Via Insty, some harsh—and well-deserved—words about the "Farm Bill":

Pathetic. Craven. Irresponsible. Unprincipled. Those and similar adjectives apply to every member of Congress who voted for the bloated, anti-consumer piece of legislative corruption known as the Food and Energy Conservative Act of 2008 a k a as “the farm bill.” President Bush has promised to veto the bill. To put it plainly, everybody in Congress who votes to override the coming Bush veto should be retired come November because they will have voted for a measure that is nothing more -- or less -- than a $300 billion giveaway of the taxpayers’ hard-earned money. This is especially true for conservative Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats who brag about their fiscal rectitude.

We’ve already editorialized that the bill is a budget buster even without the grab bag of spending gimmicks. We’ve noted that it will continue to give subsidies to millionaires who actually live in Manhattan and who might not even use their “farmland” for food crops. (Those subsidies will come from tax dollars confiscated from millions of working families of four making, say, $35,000. How is that fair?) But we actually understated the expense and duplicity of providing retroactive “disaster relief” for crop losses for which the 2002 farm bill previously covered in advance through federal crop insurance. As it turns out, the bill also keeps the crop insurance going forward, plus provides $3.8 billion in advance for any unforeseen “disasters” that may, uh, crop up.

On these pages last Friday, columnist Tim Carney described how the bill increases subsidies for domestic sugar growers that, combined with restrictions on imported sugar, will drive up U.S. food prices substantially -- and, even worse, how it provides for the government to buy “excess” sugar at high prices, then re-sell it to ethanol facilities at as little as one-tenth the price.

There also are inexcusable local-interest flimflams such as a $250 million tax credit for a private land sale in Montana and a provision to “sell” national forest land, necessitating a shifting of the Appalachian Trail, to benefit a Vermont ski resort. Worse -- and this is brand new -- House and Senate negotiators “air-dropped” several expensive provisions into the bill that neither chamber had voted on, including $170 million for salmon fisheries in California.

Emphasis mine, just because I'm so pissed, and I suspect my lib friends may skim that passage; I do want them to grasp how hyper-destructive this bill is.

Please find out if your congress-scum and senate-idiots voted for this thing, and let them know how you feel about it.

Let me put it this way: the bill is so egregious, President Bush even found his pen: he plans to veto it. Most of the time, he can't spend money fast enough.

The pathetic thing is that as it stands, the our fine legislators can override the veto. The ray of hope being that we can kick them out in November.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 08:14 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 504 words, total size 3 kb.

I cannot stop thinking about the interplay between death and humor, probably due to Rosina's departure from this dimension, and the fact that I know her via the Warner Brothers crowd.

Death is, by the way, the only thing that really sobers comedy writers up. I was at the funeral of a little girl once—attended by veterans of Warner Brothers, Acme Comedy Theater, and the Groundlings—when M.D. Sweeney (still in the comedy/improv business at that time) looked around at the maybe 100 very silent actors and comics present. "Well, this shut them up."

He didn't mean it in a good way. It was just an observation.

Of course, even Mr. Death doesn't always win; he doesn't have the final word. As we paid our respects to the greiving father, my husband—who has a superb rapport with this man—made an outrageous suggestion that he ought to loan us money—a few dollars so we could go out to lunch—and it was just the right kind of black humor. The guy threw back his head and laughed, seemingly for the first time in weeks. He needed it, too.

It was one of the husband's shining moments: knowing someone well enough to find something on that line—funny, when it could easily have been sick.

I love these people: I'd never really experienced gourmet humor before I fell in with this crowd. And they aren't snobby about it at all; they'll still make puns and the like, if they're relaxed enough. And they aren't afraid to laugh; they aren't parsimonious with their laughter.

Best of all, they aren't mean. When funny people can manage not to be mean, it's the best thing in the whole world. And it's out there!

Posted by: Attila Girl at 06:58 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 291 words, total size 2 kb.

. . . sez:

To be sure, when it comes to their area of expertise, elite professors deserve a degree of deference. When it comes to matters outside their area of expertise, such as whether God exists . . . elite faculty deserve no more deference than any other smart people. Indeed, they may deserve less deference than a representative cross section of the general public. University faculties tend to be highly self-selected and appointments tend to be dominated by network effects that produce a remarkable homogeneity of belief . . . . Outside their areas of expertise (and sometimes even inside it), their beliefs tend to be colored by their ideology and by the need to conform to the expectations of their colleagues.

Good point, with all apologies to the academics in my life—Professors Purkinje and Fractal in particular. Because even when they're wrong, they do it in the right way.

Academics are often, in fact, some of the finest moonbats around.

Via another elite professor.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 01:50 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 171 words, total size 1 kb.

regarding abuse of the English language?

I know some of you are engineers, and unlikely to be upset about overuse of "hopefully." But certainly you've come across some copy that refers to statistical changes in populations, and makes little/no sense. ("Incidence of blankety-blank dropped by 150% over two years." "Rates increased by two-thirds, to 120 over the previous 100.")

Posted by: Attila at 10:35 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 71 words, total size 1 kb.

If a close friend of yours confided in you that he/she was homosexual, what would you do?

a) try and get him/her into counseling that will "cure" the problem;

b) renounce the friendship;

c) kick him/her out of your church;

d) pray for him/her;

e) tell this person that despite your conviction that homosexuality is a sin/character flaw, you still care about him/her, and always will.

Posted by: Attila at 11:38 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 78 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I don't think you have to do anything. S/he has not asked you to do anything, has s/he? Unless, homosexuality announced, your friend insists on changing your friendship, for instance, to include homosexual sex with you (I am assuming, here), I don't see how your relationship has changed. I make a distinction between persons and institutions. Candidly, I don't care what people do with their bodies sexually, within quite wide limits of agreement and nonviolence. But I do care about social institutions. So I can and do argue that some kinds of social institutions are socially unwise (e.g., homosexual marriage). I guess this philosophy qualifies as libertarian conservatism, sort of.

Posted by: Iam Doubt at June 29, 2005 10:36 AM (Wrk9m)

2 How about civil unions that confer the same legal benefits?

Posted by: Attila Girl at June 29, 2005 12:20 PM (RGWNz)

3 Tell them I still love them but let them no in no uncertain terms that their choice of the gay lifestyle is dangerous and wrong and that I cannot ever condone such behavior. I would say the same thing to someone who told me they were a committed adulterer or gambler or boozer......I still love you but disagree with your lifestyle!!

Posted by: Albertanator at June 29, 2005 02:42 PM (Uagor)

4 The correct answer for every Christian should be "Both D and E!" Who is beyond redemption? Who doesn't need it? We are ALL sinners, so who's place is it to say that Gays are beneath you? Not you! Good question!

Posted by: Ranten. N. Raven at June 29, 2005 07:14 PM (xW3rR)

5 Albertanator, you beat me to the punch. Try plugging another issue into the above options a-e, in place of homosexual/homosexuality, and see how the option sounds. Such as g@mbling addict/g@mbling addiction? Adulterer/adultery? Alcoholic/alcoholism? Pedophile/pedophilia? If you really are a friend, the answers will run similar. It is just the high emotional charge to the question of homosexuality that makes the above list sound somewhat like the "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" question. Of course the above substitution suggestion will run against the grain of those who insist that is simply the way they are born, that it is genetic and not a lifestyle choice. Who knows, maybe they are right? I don't know. But I do know that I was born to a long line of alcoholics on my dad's side, all of whom died quite young. My dad broke the curse, and I am free too. But if I wasn't I could certainly point to my Irish blood as the root cause. Would I be right to do so? Can I get a pass for my tendency (*ahem*) toward a hot temper for the same reason? I really was born this way. Personally my response would be different depending upon whether this friend was a fellow believer or someone outside the Body. If he/she is not a believer, it's not really a question of doing anything. You don't "fix people up" so they can get saved. That's getting the cart before the horse in a big and ugly way. D would certainly apply in either case, and if I really did give a serious damn, and they are a brother/sister in Christ, it would be unloving and wrong of me for E not to eventually come up.

Posted by: Desert Cat at June 29, 2005 08:22 PM (xdX36)

6 I belong to a Church that believes homosexuals are, essentially, called to a life of celibacy. Dennis Prager doesn't think that, but he does think they are generally called to a childless life. (Though he and I agree that heterosexual couples should be first in the adoption line, I do see homosexual couples as a big step up from single parents.) I just don't know whether I see celibacy as a realistic lifetime option for most gay people. That's a heavy thing for civil society to demand. Compulsive behaviors such as addictions hurt the person practicing them, and usually their families and friends. Pedophilia hurts children, and therefore can never be condoned by a responsible society, much as we might feel for those who are trapped in it (when we're not fantasizing about doing them physical violence if they've ever acted out on this obsession). But I'd truly like to know what everyone thinks. There will be a follow-up question, of course, next week.

Posted by: Attila Girl at June 29, 2005 09:25 PM (RGWNz)

7 Celibacy is certainly the option that Catholic priests and nuns choose. If it is not a realistic option, then are you suggesting that at some level, compulsive behavior is involved?

Posted by: Desert Cat at June 30, 2005 08:30 AM (xdX36)

8 I said it was a heavy thing for civil society to demand--not necessarily for a church to demand. The desire for sexual expression and human companionship is a very deep one. My mate fits the social conventions: he's male, I'm female, we can get married and live as a couple without raising any eyebrows. My friend B. lives with a man. Their relationship appears every bit as strong and fulfilling as mine. I'm not positive my Lord would think that such a bad thing, after all. I'd certainly rather that my gay friends look for fulfilling relationships, versus ending up at gay bars. Surely for all of us at one point or another, the sex drive feels like an imperative: that isn't "compulsion." It's biology.

Posted by: Attila Girl at June 30, 2005 09:02 AM (RGWNz)

9 And I left out of my comment the distinction I make between the Body life and civil society, which I assumed you'd understand. (So technically I'm not much of a SoCon anyway...) When I was young and single I used to struggle with the idea that fornication would be frowned upon by my Lord. Surely he knew the needs I had--he himself had made me with those needs after all. And it was only right and natural and beautiful that I should fulfill those needs with someone that I cared for. Surely this couldn't be wrong? I'm pretty sure my justifications didn't have any impact on his perfect will for me, however. Switching to the civil side of things for a moment, I propose a thought experiment. Let's assume for a moment that civil unions/gay marriage make sense socially, and creating this new institution or modifying the ancient institution are justified for all of the various reasons given. In all true honestly, and given the arguments that are put forward in favor of gay marriage/civil unions, what about polygamy/polyandry? What would be so wrong about allowing a woman two husbands, or a man two wives, or four or more people to marry themselves together a la Heinlein's Stranger? Especially if they have a genuine three-way bond through their bisexuality? There are a significant number of people for whom the concept of monogamy seems utterly foreign--people for whom a relationship with two or three or more people feels far more natural and normal. And if the primary reason for marriage is, as SoCon's believe, the creation of a legal and financial framework that fosters the raising of children, then would not a polyamorous marriage potentially create an environment even more potentially supportive, nurturing and stable? For people who share virtually all aspects of their lives together in a bond of love, why should they be denied the right to celebrate their relationship in marriage, just as would hetero and homosexual couples? And why should they be denied the visitation rights, the property rights, the inheritance rights, etc. that hetero and homosexual couples would enjoy? I mean these people may not be just like you and I, but who are we to prejudge and say that such an arrangement could never work. Just because it wouldn't work for us personally? Wouldn't it somewhat bigoted to try to impose our monogamous values on the polyamorous? This is about the celebration of the bonds of love in committed relationships, whether these bonds exist between two, three or more people. Thoughts?

Posted by: Desert Cat at June 30, 2005 10:51 AM (n/TmV)

10 I'd make it legal, and I'll tell you why: it would be a lot easier to police the Mormon renegade sects (mostly here in our own southwest) if polygamy were legal, and make sure that 13- and 14-year-old girls were not being forced into these marriages against their will. As things stand, the entire culture is underground and guarded, so infiltration is very difficult. It would be easier if AZ and NM, at least, gave its blessing to the "marriages," so we could work on the rape problem.

Posted by: Attila Girl at June 30, 2005 01:06 PM (RGWNz)

11 I'll give you credit for consistency then. (I've worked with some of those people--one of the Holm brothers from Colorado City had/has a construction business. When I'm working for a public agency, I can't just say I won't hire you 'cause you're icky. But my neck hairs were on end pretty much through the entire contract. I'm quite certain one of the "wives" of one of his sons couldn't have been more than 14). Something else itching at the back of my mind though: I'd certainly rather that my gay friends look for fulfilling relationships, versus ending up at gay bars. They don't now? And having a marriage option will make fulfilling homosexual monogamy possible where it is now not possible?

Posted by: Desert Cat at June 30, 2005 09:59 PM (xdX36)

12 I meant looking for fulfilling relationships instead of aiming for celibacy and ending up at the bars in defeat.

Posted by: Attila Girl at June 30, 2005 11:27 PM (RGWNz)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Strata has a roundup of recent "eminent domain" abuses.

Posted by: Attila at 07:55 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 19 words, total size 1 kb.

Apparently, only 4 1/2 of the Supreme Court Justices are smoking crack.

UPDATE: Hubris has discovered that eminent domain gives him a right to tear a testicle out of the Supreme Court Justice of his choice. (Or an ovary, in the case of Ginsberg and O'Conner.)

Can someone name me one item in the Bill of Rights that hasn't been mutilated by John McCain, the gun grabbers, or the Supreme Court? Thought not.

UPDATE 2: Goldstein has commentary, and the key to the roundup kingdoms.

UPDATE 3: Reynolds has a few entries on this, of course. Here's one with a few links on it, but you might also want to scroll his main page.

Posted by: Attila at 08:17 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 124 words, total size 1 kb.

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

Now that shows gumption.

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

Via Outside the Beltway.

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

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

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

Jane at Armies of Liberation has been successful in her campaign to free Al-Khaiwani from jail. You'll recall that President Saleh (who heads up the freaking judiciary there, presumably due to budget cuts) had him imprisoned because he criticized the government in his newspaper. After 600+ citizens (many of them associated with online journalism) signed Jane's petition requesting that Al-Khaiwani be released, President Saleh relented, rather than stay in the spotlight.

It should be noted here that Jane is a "real" journalist, and has her work published all over the world. She specifically threatened to highlight this situation in the Wall Street Journal if Saleh didn't come around. The Yemeni government was up against both traditional and online journalism, and it's a potent combination.

I want to be just like Jane when I grow up. (Uh-oh: I think that's "if.")

Seriously, thank you to everyone who signed the petition. It blows my mind that we made a difference in this way.

Go to Jane's site every day.

UPDATE: Those of us who supported Jane in her efforts are listed here, and that's where most of the pro-liberation high fives are taking place (in the comments section).

UPDATE THURSDAY: El Capitan discusses what a long shot this was from the beginning, and whether he was a cynic for thinking so.

I really don't: if dictators were so susceptible to public pressure, sanctions would have worked against Saddam Hussein. The thing is, when we can shame authoritarian rulers into doing the right thing, we should: it's much worse to have to accomplish this sort of thing by force. And it's not like our green berets are going to go into another country just to fetch a journalist.

Posted by: Attila at 03:22 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 291 words, total size 2 kb.

Dean sparked a great discussion on how those of us who lean libertarian ought to look at corporations, and at unionization.

It's a long comments thread, and we mostly kept it civil. The ideas in it are intriguing, so check it out.

Posted by: Attila at 03:47 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 48 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Boy, you're not kidding. There are some hefty arms swinging the bats in that one.

Posted by: douglas brown at November 21, 2004 04:45 PM (Sm4lQ)

2 Yes

Posted by: Attila Girl at November 24, 2004 06:21 AM (SuJa4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Is there anybody out there?
Just nod if you can hear me.
Is there anyone home?

Posted by: Attila at 12:21 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 18 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Relax. We need some information first. Just the basic facts. Can you show me where it hurts?

Posted by: JimK at November 07, 2004 01:55 AM (jpi3h)

2 There is no pain You are receding A distant ship's smoke on the horizon. You are only coming through in waves. (with Feedreader

Posted by: William Teach at November 07, 2004 05:57 AM (KCG7N)

3 Recent new reader and blogger-who-is-too-lazy-to-edit-his-blogroll here.

Posted by: Chadster at November 07, 2004 07:02 AM (LKIOt)

4 Hey, Chad-- Welcome aboard. Of course, I don't recognize your lyrics; are they from a different song?--maybe "Have a Cigar"?

Posted by: Attila Girl at November 07, 2004 11:47 AM (SuJa4)

5 (Dangit, NOW I get it. I thought that was an actual ques...awww...never mind.) Your lips move but I can't hear what you're saying. When I was a child I had a fever My hands felt just like two balloons.

Posted by: Chadster at November 08, 2004 10:31 AM (lHBak)

6 Now I got that feeling once again. I canÂ’t explain, you would not understand. This is not how I am. I have become comfortably numb.

Posted by: Miller's Time at November 08, 2004 10:08 PM (dVPOV)

7 [Of course, it's my fault; I cheated by changing the quote by one word. How antisocial can a girl get?] Ok. Just a little pinprick. ThereÂ’ll be no more --aaaaaahhhhh! But you may feel a little sick.

Posted by: Attila Girl at November 09, 2004 12:20 AM (SuJa4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

. . . tells us why it is that Memogate Matters. (And then she shows us a picture of her in her jammies, so go to her own blog for that.)

Posted by: Attila at 04:14 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 33 words, total size 1 kb.

Michael Coren is the author of the rather astonishing essay "God Bless America," which most of us have read (and all of us should).

Now (via Kathy Kinsley) he's produced a brace of essays on why the problems in the Arab and Muslim worlds are often falsely laid at the doorsteps of Christianity and Judaism. Start here, and then read the follow-up, in which he responds to his critics.

Posted by: Attila at 12:30 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 79 words, total size 1 kb.

Scrappleface outdoes himself on this one. I won't quote it, since I can't do it justice.

Posted by: Attila at 02:08 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 22 words, total size 1 kb.