perfidy

The Total Information Awareness network is now the Terrorist Information Awareness network. Riiight, because it was the NAME everyone had trouble with. 

[wik]  And now, meet "LifeLog." If the Pentagon ever get this idea (formerly known as Echelon- above criticism applies) off the ground, just forget about it, move to Tibet, and raise a glass in memory to the Constitution. The article is pretty puffy, and a little shameful. If the worst condemnation you can bring against a project like this is it might mistake Cory Doctorow for Osama bin Laden, you should probably spend some time sharpening your argument. 

[alsø wik]  Why does it worry me that the War people are the ones collecting all the information? Maybe because to a man with a hammer, everything looks like a bashy-thing. 
 

Folks, even Warren Buffett thinks the tax cut is a bad idea. Warren Buffett!! To wit:

Overall, it's hard to conceive of anything sillier than the schedule the Senate has laid out. Indeed, the first President Bush had a name for such activities: "voodoo economics." The manipulation of enactment and sunset dates of tax changes is Enron-style accounting, and a Congress that has recently demanded honest corporate numbers should now look hard at its own practices. 

Proponents of cutting tax rates on dividends argue that the move will stimulate the economy. A large amount of stimulus, of course, should already be on the way from the huge and growing deficit the government is now running. I have no strong views on whether more action on this front is warranted. But if it is, don't cut the taxes of people with huge portfolios of stocks held directly. (Small investors owning stock held through 401(k)s are already tax-favored.) Instead, give reductions to those who both need and will spend the money gained. Enact a Social Security tax "holiday" or give a flat-sum rebate to people with low incomes. Putting $1,000 in the pockets of 310,000 families with urgent needs is going to provide far more stimulus to the economy than putting the same $310 million in my pockets. 

When you listen to tax-cut rhetoric, remember that giving one class of taxpayer a "break" requires -- now or down the line -- that an equivalent burden be imposed on other parties. In other words, if I get a break, someone else pays. Government can't deliver a free lunch to the country as a whole. It can, however, determine who pays for lunch. And last week the Senate handed the bill to the wrong party.

Zing! 

Y' know? Bush The Younger's presidency will in retrospect be defined for a few main issues. That's usually a good thing, unless you are Jimmy "Stagflation" Carter or Bill "Itchy-Pants" Clinton. In the sense that he sticks to his main themes of war and taxes, Bush has an astoundingly coherent and straightforward plan for the nation. They are, in fact, very important issues that deserve attention. However, overall coherence does not imply internal consistency. 

Just insisting that "this tax cut is for the good of all" over and over won't make it so, if at the end of the day it's going to benefit the country-club set while leaving Joe Sixpack watching Judge Judy because the day-labor center was full up again. After all, I'm not yet Wolverine, no matter how many "snickety-snick" sounds I make while dancing around the apartment. Platitudes may sound nice, but only results matter. And what happened to his "Education Plan?" Unfunded mandates are even worse than empty platitudes. 
 

Stranger things have happened, after all. Not that he's going to win the Presidency, and not that he should, but John Kerry recently unveiled a plan by which high-school students could do community service in exchange for college tuition. Two years would get you four years' worth of state-college tuition. The Boston Globe's detail-feeble coverage is here.

As much as this is an Uber-Democratic plan, in that it purports to improve society through well-meaning massive expenditures of cash, I can find a lot to like in it. In, fact, I would go farther. Kids these days (kids these days!! haw!) seem more cynical yet more pampered than ever before (perhaps the two are connected), and a program that allows young people to donate time in exchange for a concrete open-ended reward seems like a good idea on principle. Hopefully it would force a connection between duty and citizenship.

Mind you, I'm not asking for a program like they have in Germany, where all citizens must serve in the armed forces or emergency response squads, but maybe something close wouldn't hurt.

How about a two-tiered plan, in which all teens must log 400 hours of community service (perhaps sponsored through local high schools) and others may apply for the right to do two years of public service in exchange for a college education? As long as any plan, whether Kerry's or mine, is flexible enough to allow for a wide range of possible services-- such as Habitat For Humanity, Amigos de las Americas, Americorps, and local church groups, homeless shelters, and charity initiatives-- and as long as the bureaucracy could be kept to a minimum, I'm in favor of such a system.

When I was 16, my parents paid a bundle for me to spend two months in Mexico, building latrines and doing basic public health in an extremely poor area, and the experience changed my life. If I'd have stayed in Ohio for those two months, playing Dungeons and Dragons and sneaking Budweisers out in the woods next to the Pee Rock, I would have missed out on one of the most educational, transformative, and important experiences of my life. The time I spent there was the first exposure I had to life outside Ohio, not to mention life outside "Western" Civilization, and it has been the main impetus behind my interest in politics, history, and world affairs. I tell ya, there's nothing better than waiting for the repairs to the brand-new power line to your remote village in the highlands so you can watch Knight Rider in dubbed Spanish ("El Auto Increible") to show a teenager that there's more in the world than you ever imagined.

Of course, not everybody needs such an experience, or wants it. But, not everyone needs to go to college for free, either. A plan like Kerry's, or *heh* better yet, mine, intelligently implemented and run, could add a lot to the quality of life in this country, not to mention the quality of the teenagers.

Now... enough blue-sky theorizing...where the heck is that money gonna come from, John-boy, and how much is this plan gonna cost?

I'm curious: does anyone have an idea as to how Massachusetts came to be identified as Communist Central, Bastion of The Bleeding Heart? 'Cos I don't see it. Cambridge is liberal. Amherst and Northampton are insanely liberal. And granted, these communities are some of the most nationally prominent areas of the Commonwealth. But, outside of that tiiiiiny portion of the populace, the huge majority of Massholes think just like the red states in the middle of the country. They vote Democratic not out of support for liberal social policy or because they like giant spending initiatives. They vote Democratic for two reasons: labor is king here; and they just always have. Memories are long here-- very long, and that peculiar breed of Yankee contrarian conservatism is strong. May I remind you that our current governer is a Republican and a Mormon?

This was originally posted by Buckethead back in March, and I thought I'd toss it on the front page again. We need your entries like zombies need fresh brains. To live. Original post follows.... nnnnnnnnnow: 

Design your own constitutional amendment, and win the undying admiration of the ruling troika of this webpage. The entry picked as winner will recieve good karma in vast quantities, and a Chinese fortune cookie (only half eaten, fortune still included.) The rules: 

1. It can't be an amendment that is already in the Constitution.
2. Your amendment cannot change the laws of physics.
3. Try to solve a real problem with your amendment, and not guarantee plentiful dogfood for every canine in America, or annex Norway or something.
4. Write your amendment like you thought it might actually go in the Constitution with all the other clearly and beautifully written amendments. 

After entries are received, we will post interesting ones, and declare a winner. Tell your friends! Send your submissions to johnnytwocents at yahoo dot com or bookethead at yahoo dot com. Either one. Excelsior!
 

Did you know that May 1 is Loyalty Day? It was decreed so yesterday by our President. Huh. Thanks to Matthew Yglesias and "Stentor Danielson" for the pointer and a little perspective on the matter. 

From what I can find, "Loyalty Day" started in the thirties as an anti-Communist counterpoint to Mayday, hence the positioning of both on May 1. Occasionally, the holiday has been exhumed by Presidents (Clinton, Kennedy, Truman) hoping to inspire an upwelling of patriotic fervor in the breasts of the teeming masses. 

Even though I am a spineless jellyfish of a centrist, I have some pretty clear and solid ideas about what America means. "Loyalty Day" is just about as American a concept as "Worship The Giant Stone Tiki Day" would be, if a day of Tiki-worship were foisted upon us by the government. 

Warning: hifalutin pompousness follows. Ridicule at will. Bill Whittle is better at this sort of thing. 

Certain events in the recent past have changed how Americans approach freedom, liberty, and the rest of the world. Despite some people's fears, we do not yet live in a police state where dissent is met with brutality (that only happens in Leftist paradises like Cuba and China, and also some theocracies and dictatorships, but not here). Yet, in response to the threats we now know we face, concepts have arisen that don't belong in our national lexicon. Two such are the terms "Homeland" and "Loyalty". Both are fabulously alien to the American experience (in that they imply things the United States was founded as an alternative to), both are used too much these days, and neither should ever be common coin around Washington. I'd go so far as to call them un-American. ”

"Homeland" doesn't make much sense applied to the United States as a whole - it smacks of a European sense of place and obligation. If your family can trace its lineage in the Black Forest back to the time of Charlemagne, and it's fairly certain that someone in your bloodline repelled Roman legions and fought at Verdun, then you have a homeland. Hell, for that matter, if your family settled Saco, Maine in 1640 and stayed on through Algonquin raids, witch hysterians, and the various wars and famines, then Maine, if that's where you live, is your homeland. To a certain degree, northeastern Ohio is my homeland, in that it's where I was born, grew up, and learned about the world. I feel a kinship to the place and its people. Jim Traficant, sorry to say, is one of mine. 

In short, the word "homeland" implies the residency in and identity with a specific place, accompanied by a specific way of seeing the world, something akin to the French concept of terroir. The United States is too young, too big, and too diverse to warrant such a sweeping term. Furthermore, United States is a collection of people, whereas "homeland" places the emphasis on the place itself. Similarly, "Loyalty" implies an authority that flows the opposite way of that on which the United States is founded. "Allegiance" is more apt. Allegiance implies that you have considered your citizenship, weighed its benefits against the alternatives (such as living in France or a compound in upper Montana), and voluntarily chosen to participate in the ongoing project of the USA. Of course, nobody actually thinks about these things when taking the pledge, but that is nevertheless the underlying idea. Where "Allegiance" implies a pact freely entered, "Loyalty" suggests something demanded of a person by a superior. In cases such as swearing-in of new citizens, this language is appropriate (as is so for members of the Armed Forces). Such new Americans are taking an oath to cast off other ties they may have in order to affirm the solidity of their commitment to the United States. 

But oaths of loyalty are not required by the United States of its citizens. The word "union" appears ten times in the Constitution, "loyal*"” none. And, of course, the preamble has all that crap about "we the people" and "more perfect union." Everything is voluntary, open, and based upon the will of the people to bring themselves together. 

Ideas like an "Office of Homeland Security" and the revival of "Loyalty Day," though they might seem like good fixes to immediate crises, are in the long view not part of the American ideology at all. Problems like this happens from time to time in American history, and they are often far, far worse than those I'm discussing. A huge number of Native Americans are dead. Slavery wasn't addressed seriously until 1860. Lynchings happened all the way into the era of color photography. But we don't kill Indians any more (partly because there aren't many left, yes), nobody keeps slaves today like they did in 1820, and lynchings are now front-page horrors when they happen, not a dirty secret. Although far from perfect, at its best, America is a self-correcting system that finds its bedrock principles no matter what temporary diversions it encounters. I just hope that the current fetishes for "homeland" this and "secret courts" that are temporary, and over time the inertia, collective idealism, and ingrained teachings of the American people will make these things as curious in the future as debates over the Gold Standard are today. 

A final note. May is also "Masturbation Month." "Loyalty Day" or "Masturbation Month": the choice is yours. (Thanks, Matthew!)

Robert Alt, writing for National Review Online, asks, "Is Federalism Conservative"? Good question. Though Alt is writing about attempts by lefties to block Bush judicial appointees on the grounds that they are Federalists ("for states' rights") and therefore Conservative, he addresses some larger issues adeptly.

If you're too lazy to click through and read the story, here's my short version: "NO, NOT NECESSARILY."

While Johno was right to point out that the paleo conservative segment of the right is unlikely to raise a ruckus about the Senator's comments, Lileks points out that the flipside is even more unlikely:

if anyone insists Santorum should suffer consequences for his speech, they are denying his First Amendment right to dissent! A chilling wind is blowing across America! If anyone disinvites him to an event, the black cloak of Ashcroftian Throat-Chokery has been draped across another dissenter! If you don't buy his book, Joe McCarthy cackles from his personal pit in hell!

Don't worry, Rick; Tim Robbins will be the first in line to support your right to speak your mind.

You just ad hominemed him. I just thought the quote was funny. Didn't think that the article was quite that bad - and it is a normal thing to try and analyse what the opposing camp is thinking, from your own perspective. And do you deny that there are a lot of people in the world who are just batshit crazy? I think suicide bombers would fall into that subset of humanity.

And speaking of batshit crazy, Gov. Dean was asked if the Iraqi people are better off now than they were under Saddam. He said, "We don't know that yet. We don't know that yet, Wolf. We still have a country whose city is mostly without electricity. We have tumultuous occasions in the south where there is no clear governance. We have a major city without clear governance." Aside from the tortured english, how anyone can imagine that a nation might not be better off without someone like Saddam murdering, torturing, raping and oppressing them is beyond me. It is natural that immediately after occupation, and after the removal of an odious regime, there would be disorder. However, the power is coming back on, and order is being restored. I think Dean is a little to eager to jump on the "Oh sure, we won the war, I always knew we would. But now we're screwing up the peace" bandwagon. It is simply to early to tell.

He may have something there... An excessive concern for secrecy on the part of the church certainly kept those kid-diddlin priests in parishes, where they could continue to do harm. The bishop's concerns for the privacy of the child molesting priests led to more molested children.

Santorum represents a significant fraction of the American population, one that believes that the family is the essential foundation of a good society. They believe that many recent legislative and judicial actions act to undermine that foundation. And, there is reason to believe that they may be correct. Lack of a two-parent family has the strongest correlation to crime, teenage pregnancy, and a host of other social pathologies. The structure of welfare for the first thirty years of its existence encouraged single parent families. While I do not agree with the good senator on outlawing homosexuality, on the other hand the government should not be going out of its way to hasten the demise of the traditional family.

Johno has accused me of being a strict constructionist, and to an extent this is true. I am even somewhat of an originalist when it comes to matters constitutional. This does not mean that I think that there is no place for interpretation - the constitution is an awfully short document considering that it is the operating manual for a nation of almost 300 million people. The authors of the constitution could not have imagined every situation that would arise in the future, and they designed flexibility and even some careful ambiguity into their work.

This does not mean that the constitution is a "living document" subject to reinterpretation like Hamlet to every new generation. The constitution is not merely a text to be deconstructed, it is law, the law. When the constitution plainly states, for example, that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" it means that the government cannot do anything not specifically granted the power to do in the constitution. In this and in other cases, I am a strict constructionist.

Here is a site devoted to disagreeing with Ann Coulter. Apparently, the site will soon be no more, but is available at the moment. Decide for yourself if it's just more shouting or a promotion of discourse. I'm finding evidence for both.

On a related tangent to my last post, I'd like to offer a few thoughts on discourse. The way I see it, there are two ways to argue. One is through fair debate. The other is through vicious ad hominem shouting matches. I've noticed lately that the ad hominem shouting matches are becoming many people's preferred method of disagreement. May I say, here in the little corner of the world where Mr. Two-Cents and Mr. Head have graciously allowed me some semi-public statement space, that ad hominem shouting doesn't get us anywhere.

I've been watching Bill Maher's HBO television program, Real Time, regularly lately. Maher, in his new HBO format, often has intelligent guests who present well-reasoned arguments, or at least thoughtful, usually with a cross section of left, right, and center. Some of his guests, however, quickly abandon the notion of discourse and go right to the ad hominem with a psychotic glean in their eye. Recently, he had a writer named Ann Coulter on his show. In my opinion, Ms. Coulter is a strong proponent of ad hominem shouting.

Here's my thing. Ms. Coulter has advocated the murder of 3,000+ Muslims to avenge the attacks of 11 September 2001. Few people in the United States, with the exception of looney tunes wackos (thus I'm going ad hominem over discourse) would argue that there was any thing positive about those attacks. People died. For no reason. It was horrible. There's another one of those events that toss moral relativism out the window. But how in the hell can the murder of thousands more innocents improve the situation?Isn't it better if no one else dies because of that shit? I'm sure few people have taken this seriously, but it's still not a good suggestion.

Ms. Coulter is also at work on a new book arguing that people who protested the war with Iraq are traitors. That is not the case. The Supreme Court long ago determined that treason was an act, not a statement. A person has to attempt to overthrow the government or give aid and comfort to enemies in time of war to be guilty of treason. I believed the war was unjustified, and I said so, publicly. A tiny little statement of protest. It doesn't mean I'm a traitor. If Hussein was sleeping on the futon in my living room and I harbored him, then it can go to court.

But back to my original point. On Maher's show, Coulter stated, to paraphrase, that liberals (current American sense) are a bunch of whiners. In one of her books, Coulter argued that liberals tell lies about conservatives and that liberals suck. Well, we all let our passions and beliefs get the better of us and we engage in this sort of ad hominem shouting match strategy. I've done it. Two paragraphs ago. But to offer a bit of unsolicited constructive criticism, Buckethead did it in writing that, "When Congress passed the welfare reform act back in 96, the left was having fits of apoplexy, crying and whining that we would have children starving to death because of the callousness and heartlessness of Republicans." He simultaneously pointed out that the left (though I will state that this is a very broad stroke, as I am okay with welfare reform since it is supposed to provide assistance and then get people back on their feet and working) was engaging in the same sort of ad hominem shouting. One more clarification, those members of the left who said what Buckethead correctly said they said, were some members of America's left-of-center aggregate. Not the whole goup. One more more clarification, to be fair, Buckethead was probably doing so for the sake of brevity.

But back to the main point, one of my professors at Duquesne, where I got my MA, argued that in a two party system, the parties are often defined by their opposition to each other. Shouting matches become the primary method of disagreement. That's where we are in America. We're just screaming at each other. "You're stupid!" one side says. "You're stupider!" insists the other side. "Oh yeah, well you're stupiderer!" responds the first. That needs to change. No good can come of it. Buckethead, you make good points about welfare reform and social security. Those programs need to be reconfigured to work better. Let me offer an apology for those times I engaged in the ad hominem shouting method. That was wrong.

Many thanks to my friend Tim Lacy, who with a very brief statement helped me fine tune this thought that's been running around my head.

Rick Santorum's comments viz-a-viz the Texas sodomy laws are at best misguided. But, as my blog-mates have indicated, it does open a question of the legislation of morality. I raised this during part of my lecture this evening, which covered reform movements in the U.S. in the 1820s and 1830s. Now, I think that broad issues of moral relativism went out with the Holocaust, despite postmodernist attempts to argue in favor of it. As I told my students, there are some issues of morality present in every culture. No matter who you talk to, killing someone in cold blood is immoral. 

The problem comes with moral issues upon which we cannot agree. For Santorum, and many others, homosexual relations are immoral practices. For others, it makes no nevermind. I believe that homosexual relations between two (or more) consenting adults pose no moral problems whatever. It's perfectly fine for two consenting adults to have whatever kind of sex they like. It's none of my business. Santorum, however, believes it's an erosion of what he calls family values. So the question is, does the government have a right to legislate morality on behalf of the people they represent?

The response is equally problematic. In some cases yes, in some cases no. As Buckethead argued well, the government legislates morality by prohibiting theft and murder. These things are bad. Case closed. But what about sexual behavior? Well, provided it is between the two or more aforementioned consenting adults and no one gets hurt, the government has no basis to step in. The government, as our elected representatives, can legislate to keep people from hurting one another. That's part of the social contract and leaving the state of nature, allowing the government to protect our lives, liberty, and property by sacrificing our ability to bash each other's skulls in for shits and giggles. But if two guys, or two women, want to get each other off, then what's the harm? This is where our republic does not need government intervention. 

Santorum doesn't see it that way. He believes that the government should promote his vision of morality, upon which everyone does not agree. The recourse against people like Santorum, as Buckethead would point out, is to vote against him or those who also try to legislate morality that doesn't fall under the we're all for it category. I could also write to him and tell him I disagree, but that's less effective than casting a vote for other representatives who think that the government does not need to uphold laws against homosexual intercourse. 

All that being said, I think we just need to keep talking, and permit the legislation of morality when it pertains to matters of don't kill, steal, or key someone's car just because they parked in front of your house. Other than that, we need to figure out what's a sheer judgement call and what isn't. That happens through discourse. I realize that I'm being uncharacteristically optimistic about all this. These things happen

The two major touchstones I have in thinking about the role of government in our lives are 1) Is it Constitutional? and, more fundamentally, 2) Leave me the hell alone. #1 is the first line of defense, because many bad things are unconstitutional. But even if it passes that muster, the government must show a really compelling need to interfere with lives of citizens before a law is "good." I can see that laws against theft, which interferes with my desire to take things that I want, is good for society. Similar thoughts give a pass to many laws we have. What consenting adults do in the privacy of their boudoir is, properly, there concern and theirs alone. Therefore, sodomy statures and similar laws are bad.

Where Santorum is wrong is in positing a slippery slope between sodomy laws and the other things that he mentioned. Slippery slope arguments are overrated and overused, and inapplicable here. Bigamy, gay marriage and adultery are different issues. Regardless of what you feel about these, they are societal concerns, and in a different category. They may be "antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family," but overturning a sodomy statute won't make them legal. 

It is a huge question whether the government has a role in implementing "the Good Society." Some weep and gnash their teeth at government legislating morality - but that is certainly what the government does with murder and theft laws. I weep and gnash my teeth at the liberal attempts to legislate a good society with "risky schemes" like welfare and so on. All of these things infringe on our rights to do just what we please, or at least leave us less cash to fund doing just what we please. We need to look at these things somewhat pragmatically, and somewhat strict constructionistally. 

We need first off to pay more attention to the Constitution, as it is written, because it is the rule by which we live. Many, many bad things come from ignoring this. There are no umbras and penumbras and eclipses and occultations in the constitution. If you don't like what it says, what it allows and permits, there is a mechanism for changing it. The rule of law is the most fundamental requirement for civilization, and we ignore it at our peril. The RICO statutes, and the RIAA and the Patriot II that Johno has been exercised over recently are all the result of a failure on the part of our legislators to ask the question, what part of the constitution gives us permission to pass this law. Deferring that judgement to the courts results in many other evils, as the courts end legislators who cannot be voted out of office. While we may be happy with one decision or another, the situation is bad for us all. 

On the pragmatic side, we need to look at individual cases, and ask, "Is this law doing what we want it to?" When Congress passed the welfare reform act back in 96, the left was having fits of apoplexy, crying and whining that we would have children starving to death because of the callousness and heartlessness of Republicans. This was an ideological reaction. The result was much happier. Welfare rolls are down by almost half, and there are no children starving to death. This was a situation where someone took a long look at a program that was supposed to end or at least ameliorate poverty, but ended up institutionalizing it. The law of unintended circumstances hits government programs harder than anything else - largely because government programs are so hard to change, much less kill. Social Security is clearly heading for disaster unless something is done to fix it - yet many oppose any kind of reform because it offends their leftist aesthetic sensibilities to kick this particular sacred cow. There are other situations where conservative sacred cows could use some kicking as well, most notably the drug war nightmare. Instead of reducing the amount of drugs in use, it has lowered prices, increased purity, given billions of dollars to very bad people, ruined Columbia and is ruining Peru and Venezuela, savaged civil liberties in this country and wasted hundreds of billions of dollars that could have been spent on an all expense paid vacation for 12 on Mars. 

On some issues, my instincts say, "that shouldn't be allowed." Or, "Those greenpeace fucks should be in camps." Others will have similar thoughts with different targets. But my other instincts say, we live in a rather nifty Republic, with constitutional safeguards, and we shouldn't screw it up. We best avoid screwing things up by avoiding action. The best government governs least. Anyone who feels differently is invited to look at the former Soviet Union, or even France for a counterexample.

No, it's in the amendments (IV, IX, X), you sneaky semanticist you!

Nevertheless, I'm willing to bet that Ricky Santorum was not making a statement about the Bill of Rights when he made that speech, but was rather wringing his hands about how the preverts are going to drag civilization down. I dunno. That's just my sense.

[update] Santorum has a right to his opinion. I also have a right to know he's dead wrong.

[update] The big issue, in a legislative sense, isn't privacy at all, but whether the Feds have a right to regulate what consenting adults do with their own time. I'm inclined to think they don't.

Of course, he's right in saying that there isn't a right to privacy in the Constitution.

Goodwife Two-Cents, who is better than me in every way, had some insights about Jack Kennedy I think I should share. She contends that in decrying JFK as an overrated President, I missed important points. Well, I think she's right so I will air them here. 

First, John and Jackie Kennedy did a great deal to make the Presidency a cultural post. That was an important issue to pursue as President, and they did it with aplomb and flair. Moreover, what President has continued this work since? Jackie Kennedy on her own did a great deal to secure funding and support for the arts and non-war-based sciences during the slide-rule and crewcut era, and that deserves some propers. I can get behind that.

Not since Washington's administration did a President capture the hearts and minds of the nation like JFK. Quick - name three other Presidents who were assassinated. Um, Lincoln, that's easy, and McKinley, and ohhh, ummmm.... Geez. Mumbley-Joe? (It's Garfield). 

It's hard, isn't it? JFK's assassination shook the nation like Lincoln's did, and like McKinley's and Garfield's did not. Always catastrophic, Kennedy's shooting remains a watershed moment precisely because he stood for so much in the eyes of the country. Regardless of his merits or shortcomings, he was better-loved than any other President I can name in the twentieth century. 

Final note: JFK's cult of personality, besides being a boon to the nation in a dark time, was an important factor in why he wasn't strung up for sucking so mightily at politics and international affairs. 

Other final note: 50% of those Presidents who have been assassinated in office are from Ohio. WTF? 

Last final note. I share a common ancestor with all eight Ohio Presidents, plus both Bushes and JFK. That's not that great a feat, really. Mary Chilton must have been some ho. 

Truly final note too good to pass up: Those crazy Pilgrims! Among the Mayflower passengers, there was a little girl named Humility Cooper. Buckethead, is it too late to change your mind? I think you need a son named Increase.

In chronological order: 

• Washington
• Jefferson
• Lincoln
• Theodore Roosevelt
• Franklin Delano Roosevelt 

I only relucantly put Jefferson up here, and would almost swap Adams in his place. However, Adams earns giant demerits for the Alien & Sedition Acts, which totally trump Jefferson's shortcomings. Reagan would make my top five, because his effect on the nation and the world was enormous. But as Mike points out, he has a formidible downside as well. 

All in all, a good group. Lincoln had that unfortunate prog-rock phase after his chart success, Jefferson had heroin problems late in his career (not to mention that awful on-stage meltdown in Mannheim), and it took Teddy three or four albums to find his sound, but in the end you just don't get better than these five here.