I am a big Obama fan* and became a bigger fan after reading an interview of David Brooks in the Atlantic . Among other things, the article talked about a conversation Brooks had with Obama. Brooks said "Out of the blue I say, 'Ever read a guy named Reinhold Niebuhr?'
Obama answers 'Yeah.' So I say, 'What did Niebuhr mean to you?' For the
next 20 minutes, he gave me a perfect description of Reinhold Niebuhr's
thought, which is a very subtle thought process based on the idea that
you have to use power while it corrupts you."

Obama knows that the power of the presidency will corrupt him and the trick is to get his good deeds done before he becomes too corrupt to risk doing them. Or, before the power corrodes his backbone and he starts to care less about doing the right thing than staying in power.

During the Iowa primary, Michele Obama commented that, if they didn't get the nomination this time, they would not run again. Many took it as a threat, but Barrack Obama explained that they were still normal people and were able to see what needed to be done for normal people. As he said "We just paid off our student loans a couple of years ago. In four years, we will be too far out of contact with normal people to see what needs to be done to bring change."

As I watch parts of the Senate debate on Health Care – and especially the Republican stonewalling – I realize that these guys don't really care about what is good for me or the country. They just want to stay in power. I know all the arguments against Term Limits, but one of the best things about the presidency is that it is limited to only two terms. 

* interesting…fan from the word fanatic – true believer.

Last night, a friend and I went to see 2012 and ended up in a discussion on power and how it corrupts. He preferred to use the word "corrodes" as in "corrodes the backbone making it harder to stand up for what is right". I am not so sure of that.

I am inclined to think that the powerful end up thinking – believing – that what they want is the right thing because it is what they want. In the same way that Charlie Wilson, the then head of General Motors, said  – and presumably believed – "What's good for General Motors is good for the country."

This brings us to Eric Hoffer who was a Longshoreman from our very own San Francisco. In a book called The True Believer, Hoffer  postulated that fanatics, no matter what they are fanatical about, are all the same in their fanaticism. This was way before we were worried about Islamic true believers but his Thesis "Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power." fits perfectly. (The Video below starts a little hysterically, but the interview that follows is scary because it is so unhysterical.) 

I love good grammar, or, maybe I should say, I love grammar rules. All those commas, semi-commas, and dashes are there to make the reading of dead words on a dead page sound alive when read. Atleast in my writing.

Many, probably most, of our rules in life come from the past and are no longer really doing any work – or, heavy lifting (as I hear more and more at the end of the decade).  At a dinner party, don't start eating until after the hostess comes from the time when making sure they weren't going to poison you was a bigger issue. Shaking hands showed you weren't carrying a knife.    

But English is alive and most of the rules reflect the living language. And, I like to think, I know most of the rules well enough to know when I can break them. When in doubt, I can always refer to my Strunk and White, my The Deluxe Transitive Vampire, or my Wired Style Book. But I don't think I have ever heard of the rules on appositional phrases, or – for that matter – even knew they existed.

Running into Michael Tomasky's blog entry on appositional phrases is the kind of thing I find fascinating about the Web. 

There is something about manufactured landscapes that I find disturbingly compelling. They are usually striking, often beautiful, and – more often than not – toxic. Almost no matter what was there before; it was healthier before the transformation. Two of my favorite photographers often shoot manufactured landscapes. Edward Burtynsky often – actually, usually – shoots beautiful photographs of awful places:

Richard Misrach rarely shoots a pure landscape, usually his landscapes show the impact left by man. 

One of his latest series is (are?) huge – like 60" x 60" – pictures of people on a beach. 

In the mid-60's, there was a movie, Blowup, about a photographer in which the opening scene was all about admiring gorgeous pictures of homeless men. The point was to show the shallowness of the photographer; but it is what photographers try to do – take gorgeous or striking pictures. Pictures with with impact.

The Napa Valley is softer and less toxic than anything either of the masters might photograph; but it's wall to wall manufactured landscape qualifies as striking for me.

The valley floor is vineyards, as far as the eye can see. Punctuated by windmills operating in reverse – using power to move the wind. Protecting the vines from frost just like in the orange groves 50 years ago in Southern California.

In the background are the mountains (or hills if you prefer) kept at bay. Nature behind the trip wire.