March 01, 2006
Oh, Those Crunchy Cons
Yeah. I like the Birkenstocks and granola, but that Puritanical (or "quasi-Amish") streak in
Crunchy Town drives me nuts, especially when its denizens start putting down individual choices. If I wanted to live in a cultural straitjacket, I'd move to Berkeley, wouldn't I?
Cam Edwards is even more skeptical than I am, and takes on Caleb Stegall over his bizarre notion that Childcare Is Generally a Bad Thing.
Cam imagines that the issue might be a teensy bit more complicated than that.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
08:28 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 90 words, total size 1 kb.
1
If they had just said "childcare is generally a bad thing", they might have had a case to argue. I'd disagree, but I'd listen.
But they say "conservative leaders and spokesmen ought to be saying loud and often that with a few exceptions, anyone who would place an infant in daycare is a negligent parent and a negligent citizen". They're not crunchy, they're
nuts.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at March 02, 2006 05:30 PM (RbYVY)
2
Yeah. And I had such high hopes for the crunchy cons when I heard that they like to shop at Whole Foods Markets. I'm sooooooo pro-yummy food.
("not crunchy--nuts." Pixy, do you have any idea how many bloggers are probably kicking themselves right now for not having come up with this formulation first? Dang you're good.)
Posted by: Attila Girl at March 02, 2006 07:16 PM (s96U4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Bookmarked.
Strategy Page's checklist for determining when we're getting ready to
bomb Iran (despite its lower density of Brown People vs. neighboring states).
My favorite? Number 7, "increased delivery of Pizza to Pentagon."
Posted by: Attila Girl at
07:43 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 34 words, total size 1 kb.
Survey: Readers of Political Blogs
Blogads is once more sponsoring several surveys of niches within the blogosphere, and would like your responses to a few questions if you regard yourself as a reader of "political blogs."
I guess my being chosen to send readers over indicates that I'm considered a political weblog, rather than "politics + Joy's angst + household hints." That's all to the good.
Should you decide to take the survey have at it, and make sure to use "Little Miss Attila" as your answer to question #23.
Remember: more responses means sharper marketing of blogads. This translates into Actual Revenue for your favorite sites, and more Bitchin' Free Content you can read on company time. Everyone goes away happy.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
07:12 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 127 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Where are those household hints? I've got a stain and no club soda. I'm screwed!
Posted by: Sean Hackbarth at March 01, 2006 11:34 PM (JAozc)
2
Try using a cigarette to burn away the stain. It always works for me. Bonus tip: Dye your underwear to match the color of what is above...
Survey filled! Anything else?
Posted by: Darrell at March 02, 2006 10:07 AM (ZcVKO)
3
Not now, though you may be getting an e-mail from me later with sooper secrud orders I received this morning from Karl Rove.
Posted by: Attila Girl at March 02, 2006 10:48 AM (s96U4)
4
I'll be on warm-standby until further notice, Fearless Leader! Awaiting orders.
Your system keeps giving a "Invalid [] range "d-c" in regex; marked by" message. I've misplaced my secret decoder ring. Can you translate?
Posted by: Darrell at March 02, 2006 04:43 PM (Z5mma)
5
Translation: I need to get help from one of the tech-savvy Munuvians. (Though they've been working on the "overexuberent blacklist" issue, and will soon be issuing guidelines for the low-tech people [like me] so we can de-spam quickly without screwing up the blacklist.)
Posted by: Attila Girl at March 02, 2006 07:20 PM (s96U4)
6
I knew they were "sweet nothings," I just did!
And why does Karl Rove want me to clean your greasetrap? Not that I ever question his orders...
Posted by: Darrell at March 02, 2006 08:59 PM (PcgN9)
7
Karl would also like you to help me clean the stove. He's quite the neatnik, Mr. R.
Posted by: Attila Girl at March 02, 2006 09:06 PM (s96U4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Malkin, on the Port Deal
Just as some people throw out the word "racist" too easily, others throw out the "how dare you call me a racist?" rejoinder as if it were a rhetorical molecule. Next thing you know, we're
talking past each other again.
The UAE is our "friend," we are told, and to question that assertion, we are scolded, is to engage in reckless prejudice and life-threatening insult. Yes, well, some friends are more equal than others. To instinctively trust a longtime, stalwart Western democracy more than an Arab newcomer with a mixed record on combating terror, international crime, and Islamic extremism is not "Islamophobia." It's self-preservationist in a time of war.
We are at war, aren't we?
Yes. We are at war. That's why it's important for us to bank on our brains, and employ honest risk assessments, rather than using our "instincts."
The underlying argument—the one people aren't talking about much—has to do with how to spread classical liberalism, economic opportunity, and—yes, dammit—the best Western of values.
Is it better to partially engage, as we do with China, and co-opt potential opponents—and yet end up with dirty hands? Or do we apply the hardline stance we use in Cuba? Obviously, each situation is different: China is not Cuba, and neither is perfectly analogous to any Middle Eastern state.
But philosophically I lean toward engagement, as opposed to something that appears to flirt dangerously with "fuck you, you dirty Arab; come back when your entire society is perfect, and your track record squeaky clean (which, of course, ours in the U.S. is not)."
Most people who are intimately familiar with the UAE are supportive of this deal, and feel that the progress there is tremendous. But even if the UAE were as shady as Malkin asserts, isn't there an old saying about keeping one's friends close and one's enemies closer?
Color me yet-to-be-convinced that this is an awful idea. Though I'm still listening.
(Via Hackbarth, who likewise is still saying, "show me the security risks.")
Posted by: Attila Girl at
04:10 PM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 343 words, total size 2 kb.
1
You'll forgive me if I'm less-than-enthusiastic about a country whose royal family has been known to go hunting with Uncle Usama...
That said, I don't see DPWorld as more of a threat to US interests than the other foreign companies that run a significant chunck of our port facilities. And Dubai is probably one of the most...western leaning...of the Arab nations. And DPW (as well as P&O) has been very upfront and open about their desired transaction with the US regulators as well as those in national security.
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie at March 01, 2006 04:20 PM (1hM1d)
2
On the Drudge report is a link;
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/60414c4c-a95e-11da-a64b-0000779e2340.html
It says Bill Clinton helped broker the deal.
I still say that although I am not happy about the news I am hearing I still think most of it is all politics. China still has an interest in the ports on the West coast and nobody seems to care.
As to Al-Qadia slipping an agent in through the UAE they could just as easily do the same thru Briton or the USA. After all how many imigrants from arab countries are on the East coast working in the ports now?
I think everbody is jumping to preconcieved conclusions to support their own party.
Prediction: 2 Months from now the whole thing will be settled, the democrats will make a big showing how they can protect this country by having a committee, the repbulicans will make a big show of distancing themselves from Bush bashing the deal, the deal will pass after the UAE makes concesions above and beyond what any other port operator does.
Posted by: Jack at March 01, 2006 05:37 PM (pcSPw)
3
IÂ’m still not convinced.
If this deal goes thru, no imports or exports would be allowed to or from Israel, because according to the Jerusalem Post:
” Dubai Ports World,~ is entirely owned by the Government of Dubai via a holding company called the Ports, Customs and Free Zone Corporation (PCZC), which consists of the Dubai Port Authority, the Dubai Customs Department and the Jebel Ali Free Zone Area. ~ Muhammad Rashid a-Din, a staff member of the Dubai Customs Department's Office states that "Yes, of course the boycott (of Israeli products) is still in place and is still enforced" Furthermore, Dubai's Jebel Ali Free Zone Area, which is also part of the PCZC, advises importers that they will need
"to comply with the terms of the boycott.” So if this deal passes we will be boycotting, Israel, an ally.
Question. I donÂ’t know much about Sovereign territory. But I do know that foreign governments that own soil within US borders are usually as embassies or consulates. Does any other foreign government own territory on US soil that isnÂ’t an embassy or a consulate? The US government has no right to the information held by foreign embassies or consulates. Would the same apply to ports in American territory owned by foreign governments? IÂ’m not trying to be fictitious. This is a genuine question.
If Dubai Ports World were a private company, that can move It’s headquarters from one country to another if need be, holds no allegiances except to its bottom line, and doesn’t need to pander to their “subjects” I would be allot more comfortable with this deal.
Posted by: Yolanda at March 01, 2006 09:02 PM (dLzW2)
4
Don't worry Yolanda, George Dubai Bush will take care of everything. Just trust him, like you always have. Look people in the press only paint the negative stuff, like this war in Iraq. They don't talk about the billions of dollars that we are spending making schools, hospitals, parks for kids, and sewer and water for villages that never had water or sewer. They don't talk about all the oil that is still flowing, and how many previous Iraqi soldiers have switched sides and joined US.
The press only wants to talk about kidnappings and murder and suicide bombings. they are just isolated incidents of some disgruntled Bathists and Insurgents. The real news is that there have been three elections and the country is on its way to freedom and democracy. Soon Iraq will be the first muslim country to recognize Isreal, then Afghanistan, and If UAE want this port deal, then that is what they will have to do. These are all good things thanks to the war on terror. And the terrorists are on the run. So you see Yolanda, your Jewish interests are safe with the president. Just Trust HIM.
Posted by: Azmat Hussain at March 01, 2006 11:45 PM (PHUbk)
5
Azmat,
Do you want to explain how you meant this?--
So you see Yolanda, your Jewish interests are safe with the president.
Thanks.
Posted by: Attila Girl at March 02, 2006 08:03 AM (s96U4)
6
Yolanda
The ports will NOT be owned by UAE. As I understand it they will be responsible for the containers and unloading and loading. They will have NO ownership of the ports.
I have also read (but would have to do a search) that they are already working with Isreal on ports. Whether they are shipping to Israel or working in their ports I am not sure. I can check and get back with the group if someone doesn't find it first.
I am also sure that their will be no blocking of shipments to Israel unless it is from the left wing 'kick the Israeli out of Palastiene' groups.
Posted by: Jack at March 02, 2006 11:04 AM (YneVa)
7
She seemed to be concerned about products that are made in Israel. What I am suggesting is that there is nothing to worry about. The Israeli products will not be stoped here in the US at those ports that may be run by UAE. Also the concern is that UAE does not recognize Israel and therefore is unworthy for our business. I am suggesting that the Bush Administration will put pressure on UAE to do just that.
Posted by: Azmat Hussain at March 02, 2006 05:51 PM (wosqx)
8
Okey-doke. I'm afraid the phrase "your Jewish interests" hit me a bit sideways. I'm hoping that wasn't a subtle way of putting down those of us who support Israel and feel that it should continue to survive--or those who get upset at some of the antisemitism in places like Europe (and, well, the Middle East).
Posted by: Attila Girl at March 02, 2006 07:25 PM (s96U4)
9
The wonderful thing about email and blog posting is that without facial expressions and vocal inflections it is rife for misinterpitations.
I have had many emails bite me in the ass because of wording as well as taking umbrage of others (although I may have been right, they were out to get me 8^)).
ps
Sarcasim almost always fails in emails too.
Posted by: Jack at March 02, 2006 08:24 PM (bRtJd)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
I Should Fire My Housekeeper.
But I can't.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
12:42 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 13 words, total size 1 kb.
1
'Cause, you know: my husband is sleeping with her.
Posted by: Attila Girl at March 01, 2006 08:04 PM (s96U4)
Posted by: Darrell at March 02, 2006 10:20 AM (ZcVKO)
Posted by: Attila Girl at March 02, 2006 10:49 AM (s96U4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
How to Protest the 55 mph Speed Limit
Via
Reynolds, An Extraordinary Act of Civil Obedience.
My first reaction: what assholes.
My second reaction: a system that depends upon rule-breaking is fundamentally broken. If we are relied upon to break the rules, the rules should be changed. (See "immigration, illegal," and "drugs, war on.") So, yeah: it had to be done.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
10:13 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 69 words, total size 1 kb.
1
The Dallas Police Department periodically does that on the freeways here with both marked and unmarked cars.
I do think following the traffic laws should be mandatory, and an unwillingness to do so should result in a suspension of privileges.
Posted by: tommy at March 01, 2006 01:04 PM (dTj9I)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
They Must, You Know,
clank when he
walks.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
01:47 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 12 words, total size 1 kb.
Europe, Slip Sliding Away . . .
Douglas Murray, in
The Times:
Holland — with its disproportionately high Muslim population — is the canary in the mine. Its once open society is closing, and Europe is closing slowly behind it. It looks, from Holland, like the twilight of liberalism — not the “liberalism” that is actually libertarianism, but the liberalism that is freedom. Not least freedom of expression.
All across Europe, debate on Islam is being stopped. ItalyÂ’s greatest living writer, Oriana Fallaci, soon comes up for trial in her home country, and in Britain the government seems intent on pushing through laws that would make truths about Islam and the conduct of its followers impossible to voice.
Those of us who write and talk on Islam thus get caught between those on our own side who are increasingly keen to prosecute and increasing numbers of militants threatening murder. In this situation, not only is free speech being shut down, but our nationÂ’s security is being compromised.
Since the assassinations of Fortuyn and, in 2004, the film maker Theo van Gogh, numerous public figures in Holland have received death threats and routine intimidation. The heroic Somali-born Dutch MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali and her equally outspoken colleague Geert Wilders live under constant police protection, often forced to sleep on army bases. Even university professors are under protection.
Europe is shuffling into darkness. It is proving incapable of standing up to its enemies, and in an effort to accommodate the peripheral rights of a minority is failing to protect the most basic rights of its own people.
The governments of Europe have been tricked into believing that criticism of a belief is the same thing as criticism of a race.
My emphasis.
I've been hoping that the apparant solar eclipse in Europe is something else—perhaps an optical illusion of some sort. But it's hard to keep that hope alive when people have to engage in cloak-and-dagger behavior to talk openly about Islam at all.
Off in the distance, I hear Anne Frank screaming at me from her grave.
Via Reynolds, who adds:
People talk about Eurabia, but what's really happened is that Europe has become Weimarized, with governments and institutions too morally and intellectually weak to stand up for the principles they pretend to embody. And we know what that led to last time . . . .
Posted by: Attila Girl at
12:12 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 403 words, total size 3 kb.
1
It was so discouraging to read about the security that these people needed in Holland--needing to sign in under false names, security guards all around--to talk. That's it--to talk about Islam in Europe, free speech, etc.
To think that we have come this far within our lifetimes.
Posted by: Stuart Fullerton at March 01, 2006 05:17 PM (shBAD)
2
The criticism of a belief is the starting point of the criticism of a race, and religion. You can see it over and over in history. First ideas are attacked, then people who hold those ideas. That is why some of us have to stand up to defend an idea. A simple idea whose time has come is to quit painting an entire race or religion, by the actions of a few.
Posted by: Azmat hussain at March 01, 2006 11:03 PM (yl6VZ)
3
Azmat, I couldnÂ’t agree with you more!
So when will the majority of Muslims start practicing that?
When I see thousands and thousands in the Arab world chanting "Death to America" Death to all Jews" or “Death to Denmark" The only reply to your comment that I can come up with is… PLEASE… Clean up your back yard first!
Have you posted on an Islamic blog that
"the time has come to quit painting all Americans, all Jews and all Danes, by the actions of a few?"
Posted by: Yolanda at March 02, 2006 03:39 AM (dLzW2)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
50kb generated in CPU 0.1471, elapsed 0.2884 seconds.
213 queries taking 0.2674 seconds, 494 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
