The Seattle Stranger
1535 11th Ave., Third Floor
Seattle, Washington, 98122

Please do not plaster their offices with McCain stickers, or hang Joe Biden in effigy outside the building.

Via Moonbattery, via Ace.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 09:14 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 49 words, total size 1 kb.

The Times just did a big story on Sarah Palin's college years.

This is, presumably, its way of making up for never having covered Barack Obama's time at Occidental and Columbia.

See how that works?

Posted by: Attila Girl at 12:48 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 51 words, total size 1 kb.

A new site is being put together by a colleague of Ace of Spades to keep track of reporters who do not fact-check their stories adequately, who display undue bias, or who go after less-newsworthy targets (e.g., Jodi Kantor serving up warmed-over gossip about Cindy McCain as "news").

The project is very likely too late to affect this election, and is most certainly not soliciting funds. ("Give to the McCain campaign, or to a 527," it recommends right now.) But it will provide an invaluable resource in the years ahead, so we can keep track of the most aggressive purveyors of slime against people such as the Palin family, and (most egregiously, of course), Joe the Plumber.

After the election the project will be needing researchers, data-entry people, and writers.

In retrospect, we've needed a mediapedia for a long time, and it's exciting to see this finally happening.

(Cross-posted at Right Wing News.)

Posted by: Attila Girl at 10:07 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 159 words, total size 1 kb.

She doesn't like talking about her family; just other people's.

Fausta has her own article up on The New York Times sliming of Cindy McCain.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 01:57 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 33 words, total size 1 kb.

I'm normally against anything that smacks of blackmail, but, like Ace, I'm getting tired of the media getting a "pass" while they slime private citizens.

Just as (like Instapundit always insists) citizens should have a right to videotape cops who are videotaping them, journalists who essentially put people on trial for asking questions of politicians should themselves be "vetted."

I mean Joe the Plumber vetted. I mean Paula Jones vetted.

Vetted.

Update: Morrissey weighs in.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 03:46 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 91 words, total size 1 kb.

Sign. Me. Up.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 08:28 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 13 words, total size 1 kb.

I had no idea I was going to have to run this video. This debate was either a draw, or a slight win for Palin--very close; both Palin and Biden did quite well.

But it's being spun as a win for . . . Biden? Come on.

I guess that means that after the Republicans win this election again, it will have been stolen. Retroactively. 'Cause no one could possibly vote for McCain; not after he brought Mayor Bimbo on board.

Via Goldstein, who reads the mainstream shit so I don't have to. Read his entire analysis.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 09:32 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 99 words, total size 1 kb.

Men can have private meetings with foreign leaders, and it's okay.

If women have private meetings with foreign leaders, and there are no reporters to supervise, they might just start gushing blood out at them—like gory firehoses—and it takes a good pressman to smooth a situation like that over.

Actually, Palin just didn't want reporters in on these meetings because Charlie Gibson wasn't available, and it made her sad.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 05:47 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 77 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

Jill Greenberg, getting a taste of her own P-shop medicine:

(Via Doug Ross)

h/t: Vanderleun, who sees The Atlantic as more sinning than sinned-against; I'm not so sure in this particular case, leftward tilt and all.

More of Gerard, on Greenberg.

And yet more Greenberg at The American Digest. And this time, her husband comes to her defense; it isn't pretty, as Gerard fisks him pretty soundly.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 09:25 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 81 words, total size 1 kb.

Media bias? What Media bias?

Posted by: Attila Girl at 12:11 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 11 words, total size 1 kb.

It is utterly impossible for me to look at the new New Yorker magazine cover as doubly ironic: that is to say, as meant only to make fun of some of the silliy ideas floating around out there about Senator Obama. (That he is secretly Muslim, that he and his wife hate America, etc.)

And because I'm unable to entertain the idea that the pubishers of The New Yorker are anything but staunch Democrats, I find myself somewhat confused.

Certainly the The New Yorker may publish what it likes, because (1) this is America, and (2) Obama isn't a Muslim. (And Mohammed is not present in the caricutature. Also missing: dogs and pigs.)

So to the first question that crossed my mind last night, as I toggled back and forth between being offended myelf, ("they've crossed a line this time, and for no real good reason") and childish partisan glee ("this cannot hurt McCain"), the answer seems to be "yes." There is nothing about political figures in this country that are sacred; there is no taboo against doing what the New Yorker did, and therefore no reason to do it just for the hell of it, just to make a point about what speech is and is not permissible in this country.

So did the folks at The New Yorker do this simply to . . . sell magazines? Just to get those of us who rely for our news and opinion on this internet thingie to march down to a magazine stand and ask for a copy of the print version of their little rag?

Oh, yes. Hell, yes.

It isn't that "New York Money Men" don't like guys whose middle names are Hussein. It's that New York Money Men find that they have a strange desire for . . . well, money.

It's not yellow journalism! It's journalism that's been color-corrected for what used to be a blue-ish tint.

The Obamas burn a flag in the Oval Office under a picture of Osama bin Laden, while unwinding in their favorite leisure wear: Muslim garb, military-style fatigues, a 'fro for Michelle, and an AK-47. No scare tactics here

Captain Ed at Hot Air:

Obviously, the New Yorker wanted to go for satire, poking fun at what they see as the image of the Obamas among conservatives. Just as obviously, the editors of the New Yorker showed very poor judgment in approving this cover. A satirical cartoon on the inside would have been more appropriate, but having this on the cover shouldnÂ’t just offend the Obamas, but also conservatives who have a number of substantial issues with Barack Obama.

This makes the third bigoted attack from the Left on Obama. Two weeks ago, it was Ralph Nader acting as the arbiter of black authenticity, and last week it was Jesse Jackson wanting to castrate Obama. One side in this cycle certainly seems obsessed by identity politics, but so far it isnÂ’t the Republicans.

Update: “Third bigoted attack” was tongue in cheek, people. Get a clue. The New Yorker is attacking conservatives, but Obama’s the one taking offense (and for good reason). Obama warned that the Republicans would obsess over his ethnicity, but so far only the mainstream Left has made it an issue.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 04:45 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 553 words, total size 4 kb.

. . . "Crisis on Omaha?" I know I'm a few days late, but here it is just in case some of my readers didn't catch it on Friday:

Remember: when the media tell you that it's "Game Over," they might be engaging in wishful thinking.

h/t: Neocon Express.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 03:50 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 57 words, total size 1 kb.

And he's still here.

It feels as if everyone's pulled out their file obituaries, changed some tenses, grabbed a few fresh quotes, and run with that. I don't want to read about the man's brothers; I want to read about him. I don't want Camelot and the tragedy of John-John or Joe or anyone else. What is it about the "K" word that makes journalists insane?

There's too much fiddle-faddle going on.

My heart goes out to the Kennedys, but the coverage of Ted's illness seems almost as absurd as everything else written about this troubled family. Here's a random quote from the WaPo article:

Theodore Sorensen, JFK's speechwriter and alter ego, observed yesterday: "Only the Adams family in the earliest days of the republic had the kind of stature, respect and impact on public life as the Kennedys."

Wasn't there a family in the late nineteenth century and early 20th century that had an even larger impact on public life? Name started with an "R," if I recall. Pure silliness, and one more blurring of the man with the "dynasty."

And, yes: I'm still upset about the wind farm dealio, but today isn't the day for that. Today is for prayer. Respect for the good that the man did (and tried to do) by his own lights. And hopes that he'll stick around—that the news isn't as bad as it appears to be right now.

That is all.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 08:16 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 253 words, total size 2 kb.

than being a whore is being a whore with no demand for one's services.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 05:28 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 28 words, total size 1 kb.

The BBC has flying penguins today. Sounds, um . . . fishy.

Via Memeorandum.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 03:34 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 16 words, total size 1 kb.

Will someone out there who isn't television-impaired tell me whether the hundreds of FBI files that the Clinton Administration collected "by accident" —which contained raw data, interviews, unsupported allegations, and plenty of true/untrue dirt on people—got nearly as much news coverage as someone peeking at the current candidates' passport fies, and thereby potentially getting hold of their social security numbers (which is not a small thing, but certinly orders of magnitude away from what we saw wholesale in the 1990s under Bill Clinton)?

h/t: Memeorandum.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 04:11 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 87 words, total size 1 kb.

that sometimes journalists only skim the summaries in the reports they are supposed to be reading.

Shockingly, that means they get it wrong sometimes.

Even more shockingly, those with axes to grind often write the summaries, to spin the reports in one direction or another. And the media generally buy what the bureaucrats are selling.

"First, we kill all the reporters . . ."

Posted by: Attila Girl at 10:46 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 76 words, total size 1 kb.

Sean's got both of the "3:00 a.m." ads—Senator Clinton's, and the response ad from Senator Obama. The timeframe is impressive, in terms of the Obama ad. But if I had video-editing software on this computer (and knew how to use it), I'd do the parody of both:

"It's 3:00 a.m., and your children are in bed and safe. There's a phone ringing in the newsroom.

Who do you want to answer it?—the mainstream-media reporters, who keep normal hours and sleep at night, or the crazy night-owl bloggers, who never drop off until the rosy-fingered dawn is poking at their bedcovers?

Your web traffic will determine who answers that call, and how soon you read about this supposedly important-fucking news item—and how quickly it gets disseminated over the internet.

I'm Little Miss Attila, and I approved this ad."

Posted by: Attila Girl at 12:15 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 155 words, total size 1 kb.

Captain's Quarters has now been assimilated into the Malkin Empire; all hail the Queen!

I know what you're thinking. But, for crying out loud: if we're going to complain about consolidation of power, can't we start somewhere logical? Let's begin with Google, and/or the gubmint.

h/t: Write Enough.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 07:41 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 56 words, total size 1 kb.