Monthly Archives: June 2009

The Historic Legislative Session and its impact on the Primary for Governor

Louis Porter had a pair of analysis pieces in Sunday’s Herald & Argus, looking at the veto override and the legislative session in one piece, and the state of affairs in the still-young governor’s race on the other. They’re fine pieces, but while he discusses the impact on the session and the overrides on the gubernatorial election generally, he doesn’t examine what it might mean for the primary itself.

The obvious thing that jumps out at first is that it complicates things in the short term for Markowitz, and gives the candidates from the legislature a boost – particularly Shumlin (if he, as many expect, jumps in the ring) as the face of a Democratic caucus newly victorious and riding high on a wave of popularity in the Democratic crowd like none in recent memory. In fact, if it were Speaker Smith running, its likely that the others would be wasting their time.

Markowitz is in a bit trickier position than she otherwise would be, though, all things being equal. Why? The following rhetoric from a campaign email (dated the Sunday before the override session) is typical:

As I criss-crossed the state people voiced their concern about the budget stand-off between the Governor and legislature.  Vermonters know that these are challenging times for the state and that some combination of spending cuts and tax increases will be required to balance the state budget.

Instead of gamesmanship, Vermonters want real leadership in Montpelier.   They want the Governor and legislative leaders to have an honest dialogue and work out their differences.  The budget is not a political football to pass back and forth – we are talking about the lives of ordinary Vermonters and the future of our state.

Although the bulk of the email focuses on Governor Douglas, this is another case where Markowitz has been positioning herself to run against the Governor and the legislature (trying to grab the grownup-among-the-children meme that Auditor Salmon has also been trying – and failing – to capture) – and I’ve already heard from legislators who are feeling a bit pissed off about it. Truth is, a matter of mere months ago this probably made for a savvy approach, strategically speaking. In light of current events (specifically the real leadership that has been shown by legislative Democrats) this might seem to come off as a bit out-of-touch (or worse) to primary voters, who are unaccustomed to feeling so proud of – and empowered by – their state Representatives and Senators (it also, frankly, isn’t going to win her a lot of friends in the legislature, with whom she has had some friction)

It’s an awkward thing to simply turn off, though, as Markowitz has been generally churning out a stream of Obama-esque rhetoric, trying to capture the political zeitgeist in this overwhelmingly Obama-friendly state, and position herself as above “politics-as-usual” and the catalyst for a better political age. This sort of rhetoric kind of comes with that territory, at least to an extent.

Granted, she hasn’t been entirely consistent – her unmistakable attack on primary opponent Doug Racine goes contrary to such a hope-‘n-change campaign, for one thing. Obama did not run straight at his opponents until relatively late in the game – nor did he propose specifics on policy until he felt he had to, and the absence of a policy portfolio is a frequent criticism of Markowitz.

But it’s early yet. Missteps can be made and mixed messages can be sent, especially when you’re raising more money than god, as Markowitz seems to be doing (expect to see an eye-popping total in the first upcoming reporting deadline – somewhere in the neighborhood of two-hundred grand, while no one else will break into six figures). The key to the Obama campaign’s success, after all, was not its campaign style or message – which ran thin late in the primary – it was the campaign’s deftness, discipline and adaptability. When the “above it all” meme wasn’t working so well anymore, Obama hit and hit hard – all the while deftly maintaining his hope-and-changiness. And when his election was all but a done deal, he went back. It was something to watch.

Markowitz isn’t showing the discipline yet (comments she’s made about other candidates that she really shouldn’t be making continue to trickle to my ears – nothing outrageous, just… impolitic… given the amount of ears – even supportive ones – that could gossip) or the deftness (clumsy, clumsy, clumsy with the dismissal of Racine’s overtures to the Progressives) – but this, then, is yet another reason why a primary will be a good thing. “Lesser” statewide incumbents have a tendency to believe they know all they need to know to run a race for Governor because – after all – they’ve already won statewide races themselves and have it all figured out. The truth is they have no idea what they’re really in for.

If Markowitz does win next year’s primary, she will do so having worked these kinks out and refining her message and campaign plan, as well as learning adaptablility as a matter of simple necessity.

Not to spend all our time on Markowitz (given that – wonder of wonders – her’s is no longer the only active campaign! Thank god…. somebody else to pick on as well!). Doug Racine has been busy shoring up the base since the end of the session. Consider the latest press release from the Racine campaign:

Friday June 5, 2009 Burlington VT:  

Sen. Doug Racine called on Governor Douglas today to extend the deadline for proposed layoffs and work with state employees to explore options for avoiding layoffs proposed by the Governor.  

“In these times, we should do everything we can to keep Vermonters working” said Racine “No Vermonter should be laid off before every option is fully explored.  There are still options available to avoid layoffs and achieve the saving required by the Legislature.  These include mediation between the Administration and the VSEA and the retirement incentive recently enacted by the Legislature.  It is reasonable to delay any layoffs until it is clear that they are unavoidable. We’re not there yet.”

Racine is coming off his high profile overture to the Progressives, and last week was once again spotted in a Montpelier coffee shop chatting it up – not just with Pollina, but with Progressive Representative David Zuckerman. Racine – who has strong relationships in the business community in Chittenden County – is clearly looking first to shore up support among the left and the traditional Democratic constituencies like labor.

And yes, that includes the netroots. Racine sends GMD press releases, for example, while Markowitz does not. It will be telling to see if we end up on Bartlett’s and Shumlin’s list.

In Racine’s case, the question that will be asked clearly will be whether or not he will position himself too far to the left, or if that’s even a meaningful concern (I can’t see it myself, Racine’s well within the mainstream and is not a doctrinaire lefty). Racine has a policy record that Markowitz does not, which comes with strong advantages and disadvantages – although there’s no question that given the high regard the Dem primary voters currently hold this legislature in, that – for the moment – is far more of an advantage. It should never be forgotten, however, just how fickle and quick-tempered the Democratic base can be with their caucus.

In fact, the most interesting thing about the Racine press release is not what it says, but who sent it. Surprisingly little attention is being paid to the fact that Representative Mark Larson – part of the very leadership team that delivered the House veto override – is working for the Racine campaign. Truth to tell, that’s a jaw-dropper. Larson is a very big fish to be working on a campaign payroll, and the former candidate for House Speaker’s presence comes with an undeniable level of implied (if not concrete) legislative support.

The flip side to that, however, is the trickle-out way this bombshell was offered to the public. What should have been fodder for the headlines was instead eked out, buried well into Shay Totten’s column in Seven Days. The lack of media savvy and management in that missed opportunity shows that Racine, too, has a lot to learn yet in order to bring his burgeoning campaign up to where it needs to be to win folks over.

Good thing we have the crucible of a primary to get whoever the winner is into fighting trim, eh? I do love the smell of democracy in the morning.

Looking forward to the next few weeks when we see what candidate Susan Bartlett and presumed candidate Pete Shumlin lead off with.

This is all going to be so much more fun than last time.

ATVs on state land and a Free Press puzzle

The Free Press environmental reporter’s blog last week noted with some surprise that the Douglas administration, which usually bombards her with press releases, had almost slipped by a proposed rule change to allow ATVs on state land. The reporter notes that the rule had been filed two weeks prior and she only heard about it from a skeptic. “I do find it curious, in light of the divisiveness of the issue, that the Agency of Natural Resources wrote the rule after meeting only with the folks in favor, the All-Terrain Vehicle Sportsman’s Association.

     The paperwork with the proposed rule outlines the potential economic benefits without discussing the environmental risks (beyond possible increased greenhouse gas emissions).”
one skeptic is quoted as saying in the blog.

Today’s paper has a long article telling both sides of the issue.

The proposal criteria would allow Natural Resources Secretary Jonathan Wood for the first time, to designate ATV trails on state land. However it mentions nothing of the way the ANR handled the rule change proposal and glides effortlessly into a fair and excruciatingly balanced telling of both sides……

of the impassioned debate across a deep cultural divide.

On one side stand those who love the internal combustion engine and want to enjoy Vermont’s countryside from the back of a machine. Nearly 16,000 ATVs were registered in the state last year.

On the other side are those for whom motorized off-road travel spells trespassing, environmental damage and interrupted peace.

Kind of surprised that the soft opening the Douglas administration’s ANR gave this initiative isn’t a major a part of the story.  The views of each of the two groups that have a dog in this fight and the fact that the ANR quietly tried to slide this proposal out is news that should make it into the papers. Doesn’t it promote a false sense that this is  being weighed fairly by the state if the facts mentioned in the blog are left out of the article? If something is true and relevant in the reporter’s blog why not true and relevant for the same reporter’s article?

http://www.burlingtonfreepress…

http://www.burlingtonfreepress…

Why math (and marriage) matters

Believe it or not, I was looking for photos of beetles to try to ID some that frequent our house, but I instead ended up finding this gem:

So many people, so much effort.  We needed 50 votes in the Vermont House to hold the veto in place.  We got 49.   It all came down to one vote in Vermont.

The post is in reference to Audette’s abstention, and the framing is that that one vote could have made the difference.  

So here’s the thing– the vote was 100 – 49.  Even if Audette had voted, they still would have lost.  All we needed was 100 votes to win, and we got 100 votes.  The opponents didn’t need 50.  They needed 51.

To anti-marriage people, please, please, please, continue to be bad at math.  Campaign for that one vote who won’t make a difference.

And while you’re at it:

For the rest of us, we’ve got to decide, where do we stand?  And are we willing to make that stand, even under pressure?  Even through persecution?  Hate mail?  Angry friends?  What price is there on your vote?

How incredibly powerful one vote can be, and how dear the cost.

Ooh… angry friends.  The horror.

Persecution.  Give me a break.  Claiming opponents of same-sex marriage are being persecuted is like complaining that all your riches are dragging you down.  

As far as the price goes, the price of your opposing same sex marriage is paid by those whose rights you would choose to restrict.  It is paid out in the form of lack of visitation rights when a same-sex partner is hospitalized.  It is paid out in the form of failure to provide information to the parent of a child of a same-sex partner,  As was made clear during the debates in Massachusetts:

“The human aspect of this debate is very important to understand,” said Sen. Jarrett T. Barrios. “If this were to pass, I would be denied basic human rights that most of you don’t even know you have.” The room stood silent for the first time in two days as Barrios talked about calling the hospital for his sick 7-year-old, only to be told that he was not listed as the boy’s parent.

The price of opposition to same-sex marriage is serious, it is real and it is severe.  

It’s just not paid by those who would choose to oppose it.

Of things that are not birds



I do a lot of writing about birds, and a lot (and I mean a lot) of bird photography.  

Today, I’m taking a different approach, and looking at photographs of things that are not birds.

The first set of photos are all of turtles.  Primarily, they are of snapping turtles, because I came across seven different snapping turtles on my walk earlier this week, and one more this morning.  I’d never seen anything like it before.

Notes:

  1. All these photos are clickable.  They lead to larger images with details about the shot, ISO, lens size, etc.;

  2. I still do lots of bird photograph, but wanted to try something different;

  3. I have several books based on my photography;

  4. If you’re interested in getting weekly alerts of the new photos on my site, please subscribe to my mailing list

TURTLES

Snapping Turtles, Rockingham, VT, June 2009

















Take a look at that last photo.  This is what most of them were doing: either sitting in or moving out of dirt holes.  I didn’t know this at the time, but what they were doing was burying their eggs.  In a few months, a bunch of baby snapping turtles should be climbing out of those holes and heading for the water.  I’ve done a little research and I know when to start looking.  If I’m lucky, I’ll get photos of those as well.

I’ve got a couple more photos from Surry, NH.  At the time, I thought this was a snapping turtle, too, but looking at the others, I’m convinced this is something else.  Anyone able to help me?

Surry, NH, May 2009

Mystery #1



Everything else that follows are bugs of some sort (spiders, dragon or damselflies, moths, butterflies or other miscellaneous insects, grouped by region.  I do not know what these are.  I do not know bugs the way I know birds.  So this is also a plea for help.  If you can help me ID any of the creatures below, it would be great:

MAINE

Scarborough, ME, August 2008


Mystery #2

Mystery #3

Kennebunk, ME, May of 2008

Mystery #4

Mystery #5

NEW HAMPSHIRE

Charlestown, NH, May – June 2009

Mystery #6



Mystery #7



Mystery #8

Keene, NH, August 2008

Mystery #9

Keene, NH, May 2009

Mystery #10

Stoddard, NH, May 2009

Mystery #11



Mystery #12



Mystery #13



Mystery #14

VERMONT

Groton, VT, July 2008

Mystery #15



Mystery #16

Rockingham, VT, May – June 2009

Mystery #17



Mystery #18



Mystery #19



Mystery #20

Rutland, VT, May 2009

Mystery #21

Southeastern VT, July – September 2008

Mystery #22



Mystery #23



Mystery #24

Southeastern VT, May 2009

Mystery #25



Mystery #26

Southeastern VT, October 2008

Mystery #27

Westminster, VT, August 2008

Mystery #28

Oh Yeah, Unemployment

(cross-posted from Integral Psychosis)

One of the biggest stumbling blocks I find when talking politics with folks and- oddly- trying to convince them that there is something better than this American version of “democracy” and an “economy” out there is, of all things, unemployment.  One of the easier examples, for instance, is simply to point to Europe, where things like a standard 35 hour work week compare well to our 45+, where health care is provided as a right of being alive rather than treated as another industry where CEO’s can become wealthier, where higher education is offered to those who want it rather than being an extension of high school for the wealthy only, where pretty much the whole continent takes the month of August off for vacation, and where retirement is understood as one’s duly deserved reward for a lifetime of work instead of something that is increasingly a myth told to us by our parents and grandparents (“I did retire when I was 64, though now I don’t know if I’ll be able to keep the house”- “Daddy, what does grandpa mean, re-tie-are?”).  The single most common and almost predictable response to pointing out Europe’s vastly superior- though of course by no means perfect- social safety net and labor and health and education and elder care and drug policy and environmental and (etc) culture- sounds something like “Sure, but look! their unemployment rate is twice ours! their economy is failing, it can’t be sustained.  There aren’t enough jobs for all of them and the whole thing is bound to fall apart.”  Usually the argument isn’t even that nuanced but instead entails “Sure, but they’ve got 12% unemployment.”.

And though I (often) try to counter that this is simply because they calculate their unemployment rate differently then the U.S.- more accurately, mind you- there’s nothing like trying to argue against “statistics” that are well-known and common knowledge.

Which is why I was super-glad to see that someone actually does bother to figure U.S. unemployment by counting it the same way the rest of the friggin world counts it- and, well, the numbers aren’t too shocking (at least if you’re me).  16.7%.  That’s America’s real unemployment rate, if you don’t do really odd things (which the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics does) such as not count people who don’t have enough work, or people who’ve been unemployed for so long they’ve stopped looking (though they still want work).

Of course, detractors may smugly point out to me that that “someone” who figured that number is an admittedly liberal organization- Americans for Democratic Action.  Let me counter that critique by saying: whoopty-fucking-do.  Look, I’m not a fan at all of liberalism, liberal organizations, or liberal politics… but counting numbers is counting numbers and if the Kato Institute or the John Birch Society were interested in knowing the U.S.’ unemployment rate as figured by the same method that most of the world figures their unemployment rate, they would look at the same exact statistics and data and (presumably) come to the same exact number.  I may suggest they would even be doing such a thing, since it would give such conservative organizations a bully pulpit from which to preach the evils of Obama from; except to do so would open up the discussion to the illegitimacy of how the BLS currently does calculate the U.S.’ “official” unemployment rate, and thus we could easily go back and look at our artificially low numbers during those boom years, adjust them using an internationally acceptable method, and see that we had nearly identical (I’d assume) unemployment to all those crazy quasi-socialist European countries that do crazy things like allow workers to retire at a reasonable age, with dignity, offer strong social safety nets to the most vulnerable members of society, and ensure that most people live comfortably and still have the spare time to- gasp!- enjoy their goddamn lives.  And that, my friends, could start making people here in America want something similar.  And that, of course, would mean far less money into the pockets of the wealthiest among us.  And that, of course, would be un-American.

Congrats to our buddy Steve Benen (and let all fear Facebook pictures)

Buckaroo Benen - star blogger, rock god, superhero adventurerVermonter Steve Benen, he the one time Carpetbagger and current Political Animal, has been pegged by Wikio.com (and picked up and amplified by ABC's "The Note" blog) as having the tenth most influential political blog in the country – rated even higher than DailyKos and Firedoglake, and only one notch down from Talking Points Memo.

 High praise indeed. I've always wondered why Steve – who has such a high profile nationally (you can catch his mug from time to time on Rachel Maddow's show, for example) gets so little recognition locally. The Vermont media crowd acts as though they never heard of him (well… he is just a blogger).  

Of course, Megan McCain (blogging daughter of John McCain) is on the warpath against Steve of late, for his daring to suggest that she was not as influential a national figure as former Vice President Dick Cheney (hoooooo-wee, is a trip to the Total Perspective Vortex in order for somebody). Sadly, Ms. McCain also did not make the wikio top 100 list. Neither did Cheney, for that matter. So there.

UPDATE: Steve is having scary flashbacks seeing his teenage self plastered across the internet for all to see. I assure you all he's much more respectable now, and in the interest of fairness, I will once again humiliate myself thusly (once again, via Facebook):

Suing the Douglas administration over layoffs: dead in the water?

Not only did the judge rule to block the state from making those layoffs, he ruled that there wasn’t even any standing to sue since the budget doesn’t go into effect until July 1st.

I’m not sure whether or not I agree with this.  When you include something in a budget bill scheduled to begin on July 1st, does that mean that any change law included in the budget bill is scheduled to begin on the 1st as well?  

Was the start date for this specified in the bill itself?  If not, it should have been.

I’m still opposed to these layoffs on so many levels, but I’m no longer convinced that they’re illegal, at least not this month (I remain open to the possibility, but I’m not convinced).

This is a fairly devastating blow.

Jack Shaheen: Obama delivers a message of peace to the Muslim world

Photobucket

Crossposted at Huffington Post.

As I surf the Internet and visit my favorite blogs, I read that many people are saying “why didn’t Barack Obama say this” or “why didn’t Obama say that?”  Many prominent Mideast experts and bloggers are expressing disappointment in Obama. They say his address to the Arab-Muslim world was “status quo patronizing,” “nothing but empty words,” “lip service,” and much more.  Jack Shaheen, one of the world’s foremost authority on media images of Arabs and Muslims, said he was duly impressed with Obama’s address to the Muslim world.    

Shaheen is the author of the groundbreaking work “Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People.” His second book “Guilty: Hollywood’s Verdict on Arabs after 9/11,” was recently named the 2008 “Forward Magazine” social sciences book of the year.  Shaheen says Obama’s message set a positive tone for a sincere dialog about Muslims and Arabs myths and realities.  He believes Obama “brought these issues in a very candid and articulate manner to the forefront and he is committed from the get-go.”

I interviewed Shaheen shortly before the 2008 general election for Off the Bus and I checked back in to find out what he thought of Obama’s address to the Arab-Muslim world.    

So what are your initial impressions of Obama’s address to the Arab-Muslim world?

Jack Shaheen: The fact that an American president went to an Arab country and spoke not only young people throughout the Arab-Muslim world and Arab and Israeli leaders, but to world leaders and young people worldwide.  I say this primarily because it was a message of peace.  His words were designed to make people realize and understand that violence, the occupation of another people, and using religion as a weapon continue to go on.  But it needs to stop and we as human beings have a responsibility to shatter the myth and cease the hate rhetoric that we have.  

We need to begin a dialog to go forward.  We know that will not be an easy task, but [Obama] has set a tone.  I think it always begins at the top and hopefully other world leaders and young people will take to heart his message.  

We also need to understand that individuals must act on it.  We have to follow through as a country [to achieve peace].  We have to make certain that settlements no longer exist and that Israel brings down the wall.  Obama did not say that, but should have.  He could have compared that to the Berlin Wall.  But I think given the hate and the mistrust that exists in Israel – which is not being reported [in the U.S.], – I think he soft-pedaled that.  Which I can understand.  

I also believe that for more than a century, we have in one way or the other demonized Islam and Muslims. This has had a telling effect.  Many Arabs and Muslims are afraid to come to the U.S. because of harassment at airports, taken off a plane, or deported because you were Muslim or Arab.  Obama didn’t mention that.  But we knew instinctively that was what he was talking about.  Without saying it, Obama was telling the world ‘it’s OK to be a Muslim. The Muslims are like Jews, Christians, Hindus, etc.’

Now we know a lot of people are not going to shed their prejudices over time about Islam and Muslims.  But again, it’s coming from the top and that will filter down.  I think Obama is not going to let this go. He’s not going to stop with this kind of rhetoric.  He will continue to quote and cite the similarities between the Koran, the Bible, and the Torah.  Of course if I were writing the speech, I would’ve advised him that the Virgin Mary is mentioned more often in the Koran than she is in the Bible!  

Obama was trying to do several things [in his address].  He was trying to shatter crude stereotypes Americans have about Arabs and Muslims, help young Arabs and Muslims and Arab leaders shatter their misperceptions of Americans and Israelis, and help Israelis shatter the crude stereotypes they may have of Arabs and Muslims.  I think [Obama’s address] brought these issues to the forefront.  He’s not waiting until the last few months of his presidency to try and bring about peace.  Obama’s committed from the get-go.  This is the first.  

It reminded me – in some ways – when former president Richard Nixon speech when he went to China.  Americans had all these images of China as “dirty commies.”  Nixon goes to China and almost over night, our perceptions and policies began to change.  They’re not going to change that fast, but we’ve been here before.  We were able to turn this around with China.  I see no reason why we can’t do this.

My problem was that Obama spoke out against Palestinian violence, but not against Israeli violence. He said nothing about the Israeli aggression in Gaza from late December and early January.

I think he did all the things he could have done.  But look how many times Obama mentioned Palestine?  He also mentioned the occupation.  All of us have our particular biases.  We can always find things and say ‘why didn’t he say this or why didn’t he say that?’  But by and large, it was a speech to bring people together.  I think Obama treaded very carefully so much as to not to offend countries who will may step forward and negotiate with the U.S.  

First of all, we have to take into consideration that this is the key first step.  Obama set the correct tone for the beginning of the peace process.  No president before has ever done this.  Secondly, he did not speak to the Muslim world, he spoke to Muslims throughout the world.  This speech did not only take into consideration Arab Muslims – the ones who are most demonized – but other Muslims from all over the world.  No matter where they are, Muslims are persecuted and looked down upon because of their faith.  I think this president deserves a tremendous amount of credit for reaching out.  

It’s human nature to look at a speech like this and say ‘well, had I been delivering this speech, this is what I would’ve said.’  I’m sure Robert Fisk would’ve come down much harder on the Israelis and Tom Friedman would have come down much harder on the Arabs, etc., etc., etc.  From that particular point of view, I think there’s enough in it to say it was fair and balanced.  

I was particularly impressed by the reception [Obama received] at Cairo University.  I don’t think Obama would’ve gotten that kind of reception in Israel.  There weren’t cue cards saying “applaud here” or “cheer there.”  Those who attended were sincerely moved by Obama’s speech and his commitment. I think that’s a very strong indication of the seeds Obama has planted.  Those seeds will develop and grow as long as he does not waver from his commitment.  

In terms of your area of expertise (media criticism), what issues are not being covered about Obama’s address?

I think the mainstream media have basically said that the Israelis didn’t mind it that much.  I don’t think that’s true.  There’s been a lot of blogging on how Arabs have reacted, but not enough about how Israelis are reacting.  I think we need to know that.  

I also think what we haven’t followed up on crude stereotypes, how we perceive them, and how Arabs and Muslims perceive us.  

I also think commonalities have to be addressed.  If I were Larry King, I would have a rabbi, priest and an imam.  I don’t think we can move forward on this until you shed these misconceptions that we’ve held for so many years.  

I think we need to define what they are and how does Obama plan on changing the way Israelis look at Arabs, or the way we look at Arabs and Muslims and vice-versa.  I think that’s the key and the major element. We should start with that.  

How does Obama’s address reflect Americans’ perceptions and misperceptions of Arab politics and Arab-Muslim culture?

I think with Arab politics, Obama is talking about being more open and more responsive to citizens of different Arab countries.  He does that by saying that political leaders have to be accountable for your people.  He’s not calling for democracy.  But he is calling for accountability.  That’s extremely important.  

In terms of Arab-Muslim culture, we need to have a summit.  We need to have a dialog to shatter these myths and I think the dialog comes with media leaders and all the countries involved.  It’s Hollywood, it’s the press, and it’s about what can be done so these crude stereotypes are not taken to an extreme.  If we continue vilifying one another, peace will never happen.  

So where do we go from here after Obama’s address?

I think we’ve learned that we have a leader who cares passionately about the human race, curtailing terrorism worldwide, and putting an end to an illegal occupation.  He is a leader who has respect for all faiths; he has the vision to see the commonalities among the faiths; and he is a leader that respects their differences.  

I see him as a fearless man and a champion of human rights.  I see in Obama a young Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., only in many ways, he’s more universal.  There are elements of King and Mahatma Ghandi in Obama.  It’s all right there.  You can see and feel his passion and his commitment to each and every person.    

Julie lands on the Front Page!

If you're a regular reader here you know Julie Waters' writing, and if you come around on Sundays you usually get to see some of her amazing photography, but you may not know about her music.

Now that Julie's just been featuerd in her local paper, we just had to share it with all of our readers. Start the story here, then follow the link for the rest of it.

Great going, Julie!

Guitar And Banjo Virtuoso Julie Waters

Robert F. Smith, Editor Thursday, June 04, 2009 10:43 AM

Julie Waters is one of those names that you hear frequently on the local music scene, and may occasionally have the chance to hear. She is an extraordinary guitar and banjo player, with a unique style that involves partial capo techniques and lots of string tapping on the fingerboard of the guitar. When she was asked if the late acoustic guitar genius Michael Hedges was an influence on her, she laughs.