. . . wherein you have to wear feathers to make a point like this. May she forever be a thorn in her family's side. And may her racy pictures torment her uncle for the rest of his short life.

As for her own safety, I've thought for years that feminism needs its own Mossad. Wouldn't it be terrible if those who participated in honor killings were themselves offed?

Terrible. Horrible. I'll be organizing a training camp in the Eastern Sierras for the spring of 2006. Included: firearms and edged weapons, evasive tactics, linguistic skills, disguise, survival ability, and Manuevers for Screwing with Sexists' Morale.

E-mail me if you're interested. We'll be a bit more lethal than Bambi and Thumper—but just as buff. And we'll be protecting Ms. Dufour.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 11:32 AM | Comments (27) | Add Comment
Post contains 137 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I hear his other 10,000 nieces are models of discretion

Posted by: jeff at December 24, 2005 11:59 AM (RIsNx)

2 I'll sign up! I'll sign up! This post may upset some of those ardent anti-feminists in the blogosphere.

Posted by: k at December 24, 2005 02:42 PM (6krEN)

3 We'll see, won't we?

Posted by: Attila Girl at December 24, 2005 06:31 PM (zZMVu)

4 "I want to be accepted here, but I feel that everybody's judging me and rejecting me." Okay, I judge her, too. A little more meat on them bones (and I mean meat, not fat) and I'll stop rejecting her, as well.

Posted by: John at December 24, 2005 08:47 PM (3sCAd)

5 Excellent. And then she'll start sleeping at night again . . .

Posted by: Attila Girl at December 24, 2005 09:13 PM (zZMVu)

6 Do you mean anti-feminists or "anti-feminists"?

Posted by: Desert Cat at December 25, 2005 12:22 AM (xdX36)

7 Hmm. Not sure. I go along with LMA's end analysis that the definition of feminist is so individualized that every person's is unique. So I think it follows that every definition of anti-feminist is, too. So being, I'd have to hear your definitions of anti-feminist and *anti-feminist* in order to understand well enough to respond properly.

Posted by: k at December 25, 2005 06:21 AM (M7kiy)

8 Eeek! No! Well, okay: there are (1) people who acknowledge that society has made mistakes under the rubric of feminism, such as taking anti-harassment codes so far that any semblence of humor is removed from the workplace, or reducing lovemaking among college students to a series of yes-or-no questions that each requires an audible answer. ("May I touch your breast?") Included in this group would be people who simply reject the label, as I did for years (until I decided it was situationally useful in the blogosphere). These people can be intellectually engaged. And then there are (2) people like LaShawn, who simply believe women cannot do certain white-collar jobs, like be President. These people should be gently told why their approach is incorrect. Harder to define would be (3) those heterosexual males who appear to regard women as creatures who exist to (a) gratify their sexual desires, and (b) look good on their arms when they arrive at a party. They should be laughed at. And then there are (4) those people concentrated in Latin America and—especially—the Middle East who think women should be beaten and kept under house arrest, and heartily engage in honor killings. It's this last group that the Feminist Mossad will focus on. Their edge in upper-body mass will do them no good, I'm afraid.

Posted by: Attila Girl at December 25, 2005 10:21 AM (zZMVu)

9 Okay. I should have just copied this in in the first place. Here's what I misstated: "Since I've started blogging I've used the label on occasion—to distinguish myself from conservatives of the LaShawn stripe—but I generally like to remind people that the word feminist has about as many interpretations as there are people hearing the word." I'd still have to hear what DC's definitions are to answer his question. Meanwhile, I'll join your brigade in a heartbeat. I can refer to this, under the law, as "self-defense of a third party." And while this may not be part of your battle plan - to which I would naturally defer - I myself think it could include not just the honor killings, but the not-always-sterile forcible surgery upon young girls to remove their female genitalia. Of course, at this point, most men and women alike will get so grossed out they don't want to hear about any of it any more. Is there a word for that? a female equivalent to the male, *emasculated?* Because there are around 100,000,000 women alive who've had that done to them. So I think there ought to be a word for it. Emasculation, on the other hand, is actually extremely rare. It displays a profound hatred not just of female sexuality, but simply of those people - via their parts - who are female-by-definition. To me this practice looks like a fitting physical embodiment of the need for feminism. The rest is levels and degrees. To pay someone a higher salary for doing the same job as me, just because they've got a penis and I don't, is ridiculous on its face. To have spent thousands of years passing laws and using social and physical pressure (via wife-beating and other violence) to prevent qualified women from practicing jobs that men want, could only indicate that we're at least as good as them at performing those jobs. If we weren't able to do that work, and do it well, we wouldn't be perceived as a competitive threat. Generally speaking, one only tries to control others because of fear. And murder is the ultimate form of control.

Posted by: k at December 25, 2005 11:22 AM (M7kiy)

10 I'm enraged by female genital mutilation, though I understand related violations were perpetrated upon men in the past in order to improve their singing voices. To tell you the truth, female "circumcision" (there's a euphemism for you) brings out my Old Testament streak. Male fear of women is complex. There is, I believe, an unconscious tendency to imbue us with near-supernatural powers due to the combo of sexual desire and the fact that we are often caregivers for males in their infancy/childhood. So we're always larger-than-life, desired, and hated for both those things. Q: How many feminists does it take to screw in a light bulb? A: One, and it's funny as hell.

Posted by: Attila Girl at December 25, 2005 12:25 PM (zZMVu)

11 Yeah - that actual real male emasculation did and does happen. But even in its heyday I bet there were never anything NEAR 100 million of 'em. The purpose of castrado was preserving a singing voice, not killing off any hope of healthy sexuality. And rumor has it, the boys were often given something of a choice about it. I haven't heard of a single group who gives the female a choice. So I think that's not such a very comparable thing, really. Men who were castrated to render them unable to have sex with a member of a harem they were guarding comes a little closer. Still, some societies gave those men a choice, too. The gender group controlling Who Gets The Knife has always been 99.9% or so male. Not female. Females carry out most of the contemporary mutilations of female children, but the rules are made by the men. So male fear of castration should be directed toward other men, not women. The fear of females emasculating men figuratively, though, is certainly common enough. I've heard those accusations leveled against all sorts of women, under a wide variety of circumstances, all my life. The great majority of them were ludicrous. The ones that held some validity? Those brought out the same rage in me as when it goes the other direction. Why would I think it was OK to be emotionally vicious to a different social group than mine? I think men need liberating too, and always have. Don't they need liberating from that fear? Complex fear, yes. I think your insight there is right on the money. But I firmly believe DNA desires are at the top of the list. For men to ensure their DNA comes to fruition, one method is to control women, and the use of force is one technique of control. The fear there is, my DNA will get left by the wayside, therefore I must control at least one fruitful woman. Honor killings *off* some of the eligible females, but the remaining females are more easily controlled. They're afraid, and for very good reason. Of course, for a man to find the right woman to fall in love with is the DNA-passing method I like the best. But me, I'm just a romantic after all. All the hollering about humorless feminists? Yeah, I've seen 'em be humorless. I don't like much of anything to be humorless, myself. Still, as I said once before, I don't tell dead baby jokes any more. It can be hard to be humorous about murder and mutilation, too. Yet...the reason mutilation came to mind in this post - sorry I forgot to clarify it before - is this: Among the several ironies of Ms. Dufour's photo shoot for GQ is, it's extremely unlikely that she escaped mutilation herself. If so, then here she is, doing her sexy poses, with no way of ever truly understanding sexuality in the first place. Now, that light bulb business there is a whole different ball of wax. Funny as hell, and probably entertaining in many other ways for all concerned. (Darrell, are you watching?)

Posted by: k at December 25, 2005 02:43 PM (M7kiy)

12 What? Good heavens, *I* still am not entirely clear. My head is still reeling from fillowing JeffG's debate with the "gender feminists" who rejected the "gender feminist" label, preferring to call themselves feminists while disparaging "equity feminists" who disagree with their radical agenda as "anti-feminists". When *I* think of anti-feminists, it is the Mohammedian sorts I think of.

Posted by: Desert Cat at December 25, 2005 03:22 PM (xdX36)

13 Oh! Well then, doesn't that put you right back here in our court? Most sensible Americans can see why it's really icky to cut off all the women's parts. And why this is a legitimate feminist issue. One way to winnow out the American women-haters, the serious and scary ones, is to wait for them to come out saying, Well, that's maybe not so bad...It's a quick and easy way for a gal to figure out who her real male friends are. I've deliberately avoided stopping by that blogstorm. But while it's of little interest to me for my own sake, I can see it could be a courtesy to others to give it a read. So 'scuse me a minute while I peruse.

Posted by: k at December 25, 2005 05:24 PM (M7kiy)

14 Well then, doesn't that put you right back here in our court? It depends upon the parameters of said court. By the definitions of the "gender feminists" (TRUE feminists), I'm most assuredly "anti-feminist", as theirs is an ideology that is for the most part a subchapter of the radical left. It is not inconceivable that I might consider myself to have a place somewhere at the "equity" feminist table. Which is a pretty radical thought for me, as for many years now I have associated all things "feminist" with the screeching harpies of the male-bashing gender feminist left. It has been a particular disappointment to me, that where I thought feminism could actually be most useful, these self-appointed "true" feminists seem to want nothing to do with the plight of their sisters in Muslim countries. That's because modern feminism serves the needs of the radical left first and foremost. And encouraging US hegemony in any shape or form for any purpose, however beneficial to a particular subchapter, is *not* on the agenda. So, as for the feminist Mossad, I say "SIC 'EM!" Their fear and loathing of the west distills down almost completely to their misogyny. It's too bad the left made such a stink over Abu Ghirab--it diminished the power of Lyndie England. Sorry if it offends some folks, but I have to grin inwardly over the thought of what the images of her playing dominatrix on their sorry asses did to their collective scrotums. Ah, the humanity! The emotional scarring! How many hot, sweltering S&M nightmares did she inspire? Mumbling "yes...yesss" then waking to scream "NO! NO-O!" Ok, I know that's not how we win friends and influence people, but still. Any society that requires female "circumcision" needs to have its collective sexual psyche raked over the coals. Repeatedly.

Posted by: Desert Cat at December 25, 2005 06:34 PM (xdX36)

15 Yes, k, I've been "watching" silently, afraid to make myself known. I was going to volunteer to wear one of those overstuffed protective suits for your training sessions. Or to be a suicide bomber for your cause---when you decide that I'm past my "use by" date. On a serious note, I would guess Ms. Dufour has NOT been circumcised.(I apologize, Ms Dufour, if you are reading this--I know it's none of my business!) Remember that the Bin Laden family as a whole is very Western in their thinking and good allies to the US. Many trained with the US Air Force and I've only heard great things about them--how they helped out guys they served with in a big and generous way when they needed it. For example, flying the wife of one fellow pilot to specialized doctors when she was diagnosed with "inoperable" cancer by military docs and buying them a specially-equipted house for her recovery. Most Muslim men I know love their daughters as much as anyone can and would never think of doing such a thing to her--that's why they come to the US or the UK, among other countries. I'm sure you know the story about the Bin Laden scion taking a Palestinian wife because it was the "thing to do" in some circles...and little Osama(Usama) coming from that. And by the way, in my experience, the surest way to keep a woman the way the way she was born is to keep her away from her female relatives, especially her grandmother and aunts. I know. You will say that they are using imposing the rules of the male-dominant society...but still... And about that light bulb thing...I have several readings of that joke in my mind. I'll stipulate that I enjoy them all. Any pics? Sorry! And didn't Lyndie Englund contend those photos were just posed? (For example, those wires were not connected to a power source...something about her "hippie' parents being 'amateur"(?) collectors of crime scene photos?

Posted by: Darrell at December 25, 2005 10:16 PM (iP1+j)

16 Frankly, my issue with Lynddie was her agreeing to anything that involved taking pictures. I really think a lot of the silliness those people engaged in were untrained (and unsupervised, and inappropriate) means of trying to keep people awake at certain times to limit their sleep time and thereby "soften them up" for questioning. Do I have moments of glee at the thought that some of these jokers might be interrogated by Western women? Well . . . . if I did it would be human, right? But I cannot forgive those stupid quasi-frat kids for the damage they did to the American military. Re: genital mutilation, I'm not making a strong analogy with the situation vis a vis the castrati, only pointing out that the action isn't unprecedented. I also think (in addition to what I stated above) that a lot of men have a certain amount of anger at women because we can make babies and they cannot--and I think it goes beyond the issue of making sure that children a man supports are all his own. However, I do agree that the primary goal in female mutilation is to strip the woman of her sexuality, so she won't be motivated to "wander" (and because the culture is hostile to the female body on general principle). "Honor killings," however, are not limited to women suspected of adultery: some unmarried girls are killed by their fathers or mothers or brothers because they were raped. Or because they were seen in the company of a man in a non-approved situation. The life of a woman in most Middle Eastern countries--and the Arab and/or Muslim enclaves in some Western countries (especially in Western Europe) is that of a slave. I guess you could call me a modern-day abolitionist.

Posted by: Attila Girl at December 26, 2005 12:37 AM (zZMVu)

17 DC, I do believe we're in your Mohammedian court - the *our court* of the moment was our focus on the honor-killers and genitalia-destroyers Over There. And it looks like that's exactly the court you'd had in mind yourself. I've shared your disappointment in the lack of our women sticking up for those women since forever, myself. And it stuns me that Americans in general haven't made that connection between their feelings about us and their extreme misogyny. It also hits hard that for many years, that mutilation was described in American media, documentaries, etc. etc. as *circumcision,* those rare times it was mentioned. Most recently, I saw a piece on a tribe in Africa where the narrator tried (not very hard) to keep the sneer out of his voice as he described how girls would run away or commit suicide to escape getting married. He tut-tutted that there was no reason anyone could unearth for this strange and silly behavior. They showed a scene where a grown woman talked with a bride-to-be about marriage, and said how after she decided not to kill herself over her own impending marriage, it wasn't so bad after all; that she not only came to accept her fate, but a year or two later she kind of liked being married. I've no doubt that tribe practices female mutilation. This can require a knife to reopen the woman's flesh on her bloody wedding night. I'd want to run away, too. The times I've heard or read that issue walked around by Americans in the past - and it was largely American males, at least I don't recall any female voices - it was always excused, downplayed, or even held up as sexually *good* for the women. It may have been a National Geographic show where I heard described how so-called *circumcision* lead the women of the group being filmed to want sex all night. See, the tribe had some little saying about it. The documentarians seem to have missed the point that the women may have been doing that because it was impossible to achieve orgasm with their sex nerves cut off, and so they kept futilely trying all night. When the sun comes up, it's time to give up trying and go to work. As you already know, I belong to no ideology myself, feminism included, and don't acquiesce in any group's definitions of what it means to be a True Whatever. I guess that means I'm also an anti-hijacker too, for all sides of any issue. That's one big reason I avoid blogstorms. They use that stuff and actually take it seriously, making *points* with it, and so they aren't that interesting to me. "Your opinion isn't valid because you said *x* which means you're not a real *y*..." proves nothing. But just because there's some ridiculousness going on about Who's the True Believer, Equity or Gender, or whatever, doesn't mean the concept of equality should be tossed out the window. It's one of the founding principles of our country, after all. The thing about labels and buzzwords is, one needs to learn them in order to communicate, to understand what others mean when they use them in an argument. Yet they're rarely clearly defined. With buzzwords, maybe it's because they're new, as buzzwords are. With labels, maybe because all and sundry anywhere nearby gets swept up and put in that one box. So learning those words only gets you so far in your understanding. It may, in fact, prevent thinking more than help it. And that's contrary to my own primary goal in all this, which is to try to figure out the truth. You've said, *Sometimes I don't even know what side of the aisle I'm on. Truth is, I'm a Christian libertarian and there is no aisle for me, nor even a party...It is because of humankind's long sordid history of human authority being turned to evil against the people that I am convinced God is a libertarian.* And just now you said, *It is not inconceivable that I might consider myself to have a place somewhere at the "equity" feminist table. Which is a pretty radical thought for me, as for many years now I have associated all things "feminist" with the screeching harpies of the male-bashing gender feminist left.* I like all this very much. Recently I see not just you but many people saying, --I'm really not in that box after all, am I?... and then extending the same thought to the *other side* - so that now, SOME disagreers may be listened to, their points given brain-time. See, those screechers can't hijack small-f feminism, either. Human authority being turned to evil against the people happens on both sides. (Or all three sides, or 18, or whatever.) And one of the greatest of those evils is the pressure to conform without thinking. Thinking for ourselves means we're fighting back against that evil. Yum! It really is too bad that our sisters over there are helped so little by us here. OTOH: I'm not so sure they need us all that much. They seem to be doing remarkably well, in small but positive ways, without us. And one thing the feminists over there keep bringing up is that they don't want to go to the counterproductive excesses of Western women. Meanwhile, back here at home, maybe we can do something to prevent the upsurge in female mutilations among immigrant populations on our own soil. Big problem in Atlanta.

Posted by: k at December 26, 2005 06:02 AM (M7kiy)

18 I had a longer post this AM, but your server ate it. Perhaps the UN could spend more time on this subject(female multilation) then, rather than concentrating on abortion. Let's just make it clear. You prove yourself to God by confronting temptation and overcoming sin through a combination of willpower and His Aid, not by lopping off body parts associated with the sin. Barring disease or accidents, you are expected to finish your life with the same number of body parts that He gave you. No exceptions! A man that isolates himself from society to avoid sin has proved nothing. You prove your worth by facing the challenges on a continual basis. Be told! Or rather, listen.

Posted by: Darrell at December 26, 2005 04:09 PM (RxH5d)

19 I'd say exceptions can be made for appendices and tonsils, possibly the male foreskin [but let's not have that discussion today], and perhaps excess female boobage [my mother did this, and it made her very happy]. Otherwise, we're in agreement.

Posted by: Attila Girl at December 26, 2005 06:08 PM (zZMVu)

20 All your "exceptions' could fall under my general category of 'disease'...but I won't quibble. I like that agreement part. But doesn't it take three feminists to pry the bulb out of her.... hands?

Posted by: Darrell at December 26, 2005 08:24 PM (YUOWG)

21 Yes. My mother is now cured of "Triple-D-itis."

Posted by: Attila Girl at December 26, 2005 10:10 PM (zZMVu)

22 OK. Amend law to read "medical necessity" instead of disease.

Posted by: Darrell at December 27, 2005 08:19 AM (CFvGO)

23 Well... I mean yeah, if she were to take up jogging or something...

Posted by: Desert Cat at December 27, 2005 06:13 PM (xdX36)

24 I think the rationale was that it gave her back problems, but I secretly think she was just tired of lugging them around after 67 years. I just think it's funny, because all heterosexual men and women of slender build don't understand what a hassle it can be. I'm not complaining, mind you—it's saved me a pretty penny on car repairs and whatnot for three decades, but it sounds like a tempting option for one's sunset years. And I do resent the fact that it costs more to have 'em lopped off than it does to get 'em "enhanced." Doesn't that seem a bit unfair?

Posted by: Attila Girl at December 27, 2005 07:58 PM (zZMVu)

25 Once you get the medical diagnosis, insurance should cover reduction surgery. Enhancement is another matter, barring medical necessity. And I better say this time, for example, after a mastectomy, or to correct a birth defect. Blog comments should not require precision! Or forethought. Or correct spelling. Or actual humor. I submit the Left side of the Blogosphere as proof.

Posted by: Darrell at December 27, 2005 10:12 PM (eEMSh)

26 Of course, some of us just like giving others a hard time.

Posted by: Attila Girl at December 27, 2005 10:49 PM (zZMVu)

27 It's always appreciated.

Posted by: Darrell at December 28, 2005 08:05 AM (NEzjW)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I've been there.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 06:42 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 5 words, total size 1 kb.

Apparently someone claimed to have a bomb, and this led to the Air Marshall discharging his weapon. At least one person injured.

UPDATE: Not injured. Killed. What a horrible business: having to shoot a man who might just be mentally ill in order to protect other people's lives. Awful. I feel for this poor woman. Of course, if my spouse were mentally ill I wouldn't let him/her near an airplane without his/her meds; flying is stressful even in the absence of a bipolar condition. But we don't know the dynamics of their marriage, and in any event it's an awesome and terrible thing.

Via Goldstein.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 12:14 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 117 words, total size 1 kb.

"And when you're in trouble, whom do you turn to? What would happen if someday you called me and I just wasn't there? Not very good, huh? Now run along and play."

I'd love to see this whole story traced a bit more closely: it's hard not to wonder if this leak was part of the war going on within the CIA.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 01:13 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 70 words, total size 1 kb.

Soon. Soon.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 08:30 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 10 words, total size 1 kb.

Rusty has an exclusive: pictures of the peace hostages, a snippet of transcript, and the hostages' names.

I'd skip his comments section, but that's me: it's too early in the day for black humor. Personal thing.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 12:04 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 42 words, total size 1 kb.

Dave Price has an interesting digest over at Dean's World of his perspectives on WWII, the Korean War, Afghanistan, and the War in Iraq.

Posted by: Attila at 11:20 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 34 words, total size 1 kb.

. . . to a President's legacy?—the selection of a Supreme Court nominee, or how he conducts foreign/military policy in light of a threat from abroad?

It's a serious question. Not a rhetorical one.

Please discuss.

Posted by: Attila at 10:57 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 44 words, total size 1 kb.

. . . I was sleeping in the living room, because I was slightly under the weather. The phone rang and it was K calling from Florida on my husband's land line. She was saying something about what sounded like an armed standoff at the Pentagon and another bomb at the World Trade Center. "It sounds like we're under attack," she exclaimed, and under stress, her voice betrayed the years she'd spent in the Upper Midwest, the word "attack" coming out with a slight Chicago accent.

It was too far to grab for the phone, but I made a mental note to find out what was going on. One of us would call her back—probably my husband would do it as I went to work. I knew I should wake him up, though.

I had overslept slightly, so I started to run the bath water in the master bath; I needed to shave my legs before getting dressed. With some sort of crisis happening, the radio had to go on, but it's not a nice thing to wake someone up with media blasting in their ears, so I needed to nudge my husband awake first.

It was around 7:30 a.m. I had to hit the road by 8:10, which was fine: instead of breakfast, I'd drink a Slim-Fast in the car on my way into Los Angeles. I shut off the bath water and kissed my husband, letting him know his ex-girlfriend had called about something weird unfolding on the East Coast.

"Honey, we have to listen to the radio now," I tell him. "I think there's been another bomb at the World Trade Center or something."

"Sure," responds. "Turn it on."

In the master bath I flipped the radio on loud enough for us both to hear it and started to take my clothes off. Bill Handel's voice came on; he recapped the morning's events for people like us who don't get up early. I was down to my underwear as he announced that planes had hit both of the World Trade Center Towers. I forget about bathing and went back into the bedroom, wide-eyed as we both listened to Handel. Our eyes locked as Handel announced that "both World Trade Towers have been reduced to rubble."

I sank down on the bed next to Attila the Hub and he crossed himself. We were looking at each other, each hoping that we'd somehow heard wrong.

Ten minutes later I got a call from one of the managers at work, who told me that because of the uncertainty about what the attacks in New York and Los Angeles meant, I should stay home that day.

"Call K," I told my husband. "And then I'm leaving: I've got a manuscript at the office I want to retrieve."

"I'm driving you," he insisted. He returned K's call as I got dressed. We proceeded slowly back through Los Angeles, which had become a ghost town, and cautiously parked at the office building near Museum Row where I worked. We gathered my manuscript up so I could bring it home. It wasn't clear how long I'd be stranded at home, so I piled together all the reference works I could, but we also tried to minimize our time in the building, because we still didn't know whether there would be attacks on other business districts. The silence all around us was eerie.

Hustling into Attila the Hub's Saturn, we made our way back home to the hills near Pasadena.

In the big cities most people were still glued to their televisions, watching planes fly into buildings over and over again, and crying. I tried to give blood because it was all I could think of to do, but the hospital was swamped, and they sent me home, telling me to try again in a few hours. I lay on the couch and fell into the kind of sleep that comes from feeling overwhelmed. Attila Hub headed out to meet his sister, who was swinging through Southern California on the last leg of a car trip. They had lunch at a local coffee shop, but not for long: she was feeling the homing instinct too, and wanted to hurry back to Arizona. When I awakened my husband was there again, and I headed back to the hospital with yet another book in my hands, hoping they would finally let me give blood.

As I waited I alternated between my book and the television, looking back up as they announced that another office building next to the WTC had collapsed from the stress it endured that day. Another hour of waiting, and the clock ran out. They sent some of us home without getting our blood. We feel cheated, as if we'd had rainchecks for products we were going to buy on sale, but the store ran out of them. And we knew it was absurd to feel that way. At this point the nation was still hoping for survivors, like there had been after the Oklahoma City attack. A sinking feeling in our hearts, however, told us there was little chance anyone's blood would be any use at all.

By day's end I was a different person than I had been when I woke up.

Too long a sacrifice
Can make a stone of the heart.
O when may it suffice?
That is Heaven's part, our part
To murmur name upon name,
As a mother names her child
When sleep at last has come
On limbs that had run wild.
What is it but nightfall?
No, no, not night but death;
Was it needless death after all?
For England may keep faith
For all that is done and said.
We know their dreams; enough
To know they dreamed and are dead;
And what if excess of love
Bewildered them till they died?
I write it out in a verse—
MacDonagh and MacBride
And Connelly and Pearse
Now and in time to be,
Wherever green is worn,
Are changed, changed utterly:
A terrible beauty is born.

—William Butler Yeats, "Easter 1916"

As I lay down that night I mentally told Al Qaeda "you have no
idea what you've unleashed. None at all."

Posted by: Attila at 10:28 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1042 words, total size 6 kb.

. . . let's kill all the lawyers.

(With apologies to the Bear Flag League, of course—and most of the Volokh crowd, for that matter.)

Posted by: Attila at 02:20 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 29 words, total size 1 kb.

. . . is hell.

(Via Green.)

Posted by: Attila at 12:05 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 9 words, total size 1 kb.

Mark Steyn just put his head on a stake:

. . . [Cohen's] first thought, on learning the name of President Bush's Supreme Court nominee, is of hanging chads.

Leave aside Cohen's careless assumption that the 2004 election was "all about" the Supreme Court: I happen to be writing this in a taxicab stuck in traffic in Central London, where bombs are going off, and it seems to me last November was a little about all that loud exploding stuff, too. If the Democrats hadn't been so hung up on chads and the court, they might have had something to say about that.

Leave aside, too, that it was the Democrats who were trying to "hang enough chads." The Republicans were happy to have the election decided on -- what's the word? -- "votes." It was the Democrats who introduced us to the Four Chads -- Swinging Chad, Dangling Chad, Hanging Chad and Dimpled Chad -- at a time when, to most Republicans, the Four Chads were that vocal group who'd headlined the party's A-list $3.95-a-plate celebrity fund-raiser. It was the Dems who demanded the election be decided by chad diviners interpreting the subtle, indeed undetectable indentation of the dimple as a decisive vote for Al Gore. America has chads in its politics because Democrat lawyers put them there.

He forgot the Fifth Chad, the "pregnant chad." But, yes: it was not the GOP that wanted to change the rules after the game had been played.

What's more hilarious to me with respect to all this handwringing about the Supreme Court is that the venerable O'Conner voted with the majority, and against reading chads like tea leaves (and therefore manufacturing votes). Now she's a saint, about to be replaced by the nutjob Roberts. But then, she was part of the right-wing cabal that "selected" George W. Bush.

Steyn's main point is pivotal: if the Democrats want to be relevant, they might want to start addressing the fact that large numbers of people want to kill us just for being [American, British, Australian, Italian, Joo-ish, and so forth]. The issue is not chads: it's bombs.

Posted by: Attila at 07:02 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 358 words, total size 2 kb.

. . . are finally pointing out that the Emperor has no clothes. Goldstein has your links, with his usual acerbic commentary.

I don't think it's so bad here, because of the American tradition that ethnic groups take on the overall cultural imprint of the U.S.A., but my impression is that things are entirely out of control in Europe, and that it's long overdue for someone to say, "if you hate us so much, get the fuck out of here."

(No, no: I'm not for forcibly deporting anyone from any Western country because he/she is cranky. Some of my best friends are misanthropes. But there's a difference between having a cynical take on our political traditions and actively preaching violence against them. As a former member of the Communist Workers' Party, I know the difference. I sometimes wonder why my little group wasn't thoroughly investigated by the FBI when we were studying Marxism in the 80s. Then I realize that half the group probably were special agents.)

Posted by: Attila at 11:39 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 171 words, total size 1 kb.

Yeah. Turned 18 just in time. What an idiot I was: I think my brain was in my (tiny) Birkenstocks.

Jimmy Carter is a waste of the oxygen he breathes.

Goldstein comments:

Carter’s just a fringe element of the Democratic party anyway, and besides—who listens to ex-Presidents? 

And do you honestly believe terrorists don’t have more important things to do than pay attention to the partisan sniping of grandstanding western politicos?  There are nail bombs to make, and buses and subway cars to blow up.

As to whether or not Carter’s comments provide rhetorical cover for the terrorists—of course not!  Carter is simply voicing his dissent, and if a former US president can’t openly criticize his government—publicly, overseas, during wartime, and on the basis of a narrative of events that an investigative panel has already concluded simply does not represent the facts on the ground—well, then the terrorists have already won. After all, aiding the enemy in their propaganda war IS the highest form of patriotism, and nothing says “I love my country” more than “I love my country provided it's run by people like me."

Be sure to read his entire entry. He's got links, too, but I'm too disgusted to follow them right now. Maybe later.

Posted by: Attila at 10:52 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 222 words, total size 2 kb.

Jeff of Beautiful Atrocities has come up for air. He'd like us to raid our lingerie drawers in defense of the Western World.

I hope those Islamofascists wear size small (not petite) string bikinis in black.

Posted by: Attila at 12:55 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 40 words, total size 1 kb.

. . . has some great footage—and a cool story—over at Trey Jackson's place.

Yes, we treat terrorists who are wounded. That's what we do. I've got to go, though: I'm sending myself to bed without supper because a terrorist had women's panties put on his head once. I'm very upset about the whole thing.

Posted by: Attila at 01:35 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 57 words, total size 1 kb.

. . . sick to death of the term "militant" as a euphemism for "terrorist"?

I was a militant feminist once, but I didn't set off bombs in . . . football stadiums or fundamentalist churches or . . . really, anywhere.

Posted by: Attila at 11:19 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 48 words, total size 1 kb.

. . . when I consider the possibility that the West is every bit as decadent as Bin Laden maintains, and that his forces will kill most of us, enslaving the rest and taking most of the world back to the Middle Ages.

And then I think, "not everyone is a lefty moonbat; they're just louder than everyone else."

Posted by: Attila at 12:55 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 67 words, total size 1 kb.

When we get too politically correct, he suggests, we undercut support for the moderate Muslims who must begin to speak up about the evils of jihadism.

You must marginalize the Islamo-fascists. You must shun them.

It is the only way.

Posted by: Attila at 03:38 AM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 46 words, total size 1 kb.

He's just so good; he manages to slap Galloway as if he were a sort of irritating mosquito buzzing through the woods in the summer.

And he explains what is at stake in the War on Terror: everything.

Posted by: Attila at 03:09 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 40 words, total size 1 kb.