A dried up pond on what is normally a wetland. Effects of climate change, global warming.The coastal plain near the Canning River, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, ANWR, Alaska. Please click on the image above to view a larger version of this photo.

Hey Folks,

For the less progressive of the folks who read this blog, Happy Flat Earth Day.

Cheers

Carl

Hey Folks,

December 6, 2010, marks the 50th anniversary of the establishment of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, or ANWR, in Alaska. To commemorate this, and as a tribute to an amazing place, I’ve put together this slide show; 50 photos to mark the 50 years. These are all images from the Refuge, over 19 million acres of wild lands. The refuge is a treasure, home to thousands of creatures and features; the caribou herds, the Brooks Mountains, the broad coastal plain, migratory birds and countless other gifts to this world. A beautiful landscape that warrants our respect, not our exploitation.

I selected the images to present a the diversity of features and creatures that call the Refuge home, and composed and recorded the music to accompany it. I hope you enjoy it.

If you have a nice, large computer screen and broadband connection, what I REALLY recommend you do is go to my page on Exposure Room.com and click the ‘HD’ button underneath the thumbnail. You can watch and listen to this video in full HD resolution, at 720 x 1280. It’ll take a moment to load, but is (hopefully) well worth the time.

Happy Birthday ANWR – and cheers to many, many more.

Visit the wild.

Cheers

Carl
Photos and music produced and copyrighted by Carl Donohue. All Rights Reserved.

A small bloom of Arctic Lupine in the Brooks Mountain Range catch last light of the summer day. Land of the midnight sun, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, or ANWR, in arctic Alaska where the coastal plain meet the Brooks Mountain Range. Please click on the image above to view a larger version of the photo.

Hey Folks,

Another photo from the Brooks Range, and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Back in September the US F&WS (Fish and Wildlife Service) announced, as part of their Comprehensive Conservation Plan, that “the Service will conduct wilderness reviews for three Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) for potential inclusion within the National Wilderness Preservation System. These three WSAs encompass almost all refuge lands not currently designated as wilderness”. This is good news. I’ll reiterate my favorite part of the quote: “These three WSAs encompass almost all refuge lands not currently designated as wilderness“.

There are numerous steps involved, and, if recommended by the US F&WS, approval is required by the Dept Director, the Secretary of the Interior, and the President. Then, the final decision lies with the US Congress; the actual authority to designate land as ‘wilderness’.

It’s almost comical, really; such a rigorous and formalized process to meander through in order to deem lands “wild”. Implicit in the word wild is ‘free will’ –  yet not quite so wild as to be free of the rigmarole of official procedure, of course.

Anyone who suggests the 19 million acres of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge isn’t a wilderness either hasn’t been there or is simply in denial. Perhaps I could say it more clearly this way; if the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge doesn’t qualify for ‘wilderness designation’, then we might as well remove that term from our vocabulary. Surely there is no place more deserving of such designation than the Refuge?

The “wilderness reviews” should be completed by Feb 2011, which will be followed by a released draft, more public comment, more revisions, and hopefully, a final plan and recommendation in May 2012. Apparently wilderness takes careful planning and review; it’s not simply created overnight.

A reminder that Dec 06, 2010, marks the coming anniversary of the establishment of the Refuge; I’m working on a little project for it, and should have it online soon. Stand warned.

Cheers

Carl

Dwarf fireweed (Epilobium latifolium) and the Upper Marsh Fork River of the Brooks mountain range, in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), Alaska. Mid summer, this photo was taken about 2:00am. First light of the day. Please click on the image above to view a larger version of the photo.

Hey Folks,

Recently I’ve read a few articles and posts about photography and and photographers, and particularly landscape photographers; the question of ‘shooting icons’ almost invariably comes up. For those readers here who aren’t quite sure what that is a reference to, it simply points to the regularity with which so many famous landscapes are photographed. Scenes such as Grand Teton from the Snake River Overlook, Yellowstone National Park’s Lower Falls are almost ubiquitous with landscape photography.

It’s an interesting discussion. Those kinds of locations are frequently photographed because not only are they spectacular scenes, but they’re also great to photograph; overlooks and viewpoints seemingly designed with the landscape photographer in mind. This is not true of all spectacular scenes, for a variety of reasons.

The primary reason a scene like this one, of Mount Edith Cavell and Cavell Lake in Canada’s Jasper National Park has been photographed so many more times than, say, the scene at left, is that Edith Cavell is road accessible. All the other discourse about happiness and contentment and art versus stock and following one’s creative muse and shooting your passion is simply talk; it all comes down to the pavement. If it’s off the road, it’s probably not an icon.

The question then concerns itself with the value of our pursuit; and that, like so many such questions, is entirely contextual. For some people, shooting photos that sell well is all that matters. For others, shooting photos that express some personal vision is more important.

Those 2 quests are not always in alignment. All the contentment in the world is somewhat moot if there’s no food on the table come suppertime. And what of a nice fat check on the doorstep if it serves (and is served as) a function of misery?

Perhaps what’s disappointing is not photographers shooting pictures of the Teton Range, but the absolute overwhelming pursuit of those photographs; literally hundreds of serious and very talented photographers shoot the same scene every month (as an aside, I know of just one photographer other than myself who has a shot of this same mountain, and he was standing bleary-eyed about 50′ away from me when I took this photo). It’s Wyoming’s version of combat fishing.

Snake River Overlook is certainly an arresting view, those magnificent mountains literally roaring skyward from the Yellowstone Plateau. One of the most memorable mornings of my photography career, if not of my life, was spent sitting on the tail of my pickup truck, sipping coffee and listening to a Tony Rice-David Grisman CD (Tone Poems, do yourself a favor, and go buy it), just watching, enjoying those glorious mountains. 2 hours later and I was still spellbound; the mountains as superb as ever and Tony Rice playing (on repeat, of course) as sublimely all the while. I packed up and drove off only when it occurred to me that I had a mere 42 hours time before I had to be in Atlanta, GA. Quite a drive, I assure you.

There is simply no dispute over the grandeur of such a place, and the value of experiencing them; Niagara Falls, the Grand Canyon, Lake Louise (Banff National Park) and so forth are amazing places, with amazing scenery, and (almost) all of the elements in place for great nature photography. What I am dubious about, however, is the artistry involved in this ‘icon photography’. What room is there for creative expression at places so repetitively (and wonderfully) photographed?

Recreating is a paltry proxy for creating; reassembly scant subsidy for making. Art is about making. Art is not about re-making.

World-reknown thinker and self-avowed iconoclast Joseph Chilton Pearce wrote that “to live a creative life, we must lose our fear of being wrong” – this is, essentially, the art of creating. To create is, essentially, to speculate, to step into the unknown, to explore. Art is little more than the practice throwing mud at a wall and seeing what might stick. Exploring the unfamiliar requires facing that fear of being wrong, of  tossing out marbles and finding out that nothing might stick.

Similarly, Erich Fromme said that “creativity requires the courage to let go of certainties”. This advice is in conflict with the idea of a trip to Snake River Overlook or Antelope Canyon; on the contrary, most paparrazo head to these places precisely BECAUSE of the certainty, of knowing what comes next.

I think this hounding of famous locales is also at odds, to some degree, with the intent of copyright law and the concept of intellectual property. Musicians, for example, must pay hefty royalty fees to cover another’s composition, regardless of how (often drastically) differently they may arrange the notes. Rolf Harris’ cacophonic version of Stairway to Heaven is a classic (though extraordinarily bad) example of how widely disparate a cover version may be from the original tune, yet the track still is not considered an original composition.

John Fogarty, of Creedence Clearwater Revival, for example, was once sued by his (old) publishing company because they deemed a newer work of his to be too directly influenced by a tune he had written previously (they lost, but only because  Mr. Fogarty convinced a judge the 2 pieces were not overly musically similar). Imagine if photographers were held to this standard for their creations.

As artists, we must seek out the new; art is divergent from artifice. We learn from the past, from other artists, from an infinitely diverse assemblage of sources, but we mustn’t replicate them. We’re photographers, not xerox operatives. “A young painter who cannot liberate himself from the influence of past generations is digging his own grave” – Henri Matisse.

No musician I know wants to make their living playing cover tunes.

Cheers

Carl

Midnight sun on the coastal plain, Section 1002, near the Canning river. A small pond on the plain catches a the skies blue reflection. Pond and reflection, coastal plain, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), Alaska. Dec, 2010 marks 50 years since the federal government established the area as a national wildlife refuge. To view a larger version of this photo, please click on the image above.

Hey Folks,

Drill here? Drill now? I think not.

How about “Happy Birthday, and Cheers to the next 50 years!”

This year is the 50th anniversary of the establishment of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge – “ANWR”, as folks like to call it. A swathe of wild land the size of South Carolina became a federally protected area in 1960, and then established as a wildlife refuge in 1980 with the passing of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA).

One of the most important conservation measures yet taken by this nation, the Act protects over 100 million acres of federal lands within Alaska; this single statute more than doubled the area of national park and refuge land in the country and tripled the area of federally designated wilderness. Roughly 40%, or 8 million acres, of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge was (and is) designated wilderness. This one landscape makes up over 7% of the designated wilderness in the United States.

Next month, on Dec 6, 2010, ANWR turns 50 years old. Turn your thoughts northward, and give it a moment. Or several moments. 19 million acres of land this country gifted to itself. It’s a beautiful thing.

I’ve visited the refuge a number of times now, and each year the visit has been unimaginably rewarding. To those who’d rather see it turned into an oil well, I’d ask to what end?

Cheers

Carl

A Parasitic Jaeger (Stercorarius parasiticus) in flight over the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), Alaska. Click the image to view a larger version of the photo.

Hey Folks,

One afternoon we hiked out around the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge just because. We must’ve wandered a little close to a Jaeger nest, as this bird suddenly appeared from nowhere and made its displeasure known.

The Parasitic Jaeger is also called the Arctic Skua or the Parasitic Skua. While not a “parasite“, the bird is well known for it’s piracy of other birds’ food. Stealing food is often called “kleptoparasitism” by folks who like to use large prodigious words to describe simple, everyday stuff; scientists, for example.

Though solitary, they’ll often ‘gang up‘ on other birds to steal food. One of the folks on our trip, Steve Weaver, was witness to such an act, when he saw and photographed 4 Jaegers harassing a Red-throated loon, finally driving it from its nest and eating the eggs the loon had been defending. Amazing stuff.

The Jaeger isn’t simply a thief though – the bird also hunts for prey, such as rodents, small birds and insects – Jaeger is the German word for ‘hunter‘.

Parasitic Jaegers look kinda like a gull, but the wings and flight are more falconesque. Pelagic birds, they spend the bulk of their time at sea, coming ashore to breed. The young will often spend the first couple of years of their lives over the seas, not returning to land until they reach breeding age.

Some of you might recall the Long-tailed Jaeger photo I posted previously from a trip to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) a couple of years ago. The Parasitic Jaegers are closely related, a little larger, but not so large as the Pomarine Jaeger.

Cheers

Carl

The Beaufort Sea along the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). The Arctic Ocean sea ocean, after spring breakup, rests on the beach. Melting permafrost in the bluffs signals warming temperatures. Arctic Ocean, Coastal Plain, ANWR, Alaska. Click for a larger photo.

Hey Folks,

Another photo from our recent trip to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the Beaufort Sea. I hiked from our final camp across the coastal plain (well, across part of the plain, not the whole thing) with Steve Weaver hoping to photograph some of the icebergs we’d seen the previous day along the shoreline. Unfortunately, strong southerly winds had blown almost all the ice out to sea, and we were largely thwarted. This patch of ice, however, had been resting on shore, stranded when the tide rolled out, and we made a few images.

Coastlines are such dynamic landscapes, and in the Arctic particularly so. They can change drastically in a day or less, and do so frequently.

This photo was taken around 1:15am .. maybe later. I think Steve and I arrived back at camp around 4:00am, and I went to bed at nearly 5:00am. up at 10:00am-ish to break camp, roll the raft, and wait for a bush plane. We arrived, finally, in Coldfoot, around 5:30pm,(the temp was 90deg F, a start contrast from the Arctic Ocean we’d just left) unpacked the gear from the plane, sorted it and loaded the van, ate dinner, and hit the road, rolling into the Yukon River area stop late at night. Then up early the next morning to drive from there to Anchorage. 36 hours later it was out the door to pick up folks for the next trip to Wrangell – St. Elias National Park and Preserve. Summertime can be like that in Alaska.

I’ve been out to the Beaufort Sea here a number of times, now every time I’ve been so fortunate as to have an absolutely glorious final evening. The wind wasn’t bad at all, the bugs had quieted down, and the expansive vastness of the place really moves me. It’s a fantastic experience, to see such a harsh and rugged environment also be so sensitively fragile; the quiet tundra, the shorebirds, a whisper of air and the glowing rays of the sun, low on the horizon. After the trek back to camp I simply couldn’t go to bed, but sat for nearly 45 minutes by my tent, just watching, listening and enjoying the grace of the Arctic coastal plain. It’s a phenomenal place.

The bluffs on the left of the frame, like Castles Made of Sand, slowly slip into the sea – eventually.

Cheers

Carl

A glaucous gull sits with its chick on a nest on the coastal plain in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, ANWR, Alaska, ( Larus hyperboreus). Please click on the thumbnail to view a larger version of the photo.

Hey Folks,

I posted this ahead of time; right now I’m out on a hike, but thought I’d post this image from my recent trip to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Taken on the final evening of our trip, this Glaucous gull (Larus hyperboreus) and chick were a beautiful sight in gorgeous light.

The gulls are pretty common in the refuge in summertime, and can be pretty aggressive in defense of their young. This gull and its mate were busy most of the evening dive bombing a Red-throated loon that was nesting nearby; apparently too close nearby for the gulls’ peace of mind.

Hope you enjoy the photo. I’ll be back from the current trip soon enough, and wil try to post a few more images and some video from the trips. Until then,

Cheers

Carl

A flowing stream and tiny waterfall, near the Marsh Fork River, Brooks Mountain Range, ANWR, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska. Please click the thumbnail to view a larger version of the photo.

Hey Folks,

Wow – what a great trip we just had in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR); I rafted the Marsh Fork and the Canning River, through the Brooks Mountain Range and across the coastal plain to the Beaufort Sea, the Arctic Ocean, with a great group of folks. This photo was taken the first night of our trip, just a short hike from our camp on the Marsh Fork. It was pretty late, maybe around 1am or so, I can’t recall exactly.

The trip was fantastic, thanks to some great weather, very few mosquitoes, good food and a really, really great group of folks. I wish had more time to write about the trip, and post a few more photos, but I just got back in last night and am leaving tomorrow morning for an 8 day backpacking trip in Wrangell – St. Elias National Park. Until then, I hope you like this photo of the Brooks Range, ANWR.

Cheers

Carl

Arctic fox and oil barrels on the coastal plain, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska. Please click on the image to view a larger version of the photo.

Hey Folks,

Excuse my rant; but, this is my blog, and I’m about to wander in the mtns for a while. Before I go, I need to speak out.

I read earlier today of ex-Alaska Governor Sarah Palin’s latest comments about the current disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. She states “Radical environmentalists: you are damaging the planet with your efforts to lock up safer drilling areas”.

Her basic premise is that the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe is the work and responsibility of “extreme environmentalists”. Let’s disregard, for now, the fact that she’s been a proponent of offshore drilling for years now (including her 2008 run for VP where she repeatedly claimed that Drill Baby, Drill “also means safely tapping into our offshore sources, safely, environmentally safe”. In her own words, whilst debating then-Senator Joe Biden she stammered “You even called drilling — safe, environmentally-friendly drilling offshore — as raping the outer continental shelf. There — with new technology, with tiny footprints even on land, it is safe to drill and we need to do more of that“.

“friendly”? If it weren’t so sad it would be farcical; what the hell is “friendly” about extracting crude oil from beneath the ocean? Makes me wonder what kind of “friends” some of these people keep.  If one of my friends came over to the house and started drilling a hole 20 000′ into the lawn I’d say they’re outta their mind.

I’ve no problem with a discussion of the collective responsibility owned by our society. I hopefully made that clear in my earlier post here. But I won’t absolve the oil industry of their responsibility, nor the clowns who would reduce a discussion of the energy policy of the world’s largest energy consumer to a 3-word bumper-sticker slogan: “Drill Here, Drill Now”  of theirs, which is the intent of Palin’s outburst. Sarah Palin’s remarks, along with this childish assessment from Ted Nugent is not an honest critique of any social construct at all. In fact, it’s nothing more than the opposite of that; an attempt to divert attention from the direct and very palpable targets of hella-oil, political corruption and bumper-sticker political campaigns to a somewhat more nebulous, transparent target. That is intolerable.

A cursory examination of Sarah Palin’s recent article, where she musters the troops by pointing the finger directly at their favoritest of enemies: environmentalists.

“This is a message to extreme “environmentalists” who hypocritically protest domestic energy production offshore and onshore. There is nothing “clean and green” about your efforts. Look, here’s the deal: when you lock up our land, you outsource jobs and opportunity away from America and into foreign countries that are making us beholden to them. Some of these countries don’t like America. Some of these countries don’t care for planet earth like we do – as evidenced by our stricter environmental standards.”

Better yet, how about a message to “extreme idiots”? Don’t pretend this is about outsourcing jobs; BP is a British Company – what better outsourcing than to siphon the profits from American oil to foreign countries? Or, better yet, she works for FOX News, a corporation whose 2nd largest owner is from where? Saudi Arabia. I’d ask if it’s not OK for us to buy foreign oil, why is it OK for her to work for their media outlets?

Anyway, she’s wrong. There is plenty clean and green about extreme “environmentalists” who work to protect wildlands in the US. The coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is one of the few places still “green and clean” and that’s largely thanks to the folks she’s insulting with her accusations. Here’s green:

Brooks Range meets the coastal plain, Brooks Mountain Range foothills, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, ANWR, Alaska. Please click on the image to view a larger version of the photo.

A greater point might be made in reference to jobs though. How many jobs in the Gulf region have been lost by this single incident? What economic cost is escalating daily because of these strict environmental standards?

Why do these “stricter environmental standards” exist at all? Are they a function of hysterically screaming “Drill Here, Drill Now”? Of course not! Those standards, though clearly far from tight enough, are the result of protests, studies, activism (including, yes, lawsuits) and diligent, hard work by the very same extreme environmentalists she’s now attacking. If it were not for some of these “radicals”, this kind of disaster wouldn’t be as uncommon as it is. If the environmentalists are guilty of anything, its of not resisting this ecological violence forcefully enough. It’s the compromises they’ve made, not the positions they defended, that contributed to this situation.

“You’re not preventing environmental hazards; you’re outsourcing them and making drilling more dangerous.”

Excuse me? She just got through months and months of telling us how “totally safe and environmentally friendly” this offshore drilling is. Or perhaps we shouldn’t have taken her word for it. In (BP America VP) David Rainey’s own words, offshore drilling is “both safe and protective of the environment”. The oil industry has been clamoring for years about how their fancy new gizmos and gadgets, the very latest in technologies, afford safe, friendly offshore drilling. Now Sarah is claiming this drilling is dangerous and hazardous. Why were they lying all this time?

“We need permission to drill in safer areas, including the uninhabited arctic land of ANWR. It takes just a tiny footprint – equivalent to the size of LA’s airport – to tap America’s rich and plentiful oil and gas up north. ANWR’s drilling footprint is like a postage stamp on a football field.”

You already DO have permission to drill in “safer areas” (your husband used to work for BP – how much time did he spend in the Beaufort Sea?). Onshore? How about 95% of the entire Alaska arctic coastal plain is open to drilling? What Sarah means is “permission to drill in those areas we haven’t yet squeezed dry”.

Re; the postage stamp. Seriously, if I hear this absurd remark once more, someone needs to lose an eye. Here’s an analogy that might bring some perspective to the ecological sensitivity of the arctic coastal plain known as Sec 1002: If I stab you in the eye with a tiny little needle, are you going to be OK, simply because the hole, the tiniest pinprick, is like a postage stamp on a football field?

Further, on Oct 21 2008 Sarah Palin said of the McCain/Palin strategy for energy development:

“John {McCain} and I have to adopt an all-of-the-above approach to meet America’s great energy challenge for you. That means harnessing alternative sources, like wind, and solar, and biomass, and geothermal.

And we will develop clean-coal technology. And we will safely drill for the billions of barrels of oil that we have underground, including off-shore.”

Clearly her position was not one of opposition to off-shore drilling. Sarah Palin didn’t advocate for drilling off-shore as an alternative to on-shore drilling; there was no “in lieu of” here. She advocated off-shore drilling in ADDITION to on-shore drilling. In fact, she didn’t even mention the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Why not? Because this isn’t about “extreme environmentalists” at all. She knew, and still knows, that virtually every poll taken has shown the majority of the American public are opposed to opening the Refuge to drilling. So we’re a country of extremists now, apparently.

Other pro-drilling comments recently have included Alaska Congressman Don Young parroting Rush Limbaugh’s statement that

“This is not an environmental disaster, and I will say that again and again because it is a natural phenomenon. Oil has seeped into this ocean for centuries, will continue to do it. During World War II there was over 10 million barrels of oil spilt from ships, and no natural catastrophe. … We will lose some birds, we will lose some fixed sealife, but overall it will recover.”

No, Mr Young – stupidity is a natural phenomenon, not oil rigs exploding in the Gulf of Mexico. Unfortunately for the communities (human and other) directly affected by this tragedy, the oil is not “seeping” but spewing into the ocean. To pretend this disaster is a “natural phenomenon” is the equivalent of calling the Vietman War a natural phenomenon – people have been fighting and killing and dying for centuries, no? How about a drunk driver tears his Mack truck into you as you walk across the street? What could be more a “natural phenomenon” than violent death?

To claim that this is not a catastrophe merely because “overall it will recover” is as insulting to my intelligence as it is an expression of Mr Young’s own lack thereof. Catastrophic does not mean unable to recover from. In fact, it means

1. “involving or causing sudden great damage or suffering” or,

2. “extremely unfortunate or unsuccessful”

The tragic events still unfolding in the Gulf of Mexico fit both of those definitions. This is indeed a catastrophe, and to attempt to leverage political gain out of the harm being done to people, to wildlife, to plants, to the ecology of the Gulf suggests a boundless moral bankruptcy. Mr Young, screw you.

Red Phalarope (Phalaropus fulicarius), Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, ANWR, Alaska. Please click on the image to view a larger version of the photo.

That these 2 people are Alaskans, both of whom saw firsthand the devastation of the EXXON-VALDEZ disaster barely 20 years ago makes their commentary here all the more reprehensible. To borrow a phrase from climate scientist Joe Romm, rather than sitting on her porch straining to glimpse Russia, Sarah Palin would do well to look over her shoulder where she might really see Valdez, where at least (and probably far more than) 11 million gallons of crude oil dumped into the pristine waters of the the Prince William Sound. Mr Young, ask the herring fisherman of Cordova if they felt the events of March 1989 were catastrophic? Ask the nearly seven thousand people who reported chemical induced illnesses from the oil toxins. Ask the 250 thousand seabirds, thousands of marine mammals and countless other coastal marine organisms that died as a result of Exxon-Mobil’s mess.

A catastrophe, Mr Young, is not the 1-plus million dollars you’ve spent on your high-priced DC lawyers fending of the Justice Dept’s ongoing investigations into your own political liveliness. A catastrophe is the lives lost when a Blowout Preventer failed to stem a gas leak in Transocean Limited’s oil rig, Deepwater Horizon, and the devastation it’s wreaking on a whole host of people and creatures who can’t fend off toxic sludge. That, Don, is a catastrophe.

The final comment I want to make (for now) pertains to the noise in the media about whether President Barack Obama is angry enough about this. I’m not going to defend everything this administration has done, particularly in this instance, because I do think they’ve dropped the ball in a few areas. But really? “get angrier”? Folks, I don’t want a president whose response is to stamp his feet and fume. A tantrum isn’t a solution. Not for grownups. I want a president who ensures things are done, and done correctly. If you want to argue that particular issue, please go right ahead. But if all you have to worry about is does the President’s expression of anger measure up to your requirements, I’d suggest you should perhaps start asking WHY you want him to be angry? Why don’t YOU get angry? We don’t need to outsource our emotions. Ratchet up your own feelings, and demand swift political action and complete, immediate retribution.

I’ll be back in a few weeks.

Cheers

Carl