You’ve undoubtedly heard by now that two-time Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, who had returned to her country in an attempt to gain a third term in the position, and in the process had become the fracturous nation’s best chance for a return to Democracy, has been assassinated. Bhutto has been a controversial, and sometimes seemingly contradictory figure in international politics, but her candidacy, as well as her Pakistani People’s Party, had been seen as the only viable means of delivering her country from the grip of Bush ally Pervez Musharraf, who is becoming increasingly blamed (both indirectly and directly, depending on who you listen to) for her murder.
What you may also have heard if you were listening to the PRI radio series “The World” on VPR this evening was the voice of Vermonter Peter Galbraith. Galbraith, the author, former ambassador, former Vermont State Democratic Chair and possible gubernatorial candidate was a friend and former university classmate of Bhutto’s, whom he first met when the two were children. While his segment on “The World” is only in audio form, he is widely quoted in other media concerning the tragedy. From The Boston Globe:
“She quickly made the transition from a shy girl, very protected and two years younger than almost everybody else, to being part of the community,” recalled Peter Galbraith, Bhutto’s classmate, close friend, and a former US ambassador to Croatia. “She quickly made friends.”
Bhutto’s signature gesture in college was to bake cakes for her friends’ birthdays — chocolate cakes with chocolate icing, which she often decorated with her favorite American Halloween staple — candy corn, Galbraith said today by phone.
“I do remember one birthday party, where I met my future wife. That was in April and [the candy corn] had become quite stale,” Galbraith said. “It was a wonderful gesture, but it’s good that she went into politics instead. She was not a very good cook, but she was a great friend.”
Galbraith’s connection to Bhutto was significant enough to bring his name into an attempt to discredit her some time back. An apparently forged letter, nominally sent to Galbraith, was widely circulated in a crude smear attempt after she was forced to leave the country rather than face (at least somewhat) politically-motivated corruption charges.
But in addition to the personal reminiscences, Galbraith is also quoted putting his finger on the pulse of the greater looming concern that this tragedy is forcing to the forefront. From Time:
One thing is clear, says Peter Galbraith, senior fellow at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation: It is “not a good idea to have 70 nuclear weapons in the hands of a country that is falling apart.”
Tech stuff isn't political — unless you're talking about blogs, real-time political gossip, data mining, research, etc. So with that in mind, Check out PC Mag Tim Bajarin's predictions for 2008.
For the full version here's the article. Otherwise, here's the skinny. My own comments in italics.
1. Smartphones Get Smarter and Gain Market Share.
Think, iPhone copycats everywhere you look. Except maybe not here in Vermont. Heck, I'm still waiting for the $99 Palm Centro to become available here.
2. Flash-Based Laptops Arrive.
The 7 inch Asus EEE PC is pictured above. The $299 model has 2GB flash, while the $399 model offers 8GB. This is 2007's tech darling, a huge step up from the One Laptop for Every Child XO-1 and a new market leader in ultra portable PC market, with prior models running at $1200.
In the full article, Bajarin whines about 2008 models with 64 GB of flash memory not being enough compared to what can easily be considered overbuilt 160 GB desktops more appropriate for movie making than standard usage. The introduction of flash-based laptops this year are coming out with mean and clean running Linux operating systems, which run just like Windows. My desktop is a Dell 4400 with 768RAM and 16GB hard drive. When Windows XP and all of the crud with Norton System Works amped out my hard drive, I swiched to SimplyMepis (download locations listed here) and reduced hard drive consumption from 95% to 32%. And this includes tons of free software, including OpenOffice, a high end graphics program called GIMP, and lots of games for the kids.
3. The Introduction of the “Basic PC.” Next year we will see a real push to create “basic PCs,” bare-bones computers priced around $275 to $350 and targeted at emerging markets. We've already seen similar products, such as the XO-1 laptop by the One Laptop per Child (OLPC) initiative and the ASUS Eee PC 4G, but they represent the tip of the iceberg in this category. And don't be surprised if this type of PC gets serious attention as a second, third, or even fourth PC for consumer homes.
Ok, this is the whole quote and not the skinny. It's actually a bit redundant since the type of Basic PC's he's referring to are the same flash-based laptops he just spoke of in Prediction #2. The real opportunity offered by these types of laptops isn't about every home having 4 computers; it's about the new pricing availabiltiy to educational institutions.
4. Social Networks Are Targeted by Botnets. As social networks gain in popularity, I expect them to become the next major target for security threats.
It looks like you better pull down your MySpace/Friendster accounts.
5. Smartphones Become Targets for Viruses and Identity Theft.
(Non-political blogging alert!!) In terms of fantasies that have no basis in reality, yet have been believed by zillions of living breathing, human beings, Santa Claus is on a par with little else besides Iraqi WMDs, the idea that your government would never wiretap you without a warrant, and the notion that our last President did not have sexual relations with that woman (well, okay, so nobody ever really believed that last one…).
So it's the eternal parental dilemma: what do you say to your kid? Do you insist something really is true that clearly isn't? Does that set a precedent? What about kids of different ages? Do you insist your older kids play along? How and when do you decide to break the news?
And for the religious set, how does this fit into to the sacred Christmas picture? Did Jesus die for our sins, but was born for a magic man to bring presents? Could Santa have been one of the wise men? How did those wise men get there, anyway? Did anybody get a good look at that nativity star? Maybe there was a team of antlered mammals pulling it. Santa does look an awful lot like God, y'know. Old white WASPy guy with a beard. He doesn't seem quite so severe, but the real St. Nicholas was. Punched a guy out in an ecumenical council because he decided the guy was being heretical. A Huckabee voter, maybe?
But I digress. In our house, we had it easy with the first kid, who is now 8. He always insisted on the facts. Cold hard reality. He was never confident that he was really getting that, so the whole Santa thing really smelled fishy to him. His little brother, though (who is nearly 4), really grooves on that stuff, but we've avoided making it too serious a thing.
I just cant see engaging in such a charade with my kid, I'll admit. The other day when he asked if Santa was bringing presents, we told him “no, Santa's just a really nice story, like Spongebob. All your presents come from your family and friends.”
He seemed okay with that. What do you folks do? What do you non-parents think? Have I crushed my child's spirit, emotionally hobbling him forever (yeah, right)?
With Bush’s recent complaints of pork spending, I’m wondering if anyone has compared the 6 years of Republican pork spending against the last year of Democratic pork spending.
I'm not an expert on health policy. There's just too much to pay attention to, and I've pretty much decided to let lots of other people handle that.
Still, every so often something breaks into even my consciousness that seems to be meaningful, and this week it was the front-page story at the Freeps. The headline, Paying but not completely covered, encapsulates the thesis of the story: the preexisting condition exclusion in Catamount Health screws people out of needed health care, including the very attractive pregnant couple on the cover and people who need some very expensive HIV/AIDS treatment. They sure have a point. The people featured in the article make a persuasive point that if they could have known that they wouldn't be covered there would have been no good reason for them to sign up and start paying premiums.
I think this is a great illustration of a big problem with this program, and it does seem like something that can be fixed when the Legislature returns next month.
Still, this may be a case where the Free Press didn't just bury the lede, they completely didn't see it.
At the bottom of the story there is a text box with a bunch of statistics in it.
The problem is, I think they left out the most important statistic.
It's so dense with figures that you don't immediately get it, so let me pull something out:
APPROVED AT FULL COST: 150 Vermonters have been approved for coverage paying the full monthly premium . . . APPROVED WITH SUBSIDY: 1,251 Vermonters have been approved for coverage paying a partial premium . . .
If you add those two figures together you get 1,401 Vermonters getting coverage through this program, with maybe another 349 getting it through their job.
By digging around on the Web you can find another important number: the number of Vermonters without health coverage. It's 65,416. This isn't even a dent in the problem. At this rate, how long will it take to cover everybody who needs coverage, even assuming they don't drop out when they can't afford the premium or don't want to pay for a plan that doesn't provide the services they need?
Maybe you don't think this is a joke, but how much of the $387,000 that they're paying to advertise the program will they have to spend to counteract stories that publicize what a rotten deal it is?
This is not a post about the race for Governor. I’ve got a couple more of those in my before I crawl off into a corner and drop the conversation for a few weeks out of general disgust. This is a media post, and is my final word on the whole Freyne/Racine/Pollina/Goveror’s race issue.
Again, let’s review – but with a bit more information than we had before, and in chronological order.
There was September’s uncorroborated he-said, he-said. Freyne:
“Inside Track” learned that Shumlin has also been quietly floating the name of Progressive Anthony Pollina as a gubernatorial candidate Vermont’s Left could unite around.
“Shumlin said he was trying to be diplomatic about how the Democrats and Progressives could work together,” said Ledbetter. Shummy told him, he said, that he had been “very clear and careful” in talking to Zuckerman that he was not backing Anthony.
After Freyne’s unilateral Senatorial endorsement came his first unilateral campaign abandonment in November. Freyne again:
Word this week is that former Ambassador Peter Galbraith, who had been mentioned as a possibility, now has ruled it out.
Galbraith, via email last week (expressing an opinion verified by someone he spoke to immediately after Freyne’s above quote):
“I never spoke to Peter Freyne before he wrote his piece nor have I told him (or anyone else) that I am not considering a run for Governor, because I am considering it.”
“Unlike journalists, I guess (Freyne) doesn’t have to call somebody to find out what they’re doing. He never talked to me about it,” Racine said Wednesday. “I am considering it.”
And, of course, both unilateral, Freyne-announced campaign abandonments were written in the context of Freyne’s waxing excited about the prospect of a Pollina candidacy.
The difference with this latest one, of course, is that people have started to push back. According to the grapevine, at last week’s Gubernatorial press conference, another member of the Vermont press corps, in response to Freyne playfully asking where he got his clothes replied to Freyne (and in full earshot of the room) “I don’t know Peter, where do you get your info on the Governor’s race?” For my part, I’m hearing several people voicing similar frustrations with Freyne’s tendency to print what he wants to print, regardless of evidence or corroboration.
I think everyone appreciates a “political gossip column,” but that’s not to say there isn’t an expectation that facts have been checked, ‘i’s have been dotted and ‘t’s have been crossed before it sees print. I think most people would agree that, gossip column or no, there are standards in play.
Professor Nicholas Daniloff who teaches (among other things) journalistic ethics at the Northeastern University Schoolof Journalism took it a step farther when I asked him about the situation, wondering if…
“a journalist or commentator (has) the right to use his journalistic position to promote – that is to propagandize, going beyond commentary – the fortunes of a political candidate?”
And make no mistake, Freyne is feeling the heat, and has already re-written history to cover his ass. His most recent response:
It also has been a hot topic over in the Green Mountain Daily Blog which Freyne Land links to column-right [a hot topic that I missed yesterday, sorry, Odum]
However, I stand by what I wrote. State Sen. Racine the distinguished auto/truck dealer is correct when he tells The Reformer I didn’t call him about it. That’s because we spoke face-to-face at the Statehouse.
Racine is not running for governor in 2008.
(BTW – that reference to me is an allusion to the email I sent him asking what was up in what I hoped was a positive and complimentary way, while still invoking the seriousness of what I was reading in his column. I received no other response)
Of course, that’s not what he claimed of Racine. Predicting he’s not actually going to run is easy – especially with Pollina playing electoral chicken with him. No, what Freyne said was:
Doug is not interested. Trust me.
Which is entirely different. And is a statement whose falsehood is now a matter of public record. Freyne apparently purported to base this looking into Racine’s soul (to the convenient benefit of the candidate whose narrative he has been promoting for months) on a brief conversation he had with Racine on the Statehouse steps about a week previously, in which Racine was deliberately vague. The fact is, of course, that Racine was playing coy and had already begun many behind the scenes conversations with potential supporters. He maintains he gave Freyne no such indication – and why would he?
The suggestion clearly defies reason and common sense.
I’m going to suggest a word for this, based on a cartoon series that my son and I never miss on Friday nights: newsbending. JD, in the context of this matter, compared Freyne to David Broder, and I think he misses the mark. Broder is someone blinded by his own archaic, myopic view of Washington politics and his own inflated place in it. He is pompous and windbaggy, and as a result clueless, but he is not a newsbender. For a real comparison, we should look to the netroots other favorite fourth estate punching bag, Joe Klein.
Joe Klein (often referred to as “Joke Line” by his netroots detractors), has a long history of acrimony with the activist left, and his most recent blunder is an illustrative example.
Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com latched onto Klein’s “reporting” (again, another reporter-columnist… thin ice indeed, that comes with an extra burden of responsibility to get the facts straight, IMO). If you haven’t been following it, Wired gives a rundown of the convoluted back-and-forth:
For most people the third time is the charm, but in the case of Time columnist Joe Klein writing about proposed changes to the nation’s spying laws, even his third draft gets it wrong.
After being called to task last week for writing a dangerously misinformed column on changes to the nation’s spying laws, Klein concedes that he might have made a mistake when he said a House bill would “require the surveillance of every foreign-terrorist target’s calls to be approved by the FISA court, an institution founded to protect the rights of U.S. citizens only.” But then again, he thinks maybe he didn’t.
I may have made a mistake in my column this week about the FISA legislation passed by the House, although it’s difficult to tell for sure given the technical nature of the bill’s language and fierce disagreements between even moderate Republicans and Democrats on the Committee about what the bill actually does contain.
In his two follow-up blog posts, Klein compounds his errors and valiantly argues he is right that the Dems are coddling terrorists because a bill passed by the House says that if the NSA targets a foreigner or group of foreigners who will likely communicate with someone inside the United States, the spies need to get court approval.
Klein says this gives foreign terrorists the same rights as Americans.
But this restriction is only true when the nation’s spies are wiretapping fiber optic cables, telecom switches and web mail providers INSIDE the United States.
Klein continues to miss this most crucial distinction in the debate, which is why THREAT LEVEL, paraphrasing Klein’s column, continues to believe that Klein is well beyond stupid. He’s dangerous.
Klein says the Senate bill, with its expansive domestic spying powers and immunity for the governement’s partners in a secret and likely illegal spying operation, “could have set an important, if belated, precedent for the limits of executive power.”
Passing a virtual surveillance wish list that has a bit more oversight than the president would like and dismissing legal challenges to the executive branch’s unilateral targeting of Americans for wiretapping strikes a blow for limiting executive power?
Who gave this man a column?
Klein is, of course, among the most highly lauded columnists in the country, and is frequently presented as a “liberal.” He was the celebrated “anonymous” author of the Bill Clinton themed, cutesy hit-book, Primary Colors. What happened in this case is that Klein had a narrative – of the weak-on-terror Democrats who are jockeying for political advantage at the expense of national security, and the “grown up” Republicans who just aren’t as bad as the crazy bloggers say. As such, he apparently based his column entirely on what the GOP told him the bill was about, and why those weasely Democrats were trying to coddle the terrorists and mess it all up. So smug was he in his own knowledge and arrogance, that he didn’t even check with the leading Democrats to get their side of the story, or even to corroborate the basic facts. Nor would Time Magazine even let them refute Klein’s nonsense.
To Klein, this was the reality, and the details were irrelevant. The Republicans needed to be supported, civil liberties be damned. He would report what he had already decided the reality should be, rather than what the reality was. The fact that he didn’t due his due diligence before going public suggests he really didn’t care what the reality was, one way or the other.
Avatar: The Last Airbender takes place in a fantasy world, home to humans, fantastic animals, and supernatural spirits. Human civilization is divided into four nations-the Water Tribes, the Earth Kingdom, the Air Nomads, and the Fire Nation. Within each nation, an order of men and women called “Benders” have the ability to manipulate their native element. These Bending arts combine a certain style of martial arts and elemental mysticism. The Bending types are Waterbending, Earthbending, Firebending, Airbending.
So, while most mere mortals in the respective elemental kingdoms work with, or even around the unchanging elements, there are a few people in each kingdom who seem to be graced with the ability, through experience and martial sleight-of-hand, to bend these elements to their wishes and produce desired effects.
I look at the fourth estate and see a news kingdom, where most of it’s residents must work with the facts of the news – perhaps going around them at times, sure, but the facts are the facts.
Unless you’re a bender – someone who, thorough sleight of hand, and their position can manipulate those facts into a shape that suits their purposes: newsbenders.
It’s a frustrating thing to watch; or at least it should be. One would think we could all agree that this sort of manipulation of journalism into propaganda should be frowned on. That’s an axiom, in fact, that the blog movement is largely predicated on. For my part, I depend on Freyne for a lot of information. Now, I’m always going to think twice and get that queasy feeling in the pit of my stomach when I do.
But it’s clear from many of the comments on this site, as well as on Freyne’s own blog that, for many, the means justify the end. That manipulating the news to a desired political end by traditional media is only bad when it benefits the bad guys. For many who see Pollina as the good guy, it;s just fine. These are presumably the same folks who have for years scornfully dismissed the very concept of an electoral “spoiler” in a three way election, but now rush gleefully towards the opportunity to label any Democrat who would enter the race after Pollina with the same shingle.
For some of us, “what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander” is also axiomatic.
There are also a couple commenters who feel that a Doug Racine candidacy could potentially spoil the narrative of Vermont Democrats as a bunch of Keystone Kops (although I’m not sure why), and they are gripping onto that narrative as though it’s a life raft – even at the expense of concerns about basic accuracy and journalistic integrity.
Whatever. people will be people, and pick all kinds of rationales to justify their impulses and desires. For the rest of us though, these axioms matter. They are an integral part of the implicit social contract we all live under.
And I suspect most of us would say: no more newsbending. Period
Guess what? I believe that too. We have witnessed the undoing of an inevitable campaign, due to the sheer fact that Team Clinton truly believed the poll numbers, and that Team Clinton underestimated Barack Obama.
Barack Obama, stung by a fresh Bill Clinton attack on him, predicted that the Clinton campaign’s increasingly negative tone will backfire by reminding voters of the bad, old “blood sport” days of the 1990s.
Speaking to reporters in this frozen central Iowa city yesterday, Obama said he was less than impressed by Hillary Rodham Clinton’s apology for an aide’s suggestion that he once dealt drugs. Asked if Clinton’s mea culpa was sincere, a stone-faced Obama replied, “I’m not going to characterize it.”
Many have watched in amusement, disbelief, sadness as Bill Clinton, on Charlie Rose’s Show stated that Barack was not ready for this presidency. That he was a “roll of the dice”. Well, wasn’t Bill Clinton that in 1992? No one knew him from Adam’s Hatrack. A govenor from a tiny state, that was last in virtually everything, all of a sudden on that national scene. Much was written about Bill Clinton’s age, inexperience, etc. But somehow, the country believed it was time for someone new, fresh, not entrenched in Washington, D.C.
Now the quiet, rumblings, anger in the African-American Community is being talked about daily, and it is about the antics of The Clintons. Whoever is advising Hillary Clinton should be fired. Her misleading and mishandling of her staff is atrocious. The outwardly racial baiting from her hench men Joesph Wilson, Bob Kerrey and Bill Shaheen has not bid her well to the African-American Community.
It has unfolded mostly under the radar. But an important development in the 2008 Democratic battle may be the building backlash among African Americans over comments from associates of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton that could be construed as jabs at Sen. Barack Obama’s race.
These officials, including Clinton aides and prominent surrogates, have raised questions or dropped references about Obama’s position on sentencing guidelines for crack vs. powder cocaine offenses; on his handgun control record; and on his admitted use of drugs as a youth. The context was always Obama’s “electability.” But the Illinois senator’s campaign advisers said some African American leaders detect a pattern, and they believe it could erode Clinton’s strong base of black support.
This article is accurate and precise. Many don’t understand the Black Community and the radio. teacherken was one of the first to shout out, “hey something is going on here. The Black Community is livid about The Clintons insinuation of Barack Obama selling drugs and her campaign using racial tactics.” (paraphrasing) And this was his synopsis by listening to Black Radio.
The Clintons missed a mark here. The Black Community is angry. Period. Many don’t care if Clinton attack Obama on the issues, it is politics, it is hardball. But to slither to the depths of slimy snakes and use his ethnicity, race, family against him? Sorry, Hillary, you now have Black Voters who were firmly in your corner, moving to Barack Obama. And whose fault is that?
If it don’t smell right, it ain’t right.
Video/Audio
New Iowa Ad, Enough; Iowa Ad, Candor; Nashua Telegraph Editorial Board Video; Michelle Obama Video; Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr and Govenor Tim Kaine in Columbia, SC; Barack in Indianola, IA
Populista’sObama Rising Roundup: Iowa Edition December 6-13
shoutouts:clinton loses luster; bill clinton downplays wife’s chances in iowa; say goodbye to the fec by adamb; black kos; food pantries turning people away as demand doubles by bink; nyceve; online forum on foreclosure and bankruptcy relief by rep. brad miller; huckabee, my way; john edwards, will you stand up? by adamb
JustAngry has put out a great series broken down into six pieces, focusing on all the aspects you need to know about Barack Obama. Simply titled, The Only Thing You Need To Know. This is well worth a read for anyone who is searching more specific information about Senator Barack Obama.
In barely more than a month, the political attention now focused on the early voting in Iowa and New Hampshire will turn southward, to a Georgia neighbor with a proven record of helping decide presidential nominations.
South Carolina’s first-in-the-South primaries are set for Jan. 19, and tracking is already well under way. CNN released an Opinion Research poll Friday that showed former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee claiming support from 24 percent of the state’s Republican voters, surging eight percentage points ahead of one-time front-runner, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), former Sen. John Edwards (center) and Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) are locked in a close race in South Carolina.
Aong Democrats, Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York was holding on at 42 percent against the rising Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, who had moved up seven percentage points since a July poll to 34 percent.
CNN senior political analyst Bill Schneider predicted an “all-out fight” among candidates well aware of South Carolina’s potentially pivotal role. On the Republican side, South Carolina has picked the eventual party nominee in every primary contest since 1980. In 1992, Bill Clinton used a South Carolina win to solidify his claim on the Democratic nomination after being upset by rival Paul Tsongas in New Hampshire. AJC
Nashua Telegraph Endorses Obama; Portsmouth Hearld Endorsement for Obama; Dallas Morning News Endorsement; Sioux City Journal Endorsement; Iowa City Press Citizen Endorses Obama; Reka Basu for Obama; State Representative Wayne Ford for Obama; Daily Iowan Endorses Obama; Woodbine Twiner for Obama; Illinois Black Legislators for Obama; Idaho Democratic Lawmakers for Obama; U.S. Congressman Dave Loebsack, D-IA, Backs Obama; U.S. Congressman Chaka Fattah Endorses Obama; U.S. Congressman Bobby Scott Endorses Obama; Former Rep. Bedell Backs Obama; Blue New Hampshire Bloggers Endorse Obama; Documentary Filmmaker Ken Burns, Endorses Obama; Ministers Endorse Obama; Obama Opens Nashville Office; Obama Files to Caucus in Kansas; Obama Enters New Mexico Caucus; Texas Primary
Democrat Barack Obama said Tuesday the nation’s foreign policy challenges call for a new leader who will worry more about doing the right thing than how it will look.
“There are moments in history when it is not enough to fall back on conventional ways of doing things, because the threats we face are unconventional,” Obama said in remarks prepared for delivery. “There are moments when new challenges demand new American leadership.”
He said that for too long the conventional way of thinking about foreign policy has valued “time spent in Washington over timely judgments, posturing over pragmatism and fear of looking weak over the conviction to get things right.”
He said he hasn’t been afraid to buck Washington thinking when it comes to foreign policy, including his opposition of going to war with Iraq while he was a state senator in Illinois. He said he’s the only Democratic nominee his Republican opponent won’t be able to challenge on that point. AP
It is interactive. See all the dark blue patches? Those are the states with offices or upcoming offices to open for Obama, prior to February 5th.
How important is this? Very important.
While all the candidates are pitching their closing argument, the real argument is who will win on February 5, 2008. That is the question. Meaning, who has the staffing, money, organization, etc., to win decisively on February 5th.
We know Hillary is running a chit driven campaign. She has called the chits in and expects them to perform. Edwards has no presence in these states, at all.
So, what should Iowans look for? Electability? Yes, all candidates are electable. They all have issues but they can be elected. The key word is viability. Which candidates are viable? Which candidates have the strength now and can move people through this process? Which candidate can fund the massive February 5th primary/caucuses and win?
That is the question. And the candidates better have answers for these caucus goers. Because right now, I only see two candidates positioned for this task.
If you appreciate the weekly Obama Roundup, then Tip My Obama Jar!! Minimum five dollars. This contribution goes directly to the Obama Campaign. We are in the last stretch of fundraising, Quarter 4, it ends December 31st. Remember to make your contribution.
well, it is cold out there. here at my home in the chicagoland area, the wind or “hawk” is whipping through here, as I finalize my last Christmas gifts. as, i look forward to chatting with my family the next few days, i hope that you are spending the time with your loved ones. and while you are at it, remember the biggest fight is coming soon, january 3rd. many of us will be in iowa, many of us will be mounting to new hampshire for the january 8th showdown. the blogs can be brutal now, just remember to stay focus on obama and not the drama. i am in iowa on the 27th through the caucus. i will post a short version of ‘this week’ next sunday, and try to post updates. keep your head up and let’s win this thing.
S.108 is in the House ready for hearings and then a trip to the floor. While it doesn’t deal with the statewide races, it does give a great confidence building start.
But YOU have to do something!
You have to contact your legislators, write letters to the editor, talk to neighbors and friends and and family, and in general insist upon it.
I’ve talked to many people and organizations about instant runoff voting, and the organization that blows me off the quickest is Vermont’s Democratic Party. This is a Dem supporting blog in general … do something about that.
For the holiday, I thought I’d do something a little different. I wrote this piece some time ago and have posted variations on it in multiple places. This version was set up primarily on the weekend prior to Christmas day and scheduled to go up Christmas morning; I don’t know if I (or anyone else, for that matter) will be around or not during the time it’s posted.
So, with that in mind: the pictures here are all “Light Drawings.” The short version of this is that they are all photographs which use long exposures to capture light in motion. Appearances vary due to a variety of factors. Those factors boil down to a few primary aspects:
exposure time, often referred to as shutter speed;
film speed (“ISO”), which is how much light is needed to render an exposure on the film;
size of opening in lens (f-stop), which is how big the hole allowing light to reach the film is;
ambient light in the scene;
how much light is emitted by the objects being photographed;
After the fold, I’ll talk about some basic photographic techniques and then apply them specifically to light drawings. But first, one more photo:
Clicking on photos brings you to a larger image with data about exposure length, camera settings, etc.
So let’s look at those items I mentioned in turn:
exposure time: The longer the exposure time, the more light gets in from the surroundings. This can be good or bad, depending on what you want to do. I’ve found that longer exposure times can be quite nice, as long as you don’t have too much surrounding light (in which case everything can be overexposed.
film speed (“ISO”): The lower your film speed, the better an image you tend to get. Higher speeds tend to produce pictures with more “noise” to them and the effect is not as nice as you’d like. You, however, don’t want to choose a film speed which is too low for your desired effect. If your speed settings are too low, you’ll find it difficult to get a proper exposure. You’ll need to experiment some to get this right.
F-stop: this can make a really big difference. Wider openings in the lens (lower-numbered f-stops) can produce much brighter images, but in doing so, they sacrifice depth of field, which is how much of your field of view remains in focus. Wider openings (F 3.5) allow for more light, but less of the photo is in focus. Smaller openings (F 22) provide for much darker pictures but almost the entire shot will remain in crisp focus. This makes for difficult choices sometimes, especially if the light source you’re using is not very bright.
how much light is emitted by the objects: This takes some getting used to. I’ve got a bunch of different objects I use to generate images and some are much brighter than others. In some cases, I have to move the objects VERY slowly in order to get the same effect I would with others. Below I’ll provide some examples.
So let’s take a look at this photo:
| f/9.0 | exposure: 3m, 10s | ISO: 100 | 10mm |
I was working with 100 speed film so I know I needed to emit a lot of light from the light objects in question. So I stood a distance from the camera and started spinning this light around (it’s a color-changing light). I spun about 20 times, walked a step forward, counted 20 spins, and repeated until I was very close to the lens. This is a good picture, but it’s not my favorite– the F-stop of 9.0 didn’t produce as strong a depth of field as I would have liked, so you can see that the background is slightly hazy as is the snow in the foreground. At a tighter f-stop, those would have all been in crisp, clear, focus.
In this one, on the other hand:
| f/13.0 | exposure: 4m, 14s | ISO: 250 | 17mm |
I went with a higher film speed so I could use a tighter f-stop instead. I also had a much longer exposure and didn’t use a spinning light object but instead one that I was moving slowly across the shot. It’s a crisper and cleaner picture, using the same light source, but in a very different fashion.
It’s amazing how many factors can affect the shots you get. The picture above has a lens flare in it, which I didn’t expect at all. This picture…
…has a bunch of sparkles throughout. That’s because it was snowing at the time and even though the snow didn’t come out clear, it reflected light from the laser pen I used to make the shape below. That gave me the inspiration to do more work with that laser pen once it snows again. I may create mirror ball type effects using it, if I can pull them off. One more picture, then some thoughts, and then a few more to close out:
Here are a few things I’ve learned:
every camera is different in terms of how it processes artificial light and what light frequencies expose best;
furthermore, every camera works a little differently at different ISO levels as well;
every lens is different. My 17-70mm lens creates a different look and feel than my 10-20mm, even if they’re both set to 20mm;
how fast or slow you move an object can make a major difference in how well exposed it is. If you move it very quickly, it may not show up in the shot at all. If you leave it still for too long, it may just appear to be a blob of light. Experiment and learn;
Different frequencies of light create different effects and different light sources work differently;
flashing lights create a dramatically different effect from continuous lights;
the further away a light is from the camera, the less light reaches the camera;
ambient light has a dramatic effect on the light you manipulate. Doing these pictures shortly after dusk leaves sunlight still visible in the sky. Doing them in an area with street lights produces a different effect than doing them in areas surrounded by darkness;
nights with full moons are dramatically different from nights with new moons or cloudy nights;
snow reflects almost all visible light and multiplies it. Same goes for any light-colored, reflective substance;
And remember: most of all, have fun.
A few quick notes: All these pictures were taken using a Pentax K10D camera, but the technique applies to many varieties of camera. They were all taken with Sigma lenses, either a 10-20mm or a 17-70mm.
And I will once again mention that clicking on the pictures brings you to larger versions with more details, as well as the ability to rate the photos, if you feel so inclined.
I hope you all have enjoyed this diary as a well-deserved break from political diaries.
(This one still has some mojo, as evidenced by the comments. – promoted by JDRyan)
I’ve cross-posted this to Daily Kos, so some of the info is a bit redundant to anyone who is familiar with Vermont politics
So here’s the situation: in Vermont, we have a Republican Governor who is not unpopular, but also could be vulnerable.
We also have a member of the Progressive Party who has run for the governor’s seat before, but never came close to winning. In 2000, a three-way election between Howard Dean (D), Anthony Pollina (P) and Ruth Dwyer (R) was a close call: Dean won with 50.4% of the vote. Dwyer got 37.9% and Pollina got 9.5%.
That doesn’t sound like a close call, but in Vermont, if a governor doesn’t receive 50% of the vote, the legislature gets to chose the outcome of the race, and at in that election, Republicans took over the legislature. In other words, we came very close to having a Republican hold the seat with more than 10% less of the vote than the Democratic candidate.
So now we’re in a similar position, but possibly reversed: our current Republican governor, Republican Governor is running for re-election. Pollina is showing a strong interest in running. We are likely to have a Democratic candidate (if not a primary) but do not have one yet.
The question, in short, is How do you solve a problem like Pollina?I will state up front: my primary interest here is seeing a left-winger in the governor’s seat. If we can successfully do that with a progressive, I’m okay with that, but I don’t see that as likely. I think it’s much more likely that if anyone can win that seat, it’s going to be a Democrat. My allegiance with the Democratic party is a pragmatic one. I like the theory of third parties, but I don’t like the idea of losing races because of them.
So for me, I think it’s important that we make this a genuine two-person race, and we make it a realistic one, one that actually has a chance of putting someone in the governor’s office who’s not a Republican. But I also don’t want to be telling progressives that they have no business running a candidate. I’d like 1-2-3 voting as an option, but we don’t have that for now. In the meantime, we’ve got a statewide political party (the Progressive party) which has fielded candidates on multiple occasions, and while never winning statewide office, has successfully won several legislative seats.
They’re a good party and upholding ideals that Democrats should be upholding, and I think they have every right to run a governor’s candidate. And yet, I can’t help but think that I’d rather they didn’t run a candidate this time around.
I should also note: Vermont always has multiple candidates running, but that usually includes two different marijuana legalization candidates because, apparently, there was some sort of schism there. Among the Governor’s debates here, there’s sometimes one that includes all the candidates, many of whom seem to be busily outdoing one another for the “craziest person in the room” award, which almost always ends with the woman who likes to talk about government cover-up of UFOs and reminds me of the woman on the Simpsons with all the cats.
So the thing is, if Pollina runs, it’s probably going to end up costing the Democratic contender some votes, and probably enough to cost the election. And in theory, I want him to be able to run just like any other candidate, but in practice, I just don’t see it working to anyone’s advantage but the incumbent.
Has anyone else had similar problems in their own states? How do you handle it without presenting it as though you have the right to run candidates for the sole virtue of being a Democrat and other people from other parties don’t? Pollina’s a threat to the Democrats because his party is strong enough to cost them votes but not strong enough to win on his own. It’s to their credit that their party is that strong, but it doesn’t actually help us get a leftie into the Governor’s office.
I’m really torn here about how best to approach this without being elitist and without being patronizing towards Progressives.
(Non-political blogging alert!!) In terms of fantasies that have no basis in reality, yet have been believed by zillions of living breathing, human beings, Santa Claus is on a par with little else besides Iraqi WMDs, the idea that your government would never wiretap you without a warrant, and the notion that our last President did not have sexual relations with that woman (well, okay, so nobody ever really believed that last one…).
