Action Movie Presidents

Props to Dan O'Brien for not going to the obvious ones (save for Kennedy) as I would have done. (But come on: JFK, fine, but why no T.R., A-Jax, Washington or Lincoln?) (And maybe Grant.)

4 U.S. Presidents Whose Lives Put Action Movies to Shame -- powered by Cracked.com

Alignment Meme's

As a one-time huge D&D nerd, one of my absolute favorite memes is the "alignment meme." That's the one where you take nine people or characters fitting a given theme and arrange them according to the twin spectrums of AD&D's character morality model: From Good to Evil and from Lawful to Chaotic.

Here's a particularly relevant one (for this blog) that I came across recently:

What I love about these is the possibility for interesting debate.  (Among HUGE NERDS, granted but still...)

For example, I didn't really see Truman as "Lawful Evil." Until I read his quote. Then I was was like... "Oh... Yeeeeah. Riiiiiight." (awkward)

Also... I REALLY can't see JFK as "Lawful." Don't get me wrong, I like Kennedy but if he belongs anywhere it definitely on the Chaotic spectrum. (But yeah... TR and Jackson? PERFECT choices already.  For Lawful Neutral, I'd have gone with either Franklin Pierce or James Buchanan, both of whom supported the legal, yet morally reprehensible institution of slavery.  (And sure, one can argue that they belong in the 'Evil' category of that, but there actions were taken to AVOID a war, whilst Truman's were taken to WIN one, so I can see leaving it as it is as well.

Another brilliant one was this:

Now calling the media "True Neutral" is not suggesting, in the least, that they have been unbiased. On the contrary, the fact that they have even tried to maintain the appearance of neutrality here is proof-positive of the Systematic Conservative bias of our Corporate Press: THIS WHOLE MESS IS ENTIRELY THE FAULT OF CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS.

PERIOD.

It's not even a question of who supported what during the debate, or whether one side of the other (or Obama) supported the sequester deal or not. If the Republicans did play bullshit politics with what should have been a routine piece of maintenance-level legislation, namely RAISING THE DEBT CEILING, then none of this would have happened.

And make no mistake: It WILL harm the economy. (Not our security though: We spend twice as much on defense as France, England, Russia and China COMBINED. So we'll be FINE, militarily. The problem of defense spending is entrierly an ECONOMIC one, just as all other spending questions are!) (What do you know? Eisenhower was RIGTH!)



(Too bad we didn't listen!)

And remember: The Debt Ceiling has NOTHING, at all, to do with either the national debt or the federal budget deficit.  Raising the debt ceiling only allows the US to pay the bills it has ALREADY RUN UP when Congress drew up the budget. It has NOTHING, at all, to do with "blank checks" or "new spending" or ANYTHING like that.

But hey: Just as Rush Limbaugh (and his ilk) have contended form the beginning that Obama it "trying" to wreck the economy, in order to adopt some [straw-man argument that they keep harping about which has no basis in reality], I have also contended that the Republicans actually WANT to forestall economic recovery, and even force us back into recession.  The difference between me and Limbaugh?  I can demonstrate actual MOTIVE, and can point to ACTUAL ACTIONS, both taken and obstructed, by the Republicans to demonstrate MEANS and OPPORTUNITY.

Motive: Tank the economy on Obama's watch and the Dem's will get blamed for it.  Hey - it has some precedent. (George Bush Sr. in 1992, for example.) And it's also why you only hear about austerity and reducing the deficit when there's a Democrat in the White House: Because the ONLY possibly result of Government Austerity is a shittier economy! There is no other possible result! And when there's a Republican in the White House?

"I think Reagan proved that deficits don't matter."

~Vice President Dick Cheney

As for means & opportunity?

- Obstructed the American Re-Investment and Recovery Act, and sought only to weaken it.
- Unprecedented use of the filibuster
- All this nonsense about the debt ceiling
- All the anonymous holds on Presidential Appointees, also unprecedented both in terms of number, and the positions in question
- All their talk about cutting spending. Where was that under Bush? Nonexistent, because they wouldn't want to tank the economy under Bush!

(Though they managed to anyway!)

(Now watch as anonymous forces us to rehash the debate over the CRA with the same, tired debunked talking points we already beat in to the ground! LOL)

Evil indeed. Without a doubt in my mind.

Times flies and Civil discourse...

Before I begin, I want to say that this was written last week and I still haven't posted it.  I have be so busy, there is like no time left in my week anymore.  3 Blogs, an art class, and I've joined a gym.  Plus my wife still does aikido twice a week, which is (1) time I have to watch the kids, so can't blog; and (2) time I can't go to the gym, so I have to find other time.  Not that I mind her doing Aikido - I'm happy she's doing it, and doing well in it, I might add.  But somethig's got to give and SO FAR, it's been IMHO.  Now, without any further pitchign and moaning: On with the show...

Wow. So a couple of weeks have flown right on by, and I didn’t make any time to write anything down about it! And what a couple of weeks it’s been. “Speaker” Boehner. *shudder* We’ll see how long that lasts! The unfortunate events in Tucson, and the terrible fate that played out on January 8th. And part of me wants to say “Thank God” that it WASN’T some deranged Tea-Bagger or Glenn Beck fan, or else there would now be some liberal, somewhere, embarrassing himself and the rest of us the way Sarah Palin did for her crowd. Hey: I watched it happen after Seung-Hui Cho and Virginia Tech – the closest thing I have to hallowed ground, I might add. The vigil hadn’t ended before you had assholes on one side calling for more gun control laws (note: the ones we already have weren’t enforced, and the existing system was not operating the way it was designed to, or even being used) and assholes on the other side saying that it's just proof that we ALL need to start carrying guns. Right. Because apparently what Blacksburg and Tucson needed on those terrible days were MORE confused, panicked people finring weapons through the crowd. Anyway, the one guy I think had the best take on the inevitable politicization of public tragedies was Professor Bob Carrol, someone who I usually think has the best take on just about everything. Check it out: Contrary-to-fact Conditionals & Media Vultures in my Crosshairs

I’m not saying that we SHOULDN’T be more civil in our discourse, but using tragedy to highlight even THAT (which to some people STILL constitutes an “agenda”) is still politicizing it. At some point, we need to let the families grieve in piece and realize that the WORLD is not like the INTERNET: People don’t want to hear our opinions immediately after a loved one has died, and no one is looking to us to solve all the world’s problems with a proposal that can fit on a bumper sticker. It’s tempting, I know. But this was nothing more than “just one of those crazy things that happens in this fucked up world.” Civil discourse would not have prevented it. Nor would gun control laws. Nor would MORE guns. Nor would the death penalty. Nor would anything that some dipshit in our sad excuse for the media has to suggest. And little they’re going to say will help anyone make sense of what happened either. There’s not a lesson to be learned, nor is there any hidden meaning, and God doesn’t have a grand plan, here. Each was simply the random act of a madman.

Personally? I might say it’s the price we pay to live in a free and open society. I don’t know if I REALLY DO believe that, entirely, in this case. But the principles are there, and I’ve argued it before. But if I DID decide to make that case, I’d at least have the decency to wait until the dead had been buried and mourned, and not say that in a forum where one of the family would hear it! (Which means… NATIONAL TV is probably out!) What I WILL say is this: My heart goes out to the victims and their families. I can not imagine the pain they must be feeling. They have my sincerest condolences, and I do hope that in time they will find peace.

Was that so hard?

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

A quick adendum... my condolences also go out to the Kennedy and Shriver families for their loss today of Sargent Shriver.  I can't wait to read about Ann Coulter's summary of the man's life, as she evicerates him for the crimes of being (1) a democrat, (2) a Kennedy (sort of) and (3) someone who actually accomplished some GOOD with their life.

Swing the Wood

An article in today's NYT has essentially sold me on one name supposedly on President Obama's short-list of nominees to replace retiring Justice Stevens.  And that potential nominee is Judge Diane Wood.  Now, I haven't  done any extensive research into her decisions.  From what I read, she's liberal enough.  And really in my mind that goes without saying, [the reader's] opinion of Justice Sotomayor not withstanding.

(For the record, I was absolutely fine with the choice of Justice Sotomayor, and while their may have been more Liberal choices available, she has so far been on the side of freedom and liberty in the only 5-4 decision thus far, and I'm willing to bet that she'll never be to the Right of Justice Kennedy nor join the Facist wing in any 6-3 decisions.  In any case I don't see any reason to believe that Justice Wood would VOTE any farther to the Right than Justive Stevens did, and that's good enough for me.

What the 'Times article highlights is what I see as the single most important attribute for the nomonee to posses: The ability to influence those who might disagree with her.  She has a record of being able to influnce and win over the two conservatives she worked with on the appeals court, and by extension, should be able to pursuade Justice Kennedy.  That fact that she does not alienate her opponents (I'm talking on the BENCH now, not in congress or in the public!) is critical, because Justice Kennedy is, for better or worse, the most powerful man in the free world right now, and in any contentious case involving civil liberty, it will be HIS VOTE ALONE that decides the fate of those freedoms and liberties.  And we cannot allow the Right wing to take anything else away from us!  We are already well beyond the point at which I say, "THIS FAR, NO FARTHER!"

The President's choice must not be chosen as a 'consensus builder' in Congress, or even in the public's eye.  But they should absolutely be a 'consesus builder' in the COURT.  (Although admittedly by 'consensus,' I mean the four liberals, plus Kennedy.) So from that POV, at this point I'll go out on a limb and name Judge Wood as my front running pick as well.

Justice Stevens, the Supreme Court

The recently announced retirement of Justice Stevens highlights the primary reason I will not be able to abide another Republican President until either the balance of the court changes of the philosophy of the party does. I mentioned the other day that one of my fears after Bush v Gore was the inevitable hard-right shift of the court. Bush replaced the hard-right Chief Justice Rehnquist was the even more hard-right, yet much, MUCH younger Chief Justice John Roberts. But that was only insurance, it didn't created a shift it just prolonged the status quo. The real shift came when regular swing-vote, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor retired, we get the hard-right Samuel Alito. (Or Justice "Scalito," as I think you can safety call him.) THAT was HUGE.

Prior to that, the vast majority of non-unanimous case lined up with Rehnquist, Thomas and Scalia on one side, Breyer, Souter, Stevens and Ginsberg on the other and both O'Connor and Kennedy as swing votes. And O'Connor sided with the liberal wing more often than Kennedy did. By the time Bush was done The Right had Roberts, Thomas, Scalia and ALITO voting reliably in one four-vote block, Breyer, Souter, Stevens and Ginsberg reliably voting in the other... and suddenly Justice Anthony Kennedy was the most powerful man in the world. (Honestly? Looking at how things worked out? At this point, I'd have strongly preferred Harriet Myers! File that under, "Be careful what you wish for!")

So Obama has now replaced the retiring Justice Souter with Justice Sotomayor, and will soon have to nominate a replacement for Stevens. And not to be morbid, but givien Justice Ginsberg's health issues, I'll give you even odds that he'll be facing a third vacancy within this term, and I'll guarantee you he'll be filling her seat if he wins reelection! Now just imagine for a moment what the prospect for our civil liberties going forward would look like if JOHN McCAIN (with Sarah Palin whispering in his ear ala Greema Wormtounge) had the opportunity to replace 3/4 of the court’s liberal wing! The ACLU might as well close up shop right now!  And I have to tell you, knowing that the three of the four memebers of the "liberal wing" were also the three oldest members of the court made another conservtaive presidency a truly terrifying prospect for me.  How this wouldn't scare the crap out of ANY freedom loving American, I'll just never understand.

Anyway, that's all I really wanted to say.  As for who Obama chooses?  I'm not all that concerned.  I'm sure it will be someone, like the other three members of the Liberal Block that reliable VOTE liberally.  But that's not really the problem.  The problem is that whomever he chooses will probably not have the charisma and influence that Stevens had, and thus will almost certainly not have the level of skill in persuading Justice Kennedy that Justice Stevens had.  So while we'll still have our FOUR reliable votes, we'll inevitably be less able and likely to get that fifth vote.  Can't be helped, but if McCain had won, it wouldn't even be a issue.

WHAT sixty votes?

I’d like to thank the newly minted Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown for supporting the Democratic Senate’s Jobs Bill, breaking ranks along with two of the usual suspects, Maine’s Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins and also Missouri’s Kit Bond and Ohio’s George Voinovich, two guys who, since they’re retiring, have nothing to lose and I guess figured that they may as well help actually govern the country a little instead of following the Party strategy of making sure that absolutely nothing good happens, public interest be damned. So to those five: Thank You. To our spineless leader, Harry Reid? Gee, you got four more votes than you actually needed. You think maybe you didn’t have to gut the bill to quite the extent that you did?

There is one thing I want to point out however, in DEFENSE of Reid. A lot has been made of the whole 60-votes thing. And I said awhile back that I didn’t think Brown’s election really changed anything. I’ll stand by that, and here’s why: The Democrats NEVER HAD 60 votes! And by that I don’t mean that the Blue Dogs weren’t on board, or they didn’t have enough party unity, or anything like that. I mean that at no point were there ever actually 60 Democrats in the Senate! Check it out…

Here’s the timeline: In January, 2009, the numbers in the Senate were officially 59 Democrats to 41 Republicans. That's how the 2008 election worked out, if you remember. And don’t forget: The Minnesota Governor refused to seat Al Franken. So really, they started out 58-41, with one open seat, by the official party count. Now… on April 28, 2009, Arlen Specter switched parties. This brought the tally to 59-40 in favor of the Democrats, but Franken still wasn’t seated, so no 60 votes. Finally, on July 7, 2009 Franken was seated. And the tally was 60-40… for 49 days, until Senator Kennedy died on August 25. So… they had “60 Votes” for all of seven weeks, and that’s before you take into account that the ailing Senator Kennedy hadn’t been present for a vote in the Senate since summer of 2008 – a full year before his death. By any practical measure, the numbers in the Senate were never better than 59-40, even with Franken seated and after Specter defected. At no point did the Democrats ever NOT need at least one Republican vote to reach cloture. And now, with Brown’s election? Well, the numbers are 59-41, and they need… ding-ding-ding!: ONE REPUBLICAN VOTE, just as they always have, to achieve cloture.

And they just got FIVE. So I still like our chances, moving forward.

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

And BTW, I sincerely hope that President Obama does to the obstructing Republicans what President Bush did to US so many times, and just makes recess appointments for every single remaining unmanned post that the Republicans continue to block nominees for. The Right are doing their best to make sure that the Democrats never have a chance to accomplish anything. Well, they had their chance, and it’s high time that Obama leads the Democrats and they show the country what GOOD Government is really capable of.