For starters and a little bit of background, I was personally very involved with the Second Vermont Republic during its infancy and early years.  I was so precisely for what it seems are some of the reasons that the folks at ASR Blog are stirring these things back up here at GMD- namely, that the very conversation about secession, regardless of how “realistic” it is or isn’t, is one that by its own nature gets us talking about our individual rights, our rights of self-determination, of local autonomy, and the role of distant (“foreign”) ruling forces (empire, imperialism, etc).  By merely talking about or proposing secession and the dismembering of the American Empire, and in the mere act of considering it, we find ourselves in a very, very important political conversation about the role of the State, and the very nature of human life and society; we arrive in a conversation that fundamentally informs how we act socially and what we push for and desire politically (and, importantly, why we do so and towards what ends).

For myself and many others, this is an incredibly important part of any political conversation, but unfortunately not one that happens often enough at all.  Base political dialogue in the United States carries a whole host of assumptions that, quite frankly, if examined and considered on their own could positively effect the nature and outcome of many of those very political issues that grip the country and even the world.

I eventually chose to cut formal ties with SVR because I morally disagreed with the thrust of the organization which insisted that SVR be (or claim to be) a politically and morally neutral group with but one singular opinion: that Vermont should secede from the Union and that in fact the Union should be dismantled.

The problems I have with such a stance are many, though in some sense of fairness and clarification it should be noted that at an early meeting of SVR members (the membership structures and make of the organization were still very infantile at this stage- maybe two dozen people showed) at the ISE in Plainfield I brought my disagreement and concerns to the group, and after a reasonably vigorous and engaged debate on the matter, the people who agreed with my stance were out-numbered by the people who didn’t.  It was after bringing my disagreements to the group, and having them “lose” democratically, that I chose to inform Dr Naylor that I decided to end my formal ties to the group.

Briefly to address those concerns:  First and foremost, SVR was interested in disassociating with the U.S. Federal State, but not (necessarily) opposed to capitalism or the State itself.  In so doing, SVR didn’t rule out that a capitalist, empirical, tyrannical State would exist in place of the U.S..  In fact, Dr Naylor (and others at that specific meeting) were confident and content with the notion that an independent Vermont nation-state would by definition be more egalitarian, more free, and just more desirable.  This, of course, is the very nationalistic jingoism which Naylor and SVR claim to be so repulsed by (“we’re better ’cause we’re us”).

Additionally, just as post-modernism negates itself by being a “grand narrative” which insists that “grand narratives do not exist”, the alleged stance that “we’re politically neutral…” (i.e., take no stances regarding health care as a human right, regarding pot legalization, the prison-industrial complex, police brutality and discrimination, the education system, a woman’s right to control her own body, etc etc) “…except the U.S. Empire is bad and Vermont should leave it” is, of course, a political stance.  And, as a political stance, is (and should be) for or against a whole host of ideas, as well as methods.  Naylor’s favorite pastime, I came to see (one which he generally carries on with to this day) is writing and speaking about the nature and effects of capitalism and the State itself; yet he (and SVR) refuse to be explicitly anti-capitalist, or more importantly, affirmative of a person and a community’s rights to self-determination and autonomy.  On this last point, SVR has continually concluded that somehow, inherently, Vermont (meaning quite specifically the people who live in this State) would be an idealic, utopian community (i.e., State).  This stance is, as I said, simply illogical and reeks badly of implicit jingoism, nationalism, and racism (let alone classism and a hole host of social assumptions that we could find abhorrent).

As to the video linked to in the recent diary “The Strawman Responds: more of the same and none of the rest.  Lets take a look:

At about :40 in Dr Naylor claims “These accusations came out of no where” in regards to the 2007 events regarding SVR and the public debate that happened regarding the group’s ties to the League of the South and other people and groups with known white supremacist and neo-Nazi beliefs, ties agendas, and the like.  As was tried (on this site- I’m not bothering to look up and link to any of the number of SVR-related diaries that have been published here) a number of times by a number of people, I’ll explain it again:  First of all, these aren’t “accusations”- that would be a situation in which someone claimed or suggested something, but knowing the facts of the matter would require proof or an admission.  The muckracking site VT Secession made public  (and brought to the attention of front page writers at GMD) public information regarding individuals on SVR’s Board as well as organizations linked to on SVR’s website.  Initially at least, there was no accusation, but a pointing out of public fact.  From this revelation, a number of people asked “why?” and “to what end?”.  It is because of the socially and politically ignorant reaction from Naylor and SVR which follows that accusations arose; simply enough, by re-acting to the questions the way SVR did, it arose suspicion in the minds of several people.

At about 1:10 in Naylor asks “What was this really about?” and to which he answers with “The people orchestrating these attacks were clearly going for our jugular…”  Offering that even to this day Naylor seems to entire mis-understand everything about the entire controversy.  The “orchestrated attacks” were actually the investigations of maybe two people, two bloggers in fact.  As good journalists, they (at least initially) weren’t so much interested in destroying SVR (as Naylor opines at 1:28 “what was it about SVR that was so threatening?”) but in exposing an ugly and little-known fact to the public.  In so doing, the public clearly come out with disgust and disagreement over the acceptability and desirability of such relationships.  Yet, rather than view it as a public discussion about, well hey, about them and their ideas and aims and goals, Naylor et al instead took the crazy paranoid approach and decided everyone was out to destroy them (cutely enough, because SVR with a whopping 5% support according to push polls) was somehow about to dissolve the Union.  This despite the fact that myself and a number of other people (at least initially) come out in support of SVR’s goals, but critical of these associations and their means.  Such arguments were derided, ignored, taken out of context, and resulted in a number of personal attacks (myself and others I was politically involved with at the time were accused of being “council communists” seeking to make Vermont the “next Çuba” and wanting to run the whole thing for our vanguardist and selfish Stalinist means)

Then around 2:45 Naylor really starts playing his wingnut card by suggesting that the entire debate was instigated by the SPLF, which he throws out as a front of AIPAC, the Israeli lobby.  Nice Naylor- while trying to clarify that you’re not a racist or a neo-Nazi you throw out the “this whole thing is the Jews fault” card.  Fucking brilliant.  Whether or not he’s personally racist (throughout the entire arguments I always have maintained that I did get to know Dr Naylor fairly well and that I did not necessarily believe him to actually be racist) (though time has not helped convince me I’m right) the main thrust of my (and several other’s) point has been that Naylor and SVR, regardless of all else, are politically inept- as in, in matters of politics, actually impotent.  Responding to criticisms that you’re associating with morally objectionable groups by denying, name-calling, and then attacking- instead of recognizing that in that moment more people were paying attention to them and actually cared what their stance and their actions would be, and in that moment they had an opportunity to pull considerable attention and sympathy towards themselves if not in idea than at least in legitimacy; that’s just politically naive.  Likewise the bizarre stunt of denying accusations of being a neo-Nazi by blaming the Jews.

The interview goes on without any real addition to what’s been said before.  Naylor ends by noting that SVR never “endorsed the League of the South’s social or political agenda”.  Perhaps, yet known associators with neo-Nazi beliefs or ties have been welcomed onto SVR’s Board and racist groups were linked to on their website.  Despite being public information, that was very little-known until pointed out primarily on GMD in 2007.  People’s reaction what that they found it distasteful; SVR and Naylor reacted by attacking, throwing crazy conspiracy ideas into the wind, and generally digging in its heels instead of taking a social and political stance against something that clearly a number of people thought they should take.

So it’s not so much that there aren’t those of us interested in secession or that conversation or those ideas… it’s that as long as Naylor and SVR are explicitly tied to such (and as long as those most active in the “movement” continue to allow them to be) I for one, and most everyone else I talk to about such things, aren’t interested.

[UPDATE from mataliandy]: The Markowitz campaign has sent out a press release indicating over $190k raised thus far – placing the campaign into the “psychologically closer together” realm Odum alluded to when he wrote this post if Racine reports at least $100k. One thing to note, however: the amount appears not to include funds raised via Emily’s List, which tends to provide decent chunks of campaign cash. The $190k, though below the psychological borderline, is still an impressive number, especially in that light.

[FURTHER UPDATE]: vtbuzz is reporting that Racine has indeed raised more than $100k.

——–

So, what to expect?

Obviously, everyone will be looking at the Democratic candidates for governor, but given that the schedule of this top tier race sets the calendar for the other statewide efforts (as we learned to our chagrin last time around), there will likely be other things to see as well. With one announced Lieutenant Governor candidate (Flanagan), one likely candidate (Nease) and scuttlebutt about three potential other candidates (Costello, T.J. Donovan, Tim Palmer), it will be interesting to see if anybody files, as if any are raising money, it has to show up somewhere, either in a new committee or an existing one for current officeholders. The same is true for Secretary of State candidate Charles Merriman and his likely opponent Jim Condos, although I haven’t heard of any significant fundraising yet from either (Merriman has raised $150 from ActBlue).

But what about the gubernatorial primary? Early scuttlebutt (unconfirmed) had Markowitz aiming for a jaw-dropping $250,000. Racine, who only started raising after the session, seemed likely to be heading for an $80,000- $90,000 total. As far as the expectations goal goes, Markowitz doesn’t have to reach such a colossal number to impress (one doesn’t want to set the bar too high for yourself, as Markowitz has been in danger of doing with her financial shock and awe strategy designed to discourage competition). If Markowitz comes in above $200k, jaws will still be dropped – but she’d have to hit that $250k goal to really blow people away.

If Racine surprises and ekes out a 6-figure total this early, he’ll beat the expectation game as well. There’s no question that Markowitz will raise more – that’s a given – so the expectation game for both of them will be how much.  

Racine has been effectively reminding folks that Markowitz has been fundraising far longer, and she is able to tap registered lobbyists, as sitting Senator Racine is legally barred from doing until the gavel falls on the session in 2010. She also made good use of that early time as the only active candidate, which carried a short-term implication of presumed candidate for the purpose of DC area fundraising. All of which was maximized by the high profile support of such big time Vermont Democratic funders as Crea Linthilac, Jane Stetson and Arthur & Anne Berndt.

Then, of course, there’s the Emily’s List factor. It will be interesting to see how much of Markowitz’s money is coming from out of state, as a large percentage would suggest that EL is kicking in for her as promised. EL reportedly has the goal of powering her to a $2 million campaign overall, suggesting they are hoping to send between 1 and 1.25 million her way between now and election day 2010.

So this stuff is out there, affecting expectations. Markowitz will wow in sheer amounts in the short term. What would not be the greatest scenario for her on that front is if Racine squeaks into 6 figures and she comes in below $200k. That will psychologically put them closer together than she would likely prefer, but it’s not likely to play out that way.

At the moment, Markowitz has raised $56,443 from 263 contributors on ActBlue alone, while Racine has been closing that gap slowly but surely and is up to $28,850 from 136 contributors.

As far as candidate Susan Bartlett goes, she was a bit stuck between a rock and a hard place. Without an early announcement, she ran the risk of ceding the “woman candidate” designation to Markowitz – but neither was she ready to begin a campaign herself yet. So she is stuck in the difficult position of being an announced candidate who will not want to have raised or spent enough to file, only to have that filing look puny by comparison to the two financial juggernauts who are up and running. Best for her to simply say she hasn’t started yet. Still, with her intentions formalized, the clock is ticking. In a better position is Shumlin who, if he does run, will be able to swoop in and christen a “phase two” of the primary saga, and will be given a honeymoon period by the press and public to get something going. Bartlett will be able to ride along with that phase two narrative as well if she handles it right.

So, we’ll see what turns up (and if the Republican State Committee filing affords any clues as to who has been doing their robocalling for them…)

A caveat to all this is the dearth of political analysis I referred to in a diary a couple posts down the front page. If the media conversation stays too dumbed down, none of the early buzz and hubbub, or circumstances of timing and particularized support will matter, and the whole thing gets reduced to a simplistic level. This would be the best possible situation for Markowitz, as it wouldn’t matter how well anybody else is doing – all that will matter for the media narrative will be that she is on top – big.

Although it will be a lot less fun for those of us who are political junkies and like to look behind the numbers, its far from an unlikely scenario come Thursday. And at the end of the day, politics are about perception – which more often than not, becomes reality, no matter what more nuanced political forces may or may not be in play.

free speech just ain’t what it used to be.

In today’s jingoistic “everything is terrorism” attitude it would seem murdering a doctor who performs abortions because that doctor performs abortions and the murderer wants to use violence or threats of violence to stop a lawful endeavor would fall under the heading of “terrorism”.

But it doesn’t.

On the other hand chanting “1, 2, 3 , 4, open up the cage door; 5, 6, 7, 8, smash the locks and liberate; 9, 10, 11, 12, vivisectors go to hell” and “we will never back down until you stop your killing” does create the crime of terrorism.

It’s true … more below …

First the citation for the above claim: US government’s motion to dismiss motion to dismiss terrorism charges against animal rights activists.

Thanks goes to the Center for Constitutional Rights and BuzzFlash for bringing to light the following:

U.S.A. v. Buddenberg is a federal prosecution of four animal rights activists in California-being referred to as the AETA 4-for conspiracy to commit animal enterprise terrorism. The 4 are being charged with a course of conduct that includes First Amendment protected activities such as protesting, chalking the sidewalk, chanting and leafleting.

At the behest of big corporations the US Congress in 2006 passed AETA (with the support of our ever effective Senator Leahy) to pursue the vital national interests in ending the (non existent) onslaught of terrorist attacks being perpetrated by animal rights activists.

So while the cheney/bush administration had us off chasing tourists terriers terrorists because they hate us for our freedoms, the cheney/bush administration with the active participation of Democratic and Republican politicians alike were labeling animal rights protesters as terrorists … because DC hates us for our freedoms??????

And so we’re now in a position where it is a greater danger to our nation to have folks chanting outside businesses and homes as opposed to actually pushing to physically destroy buildings and harm persons.

I guess in a torture nation like we now live in, it seems obvious the right to torture animals must be held sacrosanct.

Riding the rails 1,2,3..4 with Gov. Douglas.His train may have an engine at both ends .

1) Model Railroading Show March 2008  Gov. Jim Douglas cut the opening ribbon and then played with a few of the model trains at the Vermont Rails 2008 model railroad show at Champlain Valley Exposition .His wife, Dorothy looked on as Gov. Douglas tried out the remote control for the carnival train layout  

2) February 26, 2009 The Douglas administration last year proposed eliminating the Albany-to-Rutland train route and replacing it with an Amtrak-operated bus service. The budget-balancing plan sought to cut about $400,000 in Fiscal Year 2009 spending and save an additional $1.4 million in the 2010 budget.

3) March 23, 2009 Earlier this year Gov. Jim Douglas,  proposed cutting the state’s $1.4 million appropriation for operating the Ethan Allen Express.

4) Today  the Douglas train has changed tracks ………..

“The best way to develop and expand important high-speed and intercity rail systems to their greatest potential is by working in close coordination with our New England neighbors” said Vermont Governor Jim Douglas. “The health of New England’s economy and its environment is highly dependent on all states working together because of the proximity and interdependence of our major cities and towns. Establishing affordable, convenient, and well-coordinated rail connections throughout the entire northeast is a pre-requisite to ensuring our region’s future economic and environmental well being.”  

Vermont Agency of Transportation Secretary David Dill. “Much progress has already been made, and everyone is committed to keeping the momentum rolling.”

http://cvexpo.blogspot.com/200…

http://www.timesargus.com/arti…

http://www.wcax.com/global/sto…

http://www.vermontbiz.com/news…

A couple weeks ago GMD user Carbonpenguin published a diary entitled “VT Secession, beyond the Strawmen,” which drew much attention from people who are critical of the Second Vermont Republic for its past association with the League of the South, calling the leaders racist.  Last night on ASR Matt and I hosted Thomas Naylor, who responded to these accusations:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…

The full episode can be viewed at http://asrblog.com which includes a discussion about the similarities between the former Soviet Empire and the United States, in addition to Dr. Naylor’s perspecitive on National Healthcare.

I was going to call this diary “Obama's Greatest challenge” or some other lofty title, but after thinking about it, it's not really that great of a challenge at all.It just requires a bit of courage.

What I'm talking about is the story that broke over the weekend, which shouldn't have surprised anyone with a functioning brain stem:

Democratic senators on Sunday called for an investigation into reports that Dick Cheney, the former vice-president, instructed the Central Intelligence Agency not to tell Congress about a secret counter-terrorism programme.

Of course, none of this rises to the Clinton oral transgressions, right? Expectedly, the GOP is the one supplying the outrage here, promising a “scorched earth” policy, and raging a holy hell war if the administration looks into the matter further.

Below the jump for more of the madness…

Now, in a sense, Obama screwed the pooch early on on this one, when pressed about what to do about the endless Bush crimes, he gave that “we need to look forward, not backwards” bullshit, so he's going to obviously have to backpedal on his “don't rock the boat for the sake of political expediency” comments. As usual, Obama's worst mistakes and blunders tend to come from one thing: pandering to Republicans. You'd think he'd learned his lesson by now, him being a smart guy, and all, right?

So, now we have the tired and true Book of Republican Outrage and Obfuscation here in full play. We have this classic one from McCain (why does this guy still get any face time on TV?):

“The question is: Do we want America's image harmed more by dragging this out further and further?”

…which conveniently ignores the fact that perhaps if McCain was so concerned about “America's image”, he would've done something to stop all these nasty things we've been doing for the last few years instead of enabling it.

Then, in the same article, there's the “playing politics/impugning the patriotism of the criminals” line from NY Rep. Peter King (he of the “we don't need to acknowlege slavery” fame):

“It's a wrong and shameful criminalizing political differences,” Mr. King said during an interview with The Washington Times. “I would find it very hard to work with the administration on bipartisan issues if the attorney general and the administration start going after patriotic Americans who have dedicated their lives to protecting us.”

But King is a completist in terms of the playbook. He has to also throw in some Euro-bashing and Palinesque pandering to anti-intellectuals, when he also said this is “an effort to appease Europeans and U.S. intellectuals,” because, you know, we can't have smart people making decisions about justice and other trivialities, right?

I could go on forever with the excuses, but I won't, as if you're reading this, you've heard them all before.

Thankfully, it seems like Atty. Gen. Holder might be moving forward on this, regardless of the whining, and on the surface, he's not playing politics:

“I hope that whatever decision I make would not have a negative impact on the president's agenda,” he told the magazine. “But that can't be a part of my decision.”  

It's good to hear that kind of talk, but more often than not from Dems, we get a lot of talk and very little action. We've seen too often how many times, simply in the face of GOP bloviation, we've let war under false pretenses, torture, and countless other crimes go unpunished. It's getting to the point where one has to wonder what has to happen to prod them into actually holding someone, anyone accountable.And given what they've gotten away with, imagining that is a scary prospect indeed.

The chioice is really simple, and in some ways, I personally feel this as a make-or-break moment for Obama. He can stand up for the rule of law or he can continue to care what batshit insane Republicans think (the “rule of whiners”). I don't have high expectations, but I'm ready to be surprised.

Maybe the problems are built right in, “We decided on the name “TRAZE” for our brand of RFID products, considering that RFID is a “Track and RAce” technology; “Z” was used instead of “C” to denote ‘the spirit of Zorro’ which is the passion, energy and excitement that we have for this technology.”  Pradhyumna Venkat CEO, GEMINI TRAZE (India’s prime RFID manufacturer

Who could have predicted that RFID’s in our pockets  with hackable identifying codes could lead to privacy concerns.Vermont and Washington State are using and testing enhanced drivers ID with RFID’s for easier fast border crossing. California and Washington have passed anti RFID hacking laws .But with a $ 190.00 tag reader from EBay a man in California easily hacked passers by identifying codes.

Unlikely but perhaps Senator Lieberman’s Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs will jump into action on this with a little oversight on this potential privacy problem. Is privacy still dismissed as a pre 9-11 concern or have we entered a post post pre 9-11 era?

……his scanner detected, then downloaded to his laptop, the unique serial numbers of two pedestrians’ electronic U.S. passport cards embedded with radio frequency identification, or RFID, tags. Within an hour, he’d “skimmed” the identifiers of four more of the new, microchipped PASS cards from a distance of 20 feet

Among new options are the chipped “e-passport,” and the new, electronic PASS card – credit-card sized, with the bearer’s digital photograph and a chip that can be scanned through a pocket, backpack or purse from 30 feet.

……..”enhanced” driver’s licenses embedded with RFID tags now being issued in some border states: Washington, Vermont, Michigan and New York. Texas and Arizona have entered into agreements with the federal government to offer chipped licenses, and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has recommended expansion to non-border states. Kansas and Florida officials have received DHS briefings on the licenses, agency records show..

The purpose of using RFID is not to identify people, says Mary Ellen Callahan, the chief privacy officer at Homeland Security, but rather “to verify that the identification document holds valid information about you.”

http://www.latimes.com/business/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-us-chipping-america-iv,0,6091908.story

http://www.thehindubusinesslin…

I’m looking ahead to July 15th, when the campaign finance reports are due at the Secretary of State’s office. There will obviously be an unusual amount of interest for an off-election year, summer filing because there are already 3 announced Democratic candidates for Governor, two of whom have been actively fundraising (and one reportedly setting unheard-of goals for Vermont).

Campaign finance reports and the impact they have on buzz are much more about the fine tuning of perceptions, rather than simply the bottom line of a balance sheet. They are sort of like stocks in that way. At the end of the day, they are about expectations, projections, trends and the numerous threads that tie together the long haul of a statewide campaign.

Or at least that’s what they’re supposed to be. It’s what they are in other states. Unfortunately, in Vermont, the process gets painfully dumbed down. I got all happy when I saw the headline in the Times Argus, this morning (“Campaign Coffers Clue to Political Potential“), before reading to find that it only presented nuggets like this:

Eric Davis, professor emeritus of political science at Middlebury College, says Markowitz will likely reveal the deepest campaign coffers at next week’s deadline…”It’s a useful marker and it gives us information but there’s still a long way to go before voters are really in large numbers making decisions on this,” Davis says.

Yawn. I mean, no freaking kidding folks.

So it’s not Davis’s fault, and it’s not reporter Hirschfeld’s fault, but there is so little political analysis and discourse in this state that everytime there is such an article, it is so rudimentary as to be utterly dull and completely without impact. When there are half-a-dozen such pieces in the press a year, each one is necessarily an elementary primer for a readership unaccustomed to digesting political analysis.

If you want to see the kind of ongoing, behind-the-numbers analysis that really puts state-level, political nitty-gritty things like campaign finance reports into perspective (at least in any kind of sustained, ongoing way), you’ve basically got GMD and Totten’s column to lean on (and now Margolis, to some degree) – and that just aint enough to advance – let alone develop – a meaningful statewide discussion that can build on itself to get to anywhere (side note: this is not to disrespect Philip, but he does something different than the sort of thing I’m talking about… we couldn’t really pull off what he does).

To fill the gaps, the pressure and expectation falls on the woefully depleted ranks of the Statehouse reporter corps. Given the industry’s cuts and the steady brain drain to the army of gubernatorial mouthpieces over the years, there is already an insufficient number of such reporters to inform the public of what they should be informed of – let alone to play pundit at the same time (a dubious dual-role under the best of circumstances, as punditry generates a personal investment in events playing out in a certain way, creating an obvious pressure antithetical to journalistic neutrality).

The stage on which this plays out is VPT’s Vermont This Week, which features editors and Statehouse reporters all playing analyst for about 5 minutes per topic. And it’s always some combination of the same handful of people which generates groupthink at worst, or simply – again – inadequate depth of analysis at best.

Reporters report, and by necessity have to have a laser-like degree of focus on what they are working on. Editors focus on running the paper and necessarily have a certain degree of detachment from many of the particularized political ebbs and flows of the moment. At the national level, you see analysts and pundit-types filling the gaps that require a more aggregate approach to news and politics with an eye for the trends, the buzz and the dynamics of it all. But here in Vermont, its a handful of reporters and editors – already inadequate in number to fill the needed responsibilities of the fourth estate – playing the roles of deliverers of information, as well as the roles of interpreting what the information means at a deeper level.

It’s not enough, and it has the effect of keeping political discourse in the public sphere incomplete and simplistic – which then has the effect of leaving Vermonters with an unsophisticated, simplistic perception of politics in the state.

And if there’s one thing that’s true in politics, it’s that perception often becomes reality.

Though a lot of my photography focuses on birds, such as this Northern Gannet…

…sometimes I get the opportunity to photograph whales as well.  

Even when I go on whale watches, it’s primarily about finding new birds, and Monday’s trip was no exception.  But this time, something happened that I’d never seen before.

But first, the birds.

Almost every whale watch I’ve ever been on has involved a single sighting of a Common Loon.  This isn’t a very good look, but it was enough to ID it clearly:

Another common sight is double-crested cormorants.  This trip both began and ended with them:

Northern Gannets are birds I’ve seen in both small and large numbers on different trips, but this trip yielded some of the best looks I’ve ever gotten of them:

This Parasitic Jaeger was a real treat.  I’d never seen one before:

Same with this Roseate Tern.  I spotted it from a distance and just kept photographing it as we got closer, hoping it was something other than a common tern.  I lucked out.

We saw three kinds of Shearwaters on this trip, and I managed to photograph two of them.  The ones that are all one color are the Sooty Shearwaters, named for their relatively gray appearance.  The Greater Shearwaters are the brown and white ones:

Wilson’s Storm-Petrels are one of the most common birds in the world, but they’re difficult to photograph.  They’re sea birds, but only the size of robins and they dart around very quickly.  Again, I got lucky, not just for the Wilson’s, but because some of these might be Leech’s storm petrels (they both have that white rump marker, but the leech’s are known to have theirs split).  If anyone can positively ID these as either Leech’s or Wilson’s, I’d appreciate it.

And now the whales.  I got a few photos of fin whales, but I’m not including them.  They’re great animals, but they’re a little dull from the surface photography perspective.  Instead, I’m focusing on humpbacks.  First, a humpback skimming the surface, getting ready to dive:

Notice the green in the water.  Those are the whale’s flippers, which are white, appearing green through the water.  Next are flukes, which are the whale tails, sticking up as they go in for a deeper dive:

Finally, the most exciting part.  I’ve been on lots of whale watches.  There are two I will remember above all others.  The first was getting to see a mother and baby humpback do synchronized swimming together.

The second was this.  

When humpbacks feed, they sometimes do a trick with bubbles: they will blow up from underwater, creating these pockets of bubbles which trap fish in them and make it easier to take a big gulp of fish in one try.  I’d heard of this, but never seen it.  My impression of it was that it was something that happened underwater.  

But.  Not.  Always.

What you see below is the result of that bubble feeding, not by a single whale, but by a pair of them, which pushed the fish to the surface and then simultaneously popped out of the water with their mouths wide open.  I did not get this photo the first time.  The 2nd time, I was ready for it, but the light was poor, so I made the best of the opportunity.  These are by no means the best photos I’ve ever taken of whales, but there’s something about being witness to this that was pure exhilaration, and I’m just hoping I can convey some small part of it.

Take a careful look at that first photo.  What you see is the open mouths of the whales– you’re only seeing part of the mouth.  In the second photo, you can see both the upper and lower part of the whale’s jaw.  In the third, you can see its mouth almost closed, while the one behind it still has the jaw wide open.

Wow.

A quick note: all of these are smaller versions of the photos on my website.  Clicking on them will get you to larger versions with more details (ISO settings, lens settings, etc.).

This was part of a 5-6 hour trip, a specialized tour for both whales and birds, put on by a joint effort with Joppa Flats Nature Center and Newburyport Whale Watch.  They do a few of these each Summer, and they’re well worth it.  

( – promoted by odum)

First off, before all you Democrats jump down my throat, I still think he’s way better a president than McCaint ever woulda been.

But ya know, his rhetoric far exceeds his deliverables.

For example, Obama had promised (and it was on the White House website at least until April 15) to fully fund needle exchange programs to prevent the spread of HIV. So guess what? Not only did he cut the funding for the needle exchange programs in his budget, but he called for the funding ban to remain in place. And his promise disappeared from the website. And if you don’t believe me, Rachel Maddow had it on her program a few days ago. So I guess it went down the memory hole.

So then there was this demonstration in the Capitol Rotunda, and 26 people got arrested for chaining themselves together and shouting “Clean Needles Save Lives” in protest of this gross betrayal. But, over on Pam’s House Blend, Keori reports that “Protests Work – House Dems Buck Obama and Lift Federal Ban on Syringe Exchange,” quoting a story from Huffpost. It’s all in the Appropriations Committee and there’s a long ways to go, but the HIV advocates, at least, are not taking Obama’s reversals lying down. Yay for them! Now, if only the HRC and the NGLTF could get a little inspired, we might get somewhere on DOMA and DADT.

 

And then there’s a kind of confusing story about Obama’s first signing statement over at The Hill. I don’t actually know whether it’s Obama’s first signing statement. And, it’s true that he never actually promised not to do it. But given how much he (and all of us too) criticized the former Chief Executive over ridiculous signing statements supposedly canceling out huge swaths of the laws they were attached to, well, you wouldn’t expect Prez O to go ahead and do one this soon, wouldja?

This one is about some restrictions on international aid payments involving stronger environmental and labor protections. The Prez didn’t want to go along, and the House voted 429-2 (talk about bipartisan!) for an amendment that requires the big O to abide by these restrictions. And, it was proposed by a REPUGLICAN!

Love him or hate him, Barney Frank had this to say:

“We do this not just on behalf of this institution, but on behalf of this democracy,” said Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.). “There’s kind of a unilateralism, an undemocratic, unreachable way about these signing statements.”

I think if we want activists to make a difference here, we should do some kind of “Obama Watch” where people keep an eye out for broken promises and serious flip flops. I’m not volunteering, I’ve got enough to do. But maybe if everybody contributed something, we’d all know more about where to put our energies to make change (and I ain’t talkin’ nickels and dimes). How else are we going to keep him accountable?