Once again, I’ve got a series of photos to offer.  Most are bird photos, but a few are of other creatures.  As I’ve been doing, I’m going to present this as a bird quiz, but one part of the quiz is a quiz for me as well.  This gull…

…honestly has me confused.  It just doesn’t match anything I can find in my books and I am not very good with gulls to begin with.  Any other birders out there able to ID it?  I already feel stupid about this and figure it’s something common in a plumage which confuses me, so don’t worry about making me feel more stupid by telling me “obviously, it’s a…” or any other such thing.

Other birds, plus a couple seal photos, follow.  

I will note, once again, that these are all smaller versions of larger photos.  Clicking on the photo will get you to a larger version of it, combined with some details (date of photo, where the photo was taken, etc.).  Also, I do not post all my photos here.  If you want to subscribe to weekly (or daily) notices of new photos, you can do so here.  

If you want to purchase any of the photo books I’ve created (either through e-books or print copies), I’m selling them via lulu.com.

Okay, onto the photos:

To me, it’s officially spring when bird #1 starts to show up again:

I’ve posted bird #2 before.  I tend to see them a lot this time of year, but not much otherwise:

Same goes for bird #3…

Bird #4 is very common throughout the Northeast:

They sometimes even mob together to attack Bird #5:

Bird #6 was fun to watch.  I spotted two of them together, a male and a female.  Then noticed several other males in the area.  Within a few minutes, all six of the males were all flicking their tails up and down and bobbing about in the water, while she just ignored them:

Bird #7 is very common in the Northeast:

I was taking a photo of Bird #8 (foreground) without even realizing that Bird #9 (upper part of photo) was in the shot.  I only noticed it later:

Bird #10 is common in my yard, but I spotted this one on a brief walk through the woods:

Bird #11 is also common, but this is an unusual variant:

Bird #12 is common in the Northeast, but much more so in Summer than Winter:

I’ve had better luck with Bird #13 this year than I’ve ever had before.  I’ve been seeing them regularly:

Bird #14 was featured in yesterday’s Dawn Chorus and is normally an uncommon bird for me, but has been here in real quantities all Winter:

Bird #15 is common here year-round:

Bird #16 is another harbinger of Spring for me:

Bird #17 can be seen year-round here, but I don’t get huge numbers of sightings of it:

And finally, as promised… SEALS!

As struggling newspapers across the country are looking for ways to survive the L3C is getting close scrutiny in several places. A Chicago Sun-times editor in the Huffington Post, an article in E&P magazine and Robert Lang (L3C Advisors CEO and the creator of the L3C model) are touting L3C’s as possible methods for saving struggling newspapers.  

The state of Vermont was among the first states to enact L3C (low profit limited Liability Corporation) legislation in April last year. Since then Michigan and the Crow Nation passed similar laws and legislatures in Georgia, Montana, North Carolina and Oregon are also expected to pass L3C legislation. The law allows establishing a low profit, non-profit hybrid entity. The entity would be a low-profit company with “charitable or educational” goals and some return for investors. The social benefit, educational and social responsibility features play to the newspapers hopefully continuing (and improving?) role as public advocates and leaders of public debate.

Historically, newspapers are not considered nonprofits. However, a federal L3C bill and the Federal Program-Related Investment Promotion Act, if passed, would expand charitable purposes to include newspapers.

 Robert Lang creator of the L3C model, stated, “What we are looking at is the newspaper as a self-sufficient entity. It will not be a high profit entity.” Unlike other current options, the L3C is sustainable, allowing newspapers to tap into the $17M available for PRIs while the L3C’s social purpose business model continues to realign newspapers with their community service mission.

The L3C structure plays well in Peoria where the Peoria Newspaper Guild, and a coalition of Journal Star employees and community leaders have been quietly looking for two years at alternatives including co-ops and employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs) to operate the Peoria Journal Star.

The one idea that really clicked was the L3C. Because it can tap into foundation money, an L3C is sustainable, and because an L3C business must meet a social purpose, it realigns newspapers with their mission of community service.

“We are looking at long-term ownership that puts journalism first,” said Jennifer Towery, President of the Peoria Newspaper Guild and also Neighbors Editor for the Peoria Journal Star. “[The L3C] just resonated. It has so much potential.”

Vermont companies pay $75 to file as an L3C and those located elsewhere, $100, not including the fees generated by filing annual reports, said Deputy Secretary of State Bill Dalton. There are no estimates last year on how much money the measure could raise.

In Vermont roughly 35 L3C entities have been or are in the process of being created , such as CoolPass, L3C, Faithful Travelers, L3C, and Monkton Community Coffeehouse, L3C. A list of established L3Cs in Vermont is searchable through the corporation database on the Vermont Secretary of State website.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…

http://www.nonprofitlawblog.co…

This from today’s Burlington Free Press struck a nerve with me:

“Both sides have a good argument. This is not something you take lightly,” Mazza said Friday, sitting at a desk dotted with pink messages from constituents all weighing in on same-sex marriage.

It struck a nerve with me because it’s simply false.  Those opposing same-sex marriage do not “have a good argument.”  They have bigotry, disgust and religious dogma.  They do not have an argument.  They have false claims, lies and misrepresentations, tied up and presented as defending their way of life.

This, for example, is one of the “arguments” against same-sex marriage, as reported in the Rutland Herald:

“It’s the real science they’ve ignored, and here’s the real science: same-sex parents cannot both be biological parents, and so the family structure is very similar to many stepparent situations… Such a family structure is also missing the inherent complementary balance between a male and a female.”

But that’s not an argument.  It is, in fact, simply a misrepresentation of the truth.  Cable pretends that his twisted and deceptive rendering of what research claims is science, because he has nothing else.  He has no argument.  He just has lies.

What other “arguments” can you find in opposition to same sex marriage?

Well, there’s this one:

This issue is not a side issue of personal preference allowing to “live and let live.” Rather, the gay rights movement is a direct challenge to the authority of God over his creation. God has already judged in this matter. Now he waits to see which side we will choose.

Or, possibly, this one, which, at least, is consistent:

if i had the power i would make it so that it was against the law for a person to remarry until their spouses passed way. but i dont have that power. unlike some people i don’t choose to tear out or ignor the parts of the Bible that i don’t like.

And, finally, my favorite (it’s particularly virulent and defamatory, so I’m putting it below the fold):

In 2006 53% of all new HIV AIDS Infections was with GAY MEN.

53% of all NEW infections and that is from 1% of the population. HIV AIDs shows more prejudice towards gays to the poit it has even been referred to as the GAY disease.

This alone is not the reason why Gay Marriage and adoption should be denied, it is the simple LOGIC that lays behind the FACT that 53% were Gay men. If being GAY is so normal why is the Percentage so EXTREME as compared to the rest of Sociiety?

Now when you explain that one,

Why is it that 69% of ALL Serial Killers were GAY and that 43% of all Serial Killers involved Children?

Then when you explain that

Why is it that “A very recent (2000) study published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that “The best epidemiological

evidence indicates that only 2 to 4% of men attracted to adults prefer men. In contrast, around 25 to 40% of men attracted to children prefer boys. Thus, the rate of homosexual attraction is 6 to 20 times higher among pedophiles.”

“A 1988 study of 229 convicted child molesters published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that 86% of pedophiles

described themselves as homosexual or bisexual”

“Homosexual activists Karla Jay and Allen Young revealed in their 1979 Gay Report that 23% of all homosexuals have acted as chicken hawks, that is, they have preyed on adolescent or younger boys.”

“In a 1992 study published in the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, sex researchers K. Freud and R. I. Watson

found that homosexual males are three times more likely than straight men to engage in pedophilia, and that the average pedophile victimizes between 20 and 150 boys before being arrested.”

“A nationwide survey of school principals showed that they received 13 times as many complaints about homosexuals sexually molesting students than they did about heterosexuals molesting students. Other studies have shown that homosexual teachers are from 90 to 100 times more

likely to molest students than heterosexual teachers.”

feel free to read it for yourselves and verify at other sites if so desired to do so.

Here’s a thought: if the opposition to same sex marriage actually has an argument against it, why don’t they actually make it?  

It’s not very complex really, and the reason the status quo liars, bullies, cheats, torturers and war mongers are on the upswing right now boils down to: there really isn’t any difference between today’s Republican and Demcratic parties.

One exception: the Reps will throw their chewed bones to the religious extremists while the Dems throw their chewed bones to labor and environmentalists.

Know why Obama is looking bad on the Wall Street bailout? It’s because Obama too really believes the line that to protect our common economy we have to toady up to the uber-wealthy and huge corporate interests. Obama is not now or ever going to break up corporate power, and neither are his fellow DC Democrats.

That’s why the Dems rushed to this ill thought out tax “claw back” of the AIG bonuses. They could have insisted on explicit wording dealing with bonuses for failed executives and employees of failed corporations we’re bailing out with our tax dollars, but instead the Dems, who cheney/bush depended on to pass the Wall Street bailout in the first place, went ahead and gave Paulson and then Geithner unsigned checks for hundreds of billions of dollars. Instead we’re witnessing a political panic by the Dems … desperately trying to undo the damage they themselves knowingly did in the first place.

Now the Dems are using taxing authority as a retro-active punishment to cover up their own lousy politics instead of a forward looking social tool. Nice way to treat taxes.

Of course Paulson and company at the Treasury knew about these bonuses, and so did Geithner both before and after Obama nominated him for Treasury Secretary. And if cheney/bush or Obama were unaware that there were these huge bonuses waiting to be paid out with our tax dollars … that’s nothing less than gross incompetence.

Look at the difference in worker treatment from Wall Street to Detroit. In Detroit the workers were expected to sign on to any deal with firm commitments of shared sacrifice. On Wall Street few challenged the pay scales and perks. And in the end our federal Congress and Administration opted to continue their obsequious pandering to the well heeled, corporate interests of today.

Look at the military spending. Instead of beating some of that yearly $700 billions worth of swords into plowshares, Obama is busy setting us up for more swords. Wars are very much on Obama’s list of things to do as witnessed by his commitment to expand the Afghanistan war despite plenty of evidence that the more we attack the more the Afghanis and Pakistanis want us (the occupiers) gone. Obama is not looking to get us out of Iraq; he is looking to move a few troops from Iraq to Afghanistan, and, assuming we live up to our agreements and actually quit Iraq in several years, Obama still wants to maintain a strong military presence in the mid-east just in case we need to do another invasion.

Will Obama raise taxes? Nope … he’s already punted that one down the road far enough for new excuses when the time comes.

The thugs in Congress and Administration made damn sure our nation was driven deeply into debt, and these same thugs made sure the debt went to benefit the uber-wealthy. Obama is going to finish driving the nails into the coffin lid of progressive policies with his prescription of all-debt all-the-time regarding any economic recovery spending.

Here too Obama has bought ownership in a destructive line: we can create an economy that can grow to such an extent we can pay off all the debt our government has created. We have never paid a penny of the Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush debts despite the exact same promise of grow to pay.

And there’s a simple reason for this as any decent business person can tell you. Simply stated one reduces debt by finding cash to pay it down, and one can find cash by spending less or earning more … usually a combination.

The answers to our current economic issues are equally simple. We need to reduce expenditures in specific areas, and we need to increase taxes across the board.

Otherwise we’re fucked, and that’s because the thugs are going to win this round too, and that’s because today’s DC Dems and Reps really are no different in their means and ends.