littlemissattila.new.mu.nu

April 18, 2004

Sotto Voce

Attila the Hub thinks the Sopranos story lines are becoming very dense, almost busy--as if the writers were trying to cram too much in. I think the episodes are more and more brilliant--and in a comfortable, less-pretentious way than in the first few seasons.

It turns out we were misinformed about the show maybe dying at the end of this season: there will be one more set after the current one (#5), though given the 18-month lead time in filming these it's possible season 6 was in doubt while they were producing the ones we're watching now. This might explain all the "big moments" my spouse was beginning to tire of. All this saying goodbye--and then saying it again. Season 6 will be shorter, though: only ten episodes. Just enough for HBO to retain its lock on Sunday nights, and to have a full 75 shows to shop around for syndication.

Last week's installment was probably the best one I've ever seen. The primary story line had to do with Cousin TonyB, who as the episode opens has been trying to break away from crime as an occupation. He is trying to become a licensed massage therapist, and comes across an opportunity to open his own spa. Everything is clicking for him: he even finds some drug money that's been stolen and ditched. But he's still hanging around with his mob friends, gambling a lot and skipping sleep before he clocks in to work. He gambles the extra money away and squabbles with his girlfriend. Three days before his spa is supposed to open he picks a fight with his boss and beats him up. End of business opportunity.

The next day, he asks his cousin Tony if he can still get in on the "stolen air bag" scam he was offered when he first got out of prison. Tony tells him it's better not to do business with strangers. Implication: Keep things in the family. It's just at the moment of success that TonyB collapses and runs away from the opportunity in front of him, because the responsibility is too great, the change too wrenching. He goes back to the familiar.

Meanwhile, Carmella has her first real affair, and is enjoying herself despite serious qualms--some having to do with the Church's disapproval (for she and Tony will always be married, as far as the Church is concerned), and some having to do with her feelings of loyalty to Tony--and her fear that Tony might get violent if he finds out about this. (After all, The Sopranos is all about the sexual double standard.) But as a mob wife, she has the "quid pro quo" mentality, and it's natural for her to ask her boyfriend for favors on her son's behalf. When he begins to feel used, she attacks him. On her way out the door, she tells him he should watch his step. The threat is perfectly in keeping with her mobbed-up sensibilities.

Taken together, this installment has a lot to say about how hard it is for people to change. We try to consciously, but our unconscious minds sabotage us back into our comfort zones. Or we think we're taking the indicated actions, but our old habits are so ingrained we don't even see them.

We lock ourselves into the grooves we've cut through years of habit. We foil our best plans and call it destiny.

And then we rail at God, who wanted the best for us all along.

Posted by: Attila at 11:27 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 586 words, total size 3 kb.

April 16, 2004

The Passion of the Christ, first take

The Attila-Hub and I went to see The Passion today. Supposedly we were avoiding it because of the crowds, and my husband's work schedule, and the Easter Rush, and my having to pluck my eyebrows . . . we all know what's what, though, right? I'm tender-hearted, and envisioned a scenario wherein I spent two hours watching the fabric on my husband's shirt, and sobbing.

I did cry, and I did so audibly once or twice, which never happens in movie theatres (I'm usually discreet when a movie "gets to me"--and they all do). But I also got through the entire film on one Kleenex (the sturdy kind that goes in my purse carrier). I only looked away once (okay--maybe twice). There is suffering in this movie, but it's spread out, paced by strategic cutting away to places away from the actual torture--Mary's suffering, the events taking place alongside the crucifixion, and flashbacks to Jesus' ministry.

It was an amazing movie to watch as a Christian. Truly. more...

Posted by: Attila at 05:00 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 442 words, total size 3 kb.

1 The Passion just came out in the theatres here (The Netherlands). I'm a bit scared to go because of the blood that's supposed to be in the movie. Maybe your positive post on this movie will change my mind on going.

Posted by: Sweety at April 17, 2004 04:08 AM (+Xa2Y)

2 It's a worthwhile movie. Not easy to watch, but not as hard as I'd feared, either. The husband tells me I had a harder time with The Pianist.

Posted by: Attila Girl at April 18, 2004 11:37 PM (SYwua)

3 Allow me to voice my take on this movie as a hardcore agnostic. And yes, I did see it in its entirety (and wrote on it in my university newspaper's opinion column). I saw very little anti-Semitism, which is significant because I was looking hard for it. I noticed that one spoken line was not subtitled; I found out later that it was the line about Jews paying for this for generations to come. The Passion is the most violent movie I've ever seen, and I'm counting every Ah-nuld flick, every B-horror slasher and all of the Lethal Weapon films (among many, many others). "The Passion of the Christ" is literally preaching to the choir in the worst way. Where are Jesus' life lessons? Not there. Where is the background on the characters? Not there? What is there? Blood, blood, blood. Made by hardcore fundies, for hardcore fundies. This film is hardly the best way to turn people onto Jesus' philosophy, but I doubt anyone cares about that. It just disturbed me, and I have no problem with the Bible.

Posted by: Ian McGibboney at April 19, 2004 05:15 PM (J50f+)

4 I saw very little anti-Semitism, which is significant because I was looking hard for it. I noticed that one spoken line was not subtitled; I found out later that it was the line about Jews paying for this for generations to come. My husband was, likewise, looking hard for any anti-Jewish subtext, and had a hard time finding any. I think it's significant that Gibson's hands nailed Jesus to the cross. He was making a point--to himself more than to any viewer. The Passion is the most violent movie I've ever seen, and I'm counting every Ah-nuld flick, every B-horror slasher and all of the Lethal Weapon films (among many, many others). What about something that contains real violence, as opposed to cartoon violence? How about Salo, or Ted Bundy, or Monster? "The Passion of the Christ" is literally preaching to the choir in the worst way. Or the best, depending on your POV. Where are Jesus' life lessons? Not there. Where is the background on the characters? Not there? What is there? Blood, blood, blood. There have been many lives of Christ. This was not one of them, and not meant to be. If you want background on the "characters" (!), you'll have to go elsewhere. Made by hardcore fundies, for hardcore fundies. Um. Did you read my post? Have you read any of the literature on The Passion? Do you know Mel Gibson is Roman Catholic? Or do you not even know the difference between Catholics and Fundamentalists? Have you heard of the Reformation? Ugh: I have to go. This film is hardly the best way to turn people onto Jesus' philosophy, but I doubt anyone cares about that. It just disturbed me, and I have no problem with the Bible. It was meant to be disturbing, so it appears that it accomplished its mission.

Posted by: Attila Girl at April 20, 2004 01:45 AM (q85Vj)

5 I think I have a bit of an insight into why people are so surprised going into The Passion of the Christ. Spiritually, it's very much in the tradition of Los Hermanos Penitentes. As graphic and unpleasant as the violence on the screen was, it's nothing compared to seeing it (as I have) in real life, on a real person, and knowing that it's not makeup. There's nothing wrong with making a movie in the Penitentes tradition, but for someone coming in expecting Life Of Christ 101, that particular focus (which, let's be honest, is not mainstream even in Roman Catholicism) can be very surprising. As an auto da fe, The Passion is probably unmatched in movie history, but I can see being a bit shocked if you were expecting a documentary. Two other reasons for the reaction that I can see... 1. Let's just point out the elephant in the living room: Hutton Gibson. Now, I know that Mel is not Hutton, and (to the best of my knowledge), Mel has never espoused any of Gibson Sr.'s more, ahem, exotic beliefs. (To the best of my knowledge, Mel has never said, "Well, you know my father is a complete wing-nut," either.) Is it unfair to judge Mel's movie by his father's beliefs? Absolutely. Is it understandable that people would look at The Passion a bit differently knowing who Mel's father is? You bet. 2. The Passion was, clearly, intended as a tool for proselytizing; I think it's a bit rich to say that it was only intended for viewing by those who are already completely bought into the faith. Proselytization always sits a bit uncomfortably with religious pluralism. There will always be a bit of tension there: On the one hand, freedom of religion implies freedom to proselytize; on the other, proselytization, by its nature, implies a comparison and a promotion of one religion over another... which makes religious pluralism uncomfortable. I'm not saying that The Passion is a bad or evil movie because of that, but any time there is a Campus Crusade with that much oomph behind it, people who are not of the faith being promoted will start shifting in their seats. Lastly, I didn't catch the untranslated line (which, apparently, directly ascribes blood guilt to the Jews for the death of Jesus). That's not precisely damning, but I don't believe anything just slipped into that movie without Gibson knowing about it. That's not a line from the Gospels (that I can find), and the "historical accuracy" argument simply doesn't fly in this case. So, why is it there?

Posted by: Christophe at April 22, 2004 09:22 PM (xYu5N)

6 I'm going to hope that the acts of penitence you've seen were a good deal milder than those in this movie. Is it unfair to judge Mel's movie by his father's beliefs? Absolutely. Is it understandable that people would look at The Passion a bit differently knowing who Mel's father is? You bet. But the fact that something is "understandable" does not make it right. Mel Gibson has a sense of propriety I do not share: I would just say "dad's crazy." But he does genuinely seem to feel it would be disrespectful--probably even sinful--to say that. And honoring one's father and mother is one of the ten commandments. Mel appears to feel that his hands are tied, here. I'm just saying . . . The Passion was, clearly, intended as a tool for proselytizing; I think it's a bit rich to say that it was only intended for viewing by those who are already completely bought into the faith. . . . I'm not saying that The Passion is a bad or evil movie because of that, but any time there is a Campus Crusade with that much oomph behind it, people who are not of the faith being promoted will start shifting in their seats. Sorry. I don't see it. I agree with Ian the agnostic: this is not the movie to take a potential convert to. I don't see it as the happy face of Christianity at all. My impression is that people are uncomfortable with the violence and suffering, not with some sense that they are being asked to give their lives over to Christ. I think it's worth noting that most of the Christian bloggers who've reviewed the movie have said things like "it deepened my faith," rather than "this will minister to the unbeliever." As far as the reference to blood guilt is concerned: 1) FWIW, there were plenty of lines that weren't subtitled--as I recall, some were in Latin as well as Aramaic. 2) I think you want Matthew 27:25: "And the whole people said in reply, 'His blood be upon us and upon our children.'" This line has been misinterpreted for centuries, often with tragic results. Here's more.

Posted by: Attila Girl at April 23, 2004 01:19 AM (q85Vj)

7 Attila, the Matthew line you cite is exactly the line for which I was looking. And yes, I am aware of the HUGE differences between fundies and Catholics; however, aspects of the evangelical sects are not exclusive to that faith; hardcore Catholics are the same way. I am Deep Southerner, so I see plenty of both on a regular basis.

Posted by: Ian McGibboney at April 25, 2004 07:47 PM (VTvXR)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

And the Apprenticeship Goes To...

Bill Rancic.

Yes. The Donald's latest enterprise has been a guilty pleasure of mine, at least off and on. I even stuck with it when they lost Troy and Nick--my favorites after the scrappy saleswomen whose mother had health issues.

I thought some of the finale show was brilliantly staged--for instance, the moment Trump announced Bill was the winner, and all the boardroom walls fell down to reveal the principals were on a stage in front of a live, cheering audience. Very nice.

Two hours was still a hell of a long time for this show. I know they could have done it all in an hour and a half. During the tasks, I found myself wondering to what degree the show's producers created or at least facilitated some of the snafus Bill and Kwame encountered. And I'm starting to really wonder whether Amarosa is getting paid extra on the side to continue to hang around and foment trouble. It's hard not to wonder whether someone could really be willing to behave that badly with cameras running--unless they were getting a little taste for providing extra drama, and for being the Diva Americans love to hate. She was caught lying on camera. Twice. Weird. I'm sure Mark Burnett would like to have her back, and The Donald would not. Perhaps they'll arm-wrestle for it or something.

It is interesting to feel like we, the American people, are getting to know Trump as something other than a developer of large properties featuring decent-to-indifferent design. more...

Posted by: Attila at 09:38 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 424 words, total size 2 kb.

Hitch in the Shooting Schedule

Via Venomous Kate, two porn stars have just tested positive for HIV; a number of performers have been quarantined as potentially exposed, and production has been suspended on a few sets until the extent of the outbreak is known.

So much for economic growth in the San Fernando Valley.

Posted by: Attila at 08:55 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 59 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Are you volunteering to pick up the slack? I know a brilliant - albeit a tad slow in actual shooting - cinemaphotographer and a linguistically adept fluffer...

Posted by: Little Mr Mahatma at April 16, 2004 07:56 PM (BZ0tI)

2 "Fluffer." I'm going to tell him you said that.

Posted by: Attila Girl at April 17, 2004 12:04 AM (SYwua)

3 Of course, what will actually reflect well on the industry is if this gets them to finally implement a long-overdue condoms-mandatory policy. (To be fair, many of the large producers are already condoms-mandatory, and hats off to them.) They'd better; if they don't, the goverment will do it for them.

Posted by: Christophe at April 17, 2004 12:55 AM (2rBIo)

4 I'd like to see how many porn actors have contracted HIV, and compare it to the number working, and then do a similar analysis of stunt performers for action films, to determine which group is at greater risk. What proportion of current smut features condoms at present? Would you be willing to be the trailblazer, if the government isn't willing to step in?

Posted by: Attila Girl at April 17, 2004 02:09 AM (SYwua)

5 The problem is market. If condoms in U.S. productions become mandatory how will it affect sales of U.S. films. I bet sales'd drop. Will it send yet another American market overseas where rules may be more lax? -LMM

Posted by: Little Mr Mahatma at April 17, 2004 07:29 PM (/KtV/)

6 While we don't know how many porn actors have contracted HIV, this is the first HIV scare in the industry since 1999. I'll admit that Blowfish hasn't had a consistent policy on this, but in our defense, I'll say that: (a) We've made exactly one film, and (b) the one M/F couple in it knew each other before the shoot, are married, and don't use condoms in their daily sex life. If we became a standard producer, we'd be condoms-mandatory. I'm not convinced that requiring condoms would cause a huge flight overseas. Many of the major producers (Wicked, Vivid, Private, VCA) are already condoms-mandatory, even when doing overseas production. Requiring proper safety requirement to any business adds cost, but that doesn't mean it is the wrong thing to do.

Posted by: Christophe at April 18, 2004 09:32 AM (xYu5N)

7 It wasn't a question of cost; I'm wondering whether, from a male POV, condom use detracts from the intended result of the film, e.g., sexual excitement. After all, isn't there supposed to be a vicarious enjoyment of the action therein? A lot of men I know still hate condoms, and I've been told that the only ones that are remotely workable--that is, transmit a sensation approximating that of bareback sex--are the lambskin variety, which of course are next to worthless from a disease-prevention POV.

Posted by: Attila Girl at April 18, 2004 12:33 PM (SYwua)

8 That's a good question. Here's my take on it: Just to get it out of the way, the question isn't (obviously) what the talent thinks feels good. They're professionals, and they'll cope. And except for the minority of serious whackos, they're not any wilder about getting a disease than the female talent. (After all, HIV is the nastiest thing out there, but it is still not the only one.) The jury is out, and might always be, on whether or not condom use in movies turns off the male viewers enough that they don't buy the product. The major studios (Vivid, Wicked, Private, VCA, etc.) that are all-condom are doing just fine, so it's clearly not a product-line-killer. Most of the female Big Name Stars insist on condoms, and no one has a problem with that. In fact, the only major studio that I can think of that is condom-optional is Evil Angel (and I'm not 100% sure on that). Most directors have gotten pretty good at cutting in such a way that you don't see the condom go on or in use except during the actual in-and-out. Transparent condoms are much clearer now than they used to be, too. The smaller studios are generally condom-optional or bareback-required. One could argue that this is their ecological niche, and they are picking up viewers who want to see bareback sex. But none of them are eating the majors alive. Waaaaay back in the mid-90s, the major studios argued that any condom use at all would kill off sales. Then, they felt they had to switch (in part because the female superstars were demanding it), they did, and nothing bad happened... the industry kept growing just like it did before. I'd have to take that as evidence that the concerns about condoms killing sales are overblown. As far as condoms not feeling like anything (the "showering with a raincoat on" problem, as we like to say), condoms have gotten a lot better in that regard over the last five years. The Avanti and Inspiral feel pretty good to my wobbly bits. It's true that we are probably years away from a barrier that feels just like bareback, though. Given the alternatives, though, I think this an area where we can just be grownups and deal with it.

Posted by: Christophe at April 18, 2004 06:35 PM (xYu5N)

9 I hadn't realized that they cut out the actual process of putting the condom on. I'm sure that makes a big difference, experientially, to the male viewer. The big revolution would be if they allowed the man to simply come inside the woman, rather than having to show the semen. I've always assumed that this was so the viewer would know the actor wasn't just simulating orgasm (as if some guys care about whether even the women they see might be doing this).

Posted by: Attila Girl at April 18, 2004 11:44 PM (SYwua)

10 The revolution has been here for quite some time as judging by the plethora of creampie sites and films...not that I'm aware of such things...

Posted by: Little Mr Mahatma at April 19, 2004 08:57 AM (BZ0tI)

11 I will always trust you to be aware of these things.

Posted by: Attila Girl at April 19, 2004 01:03 PM (SYwua)

12 Yep. I have eyes but cannot see, 'specially after the S.O. is done reaming them out with a torque screwdriver.

Posted by: Little Mr Mahatma at April 19, 2004 03:24 PM (BZ0tI)

13 Ah--the vague, fake protests of the fundamentally happy man.

Posted by: Attila Girl at April 20, 2004 12:59 AM (q85Vj)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

April 15, 2004

Off-the-Air America

I like Will Collier's verbiage best, so I'll use his version (he's Stephen Green's partner in crime at VodkaPundit, you'll recall):

According to Drudge, Barking Moonbat Radio (aka "Air America") is going broke after just two weeks on the air, and has been pulled from affiliates in Chicago and LA.
You have to wonder if Drudge actually has the goods on this one. I figured it would flop, but I don't think anybody thought it could flop this fast. Still, given Al Franken's dismal record of failure in television and movies, nobody should really be surprised if the story pans out.
"Developing," as they say...

We've all heard about the bounced checks in the seven figures, and the stations that have switched over to "Mexican radio" in Chi-town and L.A.

I imagine all the stunned lefties out there: "but we're smarter. And funnier. It should have worked!" As my grandmother used to say: if wishes were horses, beggars could ride.

It was so futile, so sad. And I happen to know that the smartest and funniest man on the planet is a registered Republican. Stick that in your blender and puree it.

Posted by: Attila at 11:48 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 196 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I think we all saw this coming. I guess left-wing blowhard radio does not pay

Posted by: dave at April 15, 2004 01:55 PM (lOlMB)

2 The problem, as man of us have observed, is that the left has become so isolated and so ossified and so used to having its ideas unquestioned that it's lost the ability to argue effectively or really even think hard about where it might be wrong on any of the big issues. The thing is that this wont' be true forever. Eventually, the left will start to concede that the right is correct about some issues, and will start to find the right's weaknesses. I think it'll probably be some time but we'll start to see it again. It may be too early to count Air America out though. Thely may recover from this. And just remember, Rush Limbaugh started as an obscure guy on one radio station.

Posted by: Dean Esmay at April 16, 2004 12:22 AM (LOj+R)

3 You're probably right. At present, they're stuck at the "oh, surely you wouldn't even consider voting for Bush" stage. At some point, if they want to get any power back, they're going to have to engage. And that means putting forth a coherent vision for the two issues of the day: fighting terrorism and (a distant second) growing the economy.

Posted by: Attila Girl at April 16, 2004 01:15 AM (SYwua)

4 The problem with talk radio is that it is so much a domain of blowhard conservatives that there isn't even a competition. American discourse these days is all about who can scream the loudest and play upon fears the most severely. Will anyone ever touch the conservatives in this department? Not likely. Fortunately for conservatives, the average citizen is disengaged and apathetic and will believe any outrageous piece of stupidity that Rush, Hannity or O'Reilly utters. I guess the liberals will have to remain on top of the bestseller lists, because they can read.

Posted by: Ian McGibboney at April 19, 2004 05:04 PM (J50f+)

5 There are plenty of lefty editors in Manhattan who wish they'd bought some of the right-wing bestsellers when they had the chance: http://www.usatoday.com/life/books/news/2003-07-22-right_x.htm After all, ideological purity is fine--but supposedly they are there to make money. Those are some tough breaks. I guess I listen better than you read, my friend: there couldn't be three commentators more different than Rush, Hannity, and O'Reilly. Hannity is a traditional con, and very socially conservative for my taste. I can only take him in small pieces. O'Reilly is *not* a conservative at all--he's a populist. He just sort of shrieks, and I can't watch him or listen to him, for his crimes are beyond ideology: he's rude. Rude people don't get my patronage, thank you very much. Rush is solid gold: always funny, always insightful. He's a conservative at heart, but often a legislative libertarian. His IQ is probably double that of the average person, and this fact alone drives the elites in LA, SF, and Manhattan nuts. Thanks for stopping by and slinging your stereotypes my way, though.

Posted by: Attila Girl at April 20, 2004 01:10 AM (q85Vj)

6 You should stop by my local public library sometime; liberal books fly off the shelf while several copies of books by Ann Coulter, Rush, O'Reilly and Hannity sit there unloved and unopened. And by the way, I live in the Deep South, where you wouldn't expect this to be the case. I don't know if anyone checks these books out but I do. Just for some sick laughs. And yes, I do acknowledge the differences between the three commentators. And I agree with you entirely on O'Reilly. But Rush as solid gold? I doubt that. He's not even up to his own low standards these days. Additionally, I don't respect anyone who refuses to appear live on air with anyone but himself. If Rush has any intellect, it's that he knows where the real money lies: in playing on the anger and fear of half-informed people. The man didn't even register to vote until he was 35 years old! More sterotypes from your newest old friend.

Posted by: Ian McGibboney at April 21, 2004 08:41 PM (nkZMy)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Tall Tales

It takes a certain frame of mind to read Angelweave while eating something unhealthy, but I was prepared to do it. Unwind a little, get ready for bed, carb out (tonight: rice with a little milk, cinnamon and sugar). You know: I'm not bad, I'm just drawn that way.

Then Heather hit me with this article from the New Yorker, which discusses the academics who track height differences in large populations over the centuries. In the U.S., ever since early in the last century, heights have remained static as those in Northern Europe and other industrialized nations have increased. And now, though we are still (demographically speaking) richer, they are taller. Since height usually tracks wealth, this is a somewhat anomalous trend.

But of course the main cause is thought to be--implied to be, in the article, though not quite stated flat-out--our national addiction to bad food. After all, one British study showed that modern kids who were fed wartime rations--boiled cabbage and beef--grew taller than those who ate hamburgers and French fries. We just don't get enough vegetables in this country, and this truth has etched itself into our bones for nearly a century. We keep getting richer, but we don't get the micronutrients our bodies need.

We just grow out, not up. It's a sobering thought.

Posted by: Attila at 10:57 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 222 words, total size 1 kb.

Not So Cunning After All

Laurence of ATS continues to marvel at the wonder that is Noam Chomsky, remarking of the good professor's blog:

[he] has two more posts up . . . and--color me shocked and purple--still no sign of linguistics.
You would think, by now, he'd have accidentally posted something on linguistics. A spelling error here, a microstroke there . . . bam! You've got Linguistics, right? Maybe mixing up a post on the weblog and a note to a coed he wants to bang that he's giving directions to through e-mail:
"Meet me in the Linguistics Department at 10:00PM tonight. Wear a bathrobe, Mickey Mouse ears, and a glow-stick up your ass."

Read the whole thing, and follow the link back to Laurence's original Chomsky Challenge, which is definitely worth the price of admission.

Posted by: Attila at 09:28 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 141 words, total size 1 kb.

Some thoughts on Victimhood

From Dorothy Rabinowitz and from E-Claire. Rabinowitz discusses the antics of the four "Jersey girls," activist 9-11 widows who have taken it upon themselves to lecture our nation on what, exactly, we did wrong on and before 9-11, and to dictate how we should conduct ourselves in the future. Their conduct is egregious, and it's probably time that they STFU.

Rabinowitz link via James, wie immer.

Posted by: Attila at 09:19 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 74 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Far be it for 9/11 widows to actually have clear heads. They should be screaming incoherently for blood like Bill O'Reilly! There's a double standard in conservatism: just like entertainers should shut up about politics unless they're Charlie Daniels or Ted Nugent, they want the 9/11 widows to shut up unless they're lock step with the GOP bloodthirsty revenge mantra. I guess the conservatives are mad at these women because they aren't letting themselves get exploited.

Posted by: Ian McGibboney at April 19, 2004 05:21 PM (J50f+)

2 Far be it for 9/11 widows to actually have clear heads. They should be screaming incoherently for blood like Bill O'Reilly! Clear heads from the Jersey Girls? This, I haven't seen. There's a double standard in conservatism: just like entertainers should shut up about politics unless they're Charlie Daniels or Ted Nugent, they want the 9/11 widows to shut up unless they're lock step with the GOP bloodthirsty revenge mantra. Your comparison is a bit lopsided: in Hollywood, around 95% of the opinions one hears are Textbook Lefty Stuff, often not very well thought-out or clearly expressed. It's pretty reasonable for some of us to ask that those who want to speak out take the time to think before they open their mouths, and not assume Middle America hired them for their putative political analysis. For the most part, we'd like them to act and sing. Period. The case of the 9/11 widows is more complex, in that there is a very vocal (lefty) minority, drowning out the voices of the (more centrist) majority, who--for the most part--are too tasteful to boss the rest of the country around. There is a terrible precedent being set by how we treat the families of 9/11 victims, because 1) we paid them money, whereas no other widows/widowers of any other national tragedy--from Pearl Harbor to the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole--got any kind of a buyout; 2) we are allowing some of these families to dictate how the Port Authority goes about rebuilding the World Trade Center (did the Cole families provide us with specs for ship design?); and 3) we are listening to a steady stream of anti-American invective from a small group of these people, who are exploiting their personal tragedies for political gain. It's a nauseating sight. I guess the conservatives are mad at these women because they aren't letting themselves get exploited. Hard to get exploited when you're busy exploiting.

Posted by: Attila Girl at April 20, 2004 01:24 AM (q85Vj)

3 "In Hollywood, around 95% of the opinions one hears are Textbook Lefty Stuff, often not very well thought-out or clearly expressed." Even if this was so, then why would it bother you? "It's pretty reasonable for some of us to ask that those who want to speak out take the time to think before they open their mouths, and not assume Middle America hired them for their putative political analysis." This comment reminds me of those jerks from middle school that, when you said something, immediately snapped back with "Who asked you?" This is a free country with freedom of speech. Besides, you didn't even counter my point. "For the most part, we'd like them to act and sing. Period." I like opinions and intelligence from anyone if it is insightful and informed. Are you saying, then that you are opposed to Charlie Daniels and Ted Nugent speaking out for conservatism? "The case of the 9/11 widows is more complex, in that there is a very vocal (lefty) minority, drowning out the voices of the (more centrist) majority, who--for the most part--are too tasteful to boss the rest of the country around." How can you prove this? And would it matter anyway? Can't we agree that staging a presidential campaign on corpse footage(real and fake) is utterly tasteless? Or is tastelessness exclusively the realm of those who speak out against such exploitation? "There is a terrible precedent being set by how we treat the families of 9/11 victims, because 1) we paid them money, whereas no other widows/widowers of any other national tragedy--from Pearl Harbor to the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole--got any kind of a buyout;" BUYOUT? Glad to see you care so much about human life. "Gee, Bush had my boys killed, but this paycheck is just dandy! Sorry, Evelyn, you can't have any. Your boys died at the wrong time." What a joke. "2) we are allowing some of these families to dictate how the Port Authority goes about rebuilding the World Trade Center (did the Cole families provide us with specs for ship design?); and 3) we are listening to a steady stream of anti-American invective from a small group of these people, who are exploiting their personal tragedies for political gain. It's a nauseating sight." Why do you pit the Cole victims against the WTC victims? They're ALL victims!

Posted by: Ian McGibboney at April 22, 2004 10:04 PM (8kgO3)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

April 14, 2004

New Blog

My friend Christophe, the Bay Area sex expert and smut peddler, has his own blog now.
Check it out, now. Unless you're sensitive to these things, of course: "adult"-oriented issues will definitely be discussed now and then. Above all, be nice. He's my friend.

Posted by: Attila at 07:06 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 48 words, total size 1 kb.

April 13, 2004

Stephen Green on Kerry

The VodkaPundit fisks a Kerry Op-Ed ("If I Ran the Iranian Circus"). Read the fisking, skip the comments.

Via James.

Posted by: Attila at 10:57 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 28 words, total size 1 kb.

Buy a Gun Day

April 15th, Baby--this Thursday.

Even better--buy two!

Posted by: Attila at 09:14 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 15 words, total size 1 kb.

April 12, 2004

Another Test

Here's Kevin's original; let's see how that looks.

Posted by: Attila at 11:10 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 12 words, total size 1 kb.

Test

Just a test for Kevin of Wizbang! Pay us no mind.

I'll do one for real once we science the dimensions out.

Posted by: Attila at 11:07 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 24 words, total size 1 kb.

The Infamous PDB

Here it is.

The content basically vindicates Rice and Bush. It is a historical document. Certainly it's a "heads up" in a general way, but there isn't enough there to suggest any specific actions that could have been taken given what the administration knew (and didn't know) at the time.

No one who is being honest with himself/herself, and is not either using hindsight or blinded by hatred of Bush can conclude that this briefing was somehow being ignored, or that Taking It More Seriously would have prevented 9/11.

Posted by: Attila at 09:32 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 95 words, total size 1 kb.

Wait--Where was that Estrogen?

I wish I could mainline the stuff.

Much Sturm und Drang today. This story will be significant to those who know me in my personal life (especially my high school/college friends), and practically no one else. So feel free to skip this entry. more...

Posted by: Attila at 07:49 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 698 words, total size 4 kb.

Just in Time for Easter

I'm always shocked at how violent the mood swings can be when I'm not on the pill in any way and it's just me . . . and the hormones.

Joan Didion once wrote that to live in Los Angeles is to have a mechanistic view of human nature--for we are prey here to the Santa Ana winds that periodically make murder and suicide rates spike. I've always thought the same thing applied to being female: there honestly are days when I feel I'm at the mercy of biology, just waiting for the happy hormones to show up again.

After slogging through the tunnel of Hell Week, I'm happy and horny again. Hello, estrogen. And happy Easter. Finally.

Posted by: Attila at 02:17 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 128 words, total size 1 kb.

April 10, 2004

Once More with the Quizzes

Take the quiz: "Which American City Are You?"

New York
You're competative, you like to take it straight to the fight. You gotta have it all or die trying.

Close enough: I'm really New York's evil twin (the one with the palm trees).

Via Martinis, Persistence, and a Smile. (Which, come to think of it, expresses a strategy I might have fallen for once or twice in my youth. [Those of you who are old friends and readers won't want to drop a comment here suggesting it was more than twice--because I can ban your ass, or at least your IP. Understood?])

Posted by: Attila at 10:16 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 80 words, total size 1 kb.

I've Been Waiting a Long Time

. . . to see one of these fisked.

Blogo Slovo takes on one of those "let's wring our hands because we live in the Western/Developed World" letters.

Posted by: Attila at 10:00 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 40 words, total size 1 kb.

Okay. One more tech question.

Why is it that 50-75% of the time I create a new post I get an error regarding my pings, or my trackbacks, or some such? Am I being a bad Movable Type girl? Have I failed to make the proper sacrifice to the Gods of Real Blogs? Is my Blogger/Blogspot legacy following me around? Am I the Blogosphere's answer to Ted Kennedy--more past than present? Just wonderin'.

Posted by: Attila at 07:25 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 78 words, total size 1 kb.

Well, Let's Try

Paging Dr. Joyner.

Well, at least it works for my own pix--which are more fun than any silly quiz.

Posted by: Attila at 07:19 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 25 words, total size 1 kb.

84kb generated in CPU 0.0399, elapsed 0.1489 seconds.
216 queries taking 0.1323 seconds, 532 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

April 18, 2004

April 16, 2004

April 15, 2004

April 14, 2004

April 13, 2004

April 12, 2004

April 10, 2004

Search Thingy

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Monthly Traffic

Content

Feeds