right here.

In a surprise development, my views on parental notification laws are in the minority within the Bear Flag League. Life does have its twists and turns, no?

Vote Tuesday, and we'll be golden. (Get it? Get it?)

Posted by: Attila at 12:46 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 65 words, total size 1 kb.

The U.N. is, um, stiff competition.

Posted by: Attila at 12:35 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 12 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Just wait until the Muslims among the French police turn on their superiors.

Posted by: Laurence Simon at November 07, 2005 08:27 AM (uBCxH)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

The Soldiers' Angels fundraising effort to provide injured men and women with laptops continues; please give generously.

[Oh, gee. I guess that was the button for the Marine team. Well, there are Army, Navy, and Air Force teams. So there you go. We'll let the free market sort it out.]

Posted by: Attila at 12:19 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 19 words, total size 1 kb.

. . . a good book on tanks? I'd prefer an overview, but a WWII focus is fine.

Actually, same question on planes. I'd like to explore what gave us air superiority in the invasion on D-Day, but context/history is important.

Thanks! (I'm sorry: tanks!)

Posted by: Attila at 12:02 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 51 words, total size 1 kb.

Oh, thank God! Another L.A. non-lefty sees the problems with parental notification. I'm not positive I agree with Cathy Siepp that all of Proposition 73's backers are operating in bad faith—but I do think the intuitive reaction parents have is "I wouldn't want my daughter to undergo an abortion without my input." And these parents really needn't worry: if your daughter has a sense that you will help her through a crisis, you're the first person she'll turn to if she makes a mistake or is the victim of abuse.

Of course, you're still likely to be concerned about the notion that "technically, she could sneak out and get an abortion." Good for you: I'm sure that is a creepy thought. But I don't think it's a realistic one.

Dysfunctional households, however, don't usually advertise their status with large lawn signs. Society has no way of knowing what goes on behind closed doors. Many people see "abuse" as only something physical, something that leaves scars behind. But there are emotionally abusive parents out there, and one thing that is likely to trigger this abusiveness is the news that their daughter is engaging in sexual activity. (Not so much sons: easy come, easy go. Play it as it lays. Damn the torpedoes; full speed ahead. What, me worry? Sons, of course, do not get pregnant.)

Cathy:

. . . An abortion is not like other medical procedures.

If a girl wants, say, a nose job, and can't get it because her parents say no, the alternative to getting the nose job is simply not getting the nose job; she remains free of a medical procedure, with its attendant risks her parents don't want her to have. And I agree that should be the parents' decision.

But if a girl wants an abortion as soon as she finds out she's pregnant, and her parents say no, or she can't work up the nerve to tell them, at least not right away, the alternative is not that she remains free of a situation requiring a medical procedure -- but that she is forced instead to endure others (staying pregnant, or having a later term abortion) that, whatever you think of embryos' rights, are certainly medically riskier to the girl, especially a young one.

Perhaps if the men and boys who get underage girls into these medical situations in the first place were legally required to notify the girls' parents before they did, Prop. 73 would make a certain amount of sense. As it stands now, however, it's just pandering to those whose real agenda is making even early term abortions more difficult, not helping parents know everything that goes on in their daughters' lives.

I'm not even convinced that Prop. 73 would cause noticably less abortions. I suspect the real effects would be more late term abortions instead of early ones, and more newborns dumped in trashcans by girls who find it hard to admit even to themselves they're pregnant, let alone their parents.

That's exactly what it will mean in the real world: more late-term abortions, more infanticide. More abuse of teenagers.

I'm sorry, but if your own child is scared of you, why should society trust you?

I, for one, do not. Sorry.

Posted by: Attila at 10:00 PM | Comments (25) | Add Comment
Post contains 548 words, total size 3 kb.

1 While their permission still will not be required, the abortionist would be required to at least notify the parent. While the very thought of abortion leaves a bad taste in my mouth it is with us, what is wrong with at least letting the parent know what you are doing to their 11-17 year old daughter? Please don't tell me that the daddy is responsible, those plots are why I don't go to the movies anymore.

Posted by: Jim at November 06, 2005 12:32 AM (Xy5M7)

2 But surely if there is a good relationship with the parents, those parents will be the girl's first stop as she figures out what she wants to do about this, and how. At the very most she might go to the clinic to get the pregnancy confirmed, and talk to them about a therapeutic abortion, but then go home and come clean with mom and dad before she schedules this procedure. My point is that if she hasn't brought them into the loop, something's seriously wrong: she is frightened about how they might react. She must fear that there will be something extreme about their feelings, and that they will therefore be unable to help her think constructively about what to do.

Posted by: Attila Girl at November 06, 2005 02:34 AM (x3SIT)

3 Sorry but does anyone remember being a teenager? Good relationship with your parents? Most teenagers are embarassed to go shopping with their parents, be seen with their parents, ... The whole point of teenagers seems to be to drive parents crazy and spend as much time and energy as possible getting "out from under" parental controls. They get better when their about 25 if I remember correctly.

Posted by: Zendo Deb at November 06, 2005 05:30 AM (S417T)

4 Hi, I just got this news. Is it true? Unlucky the lady missed. BREAKING NEWS: ATTEMPT ON CHOMSKY'S LIFE A journalist Emma Brockes working for the newspaper Guardian was arrested following her assasination attempt on well-known author and media-critic Noam Chomsky last Tuesday. The Guardian has issued a clarification that the journalist was hired with no previous criminal history and was sent on an assignment to interview Mr.Chomsky. Mr.Chomsky appeared to be shaken by the ordeal and he said that he didn't expect an interviewer to be an assassin. An unidentified source in The Guardian said that Emma Brockes has been previously associated with a right-wing BNP and has been an active member of the Israeli Likud Party. Ms.Brockes was also the guest speaker at the AIPAC convention in Los Angeles last January.

Posted by: auri at November 06, 2005 08:14 AM (05ati)

5 Perhaps that breaking news was referring to the interview she did with him? And the fact that the interview did not make him look good at all? (You might want to check the political humor sites to find the original...).

Posted by: Kathy K at November 06, 2005 11:25 AM (dSA+5)

6 P.S. Miss Attila, I agree completely with you and with Ms. Siepp. But she missed the third most likely real affect (and the connection could well be missed by everyone if it does happen) and that is an increase in suicides among teenage girs.

Posted by: Kathy K at November 06, 2005 11:40 AM (dSA+5)

7 Zendo Deb: I remember being a teenager very, very well. That's why I oppose Prop 73. I'm afraid I see no connection whatsoever between the need for independence that drives teenagers to separate from their parents at the mall and the notion that they would not go to these same parents in a crisis.

Posted by: Attila Girl at November 06, 2005 12:31 PM (x3SIT)

8 think I may be influenced by where I work... but deliberately leaving a/both parent(s) out of the information loop is to deliver a girl to the influence of the impregnator..which many times is an adult. At which point, I consider the abortion provider as an accessory after the fact to child molestation. I have a great relationship with my 4 daughters (only one still a teen)...we've talked openly about sex all their lives and I'm PRO-CHOICE. Not one of them has ever come to me PRIOR to being sexually active for condoms,et al. They felt (at the time) they were mature enough to make the decision on their own. Older, they've sheepishly admitted they realized how young and STUPID they were. Teen brains are physiologically different. Fact. It primarily affects those parts of the brain that deals with impulses and judgement. Fact. Parents have the responsibility for their children, undercutting them at every turn needs to stop.

Posted by: Darleen at November 06, 2005 05:14 PM (FgfaV)

9 LMA, I think you ar guilty of building an argument to reach a conclusion. this notin is suspect: "But surely if there is a good relationship with the parents, those parents will be the girl's first stop as she figures out what she wants to do about this, and how." I think that you are willing to take any incidence of a child's not going to her parents as evidence that it wasn't a good relationahip and was probably "abusive." The fact is that even with a good relatiohnship, a child may not want to disappoint her parents. Doing exactly the right thing as a parent is no guarantee that a child will do everything according to the script. The other analysis is also self-serving, cleverly chosen to miss the actual point. A better example, if one wants to argue intis manner, is to say that the child has syphilis. She may not want to reveal this to her parents in the best of relationships, but I'm not sure we want her getting "years of painful treatment" without parental consent. And THIS example IS one where the alternative is not to remain free of the condition. It is really a very simple question: do we want as a usual condition to allow children to make their own medical decisions without parental notification, or not. We may also ask if there is reason to make exceptions due to irresponsible parents and the like.

Posted by: Averroes at November 06, 2005 05:21 PM (jlOCy)

10 Darleen, 1) You may or may not want to answer this question, because it's a bit personal. So feel free to decline. But do you think that if one of your daughters had become pregnant, she would have failed to come to you? I do not mean, "wouldn't have wanted to." I don't mean, "wouldn't have cried before, during and after the conversation." I don't mean, "wouldn't have become defensive and started baiting you at some point in the discussion." I don't mean, "wouldn't have gotten the diagnosis confirmed at a clinic first." I mean, do you think one of them might have actually kept you out of the loop and secured an abortion without telling you? 2) If the baby's father is an adult and the girl does not want to tell her parents what happened, there is already something seriously wrong in the family structure. No girl who is well-cared for at home starts dating a 25-35-45 year-old male for no reason (unless you mean she's 17 and he's 18, which I don't think is your intent). Allowing the girl to terminate the pregnancy doesn't "deliver her to the influence of the impregnator." The parents have already done that by allowing a grown man to seduce their daughter. They have somehow emotionally abandoned her already (and, in fact, there probably isn't a father in the household to begin with, so I think I mean, "the mother.") Averroes, Yes. I think the girl should be able to get treated for syph without parental consent. Same principle.

Posted by: Attila Girl at November 06, 2005 06:03 PM (x3SIT)

11 Attila 1) Honestly, I do not know! I would have thought after years of open sexual conversation that contraceptives wouldn't have been that big a deal... but, hey, there you go. Ironically, when my oldest daughter was in high school she was VERY pro-life and we actually had some lively discussions on that one! 2) Sometimes it comes as a very big unpleasant surprise that a young minor daughter is schtuping - her teacher, her coach, the next-door-neighbor, her uncle, her dad's co-worker, some guy she meets during lunch at school that she met on the internet ... I could go on and on, I keep thinking there's nothing that won't surprise me then I get a case across my desk that has me picking my jaw off the floor. A family, or a single mom, doesn't have to be dysfunctional for a 14-17 y/o to decide she wants to be "wild" and engage in dangerous stuff. My youngest is a freshman at SFSU and what few things she has shared with me about others in her dorm, like her roomate, would curl your hair! Yes, AG, I know of some real dysfunctional families and I want options for those daughters and sons... to become emancipated, etc. But IMHO I still believe the default position of the government should be to defer to the parents first.

Posted by: Darleen at November 06, 2005 07:42 PM (FgfaV)

12 OK, LMA, I'm with you. no parental notification for anything. Same principle. One caution: you seem to continually make the argument that dysfunctional behaviour in a child is absolute evidence for a dysfuntional family. 'Taint necessarily so. I rather think that when children turn out welll, the parents get too much credit and when they turn out rotten, they get too much of the blame, muchof the time. But what i REALLY think is that these are all situations which require a focus on the exact circumstances of the child which appear, without the prejudice of some overarching theory of why the child should be that way, or what parents in general are in such cases. It requires trained professionals, one might say. [Anecdotal story, just for whatever.] When i was teaching in juvenile prisoons, i had the unhappy taks of trying to control an absolutely out of control teenage girls, who wold kill you just for fun. She had such a hold on her gang that whenever she came in, three or four of them would show up the next day. she was usually in for knife attacks, with the usual car thefts and drug busts. her record stretched back to when she was 8. Turhns out, she was one of 8 children of an intact family. the rest of the children had no problems. The oldest were in or had graduated from college. I met her parents. They seemed like wonderful parents, if only for the fact that they truly cared for her, and could not be discouraged from continuing to have hope that she could turn things around. No one had any explanation for this. To take another example, all my brothers and sisters turned out ok. Go figure.

Posted by: Averroes at November 07, 2005 12:50 AM (jlOCy)

13 Is the child being scared of the parent real, imagined or influenced. Sure some parents probabyl shouldn't be trusted, but the same holds true for those who would advise teens over abortion (not to imply that anyone at planned parenthood would ever encourage children to hide anything from their parents, or sponsor a website about it). There are plenty of people out there who would be more than willing to give kids bad advice, but for some reason as a general rule society is a better parent than the parents I just don't buy it.

Posted by: the Pirate at November 07, 2005 08:08 AM (0ZKi5)

14 Well, I don't buy it either. But I'm suspicious of parents, since a lot of troubled ones can "pass" as concerned/reasonable when they need to. The outrages that sparked this had to do with: 1) a girl confiding in her boyfriend's mother that she was pregnant, and being betrayed, and 2) a girl being sent to an abortion clinic by a school nurse in an emergency situation that should have required her mother's attention. That second situation is what we need to be legislating against: public employees have no business counseling either for or against abortion--much less facilitating one. Ordinarily, a well-raised girl is going to have other advisors such as an aunt, a clergy member, or a teacher who can help her to face up to the need to tell her parents what's going on.

Posted by: Attila Girl at November 07, 2005 11:17 AM (x3SIT)

15 Ah. Now that I can post comments, here's my response to Darleen that the system blocked last night: I actually suspect that although you and I are on either side of that line, we're each very close to it. I know that adolescents can be awful. And I know that I do tend to take the teenager's side with family/friends who are parents. This should change in about a decade and a half, no? I assure you that my niece has tried to bait me enough to fix the problem, but I'm afraid the only cure is having a teenager of my very own. Then you can fling this all right back in my face!

Posted by: Attila Girl at November 07, 2005 11:43 AM (x3SIT)

16 Won't do that, LMA, but you might consider some time in the future when your grandchild is killed by its teen-age mother without your knowledge. I assume their won't be any real reason which would justify this, although it is more than possible that the dhild may think there is. I think what we can all agree on is that life is not fair, bad things happen, and the need for a decision on abortion shold be avoided.

Posted by: Averroes at November 07, 2005 03:52 PM (jlOCy)

17 Back to the example where only one girl of a set of siblings came out "bad", starting at age 8: One simple and common reason is that there was abuse, but not from the parents. Say, for example, a stranger committed a one-time rape of the eight-year-old, who stayed silent because the perp said he'd kill her parents and brothers and sisters if she told. This is a perfectly ordinary explanation for that type of situation.

Posted by: k at November 07, 2005 08:44 PM (ywZa8)

18 Well, k, I'm not sure about "common." it is certainly a possibility. But i think it is a mistake to reason backwards on this, that if someone turns out bad, there had to be abuse. In a certain sense, something i realized as a therapist, EVERYONE'S cildhood is rotten. We were all small and powerless at one time, with our wishes met at the whim of large people who could do whatever they wanted to. I also went through the great "Satanic Ritual Abuse" scam of the eighties, when that was the explanation for everything. In this particular case, there was no evidence for any abuse. personally, i was pushing to have PET scans done, but the agency wouldn't spring for them. I think there is another danger here. I see the old days sneaking back in, when everyone thought that a pregnant teenager was, a child of evil, and her child was therefore of bad seed. (I say this as one who is old enough to have actually observed a true shotgun wedding, where the father showed up with his daughter, the preacher, and a shotgun, accused a boy, my friend's brother, of "knockin' up" his daughter, the father asked the boy if he'd been "foolin' around," the boy said yes, and the wedding commenced.) In those days, abortion wasn't really an option down on the farm. But in that small town and the surrounding farms, both the girl and her child would be shunned by most people. the boy? Not so much. I've seen "bad" or crazy girls sterilized without their consent, in the bad old days, just so they would not give birth to bad seed. What i know is that when i was 13, and when my daughter was 13, both of us had trouble making a rational decision about when to change the sheets on the bed. Trusting a child like us, (can't speak for you or your children) to make a rational decision about either an abortion or telling her parents seems counterintuitive. I sometimes think i here, in some, always sotto voce, the little voice saying that the child of such a pregnant girl is not worth having, not worth caring about. the result, I think, is the quick and ultimately lethal shunning of the unborn child.

Posted by: Averroes at November 07, 2005 10:06 PM (jlOCy)

19 Oh, k, since this is an interesting case, it may also be possible that one of her siblings abused her. But in fact, these parents were second generation Mexican Americans, and had worked their way out of a poorer neighborhood. They still had family ties to that neighborhood. the girl in question was "jumped" into a gang in that neighborhood at age 8. this was not uncommon, although when i started working with kids in Juvie, my middle class bias could not comprehend this. (One kid explained his joining a gang at 8 quite simply: I wanted to be able to go to a movie, and they wouldn't let me pass unless i joined the gang.) when i knew this girl, in her teenage years, she was the gang leader. She was very charismatic, one of those cases that breaks your heart becasue you could see that if she just rechanneled her life, she could be successful without breaking the law. She was also a bit of a pioneer. In this area, girl gangs were just establishing themselves independently from boy gangs. She was the one who broke her gang's dependence on the local boy gang. As a generalization, gang kids often replace the lack of a faimly with the gang. but in the case of many Mexican American kids that i worked with, they did have strong families. They seemed to see their neighborhood, which often contained many cousins and grandparents, as an extension of the family, and the gang was an organization to protect it in ways the cops couldn't. The gang became not a replacement for the family, but an extension. in fact, manyof these gangs went back for 3 and 4 generations.

Posted by: Averroes at November 07, 2005 10:20 PM (jlOCy)

20 I'm not really able to make the leap to this "bad seed" concept. I've made my feelings here many times: I advocate providing support for girls and young women so they can continue their educations, have their babies, and have them placed in loving adoptive homes--and continue to hear (if they want) periodic updates, and/or have visits every now and again. I'm pro-adoption, not pro-abortion. But there are crazy parents out there whose craziness is not apparent to the outside world--only the family.

Posted by: Attila Girl at November 07, 2005 10:55 PM (x3SIT)

21 A little late to the party, but here goes: Some of this, appears, to depend on whether you view the ability to make medical decision for your children as a right or a previlege. A privelege is easily revoked and must be earned to start with (such as driving). As such a 13 year old's misgivings may be sufficient to revoke the privelege. Me? I view it as a parental right. I would no more take that right away from a parent on the word of their 13 year old than I would take away the right to own firearms on the word of their 13 year old. I simple do not believe that a 13 year old has the capacity to objectively and honestly evaluate the situation given the obvious conflict of interest. A child might hide such a situation from their parents not only out of fear, but out of anger because the parents restrict phone usage and clothing choices, impose curviews etc. Those things are all perfectly reasonable to adults, but can be seen as "My parents hate me." by a 13 year old. It could also be out of personal shame. A failure to live up to expectations. Even many adults try to hide their mistakes, hoping that no one would ever find out. Why would a teenager be any different? Are there parents who shouldn't be making those decisions? Of course. There are also people who shouldn't own guns, shouldn't speak their political views, or even be around walking the streets, but I wouldn't deem a 13 year old qualified to be the final arbitor of taking away any of those rights. None of this is to say that you can never take that right away. We (as a society) take away rights all the time. I just think there should be more to the "due process" than the unsubstantiated word of a minor.

Posted by: Masked Menace© at November 08, 2005 04:16 PM (V0Xwj)

22 Averroes, that case really is interesting. The PET scan idea is intriguing and I'm sorry it wasn't performed. I hope the "common" situation of abuse by a non-family member isn't common in the general population, even if it is among these very troubled people you're talking about. Joining a gang at age 8 is telling, too. Aren't these more cases of nature vs. nurture, and don't nature and nurture have different avenues of contributing? DNA and nutrition during gestation are both "nature", while the family and the school are both "nurture" influences. And those gangs? To me they sound like local ad hoc government, more than extended family. I think nature/nurture always influence one's personality and actions as an adult, but the balance is a bit different for everyone. So it's not reasonable to expect that the family is always the sole contributor to dysfunction in the family's children. And LMA is a reasonable person. However, I do think the nuclear family is at least among the top reasons. Whether primary or far less, whether positive or negative, that nuclear family really matters. If the girl were confident enough in her relationship with her parents it's a non-issue. So we're already only talking about those girls who, for whatever reason, don't want their parents to know. As galling as it may sound, I firmly believe we must respect that girl's right to make that notification decision. It's HER BODY. Women still die in childbirth, which is why we're talking about a choice that can truly be life or death for the mother. Having parental notification of that choice done by force of authority, against that girl's wishes, is not going to help her stay as calm and rational as possible at such an awful crossroad in her life. Remember that her pregnancy tells us this: She's already either made a decision to have sex - an adult-level decision there, whatever we think of the outcome - or, she's had sex forced upon her by violence or coercion. If she truly agreed to sex, notification against her wishes won't teach her about decision making or responsibility. If she did not agree, she's had the control of her body stolen from her already. To force her into parental notification will further prove to her that jurisdiction over her body isn't really hers after all. But this time, it won't be a rapist proving that to her. Instead, it's the authorities - the "good guys" who were supposed to keep her safe from harm. They didn't. Now they'll steal her privacy and harm her some more.

Posted by: k at November 08, 2005 09:29 PM (6krEN)

23 Menace, your thoughts are very compelling. But how does it change the equation if the girl is 17 years old? Does it?

Posted by: Attila Girl at November 08, 2005 11:16 PM (x3SIT)

24 To me, it's a question of line drawing. If an 18 year old, why not a 17 year and 364 day old. If a 17 year and 634 day old, why not a 17 year and 393 day old. We can back this all the way down to birth. Doing this is one of the formal logical fallacies. The lack of a natural place to say "Here, but no further" doesn't mean that there is no distinction between the two groups. Certainly there will be people on both sides of the divide that don't belong. I know some 16 year olds who are more mature intellectually, emotionally, and spiritually than some 46 year olds. To me, it seems your question is more appropriately about the age of majority. Is it too high? Should it be lowered? Maybe, maybe not. I could make arguements for both sides. The age of majority is not a natural line, but a statutory one. As such, if we as a society want to lower (or raise) it we absolutely can. If you think the line should be 17 and can convince enough people to agree, I am perfectly willing to accept the results. I certainly don't have any special insight that makes my opinion on the matter the one that should be enforced.

Posted by: Masked Menace© at November 09, 2005 07:25 AM (V0Xwj)

25 Jeez, I'm rather dislexic these days. And I even work with numbers, how scary is that?

Posted by: Masked Menace© at November 09, 2005 10:13 AM (V0Xwj)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I'm officially offended! Left out! By my own blog-nephew!

The horror!

(In actuality, it's a nice little roundup of Libertarian/Right Blogs That Are Way Better Known Than Mine. Go look, and see if you agree with Jon's assessments.)

UPDATE: Corrected to say what I really meant. I suspect this will happen more and more as I get older. My absent-mindedness is not lessening in middlle-age.

Posted by: Attila at 07:23 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 71 words, total size 1 kb.

Apparently, Jarhead is nearly as bad as a lot of us feared it would be. Very little verissimilitude for anyone who's ever served in the armed forces—much less a veteran of the first Gulf War such as Joyner. In the comments section, James is challenged to come up with military movies that are true to real-life experience in uniform. Naturally, Band of Brothers gets raves—but of course one of the reasons it's so successful is that it takes eight hours (or was it ten?) to tell its story. There's a lot of time to capture some of the varied experiences of the men in the 101st Airborne.

We need more people who have actually served writing stories about the military; as it is, what we're given is too far off the mark.

Posted by: Attila at 09:31 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 144 words, total size 1 kb.

From an interview with Hugh Hewitt that actually focuses on the riots around Paris:

This guy, David Blunkett, he's the home secretary, which is like the interior minister, and I mainly know him, because he had a very celebrated affair with my publisher at the British Spectator. There were in one of these things, what they call a love child in the British tabloid press, and DNA testing, and all the rest of it. And I'm probably speaking out of turn here, but I mean the sex life...I hasten to add I'm not getting any action at the Spectator. But everyone else at that magazine seems to be. And I think this is just one of those curious scandals that won't impact on Tony Blair. I think the Bush thing is slightly different. That's a much more explicitly effort to in effect, criminalize American foreign policy, which I think it disgusting, but also rather absurd.

[h/t: Insty.]

X-posted at Dean's World

Posted by: Attila at 12:09 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 169 words, total size 1 kb.

It was weaving a web on my balcony, and I could see it from inside and across the room: a reddish-brown, perhaps 2 1/2 inches across (including legs). What a beautiful creature.

My brother had a pet tarantula when he was in college. But don't tarantulas move less gracefully than little spiders? And somehow the little ones look sleeker. And I love their webs.

Perhaps I should have a boy after all, and we can play with trains together. And trucks. And spiders. And sidearms.

Though buying clothes might be more fun with a little girl.

With my luck, though, my child—boy or girl—will like lizards. I'm afraid of lizards.

Is he a cutie, or what? Bachelor #1 here is a native of Mexico. I'll see if I can get a digital pic of one of my arachnid roommates (our brownish outdoor spider, or our blackish indoor spider, who tried to help me read last night).

Posted by: Attila at 03:26 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 172 words, total size 1 kb.

1 A fellow spider-lover?! I never wulda thunk it!! Tarantulas can be very graceful, I think, especially when they're doing that slow-dance thing. But they really do move very differently from regular spiders. We have the most fabulous spiders down here. Just exquisite.

Posted by: k at November 05, 2005 03:25 PM (ywZa8)

2 When I get more than one per room I start escorting them outside. And, of course, I periodically clear out the old cobwebs from the corners, to cut down on that "Addams Family" look. But how could one not want a few spiders around? They eat the kinds of insects that carry human disease. How could that possibly be bad? And there's nothing nicer than an ambitious and well-executed web.

Posted by: Attila Girl at November 05, 2005 05:54 PM (x3SIT)

3 You and I are opposites - I love lizards but am much less than fond of spiders.

Posted by: Kathy K at November 06, 2005 11:42 AM (dSA+5)

4 And K., as I recall, likes both

Posted by: Attila Girl at November 06, 2005 12:33 PM (x3SIT)

5 Don't worry, little Spider; I am indifferent With my housekeeping. >>>Zen Master Kobayashi Issa (Better, but sacrificing the exact form for the English) Don't worry, little Spider; I'm an indifferent Housekeeper.

Posted by: Averroes at November 06, 2005 02:45 PM (jlOCy)

6 Oh, I do! Actually there aren't too many critters I DON'T love. I have a lizard pin, gold with emerald eyes, that I wear almost always. It's my Lucky Lizard, and it's one-of-a-kind. I only take it off for stuff like landscaping. While I work, I sit in my yard and talk to the lizards. Feed them bugs, too. I met my neighbor Peter when he first moved in because I heard him in his own back yard - talking to his lizards. There is one kind of spider I've been killing. I forget the name, but it has a very odd mannerism where it kind of hangs and bounces up and down? When they bite, the venom makes a weird bruise, very irregular, that suddenly completely disappears a couple days after the bite. It can really hurt, too, and the darn things have been crawling all over everyone's house the last few years. I just took pix of a very beautiful huge garden spider the other day, out on plant rescues in a woodsy area. There was one spider on one side of a tree trunk, and a twin, two trees down. They make a huge perfect web across trails, so people frequently make their acquaintance by suddenly running into a huge spider sitting in the middle of its web, in the middle of the air it seems. Right around nose level as you walk down that trail. Housekeeping? Funny thing is, most spiders themselves are really great housekeepers. You know who else is? LMA!

Posted by: k at November 06, 2005 07:26 PM (M7kiy)

7 Ha! I talk a good game, but I'm afraid lately I do a lot of the wrong kind of nesting. There's messy nesting, and neat nesting. After trying for the latter for years, I've sort of settled into the former . . .

Posted by: Attila Girl at November 07, 2005 11:53 AM (x3SIT)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

When I woke up today I looked in the mirror and was delighted: my hair was so thoroughly mussed it was standing up in places. My lips were slightly chapped, and stained with blood around the edges. My teeth were covered with dried blood.

I looked far, far more like a vampire than I usually do—even when sleep deprivation aggravates the natural dark circles under my eyes.

I got up, preparing to creep up behind my husband and surprise him. But, tragically, he was out to breakfast with a mutual friend.

I should have trotted down to the local coffee shop where I assumed they were meeting, still in my robe, and loomed suddenly over their booth. But fear of arrest held me back.

I'll probably always regret this decision.

UPDATE: Attila the Hub thinks I was on the right track, but suggests it would have been better to run into the restaurant shrieking vs. trying the stealth route. He assures me that he and our friend Jack would have offered me a cup of coffee and a place at the table.

That's my honey.

Posted by: Attila at 11:52 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 187 words, total size 1 kb.

The site's editors are getting a lot of mail about last Tuesday's egregious episode, which skipped over all the successes in Iraq to editorialize that our action there is a "disaster."

They link my cry for help, and report that the mail on "Witches of Mass Destruction" is running 50-50 pro/con. Apparently, however, a lot of the pro-war correspondents are being rude in their letters. I would like to remind war supporters that the stereotype of Republicans, conservative Democrats, and Libertarians is that we're less educated and thoughtful than the "intellectuals" who oppose us on this issue. Passion is fine, but if we want to persuade anyone we don't want to play into their preconceptions.

My recommendation for hawkish Boston Legal fans: When communicating with ABC or with those who run the fan site, concentrate on the fact that this show ignored our stunning successes in Iraq, and that any objective measurements demonstrate this success (the low civilian casualty rate, the fact of two elections with amazing turnout despite the citizenry taking great physical risk to vote, low Coalition casulties [particularly compared with Vietnam], the ratifying of the country's constitution, the diminishing insurgency, the progress in repairing Iraqi infrastructure, the accelerating rate of Sunni participation in the country's politics).

Alternatively, point out that we get saturation news coverage of all the so-called "setbacks" in the war, but virtual Heritage Media blackout on its stunning progress. The writers of Boston Legal assert that we're getting little or no news from Iraq, and that the war is garnering less attention than Vietnam did. That notion is simply laughable: what is meant is that those who penned Alan Shore's closing argument presume the American populace is ill-informed. Otherwise, more people would share their "enlightened" opinions.

This reflects the fact that the media and entertainment elites in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Boston and all universities simply do not come into contact with smart people who don't see eye-to-eye with them. And when they do, these people—like me, and sometimes my husband—stay mute on the subject of politics. Because we're tired of losing jobs over it.

Memo to ABC: Hire some bright people who disagree with you. Or encourage those who are in the closet about their beliefs to come out. (Hint: they don't necessarily look like the ultra-vanilla Brad Chase, or the flamboyantly Old School Denny Crane.)

And you will stop losing viewers. Guaranteed. If you're at a loss, for crying out loud, e-mail me: I know the two funniest television writers out there— both them, of course, discreet about their GOP leanings.

Just because you jumped the shark doesn't mean you can't jump back. It can be done.

Posted by: Attila at 11:29 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 461 words, total size 3 kb.

1 three.... ahem

Posted by: MacStansbury at November 05, 2005 07:04 PM (FmdLR)

2 I stand corrected!

Posted by: Attila Girl at November 05, 2005 07:49 PM (x3SIT)

3 "doesn't mean you can't jump back" I hope you are correct. I love the show when it avoids trying to address pop culture politics. ABC's ability to do so remains to be seen, however.

Posted by: MrSpkr at November 05, 2005 09:47 PM (28QFs)

4 Hire some bright people who disagree with you. Excellent advice for anyone. Especially, say, a Presidental administration. (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

Posted by: Christophe at November 07, 2005 03:44 PM (2rBIo)

5 Well, I'm wounded, but I'll likely heal.

Posted by: Attila Girl at November 07, 2005 06:28 PM (x3SIT)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I took the gauze out of my mouth long enough to read a few pages aloud at Writer's Group tonight. This was one of my "shocker" chapters, and people were . . . well, shocked. That might be good, but if I choose to keep that scene I have to throw in some hints that it might be coming, and consider carefully whether people will be as interested in the character if I continue along this path.

I'd like to keep it, though it definitely gives the tale an even darker turn. But I should consider nuking it. If I do that, I have to figure out how to find a substitute for the final reveal at the end, or whether that's even necessary. If I do my job right, the main plot twist might be enough.

It's been a year and a half, and none of these people has yet articulated what I long to hear: "there, there. That really sucks. You can't write. Why don't you burn this sorry excuse for a manuscript, go home, and take a hot bath? By the way—this isn't your fault. Most likely it's your mother's. Or your husband's. Or perhaps an ex-boyfriend's. Don't worry about it."

Posted by: Attila at 11:12 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 212 words, total size 1 kb.

See the Truth Laid Bear topic page on SCOTUS Sam.

(Also, link my Alito posts; I'm only #186 on the list of bloggers covering this topic, and I deserve to be higher on the list because . . . because the novacaine is wearing off . . . or because I'm cute . . . or because I'm so freaking smart . . . or BECAUSE OF THE GOLDSTEINIAN HYPOCRISY/PATRIARCHY . . . or, something).

[h/t: Insty.]

Actually if you want to read the definitive analyses of Alito's positions, you need to go to Patterico's place every day, and keep scrolling. (Here: this gateway post will probably take you there faster.)

Posted by: Attila at 03:17 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 117 words, total size 1 kb.

Don't worry about facts: lock and load!

Posted by: Attila at 01:50 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 19 words, total size 1 kb.

I've decided to take a walk on the wild side by going gauzeless for 30-60 minutes.

You know, when I was young I feared there would be fewer thrills available to me in middle age. But no!—setting the gauze aside for a short time after oral surgery. Does it get any better than that?

Posted by: Attila at 01:06 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 62 words, total size 1 kb.

I had my fourth/final wisdom tooth out this morning. I was too cheap to spring for general anesthesia (besides which, I thought I should remain awake to handle the challenging task of breathing through my nose).

Consequently, I'm just sitting here bored and hungry. Some questions come to mind:

1) Do they make "junior size" gauze squares that are less likely to constantly trigger my gag reflex?

2) How much blood can a person swallow before he/she gets nauseous?

3) How, exactly, am I supposed to eat with a big hole in my mouth? I mean, I get it that I'm supposed to go for stuff like yogurt and oatmeal, but how do I avoid getting food particles into that little canyon in the back of my mouth?

4) When they say, "use the Vicodin if the pain gets too strong," don't they really mean, "take a whole bunch of pills at once if you're so bored you can't stand it"? It kind of sounded like that to me.

I'll see if Ike can entertain me; it's going to be a long day.

Posted by: Attila at 12:59 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 191 words, total size 1 kb.

1 1-3 I can't help you with. But 4 sounds good.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at November 03, 2005 01:46 PM (QriEg)

2 Water Pic! That's what they used to tell me when I had mine out. Eat soup! But stuff still gets in The Big Canyon! Squirt it out with a Water Pic! It worked good. OTOH, I had 'em out when I was 10 and 11, 2 at a time. And that was quite some time back. So it may not be the Current Thinking.

Posted by: k at November 03, 2005 05:45 PM (M7kiy)

3 Oh! Forgot some. #1 - Take the given gauze pad and cut it down to size. If you're worried it's not sterile any more, dunk it in alcohol and let it dry out. Or, nuke it. Microwaves are totally underrated as quickie sterilizers. #2 - Depends on the person. It is, however, perfectly ordinary animal protein. #4 - Since my own health problems bore me to death, I can really relate to this one. Unfortunately, sometimes all you can do is sit it out. TV, reading, whatever, but your ability to absorb and use that stuff is limited because you're Not Well. Whereupon, making time pass by sleeping through it is good, too. As long as you don't have sleep disorders holding you back. Sheesh! Gets complicated, don't it though?

Posted by: k at November 03, 2005 05:53 PM (M7kiy)

4 Actually, it's coming along fine. Though I do imagine if I'd had a general I could have had a nice nap this afternoon. I've started cutting the gauze squares in half, which seems to work perfectly. I don't have a water pik, but I seem to remember when I had some weird complication after oral surgery in my 20s that there was a little cheapie device they gave me for irrigating the hold. Maybe I'll ask when I go to the drugstore tomorrow. It might be my imagination, but I think some of the little Split Pea Pea Coats are floating around back there. (Unless it's that weird little flap of skin.) I'm actually feeling good enough to go to writer's group tonight. Not that I want to; I'd rather stay home and feel sorry for myself. Oh, well

Posted by: Attila Girl at November 03, 2005 06:25 PM (x3SIT)

5 No water pick!!! Dry socket, remember? Gentle rinsing with salt water. Just let the water sit there and roll over the socket. I apologize for obsessing about your hole! Really!

Posted by: Darrell at November 03, 2005 10:18 PM (EihMh)

6 Darrell, you'll need to watch that--you're getting close to a line, there, and if you fall off the edge of the earth there will be monsters waiting for you. Like my husband. I'm permitted to rinse my mouth as of 10:30 a.m. tomorrow morning--no brushing or rinsing for the first 24 hours, although they didn't say I couldn't drink water, and I do admit to letting it swish over Attila Canyon, due to my pathological fear of food particles lurking there. It sounds like the dry socket problem could be related to overuse of the gauze--especially since I tend to chomp down on the dressing when it's there. Fortunately, the bleeding has subsided enough that I probably won't need any more gauze after tonight. So with a little luck there won't be dry socket this time around.

Posted by: Attila Girl at November 03, 2005 10:45 PM (x3SIT)

7 I am told... It really was a genuine attempt to get your mind off your surgery. Unfortunatey, eight-grade humor is all I have in my arsenal. It's amazing how little a person can learn in the 37 years since. Just try not to disturb what forms in that socket for a couple of weeks and you will do fine.

Posted by: Darrell at November 04, 2005 09:15 AM (Q2qAx)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

My heart just aches. I can't even be snarky. Not yet.

Shades of L.A. in 1992. Though our riots only lasted for three days, and these have gone on for eight.

Ironically, in L.A. it underscored the line between the decent and the indecent: despite the racial overtones to the rioting, when I waited in line at the supermarket alongside black people we still shared a camaraderie: we were part of the decent people who wanted to hunker down with our loved ones until the craziness stopped.

Posted by: Attila at 08:36 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 95 words, total size 1 kb.

Malkin shows the New York Times "dowdifying" a letter from a dead Marine in order to make him sound grimly resigned to his death, rather than willing to give his life to combat terrorism.

When the reporter was called on it by a reader, he resorted to the "chickenhawk" meme, asking the reader if he'd ever been to Iraq! Amazing.

Via Dean's World.

Posted by: Attila at 04:18 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 69 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Companies that take this kind of tone with their customers (and subscribers and other readers are indeed customers, even if the majority of revenue comes indirectly via advertisers) don't tend to have terribly bright financial futures.

Posted by: David Foster at November 03, 2005 07:07 AM (7TmYw)

2 Yes. Did I mention that this is the New York Times?

Posted by: Attila Girl at November 03, 2005 07:54 AM (x3SIT)

3 http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=NYT&t=5y

Posted by: David Foster at November 03, 2005 08:06 AM (7TmYw)

4 Exactly. Unfortunately, the lefty media types of my acquaintance simply chalk this general trend up to the fact that people are getting a lot more news over the internet these days. We are. But why, specifically, are people shying away from most heritage media news sources, rather than switching and reading them online? They have not addressed the issue of mistrust, because to do so would require that they cop to the general leftist bias. And of course, in these people's minds the only bias is one AGAINST their views, due to the effect of the Rovian mind rays that keep us all from being OUTRAGED that there's a WAR going on.

Posted by: Attila Girl at November 03, 2005 08:20 AM (x3SIT)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

regarding whether make-up enhances or mutes female beauty. I'm not so sure about the methodology of the first part of the study.

Makeup in my own case doesn't seem to have much effect on whether men find me attractive. I wear it because I don't like seeing my face in the mirror of the Nordstrom ladies' room unless I've done something about those ever-present circles under my eyes. And once I've gone that far, I usually throw some lipstick on; it's a privilege of middle age.

Makeup, like decent clothing, is for us alone. Jane Austen got the principle right.

Posted by: Attila at 10:25 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 108 words, total size 1 kb.

Right now: Ambrose's condensed biography of Eisenhower (that is, the single volume subtitled "Soldier and President").

I'm fairly intrigued by the parallels between the good General and Dr. Rice. Speaking of which, the Americans for Rice website is once again being updated, and getting very serious about beefing up its Iowa activist groups—not to mention running more advertising in that state on the regrettable Commander in Chief television show. (I swear I tried to watch it, but after three episodes or so even the deliciously evil Donald Sutherland couldn't keep me coming back: the writing is just too lame.)

Posted by: Attila at 01:13 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 105 words, total size 1 kb.