Blog Relax

Morning. Still feel oddly satisfied with myself. Don't know why. Two solid, hard days of messing with the computer and all I got out of it was two links, one of which wasn't "available", the other of which I knew how to do last week. But still, I have a sense of satisfaction.

And can't really say why. I suppose it's because I have a sense now that I know more than I did...? But I can't really say what. It's a little like my old truck. If it doesn't start I just open the hood and pull the green wire. I have no idea what's so special about that green wire but I do know that if I pull it the truck will start and it gives me a sense of mastery. So too with the computer. I clicked on 6 billion buttons the last two days --I'm sure it was 6 billion-- and now I know that there are a few which when punched in the right order will actually do what I want and that gives me a sense of mastery --calm, majestic, Olympian mastery. Ah, that's a lot to get from 6 buttons. Enjoy it while it lasts.

It doesn't seem this should be that difficult. It seems that with a little conversation and reason and maybe with a well considered kick you ought to be able to get the thing to do what you want. But it doesn't work that way. The computer's not an intelligence. In fact it doesn't have the brains of a bug. It's an instrument. It's nuts and bolts. They're very tiny bolts and very fast and you don't actually see them but they are nuts and bolts; and you don't twist them with a wrench you tweak them with a hyphen...which by-the-way seems rather unmanly. If you can't swing a sledge or carve with a blade it doesn't seem you're really working, and it's certainly not a work sensual and soothing. But this is a different world and you just got to get with it. You gotta do your tweaks. And there are 6 billion possible. And it's all electricity. If you do things wrong there's no connection, nothing happens. If you do things wrong, right, there's an explosion. It's only when you do a few bits right, a few bits out of a billion, in the right order, that things light up, and move. That is satisfying when it does happen. --Actually, for my purposes I do only need a small number of bits. All I have to do is find the right ones and put them in my pocket and I'll be okay... and a green wire!
------------------------

Good Bush speech earlier. If I get time I should make a note. It seems somehow meaningful to keep the personal life in some contact with public events. The public, after all, is part of the personal; but the two worlds seem not always integrated, not always expressible one within the other. That's probably good.

Test of LinksTest of Patience

I suppose I could make some comments to make this an actual post but I'm utterly poophed. It took me an incredibly long time to figure out procedure; in fact what I figured out was that what I'd been trying won't work.

This post is just two quotes from two articles linked to their source.

If it's a spruce tree adorned with 10,000 lights and 5,000 ornaments displayed on the Capitol grounds in December, it's a Christmas tree and that's what it should be called, says House Speaker Dennis Hastert. Hastert, R-Ill., in a letter to the Architect of the Capitol, recommended that the annual Capitol Holiday Tree, as it has been called the past several years, be renamed the Capitol Christmas Tree.
"I strongly urge that we return to this tradition and join the White House, countless other public institutions and millions of American families in celebrating the holiday season with a Christmas tree," Hastert wrote to Architect Alan Hantman. His office said the tree began to be referred to as the Holiday Tree in the 1990s. Spokesman Ron Bonjean said the reasons were unclear.

-----------------------------------------------------

The United States ruled out making extra pledges to fight global warming beyond 2012 on Tuesday, angering environmentalists who accused Washington of blocking a 189-nation conference in Canada.

Chief U.S. climate negotiator Harlan Watson also strongly defended President George W. Bush's environmental record, saying emissions by the world's biggest polluter had fallen more in 2000-2003 than in the European Union.

Still, U.N. data show the United States is doing worse than all the nations named by Watson in the longer term. U.S. emissions were 13.3 percent above 1990 levels in 2003 -- while the EU average in the same period was a fall of 1.4 percent.

(And just now it took me ten minutes to figure out how to get out of the block qoute so I could make a comment). The idea anyway being that the EU includes East Germany which shut down its old coal fired plants after the collapse of the Soviets. It would be an interesting post if I could find that article.

Bush Pardons Trites Twosome

Having some investment in this family I think it's necessary to make an entry.

As a friend of the brother of the "Godfather" (so to speak) of the miscreants pardoned; and having for years and years been to various graduations and that sort of thing, in a sense I'm family too (so to speak). So, so to speak, I speak for the family.

The situation was this: The President, stirred to the marrow of his soul in witness to the doom impending on these two members (so to speak) of the Trites clan (so to speak), by name Marshmallow and Yam, saw fit through the large goodness of his heart (and also by yearly tradition) to bestow upon them clemency and mercy and pardon (though they were ill-tempered and fowl) and by that act of compassion save their scragly necks.

So important was this event that not one, but two, news sites gave major coverage (those Trites people must have some pull!). ...I'm wondering. Since it has been established that I am (more or less) sort of a member of the family (so to speak) does that give me "pull" too? "Well, no, I don't actually know George Bush, not personally, but I suppose I could say that I do have access to the White house. Familial connections, you know, that sort of thing." --Could this be a career enhancement?

Now to see if my links work.

Mother Cindy & the Murtha Moment

The Mother Murtha Moment, that is.

When I was down at my folks last weekend I did manage to watch a few minutes of the floor debate masterminded by Hastert and saw Murtha weeping as he read sad emails and expostulated on American foreign policy. How appropriate, I thought, that when two such splendid female patriots share the same views that they should share the same moniker.

A few days ago a big mother sat down across from me at Burger King. He was old and fat; his face was fat. He said, cheerily, "Hi. I'm a Marine. I have two purple hearts and a bronze star. I'm a patriot. Let's quit." He sat with a big lolling grin.

I said he had just spit in my face.

He repeated: "I'm a Marine. I have served with courage and honor and distinction. I have a past."

I said: "You just spit in my face."

Let us parse the spit:

Section 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.

Declaration of termination is declaration of defeat. The business of "practical" --and all else-- is base cover.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Cindy and Murtha and Zarqawi... These people don't like...ME!

The big fat fellow sat there, amused, his eyes steadily on me, his grin large, lolling, foolish. "You know," I said to myself, "you have to be careful not to rub up against these people. You might get something of it on you."

Links Test

This is a good article in RCP on Islamist-Radicalism

This is a good article by Krauthammer on the Paris riots.

Musings

"Blogging will be light today." I read that frequently in various blogs, but if blogging is conversation about the day's events, why shouldn't it occasionally be light? "What's hapn'n?" "Nothing..." "Hey! How about those Vikes?!"

But of course such chat is never the sole intent of the blogger. To be involved in blogging is to have an aspiration. That aspiration can vary perhaps as widely as there are individual bloggers... but there's always something out there, and the drive to say a few words about it.

As a new blogger my aspirations are very simple. First, just to get used to the idea of placing my thoughts in a public domain. You get used to it by doing it, but it still feels very odd. To argue via email makes all the sense in the world. I argue with my friends and my friends are wrong about everything, but to just put out an idea and let it drop... What's the point?

One point is clarification of thought. This is the main point. To publicly express an idea in such a way that a stranger can understand it is a discipline not natural to the private man. The entire burden of clarity lies within the words chosen. I can't grunt to make a point, and I can't assume specific proclivities, or information beyond general knowledge.

Or is it necessary to assume these very things, and thus address a specific audience? Do I just worry about this too much? Do other bloggers worry about it at all? Or should this just be a matter of "Let the chips fall where they may?" If a thought is carefully written it will be understood by those who care to understand; and since it's my conviction that I've never in my life had an original thought but only sometimes a "different" thought (given a "different" personality), perhaps by that reasoning I can assume that this whole consideration is pointless: Whatever I clearly express will be understood, it's only necessary to have the right reader. --There still though, is the desire to communicate to the largest range of personality possible, and that means having the right writer, and it's in this respect that I'm still not sure of myself. I do know that I don't want to discuss just politics.

But politics: "To say that Bush lied is to lie." Obvious. The interest here is in following the force and scope of the Bush counter offensive, and perhaps in examining the pathology of the Democrats. How much is this an unprincipled political calculation, meant to sway the mind of those inattentive or with poor memory; how much is it just that the leadership is as nutty as the base? (This could lead to a discussion of "Patriotism", which could be interesting because in some it doesn't exist).

"Alito mum on abortion." Fine. The hope is that in the Judiciary hearings there will be an open discussion of the role of the court and what constitutes a constitutional decision. The hope is that it will be a "teachable moment" --and that the Republicans will maintain spine.

"Chirac Addresses Nation" --I made that headline up. What a weak fish. He has no idea what's going on. This actually is a very interesting conflict, in that it's a conflict between two religions, Islam and Christianity. The difference is that Moslems know they're Moslems, and know that their values and desired social structure are Islamic. Christian France on the other hand, pleasantly denies it is Christian because it is so pleasant to deny God --which they do very well-- while not recognizing that their values and social structure are a creation of Christian tradition, so that they are, as a nation, properly seen by the Moslems for what they are, as infidels and enemies. It's not a fair fight. Moslems know who they are and thus each individual has force, purpose, plan. Chirac? Villepin? These poor guys have their backs to the enemy and don't even know it. --In this respect at some time I should discuss a little more some points made in Bush's Veteran's Day speech (I've said this before) where it seems he's getting closer to an accurate description of the struggle.

...But just a little bit more on ma. The personality as I knew it is pretty much gone. What's happened to relationship? What's happened to the soul? Christianity teaches that man is not man except as he has both body and soul. This is why they teach the resurrection of the body. For Man there is no such thing as disembodied spirit. Man can not be Man before God without flesh and blood and bones. Ma's neurological flesh is about gone --or at least badly diminished. So what has happened to her soul? Or more properly, what has happened to her humanity, the combination of the two? It is diminished. There is no other way to look at it. Put bluntly: she is less human than she was. So how to deal with it? --Suffer. There is no other answer. Body and soul are still united, regardless of how imperfectly, and there is no diminution of duty. Relationship? Mother and son? In as much as that means "both ways" it's pretty much gone. There is a hope for lucid moments, and they may happen, but that's the extent of hope. But there still is the day-to-day contact, there still is "relationship". I find this a difficult concept. It has to be developed, it has to happen, but in thinking about it, it's like imagining the sound of one hand clapping.

Getting Back In Groove

Well, while I have many small duties to perform yet today, the big thing is to make a blog entry. I take this seriously. I eventually want this to be a "professional" blog, that is, I want it to be up to snuff mechanically, but first, the truly BIG thing, is to learn to express myself publicly.

The blog as "public expression of private thought" might better be expressed as "public expressions of a private citizen", except that my sense of the challenge is so personal. It is a conviction I have that I never in my life have had a thought that somebody else hasn't had first, so why should I express what is already known, somewhere? Do I just add another voice?

This personal modesty in reference to the capacity of others I think is a true perception, it also has the immense psychological value of connectedness. I can feel that my mind --the innate structure of my mind and character-- my perception of values, are at one with men from all time, back to Socrates, back to the beginning of man as man. This sense of continuity of mind with the nature of all men from all ages is the rock of my sanity: I know that if I've thought carefully, I've said something that's true, no matter how at variance I might be with those around me, no matter how odd and uncertain might seem the perception. With this modesty and faith and perception I know that somewhere out there there is a mind structured just like my own and that that mind has already had my thought, and that makes the thought true, in as much as men can discover the true.

Of course, men don't agree. But that's just discussion. If the structure of one mind can independently achieve exactly the same insight as another, that means that in some sense the insight is real, and all that's left is clarifying the difference. --Of course, sometimes it's necessary to shoot people who just don't get it. We'll call this, "diversity".


ALZHEIMER'S

A word on "taking care of an old woman who has become a problem."

Ma's capacities are substantially diminished from what they were just a week ago. I continue to ascribe that to the great rage of last Thursday (11/3). It does seem that the already weakened brain --I mean in its cellular structure-- was damaged in its integration by the stress of that over wrought emotion. I doubt that during the entire last 3 1/2 days ma ever really understood who I was. There have been many such episodes of failure of recognition but never before one unbroken for such a length of time. Her memory for the simple tasks that a week before she could perform --setting the table, making coffee-- is now pretty much gone, or at least very imperfect. Her sense of where she is, who she is, even her sense of her age, is the worst I've seen. For one long evening it seemed she was convinced she was a young girl, about twenty. She kept asking where her car was parked so she could go home, and she looked constantly in her purse for what I took to be her "mad money" --she really wanted to get out of there-- and cried when she found she had only three dollars: "Somebody has been in my purse, this has never happened before."

At about 4:00 PM Saturday, while I was struggling to keep her from waking dad from his nap, I had a thought I'd never had before. I made this note as we sat facing each other from opposite sides of the room:

My attitude towards caring for ma has changed. I had previously thought in terms of "what's best for her", as a kind of therapy, almost as if I expected recovery, though intellectually I knew that wouldn't happen. Now, I just want to keep her from exploding.
--I guess that's not truly stated. I still want to do for her what's helpful, but I do recognize now that she's "dangerous", she could easily destroy things both for herself and for dad, so instead of "recovery" as my emotion, my intent now is "to handle her, skillfully". Thus she is reduced in my eyes as a person. But she is reduced as a person, and if she is to stay here she does have to be handled. That's not an insensitivity, that's a moral fact.

The problem is her now constantly being on the edge of explosion. That's not good for her --if I'm right that such intense emotion is physiologically destructive-- and it certainly is not acceptable to me of dad if she's to stay at home. With that kind of aggressive anger caring for her becomes intolerable. So there has to be a change in my attitude. Before, she was my ma, I wanted to maintain a relationship with my ma as long as possible. So I discussed things. Patiently patiently patiently. I don't know if that's meaningful anymore. I don't know if ma is really there anymore.

So the emphasis now, at least the emphasis, has to be on control, and that means techniques and skill. This is an unpleasant thought. It's manipulation. But I don't see any other reasonable course. And I don't yet know what I mean by skill...thought I have some thoughts. --And it may mean I'll have to spend more time down there.


POLITICS

When I was home I did manage to hear a bit of Bush's Veteran's Day speech on Iraq. I remember being struck by what an advancement it seemed of his vision of just what this war is about. But the next day all I heard was that he had included three paragraphs that attacked Democrats. To my mind this hardly seemed the issue... But on just a little thought it was clear that it was: America has only one enemy that can defeat America, and that's the Democrat Party. --I'll discuss this more once I've had sometime to read.

...An AP writer on the French riots:

France's worst unrest since the 1968 student-worker protests is forcing the country to confront decades of simmering anger over racial discrimination, crowded housing and unemployment.

This is so silly.

Probably should also comment on Alito.

Alzheimer's

Guess I'll do one note on Alzheimer's. Actually, this is the dominating force in my life right now, taking care of ma, three-and-a-half days down home each week and then spending another day recovering from the exhaustion. I haven't put anything of this in the blog because it is personal and when I speak of a blog as "the public expression of private thoughts" I do not mean expression of private matters. But the blog is yet in development, I don't yet know what it's gong to become, so I guess I will make one entry, just to see how it feels. --This is something of a speculation about physiology anyway, so it's not fully personal.

Ma had a downturn last weekend.

Thursday night. She had been okay. We watched a rerun of All In the Family. Pleasantly enough, though there sure was a lot of shouting in that particular episode. A few minutes afterwards I asked her if she was ready to take her pills... And she shouted at me! Or perhaps an expression closer to exact would be that her tone was of an angry, aggressive snarl. That began a long night. I finally got to bed at 5:00 AM. It did occur to me midway through that night that perhaps ma took her cues from the TV, so no more Archie Bunker. But the anger, aggression, abuse, and vastly increased confusion continued throughout the weekend. I later made this speculation in my notebook:

The great change in ma was her abusiveness; the aggressive, the snide, the wounding remark... Actually, the abusiveness, the intensity of her anger, and the near unremittance of her confusion were all a change. I don't believe that after 10:00 PM that Thursday night she ever fully understood who dad and I were. The change was sudden. Earlier in the evening I don't remember noticing anything more than the ordinary dippiness.
I have speculated that that great anger coming just after she had been listening to Archie and Edith and continuing so forcefully for so many hours overwhelmed her already weakened brain and further damaged it, permanently, or at least for an extended time. The argument would be something like this: Too much norepinephrine causing excitotoxicity leading to appototic death of the cells, specifically to the cells that so long had kept her considerate. Physiologically this statement seems to have no meaning: Why would it be the "consideration" cells that were damaged by so much anger? This is how I explain it:

It seems reasonable to assume that a brain already damaged could be damaged more by violent emotion.
The progress of the disease is physical, as such, it is random in terms of the personality and would be random if damaged by anger.
But it does seem that it was the higher and more gentle functions that were damaged most.
It could be because thoughtfulness and consideration requires a great integration of function, because this is an achieved capacity, as distinguished from anger, which is a simple, more purely animal function.
So even if it were that the cell loss was random, still, within its random nature it would be integration that was lost, and thus with it the higher achievement of consideration.
The observational support for this argument is that now in all ways her capacities seem diminished, except in that of anger. But anger is the instinctual default. Anger may be possible even in a brain conceptually very nearly dead.

So much for my speculation. Since I go down again tomorrow I hope there's something within this argument that is not quite right.

"Grand Strategy" Discussed

My take on the "riots" is simple: If they don't look like a riot they aren't. If there's not irrational mayhem and destruction it's not a riot, it's a discipline. If it quickly spreads widely it's not the enragement of an aggrieved neighborhood but a movement. It is a clash between cultures. In the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War the pattern was similar, outbreaks all over, but without restraint or planning or anticipation; and the motivation was different, political not cultural; and the goal was different, not the control of banlieus, but of the nation. But it was civil war.

A word on "restraint". It is reported now that "scores of churches, schools, police stations, factories" have been torched. I'll note two things:
This did not happen at the outset, it happened later. In any large violent movement discipline will break down, and may anyway be ignored by those not fully apprised of the strategy:
But:
Those buildings burned are exactly what the Islamicists would not want in their neighborhoods: Western schools and churches; French police stations; and more problematically, Western factories.
Yet still, very few deaths. The reason for this is simple: Too many deaths would bring in the military.

Note too, that though I may have seemed to imply it I am not arguing a grand conspiracy on the pattern of centralized control. Arab/Islamicism does not need Al Qaeda. It's a mind set. There can be any number of "affiliations" that are equally in opposition the West. The controlling groups within the present disturbance are probably what we call gangs, or "the criminal element;" or in fact, the governing force of within those neighborhoods. (I suspect most of the torching of buildings has occurred in outlying areas, at least early on, those with smaller Muslim populations, thus with more police presence, thus with less control by the governing "criminal element", and thus in expression much more like an ordinary riot).

And I do not think the French are capable of an intelligent response because I don't think they're capable of recognizing just what a nullity they are to Arab eyes. To the Arab/Islamacist mind the French only exist as an annoyance. If they're not present they're not there. "French culture" to this mind does not even breach the consciousness as a concept to be rejected. It's nullity. This mind has no desire to "understand their enemy", other than to know his weakness.

And I do see the "Arab" part of this distinction to be important; it's the Arabs who define themselves in reference to their past glory.

And even if the French had the particular dispassionate intelligence to recognize that these people are an implacably alien presence, what do you do? You can't really readily deport six million people.

De Villepin has said: "We must be lucid: The Republic is at a moment of truth." Don't bet on the lucid part. There is no chance of clear sight from Villepin, he's incapable of the first necessary dispassion, which is to recognize that to the disaffected population brought into France merely to perform menial labor, France, and the glory of French culture, is just so much dirt casually to be trod under the sandal.

(Incidentally, this dismissal is because French secular culture is a Christian culture. This is automatically understood by the Islamicist but impossible to be understood by the secularist. But this is for a future entry.

x Teeter-totter Take

Teeter-totter Take

Not to be unmindful of the events of the day, I note the Republicans didn't do well yesterday. Oh well, fundamentally the Democrat triumph is that they maintained things as they were. Though it will be touted as a great victory it's actually just status quo, meaning that the electorate maintains habit. Still, it's dispiriting. Republicans are under intense media attack. Not to have made an advance is much like having been beaten into retreat. However, habit is retained on both sides, there's probably been no great change in voting pattern; nationwide, 50/50. The problem is that teetering on the cusp means that small changes could prove immense, so failure of victory does make worrisome the possibility of defeat. --Such is my take on the returns and I don't think I'll consider it more; too busy, things to do, people to see...

The Grand Strategy

The Grand Strategy

It's just popped into my head. The Obvious. I know now how Arabs intend to take over the world. White flight.

I'd wondered about their grand designs for a universal caliphate, when they can't even put together a 3rd class army, or make their own sheet of glass, or design a bike. Universal caliphate? By blowing themselves up? That hardly seems grand, and besides, it makes people mad.

But I now understand and their method is much simpler; they simply move into an area, people don't like them and leave. And so what's left they have, their bit of land. And then they breed. They expand. In socialist countries this works, that's where they're paid simply because they exist: Collecto, ergo sum. Hey, this is France. They collect welfare, they breed, they take over the government in a free and fair election. And it's home free. Of course, they will drive their host country into the dirt, but it will be Arab dirt. And once they rule even then it will take time to ruin. Some Frenchmen will continue to work and pay taxes. And when there's no more taxes? Oh well, they're no worse off than if they'd stayed home. --Wonderful faith, this faith of Mohammed. It doesn't matter how inferior you are: If you're Arab and Moslem you're superior by faith, and no failure can mar the bliss of this righteousness. --The point of this little screed is to point out to Frenchmen that Arabs don't want to assimilate, won't, and suffer no angst that they're not accepted.

Riots?

Let Threehundred Little Caliphates Bloom


Been doing a lot of reading on the riots that aren't.

I note the disturbance is:
Extensive ((300 towns affected)
Extended (13 nights now)
Non violent (one "accidental" death); and
Restrained (NO buildings burned, just cars and trash bins; the few buildings
torched recently in outlying areas are incidentals and imperfections.
And no plate glass windows have been shattered!

This is not a riot, there are no rampaging, enraged mobs; this is not poverty rising up, nor despairing youth striking out. This is a military campaign.

It's a campaign geared to the situation and the enemy. The situation is that ground is already held; the enemy is the French Socialist mind, the dumbest and weakest foe on earth.

The tactic is "moderated insurrection," not too much, not too little. Just enough to make the banlieues seem ungovernable, not so much as to bring reprisal.

The goal is negotiation...and compromise. The French will pay for their peace through social programs, and in return the banlieues (suburbs) will be ruled by muslin elders.

The French will have peace, the Muslims will have land, and France will be sovereign no more. This anyway is the plan.

--The problem with the French, with liberals, and with some very bright sociologists I've read, is that they don't recognize a military attack when they see one. They analyze on the basis of their training, on the basis of the way they live and believe. They don't recognize that there is another belief system, a belief system that thinks all Frenchmen and sociologists are cowpies, a belief system that doesn't even want to touch a Frenchman or a sociologist, a belief system that merely wants land, and control. If the French don't come to realize that these people are their complete enemy, they will lose.

Let threehundred little caliphates bloom.

Civil War?

When I was a very young kid, when we'd go down to visit the grandparents I'd be covered at night by a patchwork quilt. I really liked that quilt. It was super thick and fluffy, thus warm, and thus appreciated because on that primitive farm they still heated with wood. In the deepest winter, we'd go down to the kitchen in the morning and the water pail would be covered with a skim of ice. To get a drink you'd have to break that ice with the dipper. But under that quilt I was toasty. And it was pretty. It was hand sown from every odd bit of fabric they'd saved, in patterns of four or 8 inch squares. It was sort of a continuation of the immigrant tradition of thrift, though in fact they were not new immigrants and didn't really need to sew their own quilts or even live on such a primitive farm. They'd started on the farm, moved to the city, had done fairly well, then moved back to the farm just because they missed it and because it was lovely. And the quilt was lovely. Those hand stitched pieces of carefully saved fabric were carefully placed. I remember the theme seemed to be yellow. Bits of yellow placed all over amidst the dark, like spangles. I remember, many years later, when reading a history on the spontaneous outbreak of the Spanish Civil War, having the odd thought of how much it seemed the map of that breakout matched the pattern of that quilt. Last night I downloaded a map of France published by the Telegraph, showing the outbreaks of riots, the riots in little bonfires against a black background. It didn't really look like a quilt, it did remind me of that quilt... It looked like a Christmas tree... Is their any cognitive functioning human mind that does not recognize that this is an outbreak of conflict with Islam?

Broder and Blankley on Harry and Harriet

Yesterday, in Realclearpolitics.com, there was an interesting yin and yang between David Broder (President Pushover), and Tony Blankley (Principled Conservatism).

Broder:

Under other circumstances, President Bush's choice of Judge Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court would have been seen as a bold move by a strong president with a clear policy objective....
But after the fiasco of the Harriet Miers nomination... the Alito nomination inevitably looks like a defensive move, a lunge for the lifeboat by an embattled president to secure what is left of his political base....The president's opponents are emboldened by this performance, and his fellow partisans must increasingly wonder if they can afford to march to his command. (My emphasis).

Blankley:

Last week, the conservative movement had its Rosa Parks moment -- we refused to give up our seat on the bus even for a Republican president....Something important happened last week for conservatism -- and thus for the broader political scene.

The successful opposition to Miss Miers was not a triumph for just some faction of the conservative movement...[it] was the entire conservative movement on the hunt -- at full regimental strength. (My emphasis)

It does seem that the two see things differently.

Broder:

Politically, the president probably had no choice but to reach back for his conservative base in making the Alito nomination. At his current levels of support, he has no place else to go. But the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll contains a clear warning. Self-described conservatives made up only 31 percent of the electorate. Moderates numbered 44 percent. And the moderates were nearly exact opposites of the conservatives in their views toward Bush, disapproving of his job performance by a 38 to 61 percent margin, while conservatives approved 61 to 39.

Blankley:

Today, 34 percent of Americans are self-described conservatives, while only 19 percent are self-described liberals. When one adds only the most conservative third of the remaining 47 percent of self-identified moderates to the self-proclaimed conservatives, one has a voting majority in an American election.

I note that the numbers used are about the same. I note that Broder manages not to mention that the self discribed liberal base is hardly over half the size of the similarly self-discribed conservative base; and I note that Tony Blankley, even using his own numbers, manages not to mention that the "voting majority" he speaks of only comes up to 46 percent. But I note too that there seems to be a difference in attitude:

Broder:

The risks of a Supreme Court showdown fight are at least as great for Bush as for the Democrats.

Blankely:

This was a revolt for excellence. It was a revolt for a faithful scholar of the law. It was a moment of high faith in reason, and in the blessings that will flow from a fair and wise reading of our founding document.

I do get the impression that David has tasted something of the sour, while Tony has tasted something sweet. I'm still just tasting delight.

Bye Bye Stealth

We're not in a fair fight. The Democrats are going to lose this one. The "grand tragedy", such as it is, will move inexorably to it's foreordained end. It's merely a matter of watching the trapped beast as it flails and fights and cowers against inevitable doom. The Dems are going to lose a vote.

This is nearly certain. Republicans, because of the dynamisms post Miers, are going to be solid. The base is energized by triumph, and the prima donnas now recognize that the enraged base has teeth; and to the week kneed, the timorous (Bill Frist) that rage of the base gives strength. This may be a case where it's to the advantage of every Republican to support their President. It's possible that the Republican vote could be unanimous.

With the Democrats the pure political calculus is more complex. Every Democrat faces Moveon.Org & ilk, but 5, in red states, now face a snarling, nasty, energized base that bites. This has got to get their attention, especially as it's now clear that this is an energy that can lie latent for years just waiting for the moment of eruption. And for 6 others in liberal states there's the very different but touchy problem of touchy Italians, who might be offended if one of their own were attacked too harshly... I'm not sure this is important but Michael Barone thinks it's important ("Why Democrats won't want to oppose Samuel Alito": www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/baroneblog/home.htm). Whatever, it will be an interesting subdynamic.

And then there's principle.

This man is a known conservative! And if a known conservative can get on the bench, then other known conservatives can get on the bench, and then what has happened to the stealth nominee? My God, thereafter, people with records, people who could pretty much be expected to be after their nominations what the had been before, these people...could get on the bench! That would mean that if Republican presidents nominated 7 justices, there probably would be...7 conservative justices on the court!

So this is a big fight. An established and known and large conservative can not be allowed on the bench, it would change the course of history...

But, a known and large and established conservative will make it to the bench, and it will change the course of history.

Not to Forget Enthusiasm

In my enthusiasm yesterday I forgot enthusiasm. That's actually why we're going to win. Enthusiasm. We've recovered the ball after a bit of a fumble, we've got a humungous running back, and a game plan that's a library. There's no way we can't win, we're going up against a street gang. Even Bill First is feeling feisty:

"Obstructing judicial nominees should be a thing of the past. If the Democrats want to obstruct a nominee and not give us our constitutional right of advice and consent, an up-or-down vote, we'll take it to the mat. If a filibuster comes back, I'm not going to hesitate to employ the constitutional option to get an up-or-down vote."

A note on the Humungatoid:

What's important in a Supreme Court justice, given brilliance, scholarship, experience, and courage -- is intent; does the man respect what has gone before, or does he hold the past in contempt as inferior to his own immaculate person?

Professor Bainbridge nicely expresses the requirements for a good justice within the American system: a respect for "Originalism, Constitutionalism, Traditionalism", or, (my terms) a respect for "Intent, Text, and Tradition". This, taken all together, is the mystic concept of nation, a structure an ethos a "being", something existent before the birth of contemporary man and extending to the misty future of generations unborn. It's a commitment to a kind of nation-creature, created by man...but not by man alone, and having a cohesive life of centuries. In this conception the individual is in service to history, history past and history becoming; each man's part is but a tiny expression within an immensity, and his duty is preservation.

True, this is, a bit, "mystic"; it's a little loose. It's an attitude, not a specific textual analytical reference. But as an attitude it's solid. It makes a man humble. He at least knows that the nation and the constitution is not just what he says it is. --It is true that men sharing this humility can disagree on a specific interpretation, but at least they not going to jump out of gravitational force and float.

The thing to look for in Alito is his concept of "precedent"; is it the history of the nation, or is it only the court decisions of the last 30 years?