Since today is the last day of the heat wave, I'm putting off until tomorrow some outdoor things I should have been doing all week. And spending too much time at the computer. So here's another thought, this time out of my left field (sort of).
Question: How is the recent Senate agreement on the "nuclear option" like the Middle East "peace process?"
One of my many problems with the "peace process" is that Israel is always expected to make costly and virtually irrevocable concessions (of land, mostly) in return for promises of future good better behavior. This has been tried in the past, of course, without what I'd call encouraging results. And whenever Israel makes such concessions, within a relatively short period of time she can expect to be asked, "yes, but what have you done for peace lately?"
So last month a committee of fourteen came up with an agreement, largely touted by the media as a "win" for the Democrats, in which the Senate rules would remain untampered with so long as the Democrats limit their judicial filibuster activities to "extraordinary circumstances" (undefined).
More ink has been spilled (figuratively speaking) on this subject than it deserves, and I'm not going to go over it all again. But this post and this one, too, over at Cooped Up reminded me of the alarming similarities between the length and shape of the Democrats' end of this stick and that of Israel's in its "land for peace" negotiations. As Jeff points out, the result is a few virtually irrevocable appointments of (IMO) dubious quality to the federal bench and the potential for resurrection of the "nuclear option" again whenever the Democrats finally think they've got themselves an "extraordinary" circumstance" That's a "win?" Only of time, and that only so long as more irrevocable concessions are in the offing. Sad, and not only for Democrats.
By the way, while I'm out here, I'm in total agreement with Jeff on this, too.
And finally (OT) -- will the autopsy results put an end to the accusations? Of course not.
