I’m kind of happy with some of the photographs I’ve been getting lately.

Ospreys are magnificent hunters, with a wingspan of 5′-6′.  This one in particular flew past me a little while after I’d accidentally scared it off.

Here’s a video I found on YouTube of Ospreys building a nest:

That’s one of my favorite sounds of Spring.  Ospreys are fish hunters, which means they don’t stay in frozen areas.  They hunt by diving from fairly high heights, grabbing a fish, and then flying off with it.  

A note: all these photos are clickable.  Clicking on them gets you to larger versions and/or details about where the pictures were taken.

I have had some very nice opportunities to view Osprey.  These are incredible fliers and hunters.  They nest in giant platforms in huge nests.  

In flight (two separate photos combined into one)

Ospreys will perch in trees, high above open water, watching for movement, such as shown below.

The first of the photos below is three photos of the same bird combined into one just to show some of the neat poses they can get themselves into.

In flight, they are incredible.  Huge wings beat across the sky.  They can fly extremely fast when they want to, but sometimes they will flap in a single location.

Here’s another video I found (I think it’s British– I’m not sure how far they travel beyond the US) of an osprey flying and hunting:

And one more, from a golf tournament:

Here are some still shots of various Osprey in flight:

And here’s one taken just after the bird went into a dive

This photo has a story behind it.  There’s a spot in Western VT called “Dead Creek.”  There’s an access area to the back end which sometimes yields great birds in the Summer (Osprey, Harriers, Black Crowned Night Herons, Bald Eagles, assorted warblers) and some pretty cool winter birds too (Ross’s Goose, Snow Goose, Rough-legged hawk)

There’s this one tree on the access road that just looks like the sort of tree that would have a big raptor on it.  I always look, but never see anything there, save for two times.  Once, I didn’t even have the camera ready and this Northern Harrier squaked at me and flew off.  The other time, a year later, I was headed over there just before dawn and I had the flash bulb set up.  I spotted this bird right above me, and got a couple quick pics before it got pissed off and flew to another spot:

Last year when we camped in Brewster, MA, we spotted this nesting platform and I walked around a bit and was able to get an ok photo of it:

For more about Ospreys, check out Cornell Lab of Ornithology.  If you want regular e-mail alerts whenever I update new photos on my site (daily or weekly), you can subscribe here.

As usual, feel free to treat this as an open birding thread, and don’t forget to check out Daily Kos Environmentalists

(Bumped with update – promoted by JulieWaters)

UPDATE: Sorrell’s not touching this.

Per today’s Brattleboro Reformer (piece by Bob Audette):

A regional activist group opposed to the continued operation of Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant has asked Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell to investigate the relationship between a Vermont Yankee lobbyist and the state’s governor and its commissioner of the Department of Public Service.

[…]

A spokesman from O’Brien’s office referred all calls to the governor’s office.

“This is a personal attack by an organization that is desperate to ensure that Vermont Yankee is shut down,” stated Dennise Casey, spokeswoman for Douglas, in an e-mail to the Reformer. “Vermonters know that Gov. Douglas will always put Vermont first no matter what the issue.”

So… how much are taxpayers paying a paid spokesstooge to do this?

But hey, Yankee can play as well:

“We’re disappointed that Jay Thayer has been subjected to a personal attack,” said Larry Smith, director of communications for Yankee. “Jay and Entergy have fully complied with Vermont’s ethics and reporting laws.”

Look!  Matching talking points.

So… does NEC have a case?  Maybe so:

“The spectacle of the commissioner socializing with the key lobbyist of a business that he has a duty to regulate; and worse, arranging the soirée to include members of the Legislature and utility representatives, underscores a growing public perception that both the department and the governor are tainted by partiality favoring the fortunes of Entergy Nuclear,” according to the letter filed with the attorney general.

This actually does sound kind of serious.  I hope Sorrell treats it as such.

It’s been quite the week for birding.  Almost every bird I’ve photographed below is doing something related to mating, courting, etc.  A prime example of this is from Bird #7, below:

I’ve seen this a few times now, and it’s always wonderful to watch.  The two males will sort of point their beaks at one another, making a kind of repeated poking motion (more of a dance than anything violent) and then fan their tails out in a bright yellow display.  The female, on a nearby branch, will just stand there, sometimes watching, sometimes pretending not to pay attention at all, and then, eventually (I’ve seen this go on for two days in a row) one of the males will fly off with the female, and the other will just fly off in another direction.

All these photos were taken in Southern Vermont and/or New Hampshire, near the Connecticut River.

So this particular year is kind of fun for me– lots of opportunity to photograph birds while they’re really distracted by other matters.  Plus, the leaves have yet to grow out, so the birds that are around tend to be more visible.  Combine that with lots of sounds that alert you to birds that tend to go quiet once they have offspring (many birds need noise to find the mate, but don’t want that noise to attract predators hunting for vulnerable babies), it’s a cool time of year to be birding.  So, below, I have once again presented a bit of a quiz.  For any of these, if you want to spoil yourself, just click on the image to get to a larger one with details about the bird.  Or just ask questions in the comments.  

Bird #1: one kind of swallow

Bird #2: another kinds of swallow

Bird #3: One of the truly amazing looking ugly birds

Bird #4: The earliest flycatcher to return in the Northeast

Bird #5: One kind of woodpecker

Bird #6: Another kind of woodpecker

Bird #7: One more kind of woodpecker

Bird #8: Yet another kind of woodpecker

Bird #9: And now, the smallest woodpecker we get in the Northeast

Bird #10: Not a sparrow, but easy to mistake for one

Bird #11: One kind of sparrow

Bird #12: Another kind of sparrow

Bird #13: Another kind of sparrow

Bird #14: One of my favorite sparrows

Bird #15: A beautiful water bird

Bird #16: An amazing hunter, first I’ve seen this year

Bird #17: An adorable yardbird

Bird #18: Okay, not a bird, but still cute

Bird #19: A fun bird to watch hunt

Bird #20: A common Northeast bird, in its nesting hole

Bird #21: These are normally winter birds for us, but these two were exhibiting mating behavior this week

Bird #22: These guys are fun to watch on the side of the road

Bird #23: A common yard bird

Bird #24: One of my favorite ducks

From Louis Porter / Vermont Press Bureau as reported in the Herald:

A computer virus that necessitated the shutdown of information systems at the Agency of Human Services on Friday is still affecting the largest single part of state government.

…officials thought originally that the virus was part of the widespread Conficker… the problem instead appears to be a different virus…

[…]

thousands of work stations used by AHS employees are spread across… cities and towns from Brattleboro to Newport.

The state’s information technology workers will have to visit each of those sites to inspect and get them running again…

I wonder how much money they “saved” by not preparing for this sort of thing in advance.

Crossposted to birding new england

Almost every day that I go to work I leave myself a little extra time so I can check out birds on the way.  Almost all of these birds were found on my way to or from work, or while I walked the grounds at break, though a few were found on the weekend while I birded the same general territory or in my yard.  

I will open with a photograph of a pileated woodpecker, one of the best photos I’ve ever taken of one:

All these photographs are clickable, leading you to larger versions, with more details (where they were taken, what day, what equipment I used, etc.)

More about pileated woodpeckers can be found at Cornell

I had been looking for a pileated woodpecker for some time before I finally tracked this one down.  About three weeks ago, I heard it call, but couldn’t track it down.  Then, on Thursday, I spotted this tree, which is fairly clear evidence that a pileated has been in the vicinity

Those score marks were fairly fresh (notice the vivid color of the wood– if it had been more than a couple weeks, that wood would have been much duller)

Friday, again during my lunch break, I started walking the grounds and very quickly heard the drumming.  Now, understand, that woodpeckers tend to make a fairly loud sound when they peck at trees, but different types of woodpeckers will vary in terms of both rhythm and volume.  What I heard on Friday was not your usual extremely high-frequency rat-ta-ta-ta-ta-ta-ta-tat that you get from the smaller woodpeckers.  This was much more of a “pop-pop-pop” with some distinction between the beats, and with a much more booming and carrying sound than the usual.

Now, I am a musician: sounds, especially rhythms, resonate strongly with me, so this carried a lot of meaning in ways I have trouble communicating to people who don’t hear things the way I do: but when you understand music and rhythm the way I do, there can be an actual visceral reaction to certain sounds, the same way taste and touch can be for most people, when I am out biding, I can hear a lot of sounds at once and I generally listen for the things that are uncommon: turns of phrase in a song that differentiate between a scarlet tanager and an american robin, for example (the much less common tanager, for example, sounds like a robin with a 3-pack a day habit and an occasional “chick-burr!” thrown in).  So when I heard this sound, it wasn’t just “oh, that’s interesting.”  It was like I went into full attention mode, with something critical that I’d been waiting for just having clicked into place.  I don’t usually put this much effort into finding a specific bird, but I am fascinated by pileated woodpeckers and they are very difficult to photograph well, because they do not like humans at all.  This was particularly special for me.

So I froze in place, scanning for the bird, hoping to get a good look at it.  It hadn’t occurred to me that it was almost directly overhead until a moment later, when I spotted its head pop out from behind a nearby tree:

This one’s a male (you can tell by the red in the moustache stripe; the females only have black there) and it was big (they range from 16″-19″ long, and I’m sure this was the high end of that).  You can also tell it’s a full adult: the adults have the yellow eyes.  Juveniles have brown.

It was partially obscured by other branches and I moved ever so slightly hoping to get a good shot at it.  I thought I was going to lose the bird when I realized my feet had landed on fallen leaves, but the bird didn’t seem to care.  I was able to follow it with my camera for a few more minutes before it flew off, getting this last shot before it took off.

These birds, by the way, are breathtaking in flight.  Their 30″ wingspan makes them fairly easy to identify but they also fly like most woodpeckers: flap flap, glide and dip, flap, flap, glide and dip– no direct linear flight plan for these guys.  Just amazing speed and agility.  One day I’ll capture that, but for now, I’m pretty happy with what I’ve got.

Other birds from the last two weeks below:

House Finch

Pine Siskins (I keep expecting them to be gone)

Ring-necked ducks

Common Mergansers

Canada Geese

Great Blue Herons

This eastern Phoebe kept making noises outside my window at work.

Tree swallows are suddenly back again in droves

Song sparrows may be common, but they are still beautiful to me

I have had great luck with eastern bluebirds this year

Downy woodpecker

This red-tailed hawk was hanging out on a piece of farm equipment off the side of the road.  I stopped to take some photos before work

I love watching Northern Mockingbirds

This is not a great photo of a bald eagle, but it was fun to spot

This American Crow was flying around right by my car when I pulled in to work

Black-capped chickadees are all sorts of fun to photograph

Turkey Vulture in flight

In December of 2007, I published this diary, which started with the following:

Tonight’s Same Sex Marriage Hearing starts with a 5pm info session followed by a meeting at 6:30pm.  I will post notes throughout the evening in the comments section, many of which will be just thoughts off the top of my head.

The evening started with the aforementioned information session, but it also contained some incredible speeches.  I’m going to post some of those notes I jotted down during the hearing, along with some new comments given recent events in Vermont.

I was liveblogging at the time, so I’m going to correct some of the typos in the quotes I provide below.  

Here’s one of my early comments from the liveblog:

Next speaker is reading from a sheet of paper — clearly nervous — strong supporter of same-sex marriage.  Thanks his teachers, many of whom are in the room.  Thinks its shameful that same-sex marriage hasn’t happened yet.  Calls arguments against same sex marriage attempts to mask intolerance.  Speaking for a long time with good arguments about the changing definition of marriage.  Making the comments a bit personal about people who oppose same-sex marriage as having no family values of their own.  As with other speakers, mentions separate but equal.

Next speaker refers to separate but equal, referring to same-sex marriage as “separate but not equal” and chokes up while referencing her daughter’s lack of rights to marry.  Jokes later about all the (nonexistent) songs about civil unions.  To heterosexuals who oppose same-sex marriage, would they be satisfied with civil unions?

One of the things I want to note about this testimony is that it happened well over a year before the actual vote in Vermont on same-sex marriage.  But those arguments above didn’t change much at all when it came to the final debate in the VT legislature.  People opposing same-sex marriage claimed it was rammed down their throats, but they didn’t show up for these hearings, and didn’t voice their opposition during the months over which we had these hearings, many of them more than a year before the actual vote on the issue.

One of my later comments:

Etan Nasreddin-Longo talks about how his parents, one European woman and one African American were not allowed to marry when they met 50 years ago, and how even a year after his birth, it was still illegal for them to marry.  Very powerful speaker.  “As a black man and as a Jewish man I have never tried to participate in my own oppression and I will not do it today by participating in a civil union.”   Very short, to the point, and extremely powerful…

This was great, and I still remember the speech.  Here’s a great point about economic issues:

Lisa Frick is next… she’s got a civil union with someone who lives in nearby Massachussetts and her taxes are a MAJOR mess.  “Every time I hear the phrase ‘domestic partnership’ my accountant’s bill goes up $100.”  She’s focusing entirely on the practical elements, which is valuable.

Vermont’s law hasn’t completely changed this, but it makes things easier for people who live and/or work in VT and/or MA.  If we get it passed in NH as well, my life will become a lot simpler, as my partner and I both live in VT but I work in New Hampshire.  My organization was great about making sure she’s covered under my benefits but it took some unnecessary paperwork and was a nuisance, whereas if we’d been able to just be treated as any spouses were, it would be a lot simpler.

Another part of that same comment:

Angie Dodd is speaking now about her own experience with having a civil union and believes it helps to have stability but that it’s not quite as strong a thing as civil unions.  She mentions something important– that whenever you deal with a state agency as someone who’s part of a civil union, you’re required to come out to members of that agency.

I remember this as an issue– I used to do contract work for the state of Vermont.  I worked in a department that, as part of its work, tracked some people accepting public assistance.  When people would apply for some of this assistance, they had to specify their “marital status.”  The options included “civil union” (which is a bit odd to have as a choice for “marital status” given that it’s not supposed to be one, but anyway…), which basically meant that whenever you were applying for public assistance you had to come out of the closet.

One of my later comments combined several great speeches:

Jane Baker speaking now.  Elderly woman was proud of Vermont in civil unions and believes that it’s time to move forward and that Vermont is ready.

Mike Mrowicki, a friend and state representative, is speaking now about how his ex-wife, who came out years into their marriage, deserves her rights.  Wow.

Melissa Mahoney, very young, new Vermonter, speaking about access– braille, wheelchair ramp, etc… good points about equal rights for everybody.

Laura Wood, who came here with Melissa, is speaking now about how her parents [I think mixed-race, which is why this is relevant, which I forgot to note in the original comment] could not get married 17 years before she was born and how big a deal that is.  I love the way kids can get engaged with activism.  I don’t know how to describe how good her speech was.  VERY direct– “if I don’t have the rights I need in Vermont, I’m going to move my brilliant self to Massachusetts.”  Awesome.

I want to just say– I still remember Laura’s speech, and I really hope she decided to stay in Vermont.  She was really cool.  Mike Mrowicki, for those of you who were following the debate in the house, was the legislator who spoke out against a referendum, talking about the problems caused in California by outside interest groups.

I also want to note that I think groups such as the National Organization for Marriage, which bombed the state with robocalls about this issue, probably helped us more than they hurt– they provided the framework for the out of state interests trying to push Vermont and caused a small amount of backlash.  This is one reason I was asking people from out of state on our side to stay out of the debate, not to e-mail Vermont legislators, etc.

When the hearing was all said and done, no one, and I mean no one had spoken out against same-sex marriage.

Here’s a comment I posted after I got home (slightly edited for clarity):

I think in New England the anti-gay forces just know they’ve lost.

They’re on the losing side of a moral battle and can’t admit defeat so they’re pretending that everyone is against them.  The group MassResistance has gone completely off the deep end, to the point of posting personal information about one of the members daughters on their web site as part of their anti-gay agenda.  This article is still posted on the front page of their web site, a month after it was posted, and it’s clear that this is a desperate, freaked out article based more on a distraught mother losing her grip on reality than anything else.

This desperation seems to be reflected in the new anti marriage groups which are popping up.  They don’t have an agenda that reflects reality, so they have to make one up.  Take for example, something I posted a few days ago about their primary talking point:

Language to avoid at all costs: “Ban same-sex marriage.” Our base loves this wording. So do supporters of SSM. They know it causes us to lose about ten percentage points in polls. Don’t use it. Say we’re against “redefining marriage” or in favor or “marriage as the union of husband and wife” NEVER “banning same-sex marriage.”

These are not people who have reality on their side.

There are a lot of reasons that same-sex marriage is now scheduled to become legal in Vermont: enough Republicans (even a majority in the Vermont senate) broke with their own party to support it; enough Democrats who opposed it changed their vote to override the veto; all Progressives supported it.  

But I think the biggest reason it passed is because the arguments against it were the exact same arguments that had been made against civil unions, which basically boiled down to “the sky is falling.”  The thing is, pretty much everyone knew that the sky didn’t fall, and that 2nd class citizenship was not really worth as much in retrospect.

So I guess I’m going back to this particular piece of history because, having seen that testimony back in 2007, that’s the first time I actually thought it might be possible for this to become real.

Still, I can’t quite get over it.

Through extensive research (okay, I browsed their web site), I discovered the secret (these people are really not at all subtle) agenda behind the web site “Nation for Marriage.”  

Take for example, their primary talking point:

Language to avoid at all costs: “Ban same-sex marriage.” Our base loves this wording. So do supporters of SSM. They know it causes us to lose about ten percentage points in polls. Don’t use it. Say we’re against “redefining marriage” or in favor or “marriage as the union of husband and wife” NEVER “banning same-sex marriage.”

Hey, this is kind of familiar.  Don’t use the word “privatization.”  Use the term “protecting our investment in the future.”  Don’t say “torture” say “coercive methods via which to obtain critical and crucial information.”  Don’t say “quagmire.”  Say “global war on extremist ideologies among those evil evildoers of evil.”  

But that’s not all.  They also have some really nice gems about Why marriage matters.

Now, mind you, many opponents of same-sex marriage will tell you that it’s not about religion, but about an institution that’s been part of our lives for a very long time.  

But here’s something interesting.  Nation for Marriage thinks that you need three different versions of the explanation as to why marriage matters: Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish.

What can we learn from these different approaches to marketing based on religion?

Well, for one thing, Jews apparently like the color green, and are fond of the font Herculanum:

Catholics, on the other hand, clearly like stark color and contrast, and prefer a non Jewy, serif font:

Protestants, however, clearly have no taste at all:

And you know what else we learned?  Cathoics and Protestants, unlike Jews, speak Spanish.

Their website also has some neat tools.  Take for example, their Northeast Project page.  You can use it to e-mail your legislator.  I just used it to send a thank you note to my legislators in Vermont.  Of course, one of my legislators is a friend so I’ll probably see him at the next jam session I go to, so this seems silly.  But that’s Vermont for you.

How about the various threats that same sex marriage poses?  You can read all about them on NOM’s handy little blog.  On their blog you can learn about all sorts of things, like the threat of same-sex marriage being handed down through the courts!

“Unlike the people of California, the people of Iowa have no direct way to get this issue on the ballot so that they can take marriage back from the courts,” notes Maggie Gallagher, president of NOM. “Once again the most undemocratic branch of government is being used to advance an agenda the majority of Americans reject. Marriage means a husband and wife. That’s not discrimination, that’s common sense.”

Of course, just because they object to it done through the courts doesn’t mean they don’t object to it through the legislature:

“Even in states like Vermont where they are pushing this issue through legislatures, gay marriage advocates are totally unwilling to let the people decide these issues directly,” agreed Brown. “They’ve just about run out of courts willing to radically redefine marriage. The next step for gay marriage advocates will be to use these new laws to push Congress to overturn the federal Defense of Marriage Act, and then use the federal courts to impose gay marriage on all 50 states.”

Now, admittedly, it is indeed a sad day for Vermont (emphasis mine):

But we take heart in knowing that this vote was not representative of what Vermonters understand marriage to be…

Which is interesting, as Vermont, like the rest of the country, seems to be a representative Democracy

The piece continues:

Today is indeed a sad day, but let all of us who understand that marriage is the union of a husband and wife redouble our commitment to ensuring that same-sex marriage does not spread throughout our nation, that religious liberty is protected, and ultimately that marriage is restored in these states as well for the sake of our children and grandchildren.

Hear that, people?  It’s a virus.  Like that HIV thingy!  

But, really, how can you say no to this face?

Have we have no hearts?  Clearly, Christians are under attack from the onslaught of same-sex marriage!

I will note two facts:

1. not only did Vermont’s legislature support same sex marriage, they did it with over 2/3rds support of the legislature;
2. Not only did Vermont’s senate vote to support same sex marriage, a majority of Vermont’s Republican senators voted to support it.

Be sure to thank your legislators, everyone.  They’ll be here all week.

From a Rutland Herald piece by Dan Barlow, first quoting Jim Douglas:

“This is not a time for congratulations,” said Douglas, who added he believes the debate has been divisive and a distraction for lawmakers. “This is a time to move on.”

There are, obviously, some appropriate responses that can be made here.  Instead of going for the visceral reaction, however, I’d like to focus on the logical, with a little bit of clear-headed outrage mixed in.

Our governor’s reaction here is one that is basically disingenuous and self-serving.  It’s designed to continue with the same framework he’s been using all along– calling something a “distraction” while actively prolonging it.  

Part of the same piece, Odum quotes below:

Steve Cable of Rutland, a founder of the group Vermont Renewal, said same-sex marriage opponents across the state are “blood shooting out of their eyes mad” about the veto override vote.

Cable said he has already attended two organizational meetings this afternoon to discuss follow-up steps, but he said it is too early to discuss what those might look like.

“This isn’t about moving on,” Cable said. “This is about getting even.”

So we have one same sex marriage opponent talking about the “distraction” it causes, with another wanting to make this an ongoing issue (and framing it in terms of revenge).  Now, here’s my question: when is Douglas going to come out and condemn Cable for trying to distract the legislature?

Of course, there are other perspectives (again, from Barlow’s piece):

Larry and Elizabeth Messier of Lyndonville walked around the Statehouse Tuesday with their Bibles in their hands. They said they were “standing on the side of God” in opposing same-sex marriage and believe that its passage was a sign of the end of the world.

“God let this happen today for a reason,” Elizabeth Messier said. “And I believe it is because the rapture is coming.”

Now that would be distracting.  

Oh, and apparently we’ve got the robocaller people a bit scared (hat tip to Daily Kos for this one:

And no, that is not a parody.

UPDATE.  It gets better.  Someone decided to put up the audition tapes on youtube (hat tip to Pam’s House Blend:

Oh, and apparently for Vermont Daily Briefing, it’s April Fool’s Day All Over Again.  Great job, Phillip.

Final override 100-49 in the House, and 23-5 in the Senate.

Wow.

(Check below the fold for the email that went out from VT Freedom to Marry, as well as a statement from Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin)

Update —

House Roll Call – HERE

Senate Roll Call – HERE  

(From VT Freedom to Marry:

So say we all. -odum)

UPDATE: For those who have not read it, here is the new law, 15 V.S.A. § 8 which now reads:  

§ 8. MARRIAGE DEFINITION

Marriage is the legally recognized union of two people. When used in this chapter or in any other statute, the word “marriage” shall mean a civil marriage.

Full text, here.

Douglas vetoed the bill at 5:38pm.