Apparently my post this morning about the “conventional warfare option” was discussed on the “Inside the Blogs” segment today on CNN’s “Inside Politics.” Commenter Mark Williams was kind enough to let me know, and has provided a link to the video.

It was an interesting experience for me, watching a woman reciting on nationwide television the drivel I dashed off this morning before heading for the shower. And she read it in a British accent, which just made it that much more special.

I have to admit that I find the concept of this segment amusing. It’s a little like watching golf on TV. If you play golf, watching golf on TV is fun; for others, it’s like watching paint dry. I imagine a similar concept is at work with the “Inside the Blogs” segment. To me, it’s kind of interesting — especially if my blog is on it. But I feel a little sorry for the average viewer, watching two women sitting in front of computer screens and reading from Internet sites. At least from political Internet sites . . .

Then again, the women are attractive, so maybe that makes the experience worthwhile for half the audience. Ace of Spades (who was featured on the same segment for his wrongheaded criticism of my “conventional warfare option”) thinks that one of the women (“Jacki”) was hitting on him. I hate to encourage the guy, but “Jacki” didn’t ask me for any personal information. Obviously, she already knows I’m married . . .

BoiFromTroy mocks the California Legislature for introducing a bill to ban something I never heard of before: hunting over the Internet. As reported here:

California wildlife regulators took the first step Tuesday to bar hunters from using the Internet to hunt animals long distance, responding to a Texas target-shooting site that announced plans to let hunters fire guns at real animals by clicking a computer mouse hundreds of miles away. “We don’t think Californians should be able to hunt sitting at their computers at home,” said Steve Martarano, a spokesman for the state Department of Fish and Game.

BFT’s reaction:

You know, this morning, I was jolted out of bed thinking, “wouldn’t it just be terrible if people could hunt real animals over the internets, because if we do not stop that, California will just be a horrible place to live.”

Luckily, California regulators and the legislature is putting other priorities aside–like balancing the budget and ensuring our children get a good education–to deal with the problem . . .

Here I have a rare disagreement with BFT. I find this concept disgusting, and I applaud the Legislature’s decision to take action now, to prevent this travesty from occurring here in our state.

And as for the idea that the Legislature should be doing more important things: meh. There’s plenty more trivial stuff than this.

PrestoPundit Greg Ransom has been sorely missed by the blogosphere, but he’s back — and he has an announcement. And it’s not just that he has made the wise choice to switch to Hosting Matters and WordPress.

Welcome back, Greg. And congratulations.

Ernest Miller reports that the L.A. Times is standing by its Trekkie-pedophilia connection.

I haven’t opined on the Laura Bush horse joke that has gotten some conservatives so upset — but when I finally read the actual joke, I was surprised to learn how mild it really was.

If I did opine, my opinion would be very similar to that of Jeff Goldstein. Only nowhere near as funny.

In a short piece on the MSNBC website, Glenn Reynolds mentions my proposal for ending judicial filibusters through a strategy I call the “conventional warfare option.”

Under my proposal, Republicans would force a floor vote on a non-binding resolution of support for qualified judges who are being filibustered. The vote would increase political pressure on Democrats, by concretely demonstrating that those filibustered judges enjoy majority support in the Senate. It is one thing to assert that the filibustered judges have majority support, and another thing to prove it.

I believe the public would agree with Republicans on the judicial filibuster issue — if Republicans could just make the public understand that Democrats are blocking judges with majority support. My proposal would make this point in a tangible and highly visible way that cannot be accomplished through mere speeches. (I discuss the proposal in detail in this post.)

I’m not exactly sure whether Glenn likes the idea or not:

Most nominees, Patterico suggests, would get majority support, making clear that the filibusterers were blocking the Senate. To me, this seems just a bit too clever, but it certainly would stress the anti-majoritarian nature of the filibuster.

(Incidentally, this may be the first time I have ever been accused of saying something that is “too clever.” Usually the criticisms run the other direction.)

I can’t see how it would hurt to try this proposal, as long as the nuclear option remains available as a viable alternative. Even if the proposal doesn’t win on its own, it could help change the terms of the debate in the Republicans’ favor. My proposal would allow Republicans to paint Democrats as obstructionists, rather than allowing Democrats to paint Republicans as bullies. Glenn may think it’s a bit too clever; I think it’s just good politics.

As I said in an update to the post that set forth the proposal, the “conventional warfare option” is really like a series of air strikes at the beginning of a war. It may not win the war — but even if it doesn’t, it softens up the enemy for the eventual attack.

UPDATE: More on the reasoning behind this proposal here.