a pagan half hour

Posted on by
2

We’re living through the early stages of a climate change nightmare right now. Persistent heat domes with dangerously high temperatures, torrential rainstorms, exceptionally powerful hurricanes forming earlier than usual, drought-based wildfires whipped into firestorms by freakishly high winds, stronger than usual tornadoes that stay on the ground longer, thousand-year floods every couple of years leading to dams collapsing.

Because of the exceptional rainstorms, the Des Moines River is currently 20-22 feet higher than normal–not quite at actual flood levels (which, I believe, is 24 feet). A visit to the dam which creates Saylorville Lake yesterday was compelling. The 6000 acre lake has risen almost two feet in the last 24 hours; the spillway was releasing over 16,000 cubic feet of water every second — that’s 190% of its normal release. It was loud and furious and utterly fascinating to see.

View of the spillway from the parking area

People showed up to see it. Young people, old people, families with kids and dogs, couples, people on their own — a constant low-volume parade of people just to take a look at the chaos of the spillway. Just a few dozen at a time. Most of them would slowly approach the fence guarding the spillway, gawk a bit, gradually move closer to the release point at the bottom of the dam. The turbulent water was mostly unpredictable, and would splash people unexpectedly. Most laughed and ran away from the fence. A few got irrationally angry, as though the water had played some sort of trick on them.

The dam and the spillway

That large solid hill behind the spillway? That’s actually the dam holding back the Saylorville Lake. On other side, the water level is probably 30-35 feet higher. There’s a second, emergency spillway (not pictured in any of these photos) in the dam. The water level in the lake is expected to peak in a couple of days, and (it’s hoped) will remain a couple of feet below the emergency spillway.

Visitors on the other side of the spillway

“If you fell in there, you’d die.” I can’t tell you how many people I heard say that. They’d stand at the fence, look at the raging water cascading out of the spillway, shake their heads, and say it in an awestruck voice. They often repeated themselves. “Wouldn’t have a prayer, if you fell in there. Nothing you could do. Nothing anybody could do. Find your body somewhere downstream.”

Everybody was a photographer at the spillway

Normally, the only people you’d see at the spillway were fishing. It’s a popular fishing spot; apparently it’s one of the few places you can catch eight to ten different fish species along a single short stretch of the river. Under normal conditions, that also makes it a popular spot for birds — pelicans, cormorants, gulls and terns, eagles. I didn’t see any birds even approach the spillway yesterday. Birds have too much sense for that.

A road runs along the top of the dam.

There was something almost pagan about the experience. Not pagan in a religious sense (since ‘paganism’ is just a term early Christians applied to any pre-Christian belief system), but in the sense of common people making a sort of pilgrimage to witness, awestruck, the beauty and savagery of nature, to experience their own smallness in the world. I doubt many of the people at the spillway thought of it in those terms, but it was there. The awareness of a natural power beyond our control and our understanding.

We were only there for a half hour or so. It seemed like longer, but time gets weird in the presence of the old gods.

Editorial Note: I was informed about this fishing video that shows the spillway under ordinary conditions. You don’t have to watch the entire thing; the opening seconds will give you a sense of what it’s normally like at the spillway.

yes, but…

Posted on by
6

Yes, Joe Biden is old and didn’t do well in a debate. Yes, he’s lost a step (or two) and he needs his sleep. Yes, his cooperation in the genocide in Gaza is monstrous. He wasn’t my first choice in 2020–he wasn’t even in the top five on my list of candidates–but he’s been a much better and more effective president than I hoped he’d be. He’s still far from an ideal candidate.

Has there been too much emphasis on his age? Maybe. Has there been too much fuss about his debate performance? I think so, yes. Yes, but…what about the other guy?

…but this fucking guy?

Let’s not forget what Donald Trump has accomplished. In no particular order, he…

  • tried to block Muslims from entering the country
  • instituted a border policy that separated children from their families, then couldn’t find many of those children because of bureaucratic incompetence
  • evicted reporters who asked tough questions from the White House press briefings
  • hired his daughter and son-in-law, neither of whom were qualified, to work in the White House and ordered they be given security clearances they didn’t merit.
  • fired the FBI director for refusing to halt the investigation of his ties to Russia, then bragged about firing the FBI director to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador
  • unwittingly revealed highly sensitive intelligence to those same Russian diplomats IN THE OVAL OFFICE for fuck’s sake
  • couldn’t be bothered to take part in daily intelligence briefings and wouldn’t read most Intel reports unless they included photos
  • refused to release his tax returns
  • withdrew the US from the Paris accords to combat climate change
  • withdrew the US from the Joint Comprehensive Iranian nuclear deal, designed to check Iran’s fuel enrichment and uranium conversion 
  • withdrew the US from the Trans Pacific Partnership between 12 Pacific Rim economies designed to reduce their dependence on Chinese trade 
  • suggested the US should try to buy Greenland
  • reduced environmental regulations protecting the public from mercury and asbestos, and stopping coal companies from dumping toxic waste into rivers
  • opened millions of acres of federal lands to development and drilling
  • diverted US$3.8 billion of military funding to build approximately 177 miles of fencing/wall
  • seriously mismanaged the Covid pandemic, causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands
  • promoted the use of an antiparasitic medicine used to treat roundworm infections as a prophylactic against the coronavirus
  • privately told journalist Bob Woodward that Covid was deadly while deliberately downplaying the risks and dangers in public
  • eliminated the White House office of pandemic response
  • tear-gassed hundreds of peacefully gathered protesters on Lafayette Square in order to hold a photo op of him holding a Bible in front of a church
  • refused to condemn Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia after MBS ordered the execution and dismemberment of Jamal Khashoggi, a US-based journalist for the Washington Post
  • later bragged about protecting MBS and Saudi royalty after the Khashoggi scandal
  • played a shit ton of golf almost exclusively at his own resorts; spent about two days of every week at one of his properties during his tenure as POTUS
  • tried to convince the G7 to hold a meeting at one of his golf resorts
  • tried to get the PGA to hold the British Open at his golf course
  • charged the Secret Service exorbitant rates for protective agents to stay at his golf resorts
  • repeatedly lied about winning golf tournaments
  • abandoned Kurdish allies after their help in fighting ISIS
  • vetoed a defense funding bill because it included renaming military bases that were named after Confederate soldiers
  • withdrew US troops from Syria, allowing Russian troops to occupy former US bases, which prompted Sec. of Defense James Mattis to resign in protest
  • refused to commit to supporting and defending NATO allies
  • called soldiers who died in combat losers and suckers, and refused to attend a D-Day event honoring US war dead because it was raining
  • banned transgender people from serving in the military
  • claimed the US military had no ammunition under Obama
  • praised military dictators and authoritarian regimes while criticizing traditional US allies
  • did nothing after learning Russia paid members of the Taliban a bounty for killing US Marines
  • publicly took Vladimir Putin’s word on Russian election interference over the analysis of the US intelligence community
  • held a private meeting with Putin with only a translator present, ordered translator to destroy the notes, failed to disclose the meeting, which became public through Russian news media
  • passed massive tax cuts for the wealthiest
  • claimed he should have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize
  • claimed he was offered Time’s Man of the Year but refused it
  • claimed he made it possible for people to say “Merry Christmas”
  • claimed Andrew Jackson could’ve stopped the Civil War (AJ died before the Civil War began)
  • thought there was an African nation called Nambia
  • maybe shit his pants a few times, I don’t know, I’m just saying is all
  • stole SCOTUS seats with the help of Mitch McConnell
  • called the news media the “enemy of the people”
  • was found liable, along with his two adult sons, for fraud and fined nearly half a billion dollars
  • found liable for sexual assault and defamation, fined US$ five million.
  • found liable for re-defamation and fined another $83 million
  • found liable in Trump University fraud and forced to pay $25 million in restitution to students
  • was required to shut down Trump Foundation after it was found to have committed fraud and misappropriated funds
  • was indicted for a whole lot of felonies relating to the insurrection and fraud and obstruction of justice and illegally hanging on to all manner of confidential and secret documents
  • was convicted of 34 felony counts by State of New York and is awaiting sentencing
  • gave Rush Fucking Limbaugh the Presidential medal of Freedom
  • gave Ed Meese, Reagan’s AG who was involved in the illegal Iran-Contra affair and resigned in disgrace after a corruption scandal, the Medal of Freedom
  • had a 92% staff turnover rate in the most influential positions within the executive office
  • thought the Virgin islands had a President
  • used a Sharpie to ‘correct’ a map in an absurd effort to to justify his claim that Alabama was under a hurricane threat
  • suggested using nuclear weapons to somehow stop a hurricane
  • threatened to withhold federal aid from states and cities with Democratic leaders who criticized him or failed to thank him
  • put Louis DeJoy in charge of the Postal Service even though DeJoy had clear conflicts of interest by being CEO of a company that did business with USPS
  • tried to pressure the president of Ukraine to manufacture dirt on Joe Biden
  • got impeached
  • staged an insurrection
  • got impeached again
  • refused to concede the 2020 election
  • refused to even attend Biden’s inauguration
  • ordered member of his administration NOT to comply with Congressional subpoenas
  • stopped holding press briefings for months at a time
  • suggested that wind turbines cause cancer and drive whales ‘batty’
  • stared directly into an eclipse like a goddamned idiot
  • and did a whole bunch of other awful shit that I’ve forgotten about
  • promises to do sparkly new awful shit in the future, especially now that he’d be free from the fear of criminal prosecution

Almost every single day of the Trump administration was a tightrope walk, waiting to see what new scandal, what new form of corruption, what inevitable act of incompetence, what unanticipated moment of galactic ignorance, what novel example of naked greed would lead the day’s news cycle. It was fucking exhausting. He’s ready and eager to do it again.

But, yeah, Biden is old and needs a nap. His knees are brittle and he walks stiffly. The White House probably spends a fortune on Ensure.

almost, almost…

Posted on by
2

Yesterday, to distract myself from the SCOTUS-induced alternating rage/depression cycle, I sorted through some of the photos I shot at Saturday’s Farmer’s Market. And there was one photograph that…well, wait. I need to back up a bit. Two things.

First thing, a reminder: I recently bought a new camera, a Ricoh GR3x. It’s unlike any camera I’ve ever owned. To begin with, there’s no viewfinder; you compose the photo using the rear LCD screen. I was actually hesitant to buy the camera because of the lack of a viewfinder (yes, you can buy an attachment viewfinder, but that’s more coin and fuck that.) Composing with an LCD screen seems wrong; that’s what you do with your fucking phone. To my film-trained mind, it’s NOT how you use a camera. And yet, with the GR3x it turns out to be surprisingly handy and intuitive. Old dog, new tricks.

Second thing: Alex Webb. He’s a street photographer who’s famous for extremely colorful and complex photos. When I say ‘complex’ I mean many/most of his photos are composed in a way that organically divides and separates the elements within the frame into what could be different, distinct photos. I’m not going to include an example image here because when I publish this and post the link on various social media, there’s a good chance it’ll feature Webb’s photo instead of the photo I’m writing about; I don’t want people to think I’m taking credit for Webb’s work. But seriously, if you’re not familiar with this guy, do a quick image search. He’s amazing.

So, back to the opening paragraph, me sorting through Saturday’s photographs. At the Farmer’s Market I noticed a woman comforting her dog (which looked to be some sort of spaniel/poodle mixed breed) behind a vendor’s booth. The dog had apparently been overexcited by the crowd. There was something very sweet about their interaction and I wanted to photograph it. Having recently re-examined Alex Webb’s work, I thought it would be cool to include the vendor in the shot. But there was a guy who kept moving in front of me (I think he thought I was trying to cut in front of him to get the vendor’s attention). I’d shift to one side hoping to get a shot, and the guy kept shifting with me. With each step, I was losing sight of the woman and her dog. Just as I was about to give up, I saw a mother & child walking by behind the vendor.

I took the photo.

Not a great photo, but the potential is there.

Okay, it’s not a great photo. But I like it because it’s as close as I’ve ever come to shooting something almost almost in Webb’s style. Not in terms of color (my photo is rather drab in terms of color), but because the frame can be visually divided into three distinct image areas. The woman and her dog, the vendor, and the mother and child. Granted, the original idea of the woman and her dog largely gets lost, and the image is badly off balance…but still, there it is.

The thing is, if I’d been using a camera with a viewfinder, I wouldn’t have seen the mother and child before they entered the frame (and yes yes, if you’re shooting with a rangefinder camera you can keep your left eye open, which allows you to see outside the camera frame, but that only works if you’re right-eye dominant…and I’m not; I compose with my left eye). If I’d been using one of my usual cameras, I’d have missed the shot.

The GR3x allowed me to compose this photograph thoughtfully and almost instantly. It’s not a great photo by any means, but it demonstrates (to me, at least) this particular camera’s potential to catch unique, unexpected moments. I understand why this camera is beloved among many street photographers.

I don’t do much street photography. I’m not particularly good at it, but I enjoy it. But I also believe in practicing in public, in showing work that doesn’t quite meet my standards for what the work could be. So this is why I’ve inflicted this photo and this blog post on you. Thanks for being patient.

fuck everything, especially those guys

Posted on by
15

Yeah, I’m talking about those Nazgûl motherfuckers on SCOTUS. Like almost everybody I know, I spent yesterday vacillating between 1) feeling depressed and helpless and 2) wanting to set fire to the entire combustible world. The decision yesterday that POTUS (and Trump in particular) is essentially above the law was appalling and frightening, but the fact that it was delivered in smug terms by the most conspicuously corrupt and openly partisan SCOTUS in history was insulting. It’s like they’re standing there, grinning in their black robes, saying “Fuck yeah, we’re corrupt. And ain’t nothing you plebs can do about it.”

Justice Sotomayor, in her properly raging dissent, wrote, “in every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.” And she’s right. That whole notion that nobody is above the law has gone straight down the porcelain facility. This is an unprecedented fuckwankery. This is deep fuckwankery; fuckwankery down at the cellular level. I mean, the spouses of two of the Justices (Alito and Thomas) openly supported the insurrection/insurrectionists, and yet those two tainted pricks didn’t have the fundamental sense of decency to recuse themselves from the case.

What makes this even more galling is the fact that those arrogant motherfuckers on SCOTUS were put on the bench by partisan politicians who represent a minority of US citizens. A combination of partisan gerrymandering, voter suppression, and the absurdity of the Electoral College means that the US is largely ruled by the minority. And in recent years, that minority cheated, lied, and wriggled around enough to install three partisan hacks onto the SCOTUS bench.

Wipe the smiles off the faces of 6 of these corrupt wankers.

Every single one of the Justices sitting on this SCOTUS testified under oath that they respected stare decisis, the legal concept that courts should follow precedent. At least six of them lied about that. This Court has largely shat all over precedent. For almost half a century, Roe guaranteed a woman’s right to choose. That’s gone. The Bakke decision on race-conscious admissions in higher education was the law of the land for almost as long. Not any more. For 40 years, Chevron — Jesus suffering fuck, people, there have been 70 SCOTUS and some 17,000 or so lower court cases based on Chevron, which states courts need to defer to the experts in various regulatory agencies when deciding how to interpret a law. A judge probably doesn’t know enough to decide what level of exposure to a certain chemical or substance would be harmful to a child. A judge probably doesn’t have a fucking clue about the long term effects of effluent run-off from a hog containment farm into a local river upstream from a small town. Experts need to decide this shit, not judges. But nope, this SCOTUS has turned that power over to elected or appointed judges.

Wait…I forgot bribery. Last week, this SCOTUS (and I am NOT MAKING THIS UP) made the bizarre decision that while it’s illegal for a public official (like, say, a mayor or a member of Congress, or possibly a judge) to accept a bribe, it’s perfectly for fine for them to accept a gratuity. A bribe is the offer of money (or something of value) from a person/entity before the public official makes a decision affecting that person or entity. A gratuity is accepting the same fucking thing after the decision is made. Seriously, the Court says bribes are bad but gratuities are okay. This decision was written by the Justice whose massive credit card debt was mysteriously paid off before he was nominated. You know who I’m talking about–the guy reliably accused of sexual assault. That guy. (Okay, Kavanaugh.)

If you’re reading this hoping that at the end I’ll suggest some way to make you feel better about the situation…sorry. If you’re hoping I’ll cobble together ideas for a way forward, or maybe offer some practical advice on how to minimize the damage…nope. Maybe tomorrow or at some point in the future. For now, all I have to say is let yourself be angry or depressed for a while. Maybe just be numb for a while.

But pretty soon we’ll need to get over it and resist. Resist in any way we can. Resist in every way we can. But today it’s literally raining here in the heartland, and for today that’s fine.

well, that was something

Posted on by
8

US presidential debates have always been…wait, wrong approach. US presidential debates have NEVER been debates. I mean, a debate is a discussion, right? A discussion between individuals or groups about a particular topic or a related range of topics. When you sit around the coffee shop and have a convivial argument with your friends about the merits of film photography versus digital imagery, that’s a debate. When you sit in a bar and challenge your friend to prove that Star Wars has a more coherent universe than Star Trek, that’s a debate. These may be stupid debates, but they’re more true to the debate concept than whatever the fuck that was last night.

[Okay, I wrote this yesterday morning, then had a Squirrel Moment and got distracted by something outside. Then I had to go to the gym and get ritually humiliated in pickleball by a bunch of savage retired women. Then there was lunch and the day just got away from me. So any reference to ‘last night’ should be interpreted as ‘Thursday’.]

Presidential debates in the US have just been awkward Q&A sessions. The moderators ask a question, the candidates give some sort of an answer that may or may not be tangentially related to the question. There’s rarely any real discussion, and to my knowledge there’s never ever been any attempt to persuade their opponent to change their mind.

What we saw last night was…well, I don’t know what the fuck it was. Whatever it was, it was ugly. And the reaction by most of the US political news media to whatever it was, was even uglier. In fact, the news media reaction has been just as fucking stupid as Donald Trump was last night.

How stupid? The New York Times editorial board called for Joe Biden to drop out of the race. Why? Because he gave a poor performance. Which is true; Biden seemed older than usual, and his voice was raspy and congested. He didn’t always give a consistent, reasoned answer to the moderator’s questions. He rambled a bit, he stuttered (the guy has always had a stutter, that’s not unusual for him), and he sometimes strayed from the topic. It was unpleasant to watch.

Trump, on the other hand, was fucking vile. Which is to say, Trump was Trump. Rude. Often incoherent. Insulting. Openly lying in literally almost every comment he made. But he told those lies in a loud, confident voice, as opposed to Biden’s tremulous responses. Trump refused to even attempt to answer the moderator’s questions, while Biden tried to answer them.

But NYT thinks Biden should drop out of the race? Because he’s old and did poorly in a debate? Because he’s a decent, patriotic American, Biden should be willing to sacrifice his presidential career for the good of the nation?

What about the convicted felon and sex pest? The NYT did NOT call for Donald Trump to drop out of the race. In (grudging) defense of the NYT, there’s no point in suggesting Trump drop out for the good of the nation, because he doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the good of the nation. He doesn’t give a rat’s ass about anything but his ownself. Trump is a fucking cancerous tumor; the only way he’ll leave the political body if he’s surgically excised.

Trump mugging democracy

This is a seriously risky moment in US history. The Republican Party has become an authoritarian White Christian Nationalist party, openly hostile to the very concept of representative democracy. That’s bad enough, but we also have what is essentially a rogue Supreme Court. In the last couple of weeks alone, SCOTUS has decided that 1) homeless people can be banned from sleeping outside even if there’s no other place for them to sleep, 2) random judges should have more control over the environment, public health, workplace safety & consumer protections than expert regulators, 3) public officials can accept ‘gratuities’ from wealthy businesses for favorable decisions AFTER the decision is made (but not before the decision is made, because that would be bribery), and 4) that obstructing or impeding an official proceeding only applies if you destroy records or documents, not if you violently disrupt Congress by breaking in and threatening members of Congress. (We still don’t know how SCOTUS feels about presidential immunity for criminal acts, but I’ve got no confidence in them doing what is obviously right.)

Joe Biden is NOT an ideal candidate. I mean, his role in enabling the genocide of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank is, to me, incomprehensible and unforgivable. But I’ll vote for the guy because he IS the Democratic candidate. I’ll vote for whoever the Democratic candidate is because fuck Trump and the GOP. Fuck them in the neck.

fairness

Posted on by
3

Try to imagine this. A nation in which entities licensed to broadcast news or entertainment to the public were obligated to set aside a certain amount of their broadcast schedule to discuss controversial matters of public concern–and to do so in a way that included different perspectives.

Let’s say there was a television network called Really Good TV. To keep its broadcast license, RGTV created a regularly scheduled program called Really Important Stuff. And let’s also say there was a public controversy involving…I don’t know, maybe the overpopulation of parrots. RGTV’s Really Important Stuff show might do a segment in which people would discuss whether overpopulation of parrots was a critical issue, and if it was, how it might be handled. They’d include folks who very much enjoyed all the parrots and didn’t think it was a problem, and folks who totally fucking hated parrots and felt they should be poisoned at government expense, and folks who felt the best solution to parrot overpopulation was to allow them to be hunted for sport, and folks who felt parrots should be captured and neutered and released back into the city. Every main point of view would be included in the discussion, and viewers would be allowed to evaluate those positions and make up their own minds.

Reader, we actually used to live in that nation. We really did.

In 1927, Congress decided the agency that regulated federal communications (back then it was the Federal Radio Commission) should only issue broadcast licenses when doing so serves the public interest. Not private interests, not corporate interests, not the interests of the rich, not the interests of a particular political party. The public interest. In 1949, the Federal Communications Commission (which expanded the FRC to include television) created a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses to 1) present controversial issues of public importance AND 2) to do so in a manner that fairly reflected differing viewpoints. It was called, appropriately, the Fairness Doctrine.

And hey, it worked. Television and radio stations were allowed to decide for themselves HOW to implement the doctrine; they could do it through news segments, or public affairs shows, or through editorials. Nor were the stations required to provide equal time for the various opposing views. But they had to devote some time to important public issues and they had to present contrasting viewpoints.

It didn’t always work smoothly, but it worked. In 1969, for example, the FCC yanked the broadcast license from WLBT television in Mississippi (an NBC affiliate station) because the station’s overtly segregationist politics shaped their decision to refuse to broadcast NBC’s coverage of the civil rights movement.

News media ‘free speech’ includes misleading information & lying.

Think about that for a moment. A local NBC news station refused to show news coverage of the civil rights movement created by NBC–coverage of a nationally important topic–because the owners/staff of that local station opposed civil rights. That local station didn’t have to agree with the coverage (and clearly, they didn’t; WLBT broadcast the Citizens’ Council Forum, a syndicated series of fifteen-minute interviews with segregationists). But they needed to present the issue fairly to their audience, about half of which was Black. When the station refused, the FCC punished them by taking away their broadcast license.

It was a powerful statement by the government that important public issues broadcast on public airwaves needed to be addressed fairly, and that meant including differing perspectives held by the public.

What happened to the Fairness Doctrine? One of the two dominant political parties felt oppressed by having to present opposing points of view. Care to guess which one?

President Ronald Reagan, in the mid-1980s, appointed three new commissioners to the FCC (the fourth had been appointed by Richard Nixon). They issued a report stating the Fairness Doctrine actually harmed the public interest by violating the 1st Amendment protection of free speech. Seriously. The FCC commissioners argued the free speech rights of political entities were diminished by requiring opposing views to be presented to the public. They voted unanimously to abandon the Fairness Doctrine.

Congress, believe it or not, disagreed with the FCC decision. It’s difficult to imagine now, given the current level of hyper-partisanship, but back then both houses of Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike, voted to enact the Fairness Doctrine into law (previously it had only been an FCC policy).

Not surprisingly, Reagan (who, again, engineered the destruction of the Fairness Doctrine) vetoed the legislation. Congress failed to overturn the veto. The FCC decision was implemented. By the summer of 1987, the Fairness Doctrine was dead. Dead as the Wicked Witch of the East–not only merely dead, but really most sincerely dead.

About a year later, in the summer of 1988, radio broadcaster Rush Limbaugh began his new radio show at WABC-AM in New York. In 1991, Democrats attempted to revive legislation to make the Fairness Doctrine law. That failed when President George H.W. Bush announced he would veto the law. In 1996, Rupert Murdoch and former Republican Party political strategist Roger Ailes launched Fox News.

Do the math.

new camera…and lawdy

Posted on by
3

A few months ago–October/November of last year–I got sucked back into the Cameraverse. I’d pretty much abandoned cameras (cameras, not photography) in favor of my phone. My phone was convenient, did a fine job, and had the massive advantage of always being with me. But my hands began to miss the feel of a camera in them.

That’s only partly a metaphor. Shooting with a phone and shooting with a camera are two very different tactile experiences. I felt a strong desire to pick up an actual, no-shit, physical camera and go shoot photos. I resurrected my 12-year-old Fujifilm X10 because it was 1) a real camera and 2) it was small. I flirted a bit with another larger Fujifilm camera, but it soon became clear to me that, for a variety of reasons, I don’t enjoy larger cameras.

With a new camera, you photograph whatever is at hand.

So I began to noodle around the InterTubes to see what was out there in the Small Camera World. That introduced me to the Cult of Ricoh. I DO NOT do cults. I resist cults. Cults are bullshit. But after enough exposure to the Ricoh GR3 series, I was ready to shave my head, shake a tambourine, and buy one of the wee bastards. Except I couldn’t find one. Seriously. The problem is/was the Ricoh GR3 series is so popular, they’re on continuous back-order everywhere.

Buy Local

Persistence paid off, and four days ago I was able to unbox a brand new Ricoh GR3x. Here are three inescapable things about the Ricoh GR3 series: 1) They’re small. Really small. I kept hearing them described as ‘pocketable,’ which I assumed was bullshit. It’s not. You can actually tote the thing around in your pants pocket. Regular pants, not baggy cargo pants. I’ve no idea where women carry them, since fashion Nazis have deprived women of real pockets, but lawdy, the camera is small. 2) They’re quick. That photo above? Six seconds. Saw the condensation on the refrigerated beer door, pulled the camera out of my pants pocket, composed and shot the photo with one hand, put the camera back in my pocket. Six fucking seconds. It’s not a great photo, but lawdy. I felt like a gunslinger. 3) They’re easily customizable, if that’s a word. Almost every button on the camera (most of which are accessible when shooting with one hand) can be assigned almost any function. Which won’t mean much to anybody who isn’t a photographer, but trust me, that’s a HUGE deal.

High contrast monochrome — water on a table.

It allows you to experiment. Hell, it almost demands you experiment. During a break in the rain on my first day I shot the photo above. It’s just rainwater organizing itself on a glass-topped patio table, but it has me thinking of a possible new Knuckles Dobrovic project–something about water in its various forms (as a liquid, as a solid, as a vapor, etc) done in high contrast black-and-white. I’ve no idea if it’s a viable project, or if I’ll follow through on it, but the thing is this camera has me thinking about projects again.

The problem? The learning curve. Oh, you can take decent photos almost immediately (as you can see here). But there are SO MANY ways to set up the camera to be responsive to your individual needs/wants, that I expect it’ll take me a couple of months of experimentation. Messing about with different set-ups, trying new ways of arranging things, establishing different photographic profiles for different subjects.

Chicory

Of the four days I’ve had the camera, two were rainy and stormy, one was savagely hot under a Gibsonesque dead channel sky. A bit of sunshine…even the teensiest bit, nicking through the gloomy clouds…would have done wonders for the photo above. The blue of the chicory was so lovely. But you get what you get.

This camera will, I think, allow me to take advantage of what I get. Yesterday what I got was yellow stripes outside the library exit. I hesitated for just a few seconds, one hand full with a heavy book, the other allowed me to dig the Ricoh out of my pocket, shoot this quickly, and be on my way. (And here’s another thing: I almost never shoot in portrait format, but there’s something about the ergonomics of the GR3 that makes you want to shoot that way. I don’t understand it, but there it is.)

Stopped by the library, shot a photo.

I’ve shot a total of 48 photos in these four days. Forty-eight photos, and I think I’m in love. Because this is the first camera that feels like it was designed to shoot the way I see. It’s unobtrusive, it’s fast, it’s easy to shoot with one hand AND at the same time it gives you a LOT of almost immediate control over how the photo will look. All of the elements of exposure–ISO, shutter speed, aperture–all right there for your thumb and index finger. It’s perfect for shooting fast and loose and from the hip. That’s why this camera is a favorite of street shooters.

But that’s not me. I’m not a spray & pray shooter; I tend to compose a photo quickly, but deliberately. I think this wee bugger will give me some of the speed of a street shooter while still letting me make important exposure decisions. It’ll take me a while to get proficient with it, but lawdy.

And I’ll just say it again. Lawdy.

hitler/trump — not just a cheap shot

Posted on by
6

A couple of years ago, when I was dodging the work I should have been doing, I decided to research the authenticity of a quotation that frequently appeared online. I’d seen it attributed to both Hitler and Joseph Goebbels. You’ve probably seen it too.

Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.

There doesn’t seem to be any evidence that either Hitler or Goebbels said it, though they certainly believed it and acted on it. However, a very similar line appeared in a classified World War 2 psychological profile of Hitler:

People will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.

I downloaded the report (which was declassified in 1968) to read later…and promptly forgot about it. Until yesterday, when I stumbled on it again while deleting old files. I decided to glance through it before deleting it…and lawdy.

This is what happened. Back in late 1943 or early 1944, the Office of Strategic Services (the US intelligence agency during World War 2, which eventually morphed into the CIA) tasked a psychoanalyst named Walter Langer to prepare a profile on Adolf Hitler. The report was “an attempt to screen the wealth of contradictory, conflicting and unreliable material concerning Hitler into strata which will be helpful to the policy-makers and those who wish to frame a counter-propaganda.”

We’ve all seen a lot of comments comparing former POTUS Comrade Donald Trump to Hitler. It’s easy to either nod and agree or dismiss the comparison as overreach. But when you read the report–which, remember, was completed before the end of the war, when Hitler was still alive and in power–it’s uncanny how closely Langer’s evaluation of Hitler resembles Trump. The report itself has six sections: 1) Hitler as he believes himself to be, 2) as the German people know him, 3) as his associates know him, 4) as he knows himself, 5) a psychological analysis and reconstruction, and 6) Hitler’s probable behavior in the future. Only some of those could be applied to Trump. The quotations are taken directly from Langer’s report (which can be found here).

Hitler/Trump as he believes himself to be:

Many people have stopped and asked themselves: “Is this man sincere in his undertakings or is he a fraud?” Certainly even a fragmentary knowledge of his past life warrants such a question…. [A]ll of his former associates whom we have been able to contact, as well as many of our most capable foreign correspondents, are firmly convinced that Hitler actually does believe in his own greatness.

It makes little difference whether the field be economics, education, foreign affairs, propaganda, movies, music or women’s dress. In each and every field he believes himself to be an unquestioned authority.

He has fallen in love with the image of himself in this role and has surrounded himself with his own portraits.

Does that sound like Trump? Oh, absolutely.

Hitler/Trump as the people know him:

[F]rom a physical point of view, is not, however, a very imposing figure.

[His] personal appearance… it is safe to assume that this has been greatly tempered by millions of posters, pasted in every conceivable place, which show the Fuehrer as a fairly good-looking individual with a very determined attitude. In addition, the press, news-reels, etc., are continually flooded with carefully prepared photographs showing Hitler at his very best.

[H]is speeches were sinfully long, badly structured and very repetitious. Some of them are positively painful to read but nevertheless, when he delivered them they had an extraordinary effect upon his audiences.

[B]y the time he got through speaking he had completely numbed the critical faculties of his listeners to the point where they were willing to believe almost anything he said. He flattered them and cajoled them. He hurled accusations at them one moment and amused them the next by building up straw men which he promptly knocked down. His tongue was like a lash which whipped up the emotions of his audience. And somehow he always managed to say what the majority of the audience were already secretly thinking but could not verbalize.

[H]is refusal to permit ordinary scruples to get in his way is given as a sign of his greatness.

Yeah, that’s Trump.

Hitler/Trump as his associates know him: much of this section contradicts comparisons with Trump. Hitler, it seems, was a hard worker who was actually well informed about the workings of government. Apparently, he was generally thoughtful with his underlings, making sure they took breaks and ate well–even to the point of refusing to eat until everybody in the room had been served. He was also, it seems, personally courageous. However, there are a lot of aspects of Hitler’s personality that are equally Trumpian. For example:

H]is ability to persuade others to repudiate their individual consciences.

His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong.

He has a passion for the latest news and for photographs of himself…. Very frequently he becomes so absorbed in the news or in his own photographs that he completely forgets the topic under discussion.

Almost everyone who has written about Hitler has commented on his rages. These are well known to all of his associates and they have learned to fear them…. [H]is behavior is still extremely violent and shows an utter lack of emotional control. In the worst rages he undoubtedly acts like a spoiled child who cannot have his own way and bangs his fists on the tables and walls. He scolds and shouts and stammers and on some occasions foaming saliva gathers in the corners of his mouth.

It must not be supposed, however, that these rages occur only when he is crossed on major issues. On the contrary, very insignificant matters might call out this reaction. In general they are brought on whenever anyone contradicts him, when there is unpleasant news for which he might feel responsible, when there is any skepticism concerning his judgment or when a situation arises in which his infallibility might be challenged or belittled.

We all know how he can say something one day and a few days later say the opposite, completely oblivious to his earlier statement. He does not only do this in connection with international affairs but also with his closest associates.

[H]e seems to lack any real sense of humor. He can never take a joke on himself.

That’s so totally Trump.

Hitler/Trump as he knows himself and Psychological analysis and reconstruction: These sections are devoted to a Freudian psychoanalytic view of Hitler’s personal life and history. It’s about his family, his youth, his military service in WW1, his rise to power, his relationships, and his sexuality and sexual proclivities. They’re full of Freudian concepts and interpretations (like “Unconsciously, all the [Oedipal] emotions he had once felt for his mother became transferred to Germany.”) and there’s a lot of focus on Hitler’s probable issues with childhood toilet training trauma. I mean, this was the early 1940s–Freud still wore the biggest hat in the field–so we have to expect this stuff. I suppose we could include Hitler’s alleged indulgence in urine play as a similarity with Trump, but I’m not sure that anybody’s particular kink is terribly relevant.

What MIGHT be relevant, though, is this observation by Langer:

Hitler’s outstanding defense mechanism is one commonly called projection…his own personal problems and conflicts were transferred from within himself to the external world where they assumed the proportions of racial and national conflicts.

We’ve all heard that every accusation made by Trump is also a confession. It’s interesting to read, to be sure, but while there are comparisons to be made with Trump’s personal life and history, the comparisons are rather generic.

Hitler’s/Trump’s probable behavior in the future: Langer outlined eight possible/probable scenarios for Hitler’s fall.

  1. He said Hitler might die of natural causes, but considered that a remote possibility. Given Trump’s diet and lack of exercise, this possibility is less remote in his case.
  2. Hitler might seek refuge in a neutral country. Langer also considered this to be extremely unlikely. Trump, who has property in other countries, might be more open to this.
  3. Hitler might get killed in battle. Langer thought this was a real possibility. He said it would be undesirable from the US point of view, since it would make Hitler a martyr. As for Trump, ain’t no way he’d martyr himself.
  4. Hitler might be assassinated. Langer felt Hitler was too well protected for this, and thought it would be undesirable–again, that martyrdom business. It also seems an unlikely scenario for Trump.
  5. Hitler may go insane. Langer meant more insane. Incapacitated by mental illness. Which could also happen to Trump, as his emotional defenses collapse.
  6. German military might revolt and seize him. Langer believed as Hitler’s behavior became more neurotic, a point might be reached where the military confined him. As for Trump, nobody in the MAGAverse has the courage to seize him.
  7. Hitler may fall into [the US military’s] hands. Yeah, no, doesn’t apply.
  8. Hitler might commit suicide. Langer said this was the most plausible outcome. And hey, that’s what Hitler did. I won’t comment further on this possibility.

Langer’s profile concluded with this comment:

[Hitler’s} mental condition will continue to deteriorate. He will fight as long as he can with any weapon or technique that can be conjured up to meet the emergency. The course he will follow will almost certainly be the one which seems to him to be the surest road to immortality and at the same time drag the world down in flames.

Again, that’s totally Trump. Willing to burn the entire combustible world in a fit of pique if he can’t get his way.

It’s weird and disturbing that Walter Langer, 80+ years ago, writing about a man “the world has come to know…for his insatiable greed for power, his ruthlessness, cruelty and utter lack-of feeling, his contempt for established institutions and his lack of moral restraints” seems to have provided us with some pretty solid insight into the psyche of Donald Trump.