Firstly, I’d like to begin today’s post by thanking those of you who wrote to wish me a happy birthday last week. I guess that if Dave Swanson’s father can make it to 89, there’s hope for me, too. The evening of my birthday I went to my cousin’s house and I was actually surprised with a nice birthday cake.
And, in case anyone’s been wondering, I went through the pile of mail from last week and there was indeed an AARP application in the mix. (I just wonder how they knew.)
Now, to the present. Today is a day that I have been dreading. Not that anything terrible was going to happen today. That’s left for tomorrow – as today is the final day of my five-day holiday weekend (hey, I could get used to this!) and tomorrow it’s back to work. I took off Thursday and Friday from work for the holiday, then came Saturday and Sunday, followed by today being an off day as part of my regular work schedule. (Like I wrote last time: twelve more years!)
Still, I am happy to have had the five days off this one time and I did accomplish a lot. I didn’t do too much photographically, but I did make a lot of progress cleaning up around here – getting rid of stuff I don’t need and moving a lot of stuff into my new storage bin. The good news about this, photographically, is that it brings me a lot closer to printing photos again. Hopefully it’s just a matter of time now.
I also spent time here watching some good films on DVD. Between Friday night and Saturday afternoon I watched Cecil B. DeMille’s The Ten Commandments on DVD – both the 1923 silent version and the better known 1956 version. The later one I’d seen many times (including once in a movie theater when I was a kid during a revival screening), and it was good to see it properly in widescreen on TV. The earlier version I had never seen before and it was certainly effective, though it was really two films in one – the first third being the Biblical story of the Exodus, with the remainder being a modern parable of morality and immorality.
I watched a couple of others, too. One was The Country Girl, with Bing Crosby, William Holden and Grace Kelly in her Oscar-winning performance. The film that really got me thinking, though, was A Man For All Seasons, with Paul Scofield in his Oscar-winning role as Sir Thomas More, the man who refused to yield to King Henry VIII when he wanted to divorce one woman to marry another. Much of what was discussed dealt with the law, and it made me think about the new 2257 laws that came into effect last month.
First, More’s future son-in-law says that he would break any law in order to stop the Devil, but More says no. He would give the Devil the benefit of the law as much as much as he would give it to any man - not for the Devil’s sake, but for his own, because when the protections of the law can be overlooked for one, they can be overlooked for all. That assumes, of course, that such laws are written in a fair manner and are designed to protect people – but what of laws (like the new 2257 rules) that are nominally meant to protect but seem to have a much more insidious purpose?
Ultimately, More felt that the law would protect him via his own silence. He would not take an oath acknowledging Henry VIII as head of the Church of England, but neither did he speak against it – and without any such declaration, the law said that he could not be convicted. Still, they were out to get to get him by hook or by crook, and they did – apparently via false, perjured testimony. More had opposed Henry’s marriage to Anne Boleyn, so I guess it’s ironic that when Henry tired of her, he (or his people) had her convicted and executed on trumped up charges, too.
All of this is to say that when one puts faith in the legal system, that system must act fairly and the laws written must be just. I just wonder how much justice there is in the new 2257 rules and how fairly the legal system will deal with them.
*******************************************************************************
As to the photo at the top, this was one of the unintentional double exposures I made with my new Holga at Prince Edward Island, Canada, in the summer of 2006. When I use the Holga, I can never seem to remember whether I’ve advanced the film or not. If I have advanced the film but I’m not sure and I advance it again, I lose a frame of film. If I think I have advanced it but I didn’t, then the result is a double exposure like you see here.
Still, serendipitous things like this can yield interesting results. The first image made was of Rachel lying down on the rocky beach. When she stood up, I asked her to pose for one more photo, to which she gave me a “what do you want from me now?” look. I think the combined image looks sort of funky. When I showed it to Rachel, her response was “I’ve got a boob on my left arm.”
And, in case anyone’s been wondering, I went through the pile of mail from last week and there was indeed an AARP application in the mix. (I just wonder how they knew.)
Now, to the present. Today is a day that I have been dreading. Not that anything terrible was going to happen today. That’s left for tomorrow – as today is the final day of my five-day holiday weekend (hey, I could get used to this!) and tomorrow it’s back to work. I took off Thursday and Friday from work for the holiday, then came Saturday and Sunday, followed by today being an off day as part of my regular work schedule. (Like I wrote last time: twelve more years!)
Still, I am happy to have had the five days off this one time and I did accomplish a lot. I didn’t do too much photographically, but I did make a lot of progress cleaning up around here – getting rid of stuff I don’t need and moving a lot of stuff into my new storage bin. The good news about this, photographically, is that it brings me a lot closer to printing photos again. Hopefully it’s just a matter of time now.
I also spent time here watching some good films on DVD. Between Friday night and Saturday afternoon I watched Cecil B. DeMille’s The Ten Commandments on DVD – both the 1923 silent version and the better known 1956 version. The later one I’d seen many times (including once in a movie theater when I was a kid during a revival screening), and it was good to see it properly in widescreen on TV. The earlier version I had never seen before and it was certainly effective, though it was really two films in one – the first third being the Biblical story of the Exodus, with the remainder being a modern parable of morality and immorality.
I watched a couple of others, too. One was The Country Girl, with Bing Crosby, William Holden and Grace Kelly in her Oscar-winning performance. The film that really got me thinking, though, was A Man For All Seasons, with Paul Scofield in his Oscar-winning role as Sir Thomas More, the man who refused to yield to King Henry VIII when he wanted to divorce one woman to marry another. Much of what was discussed dealt with the law, and it made me think about the new 2257 laws that came into effect last month.
First, More’s future son-in-law says that he would break any law in order to stop the Devil, but More says no. He would give the Devil the benefit of the law as much as much as he would give it to any man - not for the Devil’s sake, but for his own, because when the protections of the law can be overlooked for one, they can be overlooked for all. That assumes, of course, that such laws are written in a fair manner and are designed to protect people – but what of laws (like the new 2257 rules) that are nominally meant to protect but seem to have a much more insidious purpose?
Ultimately, More felt that the law would protect him via his own silence. He would not take an oath acknowledging Henry VIII as head of the Church of England, but neither did he speak against it – and without any such declaration, the law said that he could not be convicted. Still, they were out to get to get him by hook or by crook, and they did – apparently via false, perjured testimony. More had opposed Henry’s marriage to Anne Boleyn, so I guess it’s ironic that when Henry tired of her, he (or his people) had her convicted and executed on trumped up charges, too.
All of this is to say that when one puts faith in the legal system, that system must act fairly and the laws written must be just. I just wonder how much justice there is in the new 2257 rules and how fairly the legal system will deal with them.
*******************************************************************************
As to the photo at the top, this was one of the unintentional double exposures I made with my new Holga at Prince Edward Island, Canada, in the summer of 2006. When I use the Holga, I can never seem to remember whether I’ve advanced the film or not. If I have advanced the film but I’m not sure and I advance it again, I lose a frame of film. If I think I have advanced it but I didn’t, then the result is a double exposure like you see here.
Still, serendipitous things like this can yield interesting results. The first image made was of Rachel lying down on the rocky beach. When she stood up, I asked her to pose for one more photo, to which she gave me a “what do you want from me now?” look. I think the combined image looks sort of funky. When I showed it to Rachel, her response was “I’ve got a boob on my left arm.”
