littlemissattila.new.mu.nu

March 10, 2007

Completely Smugly,

and to the utter annoyance of my critics . . ."

Via Insty, who adds a comma to the meme—and deletes the word "utter."

But, you know. In a good way.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 06:04 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 35 words, total size 1 kb.

A Conservative Conference for the Rest of Us

And it'll be held this October in a libertarian state!

They had me at "WiFi throughout the center."

Posted by: Attila Girl at 10:17 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 34 words, total size 1 kb.

Steyn on the NPR Experience.

God bless him, he still wants to persuade people that Islamofascism is a real menace. (As do I, of course—in case you weren't paying attention.)

She had just told me that Â“weÂ’re all in this together. I donÂ’t care if youÂ’re Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist.Â” Good for you. Unfortunately, they do care. In Gaza, in Sudan, in Kashmir, in southern Thailand, they care very much. But the great advantage of cultural relativism is that it absolves you of the need to know anything. For, if everythingÂ’s of equal value, why bother learning about any of the differences?
On the whole I prefer those Americans who tune out the foreign-policy bores for wall-to-wall Anna Nicole Smith coverage: at least theyÂ’ve got an interest—ask them about the latest scoop on the identity of the father of her child and theyÂ’ll bring you up to speed. By contrast, a large number of elite Americans are just as parochial and indifferent to the currents of the age; the only difference is that they choose to trumpet it as a moral virtue.

Holy shit. What if he's right? I'm always afraid of that with Steyn, you know.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 08:49 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 202 words, total size 1 kb.

The Argument Isn't Whether the War on Terror Should Be Micromanaged.

It's simply that thinking people disagree on how to micromanage it.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 08:32 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 33 words, total size 1 kb.

Might We Gain the World

. . . and yet lose our souls?

Posted by: Attila Girl at 08:12 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 18 words, total size 1 kb.

Dave Kopel

. . . on the "Ann Coulter/Paul Campos" style of political discourse.

Via Glenn.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 07:54 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 18 words, total size 1 kb.

Google: Only Evil If You Don't Work There.

They've found the ultimate way to spoil their employees, with a company bus system:

The company now ferries about 1,200 employees to and from Google daily—nearly one-fourth of its local work force—aboard 32 shuttle buses equipped with comfortable leather seats and wireless Internet access. Bicycles are allowed on exterior racks, and dogs on forward seats, or on their ownersÂ’ laps if the buses run full.
Riders can sign up to receive alerts on their computers and cellphones when buses run late. They also get to burnish their green credentials, not just for ditching their cars, but because all Google shuttles run on biodiesel. Oh, and the shuttles are free.

Via James Joyner, who remarks: "They must have one hell of a union. Certainly, no greedy corporation would do this kind of thing simply to attract top-notch employees."

Posted by: Attila Girl at 07:34 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 153 words, total size 1 kb.

The "Joy's Next Short Story" Contest

Yes, yes: finishing the novel. Really, I am. But there's a reading party later on this month, and I hate reading chapter snippets at those events.

Please provide me with a subject around which I can fashion a mini-short story. Optimum page count would be five pages, double-spaced, so I need a fast little story arc.

Please provide me with a theme, an image, or a premise. And, yes: there are sometimes children at these events. "Dark" is okay, but it should be transmutable into PG-13 material.

Thank you.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 07:23 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 101 words, total size 1 kb.

1 OK. I was going to pitch this one to the TV networks myself, thinking made-for-TV movie, but who can resist a damsel in distress? Premise: Debris from the Chinese satellite-killer test is heading for the International Space Station. The European Space Agency launches a rescue mission, but in-fighting between German engineers and French trade unions leads to a space craft where the computer cables are 14 cm too short. No matter the crew presses on until they hit he debris field while the various nationalities aboard are in a heated argument over whether smoking on-board should be allowed. NASA "brass" decide another rescue attempt would be a "suicide" mission. Enter a Tommy-Lee-Jones type "maverick" mission specialist who says it could be done. Too risky for regular astronauts, he visits the Houston penitentiary were they have an astronaut training program for convicts--all hard core. Here is where you get to assemble a stereotypical collection of misfits that would make TV network executives' hearts skip two beats! Include obligatory weight-lifting scene and an advanced calculus "throwdown" between two rival groups of inmates. Think "Stomp The Yard". With calculus. Who has the experience to handle such a mission? Lisa Nowak. of course. Doing her time at the Houston Pen., she agrees to head up the mission in exchange for a full Presidential pardon. To add more "suspense," have Angelina Jolie visiting the ISS on a morale-boosting mission, or something to do with "spotting" Global Warming. Add Nancy Pelosi's daughter, too(no need to check if she has one). That will add additional "political edge" and explain why Bush can't risk saying "no!" Outcome? What do you think? Hope this helps! If you don't like that one, how about the "Stomp The Yard" gang going up against Iran's best in a winner-take-all "stepping contest" in order to prevent all-out war???? I smell a classic!

Posted by: Darrell at March 10, 2007 09:07 PM (X52Zv)

2 Yeah; that'll all fit in five pages.

Posted by: Attila Girl at March 10, 2007 10:54 PM (0CbUL)

3 I bet it would! How about a modern tale of love? For their anniversary, a wife decides to have a sex-change operation because of an off-hand remark by a right-wing commentator thrown her husband's way. Independently, her husband decides the same. He wants to beat that commentator at her own game, only left-of-center style. He's also harbors a secret wish to see his wife with another woman, only he is too possessive and controlling to let any other human being be with his wife.They both go to Thailand to get things done quick and cheap. Imagine the surprise when the anniversary rolls around. Set it in Ojai, California, and it could be "The Gift of the Ojai". . .

Posted by: Darrell at March 11, 2007 06:53 AM (o1Bos)

4 Cute, Darrell.

Posted by: Attila Girl at March 11, 2007 08:49 AM (0CbUL)

5 Note to "Law and Order" writers: If you're going to steal that plot line and add James Carville details "coincidentally," have the wife win the Presidential race afterward. This will speak to our sexist society, even though Jeane Kirkpatrick could have won it twenty years ago. I'll sue otherwise. Oh, and make a few references about the husband looking like a 6"2" penis before(show a silhouette on the wall). . .and the same, only wearing a "French tickler" afterward. Last try for your contest(really!). Jane has two pairs of socks--hot pink and blue. She is meeting friends for a late lunch at 1:30. Her iPod is pink. What is she to do?

Posted by: Darrell at March 11, 2007 01:29 PM (P/l60)

6 This one is painfully easy; she wears one pink sock, and one blue sock, carries the iPod, and wears one blue dangly earring--set off by a silver stud on the other ear. I would, of course, make sure that both pairs of socks are high-quality cashmere. Easy schmeasy!

Posted by: Attila Girl at March 11, 2007 02:39 PM (7H00g)

7 A couple drive down the road. They seen a man carrying a chainsaw and a case of Bud Light. The man wants to give him a ride, the woman doesn't because she has better taste and hates Bud Light. Continue... If it was (sort of) good enough for a Super Bowl commercial it's good enough for your party.

Posted by: Sean Hackbarth at March 11, 2007 07:28 PM (/qEp0)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

March 09, 2007

The D.C. Court of Appeals

. . . has discovered the Bill of Rights.

I've been wondering how long we would continue to treat residents of the District as serfs of the Feds. This is long overdue.

Insty has an update here.

Eric of Classical Values: "Great news." And he has more links.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 02:44 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 58 words, total size 1 kb.

The Politics of Outing

Goldstein talks about the latest outing-flap here:

Ironically, the Â“RethugsÂ” that swim like moralist sharks through the muck of BacchusÂ’ fevered imagination donÂ’t seem nearly so bothered by SanchezÂ’ having done gay porn 15 years ago as Bacchus and pals do that the guy had the audacity to wander off their grievance plantation. He was supposed to come running into their arms, but instead, he embraced a political position that champions the liberal concept of individual primacy, eschewing identity-based totalitarian positions like the one favored by Bacchus, Aravosis, and a host of other petty ideological tyrants who, while they like to fancy themselves ultra-liberal, are in fact filled with the very kind of hatred they project onto their perceived enemies. Being gay, to these people, is no longer an ontological or experiential condition that can exist outside of politics; it is, instead, tied inextricably to their political beliefs. Which is why those gays who donÂ’t adopt the proper politics are to be savaged, while those who do adopt the prescribed positions dictated by the group are granted its protections.
Take the oath, become part of the family; reject the offer, pay the price. Like the mafia, only with nicer shoes and a whole lot less Drakkar.

He's right: the whole thing is about projection. The left projects its hatred of true liberals (us) onto the GOP, and substitutes the word "gay" for "right-of-center."

Is there some kind of ritual wherein one swears the oath to become the "right" kind of gay man/lesbian? Just wonderin'.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 12:20 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 262 words, total size 2 kb.

1 I was just reading about this over at Still Stacy's, and, the whole thing just makes me so angry. The Left either doesn't get the issue, or, more likely, chooses not to get the issue. Just because we may not care for a lifestyle choice, and are against gay marriage, for the most part, doesn't mean we are going to deny people that lifestyle choice. We understand about freedom, real freedom, to be who you are. Unless one is a murderer, pedophile, member of NAMBLA, choices that hurt others. Sanchez didn't hurt anyone. But, he is not a liberal (as opposed to a Classical Liberal, as you alluded to, which is what I consider myself), so the Left has to smear and destroy him based on politics, rather then what is right.

Posted by: William Teach at March 09, 2007 04:38 PM (doAuV)

2 The ritual for becoming the "right" kind of gay/lesbian/Afro-American/whatever is to endorse the Democratic program/candidate.

Posted by: John at March 09, 2007 04:38 PM (5/lnT)

3 Teach - why exactly are you opposed to gay marriage (and by extension civil unions)? When you look at what we really want, we don't want to force your churches to do anything, we want to be able to visit our loved ones in the hospital and be the ones responsible for medical decisions. You can say "medical power of attorney" is all that is needed, but it isn't. Parents routinely step in and over-ride decisions (and their child's written wishes) because mother and father know best. We want to be able to inherit property under the same terms you do. If your wife were to pass away you would not have to sell the house to pay inheritance taxes. We frequently do. The list goes on. But you don't care. Most people opposed to gay marriage find gay "icky" and wish we would go away or back into the closet. More than one person has sort-of admitted that if feared being taken for gay should he drop his opposition. Look back at the arguments made about inter-racial marriages. Most of the arguments made about gay marriage are exactly the same. (The quoted Bible versus change, but that's all) As for drinking the koolaid and being accepted as the "right kind of gay," (or maybe that should be the "left kind") is easy. Adopt the political position of the Dems on every subject, from abortion to Zumbo. (Even when that position and those politicians are notably anti-gay.)

Posted by: Zendo Deb at March 10, 2007 03:37 AM (+gqOq)

4 I am opposed to gay marriage because it is against what marriage has always been: a union between a man and a woman. That said, I do not have an issue with a gay persons life partner being give rights, such as being considered a "family member," like if they were to visit in the hospital. I thought I made it quite clear that, though I may not agree with their lifestyle, it's not about me. They deserve rights, and to be treated in a dignified manner as a whole. Individuals should be treated as they deserve, just like with heterosexuals. However, Zendo, you miss the point of the post. What we have is the Lefty attack on Sanchez simply because he is Conservative, and using his being gay as a way to attack him. So much for their tolerance, compassion, and support for gay rights. Anything that gets in the way of the politics of the left is open to massive smears and slurs, the politics of personal destruction. We saw it with the Gannon kerfluffle, as well. Liberals do not tolerate anyone who strays of the reservation. They say they support gays, blacks, minorities, but will mercilessly attack them in bigoted and racially insensitive ways if they do not toe the liberal line.

Posted by: William Teach at March 10, 2007 05:29 AM (doAuV)

5 Zendo got it, William. And, as always, I feel obligated to point out that marriage has not traditionally been one man and one woman, but one man and however many women he can afford: limiting oneself to one wife is a relatively recent discipline. I think a lot of people are hung up on the word "marriage," so tell me how you'd feel about civil unions for gays.

Posted by: Attila Girl at March 10, 2007 06:36 AM (0CbUL)

6 Good point on one man on many women. Civil unions, I am not opposed to, though it is almost semantics. If they love each other, they deserve some sort of link backed up by the force of law. Cause, it isn't about me, you, Zendo, Conservatives, Liberals, whoever. It is about them. To me, that is what Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness is about. As long as it isn't hurting someone else, I see no problem. I'd be hypocritical if I said I was totally against gays. To put a none too fine point on it, like most guys, I am not adverse to lesbians. Any guy who says otherwise would be lying. It may freak me out to see two men kissing or anything else, but, I can choose to look away. It doesn't actually harm me, And love is love. Who am I to stop it?

Posted by: William Teach at March 10, 2007 07:46 AM (doAuV)

7 Teach - you can say it is one-man/one-woman, and if it was just a religious ceremony and that's all fine. But it isn't. Married partners get a deal as far as Social Security is concerned. Married partners get a deal as far as health insurance is concerned. Married partners get a deal - the deal of the century - on the death tax. They get deals on making medical decisions, investments, legal protection when the relationship ends (and that is relatively new - the abundance of divorce), etc. The list is really quite long considering all the nonsense politicians always go on about the marriage tax. Are you willing to give up your deals in the interest of fairness? I didn't think so. At least you admit you are prejudiced (and the 'icky' feeling you have about gay men - that's called prejudice.) And while you may not feel that way about lesbians - I can let you in on a secret. None of us want to sleep with you. Again, I point you to the history of laws against interracial marriage. "Miscegenation of the races" was attacked in exactly the same way you are "opposed" to gay marriage. With Biblical quotes to back it up. It made people "uncomfortable." Mostly the people it made uncomfortable were the bigots.

Posted by: Zendo Deb at March 10, 2007 09:19 AM (+gqOq)

8 And yes, the Left is not the kindly and loving group of people you see in the adverts. Reality never lives up to the marketing hype. But the outing of gay Repubs would carry less weight on either side of the aisle if the Repubs weren't so rabidly anti-gay themselves. If fairness was the rule on the right, and if "the pursuit of happiness" included (in the view of the Right) the ability to love the way nature (or God) intended, then these outings would be resulting in a "so what" response. But Repub politicians who are outed invariably lose elections - when they just don't resign when outed. And staffers suffer a similar fate.... for the most part. What is it about Rudy G that has "the social conservatives" in a snit? His support of gay rights, his admitting to having gay friends, and his having enough security in is own manhood to laugh at the conventional rubes. Yes the Dems should walk their talk. But that doesn't give the Repubs a get-out-jail-free card.

Posted by: Zendo Deb at March 10, 2007 09:32 AM (+gqOq)

9 I have to disagree on the "rabidly anti-gay completely. Just because many stand up against gay marriage, doesn't make them anti-gay. Matter of fact, there are several gay bloggers, like the Gay Patriot, who are thought of quite well. It wasn't the right who was rabidly attacking Gannon. It isn't the right who is rabidly attacking Sanchez. And it wasn't the right who was attacking the Gay Patriot. It was people on the Left. And when they were attacked, folks on the Right stood up to defend them. Michael Rogers, a vicious sleeze monger, attacks any conservative who is gay. He "outs" them, even when they aren't. And he went after the Gay Patriot. The Right-o-sphere came to his defense. And we will do it any time in the future, too. It isn't anti-gay, or anti-black, or anti-woman, or anti-whatever, to say that certain groups do not deserve more protection then another group, which is where alot of the meme's that the Right is anti-something come from. Should one group be protect above another? SHould one be given preference over another? No.

Posted by: William Teach at March 10, 2007 04:56 PM (doAuV)

10 You're mostly right, William. But I've heard some people criticize Giuliani's gay-rights positions in terms that made me think it wasn't just the legislative side of things that made them uneasy: I've heard phrasing like "Mr. Yay Gay" that left me with the distinct impression some conservatives didn't like the fact that he had a gay roommate at one point. And that made me a bit uncomfortable.

Posted by: Attila Girl at March 10, 2007 05:44 PM (0CbUL)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Draft Fred!

James suggests I'd be pleased by a Fred Thompson presidential candidacy in 2008: you're damned skippy I would.

When one looks at the top several contenders in the GOP right now, the choices seem to be between conservatism (Romney, Gingrich and Brownback) or charisma (Giuliani, and possibly Gingrich—but Gingrich's is undercut by his personal life).

The idea that someone out there might bring both conservatism and charisma to the table is more than a little bit appealing.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 11:31 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 81 words, total size 1 kb.

Another Fictional Piece of Dialogue

"You stopped over in Vegas on the way home? You should have hit a casino or two. You could have made out with enough to cover your CPAC trip! Or at least you could have checked out the Star Trek exhibit at the Hilton—help maintain your geek cred."

"My geek cred isn't hurting," she replied. "And there wasn't time to leave the airport. I skipped the video poker in the waiting area, since I'm too broke and too compulsive for that. But I did take advantage of the free WiFi, which in my mind makes up for any flaws the Las Vegas airport may have.

"I am still, for the record, very annoyed with both BWI and the people at U.S. Air."

Posted by: Attila Girl at 05:55 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 132 words, total size 1 kb.

March 08, 2007

The Coulter-Maher Civility Forum

Show sponsor Iowahawk has the transcript:

ANN: . . . It's time that we begin the process of healing by restoring civility and decorum to our national dialog. That's why I am asking my fans to take a deep breath, tone down, and cool off. The next time Bill goes riffing off a Condi Rice assassination ad lib, let his studio audience of flag-burning West Hollywood homos bark and whoop and clap like a mindless pack of trained Maoist circus seals. Because if you succeed in driving him off the air again, I stand to lose three chapters in my forthcoming best seller, The Christ-Haters.
BILL: And the next time Ann starts joking about putting anthrax on Nancy Pelosi's dildo, I'm asking my fans to sit politely and allow her audience of inbred Young Republican Jeebus tards to howl and bleat and cheer like demonically possessed preppy Klan chimps. Let's avoid the temptation to hatefully demand apologies and shunning, because let's face it: a typical Ann Coulter comment is good for ten minutes of monologue and $2 million for the DNC.
ANN: A little common courtesy is all it takes. Together, we can insure that our next generation will have access to the same whimsical death wish political humor that we all enjoy today. Let's not kill the free speech goose that lays the golden egg!
BILL: That's right Ann, you emaciated Eva Braun sideshow freak.

Via Hackbarth, who has more.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 09:51 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 249 words, total size 2 kb.

Robert Bluey

. . . Has a new blog.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 08:49 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 11 words, total size 1 kb.

What? I Don't Fit In with the Neanderthals?

This is an enemies list I'm happy to be on.

Have you ever noticed that 79% of those who use the term "RINO" are bound and determined to lose elections, no matter what it takes?

LET'S ALIENATE PEOPLE FOR THE SAKE OF ALIENATING THEM! Otherwise, we are just APPEASING the LIBERALS! Being POLITICALLY CORRECT! Ack, ack! Polly wants a cracker!

Posted by: Attila Girl at 07:52 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 76 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Are you so desperate to win elections that you simply don't give a crap how? Pragmatism is precisely why republicans are no longer conservative, and vise versa. It has nothing to do with "appeasing" the liberals. Its outright becoming liberal. There is a difference. Twixt principles and pragmatism, never the twain shall meet...

Posted by: Huckleberry at March 08, 2007 09:24 PM (Ib4l0)

2 Sure. Calling people "faggots" is the epitome of principled debate: color me convinced.

Posted by: Attila Girl at March 08, 2007 09:29 PM (0CbUL)

3 Absolutely not what I was talking about, but okay. And who, precisely was alienated? The "conservatives" who were going to vote for Guiliani or the "conservatives" who were going to vote for McCain, or the "conservatives" who were going to vote for Romney? And just for the record, Coulter wasn't "debating" anybody. No one's voting for her, as she isn't running for anything. The "middle of the road" independents aren't going to even remember this come the primaries, and the galvanized factions are all lined up for their preference anyhow.

Posted by: Huckleberry at March 08, 2007 10:10 PM (Ib4l0)

4 Are you so desperate to win elections that you simply don't give a crap how? Ah, yes, the all or nothing approach. Garranteed to never produce a winning hand, ever. That seems to be an attribute you share with the howling moonbat faction on the left. This is good that such people will never seen the reigns of power, much less actually grasp them.

Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie at March 09, 2007 05:53 AM (1hM1d)

5 Talking about electability, I'd like to pose a question and get some feedback. It seems to be a consensus on much of the right side of the 'sphere that the War on Terror is the single most important issue facing America, and that all other political considerations should be subsumed to finding and promoting the politicians who both will vigorously pursue this war and have a realistic probability of winning the election. Recently we observed the specter of left extremists hounding War on Terror supporter Joe Lieberman out of his Democratic primary victory in Conneticut. He of course went on to win the general election as an Independent. And more recently there have been back-room whispers that the Republican Party is courting and wooing Lieberman to make the switch all the way into the R column. If we define "electability" as it seems to be defined here, as "appealing to as many people on the left as possible, without completely alienating more than a handful on the right", then would a Giuliani/Lieberman ticket be acceptable for the right-blogosphere to promote and embrace? Think about it: you have a tough, "take-no-prisoners" former prosecutor and Mayor of the toughest city in America who is a staunch supporter of the War on Terror, albeit a liberal on domestic issues, teamed with an erstwhile moderate Democrat who is also a staunch supporter of the War on Terror, and who ought to be capable of reaching across the aisle to those Democrat voters not consumed by Bush Derangement Syndrome. Tough on terror and straddling the great political divide. What do you think?

Posted by: Desert Cat at March 09, 2007 11:21 AM (B2X7i)

6 Ah, yes, the win-no-matter-what approach. Guaranteed to subvert genuine conservative interests every single time.

Posted by: Huckleberry at March 09, 2007 05:41 PM (Ib4l0)

7 Huck: on the other side of the spectrum, we have those who are so obsessed with ideological purity that very few people really meet their standards, and among this select group, no one has good political skills, charisma, likeability, or name recognition. DC: I think at this point if Lieberman wanted an R after his name he'd be a nice enhancer to any ticket--especially with Rudy, because in Rudy's case the election would constitute a "deal" between Rudy and the Right-to-Life movement, and having a devout Jew on hand--one whom many respect--could help people to feel they can trust Rudy to appoint strict constructionist judges.

Posted by: Attila Girl at March 09, 2007 11:15 PM (0CbUL)

8 Also, Lieberman is more soft-spoken, and might temper Rudy's rep for "meanness." (Though of course that is also his primary appeal in this day and age.)

Posted by: Attila Girl at March 10, 2007 06:43 AM (0CbUL)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Can a New Yorker Be President?

Sure. Unless he starts with the anti-West Coast bigotry—by either ragging on L.A. for its relative paucity of delicatessens, or stating categorically that one could not make a good bagel west of the Rockies, because the air quality/minerals in the water won't permit it.

If there's anyone more scary to the Hillaryites than Obama is, it would be Rudy.

Via Insty, who suspects there will be more media attacks on Rudy, but isn't impressed with this one. Yup: it's pretty pathetic.

Of course, like everyone else I'd like to see Rudy come around on Second Amendment issues, and other Bill of Rights concerns. But at least he doesn't believe in stifling speech, like Senator McCain does. That one is a deal-breaker for me.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 07:37 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 135 words, total size 1 kb.

Back in the City of Sexy Angels

I got home last night after interminable adventures with U.S. Air that I may post about once I recover from them; suffice it to say that I got up at 3:30 a.m. Pacific on Wednesday, and arrived home at the same time this morning—24 hours later.

My attempts to recuperate have involved the following activities:

1) liberating my car from bondage;

2) doing laundry;

3) sleeping until 2:00 p.m., without a shred of guilt over it;

4) driving my car with the window open;

5) playing rock and roll very loudly;

6) checking out all the cool trees in my little town—many of which are covered in little pink blossoms that weren't there a week ago, when I first left for the East Coast. California is so green in the winter and early spring; it doesn't really get brown until late May or early June.

I dig Maryland, but home is pretty gorgeous, too.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 07:11 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 168 words, total size 1 kb.

Dietary Advice

. . . from Jeff Goldstein.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 03:50 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 10 words, total size 1 kb.

My Apology to Ann Coulter.

Upon reflection, I've decided that I'm very sorry. You are actually doing a lot for the conservative movement. Just as NAMBLA is doing a lot for the cause of gay rights.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 03:46 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 41 words, total size 1 kb.

More on The Coulter Flap

Robert Bluey suggests that we "declared war" on Ann Coulter this week, in the blogger letter-writing campaign that originated at The American Mind. I don't know whether I quite see it that way. I don't have any problem with Coulter earning a living; I just don't agree with the American Conservative Union giving her the platform that it does at CPAC, and I'm very disappointed in their response to our letter.

The left votes with its wallet when it buys books by Noam Chomsky; the right votes with its wallet when it buys books by Ann Coulter.

On the right, as on the left, sometimes—as we used to say in my Marxist days, and in technocrat circles—"the masses are asses." People liked VHS videotape and DOS computers. And they like Ann Coulter's style of discourse, just as they dig Howard Stern.

I just don't have to agree with it. And I don't have to think Coulter represents inteligent right-of-center thought (though of course I know she's bright: that's actually one of the irritating things about this phenomenon).

I'm actually thinking of taking the opposite tack, and waging my own style of protest: I'll cover it when she makes a good point, and I'll mostly ignore her when she spouts off silly, offensive shit.

It's like training a dog, you know?

Posted by: Attila Girl at 03:11 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 230 words, total size 1 kb.

76kb generated in CPU 0.1978, elapsed 0.3059 seconds.
217 queries taking 0.2809 seconds, 527 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

March 10, 2007

March 09, 2007

March 08, 2007

Search Thingy

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Monthly Traffic

Content

Feeds