on the Omaha mall shooting, and mall owners' potential liability for enacting a gun ban on the premises:

A mall is a place of public accommodation. In addition, business owners generally take on a higher duty of care for customers on their premises, including a duty to protect them from the violent acts of third parties if those acts are reasonably foreseeable. The question is, given the tendency of mass shootings to occur in places where guns are banned, and given that gun bans take away customers' ability to defend themselves -- and other customers -- does this result in liability of shopping malls when such shootings occur? Or, at least, produce a duty to have more armed security than they otherwise would have (the Omaha mall appears to have had very little) in order to make up for the increased insecurity created by the gun ban? The question isn't open and shut, but it seems to me to be ripe for litigation.

(Yeah: I quoted almost his entire entry! Breaking the blog rules! Stealing potential traffic from Instapundit!)

His original post that takes up the idea of liability is here, and it's ripe with links, so get over there. In the meantime, I agree with his first point (yawn . . . another mass shooting in a "gun-free zone"), and applaud his second suggestion (that it might be time to consider litigation—"If it saves just one life, it's worth it."). Well, of course.

I don't really have anything to say that I haven't said before. But it's worth noting -- since apparently most of the media reports haven't -- that this was another mass shooting in a "gun-free" zone. It seems to me that we've reached the point at which a facility that bans firearms, making its patrons unable to defend themselves, should be subject to lawsuit for its failure to protect them. The pattern of mass shootings in "gun free" zones is well-established at this point, and I don't see why places that take the affirmative step of forcing their law-abiding patrons to go unarmed should get off scot-free. There's even an academic literature on mass shootings and concealed-gun carriage.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 12:07 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 372 words, total size 2 kb.

I think this happened last year, and you guys were able to help me figure it out: outside, it's like the sprinklers are on, but they aren't. And it's like they're on full force or something.

And there's this rhythmic sound against the roof and the porch. Kind of strange. Makes me want to pee a little.

It just seems . . . I dunno. Like I'm at a car wash or something. I don't get it.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 11:26 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 85 words, total size 1 kb.

Still one of my favorite gay boyfriends.

Also, unlike the case with Jeff, I don't have to fight over him with the other Cotillionites. *

Seriously. There are a handful of demographic subgroups that need to know how to handle guns. These are: (1) Jews, (2) women, (3) blacks, (4) gays, (5) the elderly—and (6) everyone else.

* Actually, the other ladies backed off after I told them I once out-shot Jan Libourel (then with Handguns, now with Gun World). It's a long story, but a true one. (It's Mr. Libourel who is responsible for my lifelong ambition of owning a Colt Commander. What a sweet gun: Jan has one with ivory inlays that shoots .38 Super. You didn't even know that gun existed in .38 Super, did you?

But first, like everyone else on the planet, I want a German Luger. Bad.)

Posted by: Attila Girl at 10:43 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 147 words, total size 1 kb.

Iowahawk pwns The New Republic.

Facing the difficulties of verifying the piece, but wanting to ensure its plausibility before publication, we sent the piece to a correspondent for a major newspaper who had spent many tours embedded in Iraq. Had he noticed the US Army in Iraq? Check. Did they have Bradley Fighting Vehicles? Check. Had he seen dogs? Check. So far, the story seemed to be plausible. But what of the disfigured woman of the Cleveland Steamer episode? This became the focal point of our fact-checking. We asked Reeve to push Beauchamp for corroboration of this woman's existence. In an e-mail, she relayed his answer (throughout this story, we've withheld the names of soldiers who never gave us permission to use them):

OK, now I am talking to Scott on the phone. Now he is asking all of the other soldiers in the Army if they had seen the her. Now I am hearing the other soldiers shout yeah. The other soldiers are now shouting that all of the facts that Scott wrote about are true. They are now shouting that don't call us or the Army again, or we will have to deny this conversation because we will get into trouble, and if we deny anything it is really a secret signal that we are actually verifying that the story is true. Now more soldiers are shouting something. What's that? The New Republic is their favorite magazine? But that they think the fact-checkers are underpaid? I am now telling Scott to tell all the other soldiers that I will pass on this information.

And there's this moment:

Did we have a Jayson Blair on our hands—or, closer to home, another Stephen Glass, the fabulist who did so much to tarnish this magazine's reputation ten years ago? Or perhaps another Ruth Shalit, whose plagiarism at this magazine did somewhat less tarnishing two years earlier? Or could he be another Lee Siegel, whose 2007 sock puppeting at this magazine resulted another tarnishing, albeit only around 40 on the Glass Tarnish Quotient? One fact was clear: painful experience has taught us at The New Republic to be on the lookout for tarnishings, so Beauchamp should know better than to "pull a fast one" on us.

We published an online statement pledging an investigation. That weekend, members of the editorial staff assembled at my house to divide up the task of re-reporting his stories. It would be a long an arduous task, with the possibility of uncomfortable conclusions. Ted, the new intern from Columbia Journalism School, brought along Pictionary.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 11:11 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 437 words, total size 3 kb.

That is, if someone seconds me in the comments here.

I'm looking forward to getting trounced by SondraK again. Not to mention some of the other heavy-hitters who are now under consideration for inclusion. It's a bit intimidating, if you want to know the truth.

There are several more worthy candidates (other than Fausta, Sondra, and me) over here.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 07:06 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 71 words, total size 1 kb.

This came up in conversation at my father's house the other day. Part of this depends on what you call "a living." One eminent blogger chooses to do this so she can stay home with her child, because pursuing a "real" career would take her out of the home too much.

Some reject the idea of professional blogging as a potential "sellout." I estimate that there are probably 20 people out there making decent livings via blogging, and another 20 who eke out a sort of existence, paying their bills via their blog-incomes.

My stepbrother asserted that he thought the "break even" point was 5000 hits a day, but he didn't realize a lot of us have PayPal/Amazon Honor System buttons on our sites, so one of the variables is the generosity of one's readership (just like NPR stations—without the public subsidies). And, of course, there is the question of whether one makes more at any given traffic level by selling blogads (via BlogAds, or another agency) vs. participating in PJ Media.

There exists a partial list of people who may be making significant incomes from blogging, though I'm not sure I need numbers that are that specific: after all, one of the factors involved is whether one resides in Southern California, the greater Chicago area, New York City, the San Francisco Bay area, Washington, D.C., Tokyo, London, or another high-cost-of-living environment. Raw numbers don't tell us much, particularly if you're in Atlanta or somewhere reasonable like that. (Another variable: do you have roommates? Are these roommates humans, or cockroaches?)

Thanks to Janette, for sending that last link— and to the Cotillion Women, for posing the question.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 04:14 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 287 words, total size 2 kb.

. . . on the "Is Huckabee Too Moralistic To Be President?" meme. He makes some good points. Likewise, James makes an important point here about why "retail politics" is different from what we associate with a smoothly running national campaign.

And yet, at the moment, "retail politics" is where it's at. It's like dressing for a job interview: one has to do it. Just the cost of admission. (Or, as the economists would have it, "signalling.")

Posted by: Attila Girl at 01:32 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 79 words, total size 1 kb.

down the decades.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 03:19 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 5 words, total size 1 kb.

. . . Repeal Day.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 03:16 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 7 words, total size 1 kb.

Chuck Norris doesn't know everything:

Powerline wonders if Huckabee is "too moralistic" to be president. Personally, I think it's a combination of moralism and misguided optimism, with a healthy dose of inexperience in world affairs. Comparisons have been made to a former U.S. president from the south, and I've always thought those comparisons were a bit harsh.

Now I'm not so sure.

Huckabee is bad on taxes and immigration. He's got overly-statist views on the limits of government power and now we find out that he lacks the fortitude to withstand international criticism of our foreign and military policy. The Huckabee boomlet has got to stop.

Personally, I'm waiting until Royce Gracie endorses someone.

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

I love borscht. But not the canned version!

I'll have to try this recipe. I think it might be nice with orange or yellow beets for a change; the flavor is sometimes milder with those.

The legendary Gorky's (of Hollywood and downtown L.A.) used to put just a bit of cilantro in the borscht. With a dollop of sour cream, that stuff was heaven. Yum. I may not miss socialism, but I sure miss Gorky's.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 12:09 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 85 words, total size 1 kb.

Maybe the folks at the NIE aren't just on crack, as one might suppose from the wild fluctuations in their assessments:

a full two years after Iran supposedly called a halt to its nuclear program, the intelligence community was still as sure as it ever is about anything that Iran was determined to build a nuclear arsenal. Why then should we believe it when it now tells us, and with the same “high confidence,” that Iran had already called a halt to its nuclear-weapons program in 2003? Similarly with the intelligence community’s reversal on the effectiveness of international pressure. In 2005, the NIE was highly confident that international pressure had not lessened Iran’s determination to develop nuclear weapons, and yet now, in 2007, the intelligence community is just as confident that international pressure had already done the trick by 2003.

It is worth remembering that in 2002, one of the conclusions offered by the NIE, also with “high confidence,” was that “Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding its chemical, biological, nuclear, and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions.” And another conclusion, offered with high confidence too, was that “Iraq could make a nuclear weapon in months to a year once it acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile material.”

I must confess to suspecting that the intelligence community, having been excoriated for supporting the then universal belief that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, is now bending over backward to counter what has up to now been a similarly universal view (including as is evident from the 2005 NIE, within the intelligence community itself) that Iran is hell-bent on developing nuclear weapons. I also suspect that, having been excoriated as well for minimizing the time it would take Saddam to add nuclear weapons to his arsenal, the intelligence community is now bending over backward to maximize the time it will take Iran to reach the same goal.

But I entertain an even darker suspicion. It is that the intelligence community, which has for some years now been leaking material calculated to undermine George W. Bush, is doing it again. This time the purpose is to head off the possibility that the President may order air strikes on the Iranian nuclear installations. As the intelligence community must know, if he were to do so, it would be as a last resort, only after it had become undeniable that neither negotiations nor sanctions could prevent Iran from getting the bomb, and only after being convinced that it was very close to succeeding. How better, then, to stop Bush in his tracks than by telling him and the world that such pressures have already been effective and that keeping them up could well bring about “a halt to Iran’s entire nuclear weapons program”—especially if the negotiations and sanctions were combined with a goodly dose of appeasement or, in the NIE’s own euphemistic formulation, “with opportunities for Iran to achieve its security, prestige, and goals for regional influence in other ways.”

Posted by: Attila Girl at 11:43 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 512 words, total size 3 kb.

As long as we're being so "tolerant" of other cultures and their various approaches to radical genital mutilation, why not bring back the castrati?

Not removing the testicles of young boys so they will have greater vocal range later in life strikes me as intolerance of traditional Italian culture, and a terrible blow to opera-lovers everywhere.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 01:25 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 66 words, total size 1 kb.

gambling run by private charities should also be legal. What's next?—will my local Roman Catholic Community get busted for having a raffle?

I understand that there is a strong anti-gambling strain within some faiths: In fact, the nonprofit I work for has events at a Methodist-run location at which we cannot have raffles. We are forbidden to even use the term "fundraiser" on our flyers for these events. (N.B.—I come from Methodist stock; my parents met at a Methodist-run charity homebuilding project in Mexico.)

However, the structure of a fundraising event—the rules regarding when/how money can change hands in running a particular ministry—is a private matter between nonprofit organizations. When the local vice squad raids a VFW hall, we have a major freakin' problem with selective enforcement of silly laws.

When the States are themselves running lotteries (and don't get me started on how predatory/regressive these are), the hypocrisy factor goes way up.

Take it, Drew:

Fear the government that fears your deck of cards. Legalize gambling, at least for nonprofit organizations. Now.

Via Insty.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 11:51 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 191 words, total size 1 kb.

And Lou Dobbs slouches nearer, his moment come 'round at last . . . .

Nice. This is in reference to a mention of "Joel Kotkin and Fred Siegel on the Gentry Liberals: 'Over the last half a century, liberals have moved from strong support for basic middle-class concerns—epitomized by the New Deal and the G.I. Bill—to policies that reflect the concerns and prejudices of ever more elite interests.'"

Yup. They sure have.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 12:11 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 77 words, total size 1 kb.

Mary Katherine Ham on why we should preserve the YouTube debate format:

've never bought into the idea that YouTube debates were a revolutionary format-- different but not revolutionary--mostly because moderators still pick the questions, and technology's transformative only to an extent. I'm not a tech triumphalist.

I've also never bought into the idea that YouTube debates debase politics, partly because they're already plenty debased, and partly because political YouTubers are-- to a great extent-- regular Americans who want to be engaged and get a chance to ask their own questions of a candidate that they wouldn't necessarily otherwise get. That's not debasement, that's democracy.

Jack M. over at Ace's digs deplores what he calls her "hipness uber alles" attitude, and remarks:

Of course YouTube debates debase politics. Their entire premise is based on bringing politics to the level of a carnival freakshow. Talking snowmen don't belong on a stage addressing questions to men and women seeking elected office. It belittles the process. And yet, the talking snowman was picked. Why?

Exactly because he WASN'T one of "the regular Americans" you seem to believe they are. Are there regular Americans who read blogs and create videos for YouTube? Of course there are (present company excluded, of course). But YouTube places a different emphasis on the matter: it becomes not "I want my question to be heard" as much as it becomes "I want my question to be aired/seen."

And why is this an important distinction? Because it allows the "deciders" to set the framing of the issue.

But Jack—that's MKH's point. The problem with the CNN debate wasn't in the format. The problem was with the "deciders." Those who choose the questions have to do so impartially, and have to resist the temptation to choose style over substance. CNN failed, and that must remain our focus.

Jack M. again:

Look...I know you have a lot vested in this internet video thing. And you do a great job. You know I hold you in nothing but the highest regard, both personally and professionally.

But it's disappointing to see Conservatives worshipping at the altar of "cool", as you appear to be doing here. To treasure style and appearance over substance.

For, if college teaches us anything, it is that the Conservatives who do this are the Conservatives who end up on the path that leads to Libertarianism.

Well. Heaven forfend. Personally, I take supplements that are supposed to keep me from turning into a libertarian. I hear that skepticism about the government is the result of a vitamin B deficiency . . .

Posted by: Attila Girl at 11:50 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 441 words, total size 3 kb.

As usual, I was the only non-football person present; I'm starting to pick up some of the nuances of the game. Slowly. (As Rita Mae Brown once put it in quite a different context, that would be "as in, slowly the Ice Age ended."*)

Caltech Girl and I discussed the cultural phenomenon of The Dangerous Book for Boys and The Daring Book for Girls. She definitely felt the latter was worth a read, and a lot of fun. The entries are apparently longer than those in Dangerous, and have more explanatory text. ("Developmentally appropriate!" she joked, and of course I laughed.)

"Some of it's practical," she informed me. "Like the segment on what girls should carry with them at all times."

"Well, that would be everything the boys have in their pockets, plus lipstick or chapstick—and a tampon," I responded. "Right?" She smiled, and her husband rolled his eyes. So everyone was happy.

Justene of CalBlog and her husband informed me that as their daughter's sponsor into the Catholic Church, I'm now responsible for any misbehavior she engages in. (Of course, that would be a sobering thought if she weren't quite such a well-behaved young lady.) As I understand it, though, they still get the credit for her accomplishments. Certainly there's some fine print I should have read, somewhere.

Juliette of Baldilocks and I laughed about our experiences in rough neighborhoods with scummy men, and compared our reading material. She's deep into the mighty Thomas Sowell (always a good choice)—and digging Conflict of Visions right now. I'm still pimping Jonathan Rauch's Kindly Inquisitors to any multi-cellular organization I come into contact with. The cool thing is that we realized that some of the arguments that Dr. Sowell makes in Conflict of Visions are very similar to those Rauch put forward in his book: the process by which one reaches conclusions can be as important as the conclusions themselves, because scientific and philosophical inquiry must have a way of correcting its mistakes.

Of course, Rauch and Sowell take quite different routes to get there; the books probably make a nice complementary set.

At some point the subject of Larry Elder came up; Juliette and I both admire him intellectually, and have each had a chance to talk with him at some length. Razor-sharp guy, very articulate. His good looks didn't enter the discussion, of course; neither Baldilocks nor I are that shallow.

I also gave Juliette a good laugh by completely flubbing military terminology. "Let me help you out, Sister," she told me, and explained the finer structural points I'd been missing.

And, as advertised, Justene and I had a few cigars. She enjoyed a Cohiba, and I took a Punch (my Cuban of choice). It was too cold to take them onto the balcony, so we just smoked them in the dining room, with the rest of the crowd moving as far away from us as they could get. Justene's other daughter—the hyper-moral one—looked on disapprovingly, waving the smoke away from her face.

"She doesn't like it when I drink, smoke, or cuss," Justene explained. (Once again, that Yeats line about "youth restraining reckless middle age" comes to mind.**)

I suggested a game of poker at that point, but the CalBlog family was up past the curfew its teenage taskmasters have set for it, so after we finished our smokes the CalBloggers went home. Caltech Girl, the Caltech Hub, Baldilocks, Attila the Hub and I talked for a while longer, until the party broke up around midnight.

Now that everyone's gone, I'm considering cleaning the house—something I couldn't be bothered to do before my guests came over. (A the H decided in his kindly fashion that there should be snacks at my party, even though I had explained this afternoon in my literal-minded way that all I'd promised was red wine and pizza, and those were therefore the only items that were contractually required of me. He set out some chips, dip, peanuts and grapes early on in the evening, and people liked them just fine, even though they fell outside the purview of the gathering's stated intent. Thank goodness I'm not turning into my minimalist, non-domestic mother; that would be simply awful.)

* The quote is somewhere in Six of One. As one might imagine, Brown's current fiction is outside of my reading parameters, but I loved her earlier work when I was in college, and went to a few of her book-signings in my youth. (The Wikipedia entry, BTW, does not mention Plain Brown Rapper. This might be just as well; that book didn't age nearly as well as Rita Mae.)

** It's here, on page 76.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 04:24 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 797 words, total size 6 kb.

Karl at Protein Wisdom just ran a nice little update on the fact-checking scandal at The New Republic in the wake of their "Baghdad Diaries" farce. The New Republic is now a new-media laughingstock on an almost Ratherian scale. That takes some doing, but Franklin Foer was up to the task.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 03:16 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 55 words, total size 1 kb.