. . . on why we shouldn't take kids away from their families without good reason, and a little bit of case-by-case sorting.

Apparently we have a presumption of innocence thingie in this country, and that means law enforcement isn't supposed to have quite so many swashbuckling adventures in the realm of family law.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 08:42 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 56 words, total size 1 kb.

Why is it that even now, men try to tell me about The Male Perspective on life, sex, women, and . . . yes, even equilateral triangles? And I'm not even talking about ex-boyfriends, here. Each guy thinks he can speak for his entire sex.

Um. First of all, I have a brother. Also, I have nephews, and young cousins. And a couple of cousins from my own generation. I have lots of male friends and colleagues from all walks of life, though they do trend a bit intellectual. From there they go either artistic or technical/math oriented. Sometimes both.

And, you know: I wasn't 100% a virgin when I married. I know men, and there is no "male viewpoint" on just about anything. There are a couple of trends (such as the fact that lots of men want to have sex with women, and a superior ability to detach emotionally from many situations that do not involve teenage daughters). But there aren't any universals.

So can we stop with the amateur sociology, here?

Posted by: Attila Girl at 08:28 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 190 words, total size 1 kb.

1 OK.

Posted by: Darrell at May 25, 2008 09:09 PM (6k2HE)

2 Hey--I wasn't talking to you!

Posted by: Attila Girl at May 25, 2008 09:24 PM (Hgnbj)

3 Why do you hate us so? AtH should watch what you give him to drink...don't be slipping the man a mickey.

Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie at May 26, 2008 10:53 AM (1hM1d)

4 And some moral equivalent from me... please show some hate to the feminists as well, who think they speak for all women... But seriously, we are who we are. Over the past 6k years or so we've been kicking around the planet, we've come up with some rules of thumb that by and large work. Such as, if you kicked a man's ass, the chances of him kicking you right back soar to near 99.9999%. Conversely, if you tried that with a woman, other men would kick you right back. True, I can't speak for my entire sex. But I'm fairly confident that I can speak on behalf of ~67% of them on ~67 of the issues. Where I come from, that's good enough for government-changing, constitution-amending work.

Posted by: Gregory at May 26, 2008 04:43 PM (cjwF0)

5 Okay, Gregory. Why do men either want to marry, or want not to marry? Why do they either want kids, or not want kids? Why do they either want sex, or not want sex? Why do they either want to analyze things, or not want to analyze things? Why do they either want to control the situation, or not care about controlling the situation? Why are they always short, tall, or of average height? Why do they either cook, or not cook? Why are they always either very good gardeners, or very poor ones? Good in business, or not good in business? Good at languages, or bad at 'em? Excellent software engineers, or indifferent to computers except on the most basic user-interface level? Sensitive to order and beauty in their environment, or 100% uninterested in same? Free-spending, or frugal? Domineering, or indecisive? Why are men invariably so bright, and so amazingly creative? Why do they all think I'm beautiful? Why are they all so very very verbal? Why do they all have talents that go in so many different directions? Why do they all want to give me presents and dry my tears and be my best friend and send me money and tell me I'm the bee's knees? Why do they all notice my brains? And my breasts? But—most of all—why is it so unusual for a man to notice details? Why are the majority of males so oblivious to the small things that tell entire stories? Why must they train themselves for so long in order to make decent students of human nature?

Posted by: Attila Girl at May 26, 2008 09:53 PM (ZPGU6)

6 You have breasts? Kewl.

Posted by: Desert Cat at May 26, 2008 10:53 PM (DIr0W)

7 Ooh, Desert Cat, I ain't gonna go near that one. Ooh. Attila, you want viewpoints, right? Not something that's genetically/hereditarily decided, right? Or specific traits... So I won't do teh height issue, teh languages (also genetically decided, believe it or not), or teh gardening (which is either genetic or God-given - either way, I ain't touching it), teh business skills (which is genetic - I have yet to see a Chinese who truly sucks at entrepreneural skills)... but the rest? Sure thing! (And you can check with your men friends and see how I'm going) 1. Marry - because we're in love, religiously inclined and can't get laid until we're united in holy matrimony. Sometimes, it could be money, money, money as well. Not marry - because we've seen the shit people call 'marriage' and want no part of it, it cramps our style, we only want to be f*kbuddies. Or, we're gay. Um. Maybe strike that, since the California decision. 2. Want kids - well, they're cute, pass on our heritage (genetic or cultural). Don't want kids - can we say high-maintenance? Not to mention they're snot-nosed bratty b*ards? 3. Want sex - well, we're men. Not want sex? Shoot, I dunno this one. Coyote Ugly, I guess. Or maybe 'she' is a shemale. And even then... OK, I'm stumped. You got me. 4. Analyse things - because it interests us and we wanna know how it works. Not analyse things - well, quite frankly, my dear, we don't give a damn, that's why. 5. Cook - like cooking. Don't cooking - don't feel like cooking, especially when there's a broad already in the kitchen. Or, more than likely, has been chased out from kitchen by said broad. Whichever idiot said that the woman's place is in the kitchen didn't mention it was an exclusive place only for women, men not welcome. 6. Good at s/w eng - well, we rock. Uninterested in computing - got a real life outside computing; includes girlfriend in package, possibly extreme sports kinda guy but not necessary. Or, you know, gay. 7. Sensitive to order and beauty or not - this is nonsense. *Everybody* would prefer a pleasing atmosphere to work and play in - the only question is what do you believe is order and beauty? 8. Free-spending - want or need what I bought. Frugal - not interested in what's on offer. Or, saving up for a wedding. Or, broke until next paycheck. Or, you know, an accountant. Bean-counters, right? 9. Why so long to study human nature? Women nature, that's a lifetime study. Men nature, about half an hour should do it. Jesus don't count; He's God, He knows everything. Of course He understands women nature. And like I said to DC, er, I ain't touching the breasts. If only because AtH would beat me to a bloody pulp if I did. But really, Attila, while I'm not saying men are complicated (we're actually quite simple beings), we do react differently to different stimuli. That is to say, we all use the exact same heuristics; it's only the values that get plugged in that are different - and even then, only by a certain range. I can be both frugal and free-spending; it just depends on which item classes you're talking about. And let's be frank, men aren't the only ones doing this. Women generalise about themselves all the time! Case in point; Cassandra...(sorry, couldn't submit the linky) "And because men are, when one gets right down to it, such visual creatures," "Because - according to the biological imperative - men love the chase and despise anything won too easily we learn (sorrowfully, because duplicity is not our nature)" "I just think that it's harder to describe that the male one, because being a woman is not as straightforward as being a man." "Women have many roles in life and unlike the way men deal with the work/home disconnect, with women everything in life is wrapped into one big ball. You can't separate the different pieces of our lives - we don't compartmentalize. Most of us don't go to work and "turn off" Mom/sister/wife/friend/lover mode from 9 to 5." "Did I mention earlier that men like the chase? That they never respect that which is won too easily?" "Women, though, will often throw themselves into friendships, marriages, jobs without considering the personal cost. We are little builders. In an article I read recently, the author uttered a thought I've often had myself: we women often forget that it's awfully hard to help others if we forget to put the oxygen mask on our own faces first." Yeah, that's enough, I think. Basically not only does Cassandra generalise about women, she generalises about men too! Soo... goose and gander?

Posted by: Gregory at May 27, 2008 08:01 PM (cjwF0)

8 or, to put it more simply, boys are dumb!

Posted by: Rin at May 28, 2008 02:00 PM (bSHZa)

9 They are dumb. We should throw rocks at 'em, or at least not let 'em into our treehouses! Actually, Cassie tends to be right on the money about male-female differences. And some of what you're saying is fundamentally correct, Gregory. Remember: all stereotypes are true, up to a point. And the stimulation issue is infamous: the male organ seems almost to be hard-wired to each guy's eyeballs, whereas there's no real formula for getting a woman turned on. (Other, than perhaps, licking the tips of our earlobes: very few of us don't like that. Butterfly-soft strokes down our panties while we're still wearing them are also a nice appetizer.) But you also prove my point, Gregory: what's this about getting chased out of a kitchen by a woman? Are you kidding me? I mean, I like to set the rules for kitchen cleanliness, because very few people wash dishes as thoroughly as I do, or hunt around for mold and dust with the same zeal. But I loved it when men used to cook for me. (And I love it still, at parties and brunch dates.) And I hate the fact that my husband doesn't like to sit and talk to me while I make dinner: I despise feeling isolated in the kitchen, which for me is a place for homey, comfy socializing. It makes me crazy to cook alone for long stretches of time, and that's a big part of why I haven't been doing it much in the past few years. You are taking your own specific experiences, and generalizing from them. (Gotta go; I need to find a local Chinese person to help me with my business plan.)

Posted by: Attila Girl at May 28, 2008 03:43 PM (1q/ac)

10 Soo... Women can generalise about men and they get it right, but fellow men can't because they're only speaking from their own specific experiences? Did I get that right, or do you think I'm constructing a strawman? Or is Cassandra possessing some super powers that elevate her above other women (actually, that newsletter I might subscribe to, because her posts really are quite spot on). The woman in question (no, I'm not joking) was my sister. And my mother. And... well, maybe it's an Asian cultural thing. Washing up, sure. Talking while they cook, not much problems there. But it's only very recently my mother has allowed me to even stir the chicken stew while she's in the kitchen (that's because she's 60+ and gets tired faster than me). And my sister finds cleaning toilets therapeutic. OK, I'm not saying women in general do, but my sister does. What I'm saying is, the questions you asked me I attempted to answer, covering the various viewpoints I know of. For instance, I want to get married, but I know men who don't, and by and large those are the reasons they give me. I understand them. So, here's the thing. Cassandra made some sweeping generalisations (which I tend to agree with), and then she asks her male readers why this is the case. Sorta the opposite to how you want it, true. Here's the clincher. When her male readers reply back, they by and large agree with each other! Case in point: the post I quoted from was about 'real' men traits vs 'real' adult traits. Maybe you've read it - it hit 170+ comments and it was real fun wading through it all. Have a look All kinds of men from various areas (industrial, cultural and geographical) but essentially agreeing on the fundamentals. Anyways, I don't pretend to speak for all men on all issues. What I can do, however, is provide a handy dandy guide to how two-thirds of 'em think about two thirds of the issues. Which is enough for my government to issue a staggering 600+ Constitutional amendments over the past 50 years, so really, it should be sufficient for thee also, no? Besides all that, what's wrong with amateur sociology? I guess that should have been my question right from the start. If Cassandra is right about male-female differences, then those are universals right there (or close enough as makes no never mind). What the heck do sociologists do that we don't on a regular basis? We do naturally what autistic (or Asperger Syndrome) people have to work really hard at - socialising. We build up a set of heuristics based on our observations of the way people around us act. And considering how much globalisation and American hegemony has impacted our societies, our heuristics are much, much richer than they were a mere century ago.

Posted by: Gregory at May 28, 2008 05:25 PM (cjwF0)

11 Well, my post was directed toward those few men who like to explain their own behavior or preferences--behavior or preferences that have nothing to do with manhood, masculinity, or male socialization--as being due to being male. I don't like that patronizing little "men are like this patronizing, lecturing tone. Here's the same thing in reverse: a non-athletic ex-boyfriend once asked me if I'd ever encountered anyone who sweated more than I do. (Truth is, I don't sweat that much--it's just that he sweats very little.) "Yeah, I have," I replied. "Who?" he persisted. "Who sweats more than you?" "Every man I've ever dated, other than you," I told him. There are some very unworldly people out there, who assume that their narrow experiences are universal. That's what I'm talking about. I don't mind cleaning toilet bowls. But I hate having to wipe all those stray bits of urine off the rim because men are sloppy and can't be bothered to wipe the rim down periodically--even after all those urine drops start to smell up the whole bathroom. That is annoying to me. And to other women I've spoken to.

Posted by: Attila Girl at May 28, 2008 10:18 PM (1q/ac)

12 BTW, Gregory: do you have a link for the Cassie thread you're discussing? Or shall I get that from her?

Posted by: Attila Girl at May 28, 2008 11:01 PM (1q/ac)

13 Ah, OK, got your gist. Can't say as I've met anyone do that in the precise manner you describe. The patronising schtick in general, plenty of that, though. My own self I know does it all the time, unfortunately. It's really hard, you know, to get rid of that tone? Especially when you're like me and just want to win every argument. Seriously difficult to correct bad habits. Ah, yes, cleaning misfired pee stains. My sister doesn't like that either. She's got me trained really well - I leave the toilet seat down because I sit to piss also. Well. Actually, it started from my mum, who hates it when I mis-aim. So she said, so being the lazy sot I am, I figured why waste time turning on the lights and everything? It turns out it ain't me mis-aiming, 'twas my father. But the habit stuck. The Cassandra thread I'm discussing here? Sure, I'll point you to it - except Akismet or whichever system you're using didn't like me submitting the linky, so I'll just have to leave it in plain text. http://www.villainouscompany.com/vcblog/archives/2008/05/finding_your_in.html Did I say 170+? Let's make that 181. Yes, please do ask her what she thinks about that thread. I think she gave up about 3/4s of the way through but I could be wrong. The way I read it, it got that long because of the fundamental disconnect between male and female brains (of the ways we approach life). Couldn't have been me; egotistical, narcissistic megalomaniac that I am, I only stuck my oars in 3-4 times. Roughly.

Posted by: Gregory at May 29, 2008 05:58 AM (K5COO)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

By the time I have these systems installed in my parents' homes, I'm hoping they will have a red alert—complete with flashing alarm and buzzers—that will let me know if they have any fun, so I can call them up and tell 'em to knock it off.

Of course, 3-4 decades down the line when my nieces and nephews are catering to my every whim looking after me, all the kinks will be worked out, and I'll get notices by email: "the System tells us you didn't get out of bed today. Are you all right?"

"Fine," I'll respond. "I was just reading a good book, so I didn't bother. However, I'm on my last 100 pages or so, and I know who the killer is, anyway. Bring over some more weed, booze, and pizza, mmkay?"

Oh. I mean, "medical marijuana." Does THC go bad? 'Cause, like, maybe I should be stocking up now.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 07:18 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 174 words, total size 1 kb.

The New York Times discusses one of the schools that toppled in China's quake. Reading it is heartbreaking: parents shouldn't have to endure their children's deaths.

And yet, and yet . . . a 7.9 earthquake is not a manageable thing under any circumstances. A 7.9 is mass death, no matter what. The Northridge quake was a motherfucker that hit the San Fernando Valley hard—and brick buildings miles away—an entire mountain range away—in Santa Monica nearly as hard.

You'll recall that the Richter scale is counter-intuitive. It is not normal, linear deal. (What is the terminology I'm looking for? Not arithmatic, but something-or-other? Not thingamajig, but doohickey? Doesn't progress like a thermometer, but spikes more and more with each point? Help a sister out.)

So, yeah: I do want to cut my own heart out after reading the NYT article, and a sic-year-old building should be reasonably safe, but I have some essay questions nonetheless. For instance:

(1) How many children were lost in the average American family two generations ago? How about in China one generation ago? Is child mortality going down in China, or up?

(2) Has the carnage in China's schools as a result of the quake altered the average Chinese perspective on the one-child-per-household policy? Or didn't the writers at The New York Times ask about that?

(3) How has the widespread availability of education changed Chinese life over the last 30 years? As your eye doctor would say: is it better, or worse?

(4) Which country has worse building codes: China, or Mexico? China, or India? China, or the Philippines? China, or South Korea? China, or North Korea?

That is, I see that rural schools in China might not be up to the standards we expect, here in the richest country in the history of mankind. But how do things look from a broader historical or geographical perspective?

In short, there was a lot of data in the NYT piece. But not a lot of information.

h/t: Memeorandum.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 06:35 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 341 words, total size 2 kb.

The Netherlander points out some of the Adamses were also creepy and kooky, and that those with two Ds in their names didn't have all the fun.

So. Point taken.

I can't think of any associations between the Kennedys and ghosts, though I'll admit that the Roosevelts don't seem to have many, unless you count Montgomery Clift.

Personally, I miss Banquo.

Here's some more James Thurber, not verbatim, but as close as I can get it in a hurry:

"Well, anyone who rejoins our species after being quit of it can scarcely be called bright, can she?" I asked.

"It was Banquo who made that scene, not Lady Banquo," she replied.

I could have pointed out that Lady Banquo wasn't dead, but it would have been too easy. "She put him up to it; you know how lady ghosts are," I told her.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 06:39 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 149 words, total size 1 kb.

I'm busy packing, exhorting the painters to finish the job at the condo, fending off my husband, who is vaguely unhappy that I have so much stuff, or that I'm not filling very many boxes, or that I'm not working hard enough, or that I'm too short. Or that until the end of the day tomorrow we're basically homeless.

I'll be doing double-duty today: heading over to the condo to approve the accent colors (and then again to take the painters a check, and kiss their feet for working today instead of Friday, when the carpeting people dominated the scene). And coming back in between to pack things into boxes.

We seem to be running short of cardboard containers, so I asked my father to drop by at noon—wearing his grubbiest clothing and toting about a million gazillion boxes. (I'd ask my mother to help, too—but she's buying me the flooring in the new place. Also, I'm not sure she and my father would have anything to say to each others, or that Mandy the pit bull would be able to resist the temptation to, um, "unpack" the packed boxes. If you get my drift.)

Posted by: Attila Girl at 06:24 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 203 words, total size 1 kb.

Hooray!

Aw, come on: I know that people in the foothills love to complain about Armenians, but that's overexposure talking. Like my paternal grandfather and his fixation with Mexicans.

In truth, I adore Armenians and want to read up on the Turkish slaughter so I can get really mad. Maybe I'll learn Armenian, if it isn't too hard. Or if it's hard enough to cover up for my lack of ability with any non-English language.

And, yeah: lot of nouveau riche Armenian-Americans have a penchant for Big, almost Sovietesque architecture. And some of the men are a bit retro in their attitudes toward females. (Case in point: the carpet-installer who had to be told that the client had been promised her yummy sand-colored wall-to-wall before the move on Monday [Tuesday latest], and therefore he pretty much had to man up and get my carpet installed within two days, whether he wanted to or not.)

But in truth there's no one in the world with a perfect aesthetic regarding buildings, other than me. And there are only ten or fifteen men in this entire country with Just the Right Amount of Machismo, such that they would be entitled to buy me a plate of pasta—with lashings of red wine—for lunch. (Women? Good question. Perhaps eight in the 50+ states in the Union. With girls I tend to go for breakfast/brunch fare: If you offer me eggs benedict and a Mimosa or two I will listen to anything you have to say--with rapt attention.

Even if it's about the Turks.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 11:02 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 265 words, total size 2 kb.

If The Monkees and Green Acres had to do battle with Moonlighting and Freakazoid!?

Speaking of Cosmic Battles of Surrealism, here's some entirely made-up dialogue:

A: "Let me strap your seatbelt on, in case your recliner makes a sharp turn sometime soon. Safety first."

B: "So, you're afraid that the condo is going to step out at night, as condos often do? It's going to leave the complex? Are you concerned that it might go off to see a lady condo?

A: "Um. I'm going to need more time for that one."

B: "Then I win this one."

A: "Yes, you win. This one."

Posted by: Attila Girl at 10:11 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 118 words, total size 1 kb.

but only based on the Party achieving certain benchmarks. She has not set a date certain.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 09:18 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 30 words, total size 1 kb.

But I do.

Busy, exhausted—and doing just fine.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 04:22 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 24 words, total size 1 kb.

We did close both deals today, which means that we no longer own this house: we're just leasing it for four nights after the three-day grace period. We do, however, own the condominium, where I shall be meeting tomorrow with:

- the handyman;
- the carpet installers;
- the painters;
- the cable people who will install our cable TV/internet connection;
- the cable people who will install our phone lines.

In the meantime I'll be wiping out cupboards like a crazy person, cleaning the fridge, etc. etc. and starting to get a few necessities over there—such as yogurt and Coca Cola in the fridge.

After I wipe it out with baking soda, of course.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 10:51 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 119 words, total size 1 kb.

Price supports; corporate welfare. It's got it all.

Take it, WSJ.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 09:25 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 21 words, total size 1 kb.

The kids in Waco weren't just wrenched from their homes; they were burned alive.

But it's okay; it was in the interests of defeating a "cult."

It is perfectly fine to destroy children's lives in order to save them.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 06:11 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 55 words, total size 1 kb.

I can't figure out where Peter Gabriel was going with this.

Can anyone decipher that one?

It's just . . . opaque.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 05:36 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 36 words, total size 1 kb.

1 This is clearly a variant of the Incomprehensible Englishman syndrome first identified in 1968 with the release of Procul Harum's Whiter Shade of Pale. The symptoms are a state of cognitive disassociation and confusion followed by regret for having wasted valuable time listening, sometimes repeatedly, to musical doggerel with no sense, meaning or hook. In Mr. Gabriel’s case it is less a case of what the fuck is he saying as why the fuck is he saying it. It is similar to Incomprehensible Welshman Syndrome associated with Dylan Thomas (Not to be confused with Incomprehensible Bob Dylan Syndrome, a whole different and deeper kettle of fish!), Incomprehensible Irishmen Syndrome which spans a spectrum of disciplines, personalities and genres too numerous for citation and Incomprehensible Scotsman Syndrome which includes all Scotsmen regardless of age or gender and their apparel or lack there of. Currently the only population of the British Islands free of the curse appears to be the Manx although this may be because no one knows they exist although examples have been known to mutter a kind of Gaelic pig Latin and claim it was intelligible speech. In all cases it is a matter of actions that at first, second and third glance appear foolish, followed by an opening of the mouth and speaking words that proves the point. Without parsing Mr. Gabriel's words too closely he is apparently suggesting we jump in the water and kiss a somewhat anthropomorphic frog. The frog seems to retain memories and sense of identity from a past existence as a high-caste human judging by his references to royal blood while exhibiting the outward characteristics of the familiar amphibian: webbed feet, slimy skin and large bulbous eyes positioned on top of a large primitive skull. Of course this describes the current royal family as well, although I doubt that if you found one lying in a pond you'd be inclined to kiss it or even lick its back for the dubious pleasure of the psychedelic kick you could achieve by ingesting their mucosa. The literature (Herder's Symbol Dictionary, The Golden Bough, etc. see also my Wikipedia entry) is clear the frog is a transitive creature associated with re-birth and resurrection as is just about everything else in ancient myth and legend. Mr. Gabriel has obviously visited the Royal Mausoleum at Frogmore one too many times and identifies with Albert the Prince Consort of Saxe-Cogberg-Gotha whom he styles a “Frog Prince” and thus worthy of re-birth and the mantle of hero as Joseph Campbell and other intellectual frauds have maundered about. Or he has heard "Froggy goes a Courtin" and decided to pep it up a bit and failed. I hope this answers your question.

Posted by: Sejanus at May 24, 2008 11:40 AM (3xlLF)

2 Wikipedia entry on you, or on froggies?

Posted by: Attila Girl at May 24, 2008 06:43 PM (Hgnbj)

3 I am sorry. You are completely right, I misunderstood the question. I meant to respond to the question of whether Henry and Clover Adams were at least as influential as Gomez and Morticia, but I digress.

Posted by: Sejanus at May 25, 2008 12:48 AM (3xlLF)

4 Dick Cheney, through common ancestry with Henry Squires, is part of that Adams political family. As are Millard Fillmore, William Howard Taft, and Calvin Coolidge. And shouldn't we start with Samuel and Mary Fifield Adams (parents of Sam Adams), or even further back, rather than Henry and Clover (183 ? And is it true that Henry suffered a stroke upon learning of the sinking of the Titanic because he had tickets for the return trip from the US to Europe? Were they nonrefundable?

Posted by: Darrell at May 25, 2008 11:18 AM (jve07)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

. . . no peace.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 05:22 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 9 words, total size 1 kb.

Look north.

Kathy Shaidle—herself, of course, potentially a victim of Canada's repressive attitude toward freedom of speech—recounts some of the leadup to the upcoming tar-and-feathering of Mark Steyn and Maclean's in Canada:

So, “when the British Columbia ‘Human Rights’ Tribunal finds us guilty,” writes Steyn, “they are statutorily obligated to issue a cease-and-desist order that will have the effect of preventing Maclean’s running any writing on Islam by me or anybody of a similar bent — even though the plaintiffs have not challenged the accuracy of a single fact or statistic or quotation.”

He continued:

So four weeks from now I’ll be banished from the Canadian media. … But a year or two down the line, many other subscribers to Maclean’s and the Chronicle-Herald and eventually the Globe and the Toronto Star will be wondering why there are whole areas of debate that no longer seem to get much of an airing in the public prints. In 1989, Muslims who objected to Salman Rushdie burned his novel in the streets of England. Two decades on, they’ve figured out that it’s more efficient to use the “human rights” commissions to burn the offending texts metaphorically, discreetly, offstage … and (ultimately) preemptively.

In many respects, the June 2 Tribunal’s guilty verdict will represent the ultimate triumph of those “progressive” “Trudeaupian” ideals that have been infecting the nation’s institutions for generations.

“At one point,” remarked Steyn after that televised “debate,” “I looked across at the Sock Puppet Three [the "aggrieved" Muslims who lodged the official complaint] and thought: It’s not about who wins the argument. They’re the future of this country, and that’s that.”

Via Insty.

Hey—I've done my part. I bought America Alone in hardcover, and my radical chic T-shirt arrived a few days ago.

Son of a bitch, I'll miss free speech in Canada. And I've never even been there. And self-defense is illegal in England. What has happened to the Anglosphere?

Posted by: Attila Girl at 01:47 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 347 words, total size 3 kb.

Stephen Green was buying this, too. And now AllahP at Hot Air. What is wrong with people?

Parody. Get it? It's like when Sheryl Crow wrote about using a single square of toilet paper when she pees, and people took her seriously.

Sheesh. Just because someone works in L.A. does not make him/her dumb as a board. (Unless we are discussing a studio exec, of course. Those people are stupid.)

Posted by: Attila Girl at 10:20 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 78 words, total size 1 kb.

. . . while I'm trying to blog.

There are busy footsteps wafting up the stairway, and the sounds of someone furiously packing.

My husband is clearly taking a shortcut of some sort, since we don't move until this coming Monday, and it's cheating to start packing before Sunday. Saturday, earliest.

I also have editing to do. And housework. But I'm not sure how to access the internet while I'm physically working; is there some sort of IV drip available now?

Work, work, work. Tromp, tromp, tromp. He's doing it on purpose. He wants me to feel guilty.

The only way out, as I see it, is to take a nap. But, here. On the couch. After all, the WiFi doesn't seem to work very well from the bedroom.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 10:05 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 149 words, total size 1 kb.

Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics. (No, not the third edition. I got the second edition because it was cheaper. And I wanted to own a copy so I could dog-ear the pages. Pricing helps us to determine how to efficiently manage resources; did you know that?)

Sowell is a fucking God. He just is—dorky-looking quasi-afro and all.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 09:54 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 62 words, total size 1 kb.

Ace:

I've cut out the numbers because I was told there would be no math on this blog.

I'm glad he's learned to take orders from the boss. The 'sphere, after all, is a harsh mistress.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 09:41 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 48 words, total size 1 kb.