. They have long since (we are in the second generation) joined the Republican party, and now call themselves "neocons." The "paleocons" are much closer to the old fashioned conservatives who used to inhabit both parties.
"I merely think [McCain's] a northeastern guy in a southwestern state, and honestly doesn't understand how important the second amendment is." You should write separately on this subject. Preview: I have never met an argument for the unrestricted use of firearmns based on the second amendment that didn't apply equally well to all weapons. I'm partial to WWII-era flamethrowers, myself.
"Of course, I have an easier time trusting Lieberman's ethical foundation vs. Hillary's, so I'm more likely to see his "centrism" as a case of standing up for principle vs. putting on a veneer in order to run for President in 08."
Y9ou see, back when i was young, no one would think that any politician would "stand on principle." it was understood that those with principles would not last in p0litics, that compromise was necessary to be effective.
WE tried to vote in those we thought would be most likely tpo push the programs we the voiters wanted. We thopught those who ran on principles suspoect, unlikely to do as the voter wanted in crunch time.
Posted by: Averroes at December 14, 2005 04:31 PM (jlOCy)
13
yamknrfkdwrurebhuomfljgjbzodaeyldfttgifvm
link http://uywwph.jhdrxgo.com
Posted by: iqkwy at December 25, 2005 06:51 PM (qQS/K)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 09, 2005
why it's dangerous
to describe the institution of marriage as a
"right"
Posted by: Darleen Click at
01:07 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 15 words, total size 1 kb.
1
If you're really going to impersonate Attila, Darlene, you'll need to start some blogwars while she's away. Start with Pamela from Atlas Shrugs
Posted by: beautifulatrocities at December 09, 2005 03:34 PM (efIqP)
2
Those are peculiar folk. A group of them won a construction contract with my company a few years ago. My creep meter was always way over in the red when dealing with them.
Posted by: Desert Cat at December 09, 2005 04:00 PM (B2X7i)
3
I'm pretty much "live and let live" with those little sects, but it
is society's business when they start marrying underage girls.
When it comes to that, infiltrate. As I see it, that will force them to conclude that if they want society out of their hair, they'll have to wait until the girls are old enough to give meaningful consent.
And DC is right: they're all over the southwest, especially in AZ and NM.
Posted by: Attila Girl at December 10, 2005 12:42 AM (Japql)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
and good will towards men
"... a crass product of merchandised morality from Disney and Walden Media, a media company owned by Christian evangelist billionaire Philip Anschutz. ... In keeping to a PG rating, not to mention placating his Christian paymasters, Adamson makes war seem a pretty bloodless and painless affair
*"
"... DEATH to Christmas!!!!*"
"...You oppressed them, so give a part of Europe to the Zionist regime so they can establish any government they want ... Why do they insist on imposing themselves on other powers and creating a tumour so there is always tension and conflict?*"
"... When it comes to pushing the multicultural, anti-Christian agenda, you find Jewish judges, Jewish journalists, and the American Civil Liberties Union, at the forefront ... It is the ACLU, which is overwhelmingly Jewish in terms of membership and funding, that is leading the attack against Christianity in America.*"
Posted by: Darleen Click at
12:49 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 153 words, total size 1 kb.
December 08, 2005
Fun Times Packing with Attila Girl
Joy: Are you panicking?
Attila the Hub [blandly]: Sure.
Five minutes later:
Joy: Are you still panicking?
Attila the Hub: No. I stopped.
Joy: Well start up again! If you respected me, you'd panic. At least make yourself useful, and try to figure out what I'm going to forget, so I can remember it!
Posted by: Attila Girl at
07:50 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 66 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Heh heh. I drive Daisycat completely bonkers with my travel nerves.
Posted by: Desert Cat at December 08, 2005 09:26 PM (xdX36)
2
Did he say yet, "Hey, I'm already packed." That always brings the stress to a new level. Our only possible redemption as men is that we usually have to do most of the driving.
Posted by: karl4hand at December 09, 2005 08:30 AM (guLWn)
3
How do we know this is REALLY Attila & not that sinister Darleen impersonating her? Maybe she has the real Attila locked up like Stephanie Powers in Die! Die! My Darling!
Attila, if you need help, send a coded message
Posted by: beautifulatrocities at December 09, 2005 10:11 AM (efIqP)
4
I'm fine. I'm here in Honolulu with Attila the Hub. The Leukemia and Lymphoma Society apparently has some sort of "in" with the Hilton people, so we're in a ridiculously nice tower right over a lagoon, with a view of the ocean and some of the Hawaii high-rises. It feels like our show business days all over again, but has nothing to do with the entertainment industry this time around.
That's the good news. The bad news is, I haven't seen Jack Lord yet, so there's no word at all on whether his hair moved, as Tuff Muffin* might have remarked back in the 80s.
Naturally, I
was awake all night last night, so I'm going to noodle around for a few months until I fall fast asleep and sleep forever.
Tomorrow is the carbo-loading party before the marathon, and I plan to wear those cork platforms you're so fond of.
* Spoken word artist; check the old Rino Records spoken word collections. Google doesn't appear to have much on her, unfortunately.
Posted by: Attila Girl at December 10, 2005 12:36 AM (Japql)
5
I meant "a few minutes." See how sleep-deprived I was?
Posted by: Attila Girl at December 10, 2005 11:12 AM (Japql)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Oh, Yes.
Darleen's on duty, I see. Cool.
I'll be leaving tomorrow morning at an obscenely early hour and flying to Hawaii to accompany my husband to a charity fundraising event for a few days.
If anyone has on-the-ground information about the weather conditions in Honolulu, let me know. Otherwise, I'm just going to pretend that I'm going to the East Coast in the summertime (that exotic humidity thing), but I'm taking a jacket in case the wind off the sea chills my thin California blood.
I might check in one more time before we head out, but I'm going to try not to make this another "pre-trip all-nighter," so we'll see. And naturally, I'll at least try to say hello from the land of Five-O. I'll be pretty busy out there, however—and I know you're in good hands.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
04:21 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 141 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Rub it in why don't ya. Sitting here in MT with my sweat pants and sweater on looking at the outside thermometer which reads -9.
Posted by: Jack at December 08, 2005 05:33 PM (y2XSw)
2
Aloha! Twenty-some years ago, when I was a young Marine, I was stationed in HI. As I recall, you may get some rain this time of year, but what the hell; you're in paradise so what does it matter if it rains? Have a great trip.
Posted by: Alex at December 08, 2005 06:19 PM (D5tns)
3
Oh warm, pleasant, 24/7. Don't forget that the sea that chills your blood in CA is a very cold current from Alaska. Hawaii is not subject to that same current.
I was there in January a couple of years ago and got very used to it never dropping below 70. When we landed in LAX on the way back, the 50 degrees was quite a shock.
Posted by: Desert Cat at December 08, 2005 07:06 PM (xdX36)
4
Okay. I guess I should think of a cross between Florida and the San Fernando Valley.
Posted by: Attila Girl at December 08, 2005 07:46 PM (zZMVu)
5
Trying to force myself to have some sort of empathy -- or sympathy. We just got 6 inches of snow. It warmed up to 15 F today.
Posted by: karl4hand at December 09, 2005 08:26 AM (guLWn)
Posted by: Ian Wood at December 10, 2005 11:46 AM (HiM0x)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Lennon - wither or not?
Little Miss Attila is going to be taking a few days off and has asked me to keep her spot warm... chase out the dustbunnies, alphabetize the cd's ...
Actually I'm going to see what booze she keeps in the cupboards and what magazines are tucked waaaay back in the closet.
In the mean time, let's discuss the 25th anniversary of John Lennon's death and the legacy of The Beatles. I confess, I'm a bit agnostic about the Beatles. I was in jr high at the height of their popularity, but I wasn't a fan. Yes, I liked much of their music, some of the popular tunes have passed into classics; however, I can't really read so tedious a piece of writing without wondering if either I'm missing something or if once the full-of-itself Baby Boom generation passes into oblivion, so will go The Beatles. I do like the music but stuff like this makes me shake my head:
Nobody ever pushed the possibilities of rock & roll like John Lennon, and nobody in the music's history has really mattered as much. [...]
He was also self-important enough to believe that he could wrestle with the times he lived in and make a difference -- and the difference he made was immense. [...]
when Lennon applied his hurt and vitriol to his music, the result was transcendent. [...]
The man wrote
pop music. Much of it good, a handful of great.
Two hundreds year later and much of Beetoven's work is widely recognizable. Sixty years plus hasn't faded swing. Where will the Beatles' work stand in 2163?
Posted by: Darleen Click at
01:05 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 273 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Just rent I Wanna Hold Your Hand, early Spielberg/Zemeckis comic gem about Beatlemania. With the divine Wendy Jo Spurber - who just passed away - as a demented Beatles fan who at one point leaps from a moving car to call a radio contest for Ed Sullivan tickets.
Posted by: beautifulatrocities at December 08, 2005 03:10 PM (nlR0R)
2
I had heard she was sick. Hadn't heard she'd passed away. What a shame.
Bosom Buddies castmember too, if I'm remembering correctly.
Posted by: Jeff G at December 08, 2005 04:49 PM (58QEf)
3
I think the whole Beatles phenomenon was to some degree a case of "right place, right time." But Lennon and McCartney did have a kind of genius: part of the genius, however, was the way their minds worked together. McCarney supplied the hooks and the yin; Lennon gave us the wierdness and the yang.
One can make an argument that it didn't have to be George, or Ringo--any superb guitarist, any stellar drummer would have sufficed. I don't really believe that, but let's pretend I do. No matter what, there's no way to pry Lennon away from McCartney or McCartney away from Lennon and still claim the level of genius (yes, I think the word applies) would have been the same.
And I think the songs are classics, just like Beethoven, Chopin and Bach. We'll be hearing the best of their melodies forever in various forms--and interpreted different ways.
Posted by: Attila Girl at December 08, 2005 06:28 PM (zZMVu)
4
I don't see how you could ever have that kind of revolution again, because the music world is too fractured. In England, the New Wave mania of 77-79 was similar, but it was too raw for corporate US rock stations
(Did you know that for a brief shining moment, KFI playlisted the Ramones & the Sex Pistols?? This was at the same time the old dinosaur station KMET sniffed 'We DON'T play punk'. They were soon gone.)
Posted by: beautifulatrocities at December 09, 2005 10:09 AM (efIqP)
5
2163? That would be 200 years after the fact, not 60. In 2163, I'm sure there will still be people like you, unfazed and unmoved by the music Lennon and The Beatles gave the world. Of course, they'll be outnumbered by even more happy Beatle fans...
I'm sure Lennon would have plenty to say about the worship and adulation surrounding his name these days. I'm also sure it wouldn't be pretty. As annoying as crying hippies sitting in Central Park with their guitars might seem in 2005, they're not nearly as laughable as writers who dismiss the Beatles with statements amounting to, "I'm so smart, I was above calling myself a fan even in Jr. High".
Posted by: gcarlston at December 09, 2005 11:41 AM (5wunS)
6
gc
I had a few friends who were the swooning, obsessed fans of the Beatles, playing the music over and over, dominating long conversations that consisted mostly of "Who is cuter? Paul or John?"
I was never that gaagaa over any musical
group, and my taste ran more Doors than Beatles.
So where does my agnosticism translate into "I'm so smart" that you charge?
A little hostile, eh?
PS I did mention Beetoven's work -- you know, the long haired dude writing about
200 years ago?
Posted by: Darleen at December 09, 2005 12:21 PM (FgfaV)
7
Here's how to rattle the cage of a classical music fan: when someone mentions Beethoven's name, knit your forehead and say, "Oh, right--didn't he do that "A Fifth of Beethoven" song?"
Wait for the fireworks.
Posted by: Attila Girl at December 11, 2005 01:39 AM (Japql)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 07, 2005
So Where's My Effin' Cut?
Apparently, there's reason to think we're all
on the take. If we are, I hope I get my check soon, since the rainy season is starting and I need new tires.
I'm ready, eager, and willing to sell out. I just need a buyer.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
04:49 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 54 words, total size 1 kb.
1
So who's Tony Pierce that I should care?
Posted by: Desert Cat at December 07, 2005 05:48 PM (xdX36)
2
Sounds like Tony is pimping for Howard the Coward Dean.
Posted by: Darleen at December 07, 2005 06:23 PM (FgfaV)
3
Let me fill you in. Tony Pierce is another Leftist a-hole misrepresenting the facts. Unlike US 'journalists', Iraqi journalists can be bribed to tell the truth.
Posted by: Darrell at December 07, 2005 09:05 PM (gtYOU)
4
Sorry, DC. I just thought it was such a hilarious idea--and exactly 180 degrees away from reality. (After all, the bloggers who've gotten busted for non-disclosure of income streams that led to possible conflicts-of-interest were all on the left.)
Posted by: Attila Girl at December 07, 2005 09:29 PM (zZMVu)
5
I meant that as a tweak at him.
Posted by: Desert Cat at December 08, 2005 11:02 AM (B2X7i)
6
My challenge to the LEFT. Make one intelligent point that communicates your stance without criticiizing someone else. Just simply state one simple statement that states what you are about and fighting for without criticizing someone else. Atilla, why don't you post this as a blog?
Posted by: karl4hand at December 08, 2005 12:37 PM (guLWn)
7
I'm often taken aback at the moral dimension lefties usually bring to political discussion, and in fact to every aspect of life. I assume the chain of connections is thus:
They are convinced of their own innate decency and ethical purity.
Their way of thinking is not only self evidently correct but is an outgrowth of that decency and ethical purity.
Therefore it is not possible for a decent person of ethical purity to disagree with their ideas. Disagreement with an ideas is therefore an attack on the person's decency and ethical purity, and is ipso facto evidence of a complete lack of either.
Now I have no idea where this kind of arrogance and intolerance springs from. But it enables decent persons of tolerance and diversity to key cars with W stickers, to vandalize property with Bush signs, to engage in forgery and slander and election fraud with a clear conscience. It also is why I will not discuss politics with anyone who opposes my viewpoint because it all too often degenrates into a string of ad hominem attacks on my stupidity, greed, and bad character.
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at December 08, 2005 06:04 PM (eguza)
8
I'm lucky, of course: 1) a lot of my friends, though lefties, have known me since I was myself a raging socialist. So they (reluctantly) concede that I'm whip-smart (though colorful and deluded).
And: 2) there have always been a few stubborn libertarian types in my crowd. It just happens that I'm the one carrying on that tradition at the moment (the others having wimped out in one way or another--sorry, guys!).
Posted by: Attila Girl at December 08, 2005 06:33 PM (zZMVu)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Shot Fired by an Air Marshall
Apparently
someone claimed to have a bomb, and this led to the Air Marshall discharging his weapon. At least one person injured.
UPDATE: Not injured. Killed. What a horrible business: having to shoot a man who might just be mentally ill in order to protect other people's lives. Awful. I feel for this poor woman. Of course, if my spouse were mentally ill I wouldn't let him/her near an airplane without his/her meds; flying is stressful even in the absence of a bipolar condition. But we don't know the dynamics of their marriage, and in any event it's an awesome and terrible thing.
Via Goldstein.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
12:14 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 117 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I looked on the Weblog Awards site for a "most broken links" category, but didn't find one...
Posted by: Desert Cat at December 07, 2005 05:41 PM (xdX36)
2
Okay. This time I really did "LOL."
Posted by: Attila Girl at December 07, 2005 09:30 PM (zZMVu)
3
It's your link to Goldstein this time.
Posted by: Desert Cat at December 08, 2005 11:08 AM (B2X7i)
4
Thanks. Definitely spacier than usual this week: I'm leaving town tomorrow morning, and have jillions—jillions!—of things to do.
Posted by: Attila Girl at December 08, 2005 01:11 PM (zZMVu)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The Movie Industry: A Light at the End of the Tunnel?
Ed Driscoll interviews Breitbart, and
presents his thoughts on why non-leftist filmmakers might save Hollywood from itself. But it sounds like he regards it as a bittersweet propsition that might "Balkanize" the flim industry.
He may not realize just how much of a scarlet letter openly conservative filmmakers are wearing. And even those who are not "out" still have to avoid discussing politics with their colleagues, who at the very least begin to regard them as "odd," and become less enthusiastic about working with them. Naturally, the taboo about libertarian/conservative viewpoints increases the degree to which actors are insulated from any viewpoint that might smack of a "redstate" perspective.
In L.A. there is often very little desire to find out what different intellectual angles might be on political topics. And this is killing the legacy media, film, and television. Other than that, of course, it's all working out fine.
(h/t: Glenn.)
Posted by: Attila Girl at
01:07 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 173 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Yes, we don't want the industry becoming "Rush Limbaugh" films vs "Air America" films....So let's keep just making "Air America" films! Makes sense! Sounds fair. Let's just "bomb" Hollywood back to the stone age...one "bomb at a time! What if they made "Syriana" and no one saw it?
Posted by: Darrell at December 07, 2005 11:36 AM (y1mG+)
2
You think someone might watch that?
Posted by: Attila Girl at December 07, 2005 12:58 PM (zZMVu)
3
Not me!
What is the price of oil? One crappy movie after another!
Posted by: Darrell at December 07, 2005 03:23 PM (z29ab)
4
The market will take care of things.
Posted by: beautifulatrocities at December 07, 2005 04:43 PM (+k8oU)
5
That, and ever-cheaper movie technology.
Posted by: Attila Girl at December 07, 2005 04:45 PM (zZMVu)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
122kb generated in CPU 0.1233, elapsed 0.2713 seconds.
226 queries taking 0.2012 seconds, 594 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.