Escape Artists
The Lounge at the End of the Universe => Gallimaufry => Topic started by: Heradel on January 19, 2009, 10:56:35 PM
-
Bit of shameless self promotion mixed with getting a discussion thread up.
I don't really know what to say, I've been the the Mall (the big long green bit in the middle of DC) twice in the last three days, and it's been packed both days. I'm covering it for my school's newspaper, and I should have a blog post up later tonight I'll link here. I have some pictures up here for anyone that's interested (http://www.flickr.com/photos/heradel/sets/72157612697842550/). The atmosphere is festive, with a bunch of little bands all around the place, along with droves of reporters and isolated pockets of fundamentalist Christian protesters.
-
I am so, SO envious:) Awesome, hope you have a good day:)
-
i am envious toooo!
i learned earlier today that i was at Clinton's inauguration... but i was but a wee lil lad back then, before this thing called memory kicked in :P
-
Thanks, the aforementioned blog post is here (http://nyitchronicle.blogspot.com/), which is where my newspaper is currently blogging until I can get Drupal to stop throwing cogs and then get it to look pretty.
It's going to be cold, possibly wet, but incredibly satisfying.
-
Add me to the list of the envious; that sounds like a cool assignment.
-
I would be envious, but being in those crowds sounds like my own personal hell.
-
Add me to the list of those thankful that you are there and I'm not. I don't do well with crowds.
It's bedtime, but I'm gonna check out the links tomorrow. I hope you enjoy yourself and everything goes well.
Grab every piece of paraphernalia that you can! A lot of people that can't make it will want a piece of history.
-
I'm completely avoiding the inauguration. Here's why: http://listener42.livejournal.com/212705.html
-
I'm completely avoiding the inauguration. Here's why: http://listener42.livejournal.com/212705.html
Like you, I voted neither for McCain nor Obama. But I found the line "The racists came out in droves to vote for McCain" interesting. It seems to imply that few if any McCain voters were motivated by anything else. I'm sure that a lion's share of McCain voters were the remaining True Believers in the Bushie agenda, like my parents for example. And people who would vote for any Republican over any Democrat. And, yeah, a handful of racists, too, but I like to think that they're an insignificant minority.
-
Listener, I read your post. I, like stePH can't entirely agree. Racists voted on both sides. People who are party loyalists voted on both sides. I think energizing the younger population was the biggest key. I plan on listening to the speeches today, but have no desire to hear any of the commentary.
I heard some comments this morning about how Americans have a tradition of giving a new president a "grace period" to get started. Granted, there are some on either end of the spectrum who won't give a new president that chance, but most of us will.
I have differing political views from Obama. I'm ok with that. What is going to drive me insane is listening to the people who act like Obama is the Second Coming and, to a lesser extent, those who say he will ruin this country. He is a man, and only a man. He can lead, but he can not make the changes on his own.
Wait!!!!!!!!
::points away from self:: GREEN!
::points to self:: PURPLE!
-
I'm completely avoiding the inauguration. Here's why: http://listener42.livejournal.com/212705.html
Like you, I voted neither for McCain nor Obama. But I found the line "The racists came out in droves to vote for McCain" interesting. It seems to imply that few if any McCain voters were motivated by anything else. I'm sure that a lion's share of McCain voters were the remaining True Believers in the Bushie agenda, like my parents for example. And people who would vote for any Republican over any Democrat. And, yeah, a handful of racists, too, but I like to think that they're an insignificant minority.
I work in a newsroom, and based upon the content I was called upon to moderate and the tons of e-mails we received, there were a lot of people who voted for McCain because Obama is half-black or because they believed the "Obama is going to sell us out to the Muslims" argument bandied about by some conservative talk show hosts (who give the rest of us conservatives a bad name).
So I will agree that I was overly hyperbolic in that statement.
-
That was a great speech.
-
well, I watched the Inauguration. twas nice. Yo Yo Ma is such a good musician! And Obama sure does know how to speak! (lil hiccup during the swearing in tho haha)
has anyone else seen those "Impeach Obama" bumper stickers? that is the dumbest shit ive ever seen. He hasnt fuckin done anything yet! Even someone saying "Impeach Bush" would be a fucking retard. ugh, stupidity makes me want to kill.
-
I'd buy an "Impeach Blagojevich" bumper sticker! :-X
I'm going to download the speeches later. I really don't want to hear any of the political pundits.
-
I'm going to download the speeches later. I really don't want to hear any of the political pundits.
Good choice :)
-
Gotta say I hated the preacher. In addition to that it would be the 43rd not the 44th transfer of power, since the power didn't really exist before Washington. The Articles of Confederation basically had no real federal government. That is however a small point I might concede if anyone wants to argue it. (In this group I know someone will argue it just so I'll concede.) Also he called Obama's dad an immigrant. He was a grad student who came here to study and, as far as I know, had no intention to stay.
NPR played several of the oaths a few days ago. In every one they say, "I, Russell Nash," then get fed the, "do solemnly swear". Roberts said his name, waited for Obama to start to say it, and then said the next part. It's as if he was trying to throw him off his game. In the next part Roberts also said, "President to the…" and might have made one other mistake. Which, I think, is why Obama stared at him and made him repeat it.
Roberts was either entirely unprepared or was trying to be an ass. Since he refused to meet with Obama before the oath, I'm leaning to ass.
It was a kicking speech. It is so nice to have a president who can speak well.
-
NPR played several of the oaths a few days ago. In every one they say, "I, Russell Nash" then get fed the, "do solemnly swear". Roberts said his name, waited for Obama to start to say it, and then said the next part. It's as if he was trying to throw him off his game. In the next part Roberts also said, "President to the…" and might have made one other mistake. Which, I think, is why Obama stared at him and made him repeat it.
Roberts was either entirely unprepared or was trying to be an ass. Since he refused to meet with Obama before the oath, I'm leaning to ass.
I'm curious where you get this from; it's the first I've heard of it. They definitely met with one another (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-obama-roberts15-2009jan15,0,684189.story) soon before the inauguration (it sounds perfectly cordial). So I'm inclined to chalk up the error as an honest, if mildly cringeworthy, mistake.
But then, I'm just in a good mood right now, and am inclined to see the best in everybody. (Let's hope none of my students come around asking for a grade change in the next few hours...)
-
I'm looking forward to the new administration, but I too am a little tired of what I'm (constantly) hearing about the guy.
In my part of the country, the right-wing radio guys hold a LOT of sway. My co-workers are constantly parotting their frighteningly paranoid visions of the Obama white house. On the other hand, my wife, (and the major network news crews) seem to think that Obama is Jesus, Superman, and Abe Lincoln, all rolled up in one. I guess I'm getting a littled burned out on the whole thing.
-
I'm looking forward to the new administration, but I too am a little tired of what I'm (constantly) hearing about the guy.
In my part of the country, the right-wing radio guys hold a LOT of sway. My co-workers are constantly parotting their frighteningly paranoid visions of the Obama white house. On the other hand, my wife, (and the major network news crews) seem to think that Obama is Jesus, Superman, and Abe Lincoln, all rolled up in one. I guess I'm getting a littled burned out on the whole thing.
I don't know about his water-walking or heat-vision abilities. I'm looking forward to somebody who is smart, competent, has good, pragmatic ideas and is able to reach out to achieve a reasonable consensus. So far I'm very optimistic.
-
I'm looking forward to the new administration, but I too am a little tired of what I'm (constantly) hearing about the guy.
In my part of the country, the right-wing radio guys hold a LOT of sway. My co-workers are constantly parotting their frighteningly paranoid visions of the Obama white house. On the other hand, my wife, (and the major network news crews) seem to think that Obama is Jesus, Superman, and Abe Lincoln, all rolled up in one. I guess I'm getting a littled burned out on the whole thing.
I don't know about his water-walking or heat-vision abilities. I'm looking forward to somebody who is smart, competent, has good, pragmatic ideas and is able to reach out to achieve a reasonable consensus. So far I'm very optimistic.
Oh yeah. That's exactly what I'm looking forward to. I just think that the hype is getting to be a bit much. Still, it would be cool to have a president who could shoot down nukes with this eye-lasers.
-
I must admit to enjoy hearing a nicely given speech by a president. A very good day to celebrate freedom and democracy! I didn't vote for President Obama, and I don't agree with many of his platforms, but I do have hope that he can bring some stability and maybe even civility between the parties. I also hope that my hope won't be crushed in six months. It's up to both Republicans and Democrats to make it work.
A nagging doubt keeps trying to sneak in, and it's usually whenever I see Pelosi or Reid.
I was very pleased that President Obabma's (it's also nice not to have to say "president-elect", what a pain) middle name, Hussein, was used in the swearing in. I was a little skeptical when he was introduced as Barack H. Obama. It seemed kind of wimpy to me. Who cares about the name anyway?
Regarding race, I think it is impossible to overlook the historical significance of the first African-American president, especially in the shadow of Martin Luther King Day, but I sure hope the media stops fallling over themselves punching that bag. The whole impact of his election is the fact that his race doesn't matter, yet that's all we hear about. I do not feel that race had anything to do with my assesment of him, and I see that as a good thing.
-
Still, it would be cool to have a president who could shoot down nukes with this eye-lasers.
You don't remember Ronny Ray-gun (http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/9622/imgb10.jpg)?
-
Still, it would be cool to have a president who could shoot down nukes with this eye-lasers.
You don't remember Ronny Ray-gun?
Yeah, I'm old enough, believe it or not. He was a pretty good one, on the whole. Too bad Schwartzeneger can't run for the white house. He's cast from the same mold.
Figuratively. Not literally.
-
NPR played several of the oaths a few days ago. In every one they say, "I, Russell Nash" then get fed the, "do solemnly swear". Roberts said his name, waited for Obama to start to say it, and then said the next part. It's as if he was trying to throw him off his game. In the next part Roberts also said, "President to the…" and might have made one other mistake. Which, I think, is why Obama stared at him and made him repeat it.
Roberts was either entirely unprepared or was trying to be an ass. Since he refused to meet with Obama before the oath, I'm leaning to ass.
I'm curious where you get this from; it's the first I've heard of it. They definitely met with one another (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-obama-roberts15-2009jan15,0,684189.story) soon before the inauguration (it sounds perfectly cordial). So I'm inclined to chalk up the error as an honest, if mildly cringeworthy, mistake.
But then, I'm just in a good mood right now, and am inclined to see the best in everybody. (Let's hope none of my students come around asking for a grade change in the next few hours...)
Oops, my bad. It was Alito who refused to meet with him.
-
Still, it would be cool to have a president who could shoot down nukes with this eye-lasers.
You don't remember Ronny Ray-gun (http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/9622/imgb10.jpg)?
Ex Machina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_Machina_(comics)) is kind of that -- except the guy is a NYC mayor, not the president. Great read, for anyone interested.
-
well, I watched the Inauguration. twas nice. Yo Yo Ma is such a good musician! And Obama sure does know how to speak! (lil hiccup during the swearing in tho haha)
has anyone else seen those "Impeach Obama" bumper stickers? that is the dumbest shit ive ever seen. He hasnt fuckin done anything yet! Even someone saying "Impeach Bush" would be a fucking retard.
Only because Bush is now out of office ... or can you impeach an ex-president? I'm a little unclear on the rules.
-
well, I watched the Inauguration. twas nice. Yo Yo Ma is such a good musician! And Obama sure does know how to speak! (lil hiccup during the swearing in tho haha)
has anyone else seen those "Impeach Obama" bumper stickers? that is the dumbest shit ive ever seen. He hasnt fuckin done anything yet! Even someone saying "Impeach Bush" would be a fucking retard.
Only because Bush is now out of office ... or can you impeach an ex-president? I'm a little unclear on the rules.
nono, even while he was in office... there was never an actual reason to impeach him, nor is there at ALL for Obama... people dont even know what impeaching is
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeach
Impeachment is just the trial. Bill Clinton was impeached, but he was not convicted, so he remained president afterward. Calls for impeachment are all well and good, but if there's nothing to convict the person on, then what's the point.
-
nono, even while [Bush] was in office... there was never an actual reason to impeach him,
*speechless* :-X
-
nono, even while he was in office... there was never an actual reason to impeach him, nor is there at ALL for Obama... people dont even know what impeaching is
Well, just off the top of my head, I'd say that admitting to authorizing a wiretap program that explicity ignored the existing restrictions on such activity falls under the suspicion of "high crimes and misdemeanors" necessary for impeachment. It's not that often that a President just comes out and reads a description of his participation in an impeachable offense into the public record, but that's exactly what Bush did.
Never mind what an investigation by a Congress with even a passing interest in upholding the Constitution would have uncovered.
-
The thing with an impeachment is that the public doesn't like it. Before 2006 the Dems didn't have enough power to impeach him. After the 2006 election it was so obvious that the GOP was going down hard, there was no reason to go after him. They would just have hurt themselves. Now if they go after him for criminal reasons, it just takes away from Obama's incredible political capital.
There has been talk that Obama may unclassify all of the documents Cheney illegally classified. He would then let different public groups chase after cheney and Bush. The whole time that was happening he could get on with running the country.
I kind of like that idea. I see Bush and Cheney spending their fortunes to defend against lawsuits coming in from every side. It would be fun to watch. Also boycotts of any company that paid Bush or Cheney a speaking fee.
As far as impeachable offenses go, everyday they broke the law. From big to small it didn't matter. This was a White House that did not care about the law.
The President and Vice-President are required to put their investments into a blind rust for the duration of their time in office. This is how Carter didn't know until after he left office that his company had been run into the round and he was over a million in debt. Neither Bush nor Cheney did this.
Article 7 of The Constitution says that religion among other things cannot be used to determine whether or not a person should be hired for a federal position. When Bush nominated Harriett Myers, he said everyone should be happy, because she's a good christian who goes to church every week.
We don't even need to get into the big issues. Both of those are impeachable offenses.
-
Obama has any number of reasons not to go after the Bush administration. For one thing, in 230-odd years of American democracy, no administration has ever prosecuted the previous administration. Breaking that tradition would open the door to some truly horrible politically-motivated prosecutions. While you can make any number of good arguments that the Bush administration broke the law, it's not hard to imagine a new administration, bent on revenge or scoring political points, prosecuting a member of the last one for, say, lying about sex. (No pun intended.)
I do like the idea of declassifying Bush-era documents, though I don't know how that works legally. Lots of civil lawsuits directed at Bush and Cheney would be groovy, though I suspect this Supreme Court would probably invalidate most of them. And I have a suspicion that, if enough of this stuff becomes public, the Obama team will have ways of addressing Bush-era abuses that would be more creative than anything we've discussed here.
-
Impeachment is really only a tool to try and get a corrupt individual out of office. Since said individual was on his way out anyway, no point.
And yeah, I can't agree with you Bdoomed.. methinks there was plenty of reasons to impeach the man.
But the "impeach Obama" before he does anything is just braindead hatemongering, along the lines of anything that comes from *rabid right wing polical pundit of your choice's* mouth. Its typical of a particular line of political thinking that involves spewing hatred first and completely eschewing any iota of rational, reasonable thought.
-
I am making a plea. The same plea I made 8 years ago, only the names have been changed.
Can we please just let Bush have a chance to step out of the limelight? If he'll be a good ex-president and be quiet, can we move on?
Ok, I'm not asking anyone to change their opinion of him, but let's focus on the here and future instead of the past.
-
Article 7 of The Constitution says that religion among other things cannot be used to determine whether or not a person should be hired for a federal position. When Bush nominated Harriett Myers, he said everyone should be happy, because she's a good christian who goes to church every week.
Miers was clearly a stalking-horse for... Roberts or Alito? I forget which one got nominated once she was withdrawn.
Just to play devil's advocate, I don't think it was necessarily unconstitutional to SAY Miers was a good Christian. Bush is a Christian and makes no bones about it, so in his opinion, that makes her a good choice. Unless he said "I picked her because she's a Christian" (and maybe he actually did; I don't remember that far back) he was just expressing an opinion.
-
I am making a plea. The same plea I made 8 years ago, only the names have been changed.
Can we please just let Bush have a chance to step out of the limelight? If he'll be a good ex-president and be quiet, can we move on?
Ok, I'm not asking anyone to change their opinion of him, but let's focus on the here and future instead of the past.
Agreed.
I think Obama's best course of action is to -- to the best of his and the government's abilities -- not reference Bush and not say "I'm reversing Bush's policy on x". Just say "I'm changing x policy to y because I believe it is z." I don't remember Clinton saying anything terribly bad about Bush 41, nor Bush 43 saying anything terribly bad about Clinton. Maybe I'm wrong.
-
He's a smart guy and pretty politically savvy. I'm pretty sure he will take the high road in that regard.
-
I don't know if it's OK to let 43 off the hook so easily. I'm an old-school republican, but W has really shaken my faith in capitalism and the "small-government/states rights" agenda that used to be the foundation of the party platform. I have a hard time seeing 43 as anything but a villain, and I voted for him in 2000. Remember, Hitler thought he was doing great things for Germany. My French tour guide insisted that Napoleon's conquests were, in fact, wars of liberation. Good intentions count for very little, especially when pursued in a "ends justify the means" manner.
If we let him get off scott free, we set the precedent that the Prez can do whatever he bloody well likes, and constitution be damned.
-
Hehe, Godwinned!
There's seriously no point in dragging this through the muck. Our response to the 8 years of Presidential shenanigans was to elect someone who promised transparency in government and actually seems to already be taking an earnest stab at it (http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/01/on-day-one-obama-demands-open-government (http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/01/on-day-one-obama-demands-open-government)).
A lot of things would likely be difficult to prove in court. We're talking an extended, expensive legal battle. That time and money is best served by fixing the country.
-
Hehe, Godwinned!
There's seriously no point in dragging this through the muck. Our response to the 8 years of Presidential shenanigans was to elect someone who promised transparency in government and actually seems to already be taking an earnest stab at it (http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/01/on-day-one-obama-demands-open-government (http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/01/on-day-one-obama-demands-open-government)).
A lot of things would likely be difficult to prove in court. We're talking an extended, expensive legal battle. That time and money is best served by fixing the country.
I'm of the opinion that it might help to "fix the country" by preventing further abuses of power, if a clear message were to be conveyed that an elected official cannot commit such abuses with impunity and expect to get away with it. Making an example of the Cheney/Bush administration could be very productive toward this end.
-
Is Hillary Clinton giving a stump speech? I thought she was Secretary of State.
-
Gelee and stePH, I don't mind people going after Bush and Cheney for the reasons you have listed. You don't seem to have a personal vendetta. You are concerned about the future of the Office.
-
Is Hillary Clinton giving a stump speech? I thought she was Secretary of State.
I don't think you realize how much the State Department's career service personnel have felt marginalized in the Bush Admin. Having a Secretary of State that will push for the Department and a President that wants to run diplomacy through them and not the Pentagon means for a lot of them that they can finally do their jobs again.
It's traditional for the incoming SecState to give a speech to the department when they arrive.
-
Is Hillary Clinton giving a stump speech? I thought she was Secretary of State.
I don't think you realize how much the State Department's career service personnel have felt marginalized in the Bush Admin. Having a Secretary of State that will push for the Department and a President that wants to run diplomacy through them and not the Pentagon means for a lot of them that they can finally do their jobs again.
It's traditional for the incoming SecState to give a speech to the department when they arrive.
I'm used to the tradition of change of command speeches. I was in the military, I understand them. She started off fairly normal, then she turned on stump mode. I was unaware of the marginalization of the employees, but this still seemed a bit over the top. Thanks for pointing that out.
-
Incidentally everyone, could I just take a moment as a citizen of both the other side of the Atlantic AND the internet to congratulate you all on the nicest, most civil discussion of this I've seen in genre fandom? Seriously, some of the bearpits out there scare the hell out of me and you're all rational and intellectual and polite and articulate and stuff. You stay classy, EA forums.
...
You're all going to have an immense punch up the second I leave aren't you?
-
...
You're all going to have an immense punch up the second I leave aren't you?
*Walks in halfway through with a flamethrower, slowly, quietly, backs out*
I'm used to the tradition of change of command speeches. I was in the military, I understand them. She started off fairly normal, then she turned on stump mode. I was unaware of the marginalization of the employees, but this still seemed a bit over the top. Thanks for pointing that out.
She's a seasoned politician, any speech is going to acquire the tonalities of the stump speech because that's the kind of speech she's been giving for a decade.
The marginalization and politicization of career employees was at a lot of departments in the last administration, probably most egregiously in the Justice department.
-
Alasdair, I've been blasted in some other forums from both directions!
President Obama took the Oath of Office again. I've heard conspiracy idiots say he did this so he didn't have to take the true Oath on the Bible. Yup, I'm not kidding.
-
Alasdair, I've been blasted in some other forums from both directions!
President Obama took the Oath of Office again. I've heard conspiracy idiots say he did this so he didn't have to take the true Oath on the Bible. Yup, I'm not kidding.
Let me guess, freepers?
(ugh. UGH. I wish humanity wasnt so inclined to rampant, raging idiocy)
-
I was unaware of the marginalization of the employees, but this still seemed a bit over the top. Thanks for pointing that out.
The marginalization and politicization of career employees was at a lot of departments in the last administration, probably most egregiously in the Justice department.
Just after the John Ashcroft hospital incident the entire second and third tier of employees at the Justice Department threatened to resign en masse. It scared the shit out of 43.
-
Huh. I hadn't heard about that. Reading up on it now, quite interesting.
-
Article 7 of The Constitution says that religion among other things cannot be used to determine whether or not a person should be hired for a federal position. When Bush nominated Harriett Myers, he said everyone should be happy, because she's a good christian who goes to church every week.
Miers was clearly a stalking-horse for... Roberts or Alito? I forget which one got nominated once she was withdrawn.
Just to play devil's advocate, I don't think it was necessarily unconstitutional to SAY Miers was a good Christian. Bush is a Christian and makes no bones about it, so in his opinion, that makes her a good choice. Unless he said "I picked her because she's a Christian" (and maybe he actually did; I don't remember that far back) he was just expressing an opinion.
If that's why Bush picked Miers, he's even dumber than I thought. Besides all of the political flack he caught for it, Alito ended up having a very tough time. The Dems were pissed at her nomination and ran Alito through hell.
President Bush suggested Wednesday that Harriet Miers' evangelical Christian beliefs were part of the reason he nominated her to the Supreme Court. But later a White House spokesman said her religion played no role in her selection.
-
Just after the John Ashcroft hospital incident the entire second and third tier of employees at the Justice Department threatened to resign en masse. It scared the shit out of 43.
For the lazy: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/15/AR2007051500864.html
-
Is Hillary Clinton giving a stump speech? I thought she was Secretary of State.
Only to stay relevant until 2010 or so, when she can start testing the waters for president in 2012, despite being in the same party as the president.
I'm just glad Obama got the nomination this year instead of Hillary, because that woman worries me.