. . . no matter how strictly I stay on my diet.

My diet: 45% peanut butter and jelly sandwiches; 45% breakfast cereal. And 10% pepperoncini.

My husband asks me whether I'm getting any cardiovascular {mumble mumble; I stopped listening}. What a soulless way to look at things.

Posted by: Attila at 03:10 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 58 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Well, I used to know a woman who most famous & successful crash diet, one she returned to over & over, was spirulina & Tab.

Posted by: jeff at April 15, 2005 08:59 PM (781hc)

2 Alternatively, one can simply rotate naked in front of a mirror, reminding oneself over and over that there are a few angles from which a waistline is still visible.

Posted by: Attila Girl at April 15, 2005 09:49 PM (mwhMN)

3 Testimonial time: Pilates gave me a waistline like I haven't had since before the kids were born. And your soulless husband is right about the cardiovascular: It's not just the calories it burns, but it changes your metabolism. I lost 40 pounds just by walking.

Posted by: gail at April 17, 2005 06:34 PM (47cun)

4 Um. PBJ's. Crockpot and/or pressure cooker? I approve of PBJ's myself. Breakfast cereal too. Oh! Are the appliances for the pepperoncini? k

Posted by: k at April 17, 2005 08:42 PM (ywZa8)

5 Oddly enough, I did see a recipe for beef in the Crock-Pot that called for salad peppers. Nope; the small appliances are for weekends, when I actually cook. It's chaos during the week.

Posted by: Attila Girl at April 17, 2005 10:24 PM (mwhMN)

6 Might I recommend the book "French Women Don't Get Fat"? Forgot the author, but she gives practical, timeless advice on how to lose weight (eat less, walk more), but she does it in a way that leaves you guilt-free. Fact: only 30% of French women are overweight, as opposed to 60% American women.

Posted by: Plaid Pajamas at April 21, 2005 05:18 PM (uabyl)

7 That's either because they don't have Wheaties there, or because French women drink wine as if it were water.

Posted by: Attila Girl at April 21, 2005 09:53 PM (mwhMN)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I'm at my writer's group, feeling rather shamefaced because I didn't write anything on either the Icky Yucko Autobiographical Series or the murder mystery. I instead started a short story about a relationship.

"Well," my writing teacher, Bea, remarks, "the dialogue was really good, as usual."

"Yes," chimes in the art-school grad. "You're so good at that."

"But you need to balance it with description," continues Bea. "Right now it's a little unbalanced."

"Maybe it's because you're so good with dialogue," chimes in the education professional. "You could be staying in your comfort zone."

"I'm not so sure," I reply. "I'm not so confident about my dialogue: I suspect everyone sounds like me."

"Oh, no."

So I got that going for me.

* * *

"But what is the relationship with Annie?" our teacher continues.

"She's the sister," reply, sipping on a sparkling lemonade. "Isn't that kind of obvious?"

"I'm not sure how we're supposed to know that, really." Bea is looking at me quizzically, and the room is getting smaller as all eyes turn to me.

"Um. He calls her 'Kiddo.' That's, you know. That's what my brother calls me."

"Well, none of my brothers have ever called me 'Kiddo.'"

"I guess I could, you know. I could clarify that a little bit."

* * *

I'm at home, relatiing my evening to my husband: the agony of being an unbalanced writer of fiction. The ecstasy of being told I write great dialogue. The feedback from the group, who just did not get that the main characters were male lovers, until one of them called the other "Honey." The oddity that one woman actually insisted, even after the word "Honey," that she still thought the guys were straight. After all, she argues, a guy might say that to another guy in an ironic way.

"Well, Forrest wasn't there tonight; he's on vacation." I twist the top off my bottled water and take a swig. "And I think I could have used his help; they wanted me to make the main relationship more obvious."

"In that piece I printed out for you earlier?" Attila the Hub puts a placemark in the book he was trying to read until I came in and strong-armed him into talking about my day.

"Yup. That's the one."

"You know, I saw a little of that story," he remarks.

"You read it?" I don't feel betrayed. On the contrary, I'm delighted.

"The first half or so, as it was coming out of the printer."

"And?" I'm leaning forward, waiting for the verdict.

"I could tell it was a gay relationship on the first page. I mean, what straight guys talk like that about having a good time?"

"Exactly! You're right. None. Um, except my father, of course. He talks like that. But, you know: no other straight guy does."

Posted by: Attila at 03:03 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 496 words, total size 3 kb.

Reynolds has a great roundup of quotes from speeches in the pre-invasion period that show promoting democracy in the Middle East was part of our announced intentions from the very start, long before we invaded Iraq. (And, yes: the quotes go back to the Clinton years, though most are from G.W. Bush.)

The next time someone tells you "it was all about the WMDs," you know where to send them.

Posted by: Attila at 12:23 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 76 words, total size 1 kb.

. . . is soliciting stories from members of the military.

A lot of people are responding, essentially, "you first."

As in, "sign that form 180, Bucko."

Some of 'em, however, are getting downright tart about it.

Posted by: Attila at 11:23 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 43 words, total size 1 kb.

. . . I hope they out-and-out snubbed Carter in putting together the delegation for the Pope's funeral.

I don't mind so much Carter's criticisms of Bush over Iraq: it's a little unorthodox, but let's say he's a passionate guy and couldn't keep his mouth shut.

But sitting next to Michael Moore at the Democratic Convention was simply too much: he granted Moore legitimacy. And, unlike the case with Oliver Stone, a lot of people believe Moore's bullshit. Carter should have done whatever it took to keep Moore out of that box, or he should have left: it's not as if a former President doesn't have the clout to change seats at the last minute.

And if I had to call it, I'd say that the guy who put pressure on Andrew Card to discourage Carter from attending was George H.W. Bush, who also found that stunt outrageous, and didn't enjoy seeing the whole family maligned by the likes of Moore.

Via Megan McArdle.

Posted by: Attila at 09:56 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 166 words, total size 1 kb.

Hungarian descendants of Attila the Hun are filing for recognition as an "ethnic minority."

Now that shows gumption.

Speaking of which, I'm working on a reproduction of this for home use; it's the throne of Attila the Hun, captured by Prof. Purkinje, who has taken a vacation from rat dissection in order to hang out in Europe for a year with his family:

Via Outside the Beltway.

Posted by: Attila at 02:11 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 71 words, total size 1 kb.

I'm a little late on this, but for those of you who didn't hear at the time, the "Gay Patriot" was outed to his employer by leftist scum, and has shut his blog down.

This is so messed up.

UPDATE: Apparently, the blog itself is continuing, held aloft by Gay Patriot West (a fellow Angeleno).

Via Iowahawk.

Posted by: Attila at 10:36 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 67 words, total size 1 kb.

. . . over here.

Posted by: Attila at 09:38 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 13 words, total size 1 kb.

I feel a whole bunch of domestic posts coming on.

Bear in mind that I'm a schoolteacher's daughter, and on some sort of cellular level having more light means that it's time to clean/straighten the house: My mom used to pack a year's worth of housework into 2 1/2 months. I do the same, without a sliver of excuse for it.

So, today's question is, if I determine that I can afford to invest in a small appliance, should it be a Crock-Pot or a pressure cooker?

If I get a Crock-Pot, I can start dinner early in the day, and it'll be done in the evening. If I get a pressure cooker, I can compress a lot of cooking into a small amount of time. Given my propensity for procrastination, the pressure cooker is the more obvious choice.

But either one should be cheapest this time of year, and given that it's still chilly at night, there's at least another month (and probably two) of cold-weather meals we can have. Matter of fact, I can probably start using my grill before I give up on making beef stew.

At this particular moment, the world is my culinary oyster. Or it would be, if I were into shellfish.

UPDATE: The slow cooker is winning out, especially on the basis of price. If I were willing to use a pressure cooker on my little 60s-era electric stove, the cost difference could be narrowed down a bit. But I'm really not, which means that I'd be paying over $100 for an electric pressure cooker. That's a rather expensive upgrade at the moment. I can get a slow cooker for $40-$55, and I suspect that's the way I'll be going.

Posted by: Attila at 06:36 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 291 words, total size 2 kb.

In Montrose there is a little street with a bunch of small businesses on it. There's a vaguely old-fashioned feel to the street, as if a few of the stores have been there since the fifties or sixties or seventies. Toward the end of the street there's a block with a tailor, an antique dealer, a beauty salon and a beauty supply store.

Back when we had money I used to get my nails done on that block (the manicure shop has since moved), and I got to know the proprietor of the beauty supply store. So I've been going back there for all the things that we get the "brand names" of (hairspray, for example: that's one thing I don't like to get at Rite-Aid).

The woman who runs the shop is a Christian from Iraq. A few weeks before we invaded her country I went in to ask if she had family in Baghdad.

"My uncle," she told me. I expressed concern, and told her I'd pray for him.

"What can we do?" she responded. "This has to happen. They must get rid of Saddam." She told me stories of being taken down to the street as a child to watch mandatory viewings of bodies: people Saddam's henchmen had killed. "It's awful," she told me. "Horrible."

Two doors down is my tailor. She's from Lebanon, and was there a few months ago, visiting her sister. She told me stories about relatives of hers who left for work and never came back—victims of the random violence of Islamists. She was less angry about the Syrian occupation than I expected, but outraged that every time a bomb went off her relatives had to call everyone, counting their children and hoping that no one had been killed or maimed.

"I'm optimistic about the future," I told her. "I'm an American." And I know it's stupid: the departure of the Syrians doesn't stop the bombing. Not yet, anyway.

Whenever I go to get hairspray, or have my pants hemmed down to dwarf size, I see the Iraqi woman in the doorway of the Lebanese seamstress's shop. She always goes to her own shop when she sees me park my beat-up old Saturn, and I usually go there first.

I pray that one day neither of these ladies will have to live in fear of what Islamists might do to their loved ones. In the meantime, I ask God to look out for their families.

And up on Foothill Blvd. there's a new beauty supply that's closer to my house. And a dry cleaner that advertises $7 to hem pants (vs. $10 in Montrose). I can't go either of these places, of course. Just can't.

Posted by: Attila at 03:49 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 462 words, total size 2 kb.

I'm sort of on the run, due to the fact that I joined a cult yesterday. (It's a housework-doing cult, which is probably better than the kind that asks you to strap on explosives and blow yourself up with the promise of copius—but lousy—sex in the afterlife. Probably.)

The church elders insist upon a shiny kitchen sink. I can do that. They also recommend that one get dressed in the morning, even when there are no appointments therein, and wear shoes around the house.

Stay tuned; I may want to be kidnapped and de-programmed.

Posted by: Attila at 02:30 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 102 words, total size 1 kb.

Quoth he:

Dear Joy,

Today I stood in front of the Supreme Court and collected more than 1 million petitions from people all across America. Standing there, I heard your voices urging the Senate to reject any attempt to do away with the system of checks and balances our founding fathers created to protect the rights and voices of all Americans.

I want to say thank you for standing up and lending your voice to this debate.

Republicans want to go "nuclear" and turn the Senate into a rubber stamp for President Bush. They want to silence Senate Democrats -- the one remaining check on President Bush's power. If they can do away with debate in the Senate, they can get whatever they want -- right-wing Supreme Court Justices, Social Security privatization, and tax breaks for the wealthy that will plunge us deeper in debt.

But Senate Democrats are going to fight them every step of the way. And this fight will be different than any other fight in the history of the Senate -- because it will include you.

The Republicans are arrogant with power. If they don't like the rules, they break them. If they don't like someone standing in their way, they attack them. We have some Republicans in the Senate that are considering throwing out 200 years of Senate history in order to pack the courts with right wing judges. And we have a Republican Leader in the House of Representatives who attacks judges who don't agree with him and corrupts our government by running roughshod over the ethics committee.

It's a complete abuse of power by the Republicans and if they can get away with this on judges, they will get away with this on legislation like Social Security too. There is no distinction.

This is about more than a few unqualified judges, this is about protecting the rights of disabled Americans to work, the rights of minorities to vote, the rights of every American to have clean air, safe drinking water and be heard in Washington.

Thank you,

Harry Reid

Is that the cutest thing you've ever read, or what?

Posted by: Attila at 11:49 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 366 words, total size 2 kb.

1 My favorite is: "The Republicans are arrogant with power."

Posted by: Christiana Ellis at April 07, 2005 12:49 PM (sL2Kb)

2 He's right. It's a shame. First the Democrats threw out 200 years of approving judges, and that was bad enough. But this? Just too much.

Posted by: Michael at April 07, 2005 12:56 PM (ExF20)

3 "Advise and consent" became "obstruct and dissent" once the Democrats lost power, Hairy Reed-speak aside. Court nominees are not supposed to take a supermajority to confirm. And "fillibuster" is supposed to mean "fillibuster". Make the damn windbags actually pontificate for hours on end, not just threaten to. Speaking of being "arrogant with power", perhaps the Republicans could increase the size of the SC like FDR did, so they can "pack the court with right wing judges". Yeah! There's "arrogant with power" for ya.

Posted by: Desert Cat at April 07, 2005 05:42 PM (n/TmV)

4 "Unqualified judges" = justices who won't rubber-stamp liberal social engineering. Eg, Janice Rogers Brown, blackballed because on the Cal Supreme Ct she upheld Prop 209 & failed to find a 'right' to racial preferences in the state constitution. Harry should just stand on the steps and shout WOLF! WOLF! WOLF!

Posted by: jeff at April 07, 2005 10:03 PM (NmtET)

5 Yeah. "Unqualified judges" was my favorite phrase in the whole letter, because it isn't justified or backed up in any way. It's just thrown out there, and people are suppsed to take it on faith. And I'll bet they do just that.

Posted by: Attila Girl at April 07, 2005 10:45 PM (R4CXG)

6 I feel a degree of empathy with the bind the other party finds itself in. I can understand how it feels to be faced with the prospect of confirming Judges who you truly and honestly believe are unfit for the bench, because I rather fancy that had I been a member of the United States Senate at the time, I would have pulled out every legislative tool or procedural roadblock available to me to prevent the confirmations of Assocaite Justices Breyer and Ginsburg. These people who hold views of the Constitution which I regard as not only antithetical to my own, that I believe will destroy the constitution. I refer, of course, to the doctrine of "the living constitution", which is a more flattering way of phrasing "legislating from the bench". But that's not why I find myself uncomfortable with the Frist option. I find no reasonable way to support the statement that the Constitution prohibits the filibuster at all, let alone on Judicial nominations. I have read people citing II§2:2, which explicitly requires a 2/3 majority for treaties, but conspicuously doesn't mention a number for confirmation of Judges or officers. However, while the inference of this can be debated, any inference is superceded by I§5:2, which explicitly provides that each House can determine its own rules. Let me just repeat that: the Constitution explicitly requires that the Senate give its consent to Presidential nominees, and explicitly permits the Senate to determine its own procedures. Nowhere in the Constitution is the word "filibuster" mentioned - which means that anyone who claims that the filibuster is either a constitutional right, or that it is somehow unconstitutional, is making up text out of thin air, in my view. Doesn't our party have a word for Judges that do that? I'm uncomfortable with the idea of discarding long-established practises unless there is clear imperative, but I'm even more leary about it when there is neither Constitutional support for such a move, and when I can foresee that there will come a time when we are in the minority in the Senate, and when that time comes, we will bitterly regret this decision.

Posted by: Simon Dodd at April 08, 2005 12:21 PM (o+ba9)

7 Attila Girl, my personal favorite was the Republicans "throwing out 200 years of Senate history" --i.e., forcing the Democrats to let judicial nominees be put before the Senate for confirmation or rejection, the way it's been done for... let's see, about 200 years now. Describing breaking a filibuster as"do[ing] away with debate in the Senate" was pretty good too. For an orator who comes across as Nyquil on two legs, Reid writes a heckuva letter.

Posted by: utron at April 08, 2005 02:26 PM (CgIkY)

8 I agree with Simon, and George Will has made this point very effectively too. This is a huge case of 'be careful what you wish for.' If we do this, we'll eventually get it shoved right back up our asses.

Posted by: JD at April 08, 2005 07:18 PM (J+Gcr)

9 The point is that the Republicans never treated any of Clinton's nominees the way Bush's are being treated wholesale. The President produces the names; these people are entitled to an up-or-down vote.

Posted by: Attila Girl at April 09, 2005 02:22 AM (R4CXG)

10 The point is that the Republicans never treated any of Clinton's nominees the way Bush's are being treated wholesale. Not true. Breyer sneaked through under the patronage of Senator Hatch, in - I hope - a rare lapse of judgement on Orrin's part. Richard Paz's nomination was held up in the Senate for five years, William Fletcher for three years, Marcia Berzon for two years. Many Clinton nominees were never confimed, stalling in the Judiciary Committee or never being called up for a floor vote. Some, such as Roger Gregory and James Wynn, never even made it to a Judiciary Committee hearing. These are just a few examples, but they are still more numerous than the nominees currently being held up in the Senate by the other party. I suspect that a thorough comparison of how Clinton nominees vs. Bush nominees faired on the Hill would show that, if anything, the current President has had a better rate of getting his nominees confirmed than his predecessor. I say all this as a Republican - facts are not partisan, only spin. And I dislike spin, whichever side it comes from. I personally tend to agree with you that a Judge should get an up or down vote, as a matter of course. However, as I mentioned before - I may or may not agree with the other party's assesment of the nominees, but I can certainly understand it, I can certainly understand them using all the tricks in the book to stop a nominee they feel to be unfit for office, I don't agree with screwing with the rights of the minority in the Senate, and I absolutely despise the effort to dream new (and illusory) text into the constitution, whether that dreaming is done by a liberal activist judge, a conservative activist judge or the President of the Senate with the concurrence of a majority. I say, call their bluff. Let them filibuster - and if they do, Karl will see to it that we cut them to ribbons in the midterms.

Posted by: Simon at April 09, 2005 07:49 PM (GRyHA)

11 As I see it, if someone wants to filibuster, let them get up and talk. I don't like these "faux-filibusters." All the statistics I've seen support the notion that the level of non-confimation G.W. is experiencing is unprecedented. E.g.-- http://dalythoughts.com/index.php?p=2983

Posted by: Attila Girl at April 10, 2005 02:31 PM (R4CXG)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

. . . that hearing my copious complaints about Microsoft Products was not one of his marriage vows.

I beg to differ. I'm sure I remembered a line about sickness and health, richer or poorer, files that work versus stupid products designed by the minions of that idiot, Bill Gates.

I guess we could ask the priest who married us. Or check the tape. But there's no point, because I'm right. I've got to hold the line, here.

Every day, get up and thank God you don't live with someone like me.

Posted by: Attila at 01:13 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 98 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Hmm, to make a smart azz response or not, that is the question. Whether tis nobler in the mind to keep ones yap shut or suffer the outrageous slings and arrows of LMA's pointed tongue.

Posted by: William Teach at April 06, 2005 02:07 PM (cuTsc)

2 WHO DARES TO COMMENT ON MY BLOG? [Oh. Wait. I want people to do that. Carry on.]

Posted by: Attila Girl at April 06, 2005 03:07 PM (R4CXG)

3 At the time we took our wedding vows, my wee wifey had a job sitting at one of 32 terminals served by a mainframe with about as much processor power as the original TRS-80. Microsoft was covered only in the generalities of "for better or worse" in that the hardware for which Bill Gates wrote the company's first software was still in the earliest design stage.

Posted by: triticale at April 06, 2005 04:42 PM (0JyyJ)

4

Posted by: Attila Girl at April 06, 2005 05:55 PM (R4CXG)

5 Art made tongue-tied by authority.

Posted by: William Teach at April 06, 2005 07:37 PM (HxpPK)

6 My wife and I were introduced via IRC, so the Microsoft bashing was an implied part of our wedding vows.

Posted by: Greg at April 07, 2005 05:38 AM (d8pUH)

7 I keep my wife in Macintoshes...I also fill her gas tank and drive in Ice storms...it seems to be under the subclause in the contract that covers "this is what he does so I will feed him." Grin JD

Posted by: jd bell at April 07, 2005 04:34 PM (PiRll)

8 Hm. My husband keeps me in Macintoshes, and when we go somewhere together he handles the driving. But I fill my own gas tank, and Attila the Hub is done for good with driving in snow/ice; apparently he had his fill of that in Chicago.

Posted by: Attila Girl at April 07, 2005 06:03 PM (R4CXG)

9 My husband is the one who rails against Bill Gates continuously. I guess there has to be one in every family.

Posted by: gail at April 07, 2005 08:06 PM (47cun)

10 Poor, poor man. MyLovelyWife has a spouse like that, too, the poor lady. Such words, she hears!

Posted by: Ranten.N.Raven at April 08, 2005 07:10 PM (fghYh)

11 You have Macs but you still use Microsoft products. Why?

Posted by: Alan Kellogg at April 08, 2005 11:20 PM (QNwEF)

12 Peer-group pressure.

Posted by: Attila Girl at April 09, 2005 02:23 AM (R4CXG)

13 People who use Microsoft products are not peers.

Posted by: Alan Kellogg at April 11, 2005 01:50 AM (lGW+6)

14 For years I didn't, but there's something for being able to share one's word-processing files with someone else.

Posted by: Attila Girl at April 11, 2005 12:18 PM (CIAFV)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Yushchenko and Bush have plans. WTO, NATO.

It's amazing to watch the world change before my very eyes.

Posted by: Attila at 02:05 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 22 words, total size 1 kb.

Via Oakland Jeff, a TCS piece on what drug-reimportation will do to our pharmaceutical industry and therefore the future of medicine.

Posted by: Attila at 11:20 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.

Megan McArdle makes a case for being thoughtful when we consider changes in our laws that could create social upheaval. Her essay is nominally about how we should approach the question of gay marriage, but it is also a sound defense of conservatism in general.

The piece is written by a libertarian, for libertarians. It warns us to walk soft, intellectually and legislatively.

McArdle (aka Jane Galt) actually appears quite sympathetic to the cause of gay marriage, but she points out that any construct we don't like should be looked at in the light of "why is this here in the first place?" In the case of gay marriage, we have to be able to answer the issue of why marriage has been so relentlessly het over the milennia—before we begin our tinkering. (And, no: "because society has always comprised homophobic bigots!" is not the place to start.)

My impression is that marriage started as a way to get property from one generation to the next in an orderly fashion, using children as the vehicle. It's become a lot of other things over the past few hundred years (including the idea beginning in the 1920s that people should be friends with those whom they married—that was new and different). But it's primarily concerned itself with property and with children.

Now that there's no consistent relationship between marriage and having kids—the two seem independent of each other, to tell you the truth—I'm not so sure it isn't time to look into this.

But get some states to do it first. Have them iron out all the complex legal issues it entails (e.g., custody battles and the like) before the whole country plunges into this.

Let's do it right. And let's remember that we need to find out what that is first.

Via Insty.

Posted by: Attila at 01:30 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 312 words, total size 2 kb.

. . . my favorite Alexander Pope couplet.

Posted by: Attila at 12:43 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 12 words, total size 1 kb.

a little acid in our tea, could be all we need.
the proof is in the putting."

—Jill Johnston

On a related note, Pile On shares some very important scientifical research. Lots of proof there.

Posted by: Attila at 12:36 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 47 words, total size 1 kb.

There's a nice roundup on the Pope's departure and legacy over at Instapundit. It includes a pointer to this gem from Power Line. Suffice it to say that the Times has made a fool of itself once more.

Posted by: Attila at 05:06 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 42 words, total size 1 kb.

. . . died today, as you're aware unless you live inside the trunk of a car. (If you do, get out: that's not healthy.)

As you can tell, I cannot bring myself to weep too hard for someone who died at an advanced age after living such a rich, full life. I'm a nominal Catholic, but was raised to "question authority," and I don't have quite the reverence for the office that cradle Catholics have. But I do have tremendous respect.

What I do know is that this man, along with Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, helped to create the conditions that led to the downfall of Communism in Eastern Europe, saving an uncountable number of lives and improving the quality of life around the world.

He had the courage, when he was young, to study a religion that was prohibited by the state.

He spoke many languages.

He traveled more than any other pope.

He was the first non-Italian pontiff in centuries.

He was an important bridge-builder within Christianity and between Christians and Jews. And between Christians and Muslims.

He was a great man.

The world will miss him.

The world, and the church, will go on—and will be better off for his having been here.

How can one pray for the pope? The temptation is to believe that God wouldn't listen. Or, if He did, that he'd be listening to the devout believers ahead of someone like me.

But that's the wong attitude, and in any event—as Tom Stoppard once said—I should have the courage of my lack of conviction.

I'll pray for him tonight, and I'd suggest that those of you who are Protestant, Jewish, Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, and agnostic try it as well. At the very least, a very good and powerful man has left us. So we mourn.

Posted by: Attila at 08:20 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 308 words, total size 2 kb.