#because to me each VA also has a bias towards something

[inavagrant-a]

I love how Wanderer’s Korean VA always sounds like he’s pissed off about something as he should, awraxa.

[murasaki-murasame]

I’ve seen a lot of people being like “but how could Mascula have even worked as a playable adventurer when he’s a pacifist?” so let’s go over some options for how he could have been a playable adventurer without ‘contradicting’ his pacifism.

[I’m just gonna put this under a cut since it got long]

1: Literally just make him a healer. That’s like the bare minimum you need to do to give him a playable role based around helping people. He doesn’t even necessarily need to be a staff unit to be a healer. I’ve been wanting them to experiment with having healer characters that have weapon types other than staffs, and he would have been a great candidate for that. They could have even given him a defensive coability instead of the usual blade one.

2: Make him a dedicated buffer unit like Emma, and make both of his skills into different types of team buffs.

3: Make him a dedicated debuffer like Delphi, and make his skills do stuff like stunning the enemy or directing aggro toward him. Maybe they could go the whole nine yards and have his regular attacks not actually do any damage, but inflict some sort of status effect or something, with the rest of his kit being tuned to make up for his lack of strength. Or they could give him a permanent strength debuff, also like Delphi.

4: They could just give him a character arc where he accepts the fact that hardline pacifism doesn’t work in times of war, and so he reluctantly accepts the idea of taking up the blade until true peace can be made.

Side note: I really don’t care about any of the reasons why he ‘wouldn’t make sense as a playable adventurer’ when we have characters in the game like Elias, Pia, Lathna, Noelle, and Emma. I don’t even have any sort of issue with those types of characters being playable and being used to fight dragons and shit, I just think it goes to show that it really doesn’t matter if a character engaging in combat doesn’t really make sense based on their characterization, age, or whatever.

There’s so many things they could have done to make him work as a playable adventurer, and the only reason he isn’t one is because they chose not to make him one.

They also didn’t actually kill him off so honestly nothing’s stopping them from just having one of the various scientist characters in the cast study Laxi’s body and figure out how to put Mascula back into his own body. Again, the bottom line is that they’re just choosing to sideline him, not because their hands are somehow magically bound by the sheer power of his characterization and there’s nothing they could do about it even if they wanted to.

And for the record, I’ve read Laxi’s adventurer story and it just solidified everything about why I dislike Laxi as a character and why I think both her and Mascula suffer as characters due to being shoved into the same body. Laxi’s personality is basically just ‘remember 2B? From Nier Automata? She was pretty cool, wasn’t she???’, and like 80% of her own adventurer story is focused on Mascula instead of her. While at the same time Mascula literally can’t be his own character anymore because he’s stuck in Laxi’s body, and even by the end of Laxi’s adventurer story it feels like his pacifism is a character flaw that hasn’t meaningfully been challenged or ‘dealt with’. I’m pretty sure that right at the end of the story he’s still complaining about Laxi stepping on flowers, just to hammer in the fact that he’s still irrationally pacifistic and that hasn’t really changed. I think they both weigh each other down and keep each other from being their own, complete characters because of the situation they got stuck in, and I think that’s really frustrating. I think Laxi actually has a lot of potential to be a genuinely good character, and I like her sibling banter with Mascula in concept, but in practice she just feels like a very hollow and thinly sketched out character. And Mascula just got the short end of the stick in general. At least in the English version, he doesn’t even have his own voice, since in Laxi’s voiced lines they just have her VA put on this really fake-sounding male voice when she’s meant to be voicing Mascula. Which feels almost insulting, lmao.

I’m also well aware that the end of Laxi’s adventurer story hints at there being something up with Maestro, but that’s just a completely nebulous question mark at the moment with no real indication of what’s going on with it. I’m not exactly gonna hold my breath and hope that it has something to do with them continuing their story down the track in a way that involves Mascula getting his own body again, so really I don’t have any real opinion toward it. It might lead somewhere, or it might not. Who knows!

At this point I’m just ranting again, but still, this just feels like a frustrating mess of missed opportunities. Though tbh at the end of the day I think that if everything else about the game was perfectly fine, I’d be more willing to let this sorta thing slide, but since this is just one mess on top of a whole list of other things that have been going wrong with the game lately [expert/master high dragon trials, time attack rankings, HDT weapons, everything to do with Gala Cleo, augments as a gameplay mechanic in general, strings of reruns, the Megaman event being disappointing, and to a lesser extent the notable bias toward female characters], it’s much harder to have patience for it.

I’ve also seen lots of people being all doom and gloom lately about how the game’s not super profitable for Cygames, and I’m just here like ‘seriously Cygames, I will literally give you real money if you at least just let me play as Mascula’, but I doubt they’re gonna give me that option, lol. I already spend money on this game so I’m not even exaggerating when I say that I’d be perfectly happy to spend real money on Mascula if they gave me the choice to.

[totaldramafan-lauri]

Here we are in the future, once again!

Iiiiiiiit’s baaaaaaack~!

SU Future is back, and given how long hiatuses could get in the past, this one was honestly not that bad! Now, am I ready for the show to end? ....No, not at all. But, I WAS ready to get the ball rolling again, since we were left off on such a sour note, so....I’m glad it came back.

I’m especially glad now, since these new episodes were really really good! They brought back what I love about this show, meaning they weren’t only full of heart, but also FUN! Eat that, Little Graduation!

Not only that, but they also gave me my biggest freakout moment YET....so, th-that’s a thing, heh.....

In Dreams: This episode was a GREAT return to form, with the great mix of humor and heart that I love from my SU! I adore Peridot, so seeing her get this much focus was something I really loved seeing! And seeing her and Steven rant about their show changing too much and the main couple having no chemistry....It kinda gave me flashbacks to my original fandom on here, with how that show would change character casts every season, and having an unpleaseable fanbase......Is that a good thing? I guess, since it means it’s relatable to me? Eh, it was mainly just an observation. Either way, PERIDOT! So much Peridot! Even though the focus was still on Steven, having her around and giving her time to be her dorky, lovable self during this was just what I needed after what the last two episodes pulled. So thank you for being you, Peri! And of course, seeing a character actually console Steven and let him know she doesn’t wanna leave him was really satisfying.....he needed that a LOT. That moment between them at the end was genuinely touching, and it makes me kinda feel bad that while it was happening, I wasn’t completely focused on it....b-because of what.....c-came immediately beforehand......Even when that touching conversation was happening, what was going through my mind was......

.......S-Steven mentioned....Spinel.....

He actually said her name, for the first time since she left.

After the missed opportunities to do so in past episodes (even though her mark on city remained), we finally. Have. A mention.

10/10 BEST EPISODE YET! <3

.....OK, that’s not entirely true from an unbiased standpoint, but I can’t deny it.....I flipped out at that. In my last review post, I mentioned how I’ve accepted that Future is Steven’s story and that getting everything I want would be unreasonable, so I gotta start lowering my expectations. Sh-she’s not on Earth, the story is on Earth, and she likely won’t ever have another speaking role again unless they get a replacement VA which is.....a bad idea.....and given how much I’ve talked about worrying about her becoming boring due to not being a villain anymore, not getting any outright focus episodes is probably a blessing in disguise....

.....So......j-just having her acknowledged.....this is good. This’ll do....

(Until we see the Diamonds again and get a possible cameo alongside them? Heheh......>///////>)

S-so, yeah. Uh, very enjoyable episode. One of the best so far. And that’s even disregarding the.....admittedly tiny thing that made me lose it......>////////>

Bismuth Casual: Otherwise known as the Try-Not-To-Ship Challenge. This episode brought me even more stuff I missed, so it made me really happy! I’ve wanted more Bismuth for a while. I like her a LOT. Pretty much every single appearance she’s had since Made Of Honor has been awesome! And while this episode didn’t have her belting out one of my favorite songs like in the movie, it did give us more details about her......well, mainly one. She can get flustered! That’s so cute! This really tough blacksmith getting all blushy was pretty dang adorable. And her just coming to support Pearl......just.....her and Pearl in general.....UGH, I feel so torn! On one hand, they’re really cute, and watching them at the end made my shipping senses go crazy (the way Bismuth looked at her through the whole episode didn’t help), but......dang it, I thought I had decided on Pearlfriends as my “Pearl loves again” ship! Pearl and Volleyball were so perfect! Seeing her help someone else move on after she finally did, UGH, I love it! But.....when it comes down to it.....I just like Bismuth as a character a lot more. And....their chemistry is undeniable. Even back in Bismuth’s debut episode it was there. They’ve known each other for centuries....Pearl is always so happy to see Bismuth, and here, we see it’s the other way around, too. Bispearl is a good ship. No way around it. I love it. I ship it.

Not only did this episode grant us that greatness, but it also gave us more Connie! And dear GOD was this something Steven needed. I had even said before that if anyone could pull Steven out of his downward spiral, it’s Connie, and I was right! It took some time, though.....Can I just say that Steven struggling to talk to humans again was relatable as HECK? I mean, obviously, I’m not half alien, but....sometimes it FEELS like I am, or I might as well be with my social skills. Except Steven actually has an excuse - that most of his relationships recently have been with Gems, so he can’t really relate to humans as much. And that sucks, because he DESERVES to feel human again. Connie being there for him, just like with Peridot, was great. I’ve always shipped them, so seeing her pull him back up only solidified that. One of the best things about this pair of episodes is that Steven ends them off HAPPY.....

......Aaaaaaand there are a bunch of episodes left. But....l-let him have this!

I pretty much only have one complaint about this episode, and that’s that they missed an opportunity to bring back Mystery Girl as part of Pearl’s human friends. But that’s really just a nitpick.

.....Dang, these two episodes gave me a LOT to talk about......Sorry for rambling, but....I enjoyed watching these! I can’t really choose which I liked more (removing the bias toward that one tiny thing in In Dreams)! They were fun and satisfying, and brought back characters I missed! I hope the next ones will be just as good!

[voltron-origin-blog]

Voltron Season 8 My Take On It

I didn't like it. I didn't like the way they brushed aside earlier plot points like nothing. I didn't like the Allurance that was incredibly forced. I didn't like how entire characters were brushed aside for characterization. I didnt like how my favorite ship kallura and plance didn't happen. I didn't like how rushed the ending was without any context for what was happening in the future. And most of all I didn't like how they killed Allura.

I will apologize first and foremost for my bias towards Kallura and Plance. It may bitter my view currently towards any other ship but if written well even I could congratulate the ship and be happy in it's success. Allurance was not written well. There was always the issue of their two dreams not intersecting. Allura wanted to revive her father's Altean Kingdom and Lance wanted to go home to earth and his family. To have either give up their dream would be character breaking and OOC. In canon they dealt with this issue by killing Allura which infuriates me to a whole other level but I will get to that later. I also don't understand how Allura chose him first. The creators were explicit in saying that the one who would choose Lance would choose him first. Allura knew about his feelings and still chose Lotor first. I also don't enjoy the nice guy trope. That if a guy contiues to pursue even when the woman says no as long as he sticks around long enough the woman will choose him. This is an outdated view and not a healthy one for our modern society. It took seven seasons before feelings were reciprocated and it was done after a heartbreak which made it feel more like a rebound/safety net for Allura than a genuine relationship. I also didn't like how at every turn Lance was made to feel like he wasn't good enough. The truth is he was always good enough. He was sweet and caring and an all around great family man. Him being "just a Cuban boy" shouldn't be an insult. All of us are proud of him for the things he was. Not the fake personality of a ladies man. And finally at the end of the day they made Allurance endgame to only rip it out in a way that made him suffer. I cannot forgive making a sweet boy suffer like that.

The reasons I liked Kallura and Plance besides the obvious ones of them being incredibly sweet and adorable was that they made sense. They made sense plot wise and character wise.

Starting with Kallura you had Keith and Allura. Both are the outsiders of the group. Both are aliens. Both were on the same page when it came to strategy and tactics. And Both suffered the loss of their parents. They were so alike in so many ways. And that may have been the reason that out of all the paladins the one who broke down his walls first was Allura. She cared for him and he her. They supported one another and when one faced turmoil they did their best to console the other. And out of all the paladins Allura was affected the most by Keith leaving. And for Keith out of all the rest it was her acceptance of him that he yearned for. Keith traveled the farthest away from her and his path led him not only to the Alteans who were what she desired most in the universe but to evidence of Lotors betrayal. That along with the many parallels and scenes of them beside each other led us to believe there had to be something there. When Season 7 came around and they fought it was brutal but eye opening. She was angry he left and he was angry she got so close to Lotor. To many of us that conflict was unresolved and a chance for more talking and bonding that would lead to something more. Now I cannot help but look back and see that maybe the writers only did this to justify her loving another. It didn't help that many of the voltron books reinforced this idea by their own bios. Allura wanted to rebuild what her father had created with the coalition and Keith, out of all the earth born paladins, did not feel at home on his birth planet. To him there was no family left there. He had no attachments and it looked like his future lay in the stars with the BOM. It made sense that the one who broke down his walls and who he had felt closest to besides Shiro would be the one he had feelings for. It seems all these hints were for naught.

Lance was a simple Cuban boy with a massive heart. His goal in life was to go back to his family on earth that he loved dearly. He was always chasing the princess to no avail and made to feel lesser because he is just a simple Cuban boy. We all know he is far much more than that. It would have been wonderful if he had realized that Allura was not the girl for him. That he didn't need to have this "prize" to feel validated. He was already an amazing character. There was another girl beside him. A girl who was his best friend. A girl who accepted all of Lance and not just the fake personas he put up. A girl who took her time to explain science in a way he understood. And he in turn gave his best effort to understand that science. He accepted her the way she was and understood that this nerdy girl was amazing to the point where he believed in her intelligence almost without question. The girl I talk about is Pidge. Time and again they bonded over video games. Time and again they fought to protect each other. And they both had values that family was incredibly important meaning that them going back to earth together made sense. It would have been liberating to see a nerdy girl finally get the love she deserves. A girl who was considered an outcast getting together with this popular kid who didn't see being nerdy as being a fault but an incredible trait. This did not happen. It was frustrating because it seemed like we were teased to no end that this would happen. Whether It be books exclaiming that Lance loved ladies for their brains, or his desire when he got back to earth to play video games with Pidge or even Pidge's own pain and relief at thinking Lance was dead then found out he was still alive. There was even VA comments that seemed to validate this. I'm quite sure I don't even have to mention the moments when they were enraged at their enemies when the other was being hurt. All in all this made sense. They were already best friends and they both wished to return to earth. This relationship worked adorably.

For the final season it seemed they went out of their way to restrict any bonding moments at all for the aforementioned pairings. Even sweet lovable Hunk had major moments that were swept under the rug. We had so many characters and it seemed as if the time we spent with them was short, not noteworthy or dedicated in large part to Allurance. Krolia had little to no bonding moments with her son. Shiro didn't bond with the others a lot. We hardly saw much of Matt and his new sweetheart. And the MFE pilots that were introduced to us last season had little to no fleshing out. That filler episode and the episode of their day with Axca was the best fleshing out of the MFE pilots I had seen.

The final thing is something that has infuriated me the most. They killed Allura. She sacrificed herself for the universe and all universes that have ever existed. This young woman who was kind and caring. Who time and time again sacrificed for others died in her effort to save everyone. She had lost her father, her mother, her people and her planet and still this was not enough. They had taken her crown and her identity of family amongst the paladins. They had taken away her hope of liberating her people and achieving her dream of an Altean kingdom amongst a coalition. They had broken her heart and made her angry and hateful. They have hurt her in so many ways its ridiculous. It feels at this moment that they killed her so they wouldn't have to deal with complications of Lance and Allura's relationship going forward because the only way that relationship was going to move forward was if they did some character breaking action like giving up on their dreams. And now I sympathize with those who are WOCs. They had this great WOC who many could look up to. She was brave and strong. She was loving and a paragon in her own right. To see her torn down and then murdered is wrong.

To be honest I'm a bit heartbroken. I had so much time and emotion invested in this show to just feel empty. There were good parts to be sure but overall I'm disappointed by this. This was supposed to be the be all end all of finales and now I can't help but question why? Why did I spend so much time on a show I loved dearly if they were going to end it this way. Why did I invest in this so much If I was going be confused, angry, sad and empty. The one thing I can be glad about is that I found a wonderful community to be in. If you stayed this long thank you for listening and I hope you feel better about this than I do.

[go-our-own-ways]

Rewatching Kinpri SSS to feel better in general...I had started already while eating dinner today and finished episode 1, and I just finished episode 4, haha. Honestly, for all the shit the comments may say about the series, it’s such a warm and heartfelt series that I can’t help but go back to it... 

It makes me smile so much, you know? And every time we get to see each character’s story, I felt so happy to get to know them a little bit better, and also felt moved by their various histories... I dunno, it’s just a nice feeling... 

Plus, the art and the music were so good...like...you could really feel the amount of love and care that went into making SSS into a reality...as if the entire staff was like, “Finally, we can have an anime!” and put all their heart and soul into it, you know? Watching something where you can see and feel that kind of love and sentiment...it’s a great feeling... 

An aside, but as I’m watching this, I’ve reaffirmed for myself that yes, I really wish we got a prism show for the opening song (Shiny Seven Stars), yes my favorite song is Taiga’s, and yes my favorite character is Kakeru (even if by a tiny margin because Taiga is a super close second). Taiga’s song being my favorite is mainly because 1) Hatanaka Tasuku’s singing is out of this world even without my bias coloring my opinion, and 2) The music genre/style is just more my jam compared to all the other songs. A close second is Orange Flamingo because 1) It’s catchy as FUCK, 2) The visual imagery is hilarious and I remember it every time I hear the song which therefore puts a smile on my face, and 3) My Kakeru (well, and also CV Yashiro Taku) bias is extremely strong. And then in third I’d say is probably Joji’s Joker Kiss because 1) The style/genre is more in line with what I tend to like, 2) I actually really liked Ace a lot so by extension I kinda have to like Joji, and 3) I really liked the scene when the song got performed and the plot development happened...so listening to the song is a nice reminder of that scene. But then after having seen the SSS Super Live, I like these songs Even More now because of recalling the seiyuu’s various performances, lmao. ESPECIALLY Taku’s live performance of Orange Flamingo oh my god lmfao HE ACTUALLY HAD A PINK FAN. AND THEY REALLY MADE IT RAIN KAKERU DOLLARS LIKE... YES THANK YOU LMFAO. 

Going back to characters, it’s really hard to hate any of the main seven, tbh, especially after watching the anime. For instance, I used to feel like 0.1 things about Minato, but the anime made me finally understand his history and motivations, and truly see him as an important character of the series. Yeah, he might have a mostly supporting role, and he might not be flashy, but that doesn’t make him any less important. Also, the whole ordeal about feeling responsible towards the family, and yet having your own goals and aspirations, but then also feeling like you’re not enough to get to where you want to be... WHAT A GODDAMN MOOOOOOOD... So yeah Minato wins most relatable character award for me, lol. And then there’s Leo, who I almost disliked because of the excessive girliness (a personal preference mind you; totally fine if that’s just how he wants to be). But then I saw his episode, and was practically in tears because of the personal revelations he goes through in the episode. Like YAS we stan this up and coming QUEEN who is COMFORTABLE in his own skin and does WHATEVER THE HELL he wants with his style and looks because he is Leo and he is himself! 

And on that note, really the representation of gender and romantic diversity is really, really awesome. It’s there, and it’s blatantly obvious, and it’s not put in a fetish-y light, which is absolutely fantastic. Plus, it’s hilarious but amazing how each installment feels increasingly more gay (in a good way) lmfa. I love it so much, and look forward to possibly seeing other relationships coming to fruition asides from Louis and Shin’s. (’: 

Ugh god I just love this series a lot... and all the voice actors who are in it... And then on top of that I already liked Taku and Tasuku a lot (Kakeru and Taiga’s VAs), and they seem to be pretty good friends behind the scenes, so I really enjoy seeing their various on stage/in front of the camera interactions... You can really feel how chummy they are with each other and I really appreciate that, given the characters that they play. And really all the voice actors seem to really get along with each other so well... seeing them all collectively (lovingly) bully Masashi is always great fun, plus seeing Masashi just straight up get real emotional and passionate about Kinpri every single dang time he’s on stage is hilarious and amazing. 

There’s so much I appreciate about this franchise that I’m not even sure if I’m really being articulate enough. I’m not a diehard fan like the folks who faithfully play the game every day, or the folks who translate the game stories and magazine interviews, and it’s not like I’m rewatching the movies and the anime all the time or listening to the music 24/7. I also don’t love it so much that I’d go and watch all of Rainbow Live for added context to the universe that Kinpri is set in. But I’d like to think that this franchise has touched my heart in a way that is undeniable...I’ve felt it and I’ve recognized it, and I hope that others can see that for me, but also feel it for themselves, too. 

[luucarii]

Fire Emblem Echoes Ramblings

Okaysss so hopefully this won’t be as long as my Persona 5 Ramblings (I’m honestly going to start a “Rambling” series where I just give my opinions on games and anime and just other shit soo)

spoilers and bitching abroad my friends.

edit: most of my bitching is toward the story not the game itself. The gameplay is amazing, save for some few nitpicks I mention down below.

Fire Emblem Echoes. A game I’m extremely conflicted about. Now, this is coming from someone who has only played Awakening and Fates. Echoes was… okay. I don’t think I’ll go back to replay it for a while. Like a long, long while.

Echoes physically drained me after about Act 3. Maybe it was because I was a little high on Persona 5 at the time, maybe it was because I was finishing up school. I don’t know for sure.

Everything just grew so repetitive. The constant “rout the enemy” missions, the lack of memorable map layouts, the lack of memorable anything really. Nothing really stood out to me.

The story, was an extreme slow burn and the amount of exposition was incredible for how simple the overall layout was. The title screen cutscene that plays where Alm and Celica are talking about Duma and Mila perfectly explain what the whole game is going to have you accomplish. Duma’s the bad God and is going mad and with the help of Mila you (or Alm and Celica) are going to have to put him down. I get why they had to have all this fluff in the beginning with the prologue (to establish Alm and Celica’s relationship even though their relationship wasn’t exactly executed properly I feel but I’ll get into that later) but all the other shit involved like why Alm has a Brand and the Masked Man (two “plot twists” that literally anyone could have seen coming - YOU GET THE MEMORY OF CONRAD’S “DEATH” THE BATTLE BEFORE/AFTER YOU MEET HIM HOLY SHIT ITS SO OBVIOUS) was just a bore to me.

The battles were quickly forgotten as well as the named villains you fight. Besides Berkut (who is probably the best villain in the damn game even if he isn’t the main antagonist) and Jedah (who was obviously the main antagonist considering all the cutscenes he was in) I literally only remember Fernand because of his death near the end of the last dungeon. Everyone else who had names and who you were forced to fight are just footnotes because there’s nothing memorable about them. They’re just commanders for Rudolf’s army or are apart of the Duma faithful. Removing their names wouldn’t affect the plot at all.

I feel like the plot as a whole was an attempt to make a simple plot more complex and failed in process. It’s literally a Mila vs Duma fight but all this extra stuff made it drag on longer than my 33ish hours of playtime. And I’m very disappointed because after Fates and Awakening (two games that I genuinely enjoyed) I was looking forward to Echoes. From the trailers and screenshots I was interested in the whole concept of dueling gods but the execution was just subpar for me.

Now, I have one more gripe with the overall story. Alm and Celica. Specifically their relationship. In my personal opinion, Alm and Celica’s relationship seems so forced from the minute the prologue starts. I’ll admit there are a few sparing cute moments here and there but I feel they’re quickly overshadowed once you realize they had only been friends for maybe a good 3-5ish years as children before Mycen took Celica away. You honestly expect me to believe that they continued to want to see each other after 8+ years of being apart? You honestly expect Alm, Gray, Tobin, Faye, everyone to remember Celica from childhood when she was taken away from them at such a young age? I… I just can’t buy it. You can also argue that their fates were intertwined since they both have the Brand and they are the “Children of Fate” but I still can’t swallow that without any lingering thought of bullshit. I never shipped Alm and Celica because I can’t see any actual romantic development with them besides them obviously caring about each other. The fight at the beginning was just a plot device to drive them away from each other and having Celica get momentarily possessed at the end and have Alm kill her was just another cliche and having Mila save her (when to be honest, Celica was better off dead) just made me shrug and say “she’s one of the main protagonists, obviously she won’t die.”

Guys, Nintendo. If you’re going to establish a relationship in one of your games, for fuck’s sake make it at least somewhat likable. Shulk and Fiora (even though Fiora can get a bit bitchy sometimes), Reyn and Sharla both from Xenoblade Chronicles, Link and Zelda from Skyward Sword (specifically). These relationships had development. They grew. Yeah, they had a fight here and there but that wasn’t the only basis as to why they’re loved as a couple. Shulk and Fiora while yes they had their fair bit of problems (mostly the whole revenge relationship plot) you can still see them let their hair down and have fun and Fiora teases Shulk a lot throughout the game. Reyn and Sharla start as a sort of friends while Reyn has to work himself to show Sharla that he can be a man to take care of her after the stuff with Sharla’s fiancé (story shit I won’t get into because spoilers). Link and Zelda (while if only in the first few cutscenes) you can see Zelda poke fun at Link, you can see the care she has for him, HELL THEY EVEN HAVE A FAKEOUT KISS AT THE BEGINNING. During SS you see Zelda grow as she begins to realize her role and Link meanwhile is risking his life all for her, all so he can get back to her.

Alm and Celica, I feel, have none of this. Guys, having them fight at the beginning of the game just to drive a wedge in between them and have them come back together at the end doesn’t make them a good couple if the reason for the fight was overall shit and hypocritical on Celica’s part.  Just… ugh. I’m sorry to any Alm/Celica shippers but I just don’t like them together.

Maybe it’s my bias because I really really don’t like Celica as a character but either way I don’t ship Alm/Celica and there’s nothing that can convince me that they’re good together.

Now, this is already long enough so I’ll sum up the rest of things about  Echoes that disappointed me.

The Supports. Don’t get me wrong, the voice acting is absolutely amazing, one of the best I’ve seen this year. But just… the lack of them compared to Fates and Awakening is so disappointing. Now I get Echoes was based off one of the older games so it’s not completely fair to compare the supports to that of recent games but there’s literally a maximum of 3 supports per character and the supports do literally nothing to show off character. Fates and Awakening’s supports had 3 (4 if it was a marriage support) short bursts of dialogue away from the main game to establish character, likes, dislikes, compatibility with other characters the works. These supports, if anything, are lighthearted pieces of fluff to distract from the somewhat serious tone of the game.

Enemy Variety and Class Variety. Again more I can’t exactly complain about since Echoes was based off an older game and thus took aspects from said older game. But… the amount of Dread Fighters and Barons I saw in the last dungeon just made me hate the classes as a whole (despite two of my best boys Tobin and Kamui being Dread Fighters with Brave Swords who fucked EVERYONE up with crits). Fates and Awakening had such a fun cast of classes, my favorites being Nohr Noble and Assassin and dropping the number of classes just… ugh.

Also, one last quick note. The suddenly difficulty spike is one of the main reasons I considered dropping the game midway through. I played on Normal/Casual (I’m still a newbie leave me alone…) and although I died once, there was a bunch of times where I was sitting in frustration of not knowing what to do. Though as a strategy game, you’re kinda suppose to do that so…

OKAY ENOUGH BITCHING ABOUT THIS GAME, LETS GET INTO THE SHIT I LIKED…which is going to be a few short paragraphs…

The Voice Acting. Holy shit the voice acting. Not only is it featuring some of my favorites (Cherami Leigh, Max Mittelman and the like) but nearly every line is spoken beautifully. Special props to Alm’s voice actor Kyle McCarley who brought me to near tears with some of his lines. Absolutely incredible.

Bows!!! BOWS ARE ACTUALLY GETTING LOVE! I rarely used archers in Awakening but I did pick up using them in Fates (Takumi and Kiragi are incredible) and I fell in love with them here in Echoes. Finally they’re not just limited to 2 spaces and they can hit as far as 5 and just… Python and Leon were my main favorites.

Dungeons. It’s a nice break between battles and they’re interesting locals. But please, Celica, that weird squeak that you have while attacking… just… please stop.

The Design. The character design is something I can’t NOT praise. Everyone looks incredible. While the cutscenes I feel lag a little compared to Fates and Awakening you can’t deny they still look amazing for a 3Ds game.

The Soundtrack. I’m a sucker for good music (one of the reasons why I love XC, Okami, Botw and the like) and a good majority of the tracks on the ost I’m completely in love with. The credits theme especially “The Heritors of Arcadia.” Props to Bonnie Gordon (Silque’s VA) she did an amazing job.

Verdict. Overall, Echoes was okay for me. It was different compared to Fates and Awakening and I knew that going in. I knew there was no marriage system, I knew they were getting rid of the weapon triangle, I knew it was going to be similar to the older games to close divide between the fans before Awakening and after Awakening. And it was a good different in some ways but in most other ways just disappointed me. The fact that I had to force myself to marathon the last dungeon just so I could finish the damn game speaks miles. I was drained. I didn’t want to continue but I did just for the sake of saying I beat it. It didn’t feel like 30 hours of game play for me, it felt like months (which in actuality was nearly two). Like I mentioned, I doubt I’ll pick this game up again anytime soon (while Fates I replayed and beat nearly 6+ times, 2 for each path and Awakening I’ve replayed maybe 3 times I can’t remember). It could’ve been so much more, I feel, if they didn’t try to shove Alm/Celica down my throat and if we could have had some more character development. But eh, that’s just me.

ALSO IM REALLY HAPPY MAE AND BOEY ENDED UP TOGETHER.

[theliberaltony]

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

This year’s midterm hasn’t really featured the “model wars” we saw in 2014 or 2016 — heated arguments between different election forecasters, whose projections sometimes showed very different results. Instead, the various election models and forecasts have largely told the same story, one where Democrats are solid-but-not-certain favorites to win the House, and the same is true for Republicans in the Senate.

But there have been some differences of opinion, and one of them concerns what sorts of districts Democrats are most likely to pick up in the House. Under one theory, the midterms are mostly a referendum on President Trump. This theory posits that Democrats are likely to do especially well in districts – often racially diverse and urban or suburban – that have shifted toward Democrats recently, such as the 13 districts that voted for Mitt Romney in 2012 but Hillary Clinton in 2016. Conversely, Democrats might struggle to make gains, the theory would say, in the largely rural and white districts that have shifted the most toward Republicans recently – like the 21 districts that voted for Barack Obama in 2012 but Trump in 2016.

A contrary theory is that midterms are mostly about reversion to the mean, and about voters trying to balance power between the two political parties. Under this theory, districts that have recently swung toward Trump but were purple enough to vote for Obama in 2012 might be trouble spots for Republicans. That’s because they tend to be “swingy” (or elastic) districts, and they don’t necessarily have a lot of long-term loyalty to the Republican Party. Moreover, to the extent Trump won these states and districts on the basis of marginal, late-deciding voters — something that was true in the Midwest, which is home to many of the Obama-Trump districts — those voters might not be as reliable for Republicans in 2018. Sometimes the most recent voters to enter your coalition are the first ones to head right back out.

These theories aren’t entirely mutually exclusive. The House playing field is quite broad, with Democrats having opportunities in all different types of Republican-held districts; that’s part of what makes their opportunity for gaining a majority more robust. Nonetheless, the Romney-Clinton districts have been the subject of an awful lot of attention and even talk of a “suburban tsunami”; the Obama-Trump districts, less so.

The thing is, though, if you actually look at the polls … Democrats are doing just as well in the Obama-Trump districts. Probably a little better, in fact. First, here are FiveThirtyEight’s current adjusted polling averages in the Romney-Clinton districts, all of which have at least one poll:

Who’s ahead in Romney-Clinton districts?

Polling averages as of 12 p.m. on Oct. 24

Presidential Result In: District Incumbent Poll Average 2016 2012 AZ-2 — D+11.2 D+4.9 R+1.5 CA-25 R 0 D+6.7 R+1.8 CA-39 — R+0.7 D+8.6 R+3.7 CA-45 R D+1.2 D+5.4 R+11.8 CA-48 R R+1.7 D+1.7 R+11.7 CA-49 — D+13.3 D+7.5 R+6.5 IL-6 R R+1.0 D+7.0 R+8.2 KS-3 R D+7.5 D+1.2 R+9.5 NJ-7 R D+1.4 D+1.1 R+6.2 TX-7 R R+4.0 D+1.4 R+21.3 TX-23 R R+15.9 D+3.4 R+2.6 TX-32 R D+0.3 D+1.9 R+15.5 VA-10 R D+7.7 D+10.0 R+1.1 Average D+1.5 D+4.7 R+7.8

On average, Democrats lead by 1.5 percentage points in polls of these districts. That’s pretty good given that most of them feature Republican incumbents, among whom only Rep. Will Hurd in Texas 23 has a decisive lead in the polls. But it’s also not spectacular. Clinton won these districts by 4.7 percentage points on average — more than Democratic Congressional candidates are leading them by (although Obama lost them by an average of 7.8 points).

And here are the Obama-Trump districts … and the Obama-Trump states! Trump won six states that Obama had carried in 2012, five of which — Iowa is the exception — feature a U.S. Senate race this year.Clinton didn’t win any Romney states[/footnotes].

Who’s ahead in Obama-Trump districts (and states)?

Polling averages as of 12 p.m. on Oct. 24

Presidential Result In: District Incumbent Polling Average 2016 2012 IA-1 R D+9.6 R+3.5 D+13.7 IA-2 D D+16.6 R+4.1 D+13.1 IA-3 R R+1.3 R+3.5 D+4.2 IL-12 R R+6.5 R+14.8 D+1.6 IL-17 D *D+30.0 R+0.7 D+17.0 ME-2 R D+0.9 R+10.3 D+8.6 MN-1 — R+0.4 R+14.9 D+1.4 MN-2 R D+6.0 R+1.2 D+0.1 MN-8 — R+11.8 R+15.6 D+5.5 NH-1 — D+8.2 R+1.6 D+1.6 NJ-2 — D+25.0 R+4.6 D+8.1 NJ-3 R D+1.7 R+6.2 D+4.6 NV-3 — D+1.4 R+1.0 D+0.8 NY-1 R R+6.3 R+12.3 D+0.5 NY-2 R *R-7.8 R+9.1 D+4.4 NY-11 R R+10.2 R+9.8 D+4.3 NY-18 D *D+26.5 R+1.9 D+4.3 NY-19 R 0.0 R+6.8 D+6.2 NY-21 R R+5.9 R+13.9 D+6.1 PA-8 D D+12.8 R+9.6 D+11.9 WI-3 D *D+27.0 R+4.5 D+11.0 Average D+5.5 R+7.1 D+6.1 Presidential Result In: District Incumbent Poll Average 2016 2012 FL-Sen D D+3.4 R+1.2 D+0.9 MI-Sen D D+16.7 R+0.2 D+9.5 OH-Sen D D+13.7 R+8.1 D+3.0 PA-Sen D D+15.8 R+0.7 D+5.4 WI-Sen D D+13.1 R+0.8 D+6.9 Average D+12.5 R+2.2 D+5.1

* There’s no polling in these districts, so polling results are imputed based on our CANTOR system, which looks at polls of similar districts to infer what polling would look like in districts that don’t have any polling.

As you can see in the chart, four Obama-Trump congressional districts don’t have any polling — perhaps a sign of how they’ve received less attention from the media this year. So in those districts, I’ve used our CANTOR system, which estimates what the polls would be in those districts if we had them, based on polling in similar districts. (It’s not a perfect compromise, but three of the four districts rate as “Solid D” according to both FiveThirtyEight and the Cook Political Report, and would likely show large Democratic leads if they’d been polled, so it would bias the sample to exclude them.)

This is an eclectic mix of districts, including several that are slam dunks for Democratic incumbents and others where Republicans are pretty clear favorites. But on average, Democrats lead by 5.5 percentage points in the polls there (counting the CANTOR districts for which we’ve used imputed polls). That roughly matches Obama’s 6.1-percentage-point win in those districts in 2012 and is much better than Clinton’s 7.1-point loss. Excluding the CANTOR districts, Democrats’ average polling lead is 2.3 points in these districts.

Meanwhile, Democrats are doing extremely well in the five Obama-Trump states with Senate races this year. On average, their candidates lead by 12.5 percentage points, and only Florida’s Bill Nelson is in any real danger of losing. These candidates are all incumbents, and you’d expect incumbents to beat the partisan lean of their districts, but Obama was also an incumbent in 2012, and he won these states by an average of only 5.1 percentage points.

So for my money, Democratic performance is a little better overall in the Obama-Trump districts than in the Clinton-Romney districts. You could credibly argue that it’s about the same if you account for the fact that there are more Democratic incumbents in the former group than the latter group. But at a minimum, the polls haven’t really matched the media narrative about where Democrats are performing well.

For every Romney-Clinton district where Democrats are excelling in the polls, such as Kansas 3 or Virginia 10, there are others – Illinois 6, say, or several of the districts in California – where they have middling numbers. And while there have been a few Obama-Trump districts where Democrats’ numbers have been poor lately – particularly Minnesota 8, in Minnesota’s Iron Range – those are more the exceptions than the rule. More typical is Maine 2, a Trumpy, swingy, white, secular, rural district, where Democrat Jared Golden has moved into a tie or perhaps a slight lead in the polls against Republican incumbent Bruce Poliquin.

Another way to approach this issue is to see how correlated the polls are with presidential results from 2016 and 2012, respectively. And that’s what I’ve done in the final chart, below. I’ve run correlation coefficients between the FiveThirtyEight polling average in every House and Senate race with polling, and their results in the prior two presidential elections. The correlations are weighted based on how much polling the states and districts have, so places with more recent and more robust polling have more say in the calculation.

Congressional polls look (a bit) more like 2012 than 2016

Correlation between 2018 polling and 2016 and 2012 polling, respectively, in different kinds of races

Correlation with: Races w/Dem. incumbents Races w/GOP incumbents Open-seat races All races 2016 presidential results +0.60 +0.69 +0.57 +0.61 2012 presidential results +0.70 +0.64 +0.66 +0.74

Correlations are weighted based on the volume and recency of polling in each state or district.

Polls of this year’s Congressional races are actually more correlated with 2012 presidential results (a correlation coefficient of .74) than with 2016’s (.61). The effect is somewhat reduced if you account for the incumbency status of the districts. But based on the polling, the map looks at least as much like 2012 as 2016. Maybe the midterms elections aren’t all about Trump after all.

Not coincidentally, this was also the pattern in the various special elections around the country this year and last year: Their results were more correlated with 2012 than 2016. For instance, probably the worst result among the special elections for Democrats was Jon Ossoff in Georgia 6, the wealthy district in the Atlanta suburbs that voted for Romney by a wide margin in 2012 but nearly voted for Clinton in 2016. Democrats have multiple paths to win the House – but if they do put together a majority, don’t be surprised if their route there involves more Maine 2’s and fewer Georgia 6’s.

[ourzentasmicharmony-blog]

Giving the Elbow to Moral Outrage

The following perspective has grown out of email exchanges with a friend as we communicated how we’ve been experiencing the current political landscape. What has it brought up in (and out of) us? How are we showing up to the issues and to our feelings about them? How are we showing up to others? How are we navigating the stormy seas of discord? Are we practicing self-care? Are we practicing compassion? In the “age of moral outrage,” how can we have meaningful exchanges with others on the “opposite side” of an issue?

Such written exchanges allow me to explore patterns in how we engage with others, especially on social media. Perhaps exchanges on social media are so often framed by such adversarial, “either/or” thinking (especially those of a “political” nature) because of the new frequency at which we gut-check the information bombarding us from everywhere, and measuring countless issues against our own moral compass, pointing towards our northern star, aligning our actions with our beliefs. “This is right, that is wrong. Therefore, I will do this, but I won’t do that. I admire this, but abhor that.” (And how many of these countless issues really count as meaningful and worthy of all the energy spent on them?)

Gut-checks on such issues can happen instantaneously, and by extension, so too can our judgment of others, especially of those who don’t see things as we do. How quickly, especially on social media, do we extend our judgment well beyond events and issues and onto other people, many of whom we know quite well? How swiftly and carelessly do we throw about labels, not just to describe or categorize things, but to define fellow humans, and end up judging each other? When we instantly judge the other, is it done with consideration of the values and experiences of the individual, or only by considering our own values and experiences, and our assumptions of the people who hold such different views? How often do we negate others with our judgments? With our speaking? With our actions? And not just negate their opinions on a matter, but negate their beliefs, their experiences, their very existence?  

Have we allowed our anger and fear over the dehumanizing of certain groups by other groups, to blind us to our own growing intolerance? Are we allowing ourselves to become intolerant of not just certain ideas, or the dehumanizing ideas promoted by specific groups of people, but of people themselves? Aren’t we showing an intolerance towards individuals, friends as well as strangers, and thereby creating foes, each time we show up to a showdown of words on social media, raining bullets all around us, and wounding others, even as we denounce such intolerance?

What are the consequences of negating the experiences and feelings of others? Of excluding the opinions and voices of those who place a different value on things than we do? (Have we forgotten that holding a different value is not equivalent to seeing no value at all in something? So why must we react as such?) What happens to our society when we cannot tolerate even hearing out the thoughts of someone with a different perspective? What does it cost us to hear them out? What does it cost us when we don’t? How do we communicate through such a sharp “political divide,” without sharpening our own weapons and brandishing them with moral superiority as soon as we’re baited? (And doesn’t our growing intolerance just provide people who disagree with our views greater opportunities to slap the label of “hypocrite” on us, and completely negate us? 

Is it even possible for us to experience civil discourse and truly discuss an issue through a real exchange of ideas anymore? I believe the answer to that question is a resounding yes. Yes, and it may not be easy, but it is possible. Yes, and it starts with taking personal responsibility. Yes, and I can begin with small steps. Yes, and it will take me responding to others in ways I’m not yet practiced. Yes, and I can show up to others in new ways to create this experience for myself and others. Yes, and it will take more effort, but I believe it is worth it!

To begin the shift towards creating a different experience, I’ve increasingly turned towards searching for the shades of grey in the issues that seem to be only “black or white.” Shifting away from declarations and pronouncements and towards curiosity and offerings, I’m taking small steps towards “the other” with less judgment and more compassion as I practice “the nudge” towards more common ground.

Elbowing with Empathy

The following is an example of how I show up on social media with small, shaky steps towards keeping judgment on the issues, not the people. A dear cousin of mine, who believes we should “free our minds” from what the media dictates (an opinion we share), posted an article on Facebook about media bias, (which pointed out to me some things about our own biases, including where and how they differ.) News stories posted by this cousin are most often from media sources with a conservative bias, ranging from slight to extreme bias. The article she shared in this example came from a site that is categorized as having “moderate to strong bias” by mediabiasfactcheck.com. Commenting in the manner I did below, I attempted to engage someone who holds a different view of what is considered “untrustworthy media” with a nudge rather than pounding my views on her like a sledgehammer. The screenshot below shows the article she shared and my original comment on it.

Could I have phrased it differently or even posed it as a question or two or five? Yes. And had I done so, maybe her response to my comment would have been different. But this is the phrasing I used. And the immediate response by my loved one was a typical initial reaction, aimed to elicit a particular response through the use of baited phrasing (and almost all of us have done it in some form or another…)

But is her question the most pressing one to ask here? A few things caught my eye that made me think not…

Now I’m no expert on Congress, but I’m tuned in enough that I’m familiar with commonly known committees and I didn’t recognize the name “House Media Fairness Caucus.” (Of course, that’s because a caucus is not a formal committee, even though it sounds like one. It is an informal organization of Congressional members to discuss issues of mutual concern.) So, I clearly needed to learn more about this caucus, whose leaders have just stated (according to this post) that “the depth of bias by broadcast networks is putting the nation’s democracy at risk,” as was documented by this Media Research Center. (And that phrase sounds, well, alarming, doesn’t it?)  Of course, I’d learn more about this caucus before commenting about it on my cousin’s FB page, as well as learn about what the Media Research Center is (never heard of that one before either.) But first, I’d need to find out more about “CNS News” site to decide for myself how credible all this information really was.

Side note: After some basic research, here’s what I learned about the House Media Fairness Caucus: it was formed by “a dozen Republican members of Congress” in 2009 led by Lamar Smith (TX), and currently co-chaired by Smith and Alex Mooney (VA); and its purpose, as stated on Congressman Smith’s official house.gov page, is to “encourage the media to adhere to the highest standards of their profession, and to provide the American people with the facts, not tell them what to think.” Interesting though, that the source of this article posted by my cousin comes directly from the blog page of the Media Research Center. Yes indeed, that is the very organization that generated this “alarming proof” in the first place! How can that be?! Because “CNS News” is not a news source that adheres to the standards of journalism and its code of ethics. No, “CNS News” is really…(and yes, the following quote comes directly from their site…) “NewsBusters.org: a project of the Media Research Center, America’s leading media watchdog in documenting, exposing and neutralizing liberal news bias.” (My, what a gift this harmless, little writing project is, coming directly to me on Facebook from someone I love and trust, all wrapped up in a pretty bow of provocatively misleading phrases! I sure am glad this project adheres to such high standards, [whose standards?!] presenting us with facts rather than telling us what to think! Wait a minute... on second thought [can we have those?] this piece does seem to be trying to tell me what to think…Oh well, it’s not a liberal bias after all, so it’s all good!) I wonder no more about why this caucus was a new one on me as it seems to be the Congressional equivalent of a PTA meeting, only with fewer people…Ooops! I’m afraid this side note has shown more than just my sarcastic wit, but also my liberal bias! Oh dear…let me see if I can ever find my way back to my point…did I ever even have one?! (I’m such a flaky little snowflake…)

WWLD?

Of course, I have several points, and here’s my next one: just like the character Leo McGarry from The West Wing, I did not accept the premise of her question. Instead of following my cousin’s question to a place upon which she was ready to go (locked and loaded,) my next response was based in evidence that speaks to her belief in not allowing media to dictate one’s opinions. Why look at that, common ground, in a lovely shade of grey! (Until I’m struck down by the flick of an evil, magic wand for including the phrase “based in evidence.” Even so, I’d rather focus on this beautiful shade of grey, than shades of idiocracy.) Since this belief is also a part of the image reflected on her FB page, it left my cousin without a strong “push-back” towards me that squares with that image. Besides, she loves and respects me, so that is where she left it… But alas, a new voice chimed in!

There it is, right on cue, a friend who likely gathers his information from the same sources as my cousin, chimes in to show the opposition what’s what. How fun, new bait!  

BTW: I found his comment quite comical in its irony, and literally laughed out loud. (You’re about to get the joke too, I promise.) Apparently, I didn’t provide him with a sufficient reaction because when I laughed instead of biting, he didn’t laugh along, he just dangled juicier, more personal bait my way...

Yes, yes, I got a little “cheeky” there, but I wasn’t angry and hey, teachers like to have fun too! We get offered this kind of bait (in multiples) on the daily...

And that’s where this exchange ended. I didn’t hear back again on this matter from my cousin, nor her friend. There were many possibilities as to how this exchange could have gone. (Including no exchange at all, just judgmental silence on my part.) Yes, I could have done it better. And I could’ve done a lot worse too, including some damage to a treasured relationship with my cousin. Did I “win over opponents” to my “side”? Ha! As if that’s the point here! However, I believe I did achieve my goal of engaging someone who holds a different view from mine and did so in a different way – using a bit of a nudge without any moral outrage. I know, I didn’t achieve a true exchange of ideas, either. Yes, that is true. And communication did not devolve into a “tit for tat” match either, and this may all be part of laying the groundwork to get there. (There is no “one and done” in these exchanges. Just like good parenting and teaching of kids, it’s all about consistency.) No, I didn’t win over any friends either, even after sending him a “winky-face” while refraining from name-calling! (C’mon, that deserves a medal! I am a Snowflake after all, so I should at least get my participation trophy, right?) 

Seriously though, I also just may have influenced people too. Don’t know for sure, but since they both dropped the baiting tactics, let’s consider that a small victory on the road towards more compassionate communication, and keep traveling a more peaceful path. Because, well let’s get real here: neither “side” of any of these adversarial exchanges on social media are productive in the powers of persuasion. No matter how logically sound, or cleverly phrased an argument is, it’s still argument. How can we ever get to true civil discourse if all we’re doing is lobbing grenades at one another? We’ll even pick up grenades thrown at us and just lob them right back. Now is not the time of showing how right or how clever we are. It only looks ridiculous to the “other side” anyway. What is needed now is to use our words to build bridges across the divide and build relationships. With every exchange, express a little empathy. Sometimes all that takes is to lay down an assumption and get a little curious. So ask questions. What makes you say that? Why do you feel that way? What experience do you have with this? What information do you have that I don’t....

Bottom line: I’m not saying, “Why don’t we all just play nice?” because who cares about nice when everything else is falling apart?! Maybe we’ve “played nice” for too long already, with lots of judgmental silence just hanging in the air like odorless poison. Maybe now it’s time to get a little dirty, not with trickery, fraud, or even our cleverness, but in getting a little more comfortable with the uncomfortable. Let’s not wait another moment for “the other side” to change their minds. Let’s not wait another moment to reach out across the divide looking for allies instead of adversaries. Let’s not wait another moment to add more empathy, however awkwardly, into our “fierce conversations.” Let’s speak truth to power, and to each other, and temper it all with compassion. Perhaps if enough of us make such a shift even in small ways, we’ll all reap some benefits. Maybe just a little shake up in how we engage one another in each interaction, is the beginning of ensuring we’ll all come out of this time of divisiveness as a more united people. As more tolerant and understanding people. Maybe we are the ones we’ve been waiting for to ameliorate our collective wounds. Who knows? Anything is possible in world framed by Yes, and…

 Love & Peace,

 Z Harmony        January 4, 2018

[nancyedimick]

Liquid Constitutionalism

For the past few weeks I have been teasing progressive nonoriginalists about how, if they really want something to worry about, they should be worried about conservatives accepting living constitutionalism–that is, the very same type of political updating that progressives favor but towards the right instead of the left. “Yeah right,” I could hear them collectively saying. “It is living constitutionalism for me, but not for thee!” And yet, why need this be so? Now comes Richard Reinsch, the founding editor and director of the Liberty Fund’s online journal Law and Liberty, to weigh in against originalism from the right. In a piece he entitled, The Liquid Constitution, Mr. Reinsch attempts to identify a position that might be called “Liquid Constitutionalism.”

Mr Reinsch begins by positioning himself above the originalism-living constitutionalism debate. Indeed, he purports “to think more deeply than the framework of original-versus-living-constitution permits.” Well, by all means. Like Jack Handey, let’s all think more deeply.

As we shall see, this particular “deep thought” is weirdly relevant to our subject.

Mr. Reinsch tells us: “What should receive more discussion is the notion, expressed in The Federalist essays 37, 78, and 82, of ‘Liquidating’ the meaning of the provisions of the Constitution. Publius means by that that it is necessary to make clear terms that are apt to be contested.” This is then followed by very lengthy quotes from Publius including this well-known quote:

Here then are three sources of vague and incorrect definitions; indistinctness of the object, imperfection of the organ of perception, inadequateness of the vehicle of ideas. Any one of these must produce a certain degree of obscurity. The convention, in delineating the boundary between the federal and state jurisdictions, must have experienced the full effect of them all.

I refer to this passage as “well-known” because originalists (and nonorinalists) have been seriously examining the concept of “liquidating” meaning for quite a long time: at least since Caleb Nelson’s 2001 article, Stare Decisis and Demonstrably Erroneous Precedents, 87 Va. L. Rev. 1 (2001). Indeed, at the last University of San Diego “Originalism Works-in-Progress Conference,” University of Chicago law professor–and fellow blogger–Will Baude presented his new paper “Liquidation.” As Will can attest from the ensuing discussion, the very concept of “liquidation” is hard to nail down, much less to determine how the process of liquidating meaning is supposed to work in practice. But it is no less important a topic for the fact it is a difficult one for originalists and nonoriginalists alike to get a good handle on.

So “liquidation” is not a new subject for originalists. What then has Mr Reinsch to offer on the subject? After lengthy quotes from Publius, he writes:

Publius argues that one of the most important principles of our Constitution (federalism) is difficult to define and ring-fence. Its meaning will have to be worked out through a process of politics, decisions, settlements. This will be the appeal to the “common constituents” of Federalist 46, or the citizens of the states to whom decisions on the different allocations of power between the federal and state governments will be referred for ongoing consent. And this process doesn’t really end.

Surely this is not just a process to be undertaken by the federal judiciary in a manner that suffocates the opportunity for self-government. If the problem is that of making terms clear, then the pronouncements of the judiciary might give a definition or meaning, but this alone couldn’t “liquidate” the Constitution’s terms and provisions. Per Federalist 39, at one level the Court is a tribunal to prevent an appeal to the sword or dissolution of the compact; yet we’re told in Federalist 78 that the Court should abstain from imposing its will on the elected branches. The Court must understand that its powers are derived from the people and its judgments are to uphold the fundamental law of the Constitution and not be a substitute for the Constitution. So the judiciary must take seriously the notion that it is an “auxiliary precaution,” one that intervenes when the laws are at an “irreconcilable variance” from the Constitution. And while we let the Court’s judgments percolate, we should not regard the Court’s decisions as final, as abstract doctrines commanding assent.

I am all for the position expressed in the last sentence, but it needs some unpacking. Although it would require more than a blog post to fully develop, my view is that, while judicial “judgments” ought to be obeyed by other branches, the Court’s “opinions” are just that: its opinions. For example, a judgment that an “act” of Congress is beyond its powers and is therefore not part of “the Supreme law of the land” because not made “in pursuance” of the Constitution is properly binding on the other branches. In particular, it is binding on the executive branch who may only execute a valid law. (Exactly why this is so requires further elaboration, and the exact scope of the respective interbranch duties can become complex.) Whether or not an “opinion of the Court” as to why an act of Congress is unconstitutional is binding on inferior courts as “precedent,” in my view, such opinions are merely instructive to other branches.

Indeed, the practice of the justices agreeing to “opinions of the Court” was innovated by John Marshall in the Nineteenth Century. Previously, the justices each delivered their own opinions seriatim to explain their individual votes. In the wake of Marshall’s capacious 1819 opinion in McCulloch v. Maryland, then-President James Madison (who agreed with the judgment that the Bank was constitutional) pined for the guidance of multiple opinions:

I could have wished also that the Judges had delivered their opinions seriatim. The case was of such magnitude, in the scope given to it, as to call, if any case could do so, for the views of the subject separately taken by them. This might either by the harmony of their reasoning have produced a greater conviction in the Public mind; or by its discordance have impaired the force of the precedent now ostensibly supported by a unanimous & perfect concurrence in every argument & dictum in the judgment pronounced.

And yet, from John Marshall’s day to ours, these “opinions of the Court”–both their “argument & dictum”–have come to be treated like rules of law, their language to be parsed and followed like statutes.

But how is this concern about a form of “judicial supremacy” a critique of modern originalism? Modern originalism is a method of interpreting or discovering the communicative content of the text of the Constitution. Like all other constitutional actors, judges have a duty to follow the law. But to follow it, they must first ascertain what it means. How they are to do so is what the debate between originalists and nonoriginalists is all about–the debate that Mr. Reinsch asks us somehow to transcend, or get beneath to something “deeper.”

Although he says “we must consider then is the case for a different originalism.” his real target is originalism itself, here is his conclusion:

Progressives have looked to the Court to pave a constitutional path of egalitarianism and emancipation that eagerly departs from the text, believing, as they do, that they stand atop history and understand its architectonic flow. But originalism further enthrones the judiciary, putting our elites on the Bench, to chart a course back to the Founders. In short, we play a game of elites by relying on a few men and women in black robes. What’s the best play, though, with respect to the republican foundation of the Constitution and with regard to our long-term interests as those who value limited government? Putting authority to decide the meaning of the Constitution in the hands of the self-governing people is the superior move. (My italics.)

Set aside the fact that Mr. Reinsch is collapsing here the separate issues of ascertaining the meaning of the text vs. the appropriate role of the judiciary in our constitutional scheme. On second thought, don’t set that aside.  I wrote Restoring the Lost Constitution to address the issue of constitutional meaning, and Our Republican Constitution to address the issue of the proper judicial role in a constitutional republic. Collapsing the meaning of the Constitution with the appropriate role of the judiciary in ascertaining and enforcing that meaning against the other branches is a recipe for confusion. By obscuring what we are debating, it thereby obscures the appropriate terms of the debate.

OK, how is this is process of a “self-governing people” deciding “the meaning of the Constitution” supposed to work? Should we have a plebiscite to decide the meaning of the foundational document by majority vote? Should they be national plebiscites, or state by state (and how would the latter be operationalized)? No doubt Mr. Reinsch would reject national or state plebiscites, favoring instead putting the “authority to decide the meaning of the Constitution in the hands of” Congress and state legislatures. Yet these bodies comprised of a very small subset of “the people.” Congress is a mere 525 persons out of 318 million. And these legislative bodies are themselves supposed to be bound by the law of the Constitution, not make it. How then can it fall to them to interpret the meaning of the constraints imposed upon them? But don’t take my word that this is a problem. Listen to Publius:

No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause; because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men, are unfit to be both judges and parties, at the same time; yet, what are many of the most important acts of legislation, but so many judicial determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of single persons, but concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens; and what are the different classes of legislators, but advocates and parties to the causes which they determine?

Publius never confused “the people themselves” with their agents in the legislature. Indeed, their “republican” form of government was designed to protect the liberties of the people from their legislatures (and from other governmental actors). “We the People” are truly “self-governing” insofar as we are allowed to exercise the liberties defined by our private rights. But the founders well-knew that “We the People” do not literally “govern themselves” politically. (Recall the Declaration’s phrase “consent of the governed.”) So the Constitution was put in writing precisely so it would provide the law that governs those who govern We the People.

But this means that legislators can no more legitimately change the law that governs them without going through the amendment process of Article V–even if the judiciary improperly gives them a green light to do so–than the people can change the laws that govern them without going through the legislative process. Put another way, all legislator-agents of the people take an oath to obey “the Constitution of the United States.” To what would that oath commit them if they can “interpret” or “liquidate” the meaning of the written Constitution however they please?

To ascertain the proper role of the judiciary in this system we need to begin by reading the text of the Constitution. Which returns us to the questions that Mr. Reinsch never actually addresses in his piece: What is the meaning of the fundamental law that governs all those who govern us, and how is that meaning to be ascertained? For example, as Jack Handey might ask: “How do we identify the meaning of ‘mankind’?”

By identifying places where the Constitution’s text is claimed to be uncertain and in need of “liquidation,” Mr. Reinsch does not tell us how one first ascertains that is the case. Nor does he tell us how to identify the meaning of the many provisions of the text, whose meanings are quite clear and certain. This is what originalists and nonoriginalists have been debating and you do not transcend this debate by changing the subject.

If Mr. Reinsch is truly a “Liquid Constitutionalist” who believes that the “a self-governing people” or its legislators somehow gets to change or “liquidate” the meaning of the text over time without going through the Article V amendment process, then he is in good company:  The company of the many good, intelligent, and learned persons who call themselves “living constitutionalists.” He is just a conservative one.

Welcome to the debate.

Originally Found On: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/04/13/liquid-constitutionalism/

[wolfandpravato]

Liquid Constitutionalism

For the past few weeks I have been teasing progressive nonoriginalists about how, if they really want something to worry about, they should be worried about conservatives accepting living constitutionalism–that is, the very same type of political updating that progressives favor but towards the right instead of the left. “Yeah right,” I could hear them collectively saying. “It is living constitutionalism for me, but not for thee!” And yet, why need this be so? Now comes Richard Reinsch, the founding editor and director of the Liberty Fund’s online journal Law and Liberty, to weigh in against originalism from the right. In a piece he entitled, The Liquid Constitution, Mr. Reinsch attempts to identify a position that might be called “Liquid Constitutionalism.”

Mr Reinsch begins by positioning himself above the originalism-living constitutionalism debate. Indeed, he purports “to think more deeply than the framework of original-versus-living-constitution permits.” Well, by all means. Like Jack Handey, let’s all think more deeply.

  As we shall see, this particular “deep thought” is weirdly relevant to our subject.

Mr. Reinsch tells us: “What should receive more discussion is the notion, expressed in The Federalist essays 37, 78, and 82, of ‘Liquidating’ the meaning of the provisions of the Constitution. Publius means by that that it is necessary to make clear terms that are apt to be contested.” This is then followed by very lengthy quotes from Publius including this well-known quote:

Here then are three sources of vague and incorrect definitions; indistinctness of the object, imperfection of the organ of perception, inadequateness of the vehicle of ideas. Any one of these must produce a certain degree of obscurity. The convention, in delineating the boundary between the federal and state jurisdictions, must have experienced the full effect of them all.

I refer to this passage as “well-known” because originalists (and nonorinalists) have been seriously examining the concept of “liquidating” meaning for quite a long time: at least since Caleb Nelson’s 2001 article, Stare Decisis and Demonstrably Erroneous Precedents, 87 Va. L. Rev. 1 (2001). Indeed, at the last University of San Diego “Originalism Works-in-Progress Conference,” University of Chicago law professor–and fellow blogger–Will Baude presented his new paper “Liquidation.” As Will can attest from the ensuing discussion, the very concept of “liquidation” is hard to nail down, much less to determine how the process of liquidating meaning is supposed to work in practice. But it is no less important a topic for the fact it is a difficult one for originalists and nonoriginalists alike to get a good handle on.

So “liquidation” is not a new subject for originalists. What then has Mr Reinsch to offer on the subject? After lengthy quotes from Publius, he writes:

Publius argues that one of the most important principles of our Constitution (federalism) is difficult to define and ring-fence. Its meaning will have to be worked out through a process of politics, decisions, settlements. This will be the appeal to the “common constituents” of Federalist 46, or the citizens of the states to whom decisions on the different allocations of power between the federal and state governments will be referred for ongoing consent. And this process doesn’t really end.

Surely this is not just a process to be undertaken by the federal judiciary in a manner that suffocates the opportunity for self-government. If the problem is that of making terms clear, then the pronouncements of the judiciary might give a definition or meaning, but this alone couldn’t “liquidate” the Constitution’s terms and provisions. Per Federalist 39, at one level the Court is a tribunal to prevent an appeal to the sword or dissolution of the compact; yet we’re told in Federalist 78 that the Court should abstain from imposing its will on the elected branches. The Court must understand that its powers are derived from the people and its judgments are to uphold the fundamental law of the Constitution and not be a substitute for the Constitution. So the judiciary must take seriously the notion that it is an “auxiliary precaution,” one that intervenes when the laws are at an “irreconcilable variance” from the Constitution. And while we let the Court’s judgments percolate, we should not regard the Court’s decisions as final, as abstract doctrines commanding assent.

I am all for the position expressed in the last sentence, but it needs some unpacking. Although it would require more than a blog post to fully develop, my view is that, while judicial “judgments” ought to be obeyed by other branches, the Court’s “opinions” are just that: its opinions. For example, a judgment that an “act” of Congress is beyond its powers and is therefore not part of “the Supreme law of the land” because not made “in pursuance” of the Constitution is properly binding on the other branches. In particular, it is binding on the executive branch who may only execute a valid law. (Exactly why this is so requires further elaboration, and the exact scope of the respective interbranch duties can become complex.) Whether or not an “opinion of the Court” as to why an act of Congress is unconstitutional is binding on inferior courts as “precedent,” in my view, such opinions are merely instructive to other branches.

Indeed, the practice of the justices agreeing to “opinions of the Court” was innovated by John Marshall in the Nineteenth Century. Previously, the justices each delivered their own opinions seriatim to explain their individual votes. In the wake of Marshall’s capacious 1819 opinion in McCulloch v. Maryland, then-President James Madison (who agreed with the judgment that the Bank was constitutional) pined for the guidance of multiple opinions:

I could have wished also that the Judges had delivered their opinions seriatim. The case was of such magnitude, in the scope given to it, as to call, if any case could do so, for the views of the subject separately taken by them. This might either by the harmony of their reasoning have produced a greater conviction in the Public mind; or by its discordance have impaired the force of the precedent now ostensibly supported by a unanimous & perfect concurrence in every argument & dictum in the judgment pronounced.

And yet, from John Marshall’s day to ours, these “opinions of the Court”–both their “argument & dictum”–have come to be treated like rules of law, their language to be parsed and followed like statutes.

But how is this concern about a form of “judicial supremacy” a critique of modern originalism? Modern originalism is a method of interpreting or discovering the communicative content of the text of the Constitution. Like all other constitutional actors, judges have a duty to follow the law. But to follow it, they must first ascertain what it means. How they are to do so is what the debate between originalists and nonoriginalists is all about–the debate that Mr. Reinsch asks us somehow to transcend, or get beneath to something “deeper.”

Although he says “we must consider then is the case for a different originalism.” his real target is originalism itself, here is his conclusion:

Progressives have looked to the Court to pave a constitutional path of egalitarianism and emancipation that eagerly departs from the text, believing, as they do, that they stand atop history and understand its architectonic flow. But originalism further enthrones the judiciary, putting our elites on the Bench, to chart a course back to the Founders. In short, we play a game of elites by relying on a few men and women in black robes. What’s the best play, though, with respect to the republican foundation of the Constitution and with regard to our long-term interests as those who value limited government? Putting authority to decide the meaning of the Constitution in the hands of the self-governing people is the superior move. (My italics.)

Set aside the fact that Mr. Reinsch is collapsing here the separate issues of ascertaining the meaning of the text vs. the appropriate role of the judiciary in our constitutional scheme. On second thought, don’t set that aside.  I wrote Restoring the Lost Constitution to address the issue of constitutional meaning, and Our Republican Constitution to address the issue of the proper judicial role in a constitutional republic. Collapsing the meaning of the Constitution with the appropriate role of the judiciary in ascertaining and enforcing that meaning against the other branches is a recipe for confusion. By obscuring what we are debating, it thereby obscures the appropriate terms of the debate.

OK, how is this is process of a “self-governing people” deciding “the meaning of the Constitution” supposed to work? Should we have a plebiscite to decide the meaning of the foundational document by majority vote? Should they be national plebiscites, or state by state (and how would the latter be operationalized)? No doubt Mr. Reinsch would reject national or state plebiscites, favoring instead putting the “authority to decide the meaning of the Constitution in the hands of” Congress and state legislatures. Yet these bodies comprised of a very small subset of “the people.” Congress is a mere 525 persons out of 318 million. And these legislative bodies are themselves supposed to be bound by the law of the Constitution, not make it. How then can it fall to them to interpret the meaning of the constraints imposed upon them? But don’t take my word that this is a problem. Listen to Publius:

No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause; because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men, are unfit to be both judges and parties, at the same time; yet, what are many of the most important acts of legislation, but so many judicial determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of single persons, but concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens; and what are the different classes of legislators, but advocates and parties to the causes which they determine?

Publius never confused “the people themselves” with their agents in the legislature. Indeed, their “republican” form of government was designed to protect the liberties of the people from their legislatures (and from other governmental actors). “We the People” are truly “self-governing” insofar as we are allowed to exercise the liberties defined by our private rights. But the founders well-knew that “We the People” do not literally “govern themselves” politically. (Recall the Declaration’s phrase “consent of the governed.”) So the Constitution was put in writing precisely so it would provide the law that governs those who govern We the People.

But this means that legislators can no more legitimately change the law that governs them without going through the amendment process of Article V–even if the judiciary improperly gives them a green light to do so–than the people can change the laws that govern them without going through the legislative process. Put another way, all legislator-agents of the people take an oath to obey “the Constitution of the United States.” To what would that oath commit them if they can “interpret” or “liquidate” the meaning of the written Constitution however they please?

To ascertain the proper role of the judiciary in this system we need to begin by reading the text of the Constitution. Which returns us to the questions that Mr. Reinsch never actually addresses in his piece: What is the meaning of the fundamental law that governs all those who govern us, and how is that meaning to be ascertained? For example, as Jack Handey might ask: “How do we identify the meaning of ‘mankind’?”

By identifying places where the Constitution’s text is claimed to be uncertain and in need of “liquidation,” Mr. Reinsch does not tell us how one first ascertains that is the case. Nor does he tell us how to identify the meaning of the many provisions of the text, whose meanings are quite clear and certain. This is what originalists and nonoriginalists have been debating and you do not transcend this debate by changing the subject.

If Mr. Reinsch is truly a “Liquid Constitutionalist” who believes that the “a self-governing people” or its legislators somehow gets to change or “liquidate” the meaning of the text over time without going through the Article V amendment process, then he is in good company:  The company of the many good, intelligent, and learned persons who call themselves “living constitutionalists.” He is just a conservative one.

Welcome to the debate.

Originally Found On: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/04/13/liquid-constitutionalism/