littlemissattila.new.mu.nu

May 30, 2006

True or False

The average brilliant person is a total idiot in one arena or another.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 08:53 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 19 words, total size 1 kb.

May 23, 2006

Boy. Suddenly, Publishing is Hot Again.

This is the first time in some time I've run out of business cards at an event like this. And the first time I've had cocktail-hour chit-chat turn into a quasi-interview right on the spot.

I'm also hearing from potential clients through other means of networking. It looks like the client I had to "release" during the mistake-job era has already been made up for. And, of course, I could end up getting that one back anyway.

Plus, a lot of the "slow payers" are sending me checks I'd given up hope on. So not only do I have great prospects—I'm not nearly as cash-poor right now as I thought I'd be.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 10:38 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 124 words, total size 1 kb.

Out Tonight

. . . to the Flacks and Hacks party. I have to be the extraverted Joy. How tiresome.

But I need business cards—they're like oxygen to me—so off I go.

I haven't yet fully recovered from last week's mini-flu/upset stomach (exacerbated by the waiting-to-be-fired thing on Friday), so no gin for me, either. Strictly tonic and lime.

On the other hand, these things are always held in fascinating places: cute bars discovered by the folks at Media Bistro. It's generally worth going for that alone.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 04:17 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 89 words, total size 1 kb.

May 13, 2006

Gentrification

Follow-up to my landlord post: how often do good—but poor—tenants get kicked out of properties because a neighborhood is becoming "gentrified"?

I ask because my some of my liberal friends treat "gentrification" as if it were a dirty word: to me, it means I'm less likely to get assaulted. But there's a presumption that lots of the "worthy poor" were displaced to make room for the students, artists, and young professionals who are moving in.

Thoughts?

Posted by: Attila Girl at 08:55 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 78 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Gentrification just means they can't keep them concentrated in an area where they serve as useful pawns in electing extreme leftists to political office. Gentrification means more moderates and conservatives to dilute the "safe" district. Gentrification means the "worthy poor" get exposed to people who have managed to pull themselves up by their own efforts, and to such "dangerous" ideas as self-reliance, independence, and hard work as a virtue.

Posted by: Desert Cat at May 13, 2006 10:39 PM (xdX36)

2 Gentrification means that the houses of poor but hard-working people who vote Republican are bulldozed to build housing developments for rich people who vote Democrat.

Posted by: John at May 14, 2006 08:53 AM (egas2)

3 Sounds like descrimination of the middle class to me. Oh yeah, I forgot, they don't count.

Posted by: Jack at May 14, 2006 11:58 AM (10+e8)

4 It's kind of ironic to me that the same people who argued fervently for an end to segregation are opposed to gentrification. Of course what they wanted was for the poor and minorities to move into wealthy white neighborhoods, not for white up-and-comers to horn in on the ghetto. It makes 'em look bad to have it proven that it doesn't take a government program to turn a neighborhood around. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I always thought gentrification involved people with the means to do so remodeling and updating older houses, renovating and repurposing old commercial properties (lofts, etc.), not typically bulldozing them for McMansions? Besides, rich people who vote Democrat, *never* live in the midst of the "little people".

Posted by: Desert Cat at May 15, 2006 07:06 AM (xdX36)

5 Gentrification means that the people who don't take care of their neighborhoods, who don't amount to much of anything in life, get the boot. People that actually care move in. In Southie (Boston), the locals get all upset when yuppies move in. I can't understand why you wouldn't want someone to move in who will increase your property value, not hold you up, and not cause trouble.

Posted by: PoliticalCritic at May 18, 2006 05:55 PM (Mg1w+)

6 Yeah--to me, gentrification means people start maintaining the properties. Gay men are often in the vanguard on this. The McMansion thing--yuck. That phenomenon is a result of the fact that there are huge numbers of people out there with a great deal of money, but no sense. Or taste.

Posted by: Attila Girl at May 19, 2006 10:36 PM (4IuF2)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

If You Rent Houses or Apartments to Other People

is it a sort of calling, an opportunity to be of service while securing your financial future, or simply a business?

How often do you raise the rent? Does the rising value of your rental property justify raising the rent as little and as infrequently as possible?

Is it better to charge market rates, or slightly below?

Is the business of providing housing different from other businesses? How?

Posted by: Attila Girl at 05:58 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 86 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I would qualify renting houses as "a pain in the ass." Charge market rates if vacancy doesn't bother you, slightly lower if it does. Fundamentally, providing housing is not different from providing any other rented product. However, in some jurisdictions rent control has taken away most of the landlord's rights.

Posted by: John at May 13, 2006 06:52 AM (egas2)

2 Okay, so there's no special "calling" in being a landlord/landlady. Do you feel the same way about doctors and teachers?

Posted by: Attila Girl at May 13, 2006 10:02 AM (34TBU)

3 Maintain the properties well and keep the rent just below market rate. Raise the rent as your costs increase. The rent isn't really based on the value of the property is it? Isn't it based more on market demand for rental property?

Posted by: Patrick at May 13, 2006 10:47 AM (aNAmk)

4 Well, MajorMom and I are both landlords (she's got her previous house...and I've got one I've had the same tenants in for over 10 years). First answer: No, I don't think that there's a calling for it...but rather an investment vehicle. If nothing else, you have someone else paying the note on an asset that's appreciating. You get all that appreciation and the tax breaks while it's being paid for by someone else. SWEET! Second answer: It's all about risk like someone else said. Sometimes it's best to forgoe a little profit by knowing you've got the right people in your property. My 10 year tenants have put an awful lot of money in my pocket over the years and they take care of that home (2600+ sq ft) probably better than I would. Keep your expenses covered and be happy you have tenants. Of course, the market will dictate what your initial rent is. Third: Market or less? I'd say you charge what the market will bear, but don't pass up the opportunity to make what you can. No sense in turning your nose up at money. On the flip side, if you charge a little less, then you might rent it faster. Seems to me that if you're running with the pack, you shouldn't have any trouble keeping the place rented. Finally: Unless you've got hundreds of properties, you're not going to get RICH. The profit margin is VERY small and when tenants leave a property vacant, all of a sudden you're back being responsible for the entire note. Hope this helps. See you on the high ground! MajorDad1984

Posted by: MajorDad1984 at May 13, 2006 02:02 PM (j7S/Q)

5 Renting for less then the market gets you long term tenants. Higher rent usually means high turnover. The wrong renters mean damage, be sure to have a deposit and get references. 1% is what I have heard for rent. Property $100,000 then rent should be $1000/month. This can go up with the market. But less means you are supporting someone else.

Posted by: Jack at May 13, 2006 05:44 PM (ieGs9)

6 It a calling to renters. For everyone else it's a business. If you're not making what you could in an alternative investment, you should think about selling the property and moving the money there.

Posted by: Darrell at May 13, 2006 07:40 PM (5TfP6)

7 My tenant got all huffy when the management company sent him a notice with a late fee, after he forgot to pay the May rent for ten days. He thought someone ought to have given him a friendly reminder before the fees kicked in. The way I see it, the water company or the credit card company isn't going to do that before they tack on late fees. Why should the property manager? Stuff happens and you forget. But when you do, there's a price to pay. It has to be a business, or eventually you're going to get burned.

Posted by: Desert Cat at May 13, 2006 10:47 PM (xdX36)

8 Doctors and teachers are interesting examples to cite, for they belong in very heavily regulated industries. For doctors, the regulations, and the malpractice feeding frenzy, have resulted in a work environment which is making it even more difficult for doctors to enjoy their work. The Socialization of the school system has resulted in an situation where many teachers look on their job not as turning ignorant children into learned adults, but simply presenting lesson plans. The founding fathers knew what they were talking about when they wrote "pursuit of happiness" instead of just "happiness;" virtually everything that has gone wrong in the US (and Europe) is consequential of the failure to learn the importance of that.

Posted by: John at May 14, 2006 08:52 AM (egas2)

9 I used the examples of doctors and teachers for two reasons: 1) they are often used as examples of professions one gets "called" to; 2) their "industries" (quotes are their on behalf of public school teachers) are regulated. I felt that this might provide an apples vs. apples co-mparison for landlords. If you'd like to consider a less-regulated arena (at least by government), you might consider the minister at your local church.

Posted by: Attila Girl at May 14, 2006 12:11 PM (34TBU)

10 Any profession that one feels passionate about pursuing can be one's calling. But doctors charge plenty, and I don't know too many teachers who really would work for free, despite their pledges to the contrary. It's important to make the distinction between "social worker" and "landlord". Social workers (whether government funded or private ministers) are paid by someone else to do their work. A landlord only stays afloat if she keeps her properties rented to tenants who pay the rent on time and take reasonable care of the property. Trying to combine the two is a recipe for disaster, as I see it. Unless of course money is no object. But then why not start a private charity?

Posted by: Desert Cat at May 14, 2006 05:14 PM (xdX36)

11 If I ever get a rental property, I'll make sure to get tenants who can afford the place, and intend to take care of the property (and know how). But when I hear people talk about raising the rent on good tenants every single year, just because they can, I don't know . . . it seems to me that extracting every last possible dollar out of people isn't the way to go. Of course, I live in a part of the country where the high cost of housing (lovely as it is from the property-owning perspective) has gotten ridiculous, and appears to hurt a lot of economic sectors.

Posted by: Attila Girl at May 14, 2006 07:52 PM (34TBU)

12 Eeeekkk! I got so caught up in this one I posted about it and tried to do a Trackback to you, but it won't take the trackback address. Rats! I did plug in the archive address to this post at least. 'Scuse please! Love, Your Lame-Ass Blogdaughter

Posted by: k at May 14, 2006 08:35 PM (wZLWV)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

May 05, 2006

Why I Cannot Trust Men.

Think about it: here is a group of people who share a profound yet irrational conviction that their worth as human beings is directly tied to the size of a particular item.

Each pretends to know that this item is bigger than most others like it. Each tries to project this confidence wherever he goes.

And then, when he has to urinate, he pulls this thing out in front of others afflicted by the same general anxiety he is. The pulls theirs out, too. All in front of each other.

Is this smart behavior? Would you vote for someone from this sex as President of the Fucking United States? If so, what are you smoking?

Posted by: Attila Girl at 08:22 PM | Comments (22) | Add Comment
Post contains 125 words, total size 1 kb.

1 But WHO'S LOOKING? Anyone caught looking at this particular item (unless it is one's own) is subject to a dirty look at best, and perhaps a snide comment about one's sexual orientation at worst. See, being a member of the *other* group, I can forgive you for not knowing that looking is highly taboo to the group in question. Anyway, you know very well missy that the purported size of this item is a proxy for the size of something somewhat less tangible. Whether the "alpha" of this group actually has the largest item or not is irrelevant. It is the PERCEPTION of its size--as evidenced by his confidence and command--that is the important thing.

Posted by: Desert Cat at May 05, 2006 08:34 PM (xdX36)

2 I'll be the first to concede that men don't know squat.

Posted by: Darrell at May 05, 2006 09:22 PM (nLWL5)

3 Bah! Gamma.

Posted by: Desert Cat at May 05, 2006 09:26 PM (xdX36)

4 I stand by what I said. And I stand and deliver.

Posted by: Darrell at May 05, 2006 09:54 PM (nLWL5)

5 Joy, I agree on many levels. However, when looking at the other option there are some concerns. Women often are more concerned with the outward appearance than the actual substance or value (I give you haute couture). On the second point, women do not fight by half-measure or with restraint. There is no quarter, no mercy, and nothing is sacred. I vote we let dogs run the planet - specifically Labs. They are friendly, divvy up property by who peed on it last, and love you no matter what you rolled in or had to do last week. Even fights are generally just a growl and a "don't think about taking that bone". Much better track record than us hominids. SGT Dave

Posted by: SGT Dave at May 05, 2006 10:20 PM (lTPXz)

6 Cats. Cats really don't care what you do and would rather take a nap than pass more intrusive legislation. They follow the same pee rule as dogs, but rather than pee on everything, they usually just rub against it and purr to mark their territory. Much less smelly and more friendly. Of course the first thing cats would do if they ran the planet is to outlaw dogs. But that's a small price to pay for entrance into the Utopian Nappers Paradise.

Posted by: Desert Cat at May 05, 2006 10:55 PM (xdX36)

7 Doll, You've lost weight! Now don't be modest, you're looking great! I don't know how you do it? I can see that I've aged through the years, and you, You, not a day! I'm always amazed that you keep such classy friends. I'd have expected that other women wouldn't even want to share this world with you. But they all honestly love you. It makes me believe in karma. Izzat whatcher talkin'bout?

Posted by: Sonar at May 05, 2006 11:27 PM (qCS9x)

8 Speaking of insecurities on parade in public, thanks Sonar. Nice illustration.

Posted by: Desert Cat at May 06, 2006 06:03 AM (xdX36)

9 Well, I live in La-La Land. I had no idea that the behavior Sonar documents was considered a chick thing at all. Out here, boys do it, too

Posted by: Attila Girl at May 06, 2006 11:14 AM (34TBU)

10 "Think about it: here is a group of people who share a profound yet irrational conviction that their worth as human beings is directly tied to the size of a particular item." Women have this attitude towards their busts, waists, butts, and wardrobes. "Each pretends to know that this item is bigger than most others like it. Each tries to project this confidence wherever he goes." Change the "he" to "she" and you've got women pegged, too. The urination bit doesn't apply to women, though.

Posted by: John at May 06, 2006 04:03 PM (KTxHe)

11 It doesn't have to, as women's "assets of anxiety" are on display any time they're out in public, (unless of course they're wearing a burka). Don't forget hair color/style/length, jewelry, accessories, etc. in that list.

Posted by: Desert Cat at May 06, 2006 09:27 PM (xdX36)

12 Heh heh heh! Y'all are sending me such very pleasant reminders of the many advantages my life in a bubble. My $100/year clothing budget is just the beginning.

Posted by: k at May 06, 2006 09:56 PM (y6n8O)

13 I should ask Sigmund, Carl and Alfred about treating anxiety with sunlight. Back to the opening post, I like Condi a lot. Maybe the most. In her current job, I like that she seems more to be driving events than only reacting to them. So far 'though, I don't know who she is to any depth or detail. The only candidate I think I've got a take on is John McCain. And he's wrong on a lot (approaches to immigration reform, campaign reform). Still, I trust him. But he's got balls and a penis. Who do you like without a penis?

Posted by: Sonar at May 07, 2006 01:39 AM (qCS9x)

14 Al Gore in a PVS.

Posted by: Darrell at May 07, 2006 05:49 AM (soQiG)

15 $100, k? You have me beat! If you buy good clothing and treat it right, it will last you most of your adult life. Ignoring style, of course!

Posted by: Darrell at May 07, 2006 05:53 AM (soQiG)

16 I don't know if this changes your view of the matter, but I've compared notes with a female colleague about behavior in our respective locker rooms at the gym in our anonymous large federal agency. Half or more of the men walk to the showers (which are private stalls) with a towel covering their "particular item." Virtually all the women strut around in the altogether. Go figure.

Posted by: Attila (Pillage Idiot) at May 08, 2006 07:17 AM (C31gH)

17 "... a group of people who share a profound yet irrational conviction that their worth as human beings is directly tied to the size of a particular item" And here I thought you were talking about breast enhancement surgery.... what a disappointment.

Posted by: Lokki at May 08, 2006 08:42 AM (wSBsc)

18 Think about it: here is a group of people who share a profound yet irrational conviction that their worth as human beings is directly tied to the size of a particular item. Yes, and women know that the worth of a man depends on the sixe of his bankroll (or his political power).

Posted by: Averroes at May 08, 2006 02:43 PM (jlOCy)

19 Well, one has to admit that, depending on her positioning (and, um, the landscaping situation) women don't actually show that much when they're nude. Not regarding genitals. Mammary glands, sure. But our primary reproductive organs are less apparent to the casual glance.

Posted by: Attila Girl at May 08, 2006 09:01 PM (34TBU)

20 I bet you Jeff would say that government issue towels aren't that large. Perhaps evidence is being gathered for a future sexual harassment suit? I thought the sensitivity seminars suggest talking about non-sexual matters at work? Comparing notes or taking notes/documenting the occurence?

Posted by: Darrell at May 09, 2006 08:29 PM (fTD9j)

21 It sounds to me that Attila Girl is just complaining because she hasn't gotten any. Attila maybe you would feel happier in life If you just got a rock hard one in your cute little pink vagina.

Posted by: Night Rider at May 09, 2006 08:32 PM (jR4Uu)

22 Wow. It's certainly been a while since someone with no sense of humor showed up here to discuss my body parts. Especially since I slowed down on the political material. But thanks for the compliment on my cunt. It certainly is adorable, and I was afraid that wasn't conveying that sufficiently in my prose.

Posted by: Attila Girl at May 09, 2006 09:45 PM (34TBU)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

53kb generated in CPU 0.0252, elapsed 0.1284 seconds.
212 queries taking 0.1161 seconds, 469 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy

Monthly Traffic

Pages: 40744
Files: 302
Bytes: 291.6M
CPU Time: 25:28
Queries: 7722909

Content

Posts: 5241
Comments: 12905

Feeds

May 30, 2006

May 23, 2006

May 13, 2006

May 05, 2006

Search Thingy

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Monthly Traffic

Content

Feeds