Mr. Obama and his first year.

Once again, Andrew Sullivan seems to sum up my points. I recommend everyone read his excellent blog post on the subject.

I am still enamoured with Barack Obama. He's done everything I hoped he would do in office, and his hand has been ever so steady on the tiller. Through bank failures and tea parties and exploding briefs, he's kept the US on a straight, sensible course. He's issued a withdrawal from Iraq. He's kept his promise on giving Afghanistan one last kick at the can, and not hanging his NATO allies out to dry. He's made some small steps forward on LGBT rights, if not all of them (I have faith he will eventually repeal DADT, I still do, yes I do!).

He's slowed and probably ended the global recession. Not just with his stimulus, but by coordinating the largest international spending plan ever with the G20 nations. He's won the Nobel Peace Prize - not because he was a leader of a peace conference or a great icon for decades, but because his very inauguration crept us away from the brink of eternal war with the Islamic world. Al Qaeda's reputation in that world is soiled and damaged, thanks to Obama's careful handling of many situations.

Yes, there have been some failures, and many difficulties, but Obama inherited a difficult job from an inept leader who had been unable to handle the situations he was so misfortunately handed. Overall, I think President Obama has been quite a good one, certainly better than George W. Bush, probably better than Bill Clinton and George H. W. Bush as well. We shall now see how his second year fares.

Good luck, sir.

The Founding Fathers of the USA

Okay, everyone has heard about Sarah Palin's interview with Glenn Beck, and the question Beck asked her on the Founding Fathers, basically saying which is your favourite. Palin responded with "all of them", much as she did with the Couric interview during the 2008 Presidential campaign, before eventually she narrowed it down to George Washington, because he was the leader of the Founding Fathers, and this seems to have gotten her out of a bit of the trouble she was in.

As Glenn Beck said: bullcrap.

American civics should teach us that George Washington was certainly a Founding Father, but he had little to do with the actual foundation of the USA from a political standpoint, being that he was somewhat busy actually fighting the war against the British. There's a reason Washington's name isn't on the Declaration of Independence - he had nothing to do with it. The Articles of Confederation? Washington was again in the field when they were written and had little to do with them (except for requesting that the Continental Congress insert provisions allowing for a strong control of the Continental Army). Washington was not an author of the Constitution nor of the Bill of Rights, though he was a delegate to the convention creating the former and President during the creation of the latter.

Indeed, he was chosen as the first President because his term as Commander of the Continental Army gave him significant recognition and respect throughout the United States, and there was a confidence in him from North and South that would not be held again by a single president for a long time. If you want to look at the people who actually held the true political power during the American Revolution (I *refuse* to call it a War of Independence), I suggest you examine men like Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, Benjamin Harrison, Benjamin Rush, and, Edward Rutledge, and above all others, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. These men were part of the internal struggle to create the United States, and their stories are rather more important than the story of George Washington, who served at the pleasure of the aforementioned politicians.

George Washington may have defined what it means to be President, Mrs. Palin (something about which I believe you know very little), but Adams, Jefferson, Franklin et. al created the United States. Her answer was wholly a terrible one, showcasing how little she knows about American history. Washington was willing to serve as President, but humbled by his selection for a post that was half ceremonial at the time. George Washington didn't have a quarter of the power today's President has, and his Cabinet consisted of himself and four secretaries, not 15 secretaries and 7 Cabinet-level officials. Not even the Vice President was welcome in Cabinet under Washington, nor for many years thereafter.

Indeed, as Palin said, Washington served but two terms as President of his own volition, returning to end his life at his Mount Vernon estate. However, it should be remembered that Washington never wanted to be President anyway, nor run for any public office. He didn't want salary. He didn't even want to run the Continental Army. Yes, he served best because he had to, not because he wanted to - there was no equal for Washington as General in 1775, just as there was no equal for him as President in 1789 - but Mrs. Palin does herself a great disservice by pretending to share the same characteristics. George Washington was a truely honourable man who would never be considered for office in today's political world. In order to gain elected post now, you must be aggressive, distrustful, deceitful, and possessed of an ego larger than life, of which Washington was none, making him an entirely better man than all who have served since.

And those who want to serve, need and crave to be in the public's eye, like the idiotic broken mess of a woman that is Sarah Palin.

As an aside, I hate how only Sarah Palin seems to be able to motivate me to blog nowadays.

On SSM in New Jersey

I know I'm not all that important, but if you happen to live in New Jersey and randomly come upon this blog, please please please please call your State Senator and insist they pass the bill that will be coming before them soon, enshrining civil equality in at least one more state. After the reverses in California, Maine, and New York, New Jersey has a chance to not be a giant scumhole for once.

If you know anyone in New Jersey, ask them to talk to their State Senator. Time is of the essence - outgoing Governor Jon Corzine will sign the bill if it hits his desk before he's out of office; the new Republican Governor will veto it. Please, New Jersey...get it done.

(as an aside, we're in trouble when we look to New Jersey to restore faith in the human species.)

On Sarah Palin.

Today, Taegan Goddard's Political Wire reported that Sarah Palin is considering a run for President on a third party ticket. This is huge news, as there hasn't been a serious run for President on a third party ticket since 1992 with Ross Perot, and no third party candidate has won votes from the Electoral College since 1968, when George Wallace ran as the Southern Rights' candidate as a reaction to the newly pro-black Democratic party. Palin, as a result, stands astride the possibility of causing a split similar to that which occurred in 1968 - or 1912.

Let me explain. Former Governor Sarah Palin is generally considered to be the apex of the neo-conservative movement in the United States. She espouses a low level of education combined with a high level of religious pandering, combining the two into an experience that few consider eligible for higher office (unless, of course, you're a Republican sycophant). I wish it known that I'm not attacking Palin because she's a conservative - the simple fact is that she has much less time in politics than, say, President Obama, who's 4 years as Senator are a full 1.5 years longer than her term as Governor, and who's time in the Illinois State Senate involved responsibility for more constituents than Palin's governorship. There are many candidates with much more experience - Governor Tim Pawlenty (R-Minnesota), former Governor Mitt Romney (R-Massachusetts), and former Governor Mike Huckabee (R-Arkansas). All of whom I dislike for different reasons than experience.

Indeed, my distaste for Palin runs even deeper. But that's neither here nor there. If you remember the special election in NY-23 this year, we saw a three party race between the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, and the Conservative Party of New York. What occurred was an ambush of the Republican candidate from the Conservative candidate, a man named Hoffman who was endorsed by Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and, indeed, Sarah Palin. The embattled Republican, Dede Scozzafava, withdrew and endorsed the Democrat, who eventually won a squeaker. Palin is now discussing bringing this split to the national level.

There are many possibilities that could occur if Palin decided to run as a third party candidate, depending on when she makes the decision to run. If she did so before the Republican primary, many candidates would follow her, leading to a serious possible split. If she entered the primary and lost, then quickly announced her split, some could. If she fights a drawn-out primary and loses, then she would just be a Presidential candidate, to start with. A bevy of success could encourage her to continue in the next Congressional cycle with the third party.

If one of the continuing options happens, you'd immediately see several Congressfolk, and even a few Senators, consider switching parties - especially if some successes were rapidly had with similar electorates. A valid third party could emerge. This would be wonderful - the ideologically pure fools would join the Palin Party, whilst many Blue Dog Democrats would move to the now-centre right Republicans. It just might allow real business to get done.

Or, it could simply lead to the Republicans slamming hard-right as a response, countering the Palin move in a self-destructive manner pleasing to Beck, Hannity, and Limbaugh but absolutely foolhardy and election-losing in general. This is okay, but I would prefer a real Republican party with real fiscal conservatives.

All of this assumes Palin would have the narcissism needed to run as a third party candidate. When she loses (and she will lose), she'll likely blame everyone but herself, and continue the cult of personality she's slowly building around herself. She's a sad force in politics. I hope she splits the parties; but I also hope she self-destructs as soon as possible.

Gah. What a load of fuck.

On historical movies.

On the way back from Weymouth, I stopped to see an old friend, Krista, shortly. We discussed many things, including movies, and I had to explain how I simply cannot watch any movie that pretends at historical accuracy and fails. We, for instance, talked about the 2004 flick King Arthur. Yes, Clive Owen is a dreamboat, ladies, but the movie infuriated me to the point where I angrily ruined the film for others.

Another movie you might be familiar with that angered me similarly (though not to the same degree) was Gladiator. Yes, I dislike Gladiator. I've seen it once, and that's more than enough, thank you very much.

Here's how it goes - you can set a movie in history as long as you don't mess with history. Some of my favourite films are set in history, films like Paths of Glory. I don't mean a historical biography, like Patton and such, but I mean to say that you can make a good movie about history without pissing on it - if you try.

Take Gladiator, for example. They took a fictional character (Maximus) and threw him into a possible situation against a historical figure (Commodus). The problem is that Commodus was not a bad emperor. He wasn't anything like his portrayal in the film. He did not die quickly after taking the throne, nor did he die in the gladiatorial arena. The movie *could* have worked with another villain. But now everyone thinks that Commodus was some guy who loved to get into the ring and eventually died there, and good, he deserved it, when in reality, Commodus was assassinated because he ignored the Mob.

And don't even get me started on King Arthur.

History is a great tool for making movies, because history does the job for the filmmaker. You don't need to invent a character where one already exists, a realistic human with realistic personality traits, strengths and flaws. I wish more filmmakers would use history accurately. The next time someone tells me The Last Samurai is a great historical film, I'm gonna fucking scream.

As an aside, I am going to go see the Kingdom of Heaven Director's Cut soon, and I'm really looking forward to it. Apparently it's significantly better than the theatrical release, which I firmly panned as utter trash.

On naming a ship.

Here's a thing I've been noticing with our southerly neighbours. Everyone knows I'm a pretty pro-America Canadian with an interest in their politics and history. What I want to talk about here is when one of those two things infringes upon the other - that is to say, when politics infringes on history. I'm a member of a naval family, and I've managed to get a decent idea of what naval history means to the members of the service.

So let's point this towards our friends in the United States Navy, and how politicians are seriously fucking with their mojo. They've been playing politics with naming ships, specifically their capital ships, and that is bad. Sailors tend to take these things seriously, and a lot of them, even now, are superstitious.

Nobody wants to serve on a cursed ship. Nobody wants to serve on a ship that might have a name that is anything less than illustrious, and I think that naming something the Gerald R. Ford is a really, really bad start. Down to brass tacks - the last three administrations chose carrier names based on political affiliation.

The USN has added, since 1960, 15 carriers with a sixteenth named and under construction. Since 1972, all carriers have been named after people; previous to that, they bore names like Kitty Hawk, Constellation, America, and Enterprise. The John F. Kennedy was also commissioned in 1968, named after the recently late president. In 1972, the first of a new class was christened - Nimitz, after Chester Nimitz, commander of the Pacific Fleet in World War II and a man who did just as much to win the war in the Pacific as Eisenhower did in Europe. Since then, the names have been rather more dubious.

The Dwight D. Eisenhower, after the Republican president, was named in 1970 (shortly after the Nimitz's name was announced), by Richard Nixon, who had served as Ike's Vice President. Nixon also ordered the Carl Vinson, named after a Democratic member of Congress. So he was fairly balanced - one Republican, one Democrat, and one Admiral, all of which with impeccable credentials to be considered worthy to have a US carrier named after them.

Reagan & G.H.W. Bush ordered the Theodore Roosevelt, the Abraham Lincoln, the George Washington, and the John C. Stennis. Two Republican presidents, one non-aligned president, and one Democratic Senator. Again, all men were considered great or important and all have grand credentials. You'd be hard pressed to pick more deserving presidents than TR, Abe, Geo. Washington, and Ike to have ships named after them.

President Bill Clinton named one: the Harry S Truman - a Democratic president. And George W. Bush named three - Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and Gerald R. Ford. Now here's where we get to the "what the fuck".

Bill picked a president who had been around for awhile, and is currently considered quite good. And that's fine and all, but what about FDR? What about Woodrow Wilson? There are options here, of course. But that's not really as bad as GWB's selections. Ronald Reagan was not a good president (despite conservative love in the US), and the man served in the Army Reserve. I think this was just the standard Reagan sycophantism in the Republican Party.

If anyone else had named the George H. W. Bush, then I'd be perfectly fine with it. As it is, I'm pretty much OK - GHWB was a legitimate war hero. He was the youngest naval aviator in the USN in World War II, and flew combat missions at age 19 off of the USS San Jacinto, winning a plethora of medals. But Jerry Ford? Come ON. The man's considered a failure as a President. But at least he was in the navy, unlike Reagan.

In the end, these names are pretty much based on their fucking party. That's why I think the current president, who will get to name at least one and maybe two hulls, should very seriously consider these names. There's lots of great and historical names out there, names that mean a lot in the history of the United States Navy - names like Yorktown, Ranger, and Constellation. America, United States, President. And in 2012, a new name will become available, one I think should be chosen - Enterprise.

Some bills have been pushed into Congress suggesting names like Arizona and the Barry Goldwater. I think the former is inappropriate and the latter is stupid. Obama may choose a Democratic president - or he may choose a more abstract name. I think that a return to the abstract is called for, and may the history of the United States Navy be allowed to continue without consideration for politics and politicians - men and women that can never live up to the glory already earned by names like Lexington, Yorktown, and Enterprise.

On Mr. Obama

Over a year ago, now, the entire world was electrified when Barack Obama won election for the post of President, the first black candidate to do so; they were just as relieved that George W. Bush was on the way out and that John McCain, who had moved sharply to the right, was not going to be entering into power. Many Americans were just as electrified, even people who did not vote for Mr. Obama. His siren calls of "Hope" and "Change" seemed to signal a new era of US politics.

Now, many people are considering Mr. Obama's term as president to be a failure, saying that he has not lived up to his promises - others believe he has betrayed the Democrat base that voted him into power. I've heard many people, people I admire, consider him "Republican lite", for instance. There have been many people who are very disappointed with Mr. Obama's lack of movement on Afghanistan and LGBT rights.

I cannot find myself disappointed with Mr. Obama's progress as President. We'll start with Afghanistan. Mr. Obama has recently announced that the United States will be sending more troops to Afghanistan. However, many people are trying to tell me that he has broken a promise. I find myself quietly reminding them that the President promised to "win" the war in Afghanistan - of course, winning in Afghanistan isn't a cut-and-dry procedure, like conquering Germany or the South was. Winning in Afghanistan is subjective.

Yet it was a promise. He's already began the process of withdrawing from Iraq (something he promised to do and that people are upset about). He's made pragmatic military decisions that people on the far left seem incapable of understanding. You can't just pick up and leave a country you've occupied. I find it paradoxical - the Republicans should be the ones demanding these sudden withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan, given their supposed ideology, whereas Democrats should insist on cautious and measured withdrawals. After all, Republicans put "America first", or "troops first" and should want to safeguard their lives by removing them from hostile situations, whereas the simple fact that withdrawing from the occupied nations suddenly would lead to thousands and possibly millions of deaths in instant civil war should make Democrats, who proclaim to love human rights.

It is a stark reminder that Republicans and Democrats are labels that should be beyond left and right, and liberal and conservative, because both parties are a mixture of the two. Anyway, that is a subject for another post.

Andrew Sullivan has pointed out that Obama is pursuing a pass that lets the United States withdraw from Afghanistan concurrent with the end of international cooperation in ISAF (the NATO force currently working in Afghanistan). It should be remembered that whilst Mr. Bush took the US Army off to Iraq for no good reason, the emphasis of combat in Afghanistan shifted to the US's NATO allies, allies that supported the United States in the wake of 9/11, allies who pledged money, material, and lives to assist the Americans in avenging the lethal strikes on New York City and Arlington, VA. To leave now would be to leave them high and dry, to abandon 44,000 soldiers from NATO countries helping to prosecute the war against the Taliban.

Thank you, Mr. Obama, for giving the ISAF soldiers the backup they need to make some progress. Thank you for setting a firm date of withdrawal for US soldiers, and having it mirror international withdrawal targets. Now, NATO acts as one, as an alliance should. I can only imagine what we could have done in Afghanistan if there had been cooperation from the beginning.

When it comes to LGBT rights, I am saddened that there has been such backlash over the last year - Proposition 8 in California, Proposition 1 in Maine, and the recent NY Senate vote that was rather firmly in favour of retaining civil inequality (great term from Andy Sullivan). But there has also been gains - legislated civil equality in New Hampshire and the adoption of gay marriage rights in Iowa due to a court order. Things are coming to a head, I believe - it will be a long struggle, but it can be handled.

But nobody can accuse Barack Obama of being a friend of the LGBT community at this point, despite campaign promises. At the same time, I think you would be hard-pressed to call him an enemy. Yes, he has failed, so far, within a year, to end Don't Ask, Don't Tell and embrace equal rights in the US forces. But must we remember that it took Harry Truman 3 years to work up the balls to sign Executive Order 9981, and that Obama is in a difficult political climate.

He has not campaign for gay rights, but he has not campaigned against them, and given some of the recent history of LGBT equality in the United States, that is certainly something. He is not particularly known for his pro-gay platform, but that he is tolerant (which Mr. Bush was probably not) of the LGBT community. If he is going to take a political gamble on civil equality, it will not be now - it will be during an election year, much as Mr. Truman did with his order to desegregate the US military.

I think that many people lifted Obama, mentally, up in their minds as something above what he is. But he is still a dynamic figure, who I believe will make more changes as his term continues. Will he be a two-term president? Possibly, because I believe that freed of the concern for re-election he has a chance to be more liberal than he is now. But those who ever assumed he was something other than a politician? Welcome back to earth. Those of you who think that he is failing the American people by continuing the war in Afghanistan? Yes, some more American soldiers will die - but he promised to try, and that's what he's doing. And those of us who have seen our friends and family fight and die in Afghanistan whilst there wasn't the force available to resist the Taliban appreciate that he is going to try.

Technology from Star Trek: The VISOR

Everyone knows that Star Trek has contributed to popular technology in many ways. For instance, cell phones were based on the concept of the communicator. OV-101 was named Enterprise, not after the famous carrier then in service, but after the fictional starship commanded by Jim Kirk on the television show. Personal computing was a fantasy in 1967, but a reality by 1984 with the launch of the Macintosh - and a necessity by 2000.

Now we have a new example of Star Trek's fiction becoming reality: Geordi LaForge's VISOR. In Star Trek, the VISOR takes visual input on several levels and sends it right to the brain, bypassing Geordi's non-functioning optic nerve. This lets the character see, though not quite as people do. Visually, the VISOR is a clip-like thing that sits over the eyes.

Well, science has done it again. The Daily Mail reports that a 51 year old man named Peter Lane is now seeing for the first time in 30 years once he was fitted with a device that takes camera input, digitizes it with a small belt-mounted computer, and sends it to his eyes in a series of lines and dots. While it isn't as functional as Geordi's VISOR, it is a start, and for Peter Lane, it is surely all the difference in the world.

Ronald Reagan, Scored by the RNC's Reagan Unity Principle

The Republican National Committee has come up with the idea of charting future Republican candidates against a so-called "Reagan Unity Principle", holding all these Republicans running for office to a field of idealistic Reagan-like ideals. Candidates who fail to meet 8 or more of these ideals would be refused funding by the RNC as being ideologically unpure. The RNC will score candidates based on their voting record and public statements. I wonder how President Reagan would score?

The entire text can be found here (via Taegan Goddard's Political Wire).

So, let's take a look at them, shall we?

(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill;

Oh, bravo. Ronald Reagan certainly supported smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits, and lower taxes, right?

Except, that when he was Governor of California, Reagan raised taxes. But that was in order to pay off the Californian deficit. Yet, he didn't seem to care so much about that when he was president: Reagan originally slashed taxes, but two years later increased those taxes somewhat. The US debt rose from 909 billion to 3.2 trillion from 1980 to 1990 - eight of those years were under Reagan. In addition, government expenditure still increased, albeit at a slower level than previously. So, Ronald Reagan clearly fails this section.

(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare;

This is certainly true. While health care was not a major issue in the 1980s, Reagan was very slow to act on the AIDS crisis. He was certainly not interested in interfering with health care, even in this limited area. Reagan gets the RNC Seal of Approval on this one.

(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;

Such things did not exist when Ronald Reagan was president. However, Reagan did think that acid rain was nonsense, he deregulated the oil industry, and used federal environmental funds for political purposes. Seal of Approval!

(4) We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check;

Yeah, Ronald "Strikebuster" Reagan supports workers' rights.

(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;

Again, illegal immigration wasn't particularly an issue during Reagan's years as presidency. So I have no idea what Reagan was perceived to have done to defend the United States against the evil brown people who want to work for a living. So this is going to be an "invalid point".

(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;

Ronald Reagan wasn't a very big fan of sending soldiers to actually fight. In fact, most of his presidency involved America paying others to fight for them. But he does like invading weak countries like Grenada. Presumably, he'd be okay with fighting a war the US was already in. Again, Reagan wasn't really on the record about Afghanistan and Iraq, having withdrawn from public life in early 2001 to battle Alzheimer's. This point is again invalid.

(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;

Ronald Reagan secretly sold weapons to Iran. He was not interested in containing them, rather arming them so he could fund his pet projects in Latin America covertly. Reagan fails at this point.

(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;

Reagan is said to be personally tolerant to gay people, but firmly was against GTLB rights. He gets the RNC Seal of Bigoted Approval!

(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and

Reagan was very firmly anti-abortion for most of his political career. However, very early on, as Governor of California, he signed into law the "Theraputic Abortions Act" which was designed to reduce back-alley abortion. While this turned Reagan, personally, against abortion (so he claimed), the RNC is unlikely to forgive a moment of ideological impurity. So he is denied on this point, because Ronald Reagan once supported abortion rights, in even a small and limited way.

In addition, he appointed Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who is pro-abortion, to the Supreme Court, something that could never be supported by conservatives today.

(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership;

By the same note, Justice O'Connor voted for gun control. As a Justice appointed by President Reagan, he must be held accountable for choosing a judge that could not be relied upon by the conservative movement to uphold one of their Reagan Unity Principles. Thus, Reagan fails.

So, in conclusion, the Republican National Committee would not support Ronald Reagan if he were to rise from the dead and run for President once more, finding that he is not ideologically pure enough to deserve support, based on a rose-tinted look back at the terrible President of Ronald Reagan.