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.
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?
parental advisory: this blog entry will irritate you, reading it while playing the song '2009' by The Swellers might help (right click & open in new window)
___________________________________________________
career suicide
a vital cog that consumed most of my 24 hours
for the 20th consequtive month, i'm currently based in dubai.
since last january i have been kick-out from the comfy of office spaceship into the hazardous environment of construction site battlefield.
working long hours, 6-days a week, and currently 7-days a week
the toughest year yet, profession-wise
(the above might be an attempt to explain why this blog, which i started in 2007, is less frequently updated now...haha)
interest: movies- top 3 film of 2009
No 3- The Hurt Locker
plot:Iraq. Forced to play a dangerous game of cat-and-mouse in the chaos of
war, an elite Army bomb squad unit must come together in a city where
everyone is a potential enemy and every object could be a deadly bomb
demmit...edge of the seat stuff from the word go. Gut-wrenching, pulse-pounding, tension, just mere understatement description of the movie.
All aspects of film-making are top-notch, from the brilliantly subversive screenplay through vivid cinematography, masterful directing and perfectly paced editing, even the famed film critic Mr Roger Ebert listing it as #2 in his top 10 movie of the decade. go watch it
as the narrator put it: 'u should know upfront that this is not a love story'
the pair of Joseph Gordon-Levitt (as Tom) and Zooey Cutesy-Deshanel (as Summer) were in top form.
i just wonder weather there would be '500 days of Autumn' after Tom bumped into Minka Kelly (the hottie from Friday Nite Lights) in the end
btw this film talk about architecture and The Smits a lot...thats quality!
checkout, first the 'Ikea' scene, and then the bank dance(!). Definitely indie flick of the year
everybody is looking for Quentin Tarantino or Brad Pitt goods, but in the end Christoph Waltz aka Colonel Hans 'Jew Hunter' Landa came out with guns blazing.
I wrote about this flick here so i will rest my case
An epic masterpiece, a head above the rest of 2009 release
TO BE CONTINUED
part 11 of the stoked series
i woke up to incredible news this new year's morning:
as chris cornell put it via his tweet:
“The 12 year break is over & school is back in session. Knights of the Soundtable ride again!”
i'm spinning back the Superunknown album!
i woke up to incredible news this new year's morning:
\m/ SOUNDGARDEN is reuniting \m/
“The 12 year break is over & school is back in session. Knights of the Soundtable ride again!”
i'm spinning back the Superunknown album!
I just watched the movie Shattered Glass (2003), which is about a young reporter for the New Republic who greatly embellished, or wholly made up, a number of stories that were presented as factually accurate. It is a wonderfully done and extremely provocative movie.
It is more than a commentary on an important journalistic failure and fraud. To me, it is the story of the extent to which an person (in this case, a very intelligent and capable one) can live in a world of fantasy. And then, beyond that, to tell lie after lie, very skillfully and persuasively, to protect their falsehoods.
It makes me wonder just how widespread this really is. In politics, it seems to me clear that some sort of individual psychopathologies are being written large and played out on a massive scale. Political scientists, at least since the 1960s, have tended to believe that voters and other political figures are in some sense "rational." But it seems to me completely clear that that isn't the case, at least not any more.
Economic actors, similarly--customers, business owners, bankers, whatever---have also been thought to be rational. Really, that is where the idea came from, and it was borrowed over into political science. But now we know for sure that economic decisions are indeed nowhere near rational, that they can be fatally flawed, and harm everyone. Several books have been written addressing this topic; in the long run, the foundations of economic "science" will have to be altered.
What about Ponzi schemes, men like Bernie Madoff. Clearly he was living in a fantasy world, one in which he was very well provided for, and which he induced (seduced?) many others to join him. That is individual psychopathology writ large, and actually such cases aren't unusual. Indeed, the companies headed by such men often end up on the cover of Fortune magazine for a time. And I can't help but wonder if really, many of the economic activities of the past decade or two weren't of a similar sort.
Anyhow, these kinds of fantasies are powerful persuaders.
Personally, I doubt that any of the leading "conservative" spokespeople and Republican leaders actually believe a word of anything they say--although they are certainly able to convince large numbers of gullible others. Like Stephen Glass, they have built up a house of lies, a dream factory; gotten either paid well or received a share of fame and respect for doing so, and then will argue violently to maintain what they know is all a sham. (Although which is worse: that they know that they are marketing a fantasy, or that somehow, in their twisted minds, they don't?) Does Sarah Palin truly, really, actually believe that the Democrats are creating "death panels?" It isn't true of course. But is it possible that she actually, honestly believes it? Or just thinks the argument has a certain kind of tactical political advantage.
Does anyone actually believe that Americans would be safer if everybody was carrying a gun? Even in westerns, people were often asked to deposit their weapons with the sheriff before going to the saloon to drink and gamble.
Did anyone ever truly believe that cutting taxes for the wealthy would help the whole economy grow? It is totally implausible, and it simply isn't true. In what to me was one of the more shocking aspects of the 2008 presidential campaign, did Hillary Clinton actually believe that she landed in Kosovo under sniper fire--instead of being greeted on the tarmac by a little girl with flowers and poetry? Mrs. Clinton wanted to be president, the president of the United States. And now she is Secretary of State, where I guess many think she is doing a credible job. Still, my own basic view is still--she ought to be locked up. She is or was delusional. (She didn't defend her delusion as long as Glass did, but she repeated and defended it for quite a while).
Does Ms. Palin actually think that because Alaska is geographically close to Russia, that she has gained some knowledge of foreign policy? Did anybody really think that "drill baby drill" was a solution to the high price of gasoline?
Did George Bush truly believe that there were weapons of mass destruction hidden somewhere in Iraq, or was it somehow just a useful lie, and one that did greatly enhance his popularity as a "wartime president." Did he actually believe that major military operations in Iraq had been completed by May 1, 2003?
Did Richard Nixon completely realize what he was hiding, what he had done, what he was covering up?? Didn't Bill Clinton know he was lying about his sexual proclivities? Did Senator McCarthy with his "list" of communist traitors in the State Department? Haven't many major sports figures turned out to have lied similarly? Haven't prominent criminals? (At the moment, I am thinking of OJ, but there are so many).
Basically, I think we need to allow a lot more room for lies and psychopathology as a driving force in politics, not only in (say) Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, and most definitely North Korea, which is built upon delusions, but also right here at home, in the U.S. It isn't dominant, but it is powerful.
I do urge you to see the movie, and to reflect on it. If it doesn't scare you some, I think it should. It is a wonderful but disturbing commentary on contemporary human nature. Or perhaps permanent human nature? Maybe we have always been like that, and somehow hidden it from ourselves, and taught the kids otherwise in school.
The power of misrepresentation and distortion. Hmmm.
In Yemen, the newest focus of terrorism and anti-terror concerns, 45% of the population lives on less than $2 a day. Many of us spend that much or more daily on a cup of coffee. For half of Yemen's population, that amount is their entire "allowance" for all necessities and "luxuries." It is one of the poorest nations in the Arab world.
People here in the U.S. are angry because our standard of living has been so seriously damaged by the Wall Street and Bush economic rapists, and the longer-term decline of American industry. And, rightly so! But, to me, this little fact helps put the global situation in perspective. Looked at comparatively, even many of the poorest among us have quite a lot.
And, when you add in that someone upset about such injustices can make a frightening, murderous point with a bomb in his underwear, you realize that all the expensive weapons of our very impressive military hardly matter at all.
It is a whole new world out there, and a very dangerous one. There was an article a number of years about how we were likely to miss the good old Cold War, because it provided relatively stability along with of course great nuclear danger. I do think that has come to pass.
And that's a fact.
Do you realize that there were no net jobs created in the US during the entire decade of the "naughts?" None at all. No wonder so many people are troubled, and many are furiously angry, or in despair.
Trouble is, many are angry at the wrong person or people! It was George W. Bush who was president from 2001 to early 2009. Republicans controlled the Congress (not to mention Wall Street, finance, and industry) for most of the same period. If you didn't like the naughts, then you should never again vote Republican.
The large metropolitan area that fared the worst is Detroit, losing 21% of its employment. That, of course, is where my son is. They are thinking of buying a house there in Michigan. Boy, I'd be worried about that!
Americans do make darn good movies; why not cars? But, really, Americans do make some pretty darn good cars. Somehow, though, we aren't able to make the cars on a big enough scale, or on a profitable enough basis, or we don't do it in a labor-intensive enough way, to keep enough people employed. We can't do it and make a profit (with the lack of government health insurance as among the contributing factors). So one of our major industries has shrunk away, taking so many people down with it.
There is an election going on over there in Michigan, and some moron running for governor has used the failed airplane bombing as a rationale for seeking campaign contributions. But what does a governor, or a state government, have to do with aviation security and terrorism? Nothing at all.
That is a Republican for you, trying to profit from the fears and misery of others. To ignite the passions, spur the hatred.
Not cool, Rep. Pete Hoekstra, not cool. You are not a fit man for office. We need a better quality of leader than you! This is a tough time for our country. We need the good guys and gals to step forward, and the giant blood-sucking leeches to step back.
Where is my phaser?
I just removed a number of people from my Vox "neighbors and friends" lists who hadn't updated their Vox since sometime in 2008. It feels sort of harsh to me to do that--but I guess they aren't active, and a fair number were no longer members.
I greatly enjoy writing, and I love receiving comments on what I write. I am much less good about reading the posts of others. Perhaps this partial clean-up will be an aid in helping me reform my ways. But I still am not totally sure what the "customs" are here on Vox. And, in particular, how is the "family" category used. For actual family??
Did you hear that "unfriend" or "defriend" because an Official Word this past year? Actually, it was the "word of the year."
Unfriend beat out sexting, birther, and tramp stamp.
Example: "If that cute girl with the tramp stamp doesn't start sexting me more, I am going to unfriend her! Besides, she talks like a blathering birther."
(The above is an example of the kind of sexting I never seem to receive any of. But don't even aging Vulcans need a little love? Not to mention, of course, dirty old humanoids).
Just as I said in response to Emmi:
Just what you need for fighting outer-space aliens, or traveling in any other kind of hostile environment.
You can even get her action figure. Isn't that better than a Barbie doll?
I got a kick out of it that Sigourney also played a main scientist in Avatar. And of course she has been (among other things) Dian Fossey protecting gorillas All fine causes.
I hope that, "in reality" too, she is a good person. She is considered a political activist, and for a time, lived in a tree house.
However, the movie she is working on now is G-String Mother, about Gypsy Rose Lee. Pretty funny! Not that there is anything wrong with it....
My Groups
-
Love where you live Updated: Yesterday
-
BeYourOwn.Personal.Library Updated: Yesterday
-
Food Photography Updated: 2 days ago
Neighborhood
Explore friends, family, friends & family, or entire neighborhood.
Links from my Friends
With the Twilight books hogging the top end of best selle...
Mini-Iftar @ Umi’s « ranjau...
3 hari lepas, petang jumaat dalam 1745hrs gerak ke rumah ...
super-awesome images off asraf's lens
Zhelong's triggerhappy snaps
soccer 24/7, the media not only for EPL
