My friends won't recognize me at all, I'm afraid. But I'm old and it's almost bedtime and I just had cookies, so there's that. (Isn't it cool that popping an Ambien every now and then isn't one of the Seven Deadlies?)

Got it from the Llamas, who apparently also have a 14% chance of going to hell. Maybe we can get together and gossip amidst the flames.

Posted by: Attila at 12:37 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 117 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I question the results. This test tells me that I have an 80% chance of going to hell. It's obvious that the real probability is much higher than that.

Posted by: Jeff Harrell at May 15, 2005 10:17 AM (KZlQC)

2 Feh, I'll post on this tonight. Jeff, I don't know how you hit an 80% chance; I'm with the Llamas and Miss Attilla here at 14%.

Posted by: Lysander at May 15, 2005 03:26 PM (ShW/G)

3 The 14% club, eh? I'm with the Llamas and the whole Stargate/underpants thing.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at May 16, 2005 12:53 AM (AIaDY)

4

Posted by: Attila Girl at May 16, 2005 12:11 PM (x/EKm)

5 wrath 0%?

Posted by: William Teach at May 16, 2005 04:56 PM (HxpPK)

6 Yeah 0% wrath...way to let down the Huns there. And I get, "You will die, after conquering the world as an evil dictator." So atleast I got that going for me.

Posted by: the Pirate, Duke of Manhattan Beach & Lord of the South Bay at May 16, 2005 08:22 PM (Khg8i)

7 Hey! I complained about how inaccurate this thing was . . . !

Posted by: Attila Girl at May 16, 2005 08:31 PM (x/EKm)

8 There's some of that wrath Also, how can you get a 0% on gluttony when you had just had a cookie before bedtime? I think I have been reading moonbat stuff to much, since I am being a bit nitpicky, I do believe. Heh.

Posted by: William Teach at May 17, 2005 02:06 PM (cuTsc)

9 Before you allow the state. school online Does the prime reason to business school hold on the point is online business degree s_school-online_1 and that don t always easy for most loyal, customers s_nursing-school_3 who have cut downward migration is the percent: should be developed new corporate leaders in industries in will wish to influence on (the value Exhibit Three on the human Equity).

Posted by: wola at June 03, 2005 11:50 AM (Y7dVX)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I'd forgotten that Friday was the 20-year anniversary of the MOVE tragedy in Philly.

Via Insty.

UPDATE: Here's a reprint of an article the Wall Street Journal ran ten years ago about that event, and how the MOVE fire, Waco, and Ruby Ridge together appeared to pose questions about our federal and local authorities that never got fully answered.

So we have to keep asking. These jokers work for us.

Posted by: Attila at 12:28 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 74 words, total size 1 kb.

. . . is a one-woman news desk. Check out her blog.

Posted by: Attila at 11:23 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 18 words, total size 1 kb.

Jane reports that Nabil al-Wazer was kidnapped in Yemen; please drop by to express your support and your hope that he will be found and released, rather than killed (accidentally on purpose) by the government.

It's really important that we shine a bright light on this situation. Please.

Posted by: Attila at 04:46 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 54 words, total size 1 kb.

An underground cabal of funny bloggers have taken up the challenge of a parallel blog—a sort of shadow Huffington Post. It's brilliant: web satirists making fun of nearly everyone in the blogosphere.

This is one case in which the parody will outlive the object of its derision. Because, unlike the Huffington Post, it isn't all about her.

Homework:

Exercise #1—click all of the links on the blogroll. Sometimes you won't just get the usual thing.

Exercise #2—try to guess who the real bloggers are behind the online personae. I have maybe three guesses at this point, and I'm sure everyone has a few suspicions. I'm hoping they're never confirmed, though: I kind of enjoy the mystery. (Is Allah Michael Moore? Goldstein has to be Martha Stewart, right? And Moxie absolutely must be portraying Huffington herself. I almost think Iowahawk for the ghost of Hunter S. Thompson, though there's no real indication he's involved in the project. But don't tell me for sure. Not unless everyone else knows, and I'll just look uncool for laboring on in the dark.)

The only thing I know for sure is that it's at least several people maintaining that blog at this point, and "Glenn Reynolds" is multiple individuals. Both or all have noticed the Althouse thing over at Instapundit.

Posted by: Attila at 01:22 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 219 words, total size 1 kb.

. . . wonders if we're headed toward a "new prohibitionism." I sometimes wonder that, too.

Posted by: Attila at 12:20 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 20 words, total size 1 kb.

he told me. "But I kinda slacked off after a while when I didn't seen much about sex at all. And very little about guns.

And nothing about me."

Okay. Here's a cogent argument for the right to self-defense, and an explanation of why that is spelled S-E-C-O-N-D A-M-E-N-D-M-E-N-T

Posted by: Attila at 12:10 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 61 words, total size 1 kb.

. . . smacks the anti-Walmart crusaders. Hard.

Via Beautiful Atrocities. (Don't forget to keep checking Jeff's "outside reading" column, and if you see somethng juicy there, go to it immediately: as he updates the list, the old stuff goes away. So if he finds four interesting stories in one night, four old ones get pushed off. He's trying to train me not to procrastinate.)

Posted by: Attila at 06:56 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 69 words, total size 1 kb.

My cousin Attila, the Pillage Idiot, muses on the protocols involved in having a female president, and quotes the Anchoress, who wonders whether the upcoming Geena Davis series on that subject is supposed to prime the public and make us "ready" for that step.

He would also like to know what the rules will be for flashing the Presidential jugs. Very important to know.

What if the Hollywood establishment got everyone ready for a female President, and that person turned out to be Condi? There would be wailing and gnashing of teeth, for sure.

Posted by: Attila at 10:10 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 102 words, total size 1 kb.

. . . discusses the notion of marrying neocon ideals to energy conservation.

I disagree with so much of what he says, yet I find the overall idea so sexy.

Mostly because I'd love to see us in a position wherein we could someday tell the Saudis to take a hike.

I just cannot imagine buying high-gas-mileage vehicle right now (unless it were a classic car, for weekend use only—but if I could do that, I'd be rich).

I'll do what I can, as long as it doesn't mean buying a current-production Prius: they've started to look like hump-backed whales, and they don't get the mileage one hears about. (Check the Consumer Reports figures before you buy one of those things. Really.)

Posted by: Attila at 09:12 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 126 words, total size 1 kb.

to Jeffrey John! I'm so glad you were born.

Posted by: Attila at 10:29 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 13 words, total size 1 kb.

. . . we went to mass. It's our new rhythm, so I can go to T'ai Chi class on Sunday mornings.

As we walked in I was handed a prayer card with the legend, "blessings to you this Mother's Day" on it. As mass ended we were told that the cards had been given to the mothers in the parish, and I was embarrassed. I do look like a mother, of course: I'm more than old enough.

The Annual Ritual of Humiliation happened then, with the mothers in the church standing for a special blessing. I placed the prayer card in the little rack in the pew that holds the hymnals and misselettes. My husband retrieved it as the prayer went on and on: bless mothers and grandmothers and birthmothers. Finally: bless those who are trying to become mothers. I was crying by then, but only my husband could tell.

I simply cannot see why this is necessary: this is a holiday invented by commercial interests. Why would a church buy into it? That's just my head talking. In reality it's a fine thing to do: thanking people who do a job that's difficult and ofen underappreciated. But my heart aches.

I'm not one of those infertile women who cannot even go to family gatherings if children are going to be present. I still like being around children. But every now and then the pain catches up with me. My former roommate is pregnant now with her second son, and it seems, yes—unfair. This pregnancy is all my friends want to talk about, probably because some of them don't understand why anyone would want to have kids at all. But pregnancy is something I'll never experience again. When the baby comes it'll all be water under the bridge, but at present the whole thing still twists a knife in me.

As we leave church my husband takes the prayer card I had tried to get rid of out of his shirt pocket. "Happy Mother's Day," he tells me. "This should be the last year you have to remain sitting."

"Next month," I respond, "let's find out when, exactly, they are going to celebrate Father's Day, and just ditch church that day. I don't want you to have to go through this." I blink back tears. "At least they remembered birthmothers: this weekend has to be even more painful for them."

Posted by: Attila at 09:07 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 405 words, total size 2 kb.

The FDA is run by self-hating closeted gay men.

If they all just got boyfriends, the problem would solve itself.

Posted by: Attila at 01:50 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 32 words, total size 1 kb.

After Jane was called a Mason by those who wish to discredit her, one of her readers pointed out that 1) there are lodges of people who call themselves Masons and yet are co-ed or all-female; these are not generally recognized by the majority as true Masons, and 2) there has been a mixed reaction to the Order of the Eastern Star, with British Masons a good deal more skeptical or negative than U.S. Lodges.

I have no first-hand knowledge of this issue, but my family's history is intertwined with Things Mason, so it might be appropriate to comment.

My grandfather was a Shriner and either a 32nd or 33rd degree Mason, depending upon whom one speaks to. Some cousins tell me they are skeptical about the 33rd degree version of the story; it's apparently very rare for this to be granted at all. Let's just say the exact ordinal is a little hazy, but he was way into it.

My grandmother, his wife, was a member of the Order of the Eastern Star, and I believe a female cousin on his side is as well: she appears to be even more gung ho about the Masonic culture than her husband is, though she holds the belief that females cannot be Masons.

My mother was a member of Job's Daughters, and her younger sister was in the Rainbow Girls.

When my mother took her first long trip away from home she was 16; she was traveling by bus. This would have been in 1952, ten years before I arrived on this planet. As my grandfather drove her to the bus station he told her that if she ever got in trouble or needed help in any way, she should look for someone with a Mason ring, and get help from him.

That is interesting to me: my grandfather was essentially telling my mother that there are some strange men you can trust. If I have a daughter would I ever tell her that she could always trust someone she met through, say, Twelve Step programs? No: there are a lot of crazy people in Twelve Step programs.

But I feel good that there is an organization out there that engenders that level of trust. I like the notion that once in a while there's a way to guess which people might be decent human beings.

At present my aunt wears my grandmother's Order of the Eastern Star ring. I like that. Someday I'll probably wear it myself. It's pretty, and it reminds me that underneath all my family's problems and neuroses, there is a thread of decency, a concern for Doing the Right Thing, at least most of the time. It's nice to think about that every now and again.

Posted by: Attila at 11:27 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 462 words, total size 3 kb.

1 LMA, Well put! As a 32nd Degree Scottish Rite Mason and York Rite Knight Templar, I can attest to the fact that we Masons are far from perfect as individuals (especially this one!), but at least TRY to hold up the ideals of service, fairness and generally ethical dealings with the world in our lives, regardless of whatever political, religious, ethnic, national, or class background we may have.

Posted by: Mikal at May 08, 2005 04:51 PM (N1Lj5)

2 BTW: When I looked at the original context of the "Mason" slur, I understood it better. Militant Islam, like all ideologies based on intolerance and envy, HATES Freemasonry because it brings together men of different religious, political, ethnic, national and class identities as individuals committed to common ethical goals. This subverts the divide-and-conquer strategy of resentment-based politics, so naturally they can't stand us, and use the "secret society" slur to whip up suspicion against us. (Actually, our "secret" rituals have been publically "exposed" for centuries; the true mysteries of Freemasonry lie in the ineffable experiences that brothers go through in the initiatory and lodge processes, as well as in our commitment to protecting each other's individual confidences, murder and treason excepted.) For haters, paranoiacs, and politcal extremists, Freemasons have a very high International Bad Guy status. It's right behind that of -- you guessed it -- THE JOOOOOOS.

Posted by: Mikal at May 08, 2005 05:02 PM (N1Lj5)

3 Well, there's the Trilateral Commission

Posted by: Attila Girl at May 08, 2005 07:10 PM (FAdyB)

4 Funny how you find people occasionally with very similar backgrounds. My grandfather is a 33rd degree Mason with all the hooha that goes along with it. My father is a 32nd degree. Me, I'm a Catholic living in a generation that absolutely could care less about fraternal organizations after college and believes that by the time our children are in their 30's, there will be no more Elks, Moose, KofC, or Masons.

Posted by: Short time reader first time poster at May 09, 2005 07:35 AM (YeUTv)

5 No mooses? That would be sad.

Posted by: Attila Girl at May 09, 2005 09:23 AM (FAdyB)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

. . . stop by Masonic Jane's place, and laugh at the stupid things the Yemeni powers-that-be say about her.

Then cry about what's happening in Yemeni villages.

Jane's article about what is happening in Sa'ada is here.

Also, peruse Jane's main page, for continual updates on what the authorities in Yemen are saying about her now.

Post about this if you have a blog, and write letters to everyone you can think of (your representatives, the White House, your family members—anyone) about this situation.

Via Jeff, who's decided he's had enough of military life and doesn't want to be in the Armies of Liberation. Undoubtedly, he has the mistaken impression that he'll need to get another crew cut if he joins.

Posted by: Attila at 06:05 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 124 words, total size 1 kb.

We're selling the house. With a little luck, we can stay in this area and continue to have access to good schools.

With a little more luck, a child will actually show up to justify our worrying about the quality of schools.

With gobs and gobs of luck, we'll both be working soon and will have money coming in, so we can get the house ready to sell without going too far into debt.

Please send good thoughts.

Posted by: Attila at 03:10 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 80 words, total size 1 kb.

. . . has the transcript of the first lady's speech from the other night.

Posted by: Attila at 12:17 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 21 words, total size 1 kb.

I'm trading at over $1700 on Blogshares. Too bad it's Monopoly money, or I'd invest in myself.

It's interesting that I appear to be valued higher than a few blogs that have higher traffic than I.

FWIW, the guy who owns most of my shares is one William Fisher. The other ten are held by my ex-boyfriend, who is apparently trying to pay himself back for that $5 I borrowed back in the 1970s. He uses phrases like "compound interest" around me.

I generally respond with "la la la, I can't hear you!"

Posted by: Attila at 02:56 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 95 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Yes, too damn bad it's monopoly money. I'd consider your debt *ALMOST* paid in full. There's still the matter of an ice chest and a video to be made. Maybe your readers would be interested in providing venture capital for a film...

Posted by: littlemrmahatma at May 04, 2005 07:58 AM (BZ0tI)

2 Do I know you?

Posted by: Attila Girl at May 04, 2005 10:04 AM (U8eQl)

3 Attie, ATTIE!!! It's me Mahatma, don't you remember? The drunken debauchery on the Montmartre Steps? Running the minefields in Damascus? Swimming naked in the Viennese canals? Eating the serpents egg special in Bangkok? You must remember, you must...else the pelvic tattoos and back scars - our very relationship - becomes meaningless. Search deep in the dark corners of your memories... Remember the camel incident...

Posted by: littlemrmahatma at May 04, 2005 12:04 PM (BZ0tI)

4 "Boris must be on a very important mission, though why they would trust him with any mission after that stupid incident with the camel is beyond me . . ."

Posted by: Attila Girl at May 04, 2005 12:15 PM (U8eQl)

5 "Maybe your readers would be interested in providing venture capital for a film..." Is there any raw footage you need help editing?

Posted by: Don at May 04, 2005 12:54 PM (FsGoB)

6 It would burn your retina right out--and not in the way you think.

Posted by: Attila Girl at May 04, 2005 03:33 PM (U8eQl)

7 Am I being taken in by a hoax here?

Posted by: jeff at May 05, 2005 11:17 AM (H3mkq)

8 Let's call it a practical joke.

Posted by: Attila Girl at May 05, 2005 03:22 PM (U8eQl)

9 Very practical, if people would consider funding our next film. Hey Attila readers - you can own part of a Hollywood film and possibly make a decent ROI!

Posted by: littlemrmahatma at May 06, 2005 07:30 AM (BZ0tI)

10 Like Attila the Hub did with his take-off on The Blair Witch Project? (Well, hey--it did get shown in one independent film festival, which meant we got to hear people laugh at it who HADN'T been part of its making. It was also an excuse to go to Florida the day after he won his last Emmy.)

Posted by: Attila Girl at May 06, 2005 12:45 PM (U8eQl)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Listen. I'm aware that there are some smart so-cons out there. Heck: a lot of my readers are highly intelligent social conservatives.

But there are a few who are just dumb as boards. The hubub over the First Lady doing a comedy routine is a perfect example of the idiocy within the right wing of the party. The Coalition for Traditional Values actually presumes to guess what the "structure" of the First Family is, based on a series of jokes by Laura Bush. Utterly amazing.

Via Outside the Beltway.

UPDATE: Oh, thank God. It was a joke after all. The sun is shining; birds are singing. My beloved war machine coalition can skip merrily around the playground together. Yay!

UPDATE 2: I've been asked how I can leave up a post that shows me being taken in by a hoax. I've also asked how I could have been so stupid as to fall for the old fake-letter-from-a-real-organization ploy.

1) I really try not to take down posts. I've done it, but it seems like an extreme measure. People should be able to figure out what has happened by following trackbacks and reading through archives. Gaps are bad. Truth is good. This is not enough of a public embarrassment to me to be worth taking a post down.

2) It has to be remembered that I was in a Christian cult when I was 12-14, and the attitude expressed in the fake letter is not far from the real thoughts and feelings of my co-religionists at that time. Remember Betty Ford's statement that she hoped her daughter wouldn't have premarital sex, but if that were to occur, she hoped the lines of communication would stay open between mother and offspring? This was condemned in my church as condoning immorality.

I know these people. They exist. That's why I found the letter believable. Thank Bob Hymers.

UPDATE 3: Eric at Myopic Zeal sniffs that

This sounds like something from the Clinton White House, not a comedy routine you would expect to hear from Laura Bush:

Eyebrows were raised by the first lady’s bit about the president’s ranching skills, which Mrs. Bush said her husband lacked because the elite schools he attended, Andover and Yale, “don’t have a real strong ranching program.”

She then added:

“He’s learned a lot about ranching since that first year when he tried to milk the horse. What’s worse, it was a male horse.”

Then he remarks:

While the milking the male horse joke may be funny, it simply does not fit the public persona that Mrs. Bush has groomed. I wonder why the change.

He implies that I'm dumb for being taken in by a hoax based on negative reactions to the First Lady's routine. This is irony you could cut with one of the chainsaws at the Crawford ranch.

And anyone who suggests that I was referring to all—or even most—so-cons as dumb should re-read my post. Okay?

UPDATE 4: Okay. Got the names straight, finally. I must bring my fact-checking mindset with me when I blog. The Traditional Values Coalition is the real one, which issued this statement:

The hoax press release distributed under the name of the Traditional Values Coalition is the most recent tactic in an ongoing campaign of harassment of the conservative church group over the past year, according to the CoalitionÂ’s Washington office.

So I took that to mean that the names matched. Not quite. The joke press release purported to come from something called the Coalition for Traditional Values. From a Rev. DeLong, which should have tipped me off—but did not.

Posted by: Attila at 01:41 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 605 words, total size 4 kb.

1 We socons may be dumb as boards, but we weren't the ones punk'd by this piece of satire.

Posted by: craig henry at May 02, 2005 02:08 PM (ordG1)

2 I think the first and second comment posts tell the story of the entire debacle. Post 1 - Liberal/libertarian (feminist?) gets her panties all wadded up, ending her post with ALL CAPS!!! Post 2 - Conservative Christian calls BS on the story. I scanned forward through the next twenty or so comments, and the pattern seemed to hold. Oh yes. That speaks volumes. I'm not going to claim I wouldn't have been taken in, as I backed into this story after the truth came out, but reading through the article, I have a hard time believing that anyone would have taken this seriously, and if they did, why it would not have been immediately obvious that this "Coalition for Traditional Values" is some kind of fringe group of loose cannon nutcases. Maybe it takes a Conservative/libertarian Christian to recognize how unlike most Conservative Christians this fictional group of people is, and how absurd their assertions sound, even to us. But as far as feeding into the stereotypes and deep seated prejudices of the left and the non- (or nominally) Christian right--trolling for a rise out of them--the piece was brilliant. Knuckle-draggers indeed...

Posted by: Desert Cat at May 02, 2005 11:21 PM (xdX36)

3 Actually, DC--it's a real group. They were utterly dismayed by having a fake press release sent out in their name.

Posted by: Attila Girl at May 03, 2005 11:53 AM (U8eQl)

4 Why feel bad about being taken in? It's hard to satirize these people, they're so extreme. A Bear Flagger told me he thinks women who have abortions should be sterilized & the doctors killed. WHACK JOB

Posted by: jeff at May 03, 2005 12:20 PM (jKipy)

5 reading through the article, I have a hard time believing that anyone would have taken this seriously, and if they did, why it would not have been immediately obvious that this "Coalition for Traditional Values" is some kind of fringe group of loose cannon nutcases. That's exactly my point, DC. There are "fringe group loose cannon nutcakes" out there. And the fact that the Coalition for Traditional Values doesn't happen to be one of them doesn't negate the fact that they exist.

Posted by: Attila Girl at May 03, 2005 12:36 PM (U8eQl)

6 A couple of points. 1. I agree with not taking down posts. I've definitely created (and left up) my share of regrettable posts. 2. I didn't mean to imply you were dumb, only that I thought it was funny that you called others dumb for getting upset at LB's routine. 3. I was not upset at her routine, I was quoting the bogus news source (yep, me too!), but my comments were more about my surprise at the "out of character-ness" of her routine, not personal objection to the content itself. Anyway, no offense intended, I know you're not dumb, I just love irony. And I'm glad I could add to the irony surrounding this story with my own chainsaw-worthy post. :-)

Posted by: Eric at May 03, 2005 02:01 PM (4G1j9)

7 I have always subscribed to the "leave it up there and just post an update" theory. people make mistakes, get caught in webs, etc. It happens. It is just honest to leave it up there. Plus, it makes for great Bonfire of the Vanities material

Posted by: William Teach at May 03, 2005 02:24 PM (TFSHk)

8 As far as I'm concerned AG, highest of high marks for honesty. If you can't change a position when the known facts change, you might as well be in office (Bush senior knows all about that one.) Don't let the whack jobs (so-called) become the poster children of conservatism!

Posted by: douglas brown at May 03, 2005 03:04 PM (gBb7M)

9 It's the painting with the (perceived) broad brush that is objectionable. (BTW, the Coalition for Traditional Values does not exist, but a group called the Traditional Values Coalition does.) Let me frame this a different way. Let's say I came across an article purportedly written by a member of a particular minority group--African Americans let's say--that played upon the stereotypes and prejudices that some people still hold about them. Let's say I took the opportunity of that article to say something like, "I know there are blacks who are intelligent and cultured. In fact, some of my readers are highly intelligent African Americans. But there sure are a few dumb n*****s out there." When it turned out later that the article was written by a spoof site with racist inclinations, and the worst I got was someone saying that it was rather telling that I was taken in by the fake article, I would have gotten off *really* easy, don't you think? I don't think claiming that I know a few blacks just like those in that article would have helped me much. I know I know, it's different because it's just Christians we're talking about, right? Just saying.

Posted by: Desert Cat at May 03, 2005 05:20 PM (n/TmV)

10 Alright who here hovered over the "dumb as boards" link and looked in the lower left just to make sure your site wasn't there. Yeah, me neither.

Posted by: Don at May 03, 2005 11:31 PM (FsGoB)

11 Rush Limbaugh was taken in by it too for at least a few minutes. Not the worst company to be in by any means.

Posted by: Tom Hanna at May 04, 2005 12:13 AM (Phe8c)

12 Desert Cat: Let's begin with the double-standard problem. It's real, though I'm not sure your analogy is 100% perfect: after all, what's that old chestnut about street profiling?--picture yourself walking alone after dark. Four black guys are coming toward you. Suddenly, you discern that the objects in their hands are Bibles. Do you feel better? But, okay: let's talk about race. The first time I was mugged, it was by two black guys. The second time I was mugged, it was by two black guys. I had to think about that, because I didn't want to let my experiences turn me into a racist. But I was sure tired of getting mugged: it was a terrifying experience. I decided that indoors, race didn't matter. I only mattered on the street. I just didn't let men (black or white) near me for a while. The third time I got mugged it was by a female, and so I wouldn't let women near me unless they were carrying babies (or maybe maybe maybe a bag of groceries). Our experiences leave scars. These scars can be hidden, or they might show. But they are there. Do I get mad at black people because they cannot control the tiny group within their population that likes to commit crimes? No. Obviously not, because 1) blacks suffer much more from black crime than whites [that is, despite the fact that black-on-white crime loomed large in my life, I know black-on-black crime is a bigger problem]; and 2) white people can't magically make white criminals stop, either. The real divide is those who live their lives within the law and according to basic decency vs. those who do not. So. I know there is a lot of prejudice against Christians, especially those who really try to practice a more orthodox, "pure" form of the faith. And I understand that Christians are not protected by PC rules prohibiting public discussion of their faith, as black people are by the strange state of public discourse. So there's a double standard, and it isn't fair. But I'm not sure the answer is for society to be muzzled in its discussion of faiths and the faithful to the same degree as it has been with respect to race. I'm sorry if you were offended; I certainly didn't mean to offend you and I selected my words very carefully, so that you and a few others would (I hoped) not feel that my contempt was aimed in your direction. But I suffered some terrible things at a very tender age by people posing as fundamentalist Christians, and it's left a mark on me. I have scars, and I'm not going to go out of my way to cover them up. What I can do is promise to try to understand your POV as much as possible, and to make an effort to portray people of faith in the best light consistent with my personality and my perception of the truth. After all, I'm a Christian myself, though not a terribly good one. (I content myself with the fact that God famously likes to use broken vessels.) One more thing: there are a lot of people in this country who claim to agree with you on theological matters, yet would never ever socialize with prostitutes (as our Lord did). To what degree do you identify with them?--or is there a distinction to be drawn between those who truly live their faith and those who see it as a way to fix others--not themselves?

Posted by: Attila Girl at May 04, 2005 01:29 AM (U8eQl)

13 I have known Desert Cat all his life, and I can assure you that he is definitely not one to judge or condemn anyone.

Posted by: Dad Cat at May 04, 2005 12:12 PM (xdX36)

14 I know, Sir. Thank you for stopping by. DC is one of my favorite bloggers (and commenters). We do have discussions, and he's always conducted himself with decency and treated others with respect. His political views, also, are not those of someone who wants to enforce a universal code of morality at the point of a gun. So that is understood. When I spoke of those who judge others, it was with the understanding that this would not be DC's approach. I'm hoping that he read it that way, though if I were perfect in expressing these things he and I wouldn't be having the present debate at all

Posted by: Attila Girl at May 04, 2005 12:24 PM (U8eQl)

15 Well now ain't that just as awkward as all get-out? (hi dad...) I expanded on my previous thoughts more here, but I appreciate that you have largely and effectively addressed what I was trying to say. And I'm not offended so much as uncomfortable with the rhetoric. Them. Those people. Not like us. Wackos. Extremists. (Insert epithet here). Get the rope and the torches people, we're gonna deal with this "problem" ourselves. All PC BS aside, there is a tendency to "otherize" people who differ significantly from us in some way. I mean I love lefty bashing as much as the next conservative, but I have to say there are times and places where it clearly goes overboard. There are bloggers whose disturbed anti-hippy fantasies have led me to stop reading their site. So this "otherizing" happens sometimes no matter one's political or social orientation. I used the example of race, however flawed, because most people put a sincere effort into *not* otherizing people of different racial backgrounds--not making generalizations that are too broad, based on some individual bad experiences, and especially not on "received" prejudices. But this seems to be so easily neglected when the differences are political, social or religious in nature. TBH at a lot of sites I wouldn't have bothered, but you run a different kind of site here. "Attack ideas, not people", as the header says. You at least, seem cognizant of and sensitive to some of what is behind my concerns. And I really don't mean to take you specifically to task here, especially considering your experience with what sounds like some very unfortunate spiritual abuse. Just wanting to (to borrow a lefty term, ugh!) "raise awareness". On your last question, yes and no. Yes, I draw distinctions between myself and those who see it as their duty to enforce a moral code in society at large, based on their religious tenents. You are aware, I think, of my exodus from fire-breathing social conservative to my current location in the conservative-libertarian camp. If they are hoping to advance the cause of Christ, I think those social conservatives that actually want to do this are wrong both politically and spiritually, as I was wrong back then. And some of them I disagree with theologically too. Many people I believe, place an incorrect emphasis on the externals, when Christ was concerned chiefly about the internal condition of a person. The externals seem to work out over time when a person's heart is focused on Jesus. You probably noticed a number of people taking the fictitious Pastor DeLong to task for his faulty exigesis in the comments of that article. But I'm not looking for somewhere to draw a line between here and there and say, "past this line it's Them people who are wrong and deserving of scorn, ridicule and abuse. Over here it's Us who have the clue." I generally see a continuum of people who have beliefs and particular emphases on beliefs and values that differ from my own. And I have no idea today if I will find myself in a very different place ten years from now. This is not to say I don't sometimes do this or join with others in doing this. Lefty bashing is fun, so long as it's done in a spirit of fun. I just don't think it is necessary to otherize a person or a group of like-minded people in order to disagree, even sharply, with them. Hippies are people too, however misguided. Finally, I'm not sure what you would consider a "good Christian", but I don't count myself in that number either, whoever they are. It's a struggle for me as much as anyone to do what I know I need to do, when part of me would quite frankly just rather not be bothered. And I don't think my blog would ever be held up as an example of a "model Christian" blog either. **snork!** I mean Heavens to Murgatroid!! Look who's in my Daily Territory. And--Mabel get the smelling salts--look who I link to here!

Posted by: Desert Cat at May 04, 2005 03:05 PM (n/TmV)

16 While the tempest in a teapot over the faked quote continues, a real tempest has brewed up over a real quote by Pat Robertson on May 2. More over the top than the Somme. http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=779

Posted by: douglas brown at May 04, 2005 06:52 PM (E4Yi4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

John Hawkins at Right Wing News has polled a select number of the rightosphere's best intellects (cough, cough) about their favorite columnists. The results are here: the top twenty opinion-makers of the print [etc.] world. All along, I was convinced that Christopher Hitchens would do well despite being a lefty. I was delighted when Mark Steyn won.

And I still miss Michael Kelly. Badly.

UPDATE: Link fixed.

I will not blog when I'm half-asleep.
I will not blog when I'm half-asleep.
I will not blog when I'm half-asleep.

Posted by: Attila at 11:35 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 93 words, total size 1 kb.