littlemissattila.new.mu.nu

October 25, 2005

On National Self-Hatred

Many "progressives"--and not just the religious ones--have uncritically and without reflection adopted the ideas and values of "their own age and class"--and, while doing so, they have congratulated themselves on their courage and independence of thought. Thus, they can enjoy a great feeling of righteousness without running the risk of condemnation by those whose opinions really matter to them. Who cares if the Bush Administration and its supporters would disapprove of your statements (if they ever heard of them, which they likely won't), when there are so many nods of agreement in the faculty lounge or among the other associates at the law firm? Those are the people you see every day, after all, and the ones who really matter for your career...

He left out, of course, "the cocktail party, the wrap party, the pitch, the gathering of writers, and the editorial staff meeting." That is, entertainment and publishing are as bad as academia.

It's a nice little piece, and picks up on a theme that C.S. Lewis wrote about in the 1940s.

Posted by: Attila at 11:50 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 182 words, total size 1 kb.

Next Time, Ask Us, Mr. President

Daniel Solove:

There do not seem to be many sure votes in the Senate for Miers, and it is becoming difficult for Senators to support Miers without believing that theyÂ’ll take a big political hit. In essence, a set of virtual confirmation hearings are being held in cyberspace, and the fate of the nomination may well be decided before the actual hearings in the Senate even begin.

His conclusion: we may not have quite as much influence as we'd like, but we are driving debate. The glass is half full.

(h/t: Insty.)

Posted by: Attila at 07:45 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 104 words, total size 1 kb.

A Spooky Edition of the Cotillion Ball!

Why, yes: we are all witches. When did you first suspect this?

A special thanks to Girl on the Right for acting as hostess this week. It's a nice roundup.

Posted by: Attila at 07:09 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 44 words, total size 1 kb.

I Think Hitch

is coming down on the "anti" side in the Miers wars. I think.

Posted by: Attila at 02:18 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 19 words, total size 1 kb.

One of My Favorites

from Iowahawk.

Posted by: Attila at 01:42 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 10 words, total size 1 kb.

QT Monster and Able Danger

She has some terrific commentary in the form of transcripts from the Rush Limbaugh show that include pieces of Weldon's speech. This story is just going to keep getting bigger as time goes by.

Posted by: Attila at 01:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 44 words, total size 1 kb.

Oh, Rosa.

We love you.

Rest in peace.

Posted by: Attila at 12:37 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 10 words, total size 1 kb.

Any Questions for Harriet the Spry?

Send 'em over to the Big Lizards, who are compiling a list therof.

Posted by: Attila at 12:26 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 25 words, total size 1 kb.

October 24, 2005

No Mudblood, I

The Commissar is documenting the famly tree of the 'sphere; he'd like us to list our birth months/years, blogdaddies/mommies, and blogkids.

The first version of Little Miss Attila (on Blogsplat) began in March of ~~1993~~ 2003.

My blogdaddy is James Joyner of Outside the Beltway.

My two confirmed blogchildren are Little Mr. Mahatma and K's Quest.

There are also rumors that I had something to do with Christophe and with Hip Nerd, but no one's ever been able to prove it.

Furthermore, I believe I was one of the people who urged the founder of Q&O to begin a blog, but I probably wasn't the main inspiration there. If memory serves, that was Frank J of IMAO.

UPDATE: Jon Henke confirms that I was an early influence, and names (current Q&O co-blogger) Dale Franks as his actual blogfather. He says he's comfortable with my being a kindly blog-aunt. (Which is lovely—what does he get? Five times my traffic?)

Posted by: Attila at 06:12 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 164 words, total size 1 kb.

I'm Glad Someone Else

. . . made the joke.

Posted by: Attila at 05:18 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 14 words, total size 1 kb.

Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap

Fatass the Conquerer likes AC/DC.

Which is a sterling recommendation, in my book.

(Sure; they're very stylized. Their songs sound similar. But if you like that sound, it's no problem.)

Posted by: Attila at 01:56 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 40 words, total size 1 kb.

Goldstein

. . . has a few tart words about the U.N.'s latest coverup.

[cross-posted at Dean's World.]

Posted by: Attila at 01:43 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 15 words, total size 1 kb.

The Most Courageous Blogger I Know

. . . is taking on the DIA over the Able Danger story.

Posted by: Attila at 01:22 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 25 words, total size 1 kb.

October 23, 2005

Tammy Bruce

It's been pointed out to me that in my mention of her several entries down, I gave a non-optimal link (it was a NewsMax site that promotes her columns). As a blogger, I should have linked to her blog. And so I shall.

Posted by: Attila at 12:44 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 47 words, total size 1 kb.

Roger L. Simon Rawks! (Liberty Film Festival, 5)

I didn't pin Roger Simon down when I saw him on a panel at the last UCLA/LA Times "Festival of Books" six months ago. But I did today, at the film festival. He does not, as you might imagine, walk around in a fedora. In real life, it's a baseball cap.

RLS: [eye contact]

LMA: I'm just a stalker. Actually, I have a blog, and I'm a big admirer [hands over a "Little Miss Attila" business card]. I'm also working on a mystery, of all things.

RLS: I think I've heard of your blog.

LMA: Now that's flattering. Can you answer a few questions about Pajamas Media?

RLS: Okay, but we'll have to make it quick. [Nods to another would-be interviewer, who clearly outranks me because he got to Simon first, and because he has more technological do-dads with him.]

LMA: A lot of people are excited at the idea that Pajamas Media might actually bring money into the blogging community. What foundation does your business model rest on?

RLS: Two Things. First of all, of course, we're going to sell advertising. Secondly, we'll have affilitates like the BBC does—though we might not be quite at their level just yet.

Right now, we're really looking for affiliates, especially overseas. We intend to cover the world with our affiliates.

LMA: [leaning forward, whispering into his ear] What's the new name going to be for Pajamas Media? You can tell me.

RLS: No, I can't. I really can't. But it won't be a fun name like Pajamas Media. It'll be a boring name—like "the BBC."

Posted by: Attila at 12:28 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 240 words, total size 2 kb.

Larry and Me (Liberty Film Festival, 4)

Larry Elder spoke today at the Liberty Film Festival, and afterward I decided I was going to pin him down for another of my signature "mini-interviews." He had just agreed to let me walk him to his car when he got shanghaid into signing a bunch of his DVDs. As one might expect, that kept him there long enough for more and more people to arrive—most of whom needed to at least shake his hand, and maybe get a picture (and possibly have a small exchange with him regarding politics, race, economics, or affirmative action).

After a few hours my resolved calcified: as long as he'd agreed in principle to my getting a few minutes with him, I was going to wait until he was away from the madding crowds, and could focus on what we were saying.

I'll summarize our discussion in another post, but he is an amazing man. No matter how many hands he had to shake, he never seemed to get tired of his fans, supporters, and colleagues. His ethical system is clearly as demanding as his work life: I'd never seen that level of focus in someone surrounded by an ever-changing crowd of 5-10 fans who all clearly want to talk to him as well. When Larry turned to me I indicated that he'd promised I could walk him out, and that was what I intended to do. He appeared to respect that. Meanwhile, I reminded myself that people call in to his show all the time and wait for hours to speak with him in the least private of settings. I was waiting a bit, but would get a one-on-one chat with him. A bargain, if you want to know the truth.

And sure enough: a friend of his who works for the L.A. Times ran into us as we approached the back doors of the Beverly Center, and they had a very cute exchange regarding their differences of opinion. (Larry pointed to me and threatened, after the other man had made a tacit admission of media bias, that I was going to expose this shameful moment in my blog. We all had a good laugh, though I'm afraid my readers might not be any more impressed with that than they would be with "a Times writer admitted that it gets hot in the summer in L.A.")

But Larry really is the all-time gentleman: he listened to my questions, gave me thoughtful answers, and stood there by his black Thunderbird asking me what I thought about various issues, as if he had all the time in the world. (At first, my mouth dropped open, and I may have looked like a fish for a moment there, till I rallied and remembered that I definitely Have Opinions.)

Truly a great experience. I've met Larry before, but not since 1998 or so, and we'd never had this long a chat. And, you know: I love being treated like a Real Media person, when in fact I'm just bloggy little me: a girl with a keyboard.

Posted by: Attila at 12:01 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 523 words, total size 3 kb.

October 22, 2005

Well, If You Insist

I oppose the Miers nomination, Mr. Bear.

Goodness knows I'd like to be wrong. If she doesn't withdraw her nomination, I hope to be proven wrong. But I cannot support the nomination of someone to the highest court in the land who isn't a constitutional scholar.

That piece of paper is the most important thing we have, and if it isn't worth fighting for, then—as we used to say in 2001-2-3—the terrorists will have won.

Via Protein Wisdom, where the "Ginsburg Rule" still means something, thank goodness. (Jeff is right: there are plenty of ways for Miers to prove herself without breaking that precedent, and tying future Justices up in legal knots.)

Posted by: Attila at 11:32 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 120 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Li'l Miss, as i've said, maybe here, I am disappointed in the Miers nomination. But your observation that she isn't a constitutional scholar may cause me to rethink the issue. We have such scholars on the Supreme bench already, and they all disagree. I've always thought that that most important document was purposely written in plain lahguage just so the common person could understand it. perhaps we need someone who can read it with fresh eyes, somewhat divorced from the cobwebs of years of interpretation. After all, it was an eminent constitutional scolar, Oliver Wendall Holmes, (and not only Holmes) who decided that "Congress shall make no law..." means "Congress shall make laws in certain circumstances. . . "

Posted by: Averroes at October 23, 2005 06:16 PM (jlOCy)

2 I want someone who is interested in that piece of paper, and has a systematic, consistent way of interpreting it. Otherwise, we're going to get O'Conner lite.

Posted by: Attila Girl at October 24, 2005 12:40 AM (x3SIT)

3 O'Connor wan't all that bad. Read her opinions in dissent on the marijuana and property case (Kelo). In fact, name me the only three justices who dissent in both of those cases? Hint: two are gone. Now, read an contrast thomas' and Scalia's decision in the marijuana case. I want somebody who will not be a judicial activist (in the old sense, someone who stays within interpreting the law, as opposed to its present sense, someone who decides cases in a way i don't like). And they should "adapt" the constitution to modern problems within the constitution, rather than trying to "grow" the document. Like i said, i want someone who can read "Congress shall make no law..." as "Congress shall make no law..." this applies to NO ONE now on the bench! btw, just to try it out on you, I think that the separation of church and state language applies to mroality as well, since the founding fathers made no real distinction. (Sure, they knew there were irreligious atheists, but didn't want to allow them to take oaths, for instance, to testify in court.) i want someone who would declare any law made for reasons of morality unconstitutional. what say you? not that conservative?

Posted by: Averroes at October 24, 2005 08:20 AM (jlOCy)

4 Yes. Not that conservative. I still think murder, theft, rape and other assaults should be illegal. (Now you are going to say those are practical matters, rather than moral ones, but I believe they are both.) Scalia disappointed me deeply with his decision regarding California's authority to set its own rules regarding medical use of marijuana. Thomas came through. My issue with O'Conner was not that she didn't get both those cases right, but that she determined what she thought the "right" response should be, and then reasoned backward from there. (For instance, I suspect her decision on medical marijuana had less to do with states' rights than it did with her experience with cancer.) I suspect Miers will do the same, more or less deciding what the outcome "ought" to be, and then finding a rationale to buttress that position.

Posted by: Attila Girl at October 24, 2005 01:05 PM (x3SIT)

5 Attila: "I still think murder, theft, rape and other assaults should be illegal. (Now you are going to say those are practical matters, rather than moral ones, but I believe they are both.)" Not what i wold say. i wouldsay that these are criminal laws. They are laws which are needed, not because of any morality, which can change from person to person, but because acts we criminalize are, or should be just those acts which violate rights guarantedd under the founding doctirnes, like life and liberty, or acts which threaten the constitutional structure which guarantees such rights. i want to avoid laws agains sodomy and laws which require taxpayers to pay into moral systems like welfare extablished becasue someone argued "it's the right thing to do, so you should pay." Remember, a liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, and will work untiringly to take your money to pay for it. Social "conservatives" are people who believe that they have the right morality, and want to take everyone's money to use the power of government to make sure that if they can't have fun doing things their morality forbids, no one else can either. this is closet liberalsim (see above). That does not mean that i am absolutely against government social programs, merely that they must be supported by arguments based on preservation of the country which preserves our fundamental rights. or it simply may be in the interest of people in a community to vote in taxes to care for the homeless, say. Buckley's conservative principle is "My rights end where your nose begins. There is no place for the enforcement of morality as morality with government.

Posted by: Averroes at October 24, 2005 06:48 PM (jlOCy)

6 Sorry, i'm feeling effusive. Can't resist. "Scalia disappointed me deeply with his decision regarding California's authority to set its own rules regarding medical use of marijuana." BUT, if you red his disappointing decision, he manages to express disgust with the argument made by the majority for the key poiont and then offers a convoluted "better" argument for the same point. "My issue with O'Conner was not that she didn't get both those cases right, but that she determined what she thought the "right" response should be, and then reasoned backward from there. (For instance, I suspect her decision on medical marijuana had less to do with states' rights than it did with her experience with cancer.)" I don't do mindreading. i agree, however, that she sometimes argued to points she thought should be true. As far as i can see, Thomas is the only one who doesn't do that. in his decision on the marijuana issue, he hinted that the 1970 federal drug law whch was the authority for the Fed's action might be unconstitutional. You'll never get Scalia to say that! btw, i really don't care aboput the motivation for a justice's decision so long as the reasoning is sound. both the O'conner decisions in question are scathing and right on point. we have no way of knowing if she would have written the marijuana decision if she had never had cancer. but i can't imagine her arguing any differently. Rhenquist also joined the dissent. And, in fact, she voted with Rhenquist more than any other judge. One last point, while i may have your attention. I knew Souter was going to be bad when in his haring he said that he c ertainly thought that legal reasoning was important, and that Stare was important, but that he thought that a judge should never lose sight of the fact that their decisions "affect real people." Of course, this is exactly what we want the justices to forget. I've never understood people who argue against a decision because of its results.

Posted by: Averroes at October 24, 2005 06:59 PM (jlOCy)

7 All we have are intentions/reasoning and results. I want both to matter in law, but WRT the Constitution, I want people on the bench at SCOTUS who begin with original intent, and place greater weight on reason than results. The Court is no place for pragmatists. I stand by my assessment of O'Conner; the fact that she accidentally got it right in a few recent cases that got a lot of ink doesn't change the fact that she was on the bench for a lot of years, making decisions according to a judicial philosophy known only to her. I agree with you that Thomas is the template. Not Rehnquist or Scalia. Thomas. As a matter of fact, we probably agree a great deal on the correct approach to lawmaking; what we disagree on is the meaning of the word "morality." After all, the Founding Fathers did not feel they were granting rights: most of them felt that the rights were granted by God, and that they were simply articulating what these were. I'd say therefore that the very writing of the Constitution was part of a moral stance, which had at it core not just "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," but property rights.

Posted by: Attila Girl at October 24, 2005 11:10 PM (x3SIT)

8 Actually, i think, the "creator" language is not relevant. The template was from Locke, and the language is natural law. the point is that we have rights not becasue they are granted by anyone, but becasue it is part of our nature. I have come to dislike the term "original intent." It has become too narrow, and too dependent on inane arguments about what the Founders thought about things in 1781 or something. People who argue this tend to go outside the constitution to argue from other writings. To me, the minutiae of what people thought about the problems of the day are not all that relevant. What is relevant is what is in the constitution, and how to apply the great notions therein to today's situation. We are no longer a country in which Christianity can be assumed. it may be the case or not that this founder or that meant freedom of religin to mean freedom of Christian religions, but the foiunder were inspred enough to write a small constitution with few specifics, opting instead for braod ideals. Part of the most important history of our nation is how "all men are created equal" has come ever closer to meaning that, to meaning "each individual in mankind is created equal." the original intent people might argue that slave holders like jefferson could not have meant it like it is interpreted today. in fact, this argument has been made in our history. original intent people also tend to ignore one of the best sentences in the constitution: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." this shifts the burden on rights to those who would say that the constitution does not have a certain right. in other words, "there is no such right in the constitution" is a non-argument. Rights are ours by nature, and the constitution puts limits on those rights only so far as is necessary for the functioning and preservation of our society. In other words, show me where in the constitution that it says we do not have a right to privacy. You are right about pragmatists. After Roberts was confirmed, i happened to flip past the business channel. they were quite happy with him, noting that he seemed to be a Rhenquist-style pragmatist, noting that strict interpretation types like Thomas and Scalia have a hard time finding a place in the constitution to hang pro-business policies like tort reform. btw, just someting to consider: for those who think that law has to be based on morlaity, there is always the problem of determing just what morality to baer it on. this is not so much a problem in Saudi Arabia or the Christian colonies. but i am glad that the founders wrote it wider than they might have, more ideal. if we see our rights as natural, as Locke and jefferson would have it, we can avoid many problems.

Posted by: Averroes at October 27, 2005 12:53 AM (jlOCy)

9 Again--I think you and I may disagree less than you think. I don't think we are a specifically Christian nation, though I do believe we have certain Judeo-Christian ideals that can be respected without giving the "Christian Taliban" free rein. And the line about all "men" being created equal could very easily be read to mean just that--all men. Naturally, I wouldn't be very happy with that, and the founders' original intent to put all persons on an equal plane as much as possible helps us to justify letting black men and (especially) women vote, even if it isn't, as a technical matter, in the language.

Posted by: Attila Girl at October 27, 2005 02:03 AM (x3SIT)

10 As for heritage, being neither a Judeo nor a Christian, i see things from a different perspective. Our values come from the great sweep of classical liberalism which rose up in Europe to counter the old autocratic divine right ideology. there is nothing particulary Christian about it. in fact, for the most part, the high Christians, at least, were on the other side. i agree that "all men" probably DID mean just that to the founders, but that would be becdause their own views were, in Nietzsche's term, "timely." To properly interpret the constitution, i think we have to take a more untimely view of the language. Look at the language unfettered by notions strictly of their times. I think it is clear, for example, that most of the foiunders, if not all, would never intend anythng in the constitution to allow parading on the beach in a bikini. but i think that the language in the constitution actually supports that. but i agree with you that we probably agree about most things. My view is sytarkly philosophical, and may even be impractical. I noted your qualifier, "as much as possible." i wonder why such a qualifier should be necessary. i think the language is more than clear, which, of course, never kept anyone from misinterpreting it. "Born equal" means that and only that. it is not a call to remove all "unfairness" from life itself, as it is sometimes interpreted today, expecially by those who argue that "equal" should mean "equal in results." You've heard the arguments where financial statistics are cited and the argument is made that "equal" isn't being realized. Of course, the founders were saying that the course of one's life, that part not subject to serendipity, be formed "bnot by the color of one's skin, but by the quality of one's character." The only trap here is one that Nieytzsche mentions: "Victors know no accidents." There is a tendency for those who are successful to conclude that they have succeded by the quality of their character, and that their success is proof of same, and that if others were merely as virtuous as they were, and tried as hard, they would necessarily be as successful as they are.

Posted by: Averroes at October 27, 2005 04:26 PM (jlOCy)

11 My phrase "as much as possible" reflects the fact that the founders were willing to accept that slavery might live on for a few more generations.

Posted by: Attila Girl at October 27, 2005 05:40 PM (x3SIT)

12 Thank you for this most enjoyable conversation.

Posted by: Averroes at October 28, 2005 01:36 PM (jlOCy)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Kate Has Her Own Style

of catblogging.

It's not for the weak.

Posted by: Attila at 02:28 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 17 words, total size 1 kb.

Liberty Film Festival, 3

The second segment of the evening focused on Ron Silver's incredible Broken Promises: The United Nations at 60. (For more info on the film, check out the Citizens United site.) It was a hard movie to watch, as it tells story after story of genocides the U.N. failed to prevent (probably because it was too busy Jew-baiting).

And then the lovely Tammy Bruce spoke to us, suggesting that she felt "reforming" the U.N. might be like trying to "reform" Nazi Germany.

And, of course, when Maloney and On the Fence were there for the first segment, they didn't simply showcase excerpts from the upcoming (and hilarious) feature-length Indoctrinate U, but also presented their indictment of Canada's "single payer" health care system in Dead Meat.

Posted by: Attila at 01:07 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 132 words, total size 1 kb.

Liberty Film Festival, 2

Friday night really had three stars: Even Coyne Maloney, the genius behind Brain Terminal and On the Fence Films; David Horowitz, the force of nature who started Front Page Magazine and the Study for Popular Culture; and Horowitz's hecklers, who stormed the stage the moment he began speaking, and had to be forcibly removed from the stage—and then the room.

Where, BTW, did Jason Apuzzo learn to tackle like that? These hecklers—one man and one woman—were enormous, like two big slabs of left-wing beef. And Horowitz is a small man; I'm glad Apuzzo and a few other volunteers from the audience (law enforcement? barflies?) kept them from getting near Horowitz as they continued to shout "you have no right to speak!"

I guess they aren't too happy with Horowitz' stance on the Bill of Academic Rights. Once we all knew these left-droids were being taken care of, most of us simply started laughing at them. Maloney started changing "Na na na na, na na na na, hey hey, goodbye" as the hecklers were "escorted" (forced, kicking and screaming) out of the room.

Horowitz just smiled. Clearly, he's used to this sort of thing. I felt that the Liberty Film Festival had just been validated in a big way (remember: these super-sized kids bought tickets for the event, just to position themselves where they could charge the stage and yell out a few silly phrases).

Posted by: Attila at 12:53 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 242 words, total size 2 kb.

75kb generated in CPU 0.0315, elapsed 0.1719 seconds.
216 queries taking 0.1517 seconds, 525 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

October 25, 2005

October 24, 2005

October 23, 2005

October 22, 2005

Search Thingy

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Monthly Traffic

Content

Feeds