I re-print this from the November archives so I can revisit the many specific predictions I made before. Those revisitations are at the end, in italics.
Alito Filibuster Question
Is it to be Bad Breath, or just a Waste of Breath?
The proper name for the foul humour which seems likely to afflict the body politic next year is “Alito-sis” (hyphen optional). It’s the smell of the Sargasso Sea; a zone in which movement slows to a crawl, direction seems a meaningless question, and the stench gets on everybody. That’s where we’ll be, if Alito’s nomination brings a prolonged filibuster, leading to some version of a Nuklar Option being implemented, and the Democrats retaliate by throwing the Senate’s business into total disarray.
The scenario could easily leave a cloud of noxious gas over the country through Election Day, 2006, with voters afraid to come to the polls without a gas mask. Under those circumstances, I don’t think the Democrats would benefit: they don’t have the werewithal to issue the needed 75 million stink filters, nor the Category 5 breath of fresh air that would be needed to dispel the fog of Post-Nuklar War. It’s a mofo.
Confirmation Trivialities
I recommend to Harry Reid that he announce—I’m skipping the part about waiting for the hearings and the Committee vote—that he will observe the “Two Speech Precedent”. That will give an eventual end date to the ceremonious Beating the Bushites that will precede Alito’s confirmation:
by about 60-40, I’d predict, and will do it according to Senate Rules and precedents, which is what he wants. A couple of Senators who are prepared to Nuke a Filibuster (from the French term for "bootless") will actually end up voting against Alito. Senator “'Profiles in Courage'-fodder/loser in ‘06” DeWine will be one. McCain will not.
Reid should save the Balls-Out, Protracted Filibuster, Followed by Post-Nuklar Disarray Scenario (a name almost worthy of Herman Kahn) for the replacement for Justice Stevens or Ginsburg, if that should happen before we can all safely enter the post-Bushite era.
I suggested in a previous post that the key question which all the Senators will try to solve, for any proposed nominee to replace Sandra O’Connor, is to think of a compass and ask, how many milliseconds or degrees of separation will there be between her course for the "Judicial Ship of State" and the Nominee’s. On the conventional liberal-conservative axis (number line? time line?), Alito’s nomination changes that game somewhat—he is clearly far to the right of O’Connor’s ideologically contiguous justice, Anthony Kennedy, way over there in the distant zone of Scalia/Thomas-ville (as x goes to negative infinity, or to the year 1930).
So, if confirmed, the question is modified to the difference between Kennedy and O’Connor—that is how far the course of the Court’s opinions will deviate. The pressure will be on Kennedy, and he appears to be a vain vacillator.
I have a lot of ambivalence about looking at the Supreme Electorate in such uni-dimensional terms, though. While I accept that the Court does not need another Scalia or Thomas—the 1-2 combination of the literate bomb-thrower and the knuckle-walker is more than adequate to represent their micro-constituency (you can pick either justice for either role)-—there are other ways to look at the Court and what it does.
From my point of view, I say “fie” on both houses! The two most significant decisions of the last session of the Court--on using eminent domain to support private interests, and to hold federal law superior to state referenda and legislation allowing medical marijuana—were driven by the “liberal” judges in the wrong direction. OK, they weren't of the level of significance of Gore v. Bush (what exactly was the judicial philosophy of the majority in that case, now?), but that one doesn't come up in these discussions. After all, the Electoral College and our voting systems couldn't lead to another snafu like 2000, could they? (That was "scorn", not sarcasm, though I admit a bit too facetious.)
I think that we need to look a little past the optics of the '60's in evaluating our Court politics. For example, we should be a little more careful in our support for expanding federal powers when the hands holding the sceptre are so shaky.
The question I want to hear asked of The Nominee is: what happens when our government is found to be in violation of international law, but following federal statutes? Until I hear someone say, "we are bound to accede to international law", I would urge any Senator to vote against any Nominee.
Filibusters are OK as long as they don't get in the way of important business. If there is any, and I'm 99% convinced there isn't any left for this Congress.
The other question I want asked of The Nominee: Can we get a do-over for 2004?
OK, "bad breath", alito-sis, is the order of the day. The 60-40 with NO NUKES was within two votes of being spot on; the key vote was the cloture, though, which went much more decisively in Cloture/Alito-sis/Bushite direction because of the influence of the Gang of 14 and like-minded Senators like Bingaman and Rockefeller, who recognize the deterrence issues.
The bad news from the prediction accuracy point of view was the performance of the Republican moderates. Once the Dems had teed it up as a pure political showdown with the party-line vote in Committee, the Brams fell into line tout suite.
Reid played it well, as I thought he might: giving his vote for the filibuster, along also with moral support in the doomed fight against Alito, but making it clear that the Kennedy/Kerry fiasco was not his idea whatsoever.
More comments to follow--as Comments.
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
From Merriam-Webster online: Bushite
The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search box to the right.
Suggestions for bushite: 1. bushier
2. bushiest
3. botchiest
4. botchier
5. bushy
6. Boeotia
7. boyishly
8. bushtit
9. bauxite
10. botchy
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Bushite
This was fun, and it suggests lots of good wordplay. "bauxite" is the closest, in terms of pronunciation--it's the raw material of aluminum (aluminium for you Brits). I like the fact the search engine offered up "botch" and "botchiest", the relevance of which should be obvious. Even "boyishly" could be seen from a certain perspective as more than just two words that sound similar. Somehow, it didn't come up with "buoyishly", or even "goyishly" (though they might both apply, if they existed as words).
I have to look up this "Boeotia", which was in ancient Greece (Q: is it still a place name in use?), and see if its historical example has any relevance to the current tyranny of Bushite misrule.
Suggestions for bushite: 1. bushier
2. bushiest
3. botchiest
4. botchier
5. bushy
6. Boeotia
7. boyishly
8. bushtit
9. bauxite
10. botchy
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Bushite
This was fun, and it suggests lots of good wordplay. "bauxite" is the closest, in terms of pronunciation--it's the raw material of aluminum (aluminium for you Brits). I like the fact the search engine offered up "botch" and "botchiest", the relevance of which should be obvious. Even "boyishly" could be seen from a certain perspective as more than just two words that sound similar. Somehow, it didn't come up with "buoyishly", or even "goyishly" (though they might both apply, if they existed as words).
I have to look up this "Boeotia", which was in ancient Greece (Q: is it still a place name in use?), and see if its historical example has any relevance to the current tyranny of Bushite misrule.
Alitosis rampant in Senate
I checked my last post on the subject of the Alito nomination to SCOTUS, and it didn't promise it would be my last. So, this one to flog upon our nation's blogs, occasioned by the Senate Judiciary's confirmation of him by a straight party-line vote.
From a theoretical point of view, I might have suggested that one or more of the Democratic Senators on the Committee vote for him in the Committee, simultaneously announcing they would oppose him on the floor. This makes the clear positional statement that the Committee's job is to parse a nominee's decisions, judge upon his or her qualification for the job, and verify the presumably-asserted lack of glaring violations of judicial ethics or public morals. Then, it is the job of the whole Senate to make an overtly political decision--in the case of a senior federal judge or, more obviously, for a Supreme Court position--whether this person's fundamental political outlook makes him, her, or it (for example, Caligula's horse, to refer to an analogous prior Senate nominee) suitable for the lifetime appointment proposed.
I understand, though, why this didn't happen: 1) the respective roles of the committee and the Senate as a body are not formally laid out. I would argue further the roles are not clearly understood by any of the participants in today's process, giving it an ad hoc nature that can be exploited by the Nukular-minded;
2) the Democrats are having a terrible time holding together their forces (in the face of bad poll numbers), and the leadership can hardly tolerate any lack of discipline in such dire straits; and
3) there were enough question marks (possible crypto-fascism and/or crypto-racism, along with a systematic pattern of evasion of any relevant topics, a latter-day Catch-22 situation) for any Democratic Senator to give the nomination a comprehensive rejection.
These combined to enunciate the Democrats' position to date, which I would voice as being, "We will stop him by any means possible, but if we don't have the votes it will be futile." Now, we go to the floor, and the indisputably political strategy and tactics of the numbers and rules which apply to a divided Senate (i.e., one where the motion to approve can not proceed on a simple basis of unanimous consent) take center stage.
I have given some consideration to the point I alluded to in my chat excerpt below, namely, the assertion that Alito's confirmation vote must be completed before the State of the Union address. My suggestion to Harry Reid is that Democratic leadership accede to a debate under the following rules:
1) The "Two-Speech Rule" will prevail for Democrats, which means that Frist can expect each Democratic Senator to have the opportunity hold forth, without time limitation on the Senator's speech, on two occasions before he or she will vote in favor of cloture. This is a venerable tradition which provides for extended consideration, response to other debate arguments, yet without the connotations of excess delay suggested by an all-out filibuster;
2) The Senate would interrupt its debate by unanimous consent to allow the President to speak at the appointed time. The Eponymous Bushite would no doubt take advantage of the Senate's "failure" to approve his nominee within the timing he wanted and make some negative comments, but those (approval, and with the timing specified) are not Constitutional obligations of the Senate, and ill words from "TEB" may well echo in the Democrats' favor in November.
I would call this proposal "extended, but limited, debate", and not a filibuster at all. Just the consideration (and, please, some good PR, so that some impression will remain in voters' minds except the faulty one that those "nasty Democrats made the Justice's wife cry"--it was actually the sarcasm of Republican Sen. Graham) which is due to a political nomination of great import.
The Extra Notch on the Right-Wing Bed Post which will be known as "Justice Alito" was always due to be incised since 2004, was destined to be ugly, and it would be too much to hope that it won't be a long-term one. No more notches can be allowed, of course: the next makes five. To the Wall for the Stevens/Ginsburg replacement, caso mai.
And perhaps we need to take steps to protect against Justice Kennedy becoming too much of a Bram. An operation, perhaps: what's the opposite of an "ectomy"? You know, instead of taking something out, they add something? Like a pair of balls?
From a theoretical point of view, I might have suggested that one or more of the Democratic Senators on the Committee vote for him in the Committee, simultaneously announcing they would oppose him on the floor. This makes the clear positional statement that the Committee's job is to parse a nominee's decisions, judge upon his or her qualification for the job, and verify the presumably-asserted lack of glaring violations of judicial ethics or public morals. Then, it is the job of the whole Senate to make an overtly political decision--in the case of a senior federal judge or, more obviously, for a Supreme Court position--whether this person's fundamental political outlook makes him, her, or it (for example, Caligula's horse, to refer to an analogous prior Senate nominee) suitable for the lifetime appointment proposed.
I understand, though, why this didn't happen: 1) the respective roles of the committee and the Senate as a body are not formally laid out. I would argue further the roles are not clearly understood by any of the participants in today's process, giving it an ad hoc nature that can be exploited by the Nukular-minded;
2) the Democrats are having a terrible time holding together their forces (in the face of bad poll numbers), and the leadership can hardly tolerate any lack of discipline in such dire straits; and
3) there were enough question marks (possible crypto-fascism and/or crypto-racism, along with a systematic pattern of evasion of any relevant topics, a latter-day Catch-22 situation) for any Democratic Senator to give the nomination a comprehensive rejection.
These combined to enunciate the Democrats' position to date, which I would voice as being, "We will stop him by any means possible, but if we don't have the votes it will be futile." Now, we go to the floor, and the indisputably political strategy and tactics of the numbers and rules which apply to a divided Senate (i.e., one where the motion to approve can not proceed on a simple basis of unanimous consent) take center stage.
I have given some consideration to the point I alluded to in my chat excerpt below, namely, the assertion that Alito's confirmation vote must be completed before the State of the Union address. My suggestion to Harry Reid is that Democratic leadership accede to a debate under the following rules:
1) The "Two-Speech Rule" will prevail for Democrats, which means that Frist can expect each Democratic Senator to have the opportunity hold forth, without time limitation on the Senator's speech, on two occasions before he or she will vote in favor of cloture. This is a venerable tradition which provides for extended consideration, response to other debate arguments, yet without the connotations of excess delay suggested by an all-out filibuster;
2) The Senate would interrupt its debate by unanimous consent to allow the President to speak at the appointed time. The Eponymous Bushite would no doubt take advantage of the Senate's "failure" to approve his nominee within the timing he wanted and make some negative comments, but those (approval, and with the timing specified) are not Constitutional obligations of the Senate, and ill words from "TEB" may well echo in the Democrats' favor in November.
I would call this proposal "extended, but limited, debate", and not a filibuster at all. Just the consideration (and, please, some good PR, so that some impression will remain in voters' minds except the faulty one that those "nasty Democrats made the Justice's wife cry"--it was actually the sarcasm of Republican Sen. Graham) which is due to a political nomination of great import.
The Extra Notch on the Right-Wing Bed Post which will be known as "Justice Alito" was always due to be incised since 2004, was destined to be ugly, and it would be too much to hope that it won't be a long-term one. No more notches can be allowed, of course: the next makes five. To the Wall for the Stevens/Ginsburg replacement, caso mai.
And perhaps we need to take steps to protect against Justice Kennedy becoming too much of a Bram. An operation, perhaps: what's the opposite of an "ectomy"? You know, instead of taking something out, they add something? Like a pair of balls?
Friday, January 20, 2006
Comments on Cuba's Team at the WBC, BME-Day
From my Baseball chat group on Yahoo!
Dec. 16: I was thinking someone might have commented on the Cuba aspect of the World Baseball Classic, but no, that would be too "political". I am simply amazed that any set of circumstances could possibly arise such that Peter Angelos gets to become a hero.
How blockheaded can the U.S. government be? I've heard that the responsible agency is part of the Treasury Department. Yes, that makes sense; allowing Cuba will certainly cause debasement to our currency. Not to mention our precious bodily fluids--no doubt Treasury's got a firm grip on those jewels!
Suddenly I care about a stupid little exhibition series.
Dec. 23: And I think the International Baseball Committee should withdraw anyrecognition of the spurious World Baseball Classic until Cuba isadmitted (the team should be composed of both Cuban residents andexpatriates, so they can prove they're morally superior to ourstupid Cuban-American representatives who run things here).
P.S. That seems to have happened. This one from my "annual pre-Christmas bah Humbug Crank rant", the overall focus being on the New York Crankbiters.
Jan. 11: I have to commend the NYTimes' Vecsey for getting all over the case of those dingleberries who have blocked the Cuban team's visit forthe "Classic". His opinion is that the titular Bushite is the one who can fix it. I would agree that if you want someone to say, "Forget about the law--just do it," he'd be the guy.
My view is, put the Cubans on a boat (a nice one, this time), bring them to the shore, tell the media when they are arriving at the port in Miami and dare the authorities to stop them. The players can even promise not to stay, or to stay, whichever we want from an immigration/baseball/Castro regime change point of view.
Here's the reference, though it's not a free article to the Times Select-less: http://select.nytimes.com/2006/01/18/sports/baseball/18vecsey.html
Now, today (Jan. 20), comes word that the government has allowed the Cubans' application to enter the country. A revised application made clear that the Cubans' prize money, already promised to go to Katrina hurricane victims, will not pass through those filthy Communist currency-debasing hands before being given to our compatriots. The story today suggests that Vecsey was right and the eponymous Bushite is due credit for getting involved and working out the deal.
There was some grumbling over the compromise from anti-Castro Cuban-American political leaders, but they basically got shouted down.
Doubtlessly coincidentally, today marks exactly three years until Dubya can legally slough off the duties of his elected office and go to the job he covets, the one Slug is keeping warm.
The third pre-anniversary of BME-Day.
As they used to say on "Hee-Haw": Crawford, Texas, population 143. Salute!
Final comment, Jan. 25:
That's "Bushite Misrule Ends Day". January 20, 2009. It's not time to celebrate yet, but like the New Year's Day was the year before the new millennium (i.e., Jan. 1, 2000), maybe we could pre-celebrate the approach of the post-Bushite era next year. Then it would already be a tradition in 2008, and a national holiday in 2009. Like "V-E" day was, for quite a while. It's time to move past the postwar mental framework still derived basically from World War II and its stepson, the Cold War.
The reference to "Slug" was insider-speak of our baseball chat group, referring to current baseball commissioner (and, apparently no longer Milwaukee Brewer owner, but who really believes what the owners say about such things?), Bud Selig.
Dec. 16: I was thinking someone might have commented on the Cuba aspect of the World Baseball Classic, but no, that would be too "political". I am simply amazed that any set of circumstances could possibly arise such that Peter Angelos gets to become a hero.
How blockheaded can the U.S. government be? I've heard that the responsible agency is part of the Treasury Department. Yes, that makes sense; allowing Cuba will certainly cause debasement to our currency. Not to mention our precious bodily fluids--no doubt Treasury's got a firm grip on those jewels!
Suddenly I care about a stupid little exhibition series.
Dec. 23: And I think the International Baseball Committee should withdraw anyrecognition of the spurious World Baseball Classic until Cuba isadmitted (the team should be composed of both Cuban residents andexpatriates, so they can prove they're morally superior to ourstupid Cuban-American representatives who run things here).
P.S. That seems to have happened. This one from my "annual pre-Christmas bah Humbug Crank rant", the overall focus being on the New York Crankbiters.
Jan. 11: I have to commend the NYTimes' Vecsey for getting all over the case of those dingleberries who have blocked the Cuban team's visit forthe "Classic". His opinion is that the titular Bushite is the one who can fix it. I would agree that if you want someone to say, "Forget about the law--just do it," he'd be the guy.
My view is, put the Cubans on a boat (a nice one, this time), bring them to the shore, tell the media when they are arriving at the port in Miami and dare the authorities to stop them. The players can even promise not to stay, or to stay, whichever we want from an immigration/baseball/Castro regime change point of view.
Here's the reference, though it's not a free article to the Times Select-less: http://select.nytimes.com/2006/01/18/sports/baseball/18vecsey.html
Now, today (Jan. 20), comes word that the government has allowed the Cubans' application to enter the country. A revised application made clear that the Cubans' prize money, already promised to go to Katrina hurricane victims, will not pass through those filthy Communist currency-debasing hands before being given to our compatriots. The story today suggests that Vecsey was right and the eponymous Bushite is due credit for getting involved and working out the deal.
There was some grumbling over the compromise from anti-Castro Cuban-American political leaders, but they basically got shouted down.
Doubtlessly coincidentally, today marks exactly three years until Dubya can legally slough off the duties of his elected office and go to the job he covets, the one Slug is keeping warm.
The third pre-anniversary of BME-Day.
As they used to say on "Hee-Haw": Crawford, Texas, population 143. Salute!
Final comment, Jan. 25:
That's "Bushite Misrule Ends Day". January 20, 2009. It's not time to celebrate yet, but like the New Year's Day was the year before the new millennium (i.e., Jan. 1, 2000), maybe we could pre-celebrate the approach of the post-Bushite era next year. Then it would already be a tradition in 2008, and a national holiday in 2009. Like "V-E" day was, for quite a while. It's time to move past the postwar mental framework still derived basically from World War II and its stepson, the Cold War.
The reference to "Slug" was insider-speak of our baseball chat group, referring to current baseball commissioner (and, apparently no longer Milwaukee Brewer owner, but who really believes what the owners say about such things?), Bud Selig.
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
Postings on Daily Kos regarding Filibuster, Alito-sis
I responded to this comment by McJoan, who had a passionate argument for going to war in the Senate over Alito:
McJoan: You put your finger on something
important.
One of the biggest difficulties we have in this issue is trying to talk about the intricacies of Senate rules.
Keeping it simple is key. People's brains just short of shut down at the words like "cloture," "procedural votes," etc.
We need to make it as straightforward as possible if there's any hope that the traditional media will report it correctly. "This is an extremely, out-of-the-mainstream nominee. We don't think he should have a lifetime appointment to the Court, and the Republicans want to break Senate rules to get him on the Court."
"I have a philosophy about elections. I believe issues divide and values unite."--Gov. Brian Schweitzer
by mcjoan on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 07:23:10 PM PDT
CST(that's me): Rules, Rules
You are so right about this problem of excessive insider-game detail getting in the way of the issue's exposition. As an example, today's Washington Post had these comments in a news story--emphasis added:
"Democrats, anticipating that Alito ultimately will be confirmed, are trying to deny the White House that victory as long as possible, particularly in the days before the State of the Union address President Bush is to deliver Jan. 31. Although Senate rules do not enable them to defer the confirmation vote until after the speech, Democratic senators would like to reduce the victory period immediately before the speech, one of the broadest public stages the president commands each year."
OK, this looks like Republicans trying to ascribe motives to the Democrats and the Post taking steno, but this point concerned me. I could find nothing in the Senate rules which says a debate must be interrupted for the State of the Union, or if so, that it cannot be resumed afterwards, but I'm no parliamentarian.
Forget about the questions of filibuster, nuclear option, vote-counting, etc. One week of debate or less allowed for this topic of enduring significance is a rush to judgment and unseemly. I agree with the poster who said there should be no vote until there are satisfactory hearings on the NSA wiretapping.
I do not, however, agree with those who say the Democrats should fight with everything in their arsenal. The Democrats need to show that it is not just the ends, which are easily faked (see "Mission Accomplished") and rarely achieved, which count. The methods of accomplishing one's objectives also matter. The Democrats need to show that they will follow the rules--this "strategic pause" (my choice of phrase) will then fit well into the 2006 platform. If the Republicans improperly try to cut off debate, they will pay, whether they have 51 votes or 60.
I believe Harry Reid is thinking along these lines and has a stratagem to propose. That's why they're having the meeting at all. I say, Support Our Troops in Washington in this battle. When it's done, that's when we reckon who might be traitors to our own personal causes.
by chinshihtang on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 01:48:32 AM PDT
This post probably has a short shelf life of relevance. The Democratic Caucus meets today (Wed., Jan. 18) and will probably announce something afterwards. Maybe they'll lie low, though, and sandbag the overconfident Frist yet again. I'm betting Cheney will show up at the time the Majority schedules the floor vote.
Here's part of a second Kos posting, in a discussion of Armando's view that Supreme Court justices approach their cases with the decision in mind, and search for the right rationalization for that decision in the case law:
I do take your point that these SCOTUS folks have a result in mind and cast about for the argument that supports it. The question of the moment is the political one: how to make it clear what Alito will do--when he has denied any intention--and dramatize that sufficiently to capture the attention of the American people. So far, all they've picked up from the hearings was its unmistakable odor of "Alito-sis" (defined as "intensely jargoned stale air with a distinct Bushite scent").
by chinshihtang on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 02:34:09 AM PDT
So far, it's the only reference in Google to "Alito-sis" (the spelling is the Spanish one for "halitosis", in fact). Apart from the reference to this posting.
McJoan: You put your finger on something
important.
One of the biggest difficulties we have in this issue is trying to talk about the intricacies of Senate rules.
Keeping it simple is key. People's brains just short of shut down at the words like "cloture," "procedural votes," etc.
We need to make it as straightforward as possible if there's any hope that the traditional media will report it correctly. "This is an extremely, out-of-the-mainstream nominee. We don't think he should have a lifetime appointment to the Court, and the Republicans want to break Senate rules to get him on the Court."
"I have a philosophy about elections. I believe issues divide and values unite."--Gov. Brian Schweitzer
by mcjoan on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 07:23:10 PM PDT
CST(that's me): Rules, Rules
You are so right about this problem of excessive insider-game detail getting in the way of the issue's exposition. As an example, today's Washington Post had these comments in a news story--emphasis added:
"Democrats, anticipating that Alito ultimately will be confirmed, are trying to deny the White House that victory as long as possible, particularly in the days before the State of the Union address President Bush is to deliver Jan. 31. Although Senate rules do not enable them to defer the confirmation vote until after the speech, Democratic senators would like to reduce the victory period immediately before the speech, one of the broadest public stages the president commands each year."
OK, this looks like Republicans trying to ascribe motives to the Democrats and the Post taking steno, but this point concerned me. I could find nothing in the Senate rules which says a debate must be interrupted for the State of the Union, or if so, that it cannot be resumed afterwards, but I'm no parliamentarian.
Forget about the questions of filibuster, nuclear option, vote-counting, etc. One week of debate or less allowed for this topic of enduring significance is a rush to judgment and unseemly. I agree with the poster who said there should be no vote until there are satisfactory hearings on the NSA wiretapping.
I do not, however, agree with those who say the Democrats should fight with everything in their arsenal. The Democrats need to show that it is not just the ends, which are easily faked (see "Mission Accomplished") and rarely achieved, which count. The methods of accomplishing one's objectives also matter. The Democrats need to show that they will follow the rules--this "strategic pause" (my choice of phrase) will then fit well into the 2006 platform. If the Republicans improperly try to cut off debate, they will pay, whether they have 51 votes or 60.
I believe Harry Reid is thinking along these lines and has a stratagem to propose. That's why they're having the meeting at all. I say, Support Our Troops in Washington in this battle. When it's done, that's when we reckon who might be traitors to our own personal causes.
by chinshihtang on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 01:48:32 AM PDT
This post probably has a short shelf life of relevance. The Democratic Caucus meets today (Wed., Jan. 18) and will probably announce something afterwards. Maybe they'll lie low, though, and sandbag the overconfident Frist yet again. I'm betting Cheney will show up at the time the Majority schedules the floor vote.
Here's part of a second Kos posting, in a discussion of Armando's view that Supreme Court justices approach their cases with the decision in mind, and search for the right rationalization for that decision in the case law:
I do take your point that these SCOTUS folks have a result in mind and cast about for the argument that supports it. The question of the moment is the political one: how to make it clear what Alito will do--when he has denied any intention--and dramatize that sufficiently to capture the attention of the American people. So far, all they've picked up from the hearings was its unmistakable odor of "Alito-sis" (defined as "intensely jargoned stale air with a distinct Bushite scent").
by chinshihtang on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 02:34:09 AM PDT
So far, it's the only reference in Google to "Alito-sis" (the spelling is the Spanish one for "halitosis", in fact). Apart from the reference to this posting.
Friday, January 06, 2006
Sharon: He brings bad things to life
I will take advantage of Ariel Sharon's pre-death condition to make a few unkind remarks about him that I might forbear from saying after he's died.
He and Arafat are a pair, representing permanently opposed positions of the past, and it's time to move on. Both got concerned with their "legacy" in recent years; for Arafat, that meant worrying how he'll be remembered among Palestinians and thus selling them short; for Sharon, it meant a change in tactics to try to keep at bay the enemies of Zionist Israel, by separating Israel more effectively from its neighbors. The sad fact for both is the their tactics will instead ensure the opposite of their goals: Arafat will be the guy who failed to get a Palestinian state, and Sharon's Wall will further entrench the territorial, political, social, moral and economic chaos of the area, and thus provide very poor security. As apartheid proved in South Africa.
Arafat showed himself to be one of the tiny men of history by blowing his people's best opportunity in modern history--in the late days of the Clinton administration, spurning Ehud Barak's generous offer package. Similarly, here are the three things for which I will never forgive Sharon:
1) During Israel's invasion of Beirut, turning over security at the Palestinian refugee camps over to the Christian militia (with thousands massacred in an easily foreseeable disaster); 2) incitement to riot by making a point of challenging the Muslims on the Temple on the Mount in Jerusalem, the immediate cause of the second intifada (I know he had the right to do it, but was it the smart thing to do?) 3) and most controversially, making Sharon's Wall into a reality.
I give Sharon grudging credit for the Gaza withdrawal. He was sensible enough to recognize the futility of the situation in Gaza, as, I believe, he finally did with his '80's pet, the Lebanon invasion. I don't think either "strategic withdrawal" represented a real gesture toward peace, just pulling back to what he and his Cabinet determined, with no other power weighing in noticeably, to be "defensible borders".
Like Pat Robertson, "God told me" Sharon's health problems were divine retribution, but my version is that it's for Sharon's Wall, not the Gaza withdrawal. That Wall is not a peacemaker, unless one is extremely myopic. It suggests an obvious rallying cry, borrowed and modified from Ronald Reagan: "Mr. Prime Minister, tear down that wall."
I seem to like 2-parters when it comes to the dualistic Palestinian issue (see the derivatively-titled "Revenge and Insecurity, or Kill Arik, Part 2" on this site's archives: http://chinshihtang.blogspot.com/2005_02_01_chinshihtang_archive.html). Now, instead of merely bashing, I will propose something positive, even if a
HIGHLY UNORTHODOX, SECULAR HUMANISTIC, LONG-TERM VISION:
Peace will come to that area, not ever through a "2-state solution", but through mutual recognition:
a) the Palestinians need to recognize that the Israelis have brought positive change to the area and have the potential to bring much more still (thus, they are much more than "an occupying power to be thrown into the sea" or whatever); and
b) the religious Zionists need to recognize that Palestinian Arabs also have a right to live in the area, free from coercion and ghetto-ization. Somehow, I would think at least that the Jews of the Diaspora could understand that.
In this sense, the Israeli Arab minority population has a critical viewpoint which needs to be respected and nurtured. My understanding of the demographics is that the group is indeed growing in relation to Israeli society in general, and I consider that one of the most hopeful signals for the long-term.
From a political science point of view, if you asked me: I'd advocate a loose federation as a form of government to consider for the area, with representation levels guaranteed for Jews (perhaps by Reform/Conservative/Orthodox), Arabs, and any other significant minority groups in Palestine. Jerusalem should be an "open city" with permanent United Nations presence--I recommend the Security Council be physically located there! Economic freedoms to own, sell, and develop land should be protected for all--local community boards should control development, and the federation should provide for the common defense, currency, raising revenue, etc., in a loose federal government (actually, something like the new constitution of Iraq!)
I understand that it may take 50 years or more for the conditions to emerge for a stable solution; however, I believe that will be a true basis for a permanent peace. That's what must be pursued. That's how bad I think the short-term prospects look in both countries.
Strategic Application of the "HUSH LTV" Above to Current Domestic Political Calculations:
The new (Peres-less) Labor is the best way to advance the cause of ultimate peace. I sense they are feeling their way toward an aspiration to be a postmodernist state in the European sense, peace with their neighbors being a necessary obstacle along the path toward a general program of regional development. It's workable if they stick to it and get the security guarantees (from Europe and the U.S.) they should be able to get in return. I'm not sure that their sincere dedication to a negotiated two-state solution is right, but I do think it can lead to a closing for the "Chain of Violence" show, after a run of some five years for that farcical tragedy.
Despite my unequivocal preference for Labor, I am grateful for the continuation of Sharon's nascent Kadima party, because it splits the current center from right (on the all-important war vs. peace spectrum--see below). This could actually break the veto power the Israeli religious right has on Israeli policy at some point.
As for the Palestinian elections, key elements are driven by Israeli domestic considerations--whether Israel will allow voting in Jerusalem, whether Israel will allow Hamas to receive the votes and the representation their support might draw in a fully democratic outcome. The man heading the list for Al Fatah--the traditional PLO party of Arafat--is running out of an Israeli prison. These things lead me to believe that these peoples' fates are too deeply intertwined to be thinking of separation as the solution.
Tactically, the way toward peace is to marginalize the extremists at both ends of the war issue (Likud and Hamas, if you will) who advocate programs which directly lead to violence (or are even perpetrators or sponsors of violence). Let them find their common ground (I don't deny that it exists). Give them the chance to gain their fair representation, even make political alliance together for the cause of fomenting continued violence. I'll take the chances of their opponents, the advocates of reconciliation, in that one.
He and Arafat are a pair, representing permanently opposed positions of the past, and it's time to move on. Both got concerned with their "legacy" in recent years; for Arafat, that meant worrying how he'll be remembered among Palestinians and thus selling them short; for Sharon, it meant a change in tactics to try to keep at bay the enemies of Zionist Israel, by separating Israel more effectively from its neighbors. The sad fact for both is the their tactics will instead ensure the opposite of their goals: Arafat will be the guy who failed to get a Palestinian state, and Sharon's Wall will further entrench the territorial, political, social, moral and economic chaos of the area, and thus provide very poor security. As apartheid proved in South Africa.
Arafat showed himself to be one of the tiny men of history by blowing his people's best opportunity in modern history--in the late days of the Clinton administration, spurning Ehud Barak's generous offer package. Similarly, here are the three things for which I will never forgive Sharon:
1) During Israel's invasion of Beirut, turning over security at the Palestinian refugee camps over to the Christian militia (with thousands massacred in an easily foreseeable disaster); 2) incitement to riot by making a point of challenging the Muslims on the Temple on the Mount in Jerusalem, the immediate cause of the second intifada (I know he had the right to do it, but was it the smart thing to do?) 3) and most controversially, making Sharon's Wall into a reality.
I give Sharon grudging credit for the Gaza withdrawal. He was sensible enough to recognize the futility of the situation in Gaza, as, I believe, he finally did with his '80's pet, the Lebanon invasion. I don't think either "strategic withdrawal" represented a real gesture toward peace, just pulling back to what he and his Cabinet determined, with no other power weighing in noticeably, to be "defensible borders".
Like Pat Robertson, "God told me" Sharon's health problems were divine retribution, but my version is that it's for Sharon's Wall, not the Gaza withdrawal. That Wall is not a peacemaker, unless one is extremely myopic. It suggests an obvious rallying cry, borrowed and modified from Ronald Reagan: "Mr. Prime Minister, tear down that wall."
I seem to like 2-parters when it comes to the dualistic Palestinian issue (see the derivatively-titled "Revenge and Insecurity, or Kill Arik, Part 2" on this site's archives: http://chinshihtang.blogspot.com/2005_02_01_chinshihtang_archive.html). Now, instead of merely bashing, I will propose something positive, even if a
HIGHLY UNORTHODOX, SECULAR HUMANISTIC, LONG-TERM VISION:
Peace will come to that area, not ever through a "2-state solution", but through mutual recognition:
a) the Palestinians need to recognize that the Israelis have brought positive change to the area and have the potential to bring much more still (thus, they are much more than "an occupying power to be thrown into the sea" or whatever); and
b) the religious Zionists need to recognize that Palestinian Arabs also have a right to live in the area, free from coercion and ghetto-ization. Somehow, I would think at least that the Jews of the Diaspora could understand that.
In this sense, the Israeli Arab minority population has a critical viewpoint which needs to be respected and nurtured. My understanding of the demographics is that the group is indeed growing in relation to Israeli society in general, and I consider that one of the most hopeful signals for the long-term.
From a political science point of view, if you asked me: I'd advocate a loose federation as a form of government to consider for the area, with representation levels guaranteed for Jews (perhaps by Reform/Conservative/Orthodox), Arabs, and any other significant minority groups in Palestine. Jerusalem should be an "open city" with permanent United Nations presence--I recommend the Security Council be physically located there! Economic freedoms to own, sell, and develop land should be protected for all--local community boards should control development, and the federation should provide for the common defense, currency, raising revenue, etc., in a loose federal government (actually, something like the new constitution of Iraq!)
I understand that it may take 50 years or more for the conditions to emerge for a stable solution; however, I believe that will be a true basis for a permanent peace. That's what must be pursued. That's how bad I think the short-term prospects look in both countries.
Strategic Application of the "HUSH LTV" Above to Current Domestic Political Calculations:
The new (Peres-less) Labor is the best way to advance the cause of ultimate peace. I sense they are feeling their way toward an aspiration to be a postmodernist state in the European sense, peace with their neighbors being a necessary obstacle along the path toward a general program of regional development. It's workable if they stick to it and get the security guarantees (from Europe and the U.S.) they should be able to get in return. I'm not sure that their sincere dedication to a negotiated two-state solution is right, but I do think it can lead to a closing for the "Chain of Violence" show, after a run of some five years for that farcical tragedy.
Despite my unequivocal preference for Labor, I am grateful for the continuation of Sharon's nascent Kadima party, because it splits the current center from right (on the all-important war vs. peace spectrum--see below). This could actually break the veto power the Israeli religious right has on Israeli policy at some point.
As for the Palestinian elections, key elements are driven by Israeli domestic considerations--whether Israel will allow voting in Jerusalem, whether Israel will allow Hamas to receive the votes and the representation their support might draw in a fully democratic outcome. The man heading the list for Al Fatah--the traditional PLO party of Arafat--is running out of an Israeli prison. These things lead me to believe that these peoples' fates are too deeply intertwined to be thinking of separation as the solution.
Tactically, the way toward peace is to marginalize the extremists at both ends of the war issue (Likud and Hamas, if you will) who advocate programs which directly lead to violence (or are even perpetrators or sponsors of violence). Let them find their common ground (I don't deny that it exists). Give them the chance to gain their fair representation, even make political alliance together for the cause of fomenting continued violence. I'll take the chances of their opponents, the advocates of reconciliation, in that one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
