A commentator on NPR just observed that President Nixon when he resigned, had a higher approval rating that President George W. Bush had when he left office. I wonder if that is deserved.

Nixon was a crook, and did great damage to our political system, although he also had positive achievements, such as the opening to China and beginning the peace process in Vietnam.

George W. Bush, for all faults, is an honest man, but also did great damage to our political system. His positive achievements are fewer: working for better health in Africa, presiding over a very smooth and orderly and gracious transition.

So the question is: is it better for the nation to have a high-achieving crook or an honest but less able man as President?

On the whole, I am inclined to say that the nation benefits more from a highly-able man, crooked or not. Obviously, it is better to have an honest man (or woman) of high ability than a crook.

But in either case, we need for Congress to take more seriously its oversight function. I know how difficult it is to impeach the President, but the Congress can also impeach other officials. I was astonished that, when various Cabinet-level and below officials refused to obey the subpoena of various committees, they faced no real sanctions. If a person in the Executive Branch is told, "You will answer our questions, or you will not only lose your job, you will lose your pension, and never be able to work for any part of the United States government again," I think most would answer.

On another matter, it is increasingly clear that my pictures have been lost. A great shame.