Is Anybody There?

The Blogspam in this blog's comments has become quite annoying. I will probably start a new blog in 2006 (suggestions for its name are welcome), and will probably not have comments. Instead, I will invite readers to e-mail me their comments, and I will post these from time to time in my entries.


In the meantime, if any human beings read this blog, please tell me under comments below. I will let you know about my new blog when it is created.

It's Alito

So Bush chose Samuel Alito. Overall, seems like a good choice. Good experience, seems to have a sharp mind, conservative and a strict constructionist.

Downside? The husband notification thing in Planned Parenthood v. Casey seems archaic, and a bit scary. Still, I think Alito is a huge improvement over Miers. Why not Luttig? Maybe Bush thought Luttig's sarcasm was a bit too inflammatory.

I think Alito will be confirmed, and if he's anything like Scalia, will be an excellent justice. Where does that leave the Court? Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito on one side; Souter, Stevens, Ginsberg, and Breyer on the other. Swing vote is the unreliable Anthony Kennedy. So it's still a tossup until the next vacancy. Stevens is getting on in years, but seems to be in good health. If either Stevens or Ginsberg is replaced by a conservative, the balance of the court will certainly change. But it is not clear that a Republican will be in the White House when one of them leaves the Court.

On the bright side, Alito seems to be strong on the First Amendment, so maybe the next few decisions will chip away at that unconstitutional abomination, the McCain-Feingold campaign finance "reform."

Krauthammer, Sledgehammer, and the Blues Brothers

Yesterday, when I saw the news that Harriet Miers was withdrawing from the Supreme Court nomination process, my immediate reaction was to clap my hands and (quietly) shout "YES!" The Bush administration had executed the Krauthammer maneuver, far sooner than I could have hoped. While some see this as a defeat and further weakening of the President, others (including me) see it as an opportunity to correct a mistake and to reunify the conservative movement behind W.

What is key is the identity of the replacement nominee. Alberto Gonzales would be a mistake, and unless W's stubbernness outweights his judgment, that won't be his choice. Gonzales would re-splinter the conservative movement; the right wingers would vote against him. Meanwhile, the Left would use Gonzales' positions on Gitmo, torture, and the global war on terror as a reason to oppose him.

When Justice O'Connor first announced her retirement, I thought that the nominee would be one of four people. Michael Luttig or John Roberts because of qualifications, ability, and age; Emilio Garza if Bush wanted a Hispanic; or Edith Jones if he wanted a woman. Roberts is now on the court. Luttig would still be an excellent choice if ethnic and gender diversity are not considerations. Edith Jones' biggest downside (assuming Bush really wants to name a prolife conservative) is her age, but Harriet Miers is also 60. Garza would still be a good choice. McConnell and Wilkinson are well qualified for the court. Wilkinson seems a little more moderate that the others I've mentioned; McConnell has written much that will be cause for debate.

And debate is not a bad thing. Stealth nominees are not safe nominees. Bush was elected after promising to choose justices with a certain judicial philosophy. If there's to be a filibuster battle, so be it.

I don't think he should choose Janice Rogers Brown, though. Her positions would be too easy for the Left and their fellow travelers in the media to caricature (the New Deal unconstitutional?). She would be made to appear on the lunatic right wing fringe. It would be a Mega-Borking.

The name of Judge Samuel Alito seems to be making the rounds. I don't know much about him. I've read some of his opinions on the Web, but I still don't have a good feel for him.
Anyway, I think Bush needs to choose someone who appears qualified for the Court, with some relevant experience; and someone who has a judicial philosophy, expressed in opinions or in writing, that reflects respect for the meaning of the constitution and the intent of the framers. He may well choose someone I've never heard of.

In the Washington Post, Eugene Robinson writes:

So now the president has two choices. He can up the ante and give them somebody like Alberto Gonzales, who has a record of (gasp!) sensible moderation but also possesses impeccable qualifications -- and whose nomination would delight the nation's biggest minority. Or he could do the prudent, realistic thing and cave to the sledgehammer right

I think, as do others, that the "sledgehammer right" is just itching to get behind Bush again, and that this is just what Bush needs. When I read that piece, I couldn't get the Peter Gabriel song
out of my mind. But the song says "I'll be anything you need," and that is not what the Sledgehammer Right will do, as evidenced by the Miers fiasco. The Sledgehammer right will go to bat for Bush (OK, I'm mixing metaphors here) when Bush is working within the principles of the right. For the right, loyalty to principle is more important than loyalty to Mr. Bush. They want to support W, but it's not "W, right or wrong."

The next nominee, combined with outrage over Fitzgerald's indictment of Libby, could energize the right wing coalition. They can't wait to say (thanks to Bogus Gold, and to Hugh Hewitt for the link, "We're putting the Band back together."

Still, another line from the Blues Brothers (one of my favorite "guilty pleasures" movies) illustrates the problem with the right wing coalition. When Jake and Ellwood tell their fellow musicians that they're putting the band back together, they say "we're on a mission from God." And that is troubling to some. Bush's conservative backers include libertarian conservatives ( I am mostly in this camp, though I'm not a Cato Institute absolutist) and religious conservatives. Many of the former like low taxes, deregulation, and the like. But they are uncomfortable with some of their Religious Right allies, who truly feel that they are on a mission from God. They may agree on economic matters, and in the area of foreign policy; but the libertarians are concerned that the evangelicals will use the power of government to impinge on people's freedom. And the push for the mandated teaching of "intelligent design" in the public schools doesn't help.

Reagan held the coalition together, and so did W, for awhile. But it's an uneasy alliance. Not that the Left is any more unified.

This post is losing coherence, so I'll sign off for now.

New World (I'm back)

The twins turned one year old this week. They're doing fine; happy and healthy.

In their bedroom, I often have the radio playing Washington's classical station, 103.5. I like their selection of music: lots of Baroque, Classical, and Romantic; very little 20th Century atonal crap (music deliberately writtent to sound bad). A lot of their selections could be called "old war horses," i.e. music that is played so often that it becomes a cliche. But I have always felt that a piece usually becomes a war horse because it was great in the first place. I appreciate variety, but I would rather hear Beethoven's 5th Symphony or Mozart's Eine Kleine Nachtmusik for the 2000th time than anything Schoenberg, Berg, or Webern wrote.

(Aside: I recall a quote from Rossini-correct me if I'm wrong about the source. When asked his opinion of Wagner's Lohengrin, he said: "One cannot judge Lohengrin from a first hearing, and I certainly do not intend to hear it a second time.")

Back to the story. As I was putting the babies to bed (crib?) earlier this week, the radio was playing Dvorak's "New World" Symphony. One of my favorite war horses; a piece in the European symphonic tradition that utilizes melodies in the style of the American South. And I thought to myself, this really is a new world for me. In the past two years I've started a new job (full time clinical medicine), moved to a new house (in Ellicott City, Maryland, near Baltimore), and most importantly, added two wonderful small people to my life. Don't worry, I'm not going to blog about my children all the time. Politics, culture, the economics of medicine all will be addressed. But my life has certainly changed since I stopped blogging in late 2004.

If anyone still reads this, welcome back.

Update on twins

For those of you who are interested, my twins are now more than two months old. One of them actually sleeps through the night. Both are healthy, growing, and adorable. (I don't know if I can post pics on Blogger...suggestions are welcome). So I anticipate that I can resume regular blogging in 2005. Maybe sooner.

The smaller one, Sam, weighed only 4 lbs 10 oz at birth. He is now almost 10 lbs, and looks like a normal healthy baby. David is over 12 lbs. We are truly blessed.

Rumsfeld, Iraq: today's reading

While I agree that the postwar operations in Iraq have been less than optimally managed, I have more confidence in Rumsfeld than do McCain, Kristol, et al. I don't think he'll resign, but if he does, I certainly hope Bush nominates Paul Wolfowitz as his replacement. Bush needs to pick a neocon who favored the war with Iraq, and not just a technocrat. Doing so would send a signal that while some adjustment in tactics may be desirable, the goals and mission are the same. Mistakes were made in some areas (the initial backing off from Fallujah, for example). But invading Iraq was the right thing to do.

Victor Davis Hanson has an excellent column defending Rumsfeld. That is my recommended reading for this morning, along with Tom Donnelly on why it was right to disband the Iraqi (Baathist) army. To save time, you can skip Bob Herbert's column in the NY Times. In fact, I think a good New Year's resolution would be to save time by skipping the following columnists: Bob Herbert, Paul Krugman, Maureen Dowd (NY Times); Harold Meyerson, Richard Cohen, William Raspberry (Washington Post). There is so much more enlightening reading available online these days, and who has time to read everything? One should read what the opposition is writing, periodically, for balance and to keep up with their arguments. But once every month or two is enough for those people I list above.

Election Day

"This election is not about ideology, it's about competence."

John Kerry, 2004? No, that was Michael Dukakis in 1988. America didn't buy that argument then, and I don't buy it now.

The word ideology is often used pejoratively these days. However, there is a clear difference in politcal philosophy between the candidates this year, in their approaches to both foreign and domestic policy. John Kerry has at times tried to obscure these differences, and to claim that he could pursue Bush's goals for Iraq more competently. However, I still endorse Bush. First, there is no guarantee that a Kerry administration would be more competent than a continued Bush administration. Second, and more importantly, I'd rather have my President pursue the right policies less-than-perfectly than have a President pursue the wrong policies. '

I had planned to write a detailed post on why I'm endorsing Bush, but the demands of the twins may prevent that (one is crying now). But I may be able to do a few short takes during the day. Stay tuned.

Where have I been?

I apologize to my readers, especially those new to this blog, for the scarcity of my posts recently. I do have an explanation.

On October 14, my wife gave birth to twin boys, a bit prematurely (35 weeks). She had an urgent C-section, was in the hospital for several days. She is now home, doing fairly well, but with the usual post-c-section fatigue, pain, and limitations of activity. One son remains in the hospital with some breathing problems due to immature lungs; he is off the ventilator, improving each day, but still needs a few days of observation. The other son was small (4 lbs 10 oz), but is home and doing remarkably well. Caring for the three of them, and for my two older sons (ages 9 and 7), has taken a lot of my time and energy this past week. The baby at home needs to be fed every 3 hours, and that includes midnight and 3AM. I hope and believe that when my contributions to the world are considered, years from now, these children will far exceed my blogging in benefit to the world. And they're darn cute.