My mother by candlelight. I lit a candle this afternoon while I was working on the computer. Tonight while I was watching the Orange Bowl game, I remember that the candle was still burning. So it was back up the ladder to the loft, but before I blew it out, I took a few pictures. My mother was born in 1916. I think this was either her high school or her college graduation photo. It isn't dated. Either way, it has a few years on it.
Oh-Ten? Two-thousand and ten? Ten? What will you say when you have to say 2010 aloud?
Two thousand and ten.
It is a video about John Adams. Comes in a skinny little envelope.
Seems like a pretty good system to me! However, I also have a bunch of other ways to get movies on-line, including among them Apple's TV box. Have to see what it turns out I like or use.
Of course, I am expecting that the iSlate (or whatever name) will be announced, probably later this month, and very likely while we are traveling. It might be a good way to watch movies too--but not on the big screen, and hopefully not while driving.
"My passionate sense of social justice and social responsibility has always contrasted oddly with my pronounced lack of need for direct contact with other human beings and human communities. I am truly a "lone traveler" and have never belonged to my country, my home, my friends, or even my immediate family, with my whole heart; in the face of all these ties, I have never lost a sense of distance and a need for solitude - feelings which increase with the years."
–Albert Einstein
The remarks the President made this afternoon about the attempted "Christmas Day" terrorist airplane bombing showed intense frustration, even controlled fury. He minced no words. At least that was obvious to me, watching it live on CNN.
It is so interesting! Obama is a cool customer, and doesn't get angry easily. He doesn't seem to me at all angry at the Republicans who are trying to thwart needed reforms, not because they won't benefit all or us, but simply because Democrats have proposed them. He doesn't rail against the "oppositional culture" they have created. He didn't seem to me really angry over the unseemly, ungentlemanly "you lie" outburst that was so much against the traditions of the Senate.
He just doesn't get worked up. In that respect, he is very Vulcan-like. Intellectual, not given to emotional displays that aren't really helpful. Like Spock--as has been pointed out by many.
But, if you saw the most recent Star Trek movie, even the real, actual, original Spock got into positions where his usually-controlled and almost invisible temper got the better of him. (I won't say more: I don't want to spoil the storyline for those of you who haven't seen it yet).
So, it leads me to wonder, why does Obama get angry about this? There have in fact been worse attacks, and this one after all failed.
I think it is because Obama really wants and expects government to work well, on behalf of the American people. And in particular, he wants the government that he oversees on behalf of the American people to work well, to work much better than it had been doing. Remember that he took an oath of office? Remember the now often-forgotten term "responsibility?" "Accountability?"
Well, what about his predecessor, George Bush? How about Republicans in general? Why wasn't Bush upset at the failure to "string together the dots" of intelligence findings in advance of the much more damaging 9/11 attacks? The information had been available to him, it was laid out clearly in a report placed on his desk. Why wasn't he upset over the Katrina flood? Even I, sitting in my living room, had been aware of the possibility a year in advance: it was the subject of a tv special.
Why wasn't GW upset at the completely inadequate governmental response to Katrina in terms of helping flood victims and trying to rebuild where possible? Why wasn't he outraged at the inaccurate intelligence concerning Iraq and its supposed WMD, again a much greater failure than this effort at blowing up a single plane. Why wasn't he concerned that the information he apparently got was that an invasion of Iraq would prove to be a cakewalk?
And, why wasn't he angry at the failure of his administration to track down bin Laden, which he had sworn to do? Why wasn't he more distressed at the failures of "his" federal regulators to reign in the bankers and traders that caused such a huge economic crisis, really, world-wide? Where was his fury at the Ponzi-schemers and other crooks that have played a big role in too many industries?
Particularly, why did he meet all of these failures of his government, his administration, looking like a deer caught in bright headlights? And why in this much small situation really, did Obama get so angry with his people, his agencies?
One might think, well, it is because Bush is as dumb as a post, and Obama is smart. And indeed, that might be part of the reasons.
But, what occurs to me is that it is very likely because Republicans don't expect government to work well. Indeed, they don't even want it to work well. Government to them is the enemy; not a protector, but something to cut down, privatized, zero-based, politicized, and sunseted. A source of useful profits to private sector contractors, of course, to be sure. A place where lobbyists can make money. But not of any value, in and of itself.
However, the fact is that America's biggest contributions to the world have been to the art and processes of the operation of a democratic republic. Our key documents are political or governmental ones. Our greatest "thinkers" have been political thinkers, not economists or sociologists, philosophers, psychologists, historians, or whatever. Europe has had the leading minds in many of those areas. But--the so-called "Republican" (now tea-party) party doesn't care a fig about that. They don't like taxes (any), they don't like regulation (any), they don't like federal programs (any), they don't like honorable public servants or officeholders, and they don't like successful public policies of any kind. Any.
Right now, our country and our world are in a very difficult situation. Imagine if there was to be held a big convention of this nations leading political and economic thinkers, and journalists of all stripes. The Democrats would go a a room where the subject of discussion was "The End of the World is Coming: what can we do now to stop it, or at least slow it down." (My phrase for the latter is "a soft landing," which might be the best we can hope for.
However, the Republicans would go into a different room, and what they would consider is this variant of the same question: "The End of the World is Coming: what are are your profit-making opportunities now?."
Which room do you think would be more crowded? And which one would garner the most press?
My Groups
-
Amateur Photographers Updated: 13 minutes ago
-
Wildlife Photographers & Artists Updated: 1 hour ago
-
Photography: beginners and pros alike! Updated: 1 hour ago
Neighborhood
Explore friends, family, friends & family, or entire neighborhood.
