Posts Tagged ‘little miss attila’

It hit me looking at Stacy’s old rules for getting 1 million hits that his exchange manages to invoke all 5 rules.

Meanwhile Attila instructs James Wolcott on the subject rule 1.

It’s always interesting to watch this kind of exchange between two of my favorite people on the web.

…says Little Miss Attila:

This is not the world I want my niece and church sponsee to live in (and I’m delighted to say that they haven’t bought into this nonsense at all). But we have to get back to a place wherein “sexual freedom,” as a cultural norm, actually includes the freedom to say “no.” (emphasis mine) This in turn requires that we celebrate the notion of dating as something that doesn’t require sex, and we appreciate the wonders of human attraction without having to act on them every single freakin’ time, for crying out loud.

If you look at the culture you will see that if you are a guy and you are not looking to score every time, there is something wrong with you, and if you don’t score then your date is a failure. She continues:

I’m one of those who thinks this has more to do with the misuse of feminism than the misuse of birth control, and I know I occupy a strange middle ground inasmuch as I’m not quite a proper social conservative.

Yet what we’ve created at this point is a situation in which women and girls attempt to ignore their own emotions and “out-detach” the boys. In practice, this means many have trained themselves to be sexually available, and make no demands whatsover–and, yes: in some circles, a request to spend time with a guy doing anything other than sex is considered a “demand,” as Wendy Shalit has documented extensively in her books.

Joy mentioned Wendy on my show a few weeks ago. Let me tell you that is a real problem, particularly when you are trying to teach teenage boys restraint in these matters.

As Aquainus said love is: “Wanting the best for the other without thought to self.” Not being a woman I can’t comment from that direction, but as a man it can’t be stressed enough that no matter how attractive the prospect might be, if you actually love a woman you have to be able to say “no” when the situation calls for it. For a young man today that can bring social ridicule from his peers and from a society that equates “scoring” with success as a man and celebrates it at all levels.

There was a time when this was not true. In the movie the Philadelphia story a smitten Jimmy Stewart reveals that although he had the chance he did not take advantage of a willing Katherine Hepburn on the day before her wedding. Hepburn’s character is unexpectedly outraged:

“Why? Was I so unattractive? So distant? So forbidding?

He answers:

No, no you were extremely attractive as for distant or forbidding far from it, but You were a little worse the wear for alcohol, and there are rules about that kind of thing.

Now watching the scene prior and after this there is no question he wants her, he even proposes at a later point but is unwilling to take advantage of her. Remember also this movie is from the 40’s when Stewart’s character wouldn’t face the same legal consequences that such a move might have today, yet still he does not act.

It is that admiration and acceptance of virtue, rather than its ridicule that is missing from the society until it is regained then I suspect that the situation that Attila laments will continue

Update: I don’t know if it was intentional but Robert Stacy McCain skewers those most responsible for what Attila is lamenting

Little Miss Attila points out one thing that the dems in Wisconsin have forgotten:

Just remember: every day that you aren’t there, the Repubs are taking votes.

Hold on there, I thought there wasn’t a quorum? Not so fast:

Bringing up hot-button legislation while the Democrats are gone is another arrow in Walker’s quiver. Though the Wisconsin constitution requires three-fifths of the senate to be present to pass fiscal legislation, a simple majority of 17 members constitutes a quorum for other bills in the 33-seat state senate. So the 19 GOP senators who remain in Madison can pass any number of bills while their Democratic colleagues are on the lam, and Republicans are a majority in the assembly, too. “They can hold off, but there is a whole legislative agenda that Republicans in the senate and assembly can start acting on that only requires simple majorities,” Walker warns.“If they want to do their jobs, and have a say, they better show up.”

Just think of all the GOP friendly legislation that can be passed while they are gone!

Hey maybe it is a good time to make a new redistricting plan for the state? Just think of all the culture war victories we can have in Wisconsin with nary a vote against.
Is Wisconsin a right to work state? If it isn’t it can be really fast.

Want to require ultrasounds before Abortion? Let’s go for it.

Open up heathcare over state lines and maybe tort reform? Now’s the time to do it.

English as the official language of the state? Go for it.

Tougher sanctions on illegal immigration? Come on down!

Gun laws? Lets get concealed carry passed!

It will be like 1862-1865 in Congress, democrats were gone and republicans can go wild.

When will we have a chance like this again? Let’s go for it!

but Joy McCain aka Little Miss Attila read the entire grand jury transcript and will not forget:

Gosnell ran a pill mill alongside what he called an abortion clinic–but what was, in fact, a device for making money off of endangering women, causing them unnecessary pain, and killing babies. No, I don’t mean “killing fetuses’; that’s not where I’m going with this, although I’m hoping the Gosnell case provokes some soul-searching on both sides of the abortion debate, especially on the pro-choice bleachers (where I reside, very uneasily).

The Gosnell case involved the killing of fully delivered, breathing, moving babies. Gosnell saved time by having his unlicensed, ill-trained associates induce labor in his adult and adolescent victims, and then plying them with sedatives until he arrived on the clinic late at night. Often, the babies “fell out” of the women, who waited for him for hours, sometimes sitting on a toilet with their children in the toilet bowl. In such cases he–or one of his employees/partners in crime–would eventually cut the babies’ spinal columns with scissors to “ensure fetal demise,” which was Dr. Gosnell’s euphemism for murdering those without names. He killed people with names, too: at least two women died at his hands during the years he ran his “clinic.”

She stresses the political decisions made in this case:

it wasn’t poor people who approved this clinic, and allowed it to operate for three decades: it was officials at Philadelphia’s Department of Health, which oversees abortion clinics, and its Department of State, which is in charge of doctors’ licenses. Both had the power to stop him. Both pretended that their hands were tied. Both turned the other way.

Remember this is written by a person who sits “on the pro-choice bleachers”, but unlike others on that side, she is unwilling to whitewash both the acts and their direct connection to a political desire to “protect legal abortion” even as the media puts the story down the media hole. I suspect that like many she will eventually find herself standing up moving over to the other side of the Gym.