Updated MPG V2.1

Click on photo for Photo Guide

I've updated the Mt. Rainier Photography Guide (click on image above), nicknamed My Photo Guide (MPG), now version V2.1, with a Sun & Moon information Web page for sunrise and sunset, moonrise and moonset, and sun and moon azimuth. It's an initial draft version and will go through some reviews, edits and updates for awhile. I hope this helps photographers visiting Mt. Rainier NP, and you're always welcome to send e-mail with suggestions, questions and problems.

NPR - 4:00 am conversation

I've written before that sometimes I wake up around 4:00 am, make some coffee and sit on the deck watching and listening to the early morning, and holding a conversation with myself. I like to free think as they say, conduct a wandering and varied train of thoughts, which sometimes leads me to some interesting and often helpful conclusions or ideas about my life, some decisions I'm thinking about and some things I'm going through.

Today was another except I woke up at 3:30 am, so 4:00 am had to wait a bit. Being near the summer solistice, light comes early, starting about 4:30-5:00 am so I get to see the slowly fading night and the slowly approaching day. This time it's about something I'm going through. It's like a bridge over a wide, deep canyon that doesn't appear to be secure or safe, where only the ends are holding it up. And my thoughts?

First you have to start, then you have to transistion over it overcoming your fear of it failing and you falling into the darkness below. Second, you have to reach the halfway, the top of the arch, to see the rest of it to the other side. This I knew. But lastly, which I didn't fully realize, is that once you get a ways up the depating side, you have to burn that end, and you have to hope the bridge stays up.

Because you can't see what supports the bridge, only the ends. What supports it is your faith in yourself. That faith doesn't necessarily have to be stout or strong, just enough to get you over the canyon to the other side and on with your life. The bridge will wobble and sway, that's the reality of being on a bridge in the world today, the winds of time and the forces of events aren't always soft and gentle. They're all too often like a thunderstorm in the desert or a major storm hurtling through the mountains.

And you don't always have to walk. You can stop, take some breath, get a rest, look at the scene and ponder the world from where you're at then and there. But you have to know you can't and don't want to go back. That's not a choice, only going forward at the pace that works for you. And only you know that pace. It's your life and your choices, so everything has to fit into the whole of your life.

And sometimes you will walk backwards, looking at the past, where you've been and how you got there. That's ok too. There are handrails to guide you so you don't fall off. It's just that you can't think the past is also the future, and you can't walk back down to the original side. For you see, if you do, you'll always wonder, "What if I had continued...", and you'll never know. That's the interesting part of the walk.

You simply have to walk ahead and rely on your intuition and faith. The bridge will hold you. Even when you won't think it will.

We will see

Every photojournalist and street photographer has had both good and bad experiences with police, especially those photographing crimes, police investigations or civil events like protests. And the police in some cities are notorious for their aggressive behavior with photographers. Their actions are never aimed at tourists taking travel or casual photos of places, family, etc., but always against the professional photographers.

While I'm just an ordinary photographer, I've had my good and bad moments with police. And occasionally with government workers and people. Some folks just don't like a camera pointed at them or even in their direction, and they often express it verbally and sometimes physically. It's all part of street photography in all its flavors. So, why the post?

Well, the Seattle Police Department (SPD) will issue a new policy on the conduct of police with photographers who are not impeding their work or violating their space or a crime scene, see article. This stems from an incident in which the SPD unlawfully arrested an amateur photographer taking pictures arresting a suspect.

I haven't photographed events where the possibility existed of clashes with the police or photographed the police involved with suspects or other people in the performance of their job. At least not outside the routine stuff they do at event or situations where they're there to watch auto and pedestrian traffic, such as a parade, street work, etc. It's always when they've been very informal with the public so I've been given some leeway.

The ACLU in Seattle has assisted a number of photographers over the years who were falsely arrested or had their equipment illegally confiscated, and is involved in the new SPD policy.

What baffles me though is the shortsightedness and narrowmindedness in the arguments for threatening, hassling and arresting photographers, for a number of reasons.

First, almost everything visibly public has already been photographed and available through the Internet, the media or in books, so why bother photographers doing it again?

Second, photographers aren't terrorists. No photographer has been indicted and convicted for terrorism or providing material support to terrorists.

Third, police should ignore them and focus on their job. If they did, they wouldn't have to worry about photographers, except those who get inside crime scene areas or in the way of the police, then they're free to arrest them.

Fourth, more photos help. When police need help with a crime, they often ask the public and the media for information and photos of any crime or suspects. So why restrict photographers?

Fifth, surveillence cameras and Webcams already exist. So, while the government is photographing everything and everyone continuously, citizens can't? Kinda' seems illogical to me.

Anyway, that's my thoughts on the issue. And we'll wait to see what the SPD's policy actually says and then if it's actually used by the officers.

JMO - Learning from history

I was reading the reviews of Scott McClellan's book and listening to some of his interviews, the perfunctory media tour to promote the book. While it's fair to say his book is overdue and late to the scene of bashing the Bush administration for the runup and selling of the war in Iraq, it's important to note it was necessary and helpful. And reading the critics of him and his book I came across a point that people are making which is wrong.

Remember when Bush pushed the runup and selling of the war off the table by implying what's been done is done and we can't go back to redo it? And remember when he said it doesn't matter anyway becasue it's always about the future? Remember the sequence since the 2003 State of the Union address for the reasons for the war? They changed annually as the past ones became obvious lies. But Bush then and the critics now miss the point about history, and living it again.

Bush and many Republicans have criticized Congress for frequently going back to the pre-war intelligence and White House decisions and statements. And Congress is at it again this week, as senior Senators on both sides now are saying the intelligence was exagerated beyond reality. The White House in effect took to the intelligence to the local gas station and blew it up like you do an innertube for a day of floating dow a river on a hot summer day.

No one can fault the CIA for doing their best, and while you can fault them for their interpretation, you can argue that they were pressured by Vice President Cheney's office into rewriting the conclusions to make the threats appear bigger than they really were. The WMD's were simply the ghost under your bed, nothing in the light of cold, clear day. The White House clearly manipulated all of the intelligence to be what they wanted than what it actually said.

So, why is this important? One word, Iran. We need to know the history behind Bush, Cheney and the White House's case for the war because they can and likely will make a similar veiled case for the attacks on Iran, if they even decide to report it to Congress, going ahead with the attacks implying it's part of the war authorization Congress passed, until the dust has settled on the bombed out ruins of Iran's nuclear facilities.

Bush has the plans on his desk. The military has gone through all the iterations and scenarios, and they've written a plan which is the one on his desk. Let's not be stupid or naive here. It's the way it's done at that level of government. The military continuously plays war games and knows all the situations, circumstances and consequences. And they have selected ones written up for the President if she/he choose to pre-emptively attack and invade another nation.

So the real question isn't if the plan is there, but what option Bush will take and when. He has 6 months to do this. Does he want to support Isreal attacking Iran's facilities with US Navy and Air Force intelligence and help during the attacks? Or does he want the US forces already there to do the job? And when, before or after the election?

Whatever the case, I'm betting he plans to bring John McCain up to speed so he can use it politically in his campaign. I doubt he'll bring Obama up to speed except after the attacks. That's how much Bush and especially Cheney hates the Democrats. And I'm betting Condi Rice will be on the stump before bullshiting everyone as she does about the threat but the military option isn't on the table.

So history is more important than ever these days. We need to know how Bush, Cheney and the White House lied about Iraq so we can see how they're lying about Iran. Because if we don't, the events will happen with the unanticipated results from shortsightedness of the White House, Bush and Cheney edging toward the exit door of their time, and we'll have to clean up another one of their really big, dumb messes with our lives and checkbook.

I for one don't want that. We're paying too dearly for Iraq with little to show, and I don't want to put the military there at risk when Iran decides to retaliate. It will be a costly, bloody war for real this time. And we'll be the bad guys in the eye's of the world. And George will think he's the hero.

JMO - The Race is on

Ok, Barack Obama and John McCain are now the Democratic and Republican, respectively, candidates for President. The real show now starts with each party's convention being the party to energize the staff, supporters and hopefully the voters. And the real campaign hype will officially start with the positive and mostly negative ads about and towards each candidates, along with all the positive spin about their own candidate's words and records and the negative spin about the other candidate.

The real question to me, though, is, will we really learn anything new about them. And will we really learn who they will be as President, what kind of people they will appoint as their cabinet secretaries and directors, how they will govern the White House and the federal government, and how they will represent the US and interact with other nations and their respective leaders. Will we know this by November 4th?

Me thinks not, or at least for now based on past Presidential campaigns. The best example is both campaigns for George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004. Did anything that he said, in ads, or in the debates really tell you anything that has happened during his Presidency? What happened to the "compassionate conservative", the "uniter", and all the other stuff he sold himself? Did we really ever get any ideas if Al Gore or John Kerry would have been better Presidents than they were portrayed by their party and denigrated by the Republican party?

Do we really know John McCain? I watched his 2000 primary campaign and I was impressed with his record and his position on issues. He was a real maverick in the party. I really wanted him and Senator Bill Bradley to win their party's primary and be their party's Presidential campaign. I would have voted for Bradley in the end, but it would have made a damn fine political campaign and debates, and either way, the country would have been different and far better than what has happened under Bush.

Anyway, we have about two months to the conventions. The only thing I want to hear is the choice for Vice President and who they will consider for their cabinet. All the rest is more of the same campaign rhetoric we'll be hearing more for their candiate and more negative against the other candidate after the convention. All the party's PACs have a 3 month window to research and produce attack ads. Gee, what a warm and fuzzy feeling I get with that thought.

But it is our political system, bad as it is. And it is bad. Not the worst it's been in our history, but the worst for the money, influence and tone, tune and tenor. And I don't see Congress ever changing it. If Senators McCain and Feinstein can't get a better law, then we're all sinking into the abyss of political campaigns.

And hopefully, we'll actually get a good President. Hell, anyone can't be worse than George Bush.