. . . that Durbin tried really hard to figure it all out.

Posted by: Attila at 02:32 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 21 words, total size 1 kb.

My birthday is in nine days, so I think I'll let those of you who care to know about that.

My PayPal button is to the left, and my amazon wishlist is here.

In addition, the Attila Hub and I could use some more military history, like the DVD of Band of Brothers (we've worn out the VHS). We also don't have a copy of Ken Burns' series on the Civil War, or any of those great specials on the founding fathers (Ben Franklin being a special favorite).

We always watch a lot of war around this time of year, starting with The American Revolution and going forward.

K. is permitted to send me fresh mangoes, and nothing else.

Thank you for your patience, and, yes: I know I'm a spoiled brat.

UPDATE: Attila Hub informs me that we do have that cool War of 1812 special, so I've deleted it above. We also have that one on the French Revolution, which is fun (abeit a little gory). So we may be alright for a couple of months. But I will be Jonesing for Band of Brothers soon.

Someday I'll stop embarrassing him, but I don't think today is that day.

Posted by: Attila at 02:19 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 209 words, total size 1 kb.

The long-awaited fourth installment of this week's Cotillion went up a little late, due to technical difficulties. Go ahead and catch it here. Now you have links to carry you through the end of the week! Plus nice pix of pinup girls!

Posted by: Attila at 09:11 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 48 words, total size 1 kb.

When I heard about Abu Ghraib, I thought it was a few isolated incidents. And I winked at Gitmo's abuses, because, well—detainees there are rumored to actually gain weight before they leave.

But prison ships; I hadn't heard of these being used since the revolutionary War, when thousands of privateers were held in squalor in New York Harbor by the British. It's inhumane, and I just don't know if I can go on making excuses for this kind of thing.

This could be a turning point for me.

Posted by: Attila at 11:35 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 94 words, total size 1 kb.

. . . I'm more and more in awe of Mark Steyn. How can one man stay right on top of politics in the U.S., Canada, England, and Europe in general all at the same time?

I had a boyfriend who used to refer to Isaac Asimov as "the Asimov brothers." That's how I feel about Steyn, who is always just brilliant—whether I agree with him or not. He's a top-notch writer and a top-notch thinker.

In his latest Right Wing News Interview with John Hawkins, Steyn discusses his favorite—excuse me, favourite—bloggers, reserving his highest accolades for Canada's Kate McMillan, who is indeed one of the very best out there.

Needless to say, we were all button-busting proud at the Cotillion.

Posted by: Attila at 11:18 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 129 words, total size 1 kb.

. . . and check out the Andrew Sullivan freak-out advisory on my left sidebar. I'll have to pop over and see what the poor dear is waxing emotional about.

Posted by: Attila at 10:06 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 34 words, total size 1 kb.

. . . has a thing or two to say about the "caveman element" within the California GOP.

A lot of us share this feeling: both parties in the Golden State are controlled by their extreme wings. It benefits no one.

A lot of people like to point to Reagan as a genuine conservative. He was one. But he wasn't anti-gay, and he discussed immigration issues without coming across as racist. We need someone positive, who can truly appeal to disaffected Democrats. Arnold is a start, but he's one guy, and we need more people to do the work in the most populated state of the union.

Posted by: Attila at 09:47 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 111 words, total size 1 kb.

. . . has a jolly little story about monkeys. Even better: the story is "found art" from his in-box.

Posted by: Attila at 09:36 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 24 words, total size 1 kb.

here about the "chickenhawk meme," and how morally and logically bankrupt it is.

Everyone's quoting Hitchens, who slices the meme into ribbons.

Goldstein would like us in the 'sphre to put an end to this "chickenhawk" bullshit once and for all.

Do, let's.

Posted by: Attila at 05:47 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 47 words, total size 1 kb.

Please.

Posted by: Attila at 04:34 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 11 words, total size 1 kb.

I'm sorry, Laurence. I know it's tough, and you'll be in my thoughts over the next few days.

I'm afraid I just didn't realize how serious this was. Not at all. I thought she just had a kitty infection.

But, please: I love "Ask the Cats." Check in with the other kitties in a few weeks and see if they want to continue: maybe in a vertical "stacked format" or something like that. Don't be hasty! What would Arafat do? (Oh, wait.)

Posted by: Attila at 02:25 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 86 words, total size 1 kb.

Holy fucking shit.

I'll believe it when they ditch the airhead for a chick sporting a brain. (See post below.)

Posted by: Attila at 12:17 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 32 words, total size 1 kb.

Delivered the ultimate smackdown to Maureen Dowd in NRO.

Dowd's relentless shallowness and silliness are her most obvious crimes against readers. And because she's the only woman with a plum twice-a-week spot on the New York Times op-page, the tacit and insulting message she gives off is that female political thinkers can't be expected to actually think. Sometimes when she's skittering around, like a water-beetle on a pond's surface, Dowd happens upon a notion she likes a lot. But rather than develop it into an actual argument, she just repeats it endlessly, like an eight-year-old with a knock-knock joke.

That's it: the editors of the New York Times are convinced that women can be brilliant thinkers. So much so, they give the prime space to an airhead. But because most of her readers agree with the general notions floating around in her columns, they haven't noticed that the Empress is a nude, ditzy chick.

Via Decision '08, who shares his own views on what a jackass Dowd is.

Posted by: Attila at 12:08 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 172 words, total size 1 kb.

If a close friend of yours confided in you that he/she was homosexual, what would you do?

a) try and get him/her into counseling that will "cure" the problem;

b) renounce the friendship;

c) kick him/her out of your church;

d) pray for him/her;

e) tell this person that despite your conviction that homosexuality is a sin/character flaw, you still care about him/her, and always will.

Posted by: Attila at 11:38 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 78 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I don't think you have to do anything. S/he has not asked you to do anything, has s/he? Unless, homosexuality announced, your friend insists on changing your friendship, for instance, to include homosexual sex with you (I am assuming, here), I don't see how your relationship has changed. I make a distinction between persons and institutions. Candidly, I don't care what people do with their bodies sexually, within quite wide limits of agreement and nonviolence. But I do care about social institutions. So I can and do argue that some kinds of social institutions are socially unwise (e.g., homosexual marriage). I guess this philosophy qualifies as libertarian conservatism, sort of.

Posted by: Iam Doubt at June 29, 2005 10:36 AM (Wrk9m)

2 How about civil unions that confer the same legal benefits?

Posted by: Attila Girl at June 29, 2005 12:20 PM (RGWNz)

3 Tell them I still love them but let them no in no uncertain terms that their choice of the gay lifestyle is dangerous and wrong and that I cannot ever condone such behavior. I would say the same thing to someone who told me they were a committed adulterer or gambler or boozer......I still love you but disagree with your lifestyle!!

Posted by: Albertanator at June 29, 2005 02:42 PM (Uagor)

4 The correct answer for every Christian should be "Both D and E!" Who is beyond redemption? Who doesn't need it? We are ALL sinners, so who's place is it to say that Gays are beneath you? Not you! Good question!

Posted by: Ranten. N. Raven at June 29, 2005 07:14 PM (xW3rR)

5 Albertanator, you beat me to the punch. Try plugging another issue into the above options a-e, in place of homosexual/homosexuality, and see how the option sounds. Such as g@mbling addict/g@mbling addiction? Adulterer/adultery? Alcoholic/alcoholism? Pedophile/pedophilia? If you really are a friend, the answers will run similar. It is just the high emotional charge to the question of homosexuality that makes the above list sound somewhat like the "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" question. Of course the above substitution suggestion will run against the grain of those who insist that is simply the way they are born, that it is genetic and not a lifestyle choice. Who knows, maybe they are right? I don't know. But I do know that I was born to a long line of alcoholics on my dad's side, all of whom died quite young. My dad broke the curse, and I am free too. But if I wasn't I could certainly point to my Irish blood as the root cause. Would I be right to do so? Can I get a pass for my tendency (*ahem*) toward a hot temper for the same reason? I really was born this way. Personally my response would be different depending upon whether this friend was a fellow believer or someone outside the Body. If he/she is not a believer, it's not really a question of doing anything. You don't "fix people up" so they can get saved. That's getting the cart before the horse in a big and ugly way. D would certainly apply in either case, and if I really did give a serious damn, and they are a brother/sister in Christ, it would be unloving and wrong of me for E not to eventually come up.

Posted by: Desert Cat at June 29, 2005 08:22 PM (xdX36)

6 I belong to a Church that believes homosexuals are, essentially, called to a life of celibacy. Dennis Prager doesn't think that, but he does think they are generally called to a childless life. (Though he and I agree that heterosexual couples should be first in the adoption line, I do see homosexual couples as a big step up from single parents.) I just don't know whether I see celibacy as a realistic lifetime option for most gay people. That's a heavy thing for civil society to demand. Compulsive behaviors such as addictions hurt the person practicing them, and usually their families and friends. Pedophilia hurts children, and therefore can never be condoned by a responsible society, much as we might feel for those who are trapped in it (when we're not fantasizing about doing them physical violence if they've ever acted out on this obsession). But I'd truly like to know what everyone thinks. There will be a follow-up question, of course, next week.

Posted by: Attila Girl at June 29, 2005 09:25 PM (RGWNz)

7 Celibacy is certainly the option that Catholic priests and nuns choose. If it is not a realistic option, then are you suggesting that at some level, compulsive behavior is involved?

Posted by: Desert Cat at June 30, 2005 08:30 AM (xdX36)

8 I said it was a heavy thing for civil society to demand--not necessarily for a church to demand. The desire for sexual expression and human companionship is a very deep one. My mate fits the social conventions: he's male, I'm female, we can get married and live as a couple without raising any eyebrows. My friend B. lives with a man. Their relationship appears every bit as strong and fulfilling as mine. I'm not positive my Lord would think that such a bad thing, after all. I'd certainly rather that my gay friends look for fulfilling relationships, versus ending up at gay bars. Surely for all of us at one point or another, the sex drive feels like an imperative: that isn't "compulsion." It's biology.

Posted by: Attila Girl at June 30, 2005 09:02 AM (RGWNz)

9 And I left out of my comment the distinction I make between the Body life and civil society, which I assumed you'd understand. (So technically I'm not much of a SoCon anyway...) When I was young and single I used to struggle with the idea that fornication would be frowned upon by my Lord. Surely he knew the needs I had--he himself had made me with those needs after all. And it was only right and natural and beautiful that I should fulfill those needs with someone that I cared for. Surely this couldn't be wrong? I'm pretty sure my justifications didn't have any impact on his perfect will for me, however. Switching to the civil side of things for a moment, I propose a thought experiment. Let's assume for a moment that civil unions/gay marriage make sense socially, and creating this new institution or modifying the ancient institution are justified for all of the various reasons given. In all true honestly, and given the arguments that are put forward in favor of gay marriage/civil unions, what about polygamy/polyandry? What would be so wrong about allowing a woman two husbands, or a man two wives, or four or more people to marry themselves together a la Heinlein's Stranger? Especially if they have a genuine three-way bond through their bisexuality? There are a significant number of people for whom the concept of monogamy seems utterly foreign--people for whom a relationship with two or three or more people feels far more natural and normal. And if the primary reason for marriage is, as SoCon's believe, the creation of a legal and financial framework that fosters the raising of children, then would not a polyamorous marriage potentially create an environment even more potentially supportive, nurturing and stable? For people who share virtually all aspects of their lives together in a bond of love, why should they be denied the right to celebrate their relationship in marriage, just as would hetero and homosexual couples? And why should they be denied the visitation rights, the property rights, the inheritance rights, etc. that hetero and homosexual couples would enjoy? I mean these people may not be just like you and I, but who are we to prejudge and say that such an arrangement could never work. Just because it wouldn't work for us personally? Wouldn't it somewhat bigoted to try to impose our monogamous values on the polyamorous? This is about the celebration of the bonds of love in committed relationships, whether these bonds exist between two, three or more people. Thoughts?

Posted by: Desert Cat at June 30, 2005 10:51 AM (n/TmV)

10 I'd make it legal, and I'll tell you why: it would be a lot easier to police the Mormon renegade sects (mostly here in our own southwest) if polygamy were legal, and make sure that 13- and 14-year-old girls were not being forced into these marriages against their will. As things stand, the entire culture is underground and guarded, so infiltration is very difficult. It would be easier if AZ and NM, at least, gave its blessing to the "marriages," so we could work on the rape problem.

Posted by: Attila Girl at June 30, 2005 01:06 PM (RGWNz)

11 I'll give you credit for consistency then. (I've worked with some of those people--one of the Holm brothers from Colorado City had/has a construction business. When I'm working for a public agency, I can't just say I won't hire you 'cause you're icky. But my neck hairs were on end pretty much through the entire contract. I'm quite certain one of the "wives" of one of his sons couldn't have been more than 14). Something else itching at the back of my mind though: I'd certainly rather that my gay friends look for fulfilling relationships, versus ending up at gay bars. They don't now? And having a marriage option will make fulfilling homosexual monogamy possible where it is now not possible?

Posted by: Desert Cat at June 30, 2005 09:59 PM (xdX36)

12 I meant looking for fulfilling relationships instead of aiming for celibacy and ending up at the bars in defeat.

Posted by: Attila Girl at June 30, 2005 11:27 PM (RGWNz)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Excuse me. That's Kinky Friedman and Michelle Malkin, here together talking about RoveGate at Trey Jackson's pad.

Malkin: "What was the whole Guantanamo debate about anyway, if not a demonstration of what Karl Rove was talking about?" (I'm paraphrasing, but I think it's pretty close.)

Posted by: Attila at 11:32 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 51 words, total size 1 kb.

on the psuedo-science of gynecology.

Posted by: Attila at 11:11 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 9 words, total size 1 kb.

is up and running.

Here, at the mother ship.

And in the blogs themselves:

Maxed-Out Mama, Not a Desperate Housewife, and Right Wing Sparkle.

Dance well, and feel pretty.

Posted by: Attila at 05:22 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 33 words, total size 1 kb.

where every room will feature a copy of Atlas Shrugged, rather than the Bible.

I mean, if we're going to abuse eminent domain endlessly, let's get right to it, and start with the Justices who supported this particular attack on property rights.

Via Tall Glass of Milk.

Posted by: Attila at 04:40 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 51 words, total size 1 kb.

She was always someone I'd heard about as being incredibly talented, yet ferocious in that way that comics are sometimes. Within most really funny people there is a dark side that ofen leaves me unsure when they are going to pull the switchblade out.

April, in particular, had the reputation for being a tough woman, someone whose bad side you never wanted to get on.

But I've always enjoyed listening to her on Mr. KABC on Friday nights; I think she's with him one night out of the month (and they do occasional specials together, like they did this past Halloween).

I cannot feel anything but deep respect for a woman who lost her father a long time ago, and finally, mere days after he died, was able to write this. (No permalink; see the Monday evening entry.)

I have plenty to say about complicated father-daughter relationships, and dysfunctional families. And how even Christopher Milne (of all people) felt estranged from his dad. Later, though. What I admire are comics who are able to come to terms with their pasts, and talented people who deal with their demons in the here-and-now.

Sure: it's good to share your talent with the world. But it's more important to be a human being.

Huzzah, April.

Posted by: Attila at 03:55 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 218 words, total size 1 kb.

. . . deconstructs her friendly neighborhood "feminist" bigot.

One of my blogging ambitions, of course, is never to make Ilyka mad. Go see why.

Posted by: Attila at 03:17 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.

1 No danger of making me mad, but you are making me slap my own forehead in disgust, because you just reminded me that I should have credited you for me finding the Pandagon posts to begin with. Got there via a winding road from feministe to medial girl to comments at media girl, in which I think you linked the Amanda (I'll never hear that old Boston song the same way again!) posts if memory serves. She's, uh, she's fun people. Yah sure, you betcha.

Posted by: ilyka at June 28, 2005 03:26 PM (g4AkI)

2 Yup. I'm real sorry I missed that episode with the tequila and the fire dept.

Posted by: Attila Girl at June 28, 2005 03:29 PM (RGWNz)

3 that episode with the tequila and the fire dept. I know now I'm being guilty of just what I've carped at her for doing, but I've seen pictures: You would NEED the tequila.

Posted by: ilyka at June 28, 2005 05:39 PM (g4AkI)

4

Posted by: Attila Girl at June 28, 2005 08:19 PM (RGWNz)

Hide Comments | Add Comment