October 13, 2006
Wow. Proud Moment for a Small-Time Blogger.
Just got my first real threat related to this blog, through the U.S. Mail.
It was sent anonymously. There are basically three candidates for this: two long shots, and the person I suspect is behind it.
Naturally, once I realized what it was I stopped handling it, to preserve any fingerprints.
Dear Coward: You are a coward. How do you feel about that?
Posted by: Attila Girl at
03:12 PM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
Post contains 77 words, total size 1 kb.
1
It was me.
I meant to send it to Attila the Nun, a radical religious blogger from San Luis Obispo.
Your names are, like, RIGHT next to each other in my address book.
Sorry for the confusion.
In other news, I'M COMING FOR YOU, ATTILA THE NUN. AND YOUR HUSBAND JESUS WON'T BE ABLE TO STOP ME.
Posted by: Jeff Harrell at October 13, 2006 03:33 PM (KaJYH)
2
Oh, hey, Jeff--should have known it was you.
Correction: You're a
short coward—with amazing verbal prowess.
Posted by: Attila Girl at October 13, 2006 04:27 PM (LEEsJ)
3
Come on, share,... I could use a good laugh. Anonymous(e) letters are the acts of cowards hoping to intimidate. They think it will work because it would on them.
You know you're near the target when you start taking flak.
Posted by: Jack at October 13, 2006 06:40 PM (VwIO/)
4
OH wait,..... I thought about it for a minute,... I think I know who you are suspecting. Last name wouldn't start with an "H" would it? Wait, don't say,... it only gives him a little woody to think he accomplished something. Let him inflate his lover on his own.
Posted by: Jack at October 13, 2006 06:44 PM (VwIO/)
5
Turn it over to the FBI. No one should take threats lightly. And the guilty party should meet our legal system.
Don't forget those religious cult people you are always p***ing off. It isn't from Valparaiso, Indiana, is it?
Posted by: Darrell at October 13, 2006 07:37 PM (0O7Dj)
6
I'll be filing a report with the L.A. Sheriff's office tomorrow, per my husband's wishes. I'd certainly like to get the thing dusted for prints.
Posted by: Attila Girl at October 13, 2006 08:40 PM (LEEsJ)
Posted by: david foster at October 14, 2006 03:47 PM (/Z304)
8
I think you're not working at it. Michelle Malkin is always posting some of her hate mail. I think Ann Coulter actually used it to write a book.
You need to really piss them off and see how much hate mail you can get.
p.s. Gun control is hitting your target.
Posted by: Jack at October 14, 2006 06:16 PM (Pg1Ku)
9
Last name starts with H from Indiana, let me guess hmmm. I just saw this! I think you guys are right, I am some what of a threat, but not to Attila the individual. You are all being threatened by my ideas. By logic and reason and simple facts. Now here is what I see, if you want me to stop posting here all you have to do is ASK. But you won't because you want to Appear to be a champion of free speach. In actuality, you all would like me to take my contribution, and contribute elsewhere. It bothers you that someone with limited reading skills, english as a second language, coming from a third world country, might have more to contribute to your culture and to your country. Perhaps you are ashamed, that I challenge you on your knowledge, your low standards, your lack of simple human decency and etiquette. But I think I have made a difference to you all. I have made you look inside and perhaps next time when you will discriminate on the basis of religion or culture or race, you will think about me. We have established a relationship, an adversarial one unfortunately, but nonetheless a relationship.
What I have learned in the process, is that human beings can always strive for something better. You can put a sack of potato in the dark and it will try to shoot its roots towards the light. What I have learned about myself,is that in America, there are a lot of opportunities, but also the people here will say one thing and practice and think another. You want free speach, but only to say what you want. When someone says something you do not like, you would rather have them shut up, then to think about what is being said. It makes it hard to be heard, when people are sitting with their fingers in the ears. Yelling Not listening!
I know that for some of you this is your livelyhood, and by posting ideas contrary to your ideology I may be costing you your job. I appologize for that. But maybe attila can get her funding from the other party after Nov 7. You can use me as a reference. And Darrell, well you can always go on the injury list and collect those insurance dollars.
Cheers,
Azmat (his real name)
Who hasn't even got a parking ticket. And does not speak good english! Oh heck I should just post my social security number.
Posted by: azmat hussain at October 15, 2006 03:10 AM (+M51L)
10
Whatchu talkin' bout, Azmat?
We'll see how the election goes. The lyin' MSM(the official house organ of the Democrat party) has predicted a sweep for the Dems every two years since "The Cotrract with America"... They might be correct one day--but they will never be right.
Posted by: Darrell at October 15, 2006 06:16 AM (GfzbB)
11
Oh, good heavens, Azmat. No one ever seriously considered you: Jack thought perhaps it was R.L. Hymers--last name begins with H--and then Darrell joked about Indiana, but was also clearly suggesting the Hymers cult.
Please, please: if I ever consider banning you, I'll send you a note first. But I haven't contemplated doing such a thing, and doubt I ever will; I think you add to the debate on this site.
Posted by: Attila Girl at October 15, 2006 08:32 AM (LEEsJ)
Posted by: clyde at October 16, 2006 06:33 AM (6m+7s)
13
Now about that social security number..and your mother's maiden name...Just kidding(humor isn't always universal). Your member names, passwords, and PIN numbers will do.
Posted by: Darrell at October 16, 2006 07:58 AM (jcUK2)
14
Hey Darrell,
you got some inside info on Nov 7 I could use. Is it DBD (Diebold) the stock after crashing is taking off again. The call options for Nov 6 are only .10 big bucks to be made if GOP survives this election. I am a contrarian, I am betting on Macaca, he got some good free publicity from Chris Mathews.
Posted by: azmat hussain at October 16, 2006 06:01 PM (t3L9I)
15
Yeah, vote Republican. And stay away from the DU and those Kos Kidz.
Or were you just lying when you told us you made the switch. I'd be just shocked if that were the case.
Posted by: Darrell at October 16, 2006 08:20 PM (W+1JH)
16
I am a taxpayer who cannot vote.
After living in USa for six years, paying about $30,000 to Lawyers, for immigration, paying local state and federal taxes to the tune of $200K . I am still not close to getting my green card. Seems like I gotta wait till the Dems get elected for my kind to be invited to become a citizen.
So I thought I should vote for them, but then that would be illegal, and I can't really afford to do that.
I do intend to join the Republican party, and bring all my indian and pakistani friends to the convention. That is the only way we can get rid of the racist language in this party, see we got to participate and remind those leaders who use inappropriate language, how else would they know.
Posted by: Azmat hussain at October 17, 2006 09:30 AM (s1AoM)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 30, 2006
True or False
The average brilliant person is a total idiot in one arena or another.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
08:53 PM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
Post contains 19 words, total size 1 kb.
1
True. But it's usually in some area that doesn't count like social skills or dressing.
Posted by: Darrell at May 30, 2006 09:25 PM (Aa60R)
2
Right. Or like personal hygiene, the ability to speak in full sentences, or a non-zero probability that the woman you're talking to will go home with you someday. Truly inconsequential stuff.
Posted by: Attila Girl at May 30, 2006 09:45 PM (4IuF2)
3
You know, for a gal who is usually on the ball this is one area where you are lacking.
Posted by: Alan Kellogg at May 30, 2006 10:29 PM (YC3cY)
4
False. I am brilliant, and I am total idiot in no areas. Ipso facto, your premise is false.
Posted by: David Harr at May 30, 2006 10:37 PM (Q3762)
5
This sounds like me, except for the "brilliant" part.
Posted by: CGHill at May 31, 2006 08:27 AM (wmpjK)
Posted by: Darrell at May 31, 2006 10:42 AM (ZTcKG)
7
Oh. TRUE.
Despite my own obvious brilliance - for which I can take no credit, of course, having been simply born that way - I myself am an admitted Idiot in Many Ways.
-Electricity.
-Social skills, including a bad case of Foot in Mouth Disease.
-Technophobia.
-Clutteriness.
-Laziness.
-Past history of Falling for Wrong Guy Disease.
Well, at least that LAST one's come up some, recent years.
Still...does so much idiocy actually cancel out the brilliance part?
NAAAAAAAAAH.
Posted by: k at May 31, 2006 11:35 AM (Ffvoi)
8
Oh, I think you always had taste. I sense that, somehow
Posted by: Attila Girl at May 31, 2006 11:50 AM (4IuF2)
Posted by: Desert Cat at May 31, 2006 06:36 PM (xdX36)
10
Hairball?
And btw, the "Exactly!" was in response to AG's comment, not CGHill's...And the hairball comment was a shot in anger because I wasted time thinking it was Javascript or Pascal before "Puff: The Magic Kitty" set me straight.
Posted by: Darrell at May 31, 2006 07:59 PM (HLkMX)
11
Taste, certainly. Of course! Just not always a good sense of compatibility.
Posted by: k at May 31, 2006 08:57 PM (wZLWV)
12
True. I'll just let the audience guess what I'm a total idiot at.
Posted by: Sean Hackbarth at May 31, 2006 09:06 PM (RiZPJ)
13
But the average *person* is a total idiot in some arena or another. Perhaps it's just more noticeable when he's brilliant at something....
Posted by: david foster at June 03, 2006 12:48 PM (t8w8n)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 23, 2006
Boy. Suddenly, Publishing is Hot Again.
This is the first time in some time I've
run out of business cards at an event like this. And the first time I've had cocktail-hour chit-chat turn into a quasi-interview right on the spot.
I'm also hearing from potential clients through other means of networking. It looks like the client I had to "release" during the mistake-job era has already been made up for. And, of course, I could end up getting that one back anyway.
Plus, a lot of the "slow payers" are sending me checks I'd given up hope on. So not only do I have great prospects—I'm not nearly as cash-poor right now as I thought I'd be.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
10:38 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 124 words, total size 1 kb.
1
God, how FAB! This is wonderful to hear.
Girl, you are not cut out for a 9-5. No more than I ever was.
Posted by: k at May 24, 2006 04:24 AM (y6n8O)
2
Well, I do okay at staff jobs that don't suck. But the ones that suck kind of . . . suck.
Posted by: Attila Girl at May 24, 2006 08:38 PM (4IuF2)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Out Tonight
. . . to the Flacks and Hacks party. I have to be the extraverted Joy. How tiresome.
But I need business cards—they're like oxygen to me—so off I go.
I haven't yet fully recovered from last week's mini-flu/upset stomach (exacerbated by the waiting-to-be-fired thing on Friday), so no gin for me, either. Strictly tonic and lime.
On the other hand, these things are always held in fascinating places: cute bars discovered by the folks at Media Bistro. It's generally worth going for that alone.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
04:17 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 89 words, total size 1 kb.
1
And only three dizzy spells the whole evening. I pled claustrophobia, on the assumption that it would sound a bit less weird than "I have to go into the alley and sit down, or I might faint. Please order me a tonic and lime with extra sugar in it."
Mmmmm, sugar.
Posted by: Attila Girl at May 24, 2006 08:40 PM (4IuF2)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 13, 2006
Gentrification
Follow-up to my landlord post: how often do good—but poor—tenants get kicked out of properties because a neighborhood is becoming "gentrified"?
I ask because my some of my liberal friends treat "gentrification" as if it were a dirty word: to me, it means I'm less likely to get assaulted. But there's a presumption that lots of the "worthy poor" were displaced to make room for the students, artists, and young professionals who are moving in.
Thoughts?
Posted by: Attila Girl at
08:55 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 78 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Gentrification just means they can't keep them concentrated in an area where they serve as useful pawns in electing extreme leftists to political office.
Gentrification means more moderates and conservatives to dilute the "safe" district.
Gentrification means the "worthy poor" get exposed to people who have managed to pull themselves up by their own efforts, and to such "dangerous" ideas as self-reliance, independence, and hard work as a virtue.
Posted by: Desert Cat at May 13, 2006 10:39 PM (xdX36)
2
Gentrification means that the houses of poor but hard-working people who vote Republican are bulldozed to build housing developments for rich people who vote Democrat.
Posted by: John at May 14, 2006 08:53 AM (egas2)
3
Sounds like descrimination of the middle class to me. Oh yeah, I forgot, they don't count.
Posted by: Jack at May 14, 2006 11:58 AM (10+e8)
4
It's kind of ironic to me that the same people who argued fervently for an end to segregation are opposed to gentrification. Of course what they wanted was for the poor and minorities to move into wealthy white neighborhoods, not for white up-and-comers to horn in on the ghetto. It makes 'em look bad to have it proven that it doesn't take a government program to turn a neighborhood around.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I always thought gentrification involved people with the means to do so remodeling and updating older houses, renovating and repurposing old commercial properties (lofts, etc.), not typically bulldozing them for McMansions?
Besides, rich people who vote Democrat, *never* live in the midst of the "little people".
Posted by: Desert Cat at May 15, 2006 07:06 AM (xdX36)
5
Gentrification means that the people who don't take care of their neighborhoods, who don't amount to much of anything in life, get the boot. People that actually care move in. In Southie (Boston), the locals get all upset when yuppies move in. I can't understand why you wouldn't want someone to move in who will increase your property value, not hold you up, and not cause trouble.
Posted by: PoliticalCritic at May 18, 2006 05:55 PM (Mg1w+)
6
Yeah--to me, gentrification means people start maintaining the properties. Gay men are often in the vanguard on this.
The McMansion thing--yuck. That phenomenon is a result of the fact that there are huge numbers of people out there with a great deal of money, but no sense. Or taste.
Posted by: Attila Girl at May 19, 2006 10:36 PM (4IuF2)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
If You Rent Houses or Apartments to Other People
is it a sort of calling, an opportunity to be of service while securing your financial future, or simply a business?
How often do you raise the rent? Does the rising value of your rental property justify raising the rent as little and as infrequently as possible?
Is it better to charge market rates, or slightly below?
Is the business of providing housing different from other businesses? How?
Posted by: Attila Girl at
05:58 AM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
Post contains 86 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I would qualify renting houses as "a pain in the ass."
Charge market rates if vacancy doesn't bother you, slightly lower if it does.
Fundamentally, providing housing is not different from providing any other rented product. However, in some jurisdictions rent control has taken away most of the landlord's rights.
Posted by: John at May 13, 2006 06:52 AM (egas2)
2
Okay, so there's no special "calling" in being a landlord/landlady.
Do you feel the same way about doctors and teachers?
Posted by: Attila Girl at May 13, 2006 10:02 AM (34TBU)
3
Maintain the properties well and keep the rent just below market rate.
Raise the rent as your costs increase. The rent isn't really based on the value of the property is it? Isn't it based more on market demand for rental property?
Posted by: Patrick at May 13, 2006 10:47 AM (aNAmk)
4
Well, MajorMom and I are both landlords (she's got her previous house...and I've got one I've had the same tenants in for over 10 years).
First answer: No, I don't think that there's a calling for it...but rather an investment vehicle. If nothing else, you have someone else paying the note on an asset that's appreciating. You get all that appreciation and the tax breaks while it's being paid for by someone else. SWEET!
Second answer: It's all about risk like someone else said. Sometimes it's best to forgoe a little profit by knowing you've got the right people in your property. My 10 year tenants have put an awful lot of money in my pocket over the years and they take care of that home (2600+ sq ft) probably better than I would. Keep your expenses covered and be happy you have tenants. Of course, the market will dictate what your initial rent is.
Third: Market or less? I'd say you charge what the market will bear, but don't pass up the opportunity to make what you can. No sense in turning your nose up at money. On the flip side, if you charge a little less, then you might rent it faster. Seems to me that if you're running with the pack, you shouldn't have any trouble keeping the place rented.
Finally: Unless you've got hundreds of properties, you're not going to get RICH. The profit margin is VERY small and when tenants leave a property vacant, all of a sudden you're back being responsible for the entire note.
Hope this helps.
See you on the high ground!
MajorDad1984
Posted by: MajorDad1984 at May 13, 2006 02:02 PM (j7S/Q)
5
Renting for less then the market gets you long term tenants. Higher rent usually means high turnover.
The wrong renters mean damage, be sure to have a deposit and get references.
1% is what I have heard for rent. Property $100,000 then rent should be $1000/month. This can go up with the market. But less means you are supporting someone else.
Posted by: Jack at May 13, 2006 05:44 PM (ieGs9)
6
It a calling to renters. For everyone else it's a business. If you're not making what you could in an alternative investment, you should think about selling the property and moving the money there.
Posted by: Darrell at May 13, 2006 07:40 PM (5TfP6)
7
My tenant got all huffy when the management company sent him a notice with a late fee, after he forgot to pay the May rent for ten days. He thought someone ought to have given him a friendly reminder before the fees kicked in.
The way I see it, the water company or the credit card company isn't going to do that before they tack on late fees. Why should the property manager? Stuff happens and you forget. But when you do, there's a price to pay.
It has to be a business, or eventually you're going to get burned.
Posted by: Desert Cat at May 13, 2006 10:47 PM (xdX36)
8
Doctors and teachers are interesting examples to cite, for they belong in very heavily regulated industries.
For doctors, the regulations, and the malpractice feeding frenzy, have resulted in a work environment which is making it even more difficult for doctors to enjoy their work.
The Socialization of the school system has resulted in an situation where many teachers look on their job not as turning ignorant children into learned adults, but simply presenting lesson plans.
The founding fathers knew what they were talking about when they wrote "pursuit of happiness" instead of just "happiness;" virtually everything that has gone wrong in the US (and Europe) is consequential of the failure to learn the importance of that.
Posted by: John at May 14, 2006 08:52 AM (egas2)
9
I used the examples of doctors and teachers for two reasons:
1) they are often used as examples of professions one gets "called" to;
2) their "industries" (quotes are their on behalf of public school teachers) are regulated.
I felt that this might provide an apples vs. apples co-mparison for landlords.
If you'd like to consider a less-regulated arena (at least by government), you might consider the minister at your local church.
Posted by: Attila Girl at May 14, 2006 12:11 PM (34TBU)
10
Any profession that one feels passionate about pursuing can be one's calling. But doctors charge plenty, and I don't know too many teachers who really would work for free, despite their pledges to the contrary.
It's important to make the distinction between "social worker" and "landlord". Social workers (whether government funded or private ministers) are paid by someone else to do their work. A landlord only stays afloat if she keeps her properties rented to tenants who pay the rent on time and take reasonable care of the property.
Trying to combine the two is a recipe for disaster, as I see it. Unless of course money is no object. But then why not start a private charity?
Posted by: Desert Cat at May 14, 2006 05:14 PM (xdX36)
11
If I ever get a rental property, I'll make sure to get tenants who can afford the place, and intend to take care of the property (and know how).
But when I hear people talk about raising the rent on good tenants every single year, just because they can, I don't know . . . it seems to me that extracting every last possible dollar out of people isn't the way to go.
Of course, I live in a part of the country where the high cost of housing (lovely as it is from the property-owning perspective) has gotten ridiculous, and appears to hurt a lot of economic sectors.
Posted by: Attila Girl at May 14, 2006 07:52 PM (34TBU)
12
Eeeekkk! I got so caught up in this one I posted about it and tried to do a Trackback to you, but it won't take the trackback address. Rats! I did plug in the archive address to this post at least.
'Scuse please!
Love,
Your Lame-Ass Blogdaughter
Posted by: k at May 14, 2006 08:35 PM (wZLWV)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 05, 2006
Why I Cannot Trust Men.
Think about it: here is a group of people who share a profound yet irrational conviction that their worth as human beings is directly tied to the size of a particular item.
Each pretends to know that this item is bigger than most others like it. Each tries to project this confidence wherever he goes.
And then, when he has to urinate, he pulls this thing out in front of others afflicted by the same general anxiety he is. The pulls theirs out, too. All in front of each other.
Is this smart behavior? Would you vote for someone from this sex as President of the Fucking United States? If so, what are you smoking?
Posted by: Attila Girl at
08:22 PM
| Comments (22)
| Add Comment
Post contains 125 words, total size 1 kb.
1
But WHO'S LOOKING?
Anyone caught looking at this particular item (unless it is one's own) is subject to a dirty look at best, and perhaps a snide comment about one's sexual orientation at worst.
See, being a member of the *other* group, I can forgive you for not knowing that looking is highly taboo to the group in question.
Anyway, you know very well missy that the purported size of this item is a proxy for the size of something somewhat less tangible. Whether the "alpha" of this group actually has the largest item or not is irrelevant. It is the PERCEPTION of its size--as evidenced by his confidence and command--that is the important thing.
Posted by: Desert Cat at May 05, 2006 08:34 PM (xdX36)
2
I'll be the first to concede that men don't know squat.
Posted by: Darrell at May 05, 2006 09:22 PM (nLWL5)
Posted by: Desert Cat at May 05, 2006 09:26 PM (xdX36)
4
I stand by what I said. And I stand and deliver.
Posted by: Darrell at May 05, 2006 09:54 PM (nLWL5)
5
Joy,
I agree on many levels. However, when looking at the other option there are some concerns. Women often are more concerned with the outward appearance than the actual substance or value (I give you haute couture). On the second point, women do not fight by half-measure or with restraint. There is no quarter, no mercy, and nothing is sacred.
I vote we let dogs run the planet - specifically Labs. They are friendly, divvy up property by who peed on it last, and love you no matter what you rolled in or had to do last week. Even fights are generally just a growl and a "don't think about taking that bone". Much better track record than us hominids.
SGT Dave
Posted by: SGT Dave at May 05, 2006 10:20 PM (lTPXz)
6
Cats.
Cats really don't care what you do and would rather take a nap than pass more intrusive legislation. They follow the same pee rule as dogs, but rather than pee on everything, they usually just rub against it and purr to mark their territory. Much less smelly and more friendly.
Of course the first thing cats would do if they ran the planet is to outlaw dogs. But that's a small price to pay for entrance into the Utopian Nappers Paradise.
Posted by: Desert Cat at May 05, 2006 10:55 PM (xdX36)
7
Doll, You've lost weight! Now don't be modest, you're looking great! I don't know how you do it? I can see that I've aged through the years, and you, You, not a day!
I'm always amazed that you keep such classy friends. I'd have expected that other women wouldn't even want to share this world with you. But they all honestly love you. It makes me believe in karma.
Izzat whatcher talkin'bout?
Posted by: Sonar at May 05, 2006 11:27 PM (qCS9x)
8
Speaking of insecurities on parade in public, thanks Sonar. Nice illustration.
Posted by: Desert Cat at May 06, 2006 06:03 AM (xdX36)
9
Well, I live in La-La Land. I had no idea that the behavior Sonar documents was considered a chick thing at all. Out here, boys do it, too
Posted by: Attila Girl at May 06, 2006 11:14 AM (34TBU)
10
"Think about it: here is a group of people who share a profound yet irrational conviction that their worth as human beings is directly tied to the size of a particular item."
Women have this attitude towards their busts, waists, butts, and wardrobes.
"Each pretends to know that this item is bigger than most others like it. Each tries to project this confidence wherever he goes."
Change the "he" to "she" and you've got women pegged, too.
The urination bit doesn't apply to women, though.
Posted by: John at May 06, 2006 04:03 PM (KTxHe)
11
It doesn't have to, as women's "assets of anxiety" are on display any time they're out in public, (unless of course they're wearing a burka).
Don't forget hair color/style/length, jewelry, accessories, etc. in that list.
Posted by: Desert Cat at May 06, 2006 09:27 PM (xdX36)
12
Heh heh heh! Y'all are sending me such very pleasant reminders of the many advantages my life in a bubble.
My $100/year clothing budget is just the beginning.
Posted by: k at May 06, 2006 09:56 PM (y6n8O)
13
I should ask Sigmund, Carl and Alfred about treating anxiety with sunlight. Back to the opening post, I like Condi a lot. Maybe the most. In her current job, I like that she seems more to be driving events than only reacting to them. So far 'though, I don't know who she is to any depth or detail. The only candidate I think I've got a take on is John McCain. And he's wrong on a lot (approaches to immigration reform, campaign reform). Still, I trust him. But he's got balls and a penis. Who do you like without a penis?
Posted by: Sonar at May 07, 2006 01:39 AM (qCS9x)
Posted by: Darrell at May 07, 2006 05:49 AM (soQiG)
15
$100, k? You have me beat! If you buy good clothing and treat it right, it will last you most of your adult life. Ignoring style, of course!
Posted by: Darrell at May 07, 2006 05:53 AM (soQiG)
16
I don't know if this changes your view of the matter, but I've compared notes with a female colleague about behavior in our respective locker rooms at the gym in our anonymous large federal agency. Half or more of the men walk to the showers (which are private stalls) with a towel covering their "particular item." Virtually all the women strut around in the altogether. Go figure.
Posted by: Attila (Pillage Idiot) at May 08, 2006 07:17 AM (C31gH)
17
"... a group of people who share a profound yet irrational conviction that their worth as human beings is directly tied to the size of a particular item"
And here I thought you were talking about breast enhancement surgery.... what a disappointment.
Posted by: Lokki at May 08, 2006 08:42 AM (wSBsc)
18
Think about it: here is a group of people who share a profound yet irrational conviction that their worth as human beings is directly tied to the size of a particular item.
Yes, and women
know that the worth of a man depends on the sixe of his bankroll (or his political power).
Posted by: Averroes at May 08, 2006 02:43 PM (jlOCy)
19
Well, one has to admit that, depending on her positioning (and, um, the landscaping situation) women don't actually show that much when they're nude. Not regarding genitals.
Mammary glands, sure. But our primary reproductive organs are less apparent to the casual glance.
Posted by: Attila Girl at May 08, 2006 09:01 PM (34TBU)
20
I bet you Jeff would say that government issue towels aren't that large.
Perhaps evidence is being gathered for a future sexual harassment suit? I thought the sensitivity seminars suggest talking about non-sexual matters at work? Comparing notes or taking notes/documenting the occurence?
Posted by: Darrell at May 09, 2006 08:29 PM (fTD9j)
21
It sounds to me that Attila Girl is just complaining because she hasn't gotten any.
Attila maybe you would feel happier in life If you just got a rock hard one in your cute little pink vagina.
Posted by: Night Rider at May 09, 2006 08:32 PM (jR4Uu)
22
Wow. It's
certainly been a while since someone with no sense of humor showed up here to discuss my body parts. Especially since I slowed down on the political material.
But thanks for the compliment on my cunt. It certainly is adorable, and I was afraid that wasn't conveying that sufficiently in my prose.
Posted by: Attila Girl at May 09, 2006 09:45 PM (34TBU)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
January 18, 2006
Still Planning My Trip to the East Coast.
I bought another knit hat today, and some gloves. But I'm still intimidated by the idea of going somewhere in the middle of February that has Real Weather.
My rational mind tries to point out that I lived in Maryland for a few years as a kid, and it wasn't bad at all. In fact as a little girl I wanted it to be colder, so I could experience the glamour of snow more than 2-3 days a year.
But I had to hurry into the mall today, due to the fact that I was wearing flip-flops. I don't usually wear flip-flops during the day, but the client I was working for is extremely stingy with the air conditioning, so I have to dress very lightly for that gig.
And I'm just intimidated as all get-out by a capital city that appears to have been placed where it is for the sole purpose of freezing my little feet right off of me.
Why isn't CPAC in Florida? I can do Florida: it's a bit damp, but manageable.
I'd better go. I'm giving myself a complex, as if I don't have enough of those.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
09:04 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 209 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I can't believe guys are still using that old steamy-office-trick to lure unsuspecting females into skimpy attire...And I can't believe women are still falling for it! Or are the women now doing it? We live in interesting times...
Posted by: Darrell at January 19, 2006 08:37 PM (tpQ0w)
2
Florida has the humidity that envelopes your flesh like a scene out of "Body Heat"...ask k. Get your little feet a pair of UGGs for your trip. They should be priced right now. I'll stop now.
Posted by: Darrell at January 19, 2006 09:14 PM (tpQ0w)
3
yum!...says k
as she admires her current $1.98 flip-flops: black with white palm trees on the sole...
Posted by: k at January 20, 2006 08:22 PM (wZLWV)
4
The selection is not as good when you wear a size five, though I've had luck in the children's section. Honolulu was wonderful, though, with so much available in "Asian sizes." I got fancy Nike flip-flops that envelope my feet like Birkenstocks used to in the day. They cost a fortune ($20), but I'll be wearing them for years.
Posted by: Attila Girl at January 21, 2006 01:48 AM (/y+/O)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 04, 2005
Jonathan Rauch:
With It Takes a Family, Rick Santorum has served notice. The bold new challenge to the Goldwater-Reagan tradition in American politics comes not from the Left, but from the Right.
Terms like "left" and "right" become meaningless after a point, but Rauch's take is that replacing the individual with the family as the basic unit of society is an invitation to governmental growth, and that Santorum is drastically revising—perhaps even reversing—the Goldwater-Reagan formula.
Posted by: Attila at
03:30 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 77 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I think Rauch may have missed the point of the family as the core unit of self-reliance...as it was back in the days prior to WWII. People took care of their own, took responsibility for their actions and didn't go looking for the Feds to bail them out.
THAT only started with the Depression and FDR's attempts to fix things. (Which didn't work, by the way. Only WWII got the country back on its feet.)
Posted by: joated at September 04, 2005 04:10 PM (OqZGl)
2
It is the family that lays the foundation for upstanding, intelligent, and self-reliant individuals. If you have sick or broken families, you have sick or broken individuals. It's the foundation. The soil out of which the tree grows.
Posted by: mariana at September 04, 2005 09:14 PM (qiUf8)
3
"Goldwater and Reagan, and Madison and Jefferson, were saying that if you restrain government, you will strengthen society and foster virtue. Santorum is saying something more like the reverse: If you shore up the family, you will strengthen the social fabric and ultimately reduce dependence on government."
I don't know that it is so much the reverse as it is "cart before horse". While I agree with his premise that strong families represent the bedrock of society, I'm not so sure his vision of a government that is strongly invested in "promoting virtue" is wise. Everything he says (as quoted in that article, at least) about the connection between duty, responsibility and freedom rings true, but this is a matter of the heart, and not (in my view) something any government institution can inculcate.
What shall we call this new governmental function?
"The Department of Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice"? This is the sort of thing that invites comparisons to the Taliban.
Posted by: Desert Cat at September 05, 2005 10:05 AM (xdX36)
4
I should add, that I don't mean to say the government can't do the opposite. The last fifty years have proven that it is very capable of damaging the family as a social institution. But the way it has done so is by making people dependent upon government, and also thereby discouraging and drawing artificial proscriptive boundaries around people's natural inclination to private charity.
So is the solution really a need for new government intervention to "shore up the family", or would the family as an institution be better served by the government disentangling itself from the programs and policies that have weakened the family over the decades? The latter would be more in keeping with the conservatism of Reagan and Goldwater.
If Santorum wanted to shore up anything, he would do well to shore up his own church, by working to remove the artificial secular/religious barriers that have pushed religious institutions to the sidelines of American society.
In the absence of "gummit programs", it has traditionally fallen to religious institutions to provide all of the things he seems to wish goverment to provide in this regard. The chief difference, of course, is that one's participation in a church community is an entirely voluntary association.
Posted by: Desert Cat at September 05, 2005 10:27 AM (xdX36)
5
I think my relationship with the government is as a free agent who has entered into a whole set of contractual arrangements with another individual (my "husband")
Our child, when he/she arrives, will be encouraged to see his/her relationship with the government as one that is monitored by mom and dad, who act as his agents in that regard.
I would hope that those of my friends who don't ever intend to marry or have kids wouldn't become second-class citizens if Santorum ran the circus.
In other words, I see the individual--meaning any adult--as the actor who has a direct relationship with the State.
Posted by: Attila Girl at September 06, 2005 02:03 AM (EtCQE)
6
You know, I've read a lot of these kind of articles that decry the replacement of the The Family with The Individual as the unit of society, and I have to wonder... precisely what government policy is it that has caused this to happen? The New Deal? The Estate Tax? Married Filing Separately? It's described in almost horror-movie tones, like some miasma is floating out from Washington DC causing people to think of themselves as individuals (the horror!) through insidious mind control or something.
It is true that now we look to the government to provide some things that once were provided by a family or community. While reasonable people can argue as to where the line should be, I'm not wild about going back to, say, the days when one's personal safety was only as secure as the power of one's family.
Society has been moving from a society of families to a society of individuals since the start of the Industrial Revolution. (The collapse of families as people migrated from agrarian communities to cities has been decried since the late 1700s... not exactly the golden age of socialism.)
It wasn't FDR that created today's society: it was the factory, which fundamentally changed the way in which wealth was created. Adam Smith and Marx agreed on that point, if nothing else.
Posted by: Christophe at September 08, 2005 10:14 PM (td8Qe)
7
I don't really agree. I honestly believe that most of the Founding Fathers were big on individual rights--they just couldn't agree on whether women/black people were individuals, and had to put that off for another day.
Of course, I'm talking political philosophy, and you're talking economics, so we may have an apples/oranges thing going here.
This may or may not be the time to point out that Goldwater was big on gay rights--for his time, at least--and point out that he and Reagan really took a live-and-let-live attitude thereto.
Posted by: Attila Girl at September 08, 2005 10:45 PM (EtCQE)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 03, 2005
And Yet More on NFRA
I'm at the Ronald Reagan Awards Banquet. In a separate entry I will list the winners of the various NFRA Awards. Soon, there will be a showing of
In the Face of Evil, the documentary about Ronald Reagan's fight against communism, and how it bears on the current terrrorist threat. Of course, I've already seen it, at the
Liberty Film Festival last fall, where as I recall it was the world premiere.
At the moment, Tom Tancredo is speaking, and giving an eloquent argument against illegal immigration—an issue that most of you know I've been vascillating on for some time. (Why? Because part of the whole issue has to do with how the economies in our border states are going to conduct their business without the labor normally provided by "illegals," so the "seal off the borders and everything will be lovely" people [those who oversimplify the practicalities of the process] bother me. But the security issues tied into this are sobering, and a good place to start.)
Tancredo discusses the fact that some misguided teachers in schools with a lot of immigrants teach a cartoonish version of multiculturalism, encouraging high school and junior high school students to identify with their native lands rather than this country.
"I don't care whaere you come from," he says. "All I ask is that once you get here, you do what most of our grandparents did, and become part of this nation."
He gets a standing ovation.
And I have a lot to think about.
Posted by: Attila at
09:26 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 254 words, total size 2 kb.
1
i am still on the 'wait and see' fence, too. but it's not just border states. i'm in idaho and the farmers and landscapers have inordinate amounts of illegals working. they h ave been wilfully dependent on them for years. in the summers when i was a teen looking for work in a small rural town, the girls would hoe beets, beans, the boys would set pipe and buck hay, both would work in the orchards. by the time i was a senior, those jobs were hard to find. there are lots of non-border cities that use illegals in industry, construction, domestic help. one issue i find disconcerting is the diseases the illegals are bringing/will be bringing in, particularly tuberculosis. it is an expensive and extraordinarily expensive disease to cure/manage. i think a guest worker/visa think could be one judiciously used part of a policy, but the illegals and legals need to be required to speak english, and take advantage of any opportunity to become citizens. they also need to pay into the systems that provide them health, education. can't pay??? one of the reasons vicente fox doesn't want the border closed is because the workers are sending millions and millions of dollars back home to mexico. if we are going to let them come, there needs to be certain social, legal, and monetary expectations put upon them and their employers. right now, it's free gratis for both.
Posted by: sue at September 05, 2005 10:24 AM (i0+3P)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Sex and the Married Conservative
Dr. Judith Reisman is speaking on the counter-assault against Alfred Kinsey and his research, for which she has led the charge.
Her thesis is that Kinsey's research is based on outrageous sampling errors, and that some of his claims about the sexuality of the "greatest generation" reflected some of the claims made by Nazis in propaganda distributed to British and American troops.
One of the most egregious aspects of Kinsey's research, of course, was his promotion of the notion that young children were sexual in a way that excused adult-child sex.
There's more. I'll definitely have to read Dr. Reisman's latest book, Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences and review it herein.
Posted by: Attila at
03:10 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 120 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Of course, Kinsey being dead puts him at something of a disadvantage when replying to critics.
It is clear from reading her book (the things I do for work) that Reisman's problem is with sex research, period, full stop. One just shouldn't do it. From a New Yorker article:
“One doesn’t measure American sexual habits,” (Reisman) said. “That’s not a science.”
So, I think we can conclude that her problem isn't so much Kinsey as anyone talking about sex.
She also makes some astonishing claims, such as that gays were not persecuted in Nazi Germany (based on the fact that Ernst Rolm was gay). She states, categorically, that gays recruit with the tenacity of the Marine Corps. She repeats charges that Kinsey asked for pedophiles to molest children, a charge that has never been substantiated by any evidence whatsoever.
And as far as Kinsey somehow enabling pedophilia, I would be curious to see if any child molester in the history of the United States has successfully avoided prosecution based on a defense with roots in the Kinsey Report.
Kinsey's research is a legitimate subject of criticism, as any scientific research is. But given the rather scattershot nature of the criticisms, it appears that the real issue here is a desire to put the sexual genie back in the bottle, rather than any of Kinsey's conclusions per se. Sorry, but time only flows one direction.
Posted by: Christophe at September 03, 2005 03:39 PM (td8Qe)
2
Interesting. I'll have to read some of the back-and-forth before I can reach a fully formed conclusion.
But if we do throw any of his research out, we'll still have to keep the Kinsey scale.
Posted by: Attila Girl at September 03, 2005 05:04 PM (P2mGf)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
More from the NFRA
The official slogan for this year's NFRA convention is "turning up the heat on the left." Get it? We're in Scottsdale, Arizona, toward the end of the hot days of summer. This is a glorious part of the country, though: the physical beauty here is astounding.
Mike Spence, introducing Bob Barr as the keynote speaker, modifies the slogan, making the point that what NFRA really needs to do is to "turn up the heat on the GOP."
Bob Barr is speaking on the inadequacy of passively depending on the two-party system to represent the people. He makes a number of truly excellent points, one of which hit me right over the head: Republicans continually preach to African-Americans about the need to objectively evaluate what the Democratic Party is (and, more usually, is not) doing for them. True conservatives need, he tells us, so "practice what they preach.
Rep Barr also analyzed Ronald Reagan's presidency, pointing out that he was an outsider at the beginning of his first term, and remained an outsider until he left office.
Rep Barrr is an amazing thinker, attempting to raise the level of debate about all issues, and explaining that the important thing is to talk about substance, rather than to go along with the prevailing wisdom. Make sure to talk reasonably with people whom you disagree with, he exhorts us: you may have an opportunity to carry an important message.
He defends his relationship with the ACLU, pointing out that despite the many areas of disagreement between his own positions and those of that group, there are important discussions to be had about some provisions of the Patriot Act, and we'd be derelict to gloss them over.
In conclusion, he reminds us that "expediency is for cowards. Principles are for winners."
Posted by: Attila at
02:05 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 305 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Republicans continually preach to African-Americans about the need to objectively evaluate what the Democratic Party is (and, more usually, is not) doing for them
No doubt having a group of rich, white men lecture them will be a new, refreshing experience for black Americans.
Posted by: Christophe at September 03, 2005 03:21 PM (td8Qe)
2
Wait. Are you mad at me?
Posted by: Attila Girl at September 03, 2005 05:05 PM (P2mGf)
3
Are you mad at me?
Not a bit of it. But sometimes a nice, juicy piece of irony is a bit too tempting.
Posted by: Christophe at September 03, 2005 05:24 PM (td8Qe)
4
Irony is in the eye of the beholder. You're presuming that most members of the GOP are rich and white and male. And of course you see that, because that's what you're looking for.
Posted by: Attila Girl at September 03, 2005 06:02 PM (uPa3y)
5
Hello again. Very much enjoyed meeting you at the event Friday night. Just added your site to my "Blog Round-up" favorites.
The best thing the GOP is doing is appealing intellectually to black folks. Rock on Ken M. His out reach to black folks is the real deal and the Dems can't handle it. As I told you last night, there are lots of us who have left their intellectual plantation. I ain't pickin' their cotton!
This president has been GREAT. And in my opinion, Condi the only logical choice to succeed him!
Condi - 2008
Posted by: Keith J at September 03, 2005 07:37 PM (kygMG)
6
Thank you, Mr. James. You're a true gentlemen. And thank you for not coming down too hard on my liberal friends who would like to think they speak for you, Councilwoman Johnson, Secretary Rice, Rep. Watts, General Powell, and—as I understand it—the entire
brotherhood.
Posted by: Attila Girl at September 03, 2005 08:56 PM (P2mGf)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The Fork in the Road for Vermont
I had a wonderful discussion at the Goldwater reception with
Greg Parke about his campaign against Sanders in one of the most interesting states in the union: from where I sit Vermont appears, like Southern California, to be an area of libertarian principles that have become so watered-down as to turn the entire state a sort of pale blue hue.
And yet, Vermont has an extraordinary commitment to the Second Amendment, and awash in firearms, which can be carried by anyone. There are those, of course, who maintain that Vermont is adversely affected by people from the northeastern metropolises, who live there only part-time—but vote "full-time" in Vermont as well as their home states. This theory holds that the full-timers—"real Vermonters"—aren't big nanny staters. I'm not so sure, but I'd like some sort of national resolution on this issue, since plenty of New Yorkers declared openly in 2004 that they intended to vote in their home states and the state that contained their vacation properties. (After all, Florida was a big swing state, and the end justified the means.)
Whatever the situation, Vermonters need to consider whether they were well-served by Jim Jeffords, and want to repeat the "Democrat-in-independent clothing" mistake.
Parke is a personable man with a passion for this country that is underscored by his two decades in the USAF. He cares about the people of Vermont, and wants to educate New Englanders about the true consequences of statism. He and I and another charming Air Force man from a blue state (Massachusetts) talk about how insidious the liberal argument is, and how willing people seem to be to give up liberty for the illusion of safety. We've all had these arguments with our liberal friends, and all experienced that exquisitely frustrating "Ben Franklin" moment in which we declare they deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Do we mean it? Well, probably not. But the whole thing is an uphill battle.
If you're in New England, spread the word about Lt. Colonel Parke. If you're in Vermont, remember to vote, and consider helping out with the campaign.
Posted by: Attila at
01:01 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 362 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Let's just say it Liberalism = cowardice. You see it manifested in the liberal reaction to 9/11 and again in the reaction to the disaster in New Orleans.
While I hate to sterotype them I am going to. Liberals in general seem totally unwilling to take action to defend their country, their way of life or even help their fellow man.
It get tiresome hearing these armchair quarterbacks constantly criticizing men of action. Men of action by definition make mistakes.
Jim Jeffords is a perfect example of a liberal politician without any moral compass at all. A man totally unable to represent the very people that elected him due to his selfishness and lust of personal power. Not only that but he displayed a profound lack of judgement when he decided to become an "independent". His actions reduced the quality of the represention the people of Vermont have in the Senate from one of some influence to a nutured ineffectual presence in the Senate that is not respected by either party.
The people in Vermont deserve to be represented by a Senator that believes in SOMETHING!
Posted by: Doug at September 03, 2005 04:55 AM (6krEN)
2
He and I and another charming Air Force man from a blue state (Massachusetts) talk about how insidious the liberal argument is, and how willing people seem to be to give up liberty for the illusion of safety.
Right on! I mean, what are we to make of such left-wing liberal ideas as the War on Drugs, War on Pornography, and the PATRIOT Act?
Posted by: Christophe at September 03, 2005 03:17 PM (td8Qe)
3
Well, it all has to do with how you define words. The word "liberal," for example, has two meanings: 1) modern-day leftist, and 2) classical liberal.
I myself fit one of those definitions--but not the other.
Posted by: Attila Girl at September 03, 2005 05:07 PM (P2mGf)
4
The word "liberal," for example, has two meanings: 1) modern-day leftist, and 2) classical liberal.
Indeed so. Allow me to drop the snark tone for a moment to comment on the point without using either version of the l-wod, lest my point be confused.
The point of the excerpt that I originally quoted seemed to be saying that leftists are ready to trade off any kind of liberty in exchange for security. I have a hard time fitting that statement with even the rightist stereotype of a leftist, let alone the reality as I see it. I thought that leftists were touchy-feely "Oh, no, don't restrict any right whatsoever even if it gets us all killed!" types?
Most of the really bad-idea tradeoffs between liberty and security that I've seen post-9/11 have been signature causes of the right. It seems that the civil rights agenda on the right, at the moment, can be summarized as, "If you are a law-abiding citizen, you have nothing to fear from the government." If that isn't the most anti-libertarian idea imaginable, I do not know what is.
Posted by: Christophe at September 03, 2005 05:30 PM (td8Qe)
5
I thought that leftists were touchy-feely "Oh, no, don't restrict any right whatsoever even if it gets us all killed!" types?
Sure see "Amendment." As in, "Second."
Posted by: Attila Girl at September 03, 2005 06:05 PM (uPa3y)
6
Well, even I am not crazy enough to kick the Second Amendment tar baby. I will note, however, that the left has no monopoly on wanting to expand government power to give people a warm fuzzy idea that something is Being Done.
Posted by: Christophe at September 03, 2005 11:23 PM (td8Qe)
7
Fair enough. See "Homeland Security, Department of."
Or, you know--nearly any piece of domestic legislation with Richard Nixon's signature on it.
Posted by: Attila Girl at September 03, 2005 11:36 PM (uPa3y)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
September 02, 2005
Drafting Dr. Rice!
I'm live-blogging the Goldwater reception at the NFRA, where
Glorious Johnson is speaking in favor of drafting Condi Rice for the presidency, an idea that some in the room seem skeptical about as she begins her remarks. Johnson's speech is taking the shape of a history lesson, explaining the relationship between the black population in this country&mdashblack women in particular—and the GOP.
Did you know that Sojourner Truth was a Republican? Did you know that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican? Rest assured that the ladies Councilwoman Johnson spoke of were all represented in my high school women's history class, and they include my all-time favorite black female historical figure, Harriet Tubman, who rescued more slaves than anyone else in American history, and carried a gun as a conductor on the "Underground Railroad." Councilwoman Johnson notes that Tubman was also a soldier, a spy, and a nurse in the Civil War. Johnson furthermore mentions Ida B. Wells, Mary Terrell, and Mary McLeod Bethune as historical figures with ties to the GOP.
Dr. Rice is ready, Johnson assures us, ridiculing the often-repeated notion that Rice needs to go to Alabama or California to run for some small office before she can represent this country in the White House. (What we have in Condi Rice, as Dr. Mason of AFR constantly reminds us, is a candidate who has virtually served an apprenticeship for the highest office in the land.)
Johnson's speaking style is very dynamic, in the gospel-influenced cadence of many African-American orators from the South, and she dominates the room—not an easy task while there's a bar and a buffet in the back. A lot of the NFRA delegates haven't seen each other for a long time, and they are dying to get re-acquainted: Johnson reminds them of the important task facing this party over the next two years in picking the leader of the free world. Her voices carries, and her message resonates. Despite themselves, the socializers in the back are carried up in the excitement, and begin chanting "Condi!" under the councilwoman's direction until the whole room is united.
Johnson is, she tells us, on a mission. It's a mission shared by many others. Most of the people working on this campaign have had a sort of "Eureka!" moment in which they take the idea seriously for a minute or two, and then the light breaks as they realize that Dr. Rice is uniquely positioned to carry on the aspects of the President's legacy that are working well, and to improve on the areas where it isn't.
There's usually a moment in which they consider who can best stand up to Hillary Clinton in a Presidential debate, and then a smile begins to play on their lips. And then they kind of exhale and admit that "there might be something to this. Perhaps she isn't just a fantasy candidate after all."
Get out your surfboard, and ride this wave. Because it's coming at you soon.
Posted by: Attila at
07:05 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 504 words, total size 3 kb.
1
One can assume that Condi's
retail therapy response to the greatest American crisis since 9/11 will not figure large in her election material.
As a Democrat, I am down on my knees praying that Condi Rice runs for the Republican nomination. After watching the Republican Party rip itself apart... President Hillary Clinton? Lacks ambition. We could get a Lawrence Lessig/Hugo Chavez ticket elected.
Posted by: Christophe at September 03, 2005 02:58 PM (td8Qe)
2
Ooh, thanks. I've been meaning to take on "shoe-gate." Stay tuned.
Posted by: Attila Girl at September 03, 2005 05:09 PM (P2mGf)
3
I hold Dr. Rice in high regard and personally find a Rice/Ridy ticket very interesting. Impossible to support as a conservative, but interesting all the same.
Posted by: Joel (No Pundit Intended) at September 03, 2005 09:30 PM (DiPBR)
4
Hey Attila, good job. Can't wait till Condi jumps in. She'll kick Hillary's last ass.
Posted by: Section9 at September 07, 2005 07:19 AM (vpTm5)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Live, from Scottsdale . . .
it's
Little Miss Attila! I'll be here all weekend, blogging the
NFRA Convention. This is the organization that Ronald Reagan called "the conscience of the Republican party," and it's an important voice (or rather, an important set of voices) within the conservative movement.
Ironically, WiFi is easier to access here than it is from my hotel room a few miles down Scottsdale Road at the Holiday Inn. If I'm not successful at logging in from there tonight or tomorrow, it's all over between me and the Holiday Inn. I thought it was True Love (plus, with my Auto Club discount, it was $15 cheaper there than it would have been to stay here at the Chaparral Suites), but the WiFi here is better, and I may just return all the jewelry and lingerie Holiday Inn has given me and leave them for good this time.
I mean it. Do you hear me, Holiday Inn Express? I even joined your little business travellers' club and everything. I feel so used.
There's a sense of excitement here as the various groups set up their booths and begin setting out their literature. The John Birch Society has a table here, as do the Stop the FTAA activists. And, of course, Team Condi.
I'll try to resist the temptation to make up a series of fake off-hours "adventures" to regale you with, in the manner of Goldstein's RNC convention blogging. But I won't make any promises, other than to say I really am here at the convention site, and it's pretty thrilling, to tell you the truth.
The Goldwater Reception begins in less than three hours, so at some point I do have to hop back to my hotel and put my suit on. Councilwoman Glorious Johnson of Jacksonville, Florida is speaking on behalf of Americans for Rice and the National Black Republican Convention, and I don't want to miss that.
If you're trying to get through by e-mail, rest assured that I shall get your missives at some point, from one of the two hotels. But you might want to send a carrier pigeon into the desert as a backup.
Posted by: Attila at
03:27 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 369 words, total size 2 kb.
1
But how would we know if they were real or fake? At least with Goldstein we had a track record sufficient to give pause as to the veracity of the reported adventures.
But...wait. Since we *would* be more inclined to believe them, that would make them all the more juicy to read.
Please do regale!
Posted by: Desert Cat at September 02, 2005 09:01 PM (xdX36)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 27, 2005
New London, Again.
I will be blogging about the eminent domain situation in that part of the world, interviewing someone in an adjacent Connecticut town who can bring me up-to-date on the history of land-grabs in the area and what the future might hold.
Naturally, I'll be doing a little research before I leave town, but aside from the legal blogs and the Castle Coalition, I'd be interested in what you might know about similar cases—in CT or elsewhere.
People who like the Bill of Rights are the new "peasants with pitchforks."
Posted by: Attila at
12:45 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 95 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I don't know much more about blogging. I use this only for maintain diary.
Posted by: Mac at July 28, 2005 05:00 AM (UJvEw)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 21, 2005
New London
I'm going to be in Connecticut in two weeks for my sister's wedding. I'll probably be making a day trip to New London on either Sunday 8/7 or Monday 8/8. (I'll be hanging out in the Syrian immigrant community. Cool, huh? Now you know why I threaten to ventilate anyone who puts down Arabs: I have a whole set of them in the family.)
I'd like to interview some of the local residents, but I don't want to intrude upon the homeowners directly involved in the eminent domain abuse case—unless someone there isn't completely sick of giving interviews.
If any of you have any connections in the area, I'd appreciate hearing about 'em.
Thanks!
Posted by: Attila at
10:22 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 118 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I don't have contacts in New London, but you're driving through Fairfield or Bridgeport, be sure to give a wave to Me and
Tuning Spork
Posted by: Stephen Macklin at July 22, 2005 11:23 AM (UquFN)
2
Flash teh sub sailors while you are there.
Posted by: Walter E. Wallis at July 22, 2005 12:22 PM (xX0fS)
Posted by: Walter E. Wallis at July 22, 2005 12:22 PM (xX0fS)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
111kb generated in CPU 0.0385, elapsed 0.1477 seconds.
222 queries taking 0.127 seconds, 543 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.