|
So there I am yesterday, sitting in a chat room, kvetching with a friend about the inaguration, and Chief Justice John Roberts flubbs the oath of office. After a few jokes concerning competence, I sense an opportunity, and offer him a bet that within three months some fringe group will claim that means Obama is not really the President. With the grand tradition of conspiracy theorists we have, he declined the bet. (Whose terms were never specified anyway.)
And not ten minutes ago, sitting in the same chat room, kvetching again, the news breaks that "out of an abundance of caution" Chief Justice Roberts had visited the White House and readministered the oath.
I am not sure if I should be happy the President (and/or his staff) vindicated my paranoia and cynicism, or upset that said vindication means it is neither.
Only in America baby!
Actually it was perfectly legal and true (the thing about Obama not being the president yet). The Justice messed up the Oath, and they had to repeat it. It's in the Constitution somewhere.
|
|
Actually it was perfectly legal and true (the thing about Obama not being the president yet). The Justice messed up the Oath, and they had to repeat it. It's in the Constitution somewhere.
Yes it is.
The salient points of the story are:1. I predicted hours after the incident that crackpots would abuse it.
2. I attempted to sucker someone into a bet about it.
3. Obama and his people obviously considered the crackpot threat to be so significant he retook the oath solely to derail it.
4. Therefore my prediction has legitimate support to not be paranoid, or excessively cynical.
Now granted, technically there is a logical failure between 1-3 proving 4.
That is not the point.
The point is the sheer absurdity to which we have come where in fact a cynical joke based on expecting the worst of paranoid crackpots is actually something to be taken so seriously.
Or it could be that I am actually always right. :D
The oath sworn in the office was to Nyarlathotep.
Actually, in his defense, Obama started to say the phrase right, then changed it to wrong when the obviously alien mind controlled guy said it and hypnotized him.
It proves it; Obama wasn't wearing a tinfoil hat and there you go.
I don't need any of that logic crap. I got life experiences.
|
Actually it was perfectly legal and true (the thing about Obama not being the president yet). The Justice messed up the Oath, and they had to repeat it. It's in the Constitution somewhere.
Actually the Constitution was ammended back in the 30's so that the President assumes the office at 12:00 pm on January 20th regardless of whether the oath of office has been administered or not. It did two things, one was shorten the transition period between presidents, and two prevented a scenario where we might go without a president as was the case when Zachery Taylor and his vice-president both refused to be sworn in on Innaguration Day because it was the Sabbath. The oath of office is a formality, but the president-elect assumes the office at noon on innaguration day regardless of whether it was administered or not.
John Roberts did it on purpose as payback.
In my opinion, both men failed a basic preparedness check. When I have to present new technical content to customers for the first time, you can bet your hindquarters I'm studying the material and practicing it several times in advance. That's for a simple presentation in corporate America.
For a Presidential inauguration, let alone one with such lavish media attention, both men should have rehearsed their parts so many times that they could have done it in their sleep. Roberts shouldn't have misspoke but Obama should have known it by heart.
Hardly a big deal in any case and certainly not the first time in US history a do-over was required.
In my opinion, both men failed a basic preparedness check. When I have to present new technical content to customers for the first time, you can bet your hindquarters I'm studying the material and practicing it several times in advance. That's for a simple presentation in corporate America.
For a Presidential inauguration, let alone one with such lavish media attention, both men should have rehearsed their parts so many times that they could have done it in their sleep. Roberts shouldn't have misspoke but Obama should have known it by heart.
Hardly a big deal in any case and certainly not the first time in US history a do-over was required.
Indeed. Although, if you have prepared for something and then someone says something similar but different, you may get confused and stammer.
However, it isn't a big deal. We were just talking about how funny it was that someone predicted that they'd have to redo it. Ha, ha.