Not a Big Truck

Should have been nominated for Best Picture, if for no other reason than to breath some fresh air into

Also, while I loved Milk, Josh Brolin did not deserve that nomination.  He wasn’t bad, but I thought there were at least two better supporting acting performances in that film: James Franco and, especially, Emile Hirsch.

Since Obama was sworn in by Roberts for the second time, some have been questioning whether his executive orders that were signed before the most recent swearing in are constitutionally legitimate.

First, even if this was fun from an intellectual/academic perspective, this is stupid if anyone thinks it should matter from a practical level.

Second, is there a law that mandates that the Chief Justice swear in the President? Article II doesn’t seem to say who has to swear in the President. Obama could very well say that one of his daughters swore him in and that would seemingly be constitutionally legitimate. 

Any of my fellow bloggers or our one reader know of any congressional law that would create more stringent guidelines regarding the oath?

A movie classic…that always deserves a look…

I was supporting Obama before this speech.  But, after this speech, I was totally in the tank…as the pros seem to say.  Coming off a completely devastating and disappointing loss, to deliver this speech required a confidence and political skill that I was definitely not accustomed to.

Expectations for him are so high. This speech on Tuesday will need to be amazing simply to meet those expectations. Even if the speech is mediocre, let’s hope he succeeds in governing competently.

This is the type of thing that put him near the top of my VP hopefuls list.  Taking on the fight to reform the criminal justice system probably won’t win Jim Webb many friends and likely won’t play well in Virginia. Running on the “I was smart and compassionate to criminals” position doesn’t always play well politically.

Political realities aside, this is an important issue that requires a serious reevaluation of our national priorities and a politician defiant enough to take on the fight. Webb, for all his faults, does seem to have a pragmatic view of what it takes to make real improvements in the country and the willingness to accept the consequences of pursuing such changes. I hope he succeeds.

That is what Andrew Sullivan thinks.

Bush was a failure as president. That is for sure. To say that he is the worst ever is saying something.

Trying to rank presidents is like trying to compare baseball players from different eras. Babe Ruth was the best hitter of his time–more home runs than other teams–but could he have hit today’s pitching? Similarly, Andrew Jackson was widely popular in his time, brought wider suffrage to America, and generally advanced democratic ideals. At the same time, he ethnically cleansed and massacred Native Americans, advanced disastrous economic policies, and did nothing to oppose the institution of slavery. Certainly Jackson’s crimes were far more egregious than any committed by Bush.

The obvious defense is to argue that these past presidents, those who helped maintain slavery, oppressed Native Americans, entered a war that led to the burning of D.C., or created internment camps for Japanese Americans, were all products of their times. This is probably fair, but it seems to suggest that presidents can’t be rated on an absolute scale, at least not one based on the “good” and “evil” of their actions/inactions.

Does this mean a president can only be rated based on more contextual criteria? By this I mean, does a president’s greatness directly relate to the extent that he was ahead of the rest of his contemporaries in pursuing a policy, approach, or vision that we today deem to be correct? And on the other side, do we forgive presidents for their active advancement of morally problematic policies as long as those policies were in step with a majority of the nation at that time?

It isn’t an easy question for me and I honestly do not know the answer. I agree that Bush, in terms of advancing the country (whatever that means), probably is near the bottom of presidents, but if one wishes to consider the evils perpetrated or ignored by an administration, I suspect Bush would be a better than average president.

So far…I am a bit surprised. I was expecting a different attitude. This Bush seems different than the one that showed up recently at a press conference. Thus far, at least, this Bush is defiant. He is fully standing behind his decisions.

He mentioned “setbacks,” but always introduces those mistakes in this context: “you may disagree with the decision, but…” No direct admission of guilt.

I also can’t help but wonder what could have been. Certain (perhaps, most) elements of neoconservatism and big government conservatism have been considerably damaged by this president.  This is undeniable and it is likely that much of that ideology is misguided. What I wonder, though, is how many of the failures of the last 8 years were on account of ideology and how many were because of this president’s lack of intellectual curiousity and unwillingness to let competence trump loyalty.

I suppose we will have more opportunities/chances/misfortune to find out in the future.

Saw it. Sadly, it was not very good. Usually doesn’t take much for a Bond movie to entertain me. In fact, I think the only other Bond that I actively disliked was Die Another Day. But this one disappointed me. Maybe my expectations were too high, but it definitely did not live up to Casino Royale.