March 24, 2005
And, By the Way
My name is Joy McCann. If I ever become brain-damaged or severely injured, I'd like my husband to make all decisions regarding my care.
Even if he's had kids with another woman. Especially if he's had kids with another woman: I think that would make him a little bit more objective than the 'rents. Ya know?
Posted by: Attila at
10:55 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 64 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Noted. If your estranged husband tries to kill you in a mannjer so painful disgusting that we wouldn't even consider doing it to the most heinous death row felon or the most murderous terrorist and ignites half the country to try and save your life, I'll look the other way.
Actually, your situation will be different because you have at least articulated your views here which is what is totally absent in a certain other case which relies solely on the "husband's" testimony. But, I still promise to look the other way while you are murdered.
Posted by: Don at March 25, 2005 07:23 AM (FsGoB)
2
The second murder attempt, it would seem.
Posted by: JD at March 25, 2005 09:33 AM (PJ4Iq)
3
You know, guys, I've heard those rumors too. But I'm going to have to see some documentation to believe 'em. As I see it
1) Michael Schiavo stood by his wife for years, hoping she'd recover, before resigning himself to the idea that she would never come back;
2) he's turned down a lot of money in order to do the right thing as he sees it;
3) this woman is not in a position to feel pain in the way that we think of pain. She won't suffer as we would in a similar situation. In fact, that's the whole point: most of her brain is missing. Her body will be kept comfortable through this process (gels, ice chips to ease the dehydration on her lips and in her mouth). Other pain will be eased with medicines. She is not going to suffer.
Posted by: Attila Girl at March 25, 2005 10:38 AM (R4CXG)
4
1) Michael Schiavo long ago moved on to his new woman and mother of his two children, to say he is conflicted is an understatement. Immediately after the lawsuit in which money was awarded for rehabilitation which he testified under oath would be done, he refused to allow any rehabilitation to be done on her. Haven't you heard the multiple sources of caregivers who have testified to this?
2) He turned down "public money." Big deal. I'd turn down a million dollars to shoot my cat because I wouldn't want to forever be known as the guy shot his cat for money...but offer it to me that privately and kitty gets blown away by some "unknown neighbor." So, he wants to hang on to the lie that he cares about her and that itÂ’s not about the money, but you can't get a straight answer because the exact finances are private as to what life insurance or settlement funds will be waiting for him once he finishes off killing her.
3) Multiple parties have testified that not just a few years ago Terri could say "pain" and other words. While "most" of her brain is missing...is that the standard? If so, I'm off to the local hospice to kill anyone with less than 50% of their brain. I've been to hospices with PVS patients...they are ALL droolers. PVS patience can't swallow, but Terri can! She is not PVS. She is not on life support, she just needs help eating which she might be able to do orally with therapy which her "husband" won't allow.
As to ice chips and the like, do you know that for a fact they all that is being done? And even if they are do you think that really takes away all her suffering? Believe what you need to, if it helps you sleep at night.
We give every scumsucking murder every possibility of appeal, but the libs get up in arms when congress wants to do the same for an innocent woman?
Posted by: Don at March 25, 2005 01:42 PM (FsGoB)
5
I'll be surrounding your hospice with Randall Terry's stormtroopers & Don, relaying breathless stories about your hubby's perfidy that I heard on talk radio but the police seem to know nothing about, & force-feeding you like a foie gras goose while your CAT scan flatlines.
"JOY BLINKED!! SHE'S COMMUNICATING! SHE ENDORSES DELAY!!"
Posted by: jeff at March 25, 2005 03:01 PM (AFkN4)
6
don't forget that we have to have numerous unelected judges override the laws passed by the Ca legislature, using their "judgemet" to pass sentence on you.
Posted by: William Teach at March 25, 2005 05:26 PM (HxpPK)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
William F. Buckley Sez
There was never a more industrious inquiry, than in the Schiavo case, into the matter of rights formal and inchoate. It is simply wrong, whatever is felt about the eventual abandonment of her by her husband, to use the killing language. She was kept alive for fifteen years, underwent a hundred medical ministrations, all of them in service of an abstraction, which was that she wanted to stay alive. There are laws against force-feeding, and no one will know whether, if she had had the means to convey her will in the matter, she too would have said, Enough.
That's right. We'll never know for sure one way or the other. In theory, we should err on the side of life. But after a decade and a half, it begins to look like we as a society are trying to prove something: that no matter how ridiculous it might seem, we will not give up hope. We will leave no stone unturned. We will leave nothing undone. We are good people. We are a good nation.
Is God testing us? Are we afraid we will have failed that test if this one woman is allowed to die in peace?
And how much are we willing to give up to get there? What if the price tag is States' rights? The Republican Party? The next election? Another attack on American soil?
How far are you willing to take this? I want to know—and I don't.
Via Beautiful Atrocities.
Posted by: Attila at
10:38 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 255 words, total size 1 kb.
1
"Is God testing us? Are we afraid we will have failed that test if this one woman is allowed to die in peace?"
I worry that maybe the opposite could be true - that we perhaps fail the test when we forget that the body is just a vessel, and focus myopically on our ability to preserve that vessel, even at cost of trapping the soul from returning home to Him.
The case is one where the imperative to determine how one feels about the ethics is overpowering, but I freely confess that I can't make up my mind on the issue. The only thing that I feel for certain is that the principle of being a nation of constitutional government and laws is more important than any one person's life - just ask the thousands of our best and brightest, who for over two hundred years soaked the flag in their blood to keep us that way.
Posted by: Simon Dodd at March 25, 2005 06:12 AM (o+ba9)
Posted by: Attila Girl at March 25, 2005 07:24 AM (R4CXG)
3
Not the point at all. The test may be in what we do in the face of the needs of the stricken, the seemingly purposeless, the half-dead. Do we see the terrible face of Christ in these, or do we simply turn away, As so many turned away from him? Who are the priest and the Levite from the Good Samaritan story today? Who is among "least of these, my brothers and sisters..." staring us in the face, glassy-eyed and needy?
Posted by: Politickal Animal at March 25, 2005 02:20 PM (3bNX0)
4
Maybe. But when I cannot know what her wishes would have been in a situation like this, I do not know how aggressive she would like her treatment to be. Therefore I do not know how to serve her needs.
Do we ease her suffering by prolonging the ordeal, or by allowing nature to take its course?
All I'm asking is that we try to walk a little bit softly, here. I'm all in favor of requiring an MRI when these things go in front of a judge, but I'm hoping that the history of abortion law will remind my pro-life brethren that "hard cases make for bad law."
I wish we'd concentrate less on this one case, and more on how to prevent this sort of thing in the future whenever possible: how can we encourage living wills? How can we guard against spouses with hidden agendas?
Posted by: Attila Girl at March 25, 2005 06:49 PM (R4CXG)
5
"how can we encourage living wills?"
I should think that one, highly-publicized case, where such a document was lacking, with a tragic outcome, should do the job.
If you read Charles Krauthammer's article in the WashPost yesterday, that made some good suggestions for where we could go next in terms of national policy.
Posted by: Simon Dodd at March 25, 2005 07:35 PM (GRyHA)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The FEC Gonna Get Yo' Mama
Cassandra would like us all to take a valium, do our yoga—basically, to calm down with respect to the Federal Election Commission, and the possibility that it will try to regulate speech on the internet:
It does begin to seem that the B-sphere may be getting their collective knickers in a twist for naught. Because while there are aspects of blogging that legitimately fall under the purview of McCain-Feingold, they are narrow in scope and don't apply to the vast majority of independent bloggers. I continue to believe the FEC would be insane (and indeed has no authority) to regulate independent bloggers absent some financial involvement with political campaigns. It's that simple: keep your nose clean and your powder dry, and you've nothing to worry about.
She points out that several of the Commissioners are on record as saying electronic speech should be protected for individual bloggers, as long as large amounts of money are not changing hands.
Maybe. Nonetheless, I'm not against reminding the government exactly where its powers come from, and just how interesting life will be if it gets both the Leftosphere and the Rightosphere (along with the Libertarianosphere and the Greenosphere, for that matter) united against it.
And I don't care if the FEC thinks I'm a kook, so long as it acknowledges that the Constitution gives me the right to yammer on to my heart's content about politics.
These people don't know what trouble looks like. They really don't. But I hope they sense it on some level.
From the "have you noticed?" file: Cassandra lives up to her name . . . well, about as well as I live up to mine. She is, quite simply, the best, and we differ here more on strategic issues than philosophy.
Via Pirate's Cove.
Posted by: Attila at
08:58 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 309 words, total size 2 kb.
1
I really think they do understand that, AG. And I have no problem with reminding them - I've always been more of a 'trust, but verify' sort, myself.
Hasen's piece (today) was very interesting - just goes to show you that committees don't draft 47-page regs overnite. I just felt the B-sphere was being manipulated by Brad Smith for his own reasons and didn't much care for it. But I've already said all that, so I'll shut up now

Thanks for the link!
Posted by: Cassandra at March 25, 2005 08:05 AM (289B8)
2
I blame the Barry Bonds and the media. I'm sure the Pirate would agree
Posted by: William Teach at March 25, 2005 12:15 PM (cuTsc)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 18, 2005
Jane Gets Serious
Over at Armies of Liberation, Jane
threatens the Yemeni government with some badass bad publicity if they don't free the journalist they jailed for criticizing their President (who is also head of the judiciary: efficient, huh?).
She has 600 signatures she will send to the Yemenis on Monday, and they are from all over the world.
If you still haven't signed the letter, I'd do it, like, now. I'm sure she'll be spending the weekend checking the document over and preparing the hard copies, so I'd move on it today if you want to be included. It could be the most important thing you do for the cause of freedom. (Unless you're in the U.S./Aussie/British military, in which case . . . never mind. But still sign it, please.) It'll take you less than a minute.
A man's freedom is at stake. And so it the principle that even the most authoritarian ruler needs to account for himself to the world. We can make a difference, here.
Posted by: Attila at
01:28 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 173 words, total size 1 kb.
March 03, 2005
Sharks and Jets!
It's
on, Baby. So-cons vs. South Park Republicans. Over at
Goldstein's place.
Bring your black leather jacket, and your dancing shoes.
Posted by: Attila at
12:02 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.
February 22, 2005
Holy Shit!
The President, in his Party Boy days,
smoked weed.
I'm going to need to be alone for a while.
Posted by: Attila at
05:50 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 23 words, total size 1 kb.
1
No WAY! Who KNEW? Karl ROVE must have MADE him do it! WATEVER shall we do?
Posted by: RW at February 22, 2005 06:19 PM (GGtnr)
2
He never inhaled.
I bet it was more like a kid trying a cigarette. Couple puffs, then never again.
Posted by: William Teach at February 22, 2005 07:22 PM (HxpPK)
3
Teach, George aint that sort of fellow. No obfuscating for him. He smoked, he inhaled, he got the munchies.
Now he doesn't, and that makes all the difference. I can see a day when the President does smoke. Right about the time the Surgeon General releases a report saying that pot smoking causes cancer.
Pot smoking: Gives you cancer, but you don't care.
Posted by: Alan Kellogg at February 23, 2005 06:54 AM (gy/JT)
4
That's it for me. No way I'm voting for him in '08.
Posted by: Kingslasher at February 24, 2005 09:53 AM (SOfML)
5
Back in the Day, everybody smoked - well a few dweebs didn't, so you can console yourself, your parents were never that cool....
Getting caught with smoke, was like getting a traffic ticket, several cities had basically decriminalized pot, and more were on the way.
But the government - not learning the lesson from the 1920's prohibition - decided prohibition was the way to go, and Nancy Reagan said, "Just Say No," and we got the War On Drugs - fantastic success it has been!
If look up some brand names, like Acapulco Gold, and Mexican Red, you will find that they are held - but not used - by various tobacco companies. They were getting ready for the day we realize "prohibition today, prohibition forever" probably won't work any better this time around.
And you really shouldn't be shocked, GW has always said that when he was ypung and irresponsible, he was young and irresponsible.
Posted by: Zendo Deb at February 24, 2005 04:22 PM (S417T)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Andrew Cory
. . .
takes on the prospect of a Hillary candidacy in '08. Writing in Dean's World, he maintains that she won't run.
I think she will.
Posted by: Attila at
04:52 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 31 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I used to think that her run in '08 was innevitable, but I'm not so sure anymore. Granted, she certainly has the money, and the visibility to run for office, but I don't know if she has the political backing necessary to do it- not with Dean as head of the DNC.
Posted by: Dennis_Mahon at February 23, 2005 03:06 PM (xjx1K)
2
HRC will never get my vote. It's a trust thing, and I don't trust her.
Sure, she has said some more conservative things lately on immigration, but I am not convinced that she truly believes them.
Posted by: David R. Block at February 26, 2005 10:56 AM (qU2Gr)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 08, 2005
It Wasn't Linda Lovelace?
CalTechGirl is making book on the
true identity of Deep Throat, which we are apparently about to find out.
I love a good mystery, and CTG has links to some of the juiciest speculation.
Unfortunately, we have the "unfair advantage" of knowing that one of the reasons we're about to find out is that DT is very ill right now, so that gives us another angle to look at. Almost ruins the puzzle. Almost.
Posted by: Attila at
02:39 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 82 words, total size 1 kb.
1
One of the theories being bandied about is that "Deep Throat" was George H. W. Bush. Apart from the fact that "41" hardly seems like the kind of guy who would know what "deep throat" means, we just saw him up and about on Sunday, looking healthy as could be.
So either the "Deep Throat is dying" rumors are bogus, or "41" wasn't him.
Posted by: Jeff Harrell at February 08, 2005 03:54 PM (UAuME)
2
I'm not sure it sounds like H.W.'s style.
Posted by: Attila Girl at February 09, 2005 09:40 AM (RjyQ5)
3
I'm still sticking with Ford, it was the only way he was going to be President. Seriously, he lost to Carter, how bad do you have to be to loose to Carter?
Posted by: the Pirate at February 09, 2005 10:29 AM (SksyN)
Posted by: Donna at February 09, 2005 11:07 PM (0yEW+)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 03, 2005
But Seriously . . .
Can't we handle this in a different way? In this day and age, it seems profoundly unwise to plan an event that places, in one building:
The President of the United States;
His entire cabinet;
The Vice President, and the Speaker of the House.
The Joint Chiefs of Staff;
The entire Supreme Court
and both chambers of the legislature.
All it would take would be one very successful strike, and AQ could knock out our government more effectively than they planned to do on 9/11.
There would be no one left to rebuild the rest: we'd have to elect new everything from scratch. It makes no sense. It's unwise.
Posted by: Attila at
02:11 AM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 119 words, total size 1 kb.
1
By law, or perhaps custom, there is always someone in the official line of succession out of town during events like the SOTU. I know that doesn't seem like much but it's enough to keep a command structure intact.
In the case of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, for instance, their deputies are always someplace else.
A successful attack would be messy, the human cost great, but ours is a government of laws, men and women can be replaced. The military wouldn't miss a beat, the Governors of the various States would appoint replacement Senators, the Deputy Secretaries would serve in their Cabinet positions pending confirmation by the new Senate and, within just a few months a new House would be elected. The first order of business would be to appoint a new Supreme Court.
Nor would a successful attack on the Capitol during the SOTU be easy, Security leading up to, during, and after such events is tighter than a gnat's ass, from guys and dogs looking for bombs to armed fighters overhead. The danger isn't during the SOTU, it's during an ordinary Wednesday when both Congress and the Court are in session and the President at his desk. A small nuke would get them all.
Posted by: Peter at February 03, 2005 06:30 AM (ywZa8)
2
Peter's right -- there's always a Cabinet member who isn't in the chambers during a SOTU. Normally the newsies on TV remark on this and identify who's not present.
Posted by: McGehee at February 03, 2005 07:56 AM (S504z)
3
I'm no evil mastermind, but I consider myself to be a fairly smart guy. I cannot conceive of how a large-scale attack on our capital could be carried out on "State of the Union" night. The District is studdied with anti-aircraft missile batteries, and there's a full-time CAP. Vehicle and foot traffic can't get anywhere near the Capitol. So in order to carry out an attack, the bad guys would have to get their hands on a
strategic nuclear weapon — in the hundred-kiloton range — and somehow smuggle it into the country. A weapon that size shines like a spotlight in neutron and gamma radiation, and would be detected from miles away by the folks who are responsible for looking for such things.
Unless we're talking about a James-Bond-style scheme involving burrowing under the Capitol with a tunnel-boring machine from southern Maryland, I just can't imagine how the Bad Guys could get a weapon capable of killing everybody in the building into a position where they could use it.
Posted by: Jeff Harrell at February 03, 2005 10:14 AM (UAuME)
4
All the above are correct, but I worry that the trigger would be pulled too late. I don't want to hear stories about planes violating DC air space as we do now. I want to hear stories about planes being shot down inside DC air space. Then I'll worry less about attacks during the SOTU or on any given Wednesday. Harsh...sure...but that's the game were playing now.
Posted by: Don at February 03, 2005 11:49 AM (FsGoB)
5
Read Tom Clancy's Debt of Honor (the end) and Executive Orders (the whole book).
If we had a President and state governors, we could reconstitute the Supreme Court, cabinet and Senate. However, we'd have to wait until the next scheduled General election (November of an even year) to reconstitute the House. That would be a mess - we couldn't even pass a bill to pay for fighting whoever did it.
I would assume that in such a case, the states would call for a Constitutional Convention to amend the Constitution to allow a special election for the House (and probably the Senate). However, that opens up the whole "lots of other amendments" can or worms.
We really need to pass an amendment to handle the case of a significant portion of the House being unable to serve.
p.s. I think I'm in love with your site logo. :-)
Posted by: Mark at February 03, 2005 12:24 PM (LeJtm)
6
1) I'm well aware that one cabinet minister sits the SOTU out. But I don't see how the Transportation Secretary or whatever would be capable of pulling a whole new government out of his/her hat.
2) Let's remember that if things had gone per plan on 9/11, both the White House and the Capitol would have been hit. We missed dealing with the "many dead ligislators" problem because flight 93 was delayed, and taken out of the game by its own passengers. We missed having a damaged White House (and maybe even a dead VP/First Lady) because the White House is harder to spot from the air than AQ anticipated, and the hijackers had to settle for the Pentagon, which is easy to recognize.
3) My understanding is that Mark is correct, and we don't have a mechanism in place for replacing legislators in a timely fashion after a disaster. We need to fix this in any event.
4) The fact that "life would go on" after the government got decapitated doesn't mean that it's a hot idea to do things this way. Cheney, the Joint Chiefs, the Supreme Court and probably the cabinet should have been elsewhere last night.
This is not an arena wherein we can afford another "failure of imagination."
We're supposed to be Americans: more interested in what's practical than pomp and circumstance. Some of these people should be watching the event on video monitors.
Posted by: Attila Girl at February 03, 2005 01:08 PM (RjyQ5)
7
Shoot, don't worry.
Cheney is an android. Clinton is bulletproof. Pelosi became one of the undead decades ago. I think President Bush might be Spiderman in an alter ego, and so his Spidey-sense would save him.
We'd have enough govt no matter what happened.
Posted by: Nathan at February 03, 2005 07:31 PM (HIQoA)
8
They might knock out most of the federal government, but you still have 50 functioning state governments. I would expect the governors of Maryland and Virginia to step in with immediate disaster relief to DC. I would expect some rapid, if temporary, devolution of power to the states, until a new national government could be set up. Our system is quite resilient, and I'm sure such a scenario has a contingency plan dating back to the Cold War.
Posted by: JohnL at February 04, 2005 09:02 AM (Hs4rn)
Posted by: Attila Girl at February 04, 2005 09:43 AM (RjyQ5)
10
Look, congresscritters die all the time, there are 535 of them and a bunch of them are old farts, heck, some even older than me. If a Senator drops dead, the Governor of the State appoints someone to fill out the rest of the term.
If it's a representative that keels over, well that's another story. If there is only a short time until the next election, nobody worries too much, it's custom that a Representative from the other Party will sit out a controversial vote, much like they do when they are going to be out of town. It's called 'paired voting' and is as old as the House of Representatives.
If more than a couple=three months is left on the two year term, a special election is called.
If the whole House, or a substantial part of it were wiped out, say by a bad bunch of Gin in the cloakrooms or a bomb or virus-covered money, then there would be a special election.
The wheels wouldn't stop turning, by the time that bugetary problems showed up we'd have a whole new crowd of congresscritters.
Our system is a lot more resiliant than you seem to realise.
Posted by: Peter at February 05, 2005 12:13 AM (ywZa8)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
For Some Reason
John Kerry didn't seem to be in the greatest mood. Wonder why.
Posted by: Attila at
01:50 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 18 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Reasons why Kerry didn't look too happy:
1) Teresa suspended his allowance
2) He lost his CIA hat
3) Mary Cheney has a book contract
4) He was tuckered out from not overhyping
Shaking Spears
Posted by: Spear Shaker at February 04, 2005 01:57 PM (dKtkS)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Dick Cheney
. . . really hates this shit. I think that to him the public part of his job is the most burdensome. He's like a mirror-image of the average VP: he is an actual advisor and helper to the President, but he dispises the ceremonial aspect of his job.
He's not just the classic VP who sits around and waits for the President to die.
Posted by: Attila at
01:46 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 69 words, total size 1 kb.
1
yeah. i think you're exactly right. i'd never really connected it all before though...why he seems so uncomfortable with the BS. the mirror image! very good! kudos to you...
Posted by: koley at February 03, 2005 07:17 AM (t9HRc)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
It Must Be Admitted
. . . that the boy has learned to speak in public. He kept that smirk on a short leash, and almost never stumbled over his words.
And he dug it when people yelled "no" while he made assertions about Social Security; he couldn't hide that. He likes conflict. He enjoys this process because he's pretty sure he's going to win the fight.
For an illiterate business major, he has big brass balls; they've got to clank when he walks.
And if you have any sympathy for his goals, it's hard not to like him.
Okay. I'm going to forgive the O'Shaughnessy incident. Let's never speak of it again.
Posted by: Attila at
01:41 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 117 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Clank!
Swagger...
Clank!
Swagger...
Heh heh!
It wasn't on that short of a leash. I think he should just give it up and wear his ten-gallon hat and a pair of sidearms to things like this. 1) it would tick off the left, 2) the rest of the world would doubtless get the message.
Posted by: Desert Cat at February 03, 2005 03:10 PM (0DDAz)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Okay. I'm Over It.
I mean, this is what you get when you vote a business major in as President of the United States. Mangled references from famous poems.
I'm all better now, really.
Where the fuck, by the way, were his speechwriters? Did none of them major in English?
Where were the fact-checkers? Drunk again?
Anyone in the West Wing have a bookcase in their office?
I'll be fine, though, really.
Posted by: Attila at
01:31 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 76 words, total size 1 kb.
FDR Didn't Write This Poem
Ode
We are the music-makers,
And we are the dreamers of dreams,
Wandering by lone sea-breakers,
And sitting by desolate streams;
World-losers and world-forsakers,
On whom the pale moon gleams:
Yet we are the movers and shakers
Of the world for ever, it seems.
With wonderful deathless ditties
We build up the world's great cities
And out of a fabulous story
We fashion an empire's glory:
One man, with a dream, at pleasure,
Shall go forth and conquer a crown;
And three with a new song's measure
Can trample an empire down.
We in the ages lying
In the buried past of the earth,
Built Nineveh with our sighing,
And Babel itself with our mirth;
And o'erthrew them with prophesying
To the old of the new world's worth;
For each age is a dream that is dying,
Or one that is coming to birth.
—Arthur O'Shaughnessy
(who was not Franklin Roosevelt at any time)
I guess it's too late to take my vote back, huh?
Posted by: Attila at
01:16 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 175 words, total size 1 kb.
1
IRAQ: WELCOME GENERATION-CHOICEMAKER
The HUMAN PARADIGM - Intro
Consider:
The way we define 'human' determines our view of self,
others, relationships, institutions, life, and future.
Important? Only the Creator who made us in His own image
is qualified to define us accurately. Choose wisely...
there are results.
Human is earth's Choicemaker. Psalm 25:12 He is by nature
and nature's God a creature of Choice - and of Criteria.
Psalm 119:30,173 His unique and definitive characteristic
is, and of Right ought to be, the natural foundation of
his environments, institutions, and respectful relations
to his fellow-man. Thus, he is oriented to a Freedom
whose roots are in the Order of the universe.
See the complete article at Homesite:
"Human Defined: Earth's Choicemaker"
http://www.choicemaker.net/
An American Choicemaker
Psalm 25:12
Posted by: an American Choicemaker at February 03, 2005 04:47 PM (u5doH)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
January 19, 2005
More from Jib Jab!
I can't get enough of that so-so impression of Bush the Jibjab people specialize in. Just in time for the inaugeration, here's their
latest—one that appears to call out for a
yee-haw!
Posted by: Attila at
01:22 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 40 words, total size 1 kb.
January 18, 2005
Have Fun, Senator Boxer.
And, BTW, that's "Dr. Rice" to you.
In a few weeks, it'll be Secretary Rice.
In several years, it might well be President Rice.
Sleep tight.
Posted by: Attila at
08:04 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 34 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I've never been able to understand why the CA republican party always manages to put the good candidates up against Feinstein and the stupid ones up against Boxer. You'd think it would be the other way around since Feinstein is so much more moderate....
BTW Sen. Boxer is a TERRIBLE actress. I thought I was going to snort coffee yesterday when she laid in to Dr. Rice.
Posted by: caltechgirl at January 19, 2005 04:47 AM (5VQpT)
2
The bigger question is, how can there be so many stupid Californians? I say this being a former Californian myself and wanting someday to return there. Boxer is soooo phony that it is painful to watch her.
Posted by: HomericPundit at January 19, 2005 06:37 AM (kNP9b)
3
The bigger question is, how can there be so many stupid Californians? I say this being a former Californian myself...
Too many of the smart ones have left. And I say that also being a former Californian.
Posted by: McGehee at January 19, 2005 09:23 AM (S504z)
4
Condoleezza Rice, April 8, 2004: "I believe the title [of the August 6, 2001
President's Daily Brief] was, 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.'"
Strike one...
Condoleezza Rice, September 8, 2002: "The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he [Iraq's Saddam Hussein] can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
Strike two....
Posted by: Marc at January 23, 2005 04:49 AM (33Ll5)
5
Both statements were true.
Posted by: Attila Girl at January 25, 2005 01:58 AM (RjyQ5)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
January 08, 2005
Time Out!
Remember how I've been reminding everyone that we—meaning Libertarians and Realio-Trulio Conservatives—were about to start squabbling in earnest, and implored everyone to be civil and respectful?
Well, it's started. And I'm having trouble finding civil or respectful on the menu.
I've got a Glock .40, and I don't want to sit the other right-wing bloggers down and make them sing "Kumbayah" like schoolchildren in "enlightened" classrooms.
But I will if I have to.
Posted by: Attila at
01:10 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 77 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I think the debate remained very civil, for the most part.
Posted by: Jeff G at January 08, 2005 01:47 AM (EiRj3)
2
I wasn't clear enough:
your readers were polite. The comments you imported from Malkin's discussion gave me the impression that
her readers weren't equally respectful.
My bad.
Posted by: Attila Girl at January 08, 2005 09:30 AM (8TapF)
3
Just so we have that straight. This rightwingblogger packs heat too you know...;-)
Posted by: Rightwingsparkle at January 08, 2005 02:35 PM (bsmsM)
4
Somehow I pictured you as an MP5-SD type of girl. Nothing like a 9mm assault rifle with an integrated silencer and a collaspsible stock. Could go for the 10mm version, but, it doesn't have the 3 shot selector. Maybe the .45 cal? Not quite as quite, but packs a wallop. Have to take it to SF with you
Posted by: William Teach at January 09, 2005 05:53 PM (HxpPK)
5
I think it helps to hash these things out. What doesn't destroy us only makes us stronger. We get so accustomed to using hyperbole and extreme rhetoric when dispatching the left, it doesn't hurt us to (re-)learn how to disagree civilly within our own camp.
Posted by: Desert Cat at January 09, 2005 08:31 PM (c8BHE)
6
Right. Again, the quotes from the discussion over at Malkin's place were a little disturbing—especially the implied notion that libertarianism is some sort of cancer that has to be cut out of the party. But, of course, that was two quotes (both of which appear in the Protein Wisdom entry I link above), and they represent only two people's thoughts.
William, I like a good rifle, but for close quarters nothing beats a nice handgun—and I have a 30-round mag for my Glock.
Posted by: Attila Girl at January 09, 2005 10:15 PM (RjyQ5)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 26, 2004
Hooray for Hollywood
Andrea Harris at
Twisted Spinster:
Bridget Johnson wonders why there has been no outcry from the Hollywood crowd against the murder of filmmaker Theo Van Gogh by Islamic terrorists. Just off the top of my head I’d say that unlike disgruntled Christians, Republicans, and law-abiding gun owners, Islamic terrorists will actually kill you if you piss them off, and for all their spouting about “free speech” and the “chilling effect” on Tinseltown of four more years of Bushitler, actors and screenwriters and so on are simply afraid of dying. Of course since their mere existence has already pegged them in fanatical Muslim eyes for the Big Sleep they are in a sense living on borrowed time, so the only solution to Hollywood’s buttheaded insular assurance that Appeasement Is the Only Way is to sit back and wait for the killings to begin. After a few big name celebrities are sent to kingdom come by exploding limosines and the like maybe we’ll see some changes in perspective.
Nah. TheyÂ’ll just screech that itÂ’s all Hitler McChimpyÂ’s fault for not protecting them better. TheyÂ’re hopeless.
So there's two depressing thoughts in a row.
Posted by: Attila at
09:17 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 197 words, total size 1 kb.
November 21, 2004
Or Rudy. I'd Take Rudy, too.
Via
Michael J. Totten comes this picture of Rudy G in drag:

Micheal would love to see him as the GOP nominee in '08—enough to register GOP and vote in the primaries.
I still like Condi, because I think she'd energize the Republican base a little bit better. OTOH, Giuliani comes with automatic crossover (and crossdressing) appeal.
That would be a tough choice for me, really, if they both ran in the primary. Very tough. Michael:
James Dobson, Pat Buchanan, Pat Robertson, and Jerry Fallwell would finally, at long last, get the political nightmare they've deserved for a long time - a cosmopolitan socially liberal Republican president. IÂ’d love to see them form their own party where they can talk to themselves about how godless, decadent, and depraved everyone else is.
Yes. Ditto.
Giuliani is neither red nor blue. HeÂ’s purple, like most of America. I canÂ’t think of anyone (except perhaps for Barack Obama or John McCain) who would be better able to rally the country. Unlike George W. Bush he really is a uniter.
I'm not sure whether Bush's failure to "unite" the country has everything to do with his policies or actions; some of it is just the fact that he's continually demonized.
And John McCain? He never met a civil liberty he didn't want to abridge. If he were running I'd break my arm to make sure I didn't vote for him by accident. Between his temperament and his troubled relationship with the Bill of Rights, he's got to be the worst possible choice. I'd rather vote for a roast beef sandwich.
Posted by: Attila at
10:28 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 278 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Attila,
Geeze, I have always enjoyed your comments over at Jeff's, didn't realize you had a blog. I thought we would agree more, but...I'm thinking..not so much.
But thats ok!!!
Debate is what is is all about, right?
Anyway, I will keep checking in.
Us obviously hot 40 somethings need to stick together!..;-)
Posted by: Rightwingsparkle at November 21, 2004 01:28 PM (nxyup)
2
Thanks for stopping by. You just came on that rare day that I happen to run a cross-dressing photo--just the luck of the draw.
I'm probably more socially "liberal" than 75% of my readers, for what that's worth.
"Hot 40-somethings"--well, I'm holding up okay. But not quite as well as you!
Posted by: Attila Girl at November 21, 2004 01:48 PM (SuJa4)
3
"I'm not sure whether Bush's failure to "unite" the country has everything to do with his policies or actions; some of it is just the fact that he's continually demonized."
It has everything to do with his policies *AND* his actions, which is why he's continually demonized (and rightly so).
Posted by: littlemrmahatma at November 22, 2004 10:20 AM (BZ0tI)
4
I think you've pretty much nailed McCain. I have a ton of personal respect for the guy, but no way do I want to see him as President.
The others? Too soon to tell, IMHO. I'd be fine with Rudy, but I suspect he's the Republican version of Lieberman--too far from the party mainstream to get through the primaries. Condi's my emotional favorite, but I want to hear more about her domestic policies, and see how she does administering State. Obama gave a great speech, and he has a truckload of charisma, but no track record whatsoever.
In any case, it's all a few years down the road. In 2008, I suspect we'll look back at our predictions and realize that we might as well have been pulling names out of the phone book.
Posted by: utron at November 22, 2004 12:10 PM (CgIkY)
5
No, it's the demonization. Intellectual disagreement, vigorously proposing and defending your own policies, etc. is one thing. Demonizing the opposition with hate-filled rhetoric is what divides.
"I'd rather vote for a roast beef sandwich."
Me too!
Posted by: Desert Cat at November 25, 2004 07:21 AM (c8BHE)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
85kb generated in CPU 0.1137, elapsed 0.2401 seconds.
220 queries taking 0.206 seconds, 534 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.