'Cause let's face it: I can practically read minds as it is. Nothing very exotic about that.
Via Zoey, who gets to have electrical superpowers. I have those too, if you count what happens when I walk on the carpet too much, wearing the wrong shoes.
1
Zoe's not the only one with electrical charge...
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie at April 28, 2008 05:40 AM (1hM1d)
2Your Superpower Should Be Invisibility
You are stealth, complex, and creative.
You never face problems head on. Instead, you rely on your craftiness to get your way.
A mystery to others, you thrive on being a little misunderstood.
You happily work behind the scenes... because there's nothing better than a sneak attack!
Why you would be a good superhero: You're so sly, no one would notice... not even your best friends
Your biggest problem as a superhero: Missing out on all of the glory that visible superheroes get
What Should Your Superpower Be?
Posted by: Darrell at April 28, 2008 03:03 PM (8nWDE)
I'd like to live on a farm, too. But not if I had to work on it when I wasn't in the mood. I'm afraid that my attention span makes it difficult even to look after house plants.
We should move onto someone else's farm, and be the writers-in-residence. I'll cook and do the laundry and stay up at night scrubbing the bathtubs.
I do want a horse, though. Maybe just one of those dog-size horses. When we lived in those other hills (the more suburban ones, without all the wildlife) in Glendale, one of the neighbors had a little horse, and used to walk it along with the dog.
I understand that it might be difficult to look after a horse in the condo, but certainly where there's a will, there's a way.
1
Oh, gosh, please come and move in - I hate laundry! I'll buy you a horse!
They are cheap here in the middle of the country!
Posted by: Beth at April 28, 2008 03:37 PM (lO+6d)
2
Done! We'll be parking a double-wide at the edge of your property soon, and we'll be "textile sharecroppers"--laundry and mending in exchange for horseriding/gun-ogling privileges.
Posted by: Attila Girl at April 28, 2008 04:21 PM (Hgnbj)
Rachel Lucas
Has all her LOL Pet pix in one place, for handy reference.
I don't usually go for anything cute, but LOL Animals are a guilty pleasure of mine, like Mary Engelbreit's artwork. Just can't help it.
Back to Rachel; love her, love her, love her. She's yang to my yin, and she likes guns. And dogs. So she's perfect, except that neither of her dogs is a pit bull. (Of course, none of my dogs are pit bulls either, but that's because they don't exist. Naturally, I claim the mom's Mandy as my own when she is behaving. When she is naughty, she instantly and miraculously becomes my mother's exclusively. Isn't that odd?)
I began to wail like a little baby and actually slumped to the floor on my knees in despair. I just want my fucking sunglasses! Is that too much to ask, God?! Heeeeelllpppp meeeeee!!!!
This brought the dogs nearby, wondering why Human was on the floor screaming. They both came sidling up, wagging their tails comfortingly, and sniffed my head. Sunny gave me a lick on my cheek and Maggie smashed her body up against me as though to be my rock. I sobbed out loud to them something like, “Sweet girls, sweet sweet girls, I wish you could sniff out sunglasses God has hidden from me as punishment for being a heathen.” They stared at me in confusion.
At that moment, I finally decided to just get my shit together and go, even without sunglasses. So I stood up and went to the bathroom to blow my nose. I looked in the mirror at the same time I reached up to my eyes to wipe tears away.
I saw the sunglasses on my face just as my fingers smashed up against them instead of my eye.
That shit is a sign of genius, yo.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
06:23 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 324 words, total size 2 kb.
I don't know exactly how to a take the ultra-pro-chastity lobby; they obviously have their points, but it's hard not to see their beliefs as part of the sexual double standard. I mean, I do get that the sexes aren't "equal" as regards sex, and never will be. After all—
- men don't get pregnant;
- men aren't as suceptible to STDs from women as women are to STDs from men;
- it is a simple matter for a woman to satisfy a man, and—relatively speaking—a challenge for a man to satisfy a woman;
- there really isn't much for a woman in casual sex. That is, there is even less for a woman in same than for a man.
On the other hand, I'm not too excited about the double standard, and the idea that woman are somehow "polluted" by sex in a way that men are not. There is that silly notion out there that a woman who has a lot of sex is a "slut," but that a man who is sexually weak is actually . . . strong. As I understand it, this idea was constructed by . . . oh, right. By men.
After all, men aren't "slutty." They are "virile."
I don't mind the fact that teenage girls are told that one might as well wait a bit for sex, just as one might wait a bit to tackle Russian novels. And the sex-saturated culture of the 1970s was downright abusive. What I don't like, however, is that one is very seldom told what a genuinely sober, thoughtful approach to long-term human sexuality is. Most SoCons seem more concerned with the notion of what it isn't.
It is as if one were told to avoid to the quicksand, but not how to ascend to the mountaintop. And the mountaintop is shrouded in mist, nearly invisible. Those who haven't seen it wave their hands and assure you that it's there. Those who have seen it simply tell you to "follow the signs." But the signs were destroyed by storms long ago; those of us who want to reach the peak are navigating by feeling around for moss on tree trunks, tracking the sun, and leaving Boy Scout-style landmarks for ourselves, so we'll know where we've already been.
There is no map; only a list of "must-nots." And a lot of second-hand testimony about long-term bliss that no one has actually seen, but everyone assures you exists.
1
The real problem with conservatives on the idea of sex is that they are still caught in the paradigm that sex is a necessary evil that is made tolerable by marriage. (Whereas liberals regard marriage as an unnecessary evil that is made tolerable by sex.)
The real truth is that the ideal sexual relationship is so supremely good that any departure from it is, by comparison, evil.
Posted by: John at April 28, 2008 05:18 AM (83c7O)
2
How about this as an approach to long-term sexuality:
Sex without love is empty.
And marriage is the ultimate expression of love.
Without love, sex becomes a selfish thing -- it's about my pleasure, not my partner's. Just about any partner would do, so what's wrong with "trading in" my partner for a more-attractive model? And so sex without love never forms long-term bonds, because everyone eventually gets older, and there are always young, hot twenty-somethings to pursue.
But when love -- genuine love, not lying and saying "I love you" just to get sex -- enters the picture, things change. Suddenly it's not about you, it's about your partner. What will please him or her? And intimacy enters the picture, too -- when you really care about someone, you want to spend time with them. Not to mention that there's almost nothing as personal and intimate as being naked, both physically and emotionally, with someone. And instead of sex being merely a means of physical pleasure, it becomes part and parcel of the glue that ties the relationship together.
So why do social conservatives (myself included) focus so much on marriage? Well, maybe it's because the ideal of marriage -- a lifelong commitment to the other person -- is the ultimate expression of love. Marriage, as it's supposed to be, says "I love you enough that I want to spend my whole life with you. I will not pursue any other woman (or man). I will make every effort to be there for you, meet your needs, and make you happy, not because some authority is telling me to, but because I love you and want the best for you. And I promise that I'll do this for the rest of your life -- or, if I die before you, for the rest of my life."
Now, we all know that many marriages fall far short of this ideal, sadly. Selfishness creeps in, or people lose sight of the long-term goal (lifelong commitment) and suddenly the screaming match over the latest credit card bill and how will we ever afford the kids' college in 15 years looms far larger in importance than the commitment you made at your wedding. But everything I've heard from happy older couples celebrating their 40th or 50th wedding anniversary says, "Sure there will be days when you feel like throwing in the towel. But if you let your commitment to the marriage outweigh your temporary feelings, and act with love towards your spouse even when you're not feeling the love right now, you'll find that the feelings of love return. Sure, maybe it'll take a few weeks or even a few months. But when you said 'As long as we both shall live' at the altar... did you really mean it? Then act on your commitment, and stick it out -- it's worth it in the long run."
That's not to say that every single person should stay in a bad marriage no matter what. If there's an abusive situation, for example, it probably isn't going to get better, and staying in the marriage isn't healthy. But for most marriages, where there isn't abuse but rather the strain and conflict of day-to-day life together -- for most marriages, sticking it out, and proving your love to your spouse by self-sacrificial actions (like getting up at 3:00 AM to change the baby so that your wife can have a few more hours of rest) works wonders for the long-term health of the marriage.
So there it is. That's the ideal that social conservatives are trying to hold up as the standard.
Posted by: Robin Munn at April 28, 2008 07:29 AM (Of2A3)
3
Hm. I'm still seeing through a glass, darkly. I understand that that is what life is all about. And I acknowledge that if it weren't so, it would be hellishly boring.
And I'm desperately in love with my husband.
But I feel terribly handicapped by the fact that I've never seen a functional, non-abusive long-term relationship up-close. I've seen this done badly, but almost never done well.
Of course, I recognize that no one ever purrs as loudly when they are happy as they yelp when they are in pain--so one is always going to hear more about the failures and speedbumps than about the successes.
But I still long for that roadmap.
Posted by: Attila Girl at April 28, 2008 12:32 PM (Hgnbj)
4
Oooh, Attila Girl.
I know what you mean. Oh, boy, do I know what you mean.
My birth family was fairly non-functional. I was the younger of two boys. And I had no cousins that lived close. My greater family nearby were, well, kind of like the British royal family; frightfully polite, but never warm or loving.
I'm 47, and to this day, family dynamics baffle me. I have friends who are very loving, have five happy daughters, and I watch and marvel--but I have no idea how they do it.
Actually, I'm very lucky to have a wife who puts up with me and who tries hard to do the right thing. As do I. But I'd love that roadmap, too.
Posted by: Gordon at April 28, 2008 06:08 PM (52nKX)
On Feminism and White Privilege
. . . Jeff G. decided to show up for work today.
(Oh, for Pete's sake, people. No, rape isn't funny, but white guilt can be hilarious. And these days those who think black men are more sexual than white men—or better in bed, or whatnot—don't know very many men of any race.)
Posted by: Attila Girl at
01:00 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 63 words, total size 1 kb.
Stacy McCain . . .found a cute regionalist "analysis" by Newsweek's Michael Hirsh (Stacy M's scare quotes—but they fit) that explains how Americans have been moving South and West, and this has been a Bad Thing. Because Southerners are bad. And Westerners are . . . well, Westerners don't really exist. Beyond the Continental Divide, there be monsters.
Because if one were to actually include the Southwest in extrapolating from these demographic trends, one might be forced to look at the ultimate Southwestern "state"—Southern California.
Which is not "red" at all, conservative Orange County and mixed/centrist San Diego notwithstanding. The three "Californias" are, top-to-bottom, blue, red (central California, where our agriculture is, along with a lot of our small towns), and blue.
Though those who maintain that California will never again get "into play" should look at the careers of our current governor, as well as Richard Riordan, L.A.'s mayor not too long ago. (Riordan was the first Republican I ever voted for.)
The entire Newsweek piece smacks of East Coast jingoism, and includes this choice bit of self-parody: "We have become an intolerant nation, and that's what gets you elected."
And Hirsh knows his intolerance. But he shouldn't be writing for Newsweek; he should be writing for The Onion.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
12:09 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 216 words, total size 2 kb.
The Chicago Boyz' "Eatin' Cheap" Contest
Via Insty. I love this sort of thing. Actually, the solution to being creative in the kitchen seems to be finding either the right cookin' music on iTunes, or hanging out with the kind of people who like to talk to you while you cook. Some people have tiny televisions in their kitchens, and watch old movies while they make soup: I'll bet that works, too.
Also, on Sunday nights I'll sometimes make a sign for the fridge door (or use a tiny whiteboard) to list what the very best leftovers are, so we'll remember to have them for lunch that week ("Beef ravioli in the round container, first shelf!" "Stroganoff, blue container, second shelf!")
I still think the better solution to rising world food shortages is to use algae and switchgrass for our biofuels, and turn the world on to democracy / free markets, but in the meantime we can refrain from hoarding food, and experiment with cheap eating (I do this every several years, and since every time I look at Ralph's it costs me $100, it might be time to re-examine it).
The cheap food thread discusses Ramen a lot. The fact is, I simply cannot buy the cheapest brands of Ramen: I get "oriental" flavored stuff in the Asian-foods section, and it costs a lot more—like 50-75 cents a package. I also add chili-garlic paste to it, and a bit of sesame oil. At that point it's ready, though I sometimes look through the refrigerator for other leftovers to put on top: it's great for stray bits of veggies.
The second bowl in that batch of Ramen gets placed in the fridge, and eaten the next day. By then the noodles are fatter and there's less liquid. So it seems to want to be spiked with another dose of sesame oil by then.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
11:18 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 319 words, total size 2 kb.
One More from Glenn . . .
This one on the insanity with which we are approaching biofuels, which should be a straightforward matter (not simple—but straightforward):
The problem with ethanol is a government-subsidy problem, and a trade-barrier problem. It's not a problem with ethanol itself. Make it out of something other than food, and lower the barrier to Brazilian ethanol imports, and it would help our current situation a lot. We're not doing that because of farm-subsidy politics. The problem is, basically, the Iowa caucuses and the pandering that results. But simply bashing all biofuels uncritically is dumb.
UPDATE: On the other hand, the new farm bill demonstrates that Congress is dumber:
We have a program that makes us overpay for sugar, and now we're going to start a new program to subsidize the ethanol we create from it — because without the subsidy, the inflated sugar price we've created will make the ethanol unprofitable.
Upside: Everybody involved has an incentive to pay off some Senators.
Well, now, let's be fair: biofuels are too important to leave pricing up to the market.
1
Um...awful hard to read your links in the box (like, impossible unless I mouse over them). Maybe it's my Firefox.
Posted by: Mister Prickly at April 26, 2008 12:32 PM (/9Waz)
2
The free market is always the best hope!
Notice that any interference always causes problems?
Note to Mr Prickly: It appears normal in IE7.
Posted by: Darrell at April 26, 2008 03:04 PM (Z3cVk)
3
In Safari, links appear invisible in my blockquotes--something I keep meaning to fix. In the meantime, if at all possible I leave the links outside the quotation, even if it means being a bit redundant in the text.
Got to get this joint classed up, soon.
Posted by: Attila Girl at April 26, 2008 08:59 PM (Hgnbj)
I Got Nothin', Folks.
We're moving in a month, and I still have to:
(1) Catch up on laundry. (I sucked it up and got the washer fixed yesterday morning—it took the repair guy three minutes to figure out what was wrong, whereas I would have spent seven hours on it).
(2) Check on flooring costs tomorrow (I have a bad feeling about this, but I shall forge ahead. Yesterday I told my husband that my mother recommends we keep the existing carpeting, and simply have it cleaned despite the rust stains and the mold. "But it makes you sick," A the H reminded me.
"Maybe it's psycho-somatic," I remarked. "My mother didn't notice it."
"Your mother doesn't have allergies," he replied. "Also, you lied to her about the fungal content of the carpet, because you didn't want her going into some kind of 'black mold psychosis' on you."
"Oh, right." I was over there this morning, and, sure enough: I was on the verge of sneezing the entire time. And all methods of carpet cleaning on-site involve water, which does not cut down on mold and mildew.)
(3) Pick out a new headboard for the bed / television / entertainment center, and some of that "6-12 months down the line" furniture: smaller bedside tables, new entertainment center, a room divider for my study area.
Every cent we have right now should go into food, moving, and the essential elements of the condo revamp.
So with any luck I'll have something interesting and witty to say in the morning. Right now, I'm headed to the all-night drugstore to find out what sorts of deals are available on OTC antihistamines.
1
Sorry: that isn't a handful of headboards; just one (for a Queen bed, if you're listening to us, and a King bed, if you're listening to my mom--who as usual wants to make things more complicated). And there are actually two entertainment centers involved: a standard one for the living room that will hold a large flat-screen and readjust the viewing angle on same (we've got to get that flat-screen too) as well as one for the bedroom that might double as a small or narrow dresser, and will hold the ancient television that is . . . wait for it . . . VHS compatible! (It just needs a DVD player.)
Oh, and (4) figure out whether the internet connection should be through our phone lines, or through our cables, and get both those items installed before we move in—along with TiVo, which as I understand it will allow the Very Flaky person in the household to still watch Boston Legal; Law & Order: Disneyland; the Sunday political shows in which the token conservative receives a brutal verbal anal probe; and Saturday morning cartoons.
And I've got to get some drawers installed in the walk-in closet (the main one). Hooray. That is: hooray if we can afford it.
Posted by: Attila Girl at April 25, 2008 09:57 PM (Hgnbj)
2
Maybe Katrina and the Waves can help you relax. If she caught her flight, that is.
Posted by: Darrell at April 25, 2008 11:12 PM (2+qe5)
3
And pull the carpeting before you move anything in. Not only lakes life easier, if the Hazmat team finds it in the dumpster you can still finger the previous owners.
Posted by: Darrell at April 25, 2008 11:14 PM (2+qe5)
4
Cable by far. Costs about the same (around here anyway) but is much faster than anything the phone company can pump out. Plus you can get phone via cable too, and most companies will give you some kind of break for a package deal (tv, phone and internet).
Posted by: Desert Cat at April 26, 2008 06:48 AM (DIr0W)
5
Katriina is HERE! Yippee! Thank you!
Must start with "Red Wine and Whiskey," and then listen to the entire thing, all the way through.
Posted by: Attila Girl at April 26, 2008 08:42 AM (Hgnbj)
6
On Laundry
Nudity taboos are enacted not to establish a modicum of public decency, but as a way to maximize the need for laundry equipment and supplies. American paranoia about naked kids didn't appear until laundry became cheap.
Posted by: Alan Kellogg at April 26, 2008 11:46 PM (3fNsJ)
Allah P . . .
is watchin' TV so I don't have to. (Actually, I couldn't bear more than 15-20 seconds of most of these clips, even if my computer were in the mood to let me have any more, which it isn't).
I'm a bit torn on The View. Partly, I'm gratified and surprised that there is one classical liberal / libertarian / center-right voice on that show. Partly, I'm disappointed to see yet another roundtable with one! count them! one! conservative voice; shades of the Sunday political talk shows with a cast of thousands of liberals—but also, George Will!
Actually, the few times I've seen that show, I've liked Goldberg, even though I don't agree with her very much. I haven't liked her as an Oscar host at all, but I dig nearly everything else she does.
And I know everyone is going to get mad at me, but that scene in The Player that has her twirling a tampon around in the Pasadena PD office? Fucking genius.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
10:39 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 175 words, total size 1 kb.
1
;-)
American Porlock! My Name is Porlock! CSI: Porlock! Law and Porlock! Two and a Half Porlocks!
ooh, something shiny! it's so porlocky!
Posted by: Rin at April 24, 2008 05:31 PM (pzH6j)
2
Editor/English majors are so weird! And you make fun of engineers?
Porlock is a quiet coastal village in Somerset, England, situated in a deep hollow below Exmoor, five miles west of Minehead.
The Person from Porlock was an unwelcome visitor to Samuel Taylor Coleridge who called by during his composition of the oriental poem Kubla Khan
Humor? Or does it involve shaving the pubes again?
Posted by: Darrell at April 24, 2008 09:19 PM (o2iua)
Posted by: Darrell at April 24, 2008 09:21 PM (o2iua)
4
D, you must remember that engineers are weird, whereas English lit types are merely . . . eccentric.
Now that you've mentioned The Poem by name, I shall spend the rest of the night wondering how much of it I can recite by memory. Oddly, it's easier than "The Highwayman" or "The Kubaiyat of Omar Khayyam," because it changes tempo midway, but I think I only have 90% of it these days. Maybe 80%.
But my favorite part is right after the damsel with the dulcimer.
Weave a circle 'round me thrice,
And close your eyes in holy dread,
For I on honeydew have fed,
And drunk the milk of . . . Hey! It's SWEEPS WEEK!
Posted by: Attila Girl at April 24, 2008 09:35 PM (Hgnbj)
5
"Hey! It's SWEEPS WEEK!"
After the pube shaving/trimming?
Everything is funnier after a few G&Ts, isn't it?
Posted by: Darrell at April 24, 2008 09:55 PM (o2iua)
6
I think I get it, btw. A cheap attempt at making your poem a classic? "Dark and stormy night" stuff?
Posted by: Darrell at April 24, 2008 09:56 PM (o2iua)
7
I will have you know that one of the best books of all time, A Wrinkle in Time, begins with what Madeleine L'Engle calls "that old war horse."
And, you know: it's always a dark and stormy night in the soul of a drama queen.
Posted by: Attila Girl at April 24, 2008 11:08 PM (Hgnbj)
8
Please note not only Rin's allusions to various television titles, but also her "something shiny" reference to the ADD personality/culture.
Gotta go. I'm composing a brilliant poem entitled "The Love Song of J. Alfred Porlock.
Posted by: Attila Girl at April 25, 2008 12:31 AM (Hgnbj)
9
I have measured out my life in interruptions.
ps, why is Darrell so obsessed with your pubes, and with the putative or proleptic shaving thereof?
Posted by: Rin at April 25, 2008 01:19 PM (bSHZa)
10
Worry not; it's a callback to the Playboy thread.
Posted by: Attila Girl at April 25, 2008 02:03 PM (Hgnbj)
Posted by: Darrell at April 25, 2008 09:31 PM (2+qe5)
12
You've been EAVESDROPPING on my flirting with Wendy? I thought that was between her, her husband, me, Matt, Sean, Stacy, and a bottle of clear, high-end, citrus-flavored tequila.
Oh--and the World Wide Web. But as I understand it, those people are very discreet, so there's certainly nothing to worry about THERE.
Posted by: Attila Girl at April 25, 2008 09:37 PM (Hgnbj)
13
Sorry! Next time hang the "Do NOT Disturb" sign.
Posted by: Darrell at April 25, 2008 10:31 PM (2+qe5)
R. Stacy McCain on that Cult in Texas.
I've avoided commenting on that case, because it cuts a bit too close to the bone. I was, in fact, in a cult for two and a half years—when I was young. I was underage, in case you were wondering. And, yes: I was sexually abused.
But during the entire I was in that "church," I was a human being. The degree to which I had Fourth Amendment rights can certainly be debated, but the adults around me had Fourth Amendment rights. To see those rights trampled upon up close and personal would have been traumatic, and would have spoiled me forever on the State. I'm not sure that either I or the nominal "adults" in R.L. Hymers' church (those over 1
would ever have recovered, had there been a "raid" on our Christian houses.
A kind of Manichean mindset appears to be affecting perceptions of this case. Some people seem to think it's an either-or proposition, and that we must choose to believe one of two things:
The FLDS are harmless and innocent religious eccentrics whose practices are beyond criticism.
... or ...
The FLDS are vicious and dangerous abusers whose practices justify even the most extreme measures by law enforcement.
In other words, this Manichean approach means that our judgment on the actions of Texas officials is made contingent on our opinions of the FLDS. If we think the FLDS are good, then raiding them is bad, and vice-versa.
I reject that approach. Regardless of whether the FLDS are good or evil, they are human beings who have—what was Jefferson's phrase?—"certain unalienable rights." Our rights are not dependent on our popularity; the fat geek has the same rights as the homecoming queen. And freaky religious cultists have the same rights as boring Methodists.
I believe what he's suggesting is that the Bill of Rights doesn't only apply to people we like.
It is a thought to remember.
ALSO: Dr. Shackleford's bogusness detector has been going off. And rightly so.
(Though of course those boring Unitarians might have fewer rights than the rest of us—that's handled in an appendix to the Bill of Rights that few people read any more.)
1
I've spent a lot of time studying and reading about the LDS polygamists. The group in the news is just one of many offshoots. And I am troubled about the way the Texas authorities are handling the cases. I have no doubt that there are, in the FLDS, men (and women) who physically abuse the kids. And, there's probably some sexual abuse too. In any group of 10000 people, there's bound to be.
What makes groups like this tricky is the degree of control exercised by the leaders. When you're told that God has commanded you to marry someone, it's hard to say no. It's harder to escape later with your kids.
And teen girls ordered to marry older men? Sounds like a history of royalty to me. Even recent history--Prince Chuck was in his 30's when he started dating teenaged Di.
The thing is, virtually all of the adults on that ranch want to be there. And we allow adults to raise their kids as the adults choose, within some very specific limits. Yes, the FLDS seems to be run by asshat mysogynist men. And, they take advantage of our welfare laws.
But to me the most serious, virtually unreported crime is that they systematically force out the teenaged boys (unless they're the sons of church leaders).
Posted by: Gordon at April 24, 2008 11:05 AM (/qSuP)
2
yes its a pretty difficult situation. i worry about the kids. thanks for sharing and blessings to you.
Posted by: zoey at April 24, 2008 03:03 PM (oNP5F)
3But to me the most serious, virtually unreported crime...
And still, that is not even a crime. A selfish and probably despicable practice, but not a crime.
This situation is disturbing. It seems that the alleged "good intentions" of the authorities is all that counts, their many violations of constitutional protections and due process notwithstanding.
My concern is that this is the beginning of something ultimately much broader. It is easy enough to go after a really peculiar sect. Ultimately anyone who does not toe the state line and attempts to live a life apart from broader society will become a "legitimate" target.
Posted by: Desert Cat at April 24, 2008 04:48 PM (B2X7i)
4
"By the time they came for me, nobody was left to stand up."
Posted by: Attila Girl at April 24, 2008 09:36 PM (Hgnbj)
And Now for Something . . .
not very different at all:
Another option: "Shoot-jitsu." That's when you cock your .357, place your hand on the trigger, and mention that you've got six Silvertips with the other person's name on 'em.
1
Always Brazilian, Dahling! No one likes hair down there...
RG
Posted by: RightGirl at April 24, 2008 07:02 PM (qV7wg)
2
You gotta understand the whole thing. Andy asked me as we were watching UFC, what was different about Brazilian Jujitsu. Wendy piped in "they do it without hair". It was a roaringly, funny moment.
Posted by: Stacy at April 24, 2008 07:46 PM (92p8H)
3
Is it me, or does that girl think about sex an awful lot?
Whatddya mean it's me?
Whaddya mean, no, really--it's totally me?
It's Wendy, I tell you. Chick has a dirty mind. Always with the sex, this, and sex, that . . . Sex, sex, sex. (Oooh, and she's HOT, too. I gotta go . . .)
Posted by: Attila Girl at April 24, 2008 09:42 PM (Hgnbj)
April 22, 2008: Between mid-March and mid-April, al Qaeda suffered major losses in Iraq. American and Iraqi troops killed or captured 53 al Qaeda leaders. These include men in charge of entire cities (or portions of large cities like Mosul or Baghdad), as well as men in charge of various aspects of terror operations (making bombs, placing them or minding the bombers). Most important, nine of the ten most senior men involved, were captured, and interrogated. This led to locating more al Qaeda staff, and assets. Hundreds of weapons and explosives caches have been discovered this year, as a result of interrogating captured terrorists. The result has been a sharp fall in suicide bomber attacks, and the ones still carried out are against soft targets (civilians), including the recent funeral of two men earlier killed by terrorists. This was part of an al Qaeda campaign to force Sunni Arabs to switch sides again and support terrorism. But these attacks have the opposite effect, causing more hatred for al Qaeda.
It's almost like the Iraqis want to go to the market without the risk of getting blown up by an IED; what an odd little nation.
VodkaPundit wants to know why it is that "only blogs report these stories," but concedes in his own headline that it's a "dumb question."
Posted by: Attila Girl at
12:07 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 238 words, total size 2 kb.
Hitch Is Still Writing for the UK Mirror.
I wish these freakin' immigrants would assimilate, BTW.
The apparent front-runner has a lot of work to do before he can count on the support of the old-fashioned households who care about guns, values, churches and other keywords and code words that Mrs Clinton can exploit with more conviction than he can.
Continuing with my obsession with a favorite statistic, I note that 17 per cent of Obama voters say that they would prefer John McCain in the general election, and that 12 per cent of them say that they would remain at home rather than vote for Mrs Clinton. No doubt the equivalent figures on the other side are at least as venomous.
And I could not help but notice that Obama’s televised podium of supporters was exclusively white last night in Indiana, whereas his belief that he will win in North Carolina is based almost entirely on his anticipated command of the large “black” vote in that state.
And this will be—always assuming that other voters are predictable and unaffected—his revenge for Pennsylvania.
So really, what is all this about a “post-racial” election? The true venom—racial and social and personal and political—is still to come.
Yeah, well. I doubt that Senator Clinton will be asked to be Obama's VP. Or, should it come down to it, vice versa.
Did I mention that I finished god Is Not Great a few days ago? It was every bit as adorable as I expected it to be, and more seductive. I haven't read every athiest anthem out there, but this is a damn fine one.
1
BTW, I am getting "HTTP 404 Not Found" messages when attempting to comment on posts starting with "Well then"(japanese breakfast).
Playboy=porn? Heavens no! A ban makes as much sense as them banning me from sending free cigarettes to people fighting in combat.(It happened, even though I got around it for a time.) I wish legislators could realize that people under fire have other concerns.
I do wish that Playboy could see the beauty in women without D-cup breasts. Present beauty excepted, of course. Sure they have them--a few 'tokens' just a few times per year--but still. Doesn't Christie have any say? Or would she exclude herself from her own magazine? Time to open our eyes and take in all the beauty given to us in this world!
Posted by: Darrell at April 23, 2008 12:33 PM (itfSb)
2
When you are done with these, do you plan to read "The Irrational Atheist"?
Posted by: Desert Cat at April 24, 2008 04:49 PM (B2X7i)
3
I might. I had thought of re-reading *What's So Great About Christianity?* but D'Souza isn't as terrific a prose stylist as Hitch; my time might be better spent with C.S. Lewis' "apologetics" (what a ghastly word for it; I wonder what the root word is, there?).
One of the fundamental arguments between the two sides is vaguely silly: there's always been this silly tug-of-war between people of faith and athiests about which side the deists such as Thomas Jefferson fall on. Even those who admit that a lot of these guys fall in the middle tend to say that Jefferson, et al. were "more like what I am than like what my debating opponents are."
Then they follow it up with "liar, liar, pants on fire," suggest that "our team was responsible for the Enlightenment," and stick out their tongues.
Posted by: Attila Girl at April 24, 2008 09:50 PM (Hgnbj)
If the target were Hustler, I wouldn't be too upset: after all, it's kind of a degrading magazine, and it makes sex/the human body look gross and ugly. But Playboy and Penthouse? Get real.
1
Oh good! I can put this where it belongs.
Playboy=porn? Heavens no! A ban makes as much sense as them banning me from sending free cigarettes to people fighting in combat.(It happened, even though I got around it for a time.) I wish legislators could realize that people under fire have other concerns.
I do wish that Playboy could see the beauty in women without D-cup breasts. Present beauty excepted, of course. Sure they have them--a few 'tokens' just a few times per year--but still. Doesn't Christie have any say? Or would she exclude herself from her own magazine? Time to open our eyes and take in all the beauty given to us in this world!
Posted by: Darrell at April 23, 2008 02:02 PM (itfSb)
2
Someone sometime recently posted a link to an archive of Playboy centerfolds dating back to the beginning of the magazine's publication.
I tell you, there was more variety in the early issues, before they settled on the "Playboy Look". And heavens to betsy, women actually had *pubic hair* once upon a time.
What a loss...
Posted by: Desert Cat at April 23, 2008 09:36 PM (DIr0W)
3
Hm. There has to be a way around this. (1) Have you tried the Victoria's Secret catalog? I know it might leave a bit to be desired, but it has a charm all its own.
(2) Perhaps some of the mags devoted to very young ladies? I know they have gross titles--*Barely Legal* and the like--but I imagine they would be less geared toward the voluptuous.
I haven't looked at a skin mag in a while (1999 or so?). I must say, I'm surprised that boobies are back. [It could be that I was once young/insecure, and in point of fact boobies never actually left.]
Posted by: Attila Girl at April 23, 2008 09:38 PM (Hgnbj)
4
One more suggestion for D: how about mags devoted to Asian women? That might help.
D.C.--so they've totally nuked the hair? What a pity; a nice "treasure trail" looks great on either sex. Nothing wrong with a trim here and there, but the shaving thing has gone way too far.
Posted by: Attila Girl at April 23, 2008 09:40 PM (Hgnbj)
5
If it's trimmed enough so it doesn't look like she's got a wiry-haired midget squeezed between her thighs, that is good.
But the "Hitler look", the "landing strip", and the completely bald look are just...wrong to me.
Posted by: Desert Cat at April 24, 2008 04:53 PM (B2X7i)
6
How about if the hair is shaved around/arranged into a tasteful heart shape?
Posted by: Attila Girl at April 24, 2008 10:43 PM (Hgnbj)
7
Hey, that's cute. You don't see that very often though.
Posted by: Desert Cat at April 25, 2008 11:49 AM (DIr0W)