Obama's inauguration

[DavidRoss]

Okay, here are some BIG pictures from the inauguration.

My heart likes 40 best, my mind likes 33.  I still remember how stunned and dismayed many were in response to Carlos & Smith's salute on the victory stand.  I doubt there was ever a more effective protest.

[Wendell_E]

Okay, here are some
I have a question about the inauguration. What if an atheist or a person of a different religion becomes the President (however unlikely that may be) - does (s)he still have take the oath with one hand on The Bible?

The oath's in the constition, but it doesn't say anything about a bible, so I guess the answer is "no".  According to the Wikipedia article on the oath, " Theodore Roosevelt did not use a Bible when taking the oath in 1901", and "Lyndon B. Johnson was sworn in on a Roman Catholic missal on Air Force One."

[DavidRoss]

Hi Dave,
Nice to see you here again.  I hope bygones are bygones.

Hello, Anne--nice to hear from you and thanks for the welcome.  I'm happy to forgive and move on, but it's a challenge at times on a site whose visitors include a few shit-stirring wackos seeking targets for their misplaced hostility.  But for the grace of God, eh?  At least I see that the fellow with a history of making nasty comments and then editing them so as to feign innocence has edited another unprovoked attack on me and changed it to a petulant attack on Michelle Obama.  

Cheers, y'all!

[Anne]

Thank you for the beautiful pictures. 

[zamyrabyrd]

What did you think about the John Williams Simple Things?

Fairly bland, imo, but nice nonetheless.  Interesting also, NYT pointed out that Yo Yo Ma might use a carbon-fiber cello if the weather was too cold for his $2M instrument.  I was listening on the radio and so couldn't know  ...  could anyone tell?

It was pretaped.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090123/ap_on_go_pr_wh/inauguration_recorded_music
Whether you loved or hated the classical music played at President Barack Obama's inauguration, what you heard was a recording made two days earlier unless you were sitting within earshot of the celebrated performers.

[Opus106]

Thanks for the pictures, opus67!

Thank you for the beautiful pictures. 

You are welcome. The Big Picture is an amazing site! It is frequently updated with pictures like these from events around the world (and sometimes from outside it too!)

The oath's in the constition, but it doesn't say anything about a bible, so I guess the answer is "no".  According to the Wikipedia article on the oath, " Theodore Roosevelt did not use a Bible when taking the oath in 1901", and "Lyndon B. Johnson was sworn in on a Roman Catholic missal on Air Force One."

Thanks.

[Bunny]

What did you think about the John Williams Simple Things?

Fairly bland, imo, but nice nonetheless.  Interesting also, NYT pointed out that Yo Yo Ma might use a carbon-fiber cello if the weather was too cold for his $2M instrument.  I was listening on the radio and so couldn't know  ...  could anyone tell?

Didn't use the carbon fibre cello in the end, but certainly didn't use his primary instrument the Montagnana or the Strad either... Not sure which one he did use, could have been a Moes and Moes which is the other instrument he regularly uses. It was a bit bland, but nice none the less. He played wonderfully I thought.

I guess no one has seen the NYTimes.  Apparently he didn't use the cello at all during the inauguration. In the words of Gizmodo.com, Itzhak and Yo-Yo Go Milli Vanilli With John Williams's Inaugural Soundtrack.  They prerecorded the music two days before the inauguration.  Steel strings contract so much in the cold that it's impossible to keep them in tune.

Here's what the NY Times reported:



But what the millions on the Mall and watching on television heard was in fact a recording, made two days earlier by the quartet and matched tone for tone by the musicians playing along.

The players and the inauguration organizing committee said the arrangement was necessary because of the extreme cold and wind during Tuesday's ceremony. The conditions raised the possibility of broken piano strings, cracked instruments and wacky intonation minutes before the president's swearing in (which had problems of its own).

[Opus106]

I guess no one has seen the NYTimes. 

And I guess that you didn't notice zamyrabyrd's post a couple above yours.

[Christo]

No comments about Michelle's plug ugly gloves holding the Lincoln Bible?

No, we just loved every bit of the ceremony. 

[Opus106]

No, we just loved every bit of the ceremony. 

Faithfully.

[Opus106]

Obama's Inauguration in 3D in Google Earth.

[Christo]

Okay, here are some BIG pictures from the inauguration.

I particularly liked the one of President Mugabe cheering on the occasion ... 

             

[eyeresist]

I particularly liked the one of President Mugabe cheering on the occasion ... 
             

I guess he had the sound turned down...

[Herman]

AFter yesterday's vote it certainly doesn't look like it's "Pelosi and her gang" (DR) who are the obstructionist party.

[DavidRoss]

AFter yesterday's vote it certainly doesn't look like it's "Pelosi and her gang" (DR) who are the obstructionist party.

Au contraire, my unrepentant stalker "friend."  Anyone with enough integrity to look beyond a deceptive headline parroting his prejudices will quickly discover that Pelosi is actively subverting the "spirit of bipartisanship" promised by Obama.  Rather than working with House Republicans to craft a bipartisan bill that all can agree with, she's using her majority to cut Republicans out of the process.   This is precisely the sort of behavior that prompted my assessment (falsely characterized above by you) that Obama might well find dealing with Pelosi & her inner circle of partisan thugs much more problematic than dealing with Republicans or even Islamic terrorists!

Despite Obama's call for bipartisanship, Pelosi hasn't gotten the message and has continued her efforts to ride roughshod over Republican concerns.  Voting against the proposed bill as a block is a pretty strong way to call attention to its problems--rather daring when you consider the political riskiness of voting nay when the national media will almost certainly present the story as sheer Republican hatefulness.  Granted, only idiots would be satisfied with such a superficial and plainly biased analysis, but then idiots are the target audience for such proclamations, aren't they?

I suspect that the Congressional Republicans would love nothing better than a truly bipartisan stimulus bill they can support.  What they won't support is something fundamentally flawed and counter-productive and which completely ignores their concerns.  For an explanation of some of the issues, see this Washington Post article by the economist Martin Feldstein.  And here are some telling statements taken from a Politico story about the vote and House Republicans' meeting with Obama to discuss the stimulus bill:

Rep. Peter J. Roskam (R-Ill.), who served in the state Senate with Obama, told his former colleague that Democrats in the House have not observed the president's campaign pledge to rise above party labels, complaining that there is more money for new sod on the National Mall than the $41 million for small-business tax cuts.

Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) closed the meeting by arguing that Republicans had been left out of the drafting process and had minimal contact with Pelosi and other House Democrats.

Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said: "The most encouraging statement I think the president made today was the fact that he had no pride of authorship in this bill. We take that to mean that [the] vote is only the first step in the process, only the beginning."

Finally, on a personal note, please stop stalking me in your pathetic effort to "get even" for my having held you to account for your vicious attack on a Spanish newbie's less-than-perfect English a few years ago.  Although you haven't yet reached the depths of snideness you've sunk to in the past, I've resumed posting here for little more than a week, in which time you've already begun stalking my posts and twisting my words to attack me, repeating the pattern of behavior that's previously gotten you banned from this site and at least one other.  Like many participants at GMG, I suspect, I rather value your contributions about music, a subject you clearly know something about.  I even value some of your contributions on subjects about which you clearly know far less than you imagine.  I do not, however, value the petulant nastiness you exhibit from time to time and I will not tolerate you trolling my posts and stalking me.  I've seen how low you can sink, here and elsewhere.  In hopes of nipping this in the bud, I will flag this post for the moderators so they will at least be made aware of the potential for mischief should you prove ungrateful for Rob's amnesty.