Ladies and Gentlemen,
Ed Morrissey, in a piece headined "Iraqis Aren't Stupid—And They're Watching Us":
We can argue over 2002-3 all we want, but it doesn’t have anything to do with 2008. We are in Iraq, and al-Qaeda is arrayed against our troops. In fact, this is the best possible situation if we want to fight terrorists — to have them on a battlefield in straight-up fights against our military. It’s exactly what terrorists don’t want. If they wanted to fight our military, they wouldn’t use bomb commuter trains and fly civilian airplanes into their targets.
We have plenty of politicians who still don’t understand the strategic advantage this gives us. Instead of forcing them to defend ground and fight against the best military machine in history, these politicians want the military to retreat and allow them safe haven in Iraq. The best commitment they’re willing to offer is that if they get too comfortable in their new digs, we’ll stage another invasion of Iraq — without considering the costs involved, both logistically and in human lives, and that it depends on finding another country willing to host us after twice leaving the Iraqis twisting in the wind.
It also presupposes that we’ll get welcomed back for a third round of destruction by the people we would have abandoned twice. If we betray them a second time, don’t expect a third welcome. They already mistrust our honor after the 1991 bug-out that left them in the hands of Saddam Hussein. And it won’t just be the Iraqis who watch whether we keep our word; the Afghanis, the Saudis, the Jordanians all will take note of another retreat — and they will make their deals with radical Islamist terrorists accordingly.
1
What I read indicates that AlQaeda is about 2% of the people we're fighting, being killed by, and watching kill Iraqis in Iraq. The rest is sectarian in-fighting.
Fighting AlQaeda (to the extent that that's who we're fighting in Iraq) is not like fighting Germany or any nation. There is not a fixed number of AlQaeda, as there would be in conventional warfare. There weren't a lot of other Europeans lining up to become German during WWII. Now, however, because of the way we've conducted this war and alienated moderate Muslims by calling the war a "crusade," we have increased AlQaeda's numbers and ability to recruit a hundredfold.
Surely this has some bearing on whether we should get the hell out?
Posted by: Rin at April 14, 2008 11:51 AM (pzH6j)
2
Sources, Rin?
The phrase "sectarian in-fighting" seems a bit general. There is a lot of destabilization coming from Iran. But two-friggin' percent as AQ? Even given that AQ is allied with a handful of other Islamic extremist anti-American, anti-Democracy forces, I don't buy 2%.
Yeah, yeah: the effort is doomed to fail, because no matter how many schools and hospitals we build—and no matter how many civilians are bombed by the Islamic extremists—Bush once used the phrase "Crusade."
Please. You can do better than this.
Posted by: Attila Girl at April 14, 2008 02:14 PM (Hgnbj)
3
One more thing: as always, I'd like to see your plan for avoiding a bloodbath of the kind that followed our withdrawal from Vietnam, should we decide to cut and run once more.
Posted by: Attila Girl at April 14, 2008 02:33 PM (Hgnbj)
4
From Washingtonmonthly.com (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2007/0710.tilghman.html) I find this:
"The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), which arguably has the best track record for producing accurate intelligence assessments, last year estimated that AQI's membership was in a range of "more than 1,000." When compared with the military's estimate for the total size of the insurgency—between 20,000 and 30,000 full-time fighters—this figure puts AQI forces at around 5 percent. When compared with Iraqi intelligence's much larger estimates of the insurgency—200,000 fighters—INR's estimate would put AQI forces at less than 1 percent. This year, the State Department dropped even its base-level estimate, because, as an official explained, "the information is too disparate to come up with a consensus number."How big, then, is AQI?
The most persuasive estimate I've heard comes from Malcolm Nance, the author of The Terrorists of Iraq and a twenty-year intelligence veteran and Arabic speaker who has worked with military and intelligence units tracking al-Qaeda inside Iraq. He believes AQI includes about 850 full-time fighters, comprising 2 percent to 5 percent of the Sunni insurgency. "Al-Qaeda in Iraq," according to Nance, "is a microscopic terrorist organization.""
I won't claim absolute truth for this source or its conclusions. But people with some legitimate claim to being informed are saying Al Qaeda is not the central problem in Iraq, or anything like it.
As for my plan to get out, jaysis, I don't know. "You break it you bought it" doesn't seem like very good foreign policy. I don't know how to extricate ourselves, but it does seem that staying in Iraq only helps Al Qaeda and other forms of mayhem increase there, recruit, and foment hatred of the West and of America specifically. If we cannot win their hearts and minds, cannot stabilize the country or create a democracy out of whole cloth (and when was that our job anyway?), and cannot reduce the number of Al Qaeda (because we help them recruit and add to their numbers), what is the goal of staying? And if staying serves no purpose, provides no quantifiable benefits to Americans, it's hard to justify the project.
Yes, Hussein was a bad guy, obviously. But Iraq was a stable dictatorship with virtually no Al Qaeda presence 6 years ago, and now there are far more street killings and far fewer amenities (water, power, safe markets) for the people. What have we gained, for them or for ourselves?
If we could get the moderate Arab/Muslim nations to form a coalition, a sort of UN of their own, to provide Iraq with the stability and support it needs to forge a peaceful solution of its own, I think that would be better than the US trying to impose it from without.
How to do that, I do not know.
Posted by: Rin at April 15, 2008 08:32 AM (pzH6j)
5
Um. It doesn't sound to me like AQ is recruiting very successfully.
The infrastructure now is much better than it was when we got there--it was decaying under SH.
And with every passing month the Iraqi army gets stronger and stronger--they are doing more and more on their own.
Posted by: Attila Girl at April 15, 2008 09:15 AM (Hgnbj)
6
So, they're not recruiting successfully, as evidenced by their not being more than 5% of the problem, but we should still stay there to fight AQ because they're the problem?
I'm confused.
Bush wants AQ to be the problem in Iraq because that justifies having gone in in the first place (9/11 9/11) and because, if it's AQ (or Iran, or both) then it's not some sectarian clusterfuck unleashed by having deposed Hussein and removed the (granted, brutal) stabilizing force in Iraq.
Al Qaeda is some small fraction of those who hate us over there, and some small fraction of the woes facing ordinary Iraqis. Al Qaeda will continue to recruit, and hatred of Americans will continue to burgeon among AQ and nonAQ fighters, as long as we're there.
The rest, the Sunni-Shiite and Sunni-Sunni and Sunni-Shiite-Kurd debacles, cannot be solved by American soldiers. Nor yet by American diplomats. The best we can do now is to clear out and encourage Muslim nations to lend a hand in building a stable (more or less) democracy in Iraq.
Honestly, I don't know how to get out without doing more damage. But I don't see how staying gains us anything, in terms of goodwill, stability, safety, or any real return on the blood and treasure we've already spent.
If I thought some real benefit could be cobbled together out of this mess, I would admit it, despite having been opposed to it from the start.
Hey.
I don't think Hillary's form was so bad. You don't want to knock back an entire shot of an unfamiliar drink the first time. Heck; I've been known to take a sip from a tequila shot that showed up in front of me, and pass the rest of it along to a deserving person. (Jeez; if you're going to buy me a drink, at least ask what I want.)
'Course, I'm not much of a shots person, though I do dimly remember a night of Kamakazis when I was in my mid-20s. Chicks need to be careful; the appropriate level is usually 1-2 drinks fewer than what the guys are doing.
Hill sure looked better doing this than Kerry did applying for that hunting permit during the 2004 campaign, IIRC.
1
If you're going to hang around Purdue and drink Boilermakers, you better be prepared to drop that shot in your beer. I would have been impressed if she tied that shot glass in a knot with her tongue, you know. I think I saw a woman do that once, but maybe it was the fine Tennessee sippin' whiskey I was drinking.
I'm suprised she went with the Canadian whisky, Crown Royal, after she took a stand on foreign trade. Couldn't her handlers ask for the Jack? Or Wild Turkey in deference to her rifle skills during her duck hunting days?
Posted by: Darrell at April 14, 2008 02:00 PM (6J4jG)
2
Shotgun, D.
Those there are, in fact, eccentrics who hunt turkeys with rifles. (And, of course, plenty of people hunt deer with shotguns, though they aren't using conventional shells.) Never heard of anyone using it on ducks or geese, though.
I hate to admit it, but I still loooovve Canadian Club, and I tend to go for that (or sometimes Dewar's) when the budget won't permit a single-malt.
Posted by: Attila Girl at April 14, 2008 02:21 PM (Hgnbj)
3
Hillary specifically said 'rifle' in her story a few months back! I wrote a comment to your posting on the subject saying why that is never wise.
And I own the modern version of Annie Oakley's rifle...the Marlin Golden 39-A.
Posted by: Darrell at April 14, 2008 02:48 PM (6J4jG)
4
It's so funny, because when non-hunters think of longarms, they often say "rifle," even when they know better on some level.
Somehow I thought she'd gotten that part right--at least, in one version of her "duck-hunting" fable.
Of course, there are hunters who take game--even up to the size of small deer--with handguns. Naturally, these are specially designed handguns, just as modern blackpowder hunting is nothing like the muzzle-loaders of yesteryear.
Posted by: Attila Girl at April 14, 2008 02:53 PM (Hgnbj)
5
I never confuse the two. My Remington 12-gauge is my retirement plan.
Posted by: Darrell at April 14, 2008 02:58 PM (6J4jG)
6
(CBS)From CBS News' Fernando Suarez:
WAUSAU, WIS. -- At a campaign stop this afternoon, Hillary ClintonÂ’s focus was on the economy and health care but some in the crowd had other things on their minds. Clinton was asked to discuss gun control which prompted Clinton to talk about her days holding a rifle in the cold, shallow waters in backwoods Arkansas.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/02/18/politics/fromtheroad/entry3842857.shtml
I reviewed the tape and Hillary never said "rifle". The MSM however, is another story. I stand corrected. I will never trust the MSM again!
Posted by: Darrell at April 14, 2008 03:18 PM (6J4jG)
Um. Does Obama Know
. . . that ducks are generally taken with a scattergun? I mean, I understand that he wanted to use the "Annie Oakley" image as a sardonic reference to Hillary (by which, of course, she can only be flattered). And I know he was burned up by her anecdote about the duck blind, which could be true but more likely is not.
Conflating shotguns with sidearms, however, is hardly any way to prove he's not as out-of-touch with hunters and the gun-owning community as he looked last week.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
11:26 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 96 words, total size 1 kb.
To "Change," or Not To Change . . .
Karl at Protein Wisdom:
In this cycle, voters have seen Obama as a more strongly religious person than every other major presidential hopeful but Mitt Romney — and presumably Mike Huckabee, but neither of thse Republicans remain in the race. Obama has made a series of faith-based appeals in the course of his campaign. He has been campaigning as a “regular guy.” But his relationship with the noxious Rev. Jeremiah Wright, followed by his condescending remarks to limousine liberals in San Francisco about “small town” people in the heartland, present an image that looks increasingly more like the McGovern-Dukakis-Kerry model than the JFK-Carter-Clinton model. Can a more charismatic version of Dukakis narrowly win a “change” election? We may be about to find out.
1
"In this cycle, voters have seen Obama as a more strongly religious person than every other major presidential hopeful but Mitt Romney. . ."
Yes. In that oh-so very, very special way that only Marxists can be.
People, all we are asking is that you forget about everything you know, everything you have seen and heard--and believe! Keep in mind that God doesn't even ask that of us.
I will think about Rev. Jesse Jackson counseling the Clintons at the White House when it became apparent that Bill was lying. And forget that the reverend had just finished making arrangements to pay off his baby mama through Operation PUSH, as it was later revealed. I will forget how uncomfortable Obama looks the few times he has ever mentioned the words "God" or "Jesus" or "praying in the Catholic way." Or maybe he really is just worried about angels descending to smack him upside the head. I believe in Barack even if he believes that he is the higher power that he believes in. I believe that Bush was lying even though all the principal Democrats said the same exact things before him. I believe that only Bush was wrong, even though the Democrats said that we should only go into Iraq if we were willing to spend the decades necessary to insure that we would not leave Iraq a more dangerous place than we found it. I will forget that the Democrats were saying that George H. W. Bush was wrong for NOT occupying Iraq and helping the Sadr Shiites, like in that movie "Three Kings." I will forget that Al Gore wanted $5/gal gasoline in 2000. I will forget that the same people bashing Hillary now were the same people that were extolling her virtues just a few months ago. And for the previous 17 years. The world changed when Vladimir Lenin came to power that fateful November of 1917. Can't we do the same this November of 2008? Change: Not Necessarily For The Better.
Posted by: Darrell at April 14, 2008 10:27 AM (wOOTp)
I Was in Pismo Beach Last Night,
watching television at the motel near by uncle's house. The staff at this place has started to know me by name, since I go up there every month or two. I wonder if this is a good sign.
I'm beginning to make peace with my grandmother's impending death ("impending" means sometime within the next five months to five years, I think; or whenever she loses interest in the small pleasures of life).
I did drop by my uncle's place for a few more hours today to hang out with my grandma, my dad, and my stepmom. The aunt and the uncle took a day off, to photograph wildflowers along the Central Coast and play with their nice dog.
I'm very grateful that my grandmother is getting an amazing level of care from good people; what she receives is not simply love, and not merely the lap of luxury—it is a combination of those two things that nearly no one can get, for love or money or anything else. Grandma has her own room, painted in the colors of her choice. She has her own bathroom, decorated and tiled those same colors, with every possible amenity for a disabled senior. She has a walker and a motor scooter. She has an easy chair and a television with close-captioned programming on it, a reading lamp nearby and an electric throw blanket. She can eat in her recliner, or at the table; her choice.
She is taken for drives whenever she wants, and my uncle/aunt pack her scooter in the back of the van, retrieving it at any stop.
She does seem to be bored, and somewhat isolated because of her deafness; she's also very vulnerable to colds these days. She is very comfortable, however, and lives in a house filled with laughter and smiles and light from the many skylights my uncle has installed.
I've always been culturally and emotionally cut off from my aunt and uncle, but I'm developed an appreciation of them—really, a sort of awe—over the last year. They are accomplishing something extraordinary.
It's uncertain what will happen to my parents in ten or twenty or thirty years. I can handle it if one of them needs me to do this same thing, but not if both do. And, of course, I have no idea who's going to take care of me when I need Assisted Living or worse. I should probably either (1) get rich, and/or (2) start kissing up to my nieces and nephews, hard. I, after all, have decades in which to convince them that the most fun one could ever have in life is to be obtained by taking care of a dirty old lady with a fondness for rock 'n' roll and clever turns of phrase.
The biggest concern is the fact that getting older seems to require a rapprochement with TV. As I said, I watched some last night, and the choice at that point appeared to be (1) network crime fiction with unrealistic lab setups, outlandish plot contrivances, and dreadful dialogue, or (2) "true crime" case file studies written with an eye toward redundancy, idiot-level vocabulary, and assiduous subject-verb disagreement.
My grandmother seems to hang out a lot at The Hallmark Channel, where I was not impressed with the quality of the performances. Not to sound snobby . . .
I wrote her a note: "what are you watching? Is it interesting?"
"No," she replied. "It's just television. Just entertainment." But she wrinkled her nose, so I don't think she was that entertained.
If it weren't for the internet, I'd be tempted to support physician-assisted suicide. I mean, I know that sounds dreadful. But even when we were kids, my grandparents were able to gobble up tremendous amounts of television. I loved it at the time; they let us stay up later than either our parents or our other grandparents did, and they allowed us to watch more "violent" shows (think Bonanza).
But I suspect my capacity is nowhere near my grandmother's.
1
I would have assumed that your retirement years were all worked out and that they'd look like an extended cabin trip!
If a bunch of folks in their 80s live together, surely they can take care of each other, even in the absence of dutiful children/nieces/nephews?
Oh, wait, would you-know-who still be naked in his 80s?
hmmm. Never mind.
;-)
(seriously, I worry about the same things. About how much I DON'T want to take care of my dad. About how, not having kids or even a spouse, I'll be alone in my olderness. It troubles. Fortunately, we are young and spry and such foolish concerns are decades away. Tra la!)
Rin
Posted by: Rin at April 14, 2008 11:24 AM (pzH6j)
2
Perhaps the first two waves of baby boomers will work something splendid out by the time we have to deal with it.
FWIW, my parents are still doing fine, and they both turn 72 this year. I think it's only when one hits the nineties that one needs people available around the clock.
And you-know-who still looks fine naked. Once he hits his late fifties, though, I'm going to insist on boxers and some kind of shirt.
We could solve the problem if we all married him, you know: then he'd have to buy us all a house.
Hm. You-know-who-else is a doctor. And we do have one person who's been trained as a nurse. So all we really need is a large enough compound to keep the level of geriatric homicides low at the Olives-and-Old-Lace hippie/libertarian quasi-Boho retirement home.
Posted by: Attila Girl at April 14, 2008 02:32 PM (Hgnbj)
It's . . . the Jerry and Joy Show!
I'm driving up to Shell Beach this afternoon to see my grandmother, aunt, and uncle. The dad/stepmom will also be in evidence, and the have "dibbsed" the guest room at my uncle's house, so I'll be at the local Oxford Suites once again. (I do love the Oxford suites: they'll give you a glass of wine before bed, and feed you a real breakfast in the morning, complete with eggs, bacon and hash browns.)
But now there's some guilt emanating from those who have benefitted from the "first come, first served" approach to my uncle's den:
My baby
now looky here
you have to call me late Friday or early Sat
Q1: do you want to ride with Wendy an I??
Q2: do you wish to save $ and sleep in the Shell Beach suite and
Wendy and I camp at Oxford with no Tivo???
love dad
I believe that is what they call "noblesse oblige." This is what he got back:
I'm not gonna call tonight; I'm going to bed early. We just put a bid in on a condo, and I'm stressed out. I may be in double escrow by the end of the weekend.
1) no, thank you; I have errands to do on the way there and on the way back, and I need to come back early-ish Sunday for the home inspection [I want to be on hand to answer questions];
2) no, thank you very very much; I have some work to do for a client, and I need silence/the internet/no one around to do it. So this isn't the right time. But perhaps I can take a rain check and make the swap next time I'm going up solo? (The husband would NOT get along with an air mattress.)
Your son (1) has a racquetball tournament this weekend, and (2) is engaged in his annual happy-birthday overtime extravaganza at work (those stupid performance reviews they want to all be done at work). I'm sure you know this; it always seems to wrap up around his birthday.
But surely we could all get together sometime after that?
It might also be cool if you could get my half-sister out here in the fall or something; I'd like to meet my youngest nephew.
If you let all my scheming slip to the enemy, you will be executed.
Love,
J
He likes being addressed that way; he really does.
Hi Executioner:
I've always wondered what stress is!!
Unless you call me to the contrary--you will drive independently??
You will sleep at Oxford Suites and my wife and I will air-mattress it!!
If you sleep so late--why do you go to bed early??
I really look forward to seeing you!!
love dad
He ought to know that I don't really go to bed early; I'm always just trying to go to bed early.
Dad:
I will drive independently; I cannot be harnessed to another person's gasoline-powered conveyance. I'm a free spirit. And stuff.
I'm sorry that life is giving you a hard choice like: (1) air-mattress, but TiVo and no little doggie on the trip, vs. (2) real mattress and little doggie, but no TiVo.
I'm sure our ancesters are crying over what we've come to in this family. Shall we hold a seance and hear how sorry they are for us?
--J
You'll see what I mean. He loves my edginess. The most he ever says is "did your parents not spank you enough when you were a child?" This line is usually employed at dinner parties.
My baby,
I am very proud of your command of the marvelous English language!!
Go to bed. Go to sleep. I really really look forward to
seeing you up in Shell Beach with the rest of the family.
Happy traveling
I have great feelings about the weekend!
love--dad
But he does have a point; it could be that in a few select senses I'm a spoiled brat. I can't imagine how a thing like that could happen.
Obama in Pennsylvania
I'm sorry; I can't stop giggling.
Glenn Reynolds: "'Let's have a national dialogue about egghead condescension!' It's got to work better for Obama than the dialogue about race has . . . ."
Ann Althouse: "The original statement sounded like a typical law-school-liberal remark. I think it was quite sincere, and I'm rather sure he believed he was being admirably intellectual and raising politics to a new, higher level. Within a liberal law school environment, that statement would be heard as a thoughtful, compassionate insight. Some of your colleagues might think you were excessively, squishily tolerant of what they see as ignorant, bigoted people, but I don't think they'd push you to be more understanding of the alien culture you were observing."
Posted by: Attila Girl at
10:04 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 128 words, total size 1 kb.
I Guess Arnold Doesn't Want the Golden State on the Front Lines.
Though why the State (state or Federal) is involved in marriage in this day and age is beyond me.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
09:17 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 43 words, total size 1 kb.
Made of Japan . . .
no "torch thugs" for the Japanese.
Huzzah, my friends.
(I am not here to argue which Asian culture has killed more people—or which Western one, either. I'm here to say that the Chinese government has been, will be, and deserves to be embarrassed by the upcoming Olympics.)
Three more things: (1) free Tibet; (2) free Taiwan; (3) fuck the Chinese government. Google it.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
08:02 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 75 words, total size 1 kb.
Naturally, I Think the Real Subtext in the Absolut Ads
. . . was something to the effect of "buy our booze."
Of course, my intake of vodka tends to trend toward Skyy, since I'm much more into whiskey and gin than I am any vodka-based drink. The only time I can be relied upon to consume vodka is my "air-travel Bloody Mary." For this, they always use Skyy.
Of course, I'm really into it for the vitamins and antioxidants.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
06:39 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 90 words, total size 1 kb.
To Twitter, or Not to Twitter?
Is this, BTW, related to the issue of whether I should have those little icons below each post that enables people to send them to the folks at delicious, or Technorati, or Boing Boingmdash;whatever the latest "Clubby portal" is to one's favorite news, long articles, and blog entries.
Please let me know. I'm skeptical.
Esmay and Hackbarth both think I should join the army pf tweety birds; in all honesty, Hackbarth warned me to approach Twitter with a sober mindset, which he must realize I've never done at any point in my life—not for any new project or endeavor.
Should I be scared of Tweety Bird?
Posted by: Attila Girl at
11:34 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 118 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I'm gonna go with a quote I stole from fark.com here:
Randi Rhodes out at Air America. 40% of America says "Randi who?" - 59% of America says "Air what?"
Posted by: the Pirate at April 10, 2008 07:19 PM (Rn9mY)
Posted by: Darrell at April 10, 2008 08:08 PM (d3j5t)
3
Maybe she should concentrate on providing services at a level where someone will pay her for it?
Nah, that's too much like work...
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie at April 11, 2008 08:36 AM (1hM1d)
4
it troubles me that the comments at the linked site were more about Rhodes' appearance than her ideas.
ad hominem arguments are always weak, and these -- like aspersions cast on Hillary's looks instead of her policies -- are troublingly mean and shallow, not to mention unfeminist.
Just as attacks on Linda Tripp's looks took precedence over the fact that she was a vile and manipulative tool of a preposterous witch hunt. (Oh, sure, Clinton had his faults, but having sex with plump brunettes was not worth that much taxpayer money, and the Starr Report demeaned American politics.)
As it so wisely says on this site, above each comment in progress,
Attack ideas, not people.
So. Has Anyone Noticed that Canada Has a Troubled Relationship with Free Speech?
That's largely because of Richard Warman, who is now suingFive Feet of Fury,Small Dead Animals, Ezra Levant, and the folks at Free Dominion. As you might suppose, Warman has been involved with the Human Rights Commission up there; they are the ones who've made Mark Steyn's life so . . . interesting.
What an evil man. I'm hoping to see a single defense fund put together for these folks, but in the meantime, let's hit their tip jars. Hard.
Via Protein Wisdom and The Nose on Your Face (the latter site is selling Ezra Levant T-shirts, which are now being reissued to help the Free Speech Five with their defenses . . . er, defences [I may lapse into commonwealth English now and then for the next few months, as a sign of solidarity with our Canadian brethren]).
Posted by: Attila Girl at
11:12 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 144 words, total size 1 kb.
"What the Hell Is That," I Ask. "The Goddamn Breakfast of Champions?"
Attila the Hub is sitting down to a slice of sumptuous strawberry-infused white cake, with whipped-cream frosting. "More like the lunch of champions," he informs me."
I check my watch. Of course: It's 1:30. That is "lunch" for a sane person. For those like me, however, it isn't really lunch until 2:00 p.m.
"Vaya con dios," I tell him. "Save some for me. Might make a great supper of champions."
Posted by: Attila Girl at
12:17 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 94 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Polygamy in science fiction or in the mind of the crazy guy I met this weekend (flying cars! robot slaves! gay/straight/bi polygamy for everyone!) is sold as a feminist, respectful, harmonious arrangement among equals. Maybe some day it can be.
Even on Big Love, the three wives look pretty happy... and I've read articles by polygamous wives that claim it works for them. But these are urban, educated women with solid identities of their own.
What goes on in these compounds with semi-educated, sheltered, manipulated girls who've been provided with no options or alternative world views breaks my heart.
Posted by: Rin at April 10, 2008 09:56 AM (f8xXa)
2
Exactly. Just as there is a difference between prostitution in developed countries versus prostitution in, say, Southeast Asia /other developing regions / slave operations in this country (just as the locked compounds wherein immigrants are held against their will and separated by society--for garment work, etc.).
But what we cannot do is try to solve either problem by infantalizing grown women. Even if we feel that an adult woman has been infantalized/enslaved by her culture (which could be the offshoot sects from fundamentalist Mormonism, or certain strains of Islamism, with the woman-as-property mindset and a culture that encourages "honor kilings" of rape victims, or of young ladies who were seen in the presence of a non-related male).
The law cannot make these distinctions; all we can do is rescue the minors who live in compounds on which THE LAW IS BEING ACTIVELY BROKEN. Children, we have a right and a responsibility to protect. Women HAVE to be on their own, or we will have philosophically thrown out the baby with the bathwater.
There are no battered women's shelters in some Muslim-dominated countries, but they are swamped, in England, with women escaping abusive Islamic households.
As you know, I was in an open "marriage," and I would have been fit to tied if the State had infantalized me by attempting a "rescue."
But we can do a lot without going all "nanny state": for instance, all of the areas in the Southwest that host a lot of these quasi-Mormon sects (Arizona and New Mexico, especially--as well as Texas and Oklahoma) should have lots of battered women's shelters, and public advertising campaigns that explain that abuse does not have to be physical--it can also be verbal and psychological.
And, yes: I do believe we must legalize polygamy / polyandrous arrangements among consenting adults, precisely BECAUSE that will help society to weed out the abuse of underage girls that goes on now, while all of these sects are forced to live further underground than would otherwise be the case.
We cannot regulate something that we have forbidden to begin with.
Posted by: Attila Girl at April 10, 2008 02:50 PM (Hgnbj)
3
Odd, that some feminist positions have an apparent side effect of infantilizing women. Some pro-choice arguments, for example, take the tone that women should be free to get out from under any mistakes or undesirable circumstances in which they find themselves. Now, I'm pro-choice (reluctantly, and more pro-birth control than anything else), but I don't want to argue that women, the poor little dears, shouldn't or can't be expected to live responsibly and cautiously, just like grownups. You know, men.
I have mixed feelings about first-world prostitution, the (more or less?) "chosen" prostitution of intelligent women (like those on Cat House, the Showtime show, where they seem to have options and to feel fine with their choices). I don't want to make decisions for other women, but I wish they made other decisions for themselves... and I'd like to be surer that they know there are other decisions to be made.
As for polygamy and open marriage, I am ok with the idea on paper, but I've seen it fail more often than I've seen it succeed, and I know for sure it's not for me! Still, if it's truly chosen, and safe, and respectful, among adults in possession of the facts, condoms, and options, I don't want to be the one to forbid it.
In oldentimes Philadelphia (where my father was raised) the name for a brothel was a "disorderly house" and the name for a slut was "a girl who danced with gentlemen to whom she had not been properly introduced."
Sometimes, in order to fight oppression, you gotta call a spade a spade.
I, of course, am glad to say that I have never seen a spade.
Posted by: Rin at April 11, 2008 12:42 PM (bSHZa)
4
I had some direct dealings with these people a few years ago. They had a construction company based out of Colorado City, AZ that won a couple of contracts with my employer.
It was a peculiar and creepy thing to see some of the very young "women" (girls actually) that sometimes came around to the job site occasionally where their "husbands" were working.
Posted by: Desert Cat at April 11, 2008 08:55 PM (DIr0W)
5
Eeek. This is a legitimate use of state and Federal dollars: find out where it's happening. If it's all among consenting adults, the DAs should "lose track of the paperwork," and "forget to prosecute." If involves the underaged, throw the book at 'em.
But do not cofuse the two.
Posted by: Attila Girl at April 11, 2008 09:47 PM (Hgnbj)
Dudes of the World, Unite!
You have nothing to lose but . . . the chicks.
Via Insty, who cooks. Cooks, I tell you. Every now and then, that "men who cook" grass looks . . . moss green.
Then A the H makes a brilliant joke, and finds a dead rat in a trap somewhere that has to be disposed of. It isn't that I am unwilling to handle this task. It simply is that I haven't had to in this particular partnership—18 years down the line—and that's been fine with me.
I'm getting used to the idea that dead rats just get dispatched quickly somehow (from a pellet gun, I believe) and then are taken somewhere with healthy populations of coyotes and wild cats. Then they disappear. Poof!
Whose side am I on?—you know: truth, beauty. Shit like that.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
11:51 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 146 words, total size 1 kb.
I Know, I Know.
I've got 25-30 pieces of spam to clear out of MT, but I'm just so . . . tired. It was a big day: I went to the gym for the first time in eight years or so. Saw the family. Madly straightened up, and then vacated the house in the middle of the day for a few hours, as usual, in the interests of obtaining a "backup offer" on same. Took a first pass on a fresh pile of paperwork from our real estate agent.
Tired.
Just don't feed the spammers, mkay? I'll get to it when I get to it. Best I can do.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
10:48 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 114 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Who wouldn't want a Hello Kitty headstone?
Although some people do go too far--
http://www.youknow.com/watch?v=rqwMi3PmQG0
substitute "youknow" with the real name.
Fluffy's in a mood.
Posted by: Darrell at April 10, 2008 09:59 PM (d3j5t)
Those there are, in fact, eccentrics who hunt turkeys with rifles. (And, of course, plenty of people hunt deer with shotguns, though they aren't using conventional shells.) Never heard of anyone using it on ducks or geese, though.
I hate to admit it, but I still loooovve Canadian Club, and I tend to go for that (or sometimes Dewar's) when the budget won't permit a single-malt.
