frail gestures

So Maureen Dowd writes in Sunday's New York Times Magazine about women's changing role as sexual creatures. Dowd, in "What's a Girl to Do?" is largely insightful, and seems to appreciate how much has changed and to be honestly critical feminism's ebbing power. Dowd writes of the height of the women's movement, "Maybe we should have known that the story of women's progress would be more of a zigzag than a superhighway, that the triumph of feminism would last a nanosecond while the backlash lasted 40 years."

But later, she makes my skin crawl just a little bit, opining on perfectly intelligent, outspoken women. Quote Dowd:

[T]he aroma of male power is an aphrodisiac for women, but the perfume of female power is a turnoff for men. It took women a few decades to realize that everything they were doing to advance themselves in the boardroom could be sabotaging their chances in the bedroom, that evolution was lagging behind equality.

And, wow, do I think she's wrong. Or perhaps misguided. Men who aren't emasculated by a intellectual woman exist, at least in my generation. I suspect that the White House correspondent who lamented "Men only want to marry their personal assistants or P.R. women" has been barking up the wrong trees. Perhaps the problem is more than what is glamorized in women -- and don't get me wrong, that doesn't change -- or what some men might be threatened by; it's also problematic that men who shun powerful women are glamorized, turned into the ultimate alpha male.

Speaking of alpha males, President Bush today nominated Samuel Alito to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court. Alito is the clearly conservative, experienced, anti-abortion rights jurist evangelicals demanded. As a judge on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals he voted to uphold a Pennsylvania abortion law later struck down by the Supreme Court in the 1992 decision Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Furthermore, "Scalito" dissented with a portion of the circuit court's decision striking down a provision that required women to inform their husbands before getting an abortion.

Bush had to piss someone off, and perhaps picking someone less obviously conservative than Alito would have been a slap in the face to evangelicals from which he could not recover; this is the golden calf for them. But it also will make for a tough fight, and Bush is hedging his bets that current scandals don't further reduce the White House's clout and enable moderates to buck the party and vote no or uphold a filibuster. Republicans are gearing up to label Democrats "obstructionists" and Democrats seem to have their heads up their asses.

What scares me most is Ohio Republican Sen. Mike DeWine -- a member of the "Gang of 14," which brokered a deal to end the last fight over judicial nominees -- being quoted by the Associated Press saying he would vote to change Senate rules if a filibuster were invoked over Alito. Perhaps DeWine, targeted by Democrats for defeat next year, is hoping to rally the party base in his state, so they will turn out next November and keep him in office. Why else would he make such a quick comment, while other moderates are taking a wait-and-see attitude?

On the Jersey front, I imagine Democratic Sen. Jon Corzine is glad the governor's election is next week and he won't have to deal with any backlash to the nomination for weeks on end, should a filibuster happen. Then again, it's New Jersey and that might help him. Who knows?

It's late so, I'm going to wrap up, but check out some pretty insightful analysis on what it would take to get Alito confirmed, courtesy of none other than RedState.org.

Someone out there is prepping himself (or herself) to be a target of the right, or left or both, come President Bush's expected announcement tomorrow of his next Supreme Court nominee.

It makes sense that Bush is quickly naming a new nominee; more than anything else, it makes Miers' withdrawal old news. And frankly the Senate wants to go home before, say December 35th. (I do too!)

The New York Times reported Sunday that, shock of shocks, the right expects "more" of Bush's next nominee to the high court. The Times reports that senators privately acknowledge that "the kind of nominee conservatives want - someone with a record of legal opinions against abortion rights, among other things" would face a perilous road toward confirmation.

Now, here is where I will ask any religious readers I might have to forgive me. ...

Perhaps it's evangelicals' faith that lets them believe they stand half a chance getting a nominee through the court who clearly would overturn Roe v. Wade, given Republicans' current PR problems. Like it or not, a majority of Americans support a woman's right to choose; Americans who identify as "pro-choice" outnumber those who call themselves "pro-life" 54-38 percent, according to an August CNN/Gallup/USA Today poll. And two-thirds of Americans would not want a nominee to overturn Roe v. Wade, said another CNN/Gallup/USA Today poll earlier in the summer.

It would be arrogant, in the current political atmosphere, to choose a nominee whose judicial record on abortion is as clear and anti-abortion rights as conservatives and to tout him/her as such. How would senators sell such a nominee to the American people while the White House is under increased scrutiny a la Scooter Libby? Now what if Rove is indicted? Or Cheney is implicated? What if DeLay's woes further downspiral? (He might be minority leader in the House, but tarnished reputations have a way of making their way across the Capitol).

Now, I would hardly put it past the Bush White House to do something as politically arrogant as nominate that kind of conservative, but as my boss pointed out, Bush values loyalty first and foremost. The backlash to Miers showed waning loyalty among conservatives, and Bush might bite back.

A couple of points/news items to ponder:

1. An Associated Press news analysis points out that Bush and the GOP is "spending a lot of time trying to change the subject" -- between nominating a new Federal Reserve chairman and opening the Rotunda for Rosa Parks to lay in state (a worthy cause, but not typical GOP).

2. Will Bush pardon Karl Rove if he's convicted?

3. Will Condoleeza Rice somehow end up Vice President?

On a personal note, my first page one story is about to run. Well, first page one for the publication I work for. I also have written and rewritten my personal statement for the n-trillionth time. I CAN'T TAKE IT ANY MORE! Also, I was Colonel Mustard one night and a flapper the next for Halloween. Went out even though I'm sick. (Turns out that's likely to happen with little sleep and the diet consisting largely of cheese, coffee and chocolate that resulted from so much work on this article.)

I want a vacation!

So Miers is out, and conservatives and liberals alike are patting themselves on the back, seemingly oblivious to the fact that whoever replaces her can't make them both happy.

So it comes down to this: Would Bush rather stroke his conservative base or get them back for being less than loyal?

On one hand, Bush wants to choose a nominee who won't expend his already precious political capital. He'll want a nominee whose qualifications and record are clean, but still substantial enough to be examined and let senators say how well they're vetting him/her. The next nominee is going to need to be a Roberts clone -- a bland, conservative, likeable judge with intellectual force.

But, on the off chance that there is no one else in the judicial pool as utterly uninteresting as John Roberts, what will Bush do? He could pick a conservative jurist a la Janice Rogers Brown, and hope the Gang of 14 won't pull off a filibuster. But, with a potential indictment of Libby and who knows what coming for Rove, Bush might not have the capital to intice middle-of-the-road Republicans like Mike DeWine who just need to get re-elected.

The other option is pick a legal mind who is not a hard-core conservative and who likely will ruffle Bush's conservative base, but who will be able to get support of the middle and Democrats. But, that might about to an f*** to the right, and probably would only happen if things are going even worse for the White House.

But we know two things about the next nominee, just by looking at where Bush went wrong picking Miers: (1) The new nominee will appeal to some faction and (2) will have uncontestable qualifications, including a top-notch education and judicial experience.

My guess, for what it's worth, is that Bush will pick a senator. Somebody like Cornyn, a Texas Supreme Court judge with conservative credentials and, by right of five years in the Senate, working relationships with Senate Democrats.

Just a thought.

Well, 2000 U.S. troops have died in Iraq. Cheney's chief of staff is being connected to the Valerie Plame leak and potentially lying in the investigation. Miers' nomination is lagging, and lacking the push and praise Roberts received mere weeks ago. Another hurricane has ravaged the Southeast, and Americans' view of government and business is suffering. Is Cheney next? When does our strategy in Iraq change? Will Miers be confirmed? Will she withdraw? Be rejected? What would come next? It seems to me, some "my bads" are needed here, that such a contrite approach would be the only way for the administration to make any headway rather than be a poison pill. Not holding my breath, though.

LSAT score has been received, and I'm content. Not happy, not sad, just content. And content ain't bad. Went to New York over the weekend to attend a how-to-apply-to-law-school forum near Rockefeller Center. Dreaming of New York, and singing "New York, New York" all weekend. (I will spare you, my three readers, any more Whitman references.) Had dinner with W, and far too much wine.

Then went home, saw my parents. It's always wonderful to feel so loved, and they always make me feel that way -- I always know that no matter what they will love me and be proud of me. I credit them so much with making it through some extraordinarily awkward pre-teen and teenage years. Somehow, horrible days at gym and mean seventh graders didn't phase me much, because they gave me this self confidence I'm so happy I have. (Those years are largely explainable by my father's statement that I should get big glasses so I could see more -- it was all downhill from there). That and new shoes made for a rockin, albeit brief, weekend.

One more thing before I rewrite my personal statement for the n-millionth time. As a New Jersey native, I find myself on the offense -- pre-emptively touting my home state lest it be underappreciated. But it seems Newark and one media outlet are taking this a bit too far. According to AP, the city is paying the Newark City News $100,000 to print good news about the city. Now, I would wager this won't last long ... for one, how much can you make up?

Have to get up early-ish tomorrow to get to some stuff done at work before going to a hearing on the Hill. I'm really hoping the hearing might shed a new light on the story I've been working on, but that isn't turning into the peg I was hoping for. So, fingers crossed.

But the real reason I'm posting -- and not, say, sleeping -- is because I wanted to shared this cartoon ...

.

A couple of interesting things. The first is really, really odd. The Electronic Frontier Foundation says the U.S. government, in cahoots with some manufacturers has embedded "tiny tracking dots" in pages printed on some color laser printers. Now you know there had to be some person out there thinking, "The government already ate up my hope of getting Social Security. What could they do next? I know, invade my printer!"

Changing topics entirely, 80 percent of low-income Americans lack the civil legal aid they need, according to a study by Legal Services Corp., a major funder of legal aid programs. Quote the Washington Post: "The study determined that there is one legal aid lawyer per 6,861 low-income clients vs. one lawyer for every 525 persons in the general population." So, maybe there aren't too many lawyers out there; maybe the ones that exist are overly focused on the wrong things. "Family problems" accounted for both the largest portion cases and unmet need, at 383,484 and 504,312, respectively. And while this is obviously disheartening, I suppose I'm somewhat relieved that there is a need for what I want to do. Family problems, by the way, include "domestic violence and abuse, custody issues, and problems involving social service agencies." Housing needs came in second.

Awake and a little restless. Reading tomorrow's Post online. One page 1 story has an enormously obvious headline (Scandals Take Toll On Bush's 2nd Term). The lede states that on-going scandals, particularly ethics charges concerning top GOP leaders has disrupted President Bush's agenda. What I gave a second read, though, was the next graf, which mentioned that some insiders expect Rove and Vice President Cheney's top aide to be indicted in the near future.

So, I checked up on the Times, and saw they took a different approach -- and probably one that made a better lede. The story, headlined "Jitters at the White House over the Leak Inquiry," points to a new focus on what seemed unnecessary political minutae months, or even weeks, ago. That leaving his house in the predawn hours, Rove had to contend with five television crews and three photographers says a lot about either the public's or the media's interest in something political. Yeah, it's not tax overhaul or government-sponsored enterprises, but it's not a black bear being rescued from a tree on live TV either.

Still waiting for LSAT scores, and wondering what my "contingency plan" should be. If I do poorly, do I wait? Do I be a 26-year-old IL? A 29-year-old just getting out of school?

My personal statement is about my grandfather, specifically two memories I have of him. One as a little girl, when he would buoy me above the waves at the Jersey Shore, my 40-pound, waify body resting on his 6'3" frame. He taught me -- probably unintentionally -- a defiance that I'm proud of.

Years later, he lay dying, and I came to see him in the Alzheimer's ward. That amazing man, who worked on artificial hearts and knew Dr. Heimlich, was painfully skinny -- skinny like a supermodel, but aged, sad and silent. I fed him a meal, mushed chicken and veggies, and liquid laced with electrolytes to prevent dehyrdration. Oddly enough, I connected to him more than ever before that day. It was the last time I saw him alive, and I have yet to figure out what it was that struck me. Was it that the most human experiences are the most elemental -- the situations that unwittingly reduce us to our bodies' functions, that return us to our primordial selves? Or did I grow up a little that day, was I ready to see him?

Now I digress. I was on the Hill yesterday, feeling like a journalist and proud of it. When I'm there, on Capitol Hill, ID badge in a twist typical of a journalist. We distinguish ourselves from the Prep of the hill; we adapt the style of not-quite-there, in a last-ditch effort to blend in a little less. It's funny to me that despite all the differences of opinion, there are such droves of sameness.

I wonder when we learn to think one way. It's like that R.E.M. song --

these heavy notions creep around
it makes me think
long ago I was brought into
this life a little lamb
a little lamb
courageous, stumbling
fearless was my middle name.
but somewhere there I
lost my way
everyone walks the same

And a final digression... I had an odd dream the other night, and then awoke to read an e-mail from a friend whose experience -- a sad one I would never want to deal with -- closely paralleled that dream. Some people know what to say; I want to e-mail her back, let her know that somehow I'm there. But it all comes out trite. I end up with platitutes that seem insulting for their lack of insight. How can I tell someone who is in pain, whose experience I have never had, that I feel for her? That I wish I could undo the wrong?

The cat is meowing out my window. Might need Beehtoven to sleep tonight. Or Tori. We shall see.

Not in a position to ruminate now, but check out President Bush hard at work rebuilding the Gulf Coast.

Check out Bush Vows Locals Will Lead Gulf Rebuilding.

There's something about having too little information that seems to bring out the unpredictable in Washingtonians. Take the nomination of Harriet Miers to replace SCOTUS Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Great than one in three Supreme Court justices, including William Rehnquist, had no judicial experience before ascending to the court. Pundits and politicians alike wonder out loud if she's qualified to be on the court, given her lack of experience. But that's not what they're really complaining about; they're lamenting her lack of on-the-record reasoning. They don't know how she'll rule, and the stakes are too great to be uncertian.


And don't get me wrong: The stakes are high.

I admire Miers for paving the way for women (like me, even). I admire her for the backbone and willfulness she must have used to make her way in boys club profession. I greatly admire her for being able to address the humanity in people in an incident mentioned in a recent Washington Post article. Addressing a racist incident against a black county commissioner, Dallas Council Member Miers in 1990 addressed 1,000 demonstrators humbly, "If it means anything to you, I want to apologize." That takes humanity and courage.

And yet I find myself hypocritically wary of her religious tenets, despite my own dislike of the politicization of my faith. Miers, according to the same Post story, as a City Council member, would not support a city ordinance that protected women at an abortion clinic from harassment. "She said, well, I'm sorry, it's murder, and that's that," recalled one women's activist. Also while on the city council, she also would not support repeal of Texas' law against sodomy, which was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 2003. Returning to the politicization of religion, I find myself wondering -- bells going off all the while -- if evangelical protestism is inherantly political while perhaps Roman Catholicism isn't. (If I had any readers, I'd probably get yelled at for this!)

But let's say for a minute that you're President Bush and -- given Katrina, nearly 2000 Americans dead in Iraq, low polling -- you lack the clout to pick a nominee in the obvious mold of Scalia and Thomas. Such a person would be filibustered for certain, and given the attitude in the country right now, Democrats might, just might, have the political capital to pull it off. Or at least to bring you further down in the process. So what do you do? You pick somebody who fits that mold, but less obviously so -- somebody you trust to bring the court to the right, but somebody who is less obvious and therefore more likely to raise Democrats' ire. You pick somebody you trust, say Harriet Miers.

(As an aside, Scalia did not come off as the right-winger he now so obviously is; his nomination was confirmed by the Senate on a 98-0 vote.)

This may stink of conspiracy theory, but approach this with an open mind. The administration is not dumb; they are masters of spin. That some conservatives are crying fowl is something of a gift because it produces the opposite effect on the left: "If Pat Robertson objects, it must be good!" I think the lies of Robertson don't know how good they're getting it; the administration really ought to work on it's "wink, wink, nod, nod" approach.

I also suspect some of this comes down to sexism, and yes, elitism too. That, according to a September CNN/Gallup/USA Today poll*, 13 percent of Americans would not vote for a qualified woman to be president is sadly not suprising. What is is that nearly one-third think their neighbors would not. So either people see themselves as gender-neutral and others as sexist, or sexism is subtle. People don't say, and largely don't think, "I won't vote for X because she's a woman." People see women differently, judge them on different standards and then decide they don't like them.

Another question in the same survey asks whether a man or woman would better handle national security and domestic policy. On national security, men are backed by 42 percent, compared to women at 23 percent. For domestic policy, the roles are nearly reversed; women get 45 percent to men's 22 percent. If Americans really believe this dichotomy, then its in the best interest of Hillary Clinton haters to keep national security, and by tenuous association the war in Iraq, as the front-burner issue. But, when you have a disaster like Hurricane Katrina, that inevitably changes priorities.

(As a curious aside, notice the skepticism about threats to NYC subways; the doubt of the threats in itself suggests a profound distrust of the administration by Americans.)

*CNN/Gallup/USA Today poll: Conducted Sept. 8-11, 2005; surveyed 1,005 adults. 3-point error margin.

Blogging, or rather good blogging, is a lifestyle. Case in point: It's been nearly two weeks since I've posted.

Oh well, guess it's not my lifestyle.

Anyway, LSAT is over. O-V-E-R. I really, really, really don't want to have to retake it. The one thing I wasn't prepared for was to spend so much time doing nothing at the beginning. You show up at 8:30 in the morning -- you and 200 other people -- and stand on line, give a thumbprint, sit in a room where oddly enough nobody talks, and fill in bubbles while ever 10 minutes or so, the proctor says "when you're done, look up at me." Except, how do you tell when 200 bored, sleepy people are all done? Really, it was excruciating.

That said, the test could have sucked more.

(I am an eternal optimist, you can see.)

In the outside world, a lot is going on now. Tom DeLay was indicted, which made for a rushed and exhilarating day at work. Media coverage of Katrina has returned to fires in West. (News flash: When things are dry, they burn!) Not to be insensitive, but it seems, that's national news only when nothing better is happening. Perhaps there are no missing, affluent white girls who have disappeared recently ...

Newspapers can't decide whether the reported chaos in the aftermath of Katrina was exaggerated -- whether reporting relied to heavily on information that couldn't be verified. It seems to me that institutions -- media and government alike -- were so unprepared for this kind of disaster that they naively tried to overcompensate for their slow response. The feds came up with massive schemes to house victims -- cruise ships, yet-to-be-constructed trailers -- that proved excessively costly and still too slow; media, meanwhile, lacking access and a plan for how to deal with this kind of massive natural disaster, might have let themselves take for granted information that was less than sound. Not sure I could have done any better, though.