Goldstein has your holiday dialogue between self and soul (or, in his case, between him and his fictitious deadbeat neighbor).

Conclusions from his comments section: we can remember those who have sacrificed to keep this country free, and then grill chicken and listen to the Steve Miller Band.

And, in my particular case, celebrate having married the funniest guy on earth eight years ago this weekend. (The actual anniversary was Tuesday, but I like to think the whole weekend is an extended celebration of this groovy thang we got goin'.)

Pray and reflect in the morning; fire up the grill in the afternoon. There's room for both.

Posted by: Attila at 01:35 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 113 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Trackback didn't seem to work. Here's my post, and HAPPY, HAPPY Mem Day to you. http://sisu.typepad.com/sisu/2005/05/swords_into_plo.html

Posted by: Sissy Willis at May 30, 2005 03:52 AM (N6LnR)

2 I celebrated the day by conquering the world about 3 times in a computer sim game called "civilization".

Posted by: Ciggy at May 31, 2005 08:32 AM (q9YxC)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Instapundit writes:

Several readers email to say that a Thompson/Rice, or a Rice/Thompson, ticket would suit them just fine for 2008. The GOP could do worse. And probably will!

Weren't we just talking about the general ineptness of the Republican leadership? Glenn's probably right, sad to say.

But putting Thompson on the ticket would be a smart, smart move. People love that man: even liberals find themselves responding to his conservative character on Law & Order.

If I were a democrat, I'd be very afraid of Thompson and Rice—no matter who was at the top of the ticket. I'd be happier to have Rice there as VP versus not being on the ticket at all.

These people are gold.

Here's the man behind the "draft Thompson" campaign, and here's your portal to the "draft Condi" movement.

Grass roots, baby. Get on it.

Posted by: Attila at 12:01 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 148 words, total size 1 kb.

. . . when I was a teenager. She's a good fiction writer. But she may not belong in the blogging world. You decide: here's a post she wrote in Huffington's blog regarding the preservation of embryos, and here's a response to that by Eugene Volokh, exposing the weaknesses in her argument.

Posted by: Attila at 03:28 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 62 words, total size 1 kb.

Attila the Hub and I went to see The Revenge of the Sith today, and it was reasonably good. I was unable to figure out what they would have called it if they had stayed with The Revenge of the Jedi in the first trilogy. Would this then have to be entitled The Return of the Sith? You should be glad you aren't me, and don't have to think these thoughts.

It's impossible not to feel a bit wistful, wondering what it would be like to see one of the prequels—this one especially—without knowing ahead of time how they come out. Why, oh why didn't Lucas tell the story the right way around? Well, you know. He just didn't.

And there's a certain annoyance factor in listening to Wookies make that noise they make, and being asked to watch sword fights between Yoda and regular-size people. Well, well, well. At least some of us got over being short, and it's too bad George Lucas isn't one of them. Talk about your wish fulfillment scenes.

But that all goes with the territory: it is Star Wars, after all. I've been watching these movies most of my life. It's bound to wear a person down.

And then there is the political subtext injected into this part of the story with a big on-the-nose needle: "only a Sith would think in black and white." The lefty lines were obvious, and didn't go too well with the rest of the story.

Jason Apuzzo writes in Libertas, the excellent blog by the Liberty Film Festival people:

So what is Episode III? The film is the story of young Anakin Skywalker’s temptation to the Dark Side, and his transformation into the monstrous Darth Vader - the villain who loomed so darkly over the original Star Wars trilogy. Yes, there are other aspects to the film, as have been widely publicized. Yes, there is a kind of muddled liberalism that occasionally escapes the mouths of characters - particularly in important moments, such as the final confrontation between Vader and his one-time friend and mentor, Obi-Wan Kenobi. Yes, Vader mouths lines in that moment that are clearly intended to echo President Bush’s “for us or against us” speech before Congress. But over the course of a 2hr. 20min. film - a film that still somehow feels rushed - these are annoying distractions rather than central components of the story. And I could not help but think as I watched them that these lines were planted precisely to provoke the faux-controversy that now engulfs the film - just another of Lucas’ marketing schemes, to go along with the Pez dispensers and inflatable chairs. [Buy this Wookie coffee mug and win a free on-line subscription to MoveOn.org!]

Revenge of the Sith lives or dies - and I believe lives - according to one central relationship in the story. Much as Return of the Jedi hinged on the fraught relationship between Luke Skywalker and his father, Sith revolves around the complex relationship between Anakin Skywalker and his mentor-cum-Mephistophelean tempter, Chancellor Palpatine. The best moments in the film - and by far the best moments in the entire prequel trilogy - come in the quiet, private moments between these two characters, as Palpatine weaves a complex web to ensnare his young charge. Critics have been right to praise Ian McDiarmid for his performance - Lucas and Hayden Christensen should also be praised for what they bring to this aspect of the drama. Much like Luke in The Empire Strikes Back, Anakin suffers from premonitions of harm to others. In Empire Luke fears for the lives of Leia and Han, tortured by Luke’s father in Cloud City. Luke’s fears lead him into a trap. In Sith, Anakin has nightmarish premonitions of his wife Padme’s death in childbirth. He shares these fears with Palpatine, who then tempts Anakin with promises of power over life and death - if only Anakin will succumb to the Dark Side, where such “unnatural” powers can be explored. Palpatine’s seduction is pure Garden of Eden stuff - tempting the young innocent with the ‘knowledge’ of good and evil.

I also found that central relationship interesting. It attempts to answer the question we've been asking since the first Star Wars trilogy: how does a good man turn to evil? And what else does it change about him? How, essentially, does this transformation occur? Some people find it impossible to believe that an impulse as good as wanting to save the life of a loved one could lead to a process of corruption so total, it drives a man mad with power. The film isn't without its flaws, but I do buy that central thesis: we can be corrupted by the decisions we make. I keep remembering a line from one of the Agatha Christie mysteries wherein Hercule Poirot proclaims, "we all know the effect of a murder on the victim. What interests me is the effect on the murderer." And all the best crime writers discuss this issue of moral decay: How a person could get there from here.

That's it. Our choices shape the world around us, but they also shape us. Perhaps not so quickly and dramatically as when Anakin Skywalker becomes Darth Vader, but in other ways. And in real life it usually takes longer. I kept remembering, as I watched this story, about the corruption of Benedict Arnold: his marriage to a loyalist woman, his participation in loyalist society. Life's real seductions take months and years, unlike the speedier ones of a sexual nature. But it does appear to go quickly: next thing you know, you're asking George Washington for command of West Point with the intent of turning it over to the British.

Episode III accomplishes what it needs to. As my husband points out, watching it in the abstract would be rather like seeing The Two Towers on its own: vaguely unsatisfactory. As it is, we're seeing the last piece of a puzzle fall into place.

I kept expecting Obi-Wan to die, and remembering that of course he does not: he needs to stay alive, so he can become the Alec Guinness of my adolescence. The whole telling-a-story-inside-out approach is profoundly odd.

But the movie is visually compelling, and Jar-Jar Binks doesn't utter a word. So I'd call it a worthwhile way to spend the afternoon.

Someday I'd like to see them all, chronologically, within the same weekend—and really get a sense of how well the entire story fits together. Then I'd never have to watch any of them ever again: I'd be done.

Posted by: Attila at 10:40 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 1095 words, total size 7 kb.

1 Everyone I know always says right after the movie, "anakin went to the dark side so quickly." Then, the next day, they all say, "Oh, now I get it." Everything leads up to that one point. All the fear, all the way back to Phantom when he is talking about being scared to leave his mother. I loved it. Was awesome. I disagree with all those who thought it wasn't darker. It is a movie about tragedy, and, were Lucas to really make it that deep and dark, people would have been rather upset and dissatisfied, I believe. And, yes, I am a total Star Wars geek. Even have a Sith bacground on my phone and PDA

Posted by: William Teach at May 28, 2005 11:44 AM (TFSHk)

2 It all starts with, "I could do so much more good in the world, IF ONLY I HAD MORE POWER!" Then along comes the tempter-dude, with the power...

Posted by: Ciggy at May 28, 2005 09:03 PM (F0SRJ)

3 Next thing you know, you're making seven figures and living in L.A. Being seen in all the right places, with the right people. And it's all downhill from there.

Posted by: Attila Girl at May 28, 2005 11:15 PM (8e5bN)

4 The politics? George Lucas, like any rich-self-righteous liberal, just had to pee in the water and mess things up for everyone. Thinking now a heavy he is, he had to inject his brand of politics into an otherwise harmless entertainment series. For another take on it, you might read the blog, Revenge Of The Silliest. It is at: http://paxety.com/Archive/20050523ROTSMahone.html

Posted by: Mahone Dunbar at May 31, 2005 05:38 AM (/AsfG)

5 Actually I wondered how many other subplots Lucas stuffed into the third episode, such as: - Palpatine's story to Anakin about Darth Plaegis who discovered how to stop death but couldn't save himself from his own apprentice - was the apprentice Palpatine? - If that story holds true, then it makes a lot more sense how Anakin could finally betray the Emperor in Return of the Jedi - it's the circle come fully around I do think Lucas overplayed his hand on "saving Padme", although you can see in the end how Anakin himself was betrayed by the Emperor. It would have been really interesting to know that Palpatine was planting those premonitions in Anakin's head from the get-go. What was more interesting were the political machinations leading up to the destruction of the Jedi order - in a longer movie this would have been a better build-up to Anakin going to the dark side. I doubt Lucas did anything like the Lord of the Rings movies where there was extra material he packed into an extended edition. If you want to fill in the cracks on the story, I guess you can either read the plethora of books out there that cover things in more detail. My kids also have the X-box game "Return of the Sith" which shows more about how Anakin does in the Jedi Temple, etc. It has a couple of alternative endings that are pretty cool, such as Anakin killing Obi-Wan and then whacking the Emperor...

Posted by: DC at May 31, 2005 07:53 AM (d3SmT)

6 I'm not so sure the with me/against me is just a swipe at Bush: Luke 11:23 "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me, scatters." In some ways the series parallels Christianity, where the Force is like the deep magic in the Chronicles of Narnia, and in other ways, as in the above, it stands in opposition to it. I suspect Lucas is exploring those ideas and does have a firm stand himself.

Posted by: Jon Cohen at May 31, 2005 09:33 AM (Gr6ja)

7 I do think that most of the sith/Bush stuff is overblown. For the most part, Sith was filmed in the summer of 2003. Yes, enough time to get the Loon style stuff going, but, really, it all goes back to 1977.

Posted by: William Teach at May 31, 2005 09:46 AM (IRsCk)

8 Actually, the storyline reminds me of lefty do-gooder types. They start with a perfectionist idea of how things should be. Then, when it doesn't work, they blame recalcitrant humans and start killing the ones in the way. This requires more and more power until you have Stalin or Pol Pot. Sith could well be about the seduction of the moral by the use of power to make a "perfect world." Seems to me that most perfectionist ideas have the seeds of such a conversion.

Posted by: JorgXMcKie at June 01, 2005 08:51 AM (nMT31)

9 I don't see why you have to read the "political" content as pro-liberal. The moral relativists (only the jedi are absolute, there is more than one way to look at good, etc) are the EVIL ones, after all.

Posted by: raf at June 01, 2005 11:56 AM (kbHJ6)

10 Oh, I'd say some of the comments were contemporary leftist in nature. Remember Padme saying they should just stop the fighting and let diplomacy work? Diplomacy is the magic word? Just be prepared to listen to the enemy and maybe they will stop wanting to kill you. Then again, with the sith lord running both sides, who is supposed to be listening to whom?

Posted by: Steve Lassey at June 01, 2005 07:22 PM (vMq1z)

11 The prequels are essentially a muddled mess: *The Jedi tolerate and do not suppress slavery on Tatooine. *The Jedi make no effort whatsoever to liberate one slave they know about personally (Anakin's mother). *The Jedi reject family ties or emotions. *The Sith operate on the principal of continual betrayal without much loyalty. *The "Force" is essentially an inherited talent, forming a natural aristocracy and therefore anti-democratic. *The old Republic has nothing between Clone mercenaries set up for evil deeds and a thin set of superheroes (Jedi). Citizen Soldiers are not in evidence. *Slave labor is a marked dependency for everyone, whether it's droids or people. It's only in the original movies that we see the formula for victory: ordinary people fighting for their freedom against tyrannies and a thin set of superheroes providing the critical difference. As commentary on the human condition, Lucas is just all over the place.

Posted by: Jim Rockford at June 02, 2005 07:39 PM (4878o)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Oh, yeah.

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

I'm pretty much with Jeff of BA on the "Saddam's tighty-whities" issue. Abu Ghraib was an embarrassment. But this? It's such a tiny sliver—a percentage of a percentage—vs. what the man deserves.

Military people can worry about the professionalism of those who sold these images to the British tabloids. But I'm at peace with it.

(And, off-topic: is that a great picture of Juliette on her home page, or what? I was two seats away from her when it was taken, and I was so happy when she replaced the old pic with it. She has a delicate beauty about her in person that I'd never seen anyone capture in a still before.)

Posted by: Attila at 11:31 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 115 words, total size 1 kb.

Thanks for being so sweet, everyone: I'm better now.

I'm pretty convinced that I've had some kind of teensy lung inflammation, because for a lot of the day today I had that sort of sensation I associate with Whittier in the 70s, or the San Fernando Valley in the 80s: that kind of "oh-shit-I-can't-breathe-deep" sort of feeling. But the feeling is 95% gone.

Although I'm not so sure the problem was actually in my lungs. K's theory of pleurisy sounds close, but I was just never in too much pain. I was simply scared, because heart disease is the bogeyman under my bed: I've been hearing about Mr. Heart Disease all my life.

In the past few years my mother has taken to breaking her harangues about heart disease in order to mention that there's cancer on my father's side of the family, and I musn't forget to be terrified of Heart Disease's evil twin, Mr. Cancer. It's a wonder I've ever held down a job at all, what with this sitting around being petrified of heart disease and cancer.

It occurs to me that I've been so busy being afraid of heart disease and cancer, I haven't quite noticed that my actual weaknesses are my tender teeth, sensitive skin, and allergies—or that the realistic danger lies not in carrying nitroglycerin around with me, but having to wheel an oxygen tank everywhere I go in my old age.

Not that there aren't worse things, mind you. But sometimes our preconceived notions hold us back. I may have been fighting the wrong battles.

I like to think I'll somehow make that oxygen tank stylish, though: maybe I can get flames painted on mine, so it resembles the hot rods of old.

Posted by: Attila at 11:05 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 294 words, total size 2 kb.

I seem to have stumbled into a clique of elite legal bloggers, and tripled my traffic in one day. (Seriously: it's at, like, pre-election levels.)

Posted by: Attila at 10:39 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 31 words, total size 1 kb.

I'd be filing that restraining order against Goldstein, not Reynolds.

But, you know: it's her restraining order.

UPDATE: It was Allah! Dang! Goldstein points out that he would have worked the jail sex-angle. Which, of course, he would have. My mistake.

Posted by: Attila at 09:29 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 49 words, total size 1 kb.

I had strange chest pains today, and drove myself to the local hospital. Imagine the absurdity: a pre-menopausal non-smoking female in the emergency room complaining of chest pain. One who is 42 years old, but looks 35 or so. I might just as well have shown up and announced I was coming down with hypchondria.

But all my life my mother has drummed it into my head, after all the heart attacks her parents had, that I need to watch out for anything that looks remotely like cardiac illness. And my sister-in-law in the Bay Area has severe heart problems that went undiagnosed for years because they didn't "present" properly.

I wouldn't let my husband drive me; he has a "pitch" tomorrow for a children's television show that I think will be wonderful if the studio in question is smart enough to buy it. I took a book and my cell phone, and set out to make an ass of myself. (It turns out those items are the two most important things to take with you: if you have to choose, take the book.)

I was sort of hoping that the triage lady would check my blood pressure and send me home with some sort of stern words about wasting her time. But no: they drew blood, asked for a urine sample, stuck an IV needle into me (just in case) and hooked me up to a machine to monitor my pulse. The machine also took my blood pressure every 20 minutes or so, like some sort of cyborg nurse: the cuff would suddenly swell, and I was supposed to lie still until it got its reading and deflated iself.

They X-rayed me right there in the bed, and then took an EKG reading.

Everything is normal, though I was there for over four hours. (And it would have been much worse if I didn't live in such a sleepy little town.)

Eventually the nurse gave me what they call a "GI cocktail," which was supposed to make me better if the root cause were/is indeed some sort of upset tummy. I thought their disgusting potion was helping, though in retrospect the reasons I started to feel better afterward were probably 1) a desperate boredom, after I finished my book (make sure that you take something that's several hundred pages long, rather than a slim volume on the Roman Catholic liturgy)—which led to wishful thinking that the sensation was going away, and 2) the fact that I was flat on my back, and not using much oxygen. After all, it only hurts when I breathe deeply.

The worst of it is that I didn't wolf down the peanut butter protein bar I took along. (Make sure to gobble up your protein bar on the way to the hospital.) And now I've been instructed to stick with clear liquids for the rest of the evening. I'm on my second can of chicken broth, the last can of broth in the house.

I wanted to scream at them, "but don't you see? If I do just have an upset stomach, it's from not eating enough today. And now you're making it worse."

But I didn't. I'll hang on as long as I can, and when I do break, it'll be with something bland like rice. What a girl scout.

To my list of complaints about the human body, I'd like to add this one: there should be no such thing as "nonspecific chest pain." All sensations should be localized to a particular organ, rather than free-floating like this. If I have a tummyache, it should damn well feel like a tummyache."

The whole thing is probably a testament to my iron constitution: I so rarely have any kind of digestive problem that when I do it feels like the end of the world. Or at least like a heart attack.

It's been six hours. Isn't this odd?

If I ever do have a heart attack for real, though, I'll try to live-blog it: that would be cool.

Posted by: Attila at 07:57 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 689 words, total size 4 kb.

Iowahawk has the story on the riots in Dairy Country:

Newsweek Lutefisk Story Sparks Fury Across Volatile Midwest

Decorah, IA - The debris-strewn streets of this remote Midwestern hamlet remain under a tense 24-hour curfew tonight, following weekend demonstrations by rock- and figurine-throwing Lutheran farm wives that left over 200 people injured and leveled the Whippy Dip dairy freeze. The rioting appeared to be prompted, in part, by a report in Newsweek magazine claiming military guards at Spirit LakeÂ’s notorious Okoboji internment center had flushed lutefisk down prison toilets. NewsweekÂ’s late announcement of a retraction seems to have done little to quell the inflamed passions of Lutheran insurgents in the region, as outbreaks of violent mailbox bashings and cow tippings have been reported from Bowbells, North Dakota to Pekin, Illinois.

Whether the violence was triggered by Newsweek’s report of lutefisk desecration or frustration over chronic shortages of Beanie Babies and Old Style, one thing seems certain – occupying U.S. troops face a steep road to reestablish trust in this tinderbox of ancient hatreds and delicious dairy products. Some analysts say the latest outbreak represents the most vexing challenge to US strategy since its invasion of the region three years ago.

“It could be months before we get the area back under control,” said Brigadier Gen. Glen Hastings of the US Army’s Southern Minnesota Command. “We’re hoping the tractor pull and swap meet seasons will help calm down some of the violent elements.”

Read the whole thing. It's funny; you betcha.

Posted by: Attila at 11:38 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 256 words, total size 2 kb.

. . . summarizes the deal for averting procedural changes in the Senate:

We favor an end to the obstruction of judicial nominees via filibuster, and it strikes us that this agreement is likely to accomplish that, at least for this Congress (after which the agreement expires). If so, the nuclear option will have shown its value as a deterrent.

The agreement binds the 14 senators who signed it to vote for cloture (i.e., against a filibuster) of the three remaining nominees the Democrats have most demonized: Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown and Bill Pryor. The compromisers expressly "make no commitment to vote for or against cloture" of two additional nominees, William Myers and Henry Saad. The status of two other nominees, Brett Kavanaugh and William Haynes, is unclear. Early this afternoon the Senate voted 81-18 for cloture on Owen's nomination; an actual confirmation vote should come by tomorrow.

The 14 also agreed not to filibuster judicial nominees except "under extraordinary circumstances" and to oppose the nuclear option. Since there are 48 Republicans and 38 Democrats (including Jeffords) who are not parties to the agreement, at least three compromising Democrats would have to find "extraordinary circumstances" in order to sustain a filibuster. If at least two Republicans disagreed and thus concluded the Dems were violating the agreement, they could abandon the pledge and go nuclear.

All this may be academic, though. The most crucial passage in the agreement may prove to be this one: "Each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such ['extraordinary'] circumstances exist." As a practical matter, this applies only to the Democratic signatories, since no Republican has ever voted to filibuster a Bush judicial nominee.

The seven Democratic signatories, that is, have now declared that they will decide how to vote on judicial filibusters rather than take directions from the party. Two of them, Robert Byrd and Daniel Inouye, probably did so largely to preserve "Senate tradition"; but the other five--Mary Landrieu, Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Mark Pryor and Ken Salazar--are all generally moderate, and all from red states except Lieberman. Their inclinations and political interests diverge from those of Barbara Boxer, Ted Kennedy and other far-left blue-staters.

If left-wing Democrats want to filibuster another nominee, they will have to persuade Minority Leader Harry Reid to risk another nuclear confrontation and persuade at least one of the moderate compromising five, plus Byrd, Inouye and every single uncompromising Dem, that it's worth it. It could happen, but we're not betting on it.

Which appears pretty accurate. Now go to the site: it's the best of the web, after all.

Posted by: Attila at 11:01 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 441 words, total size 3 kb.

You asked; Virginia Postrel answered. It's actually fairly compelling.

(Insty.)

Posted by: Attila at 09:17 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 24 words, total size 1 kb.

. . . has plenty to say. Go to his main page and scroll down.

Each of the RINOs wanted something for their vote. Frist unlike LBJ don't play that.

And now the Rs are going to strangle their party for funds; because they do not know how to play finesse politics. Where is LBJ when you need him?

So back to square one.

What can the RINOs and Republicans agree on? Get that passed. Forget the rest. This is not religion where absolutes rule. This is politics. And politics has its limits.

I have been saying this since May of '03. Evidently some of you have not been reading my memos and taking them to heart.

And now you want to give up the game because you can't win all the marbles.

Republicans are not going to remake the judiciary. The best they can hope for is to move things a bit in the desired direction. Isn't that enough?

Any idea why the Rs are called the stupid party?

I have a few.

Posted by: Attila at 02:22 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 178 words, total size 1 kb.

Sissy Willis publishes excerpts from Brown's writing, explaining why the liberal establishment could not abide the advancement of such a powerful thinker and writer who knows the evils of collectivism.

Particularly one who is black.

It's true that her advancement is of some importance. Perhaps tremendous importance.

Posted by: Attila at 12:20 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 61 words, total size 1 kb.

. . . has a handgunning question. It's an interesting one.

I suggested a rifle, and then re-read Aaron's original question. Longarms are cheating.

Posted by: Attila at 12:39 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 26 words, total size 1 kb.

First of all, I do think John McCain is one of the most unfortunate legislators in history. The man should be in the sequel to National Treasure: he's certainly done tremendous damage to a document that's pivotal to our history. (Though of course it's the Constitution he's trashing, rather than the Declaration of Independence. He's been especially destructive to the First and Second Amendments. You know: the important ones.)

That said, the rightosphere should take a chill pill regarding today's compromise in the Senate. There's a lot going on here, and everyone has his or her own theory; here's Blackjack's:

I'm not going to sugarcoat it -- the Republicans probably could have gotten a better deal than they did. What I can do for you is tell you why they jumped on the deal and it is also the reason why this deal is ultimately a net win for Republicans. The answer is just three words long:

Janice Rogers Brown

Did you honestly think that opposition to Janice Rogers Brown was based on political philosophy? Yeah, right -- and I'm Pat Freaking Boone. The reason that Democrats didn't like (read: were scared to death of) Brown is because they know two things:

1. Their most solid voting bloc is African-Americans
2. This bloc is slowly eroding over time.

True enough. But the real reason behind this compromise—in my mind—is a second proper noun:

Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The odds are good—or, if you like, the risk is real—that she'll end up in the White House in 2009. If you believe (as I do) that her true convictions are considerably to the left of her behavior in the Senate, you should take very seriously the idea of her nominating judges, particularly to SCOTUS.

The judicial filibuster is a tool that we may well need someday in the not-too-distant future.

I know everyone's going to get mad at me for saying this, but I'm with George Will on this one:

Some conservatives say there is a "constitutional right'' to have an up-or-down Senate vote on nominees. But in whom does this right inhere? The nominees? The president? This is a perverse contention coming from conservatives eager to confirm judges who will stop the promiscuous discovery by courts of spurious constitutional rights. And conservatives eager to confirm judges respectful of the Constitution's text should not read its stipulation that no nominee shall be confirmed without a favorable Senate vote as a requirement that the Senate vote.

     Some conservatives oddly seem to regret the fact that the government bristles with delaying and blocking mechanisms—separation of powers, bicameral legislature, etc. The filibuster is one such mechanism—an instrument for minority assertion. It enables democracy to be more than government-by-adding-machine, more than a mere counter of numbers. The filibuster registers intensity, enabling intense minorities to slow or stop government.

     The crucial, albeit unwritten, rule regarding judicial nominees was changed forever 18 years ago by the Bork confirmation fight: Now both sides in the Senate feel free to judge and accept or reject nominees on the basis of their judicial philosophies. So, conservatives, think:

     The future will bring Democratic presidents and Senate majorities. How would you react were such a majority about to change Senate rules to prevent you from filibustering to block a nominee likely to construe the equal protection clause as creating a constitutional right to same-sex marriage?
   
 And pruning the filibuster in the name of majority rule would sharpen a scythe that one day will be used to prune it further. If filibusters of judicial nominations are impermissible, why not those of all nominations—and of treaties, too?

Let's try to think long-term, here.

Hat tip: Jeff G., with whom I cannot agree this particular time.

Posted by: Attila at 11:32 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 635 words, total size 4 kb.

. . . which party was filibustering civil rights legislation.

Posted by: Attila at 01:25 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 20 words, total size 1 kb.

I've always known that Desert Cat and I largely agreed about the evils of the drug war (and in particular Marijuana Prohibition). But I'd never before read this piece of his, in which he explains why his postions are not inconsistent with his evangelical beliefs.

It's pretty convincing.

Posted by: Attila at 12:54 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 56 words, total size 1 kb.

And I love Dean's set of questions for the elderly. I plan to ask them of my grandmother, who is in her 90s.

I've always been fascinated by the history of housework: how things used to get done before we had little machines to handle it all. How meals got cooked. How it all worked.

Life was hard, and people were much more vulnerable to disease. And yet, there was an acceptance of self-denial that served the Greatest Generation very well.

I was born in 1962, at a time when an overly optimistic world view appeared to promise all of us a world of unending bounty. No more suffering. Just blue skies and big fluffy clouds.

In some ways, it's a good world view to have, but it's never entirely aligned with the flesh-and-blood reality, and there have been a couple of painful adjustments here and there.

Posted by: Attila at 11:35 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 155 words, total size 1 kb.