Who knew that the drilling platform I used to look at in Long Beach Harbor as a child—that exuberantly artificial island lit up with lights and featuring palm trees and fake waterfalls—is the third-most-productive set of oil rigs in the U.S.? It's only exceeded by one in East Texas, and the Prudhoe Bay facility in Alaska.

Gene Maddaus writes about Southern California's oil rigs for the Long Beach Press-Telegram:

We aren't being reminded that oil platforms can be anything but an eyesore, a repeat performance of the rigs off of Santa Barbara, or the Eureka platform south of Long Beach.

Arnold Schwarzenegger and the state's top Democrats remain opposed to new offshore drilling. But a poll last month by the Public Policy Institute of California showed a narrow majority of Californians—51 percent—in favor of offshore drilling, up from 41 percent last year.

Experts disagree on how quickly new offshore drilling could begin, and how much of an effect it would have on gas prices.

But oil industry veterans are adamant that allowing new drilling would help reduce dependence on the Middle East, and that the major oil companies could begin building new platforms almost immediately if the moratorium were lifted.

"They've got all the information in their files right now, and they could start the minute the Sierra Club shuts up," said Mel Wright, a geologist who has worked in the local oil business since the 1950s. "There'd be oil right straight off Venice for sure."

Um, like how far off shore? Visible from land? The article doesn't say, and of course it's a provocative little quote.

Because of the moratorium, such conflicts are dormant and controversies are relatively rare. Lifting the ban on offshore drilling would likely reignite them.

"I've been called everything from a son of a bitch to a liar," said John Carmichael, a retired oil man who has worked on getting approval for slant-drilling projects in Huntington Beach. "All that crap. You just have to smile. We got the permits, but it ain't pretty."

Still, where owners of beachfront property see scenic views and environmentalists see pristine natural habitats, oil geologists tend to see lost opportunities.

"I think we ought to exploit what we can," said Bill Garrison, a retired engineer. "Some people don't like to see a drilling rig operating out there, but it looks great to me."

Again: we are given to believe that new installations would be visible from the shore, which I rather doubt. Mostly, what I hear about are platforms that might be 11-12 miles out to sea. I'd like to know how they would affect surfing in Southern California—because that's a big industry here— and boating, as well. But those who write about this issue seem to want me to believe that the plans are to make them visible. And probably ugly.

Garrison and Wright are both veterans of the largest offshore operation in California - the THUMS oil islands in Long Beach Harbor.

Long Beach's THUMS

The THUMS islands (the acronym stands for Texaco, Humble, Union, Mobil and Shell) are a triumph both of engineering and politics. Long Beach voters approved the project in 1962, after years of controversy, on the condition that they add to the "natural beauty" of the harbor.

For that reason, they are decorated with palm trees and waterfalls and the drill rigs are disguised as condo towers. The operators proudly note they have not spilled a drop of oil since the facility opened in 1965.

The islands—named after Apollo 1 astronauts Gus Grissom, Roger Chaffee and Ed White, who died in the Apollo fire, and fellow astronaut Theodore Freeman, killed in a jet crash—draw from the vast Wilmington oil field, which stretches from Seal Beach to Torrance.

Over the last 75 years, it has been the third-most productive field in the United States, behind only Alaska's Prudhoe Bay and [one in] East Texas.

At 10 acres each, the islands can accommodate many more wells than a free-standing platform. More than 1,200 holes have been drilled from the four islands—almost as many as there are under the 27 oil [other] platforms off California combined—and they spread underneath Long Beach Harbor like a vast root system, to a depth of up to 1.5 miles.

They generate about 30,000 barrels of crude oil per day. Though production is slowly declining, Occidental estimates that the islands will keep generating oil for the next 30 to 50 years.

The rising price of oil may extend the life of the islands further still, by making it economical to explore in more marginal areas.

"The economic environment enables you to take more risks," said Frank Komin, president and general manager of the operation. "Because the price of crude is up, the engineers and geologists have developed a backlog (of potential wells to drill)."

The city of Long Beach, which gets an 8 percent cut of the proceeds, has seen its take increase from $16.6 million last year to $38.9 million this year.

Not bad. Lucky Long Beach.

Occidental is reinvesting much of its share of the revenue in drilling more wells on the islands. There are two rigs on the islands now. In the fourth quarter, Occidental will bring in a third rig to drill even more holes.

Eureka Well Revived

The last offshore facility built in California before the moratorium kicked in was Platform Eureka, nine miles south of the THUMS islands.

The platform is one of four in the Beta Field, a collection of oil that has accumulated in folds along the Palos Verdes Fault, which runs between Torrance and the Palos Verdes Peninsula and runs south out to sea.

"Out to sea." So more platforms could potentially be placed beyond the horizon, out of sight . . . ? The article is illustrated with a photo of the platform, but we don't see it from the shore, so we don't know if it's half-shrouded in mist, like the ones off of Santa Barbara.

Though California's oil platforms were built by major companies with the resources to invest in big projects, almost all are now operated by independent firms that scavenge for profits in small market niches.

"These are tiny little projects inside huge companies, and they don't get the attention they deserve," said Darren Katic, president of Pacific Energy Resources, which now operates Platform Eureka. "We look at old, orphaned assets, and we redevelop them."

When Eureka was shut down, it was owned by Aera, a consortium between ExxonMobil and Shell. The leak was in one of three pipes that run between it and two sister platforms, Ellen and Elly.

Are these other platforms producing right now? The article doesn't say.

Pacific Energy Resources inspected the pipes and determined the other two were still usable, said Steve Liles, the company's operations manager.

"We came up with a phased approach of returning Eureka to production," Liles said. "Since it had been so long since it had been on, you had to show you could still produce it, and get some money flowing to pay for the other phases."

Pacific Energy Resources completed the purchase last year. In April, Eureka started producing oil again. Workers rotate on and off the platform every seven days. The platform is occupied 24 hours a day, and workers sleep in a dormitory.

Because the third pipe between Elly and Eureka is still broken, only eight of Eureka's 31 wells can be used. At 1,000 barrels a day, Eureka is producing just a quarter of what it did when it was shut down.

In the next phase, the company plans to put a sleeve inside the third pipeline, which is almost two miles long, and then restore Eureka to full production. A third phase would entail laying new pipelines in 700 feet of water.

Here, too, the high price of oil has had an impact.

"It's getting you payback quicker," Liles said. "What we thought would take four to five years to pay back, now we can get it paid back in two to three years."

What if we could get more oil off of the California Coast without compromising our pretty, pretty beaches?

I'd like to know.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 08:01 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1372 words, total size 9 kb.

I think he got that line from that guy who wrote all-in-cliches.

But, yeah: I think Palin will argue for a reduced sentence on the bratty, troubled "man-child." And it will win her votes.

Somehow, everything the other side does is backfiring on 'em. I blame the Rovian mind-beams, which never stopped: even Rove himself role-switched with McCain over the issue of "attack ads" in this campaign. (You remember that, right? In 2004, surrogates for John Kerry and G.W. were each attacking the others' military records, and it was John McCain who told them to just cut it out. But this time, it just makes McCain look more aggressive—in a good way—to have Rove ragging on him. Such an evil genius, that man.)

Posted by: Attila Girl at 05:27 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 139 words, total size 1 kb.

Iraqi women being trained as spies.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 04:28 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 14 words, total size 1 kb.

This. Is. Where. I. Get off the bus.

God bless you all, but we went after the media pretty hard for messing with a minor in the case of Sarah Palin's 17-year-old daughter. If this kid is, indeed, 15 years old and troubled, I think he should be prosecuted. But I'm taking the spotlight off of him, and anyone with basic morals should do the same.

And, yes: his mental illness and his age should be taken into account when it's time for sentencing, which must be lenient.

And, yes: what was Sarah thinking? Yahoo? Wasilla High? For a Vice-Presidential candidate? The kid committed a felony, and he stepped over a big line. But Palin should have circled her wagons better than that. (I hope she did, and that she hasn't been actively using the Yahoo account; it could be that this is simply an old account she hadn't had time to delete. We know that there wasn't anything "juicy" on it, so it might be that she just ran out of time.)

UPDATE: Okay. Make that a 20-year-old, mentally unstable chess fanatic. I've been there myself, except for the chess. And the felony.

But, really—can we get away from the "lynch mob" mentality, here?

Posted by: Attila Girl at 02:44 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 213 words, total size 1 kb.

Robert Stacy:

Liberals annoy me enough already without having them get in my face about what a great guy Obama is.

Be on the lookout for headlines about obnoxious Obama supporters getting punched out by their friends and neighbors.

Is the election over yet?

Posted by: Attila Girl at 02:16 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 56 words, total size 1 kb.

It just wasn't worth it to Clinton to go to the rally and share a stage with Palin.

Because:

1) It would be stressful, for very little gain; she's on vacation now. Remember?
2) It could be used against her by her enemies.
3) She has to keep her jury out on Palin, who may be her Presidential rival in four years--or a future ally, as another centrist-feminist pol.
4) SNL jokes aside, the risks of making a gaffe while standing next to the second-most-famous female politician in the country today (or perhaps the first) would be too risky.

I agree that it's difficult to gauge the depth of support for Israel among a lot of leftist-liberals these days—unless they are Christians with evangelical/Charismatic leanings, or practicing Jews. (Non-practicing Jews tend to throw Israel under the bus, watch the bus get blown to pieces by a suicide bomber, and then go out for pizza at an American pizza parlor in NY, Chicago, L.A., or SF—where they feel secure that there won't be any bombs.)

I wish pro-Jewish people would wake up about this, and not just in Florida.

h/t: Insty.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 12:27 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 194 words, total size 1 kb.

Nope. I don't think it was like Obama's "57 states" (he was just tired that night, the way I saw it).

I think she really is that ignorant. YMMV.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 12:15 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 33 words, total size 1 kb.

Over at Malkin.

Extra credit: who wants to guess at the male:female ratio among users of "Anonymous"?

Among the males (which, let's just assume it's 99.99999999, for the purposes of discussion), how many have been laid?

Posted by: Attila Girl at 12:13 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 48 words, total size 1 kb.

Thank, Michelle.

I'll remember that; I was starting to wobble.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 11:44 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 28 words, total size 1 kb.

Interfering with our fucking privacy.

And, of course, our God-given right to monitor the emails of people we don't like.

Fuckin' Bush administration . . . wait . . .

Posted by: Attila Girl at 11:40 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 34 words, total size 1 kb.

I'm always highly skeptical about these endeavors wherein a writer attempts to take over another's characters and play in his/her sandbox.

Full disclosure: I have, though, been reading the new "Lord Peter Wimsey" mysteries by Jill Paton Walsh. No, they are not Dorothy L. Sayers, because Walsh is too busy being respectful of Sayers' legacy to really do the swashbuckling, experimental kind of writing that Sayers felt free to perform with her own characters.

But Walsh knows the Wimseys in and out, and she's clearly read the short story "Talboys" often enough to have a clear idea how Wimsey's/Vane's home lives would evolve. And her Lord Peter/Harriet Vane books are fun.

Walsh is the glaring exception that proves the rule.

I have to go now: I'm working on a suspense novel about a serial killer whose victims all worked for Disney: in fact, they all (oddly enough) were involved in publishing "Winnie the Pooh" books that turned A.A. Milne's style and wit into mindless, unreadable, ponderous, preachy, children's-lit excrement. With the name "A.A. Milne" on the fucking cover of 'em. As "editor."

Treat the dead with respect; they cannot defend themselves.

Via Lair, who remarks:

Considering that every product of the Guide Milieu since the original radio series was incrementally worse, this one's going to be a rock-bottom ultrastinker.

And, like a sucker, I'll probably buy it.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 10:47 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 237 words, total size 2 kb.

The Washington Times:

Here's how it works. A message goes out over Barack Obama's Web site with the names, phone numbers and e-mails of editors and producers foolish enough to host Obama critics. With Mr. Obama's extensive digital following, and his extensive fund-raising and contact lists, shutting up the Democratic nominee's critics with a fraction of Mr. Obama's millions of supporters is relatively simple. The digital legions plug phone lines, crash servers and intimidate the advertisers of these media outlets. This must be another instance of the "new" politics that Mr. Obama frequently talks about.

. . . . . . . .

"The Action Wire serves as a means of arming our supporters with the facts to take on those who spread lies about Barack Obama and respond forcefully with the truth, whether it's an author passing off fiction as biography, a Web site spreading baseless conspiracy theories or a TV station airing an ad that makes demonstrably false claims," Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt told the Tribune.

How Orwellian. Mr. LaBolt defends the very actions that prevent WGN-AM and others from airing the facts, as though obstructionism is an "airing of facts."

Note to the Obama campaign: Informed observers don't get "the facts" only from a political campaign. They read and listen to the independent media outlets - the same outlets the thin-skinned Mr. Obama is currently trying to quash.

Slublog, over at Ace's digs:

McCain may not be perfect, but he's preferable to Obama, who has allowed his mask to slip a bit in the last few weeks. He's a typical machine politician who seems far too comfortable shutting down speech he doesn't like. Is encouraging such thuggery an example of the "community organizing" of which Obama is so proud?

One of the great ironies of this election is that liberals are worshipping a guy who embodies everything they claim to hate about the Bush administration.

Civil liberties for me, but not for thee. What's shocking is that these dirty tricks are being handled by the Obama Campaign, out in the open. Tactics that used to be hidden are now flagrant. Life imitates Monty Python:

It's crazy; how can anyone really consider voting for this guy?

Posted by: Attila Girl at 10:10 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 378 words, total size 3 kb.

Big-L Libertarians do the darnedest things. (Although, in all fairness, I've got a lot of respect for Wayne Allen Root.)

And what, by the way, do you have to say for yourself now, Mr. Robert Stacy McCain? Still in the tank for Barr?

Meanwhile, I'll be knocking on doors in Nevada, and manning phone banks for your Crazy Cousin John--and had you told me eight months ago that I'd be doing such a thing for him, I would have slapped you.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 10:01 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 91 words, total size 1 kb.

Is Zed looking for a new job?

Or is Muir just trying to make his girl-readers swoon with that suit?

Posted by: Attila Girl at 09:40 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 22 words, total size 1 kb.

we'd be able to appreciate what idiots we are.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 03:01 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I think part of the problem was that you let lobbying do stuff to the AMA and your healthcare systems. While I don't support wacko stuff like lobotomies (unless the guy's a serial killer or something, and even then I think just hanging him would be much less cruel), confining the insane is pretty much the best idea ever. Yes, it does tend to remove them from the public eye, and hence you get crazy shit like electroshock therapy (I don't care if it works or not, ain't nobody gonna stick electrodes up my ass and pump 300V into me). OTOH, I dunno. Maybe it can be difficult to draw the line as to what's mildly eccentric and what's [ahem] moonbat nuts. For example, I speak to myself. Very frequently. How should that be classified? Hmm. Maybe we should just have a 'reservation' for them? Corral all the crazies, and the greenies and the hobo hippies and put them in a nice, natural, picturesque environment... ...And then sell hunting licenses and day passes to those who practice the AoSHQ Lifestyle(tm). /I kid, I kid

Posted by: Gregory at September 18, 2008 12:43 AM (cjwF0)

2 Of course, that presupposes that the morons are actually able to take on the hobos--maybe, maybe not: some of those hobos are tougher than they look. I KNOW . . .

Posted by: Attila Girl at September 18, 2008 09:40 AM (TpmQk)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Actually, I'm off playing "junior archeologist" today; my husband voiced that abusive term, "2007 tax forms" (yes; we filed an extension).

"If you really wanted me to be able to lay my hands on stuff like that within forty-eight hours," I told him, "you wouldn't have suggested that we move."

So then I got a Look. That look.

"Okay! Okay."

Posting will be light until (1) the accountants at my three main clients from last year fax duplicate forms over; (2) scrabbling through boxes of papers, I finally become completely incapacitated from an allergic reaction to the dust; or (3) my spouse becomes thoroughly fed up, and shoots me.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 12:51 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 121 words, total size 1 kb.

The major problems in the world!

No need to congratulate me; just send me money.

1) Too many bloggers live on the East Coast, and 2) too many bloggers keep normal hours, rather than being night owls.

So sometimes, after 1:00 a.m. out in the Golden State, one is forced to conclude that the entire Atlantic Seaboard is cozy and snug in its little keyboard-free beds, and unlikely to update its web pages with any juicy new goodness.

Which leads to the rather horrific conclusion that perhaps I ought to go to bed.

I will try.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 12:04 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 108 words, total size 1 kb.

Hawkins has a new poll up.

He mentions "nuclear proliferation." I dunno: I mostly want to make sure that we have the biggest nukes. Does that mean that I'm further to the right than John is?

If so, I don't think it's ever happened before . . .

Posted by: Attila Girl at 11:41 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 70 words, total size 1 kb.

whom I don't know. They don't seem to be bloggers, or blog-readers, or colleagues, or political junkies, or people from my personal life.

Should I follow them? Should I block them?

I mean, there are people I don't know out there, and they are reading my thoughts.

Isn't there something creepy about that?

Is it a violation of my privacy?

I mean, it sounds like these people could be utter strangers. I'm concerned.

Perhaps I'll pull the Twitter account.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 11:25 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 91 words, total size 1 kb.

He's so good.

Even when I disagree with him, he's excellent. I know that because I start to bristle in just the right way—that is to say, I realize he's just made a nice case for the other side on the handful of issues we disagree on—mostly related to sexuality and gender roles, natch. I think I once boycotted him for three months due to some remark he made that appeared to paint women with just too broad a brush [so to speak]. I heard later that he was devastated—Devastated!—that I was absent from his listening audience.

Dennis on that awful Charlie Gibson ambush of Governor Palin:

I want to assume that people of good will on both sides can still be honest about what transpires politically. And in this instance what transpired was that Gibson intended to humiliate Palin.

It wasn't even subtle. Virtually everything Gibson did and virtually every question he posed was designed to trap, or trick, or demean Gov. Palin. There are views of his face that so reek of contempt that anyone shown photos of his look would immediately identify it as contemptuous.

But one series of questions, in particular, blew any cover of impartiality and revealed Gibson's aim to humiliate Palin.

GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?

PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?

GIBSON: The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be?

PALIN: His worldview?

GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.

When he asked Palin whether she agreed with the Bush Doctrine without defining it, he gave the game away. He lost any pretense of fairness. Asking the same unanswerable question three times had one purpose -- to humiliate the woman. That was not merely partisan. It was mean.

I couldn't answer it -- and I have been steeped in international affairs since I was a Fellow at the Columbia University School of International Affairs in the 1970s. I have since been to 82 countries, and have lectured in Russian in Russia and in Hebrew in Israel. Most Americans would consider a candidate for national office who had such a resume qualified as regards international relations. Yet I had no clue how to answer Gibson's question.

I had no clue because there is no right answer. There are at least four doctrines that are called "Bush Doctrine," which means that there is no "Bush Doctrine." It is a term bereft of meaning, as became abundantly clear when Gibson finally explained what he was referring to:

GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that -- the right to preemptive attack of a country that was planning an attack on America?

That's the Bush Doctrine? "The right to preemptive attack of a country that was planning an attack on America?"

Isn't that just common sense? What country in history has thought it did not have the right to attack those planning to attack it? I learned the "Bush Doctrine" when I was a student at yeshiva in the fourth grade, when I was taught a famous Talmudic dictum from about 1,800 years ago: "If someone is coming to kill you, rise early and kill him."

And preemptive attack is exactly what happened in June 1967, when Israel attacked Egypt and Syria because those countries were planning to attack Israel. Would any American president before George W. Bush have acted differently than Israel did? Of course not. Did they all believe in the Bush Doctrine?

That is how Gibson added foolishness to his meanness.

All the interview did was reconfirm that Republicans running for office run against both their Democratic opponent and the mainstream news media.

Yup. But this time, they really are overplaying their hand.

And Prager isn't even taking the selective video-editing and the camera-angle trick into account.

h/t for the camera-setup link: Insty.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 10:39 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 678 words, total size 4 kb.

1 I am not in politics, nor am I a journalist, nor am I even an especially rabid news junkie. But I could have defined the Bush Doctrine off the top of my head. I could have said it was propounded in 2002, based largely on the PNAC principles laid out in 1999 or so, that it was laid out before Iraq, and that it set up the invasion of Iraq. The Bush Doctrine, I would have said, is a notion of pre-emptive strikes against those who are perceived to be enemies of US security... or US business interests abroad. If Sarah Palin couldn't say that much off the top of her head, that really does strike me as odd. Couldn't you have said as much (perhaps with a different spin, but no fewer details) off the top of your head? Honestly.

Posted by: rin at September 17, 2008 02:07 PM (RcTyt)

2 oh, and ps, Iraq wasn't planning to attack us, nor had it attacked us in the previous decade. A little sabre-rattling aside, it was a paralyzed country full of rusty rifles and hungry children, not a threat to the US in any meaningful way. Nor was it in cahoots with AlQaeda, Bin Laden, or 9/11. Just for the record.

Posted by: Rin at September 17, 2008 02:09 PM (RcTyt)

3 Okay--so AQ just moved in after we invaded? And those meetings between Hussein and AQ were just dalliances? Innocent cups of tea? And we should have known that Hussein was only acting guilty re: weapons inspectors in order to be macho?--despite putting his life and his regime at risk in so doing? We should have rolled the dice on him developing nuclear weapons?--played the odds rather than the stakes? And we shouldn't care that he harbored those involved in pre-9/11 assaults on the U.S. by AQ? And there is nothing more unstable about dictatorships vs. democracies in volatile regions of the world?--just another way to go about business? And all would be well if we only hadn't invaded, and foisted democracy on those now-unhappy Iraqis? And . . . screw the Kurds?

Posted by: Attila Girl at September 17, 2008 02:36 PM (TpmQk)

4 Rin, the fact that you and Charlie Gibson have the same stereotypes in your heads is cold comfort when the scholars, such as Prager and Charles Krauthammer--who actually coined the term "Bush Doctrine"--agree that there are several meanings for that phrase. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457.html?hpid=opinionsbox1 We don't want a VP whose approach to foreign policy is based on cartoons; we want one who is well-versed in the issues, and understands the complexities involved.

Posted by: Attila Girl at September 17, 2008 02:41 PM (TpmQk)

5 Keepin' my opinions concerning progressive thinking to myself this time, since you didn't like it the last time I aired them, Attila. But I have to say, I always thought the 'Bush Doctrine' was a bit more complex than just 'gittem afore they's be a-gettin' us, ar!' After all, 'doctrine' is always much more complex, no?

Posted by: Gregory at September 17, 2008 05:01 PM (cjwF0)

6 AoSHQ and the Moronosphere aren't the only blogs I read, as you can see from my blogroll. They're only the first ones I visit. I take your point on maintaining real-life relationships. I blog under my real name. Not that many people read it, but I get the idea. Ah. Education. That explains... well, pretty much everything, really. Darrell: How do Lefties all say the same thing? Isn't it obvious? Leftism can be boiled down to several simple, catchy phrases. You don't even have to really learn them. It's always the same old tired easy, sleazy stuff. You could imitate the exact tones of leftism no problem. The only difficulty is in swallowing your distaste, is all. Although, I concede, not trollish behaviour. That's far, far harder. But then, I haven't seen too many of 'em on this blog. Here's the thing, Rin. I, and I daresay quite a number of conservative-leaning folk, happen to believe that the drive to conservatism is innate in everyone, but it is hard to achieve. This is because while you have to work at conservatism, being a socialist requires next to no thought. Which, btw, is why the left has worked so hard to insinuate itself into the Western education system and poison it from within. Don't say the lefty elites are stupid, even if they sometimes seem so. They understood that much. Heck, I blogged about this. btw, painting women with a broad brush? That's easy! I could do that with both eyes wide open! I'd volunteer anyday! No need to pay me anything. Won't even have to be real paint either - chocolate will do just fine. Oh, you meant his remarks! But that's easy too... that I could do with my eyes shut. All women blame bitchiness on PMS - awfully convenient, innit? We should never have given women the vote - now they all uppity and goin' Democrat. Women are always too durned emotional, and their standards of cleanliness are too high. And what's with the plastic sexuality? Women touchin' and feelin' theyselfs in public places aint no two men gonna do and they're supposedly straight? And you gotta wonder what they up to in them washrooms, always goin' off in groups, takin' Lawd knows how long to piss. Ooh, I could go on and on and on. Easiest thing to do ever. It does not take a man of Prager's stature to do this. (Hmph, even *women* find this sort of thing easy - witness the old biddies turning on Gov Palin like sharks. Go Sarahcudda!) Well, that and stuffing my face. Speaking of which, it's 5.30pm and time for me to go home and eat dinner. And fork out some money to Chris. I promised to do it anyhows.

Posted by: Gregory at September 18, 2008 01:38 AM (cjwF0)

7 People who want to troll over here usually drop by and call me something like "slut," or "ugly." Which makes me yawn.

Posted by: Attila Girl at September 18, 2008 09:46 AM (TpmQk)

8 to answer Darrell's question from above, while I agree, sadly, that teachers do mark down sometimes when students have different worldviews, I try very very very hard not to do that. If a paper is well written, a position well articulated, I give it a good grade even if I hate its position. And vice versa. Really. I don't think I could give a Nazi an A, but I've given quite decent grades to students arguing against choice (which I'm reluctantly for) and access to birth control (which I'm enthusiastically for). what I really mark down for is abject dumbness, like students who explain that Gandhi got his ideas of passive resistance from MLK. You have no idea how ignorant our students are!!! And it's gotten worse over the past 8 years. As for AlQaeda, sure there was a non-zero presence in Iraq, just as there was in Germany and England and Indonesia and Pakistan and the US, before 9/11. Bin Laden was vocal in his contempt for Hussein, a secular Muslim, and I don't believe there was meaningful collusion between the two. Attacking someone who's literally about to attack you (a guy coming toward you with a visible weapon) is legitimate. Attacking someone who wishes you ill, and wishes he had a weapon, is different. And as the last 5 years have shown, Iraq didn't have much in the way of WMDs or even conventional weapons. They resort to handmade roadside bombs because their arsenal is old and crappy. And the Democracy for Iraqis argument, while appealing, raises disturbing questions. Are we going to bring democracy by force to every repressed people on earth? China? Saudi Arabia? Myanmar? How, when, and why? It's a pretty vision, but not practical... and a little presumptuous.

Posted by: rin at September 18, 2008 09:58 AM (f8xXa)

9 ps, I'll hold your hand any time, babe! you are a goddess and a brilliant woman, and your sass is the 8th wonder of the world! you're a true friend too, and I hope we can have brunch again soon. xo Rin

Posted by: rin at September 18, 2008 10:14 AM (f8xXa)

10 or, in English Major parlance, (s)ass. ;-)

Posted by: rin at September 18, 2008 10:17 AM (f8xXa)

Hide Comments | Add Comment