random bits

[cellio]

Having completed the first pass at digitizing or replacing our folk music on old media (we still need to do some proof-listening), Dani and I are merging our iTunes libraries so this might be easier going forward. Oof. We're up to "S" so far. "T" is big because it includes all the "The"s. Tracking changes (e.g. to tagging) going forward is

Comments

[tashabear]

You can make the "The"s easier by adding sort tags. Select all like artists, right click, select Get Info, then select the Sorting Tab, and enter the artist name without "The" under Sort Artist or Sort Album Artist. Only problem is you will have already done some of those letters...

[cellio]

We're actually walking the file tree importing artists one at a time and cleaning up the dupes. This ended up being faster/easier than using the iTunes import interface. (And for some reason, our libraries randomly disappear from each others' iTunes interfaces from time to time, for a few minutes or a few days. Not a network problem. Weird.)

In case you're wondering how we could have problems with dups, if we've tagged them differently or they got ripped at different bit rates (we rethought that partway through and redid stuff), the new one doesn't tromp the old one -- which is correct IMO, but means we have to clean up. I want better merge tools. :-)

[kayre]

According to both NPR and CNN, the oaths are a formality, confirming the change; in fact Biden and Obama took office at noon, regardless of the fact that Biden took oath before noon and Obama several minutes after.

[geekosaur]

I bet there's a lot of confusion, and wonder who's right: the CBS feed said that in fact Biden was President briefly.

(I also echo someone on MIT zephyr who pointed out that nobody may actually know the rules, and if it ever becomes a serious question it'll be one g-dawful succession crisis.)

[siderea]

I was under the impression that briefly Biden was Vice-President under President Bush. Isn't that the whole point of inaugurating him first? First you move the safety net...

[cellio]

That's what I assumed was happening -- we had Bush-Biden, then Obama-Biden. But if Bush timed out at noon and the oath was required (that was my impression when I posted), then for a few minutes the only sworn-in, non-term-expired person there was Biden, so it seemed like that would have made him president briefly. If the oath is just a formality as others have said, then we had a clean transition from Bush-Biden to Obama-Biden.

[magid]

I know that French says it's all Hebrew to them.

[cahwyguy]

I wondered the same thing (actually, I wondered if we briefly had a Bush/Biden administration, and what would happen if Bush died. But then it was clarified Obama became president at noon, independent of the oath. I guess it is like a Bar Mitzvah.

[caryabend]

"Now I am a President"

[blackpaladin]

The 20th Amendment explicitly states that the terms of the President and Vice-President expire at noon on the 20th day of January, at which point their successors' terms begin. The oath is a complete formality, and CBS News was misinformed.

To answer siderea's question: as I understand it, if the President-Elect drops dead on January 19th, then the Vice-President-Elect becomes President at noon on January 20th and is sworn in as such.

At no point did we have a President Bush and a Vice-President Biden. At 11:59:59AM we had President Bush and Vice-President Cheney; one second later, we had President Obama and Vice-President Biden.

[cellio]

At no point did we have a President Bush and a Vice-President Biden. At 11:59:59AM we had President Bush and Vice-President Cheney; one second later, we had President Obama and Vice-President Biden.

Ah. The oath does not affect state, so just because Biden was sworn in at 11:57 (or whenever; before noon is the point), that doesn't mean anything changed. I was modeling taking the oath as passing the baton, hence my misunderstanding.

[blackpaladin]

An understandable and common misunderstanding. (And my apologies if my response seemed curt; I'm having this same discussion in a number of venues at the moment. :-) )

Yeah, the taking of the oath is completely symbolic: you'll note that it doesn't say "I hereby assume the office of whatever," it just says "I promise that I'll do a good job at what the Constitution says the person in this job is supposed to do."

(Another offshoot of the conversation in another venue is the idea of swearing on a Bible versus separation of church and state. My thought is, get a copy of the Constitution and swear your oath on that, since that's what you're pledging to "uphold and defend" in the first place. But apparently that's just crazy talk...)

[cellio]

No problem; I assume this is being discussed a bunch. (We weren't watching CBS, by the way, so I didn't know that anyone had asserted my question on-air until I started seeing people mention it. I came up with that little misunderstanding all by myself.)

My thought is, get a copy of the Constitution and swear your oath on that, since that's what you're pledging to "uphold and defend" in the first place. But apparently that's just crazy talk...)

That's what I would do if I were in that position (which of course I never will be). I've always been uncomfortable with the bible being used in official proceedings like this (and in courtrooms). And I do give a bible (not the Christian one) deference, but that doesn't make me more likely to use it; it makes me less likely.