1
Anyone with a cat ought to recognize the routine.
It's not always about food though. My cats have "open feeding" (always full bowl), and they still want to wake me for attention, usually about a half hour before *I* want to. But like I mentioned, my CPAP machine has largely thwarted their efforts. Nothing more off-putting than a steady breeze tickling one's whiskers and ears when there's humans that need waking!
Posted by: Desert Cat at December 11, 2007 07:44 PM (DIr0W)
2
Except for the bat, quite realistic!
For those who haven't had enough cat-am, try trapping kitty here:
http://www.gamedesign.jp/flash/chatnoir/chatnoir.html
Posted by: Darrell at December 11, 2007 09:51 PM (Z5LW3)
I Regret to Inform Our Readers
. . . that Fausta and I will not, after all, be engaging in a mixed-martial art contest of will in an octoganal cage in order to decide who gets to be crowned "Grande Conservative Blogress Diva 2008."
Our agents were simply unable to hammer out an agreement. As I recall, the sticking point was that her representation would not allow mine to fudge my height in publicity photos, so I look as tall as she is. You know how agents are: can't live with 'em . . . and so on.
"You Know," My Father Tells My Voice Mail,
"I have doctors who return my phone calls, and lawyers who return my phone calls. My son is a prick, and even he returns my phone calls.
So you might want to consider giving me a break."
Okay. I call him. "What's cooking?" I ask.
"Well, I'm getting my car lubed, and the sky is clear, and it's a beautiful day here in the San Fernando Valley. What's happening with you?"
"I'm sick. Can I go now?"
Okay. I didn't say that. But I thought it.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
11:19 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 102 words, total size 1 kb.
Twenty-three months, with the possibility of three months off? You've got to be kidding me.
This wasn't, like, the man had an animal he didn't know how to train, and he lost his temper with it. This was systematic—more than premeditated.
I'd suggest turning him over to Mandy, but Mandy would just jump up on him, lick him, and try to get him to throw a tennis ball for her to fetch. She's exactly the type who would have been executed by this piece of shit.
Not so if he were turned over to Mandy's Aunt Joy, the "Dirty Harry" of Pit Bull Advocates. That would be some rough justice—though not anything like what he put those dogs through.
Now go buy a "Happy Endings" calendar from the folks at Pit Bull Rescue Central. Or maybe one of the fun calendars and T-shirts from the BAD-RAP people (Bay Area Doglovers Responsible About Pitbulls). After all, they have one that features pitties and children—and another one geared toward nudists! What more could one ask?
Posted by: Darrell at December 10, 2007 08:47 PM (UISp5)
2
It would depend on the dimension of the . . . . um, and then there's the issue of whether the pit bull is a puppy, or an adult. I would imagine that the average male who wasn't . . . um, staring at a girl-nudist . .. would get along fine with adults.
After all, Mandy's only a medium-size dog, and the tennis balls I throw for her are way oversize. The man who is realistic about . . . I'm just getting myself in more trouble, aren't I?
Having said that, I wonder why she doesn't go for my boobs. She is fascinated with my hair, though, when it isn't in a ponytail--she thinks that's the best dog toy of all, and we have to remind her that jumping up on people's shoulders is not considered polite for a dog of her size, no matter what I'm carrying or how much she wants to run her teeth through my hair.
She's so athletic: pure muscle, that one. She can clear the fence with very little of a running start. Stupid dog.
Posted by: Attila Girl at December 11, 2007 12:49 AM (aywD+)
3
Respecting nudist protestations that nudism isn't sexual, would 'dangling' be any better?
Engineers play it safe.
Posted by: Darrell at December 11, 2007 09:55 PM (Z5LW3)
Posted by: Attila Girl at December 11, 2007 10:10 PM (aywD+)
5
Ha! Little Miss Attila. A provocative post you have here!! PM agrees, 23 months may seem light, but consider he could have gotten off much easier if he hadn't screwed up his plea bargain and said something a little smarter. Wonder how is new roommates will accept him is a lingering question. Woof!
Posted by: PetMono at December 12, 2007 05:40 AM (4J4xE)
Now You're Making Fred Angry.
You won't like Fred when he's angry. (Though you'll probably end up voting for him, despite yourself.)
"The nuclear program is the most important part of the Iran consideration. For a presidential candidate not to know that and not to keep up with that is very surprising,” said Thompson.
“These are the kinds of things I’ve been talking about all of my life. Now, if the American people have other priorities, if they want someone who smiles a lot more than I do, or someone who is a better quipster than I am, who has no experience in these areas, that’s for the American people to decide.”
Meanwhile, Ace suggests that Huckabee might want to express his private religious convictions in a more private way, rather than using public money for charitable work (via high taxes) and pardoning criminals because they've supposedly converted to his own faith. Some separation of Church and State, he seems to feel, may still be called for:
It appears the primary reason Huckabee sought to release DuMond was the fact that he had found Christ, though, it should be said, apparently he was still looking for Christ inside of the women he would later rape and kill.
When the Huckabee bubble bursts, we'll still be back to Rudy and Fred.
There are things I love about Rudy, but he is not a big civil rights guy (on guns, especially, or on any other issue). Fred "gets" the separation-of-powers thing, and he still takes terrorism seriously.
I don't want a fun President. I want one who will do the job. Part of the job is scaring the shit out of autocratic and dictatorial leaders elsewhere on the globe. Sorry about that, but it's so.
1
You think it will come down to Rudy and FRED? That's like my thinking that Ron Paul has a chance. Granted I still blog about Paul in the hopes that some miracle will happen, but Fred's polling isn't much better than Paul's. It'll be Rudy or Mitt. Fred is dead.
Posted by: Nick at December 10, 2007 09:07 AM (NTOZO)
2
"Paul is dead."
Who's going to get Mike's votes once the voters start to see through him? Fred.
Posted by: Attila Girl at December 10, 2007 09:33 AM (aywD+)
3
Which convicted murderer has found Christ:
The man who says "Please pardon me. I have found the Lord, and His name is Jesus Christ."
or
The man who says "I have my pardon from the Lord. That will suffice."
Posted by: John at December 10, 2007 02:58 PM (Ur6eb)
"Didn't You Ask for This?"
Blackjack isn't too sympathetic to the cause of writers who are on strike:
Don't go on strike if the managment can easily replace you and the public really doesn't give a damn. The networks will simply pump out shows like Who Wants to Hump a Hooters Waitress and you'll watch them, because that kind of stuff amuses you.
What, you are taking umbrage at my comment? That Tila Tequila show is a hit, for crying out loud. Why should the studios listen to writers bitch about DVD royalties when the viewing public will watch a Vietnamese skank whose most notable achievement was adding a shitload of friends to her Myspace page?
I'd advise the writers to get back to work if they can before our entertainment devolves even further. Moore's law has nothing on the speed of that.
Can good television and film writers be replaced "easily"? Yes, and no: No, because it's hard to find good writers. Yes, because the average studio executive, while having a sort of ratlike cunning, possesses the eye for quality of a piece of plankton.
If more executives were looking for quality, the market would change for writers in Los Angeles, and getting a good property optioned/made wouldn't be so much like winning the mother-fucking lottery.
Instead of seeking quality and originality, studios look for what's made money in the past (The Harry Potter franchise; The Passion of the Christ) and make something that reminds them as much of that as possible, but without any pro-religion or pro-Democracy messages that may have crept into the prototype (The Golden Compass). If the film industry were all about the market, why would it be losing money like crazy on a boatload of anti-war, anti-American crap? Particularly when even Bruce Willis can't gain support for a movie about American successes in Iraq, based on the writing of Michael Yon?
And now the idiots in the studios would like writers to bend over and grab their ankles so they can get fucked in the ass just as hard on the internet as they have with DVD/VHS distribution. And reality show/animation writers can continue to get locked out of the Guild—which they'd like to be in, and which would like to have them.
Let me break it to you, kids: the cost of producing movies will continue to go down. The public will continue to seek its entertainment (verbal, visual, and audio) on the internet. Truly independent filmmakers will be able to market their work in better ways.
And in the long term, my friends, those of you who act as gatekeepers for television and film content are going to lose. Because the walls and and the gates are coming down.
As Deborah Harry would say: Bye-bye, Sugar—and not a moment too soon.
1
"Accusing guild leaders of pursuing “an ideological mission far removed from the interests of their members,” representatives of the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers expressed outrage over continuing demands of the writers that were not strictly related to pay.
These include requests for jurisdiction over those who write for reality TV shows and animated movies; for oversight of the fair-market value of intracompany transactions that might affect writer pay; and the elimination of a no-strike clause that prevents guild members from honoring the picket lines of other unions once a contract is reached.
The tone of shock in the producers’ statement seemed a bit artificial, as Mr. Verrone has for months laid out his plan to elevate the writers’ industry status. Yet their anger is genuine. Executives know that to concede the writers’ noneconomic demands would lead to a radical shift in industry power. Only a death wish, for instance, would prod companies to let one union walk out in support of another, particularly on the eve of negotiations with both the Directors Guild of America and the Screen Actors Guild, whose contracts expire in June. “It’s kind of like saying ‘Oh, while we’re in the middle of this knife fight, I demand the right to have a gun next time,’ a comment on a screenwriters’ blog, The Artful Writer, said.
Similarly, company negotiators know that to grant jurisdiction over workers not currently represented by the guild would bring up against legal questions — can they impose union membership on a unit whose members have not signed up? And it would lead to a collision with other unions.
That matter provoked a blast on Friday night. Thomas C. Short, president of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, which already represents some reality and animation writers, compared the writers’ guild leadership to “a huge clown car that’s only missing the hats and horns.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/10/business/media/10strike.html?ei=5065&en=4f7b2dd8be7a6435&ex=1197954000&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print
Posted by: Darrell at December 10, 2007 12:44 PM (WPxku)
2
Yes. Except that the animation/reality writers thing is there as a bargaining chip. My husband will be on one of the first rafts to be jettisoned and set adrift. (Wait. I don't think that metaphor worked. Can I re-write this later?)
The point is, the AMPTP is not bargaining in good faith--they walked away from the talks.
Posted by: Attila Girl at December 10, 2007 03:01 PM (aywD+)
3If more executives were looking for quality, the market would change for writers in Los Angeles, and getting a good property optioned/made wouldn't be so much like winning the mother-fucking lottery.
Attila, what motivation do the executives have for quality if the viewing public will happily swallow crap and ask for seconds?
I know it sounds like I bag on the writers. Really, my disgust lies with the viewing public. I just think the writers haven't seen the writing on the wall and come to grips with what little leverage they have. That's all.
Posted by: Blackjack at December 10, 2007 06:27 PM (F/aa+)
4
But when the extra effort is put into quality writing and good production values, they do make money--and more than they do on schlock.
I understand your point: "the masses are asses." Beta vs. VHS, and all that.
But I've seen good work, and I've seen it bring in money hand over fist. (Recently, the Harry Potter series and Lord of the Rings both were decent semblances of fine, existing books. Why not bring other children's classics to life, instead of endlessly remaking sitcoms from the 1960s?)
Posted by: Attila Girl at December 11, 2007 12:53 AM (aywD+)
Mark Steyn's Statement
. . . on his legal problems in Canada.
This is the logical endpoint of politically correct "speech codes."
I'm off to buy another copy of America Alone, along with another copy of Jonathan Rauch's Kindly Inquisitors. Under the circumstances, they make nice companion pieces.
I don't think I could vote for Huckabee. I just cannot envision doing that. He's at the far end of statism—just because it claims to be benevolent doesn't make it any less a dictatorship.
It applies to women, too. Though I get more heightism from other women than I do from men. There is this weird dynamic in which tall women feel entitled to "look down" on shorter women (figuratively, as well as literally), and treat them as if they were children.
Men, on the other hand, pretend to take short chicks seriously on an intellectual level; presumably, this is because this gives them a safe vantage point from which to stare at one's boobs.
Of course, there are the men who decide that a short chick with a figure right out of the 1930s is probably not much of a thinker. These people make me giggle, and provide great fodder for character studies.
Watch out for novelists with Napoleon complexes, okay?
The only thing in America Alone that bothered me along those lines was that segment—a couple of pages out of the whole damned book—in which Steyn discussed "Hispanics" and "assimilation," and "learning English."
All very understandable coming from a Canadian who moved to New England and has spent little time in the Southwest. But of course there are plenty of people in the (make-believe) category of "Hispanic" who speak nothing but Engish. It sounds like it's a reference to a linguistic tradition, but there's nothing in any "Hispanic's" blood that I don't have: lots of European, a dash of Native American, some eye of newt, and goodness-knows-what-else. An easy mistake for a Northeasterner/Canadian/Brit to make, I imagine. And, of course, I don't have his command of the Old World—nor of stage and screen.
Nice Traffic for a Saturday.
But what's with all the search engine shit? And why are people looking for "Grinch sweater"? Where the fuck, BTW, did they find it on my blog?
Good to know people are out there looking for Jan Libourel; the man should really have his own site, BTW.
The last time I saw Jan, it was at a memorial service for the great Dave Arnold, gunwriter and true gentleman of a type they simply don't make any more.
Jan was trying to bait the rest of us, as usual. He expressed his "admiration" for Osama bin Laden. "All that fortune," he sighed. "Such a wealthy family. He could have spent it all on wine, women, and song, but instead he chose to take on the world's one remaining superpower."
I used to rise to these things, years ago—before I got old and tired and jaded.
"Yes," I agreed. "Osama has tremendous self-discipline. He's quite a man."
True, of course.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
11:37 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 168 words, total size 1 kb.
It's nice and all, but here's the deal, Nurse Mike H: If I want a fucking full-time health monitor I'll fucking get married, all right?
Which is funny, of course. Though possibly slightly denigrating to women . . . or, um . . . men . . . or, um . . . robots . . . or um . . . beasts . . . or, um . . . whatever it is that Ace has in mind when he types the word "marriage."
Not that there's anything wrong with whatever-that-might-be.
1
I went around and asked many Americans why 7th of December was famous or infamous? The response was that most people had no clue!
Even a reminder of 1941 did not help.
Sixty Six years is a long time, wait for another ten and ask around what happened on September 11?
Posted by: Azmat Hussain at December 08, 2007 12:40 PM (mdszq)
2
I went around and asked many Pakistanis what happened near Karachi in 712 AD and they all knew the answer. I didn't even have to mention Muhammad Bin Qasim. Go figure. It must be all those Leftist teachers in the US.
Posted by: Darrell at December 09, 2007 07:54 AM (k1ghu)
I mean that in the literal, rather than the perjorative, sense—of course.
I'm starting to think cats might be okay, if I could get over the allergies. The problem is, once you have cats, allergic people can't visit you. And if all allergic people acclimate themselves to cats, it's still not a solution. After all, the CalBlog twins are allergic to cats other than their own.
I was skeptical when I heard that. "No," Caltech Girl assured me. "It's a big molecule. It's entirely possible for someone to be reacting to only a small part of it."
The only solution? Gradually replace the existing stock of cats in the world with genetically engineered hypoallergenic ones whose saliva (and therefore fur) is missing the allergen. (I originally found out about these cats from neurobiologist David Linden, so I shall go full-circle and find some photo-blogging by him, thereby cleverly bringing my post back to where it began, with Sisu's photo-blog. There. This one is perfect for a gray, Sissy Willis-like cozy day, and this is my favorite of his recent landscapes. It's almost Adams-eque.)
1
Thank you, dollface, for the nice mention. Here's the solution:
Gradually replace the existing stock of humans in the world with genetically engineered types able to tolerate fluff.
I love you!!!
Posted by: Sissy Willis at December 07, 2007 03:15 PM (Q6JEL)
DEVO . . .
Part of me is digging it. Part of me is all, "what were we thinking?"
I didn't see a date on this performance, but IIRC those red hats came in around Album #3, though this song is album #1. So I suspect this same concert featured a performance of "Whip It."
(I could be wrong. I was wrong once before, but it was a long time ago, and I don't like to talk about it much.)
Thanks to resident drummer Hog Beatty, who forwards it along with the observation that, "yeah, it's fast."
1
Did you collect all of those "URGH: A Music War" clips or did YouTube do that?
In either case that album/movie is a truly awesome (comprehensive?) document: thirty-six New Wave/Punk/who knows what bands captured ("in the day") in performance of one song each (except The Police who bookended the collection with "Driven to Tears" [better than studio version?] and "So Lonely").
Posted by: Hog Beatty at December 07, 2007 05:25 PM (Ar5f/)
2
This might tax a drummer--particularly with the encores.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ugf56bgiUQ
Or this. . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSot75yOdfY
Probably as hard to do as it is to listen to.
Posted by: Darrell at December 07, 2007 11:21 PM (v2QyN)
Yet More on Ron Paul.
I know my negativity about Ron Paul is annoying people, but I just cannot get around his attitude toward the war, which seems short-sighted to me. This terrorism dealiebopper is a long, tough game of chess, and I don't much like the Paul strategy (nor the general tendancy of big-L Libertarians toward isolationism).
1
It's called non-interventionalism; you are clearly isolated from your dictionary.
Ask yourself this question: Who is going to protect you if the government goes bankrupt? It is quite possible if the dollar continues its downward trend.
Posted by: Mike at December 07, 2007 12:56 PM (oBU4t)
2
It's not isolationism. Ron paul has stated numerous times that he is non interventionist...that he wants to trade and have dialoge with other nations. That's not isolationism.
Posted by: Gene at December 07, 2007 02:01 PM (fSBh8)
Posted by: gorak at December 07, 2007 02:21 PM (fQzFQ)
4
Americans won't trade with nations that have Islamist terrorists launching attacks from their soil. The only thing Americans were buying from the Taliban was heroin.
If you want to talk about the Founding Fathers dealing with a similar threat look at how Thomas Jefferson dealt with the Barbary Pirates. That would require quoting more than George Washington's Farewell Address.
And what's with the silence about Rep. Paul failing to tell SC voters he's opposed to the Iraq War? Some revolution.
Disclaimer: I work for Friends of Fred Thompson.
Posted by: Sean Hackbarth at December 07, 2007 05:52 PM (J7srS)
Posted by: Darrell at December 07, 2007 08:31 PM (v2QyN)
6
Dr Paul says no attacking other countries without Congress authorizing it. That's what the US Constitution says. The other Reps want to continue borrowing $1 trillion a year from the Chinese to spend on foreign adventurism. The tab is like $26,000 per person to pay it back and climbing. Ok little miss Attila and you other neocons, put up your $26,000 each. Now!
Posted by: Dr. Ward Ciac at December 08, 2007 06:48 AM (FMs5l)
7
Highly creative and talented people are getting involved in Dr. Ron Paul's campaign. Much of it is independent of his official campaign structure. The Ron Paul blimp is just one aspect. Someone thought of the idea, made the website ronpaulblimp.com, and people started contributing. There is a site with large numbers of sophisticated graphs about Ron Paul's campaign: ronpaulgraphs.com. Major chat sites at ronpaulforum.com, ronpaulnation.com, dailypaul.com, many more. You tube videos are another aspect - many of which look almost professionally created, for example 'Ron Paul Second Fox GOP Debate - Going the Distance!':
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDtLv3I_UaY
Then there's the money bomb days, the next being TeaParty07.com, which will be December 16th, the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party. Huge spontaneous rallies for Dr Paul occur about the country. Additional Ron Paul rallies are done when other candidates come to town. And the official campaign structure doesn't try to interfere with anything. That $4.3 million was raised completely independent of Dr Paul's staffers. The other candidates have nothing like this. It is because Dr Paul is genuine, not a flip flopper, who has integrity and cares about the Constitution and the American people. That is the nature of this campaign: Freedom! Independence! Liberty! RonPaul2008!
Posted by: Dr. Ward Ciac at December 08, 2007 06:55 AM (FMs5l)
8
Listen to Sean, maybe we can stop the money being sent to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia? Lets not forget Turkey and UAE.
Posted by: azmat hussain at December 08, 2007 12:45 PM (mdszq)
9
I think it's interesting that no one has yet addressed the issue of the misleading mailer that Sean brought up in his original post.
Posted by: Attila Girl at December 08, 2007 02:38 PM (Pj4Qc)
10
"Dr Paul says no attacking other countries without Congress authorizing it. That's what the US Constitution says."
Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002
H.J.Res. 114 (Public Law 107–243), it passed the House on October 10, 2002 by a vote of 296-133,[2] and the Senate on October 11 by a vote of 77-23. It was signed into law by President Bush on October 16, 2002.
Just because Ron Paul voted against it, it doesn't mean that it's not law. Unless that's Ron Paul's position. In that case, screw him.
Posted by: Darrell at December 09, 2007 07:43 AM (k1ghu)
