'Thanks, Bro...'

Who would have thought that the Republicans had a chance of holding on to the White House in 2008 a few months ago? After the '06 Congressional election, the Conventional Wisdom held that the Democrats would win the White House in a walk. Hillary was the Heiress Apparent. Then, we saw the rise of Obama as the New Messiah, sent to assume the mantle of Leader of the Free World, an unstoppable force. Hillary or Obama? At any rate, most certainly not a Republican.

Things started to change after Super Tuesday. The Clinton campaign (I believe Bill gets the credit for this strategy) came to the sober realization that if Hillary was going to win, it could only be by dragging Obama down into the dirt and making him seem like just another politician. Better yet, by painting him as the stereotypical Black Candidate instead of the candidate who happened to be Black. There is a crucial difference here; a Black Candidate, such as Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton, represents only Black Americans (and only the more radical ones), while a candidate who happens to be Black can legitimately claim to represent all Americans... and Americans of all ethnicities can identify with him. This was the Clinton strategy first used after the South Carolina primary, where Bill Clinton made an oblique reference to Obama's support from Black voters as to be expected, "like Jesse Jackson's support." Tie your opponent with someone who is highly unpopular, in the same way that "Dole-Gingrich" was used to tie Dole in with Newt Gingrich during the '96 presidential campaigns.

Obama's only hope for mass appeal was not to be identified as the Black Candidate. Mid-America might well vote for a candidate who happened to be Black, but a Black Candidate has no chance. He was very good at resisting this characterization... until the radical sermons of Jeremiah Wright, his pastor at his Chicago church, came to light. Obama's speech on race was more of an evasion than a response, but it was well-worded and accomplished his goal of receiving the benefit of the doubt from the majority of Democrat primary voters.

Then the 'bitter clingers' comment came to light, and the Clinton campaign waisted no time in using the comment to paint Obama as an out-of-touch elitist, again making it easier for White lower- and middle-class Democrat voters to view Obama as a 'Them' instead of an 'Us'. In my opinion these comments cost Obama his chance to put Hillary away in Pennsylvania.

The fatal wound, the stab in the back, came this previous Monday courtesy of Reverend Wright and his speeches to the NAACP and the National Press Club. Wright gleefully stripped his defenders of their claim that outrage towards him was due to taking his statements out of context, defied those who challenged him, and worst of all portrayed Obama as a liar who repudiated himself from Wright solely for reasons of political expediency. In other words, Obama's own minister publically declared him to be just another say-anything-to-get-elected politician. Imagine the political ads! This damning statement from his own pastor cost Obama any chance he has at the presidency, at least for this election. With friends like this, who needs enemies?

I don't know who will get the Democratic nomination. I think it will still be Obama; the nomination will be decided by the superdelegates before the convention and they have have no good choices. If they stick with Obama, they're going with a candidate who will not win against McCain, because he will not get the moderate white Democrat vote. If they switch to Hillary, Obama's young activist supports and especially his black supporters will be outraged, perhaps to the point of destroying the Democrat Party, and a mixed Clinton-Obama ticket with Obama as VP won't fly for the same reason. Their only choice is a different nominee, and who are they going to choose from? The primary losers who were eliminated early? McCain will cream them. Al Gore? Even Al isn't stupid enough to run against McCain? John Kerry? The fake war hero couldn't win against a reservist; does anyone think he'll do better against a real war hero, especially since he hasn't repudiated the SwiftVet charges because he can't? Joe Lieberman? A rational choice, yet unacceptable to the Progressive Kossacks, who will revolt. They have no bench.

Why did all this happen? Why did the glorious dream turn to ashes? Two words: the Clintons. The Clintons want back in the White House. No... make that the Clintons believe they are entitled to return, and they will do anything to win. Even if it means destroying the Democrat Party. Hillary's worst nightmare is for Obama to win in November; that will end her presidential aspirations. She knows that she can't win the nomination this year, and the superdelegates will not give it to her for fear of the consequences (blacks and progressives leaving the party in droves). Far better to destroy him now, to weaken him so that he can't win, and then run again in 2012, saying "You should have picked me in '08!" You just know Hillary's pissed at Obama for costing her a sure thing... "Damn him anyway for running!" (I'm sure that's the kindest thought she's had about Obama in a long time!)

The Democrat Party never forgives a loser. What Obama should do now is to realize that a Democrat can't win in '08! so let Hillary take the fall! My advice: bow out now! Hold a press conference saying something along the lines of "For the sake of party unity, and because this country that I love is greater than any one person, we have to end this fight in order to beat the Republicans. I am going to cede the nomination to my opponent Hillary, and I will work to get her elected." And then, work as hard for Hillary as she and Bill did for Al Gore and John Kerry (not very hard at all), while letting a few choice friends in the media know why you withdrew (because the water was poisoned by Hillary and Bill and their scorched-earth tactic of using race to divide the Democrat Party). Put a bug in Jeremiah Wright's ear about all this, and let him go forth and trumpet about the Clinton racist conspiracy to deprive a Black man of his legitimate chance. Suppress the black vote, and Hillary cannot win. Then, watch the Party turn on the Clintons after the loss in November, and drive them out.

The activists will love this noble self-sacrifice. The party leaders will shrink in fear and know they have to make a gesture to regain black support, and they'll do it. Obama will be lauded from every Democrat mountaintop. He will be a shoo-in for the 2012 nomination. He'll learn from his mistakes this year, and the public will largely forget those mistakes. If McCain is very popular, wait until 2016... Obama is still young. If not... the office is his. If he plays his cards right.

Obama's only chance to be president is if he gets out now while he is still relatively unscarred, letting Hillary get clobbered. It's nervy, though. Does he have the courage to do it? Most likely not.

Just For Now

Imogene Heap's "Just For Now" recorded at a Philadelphia radio station, is without a doubt the most incredible live performance I've ever seen, by a true virtuoso. Note that none of the song was pre-recorded; Heap assembles the song as she goes, recording and replaying the various layers to create a perfectly-crafted acapella.



Heap has a beautiful voice, is a talented lyricist and musician, and her ability to perform live a very challenging act (if she had made one mistake the song is over) is superb. Celine Dion can sing, but I much prefer Heap's voice, and I can't stand watching Dion perform. I could watch this video over and over. Heap's virtuosity is as fascinating as it is magical, and her raw talent that is so well-showcased on this video staggers the imagination.

I honestly don't see how she can become any better.

DRM and the Kindle

One of the most contentious aspects of Amazon's new Kindle e-reader is that it will not allow users to read copy-protected (also referred to as 'DRM' or digital rights management, a fancier way of saying the same thing) eBooks from sources other than Amazon. This seems like a really bad idea, but maybe it's necessary.

First, a little history. The .MOBI eBook format, the most popular eBook format prior to the Kindle's introduction, was developed by a company called MobiPocket for use by their MobiReader software. MobiPocket used to charge a nominal fee for the MobiReader application, and another nominal fee for popular public domain eBooks like the Bible, the works of Shakespeare, Mark Twain, etc. The appeal of this, a decade ago, is that one could read books on various PDAs and computers. MobiPocket ended up being the largest publisher of eBooks, and was able to entice mainstream publishers to get on board by offering them protection against unauthorized copying, via DRM. MobiPocket also made their eBook creation software available for free to prospective publishers, so it costs almost nothing to create an eBook from the textual source. MobiPocket (the company) was purchased by Amazon a few years ago, by the way.

After thinking about this on and off, I now understand why Amazon decided not to support DRM .MOBI and went with a new DRM format, .AZW. (Interestingly enough, .AZW is almost identical to DRM .MOBI, and why not? After all, Amazon owns DRM .MOBI.)

Current DRM schemes do not account for selling and transferring ebooks. In fact, since it is impossible to tie a DRM .MOBI ebook to a particular reader (because users might get a new reader), it is effectively impossible to enforce DRM if the original purchaser is willing to provide the key to another person.

The Kindle, on the other hand, is a closed system. The Kindle's serial # is tied to the user on the Amazon website. Although, like MobiPocket, creating eBooks costs nothing, unlike MobiPocket the creation software is not downloaded to one's computer but instead resides on Amazon's servers (so they can control it fully). A record of all DRM ebooks purchased is also stored on Amazon, and associated with both the customer and the specific Kindle. Amazon could institute a firmware feature that would automatically verify each DRM ebook on the system with Amazon's server on a regular basis, and inform Amazon if a pirated file were found. Maybe they're doing that now. Who knows what data goes up to Amazon?

However, a closed system has advantages. Amazon could institute an ebook trade-in program, where you get partial credit for 'returning' a book to Amazon (removing it from your purchased book list), and they could enforce this by having the Kindle verify the 'ownership' of any .AZW book when you try to read it (by storing a copy of your purchased book list on your Kindle). Or, Amazon could facilitate 'selling' of used ebooks to other Kindle owners, by taking a bite of the 'selling' price for themselves and the publisher... call this the eBay model. The Kindle would certainly support this.

So, because Amazon can't guarantee that an individual is the owner of a particular DRM .MOBI ebook, it is perfectly understandable why they don't want the hassle and liability of supporting that format. And, because they control the Kindle, they could have all sorts of flexibility with .AZW ebooks... flexibility that is impossible with DRM .MOBI ebooks.

P.S.: Why have I written a lot about this device? Because I believe the Kindle will revolutionize the book industry, and it will also transform Amazon, the company, into what it originally promised to be back in 1995. Stay tuned for further thoughts on this device...

An Open Letter to Amazon About the Kindle

Dear Amazon Kindle Support:

I’ve purchased a Kindle after looking at a friend’s beta-test version, and think you guys really have a winner here, and I feel I can say this as someone who had spec’d out the ideal eBook, as a dream project, back in the late ‘80s at a large Redmond software company (the needed technology wasn’t available yet).

However, I do have a problem, as a customer, with the Kindle’s lack of support for DRM content downloaded from Mobipocket. After all, Amazon owns Mobipocket, and to not support purchased Mobipocket files while supporting open Mobipocket files seems weak.

I understand that, from a business point of view, Amazon wants to differentiate the Kindle and to raise the barriers against other content providers, but what Amazon is really doing is forcing me and other customers to buy two different electronic books. If I have to do that, then I’ll probably end up only buying the content I can use on both devices, and failing that I’ll end up buying only the content I can use on more than one device… which means I’ll eventually sell or abandon my Kindle and go to something like the iRex iLiad as soon as someone implements support for .AZW (the Kindle’s ‘native’ eBook format).

If you really want to kill off the Mobipocket format, then do so by only publishing new titles in .AZW, not .MOBI DRM, and then offering a conversion from DRM Mobipocket to .AZW. Amazon has the marketing clout to ensure that it can publish what it wants. But, really, does Amazon want to be in the hardware business? No. Amazon was founded to be in the book business, and the twelve years of building a tremendous infrastructure was forced upon it by the demands of the market and of the products it chose to sold. Everything else is just productizing what Amazon needed to build in the first place (web services, storefronts, etc.). If only books didn’t need to be printed… but people aren’t going to want to have to worry about the Tower of Babel (different formats for electronic books, and devices that purposely choose to exclude the most popular format for business reasons).

Amazon wants, no, needs to be in the virtual book business. Leading the transformation away from physical media, of any type, should be Amazon’s goal. The best way to do this is to remove impediments to customer adoption. Do this by offering free .MOBI to .AZW conversions for 90 days after a new owner gets a Kindle, and then charge a nominal fee thereafter. Then no one has a reason to buy any other eReader.

I guess Amazon has the data for it’s decision to leave current electronic book owners out in the cold (no support for rights-protected .MOBI files), but what does this really buy you? If you don't offer conversion to .AZW, someone will figure out how to provide DRM’d .AZW files even if you don’t publish the specifications, just as Real Networks found out how to produce iTune-compatible protected music. Far better to make a few cents for conversions than to watch your competitors start offering content for the Kindle that you won't get any money for.

Democrats! Shut Up! Europe! Grow Up!

Anne Applebaum has an article in Slate about how Iraq was/is a net loss for the United States:

Though I don't especially want to perpetuate anyone's stereotypes about the mainstream media, I have to say that this optimism is totally unwarranted. Not because things aren't improving in Iraq—it seems they are, at least for the moment—but because the collateral damage inflicted by the war on America's relationships with the rest of the world is a lot deeper and broader than most Americans have yet realized. It isn't just that the Iraq war invigorated the anti-Americanism that has always been latent pretty much everywhere. Far worse is the fact that—however it all comes out in the end, however successful Iraqi democracy becomes a decade from now—our conduct of the war in Iraq has disillusioned our natural friends and supporters and thrown a lasting shadow over our military and political competence. However it all comes out, the price we've paid is too high.

The price we paid isn't the almost 4,000 Americans who gave their lives in Iraq fighting Al Qaeda fanatics and Sunni intransigents. It's not the tens of thousands of wounded, some of whom are permanently disabled, and all whom have gone through hell. Nope... the price we've paid is the fact that no one likes us enough anymore to listen to us:

From the start, however, all negotiations between Iran and the "EU-3," as the group is known in diplomacy speak, have been haunted by Iraq. Certainly, there is no expert committee in existence that could successfully convince Europeans (or anyone) that Iran really does have nuclear weapons, or even that Iran intends to build them. So fresh are the memories of American claims about the extent of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and so vast, therefore, is the skepticism about any assessments of anybody's nuclear program, that even a report bearing a United Nations or European Union label would fail to convince, even if Iranian nukes were on display in downtown Tehran. All analysis coming out of the United States is, of course, automatically discounted.

News flash: They weren't listening to us anyway! The folks that opposed us in 2003... folks like Hans Blix, Gehard Schroeder, Jacques Chirac... opposed us because they believed it was in their best interests to oppose us! Whether those interests revolved around money (as in keeping the Oil For Food cash coming), political ambition (as in using the US as a whipping boy to distract one's own voters away from a dismal political record), or strategic ambition (as in utilizing general angst over war as a club to beat the US with in the hopes of weakening America strategically so that we would no longer project power) is just additional grist for the mill.

So, here we are, almost five years later, with yet another crisis fomenting in the Middle East over a terrorist-sponsoring state that is developing WMDs, and even the critics of America admit that they do not wish to confront Iran. Hell's bells! Why on Earth should Iran change its course of action? What is the downside of their current direction? Can the Europeans not see that their very ambivalence is what is causing the crisis? And, that if they would just grow a pair and stand up, just once, to a totalitarian regime, then perhaps they could prevent yet another dictatorial miscalculation that "democracies are too weak and decadent to fight?"

Hitler started World War II because he truly believed that Britain and France lacked the will to oppose him. Oops. Kim Il Sung started the Korean War because he and Stalin believed that Truman lacked the will to oppose them. Oops. Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait because he believed the US lacked the will to intervene. Twelve years later, he defied US and UN demands because he again believed that the US would not intervene because his bought-and-paid-for 'friends' would prevent UN approval of any attack. Oops yet again. Anyone else spot the "wars are often started by miscalculations" trend here?

I have to tell you; I think Iraq was worth the cost, and I further believe that history will agree with me in a very short time. September 11, 2001 was the culmination of several decades of escalating terrorist attacks on America... attacks with no consequences. The Bush Administration correctly analyzed the situation in the Middle East, recognizing that things weren't going to change unless we changed our response. That's a bad neighborhood, and people over there needed to realize that business as usual was over. If that meant invading a few countries, then so be it. Of course, our enemies doubted our resolve, having seen eight years of Clinton pusillanimity. We all knew their game plan: kill Americans violently and hold on until they give up and go home. But it didn't happen, despite the tremendous cost in blood and money, because we were uniquely blessed with a military, a president, and a majority of the American people, all of whom possessed the courage and resolve to see it through, and to ignore the naysayers. That resolve is what finally made the Iraqi people choose America. Osama bin Laden was right: Arabs always choose the strong horse. We showed the Middle East that, contrary to popular opinion, we are the strong horse, not Al Qaeda and its minions. If Clinton had done his job, and those who hated us believed this in 2001, then 9/11 wouldn't have happened.

We've won in Iraq. Now we need to finish the job, and that means confronting Iran instead of avoiding it. This is when the Rest of the World needs to grow up and get with the program. Europeans need to realize that Iran is a real threat, and that once Tehran has nukes the possibility of nuclear war increases dramatically. Iran sends all types of munitions to their Hamas and Hezbollah proxies for indiscriminate use against Israeli civilian targets. Does anyone really not think that a small nuke is off the table? Does anyone really think the US wants to go to war with Iran? Evidently, many Europeans are in a state of denial.

And whose fault is this really? Whose fault is it that the US and specifically the Bush Administration is seen as less than credible? I think that some Americans, who have attacked the motivations of the current president in their scorched-earth effort to regain political power by any means necessary, bear a good part of the blame. There's been way too much irresponsible politicking. After all, most of our enemies are merely repeating the Democrat Party talking points. This is why, once upon a time, political attacks stopped at the water's edge. Maybe, if a Democrat does win the presidency in 2008, they'll soon regret the bitter harvest that two terms of irresponsible political attacks have sown.

The Politics of Personal Destruction

I'm proud of Hillary Clinton and the Clinton campaign, and how they're refusing to go negative during the primary cycle. What am I talking about? I'm talking about taking the high road. Robert Novak (he of Plame fame*) has once again chosen to help the Clintonistas show their high moral and ethical standards as they explain they have the dirt on Obama, yet they refuse to release the details because they're such decent outstanding folks.

Yes, having the right to face one's accusers is fundamental to our system of justice... but how can Obama answer such charges? How do you defend yourself from such allegations? It's like asking him when he stopped beating his wife. What is important, to the Clintons anyway, is not the substance but the allegations themselves. What I don't understand is why the media doesn't tell the Clinton campaign, and Hillary herself, to either put up (disclose the evidence) or shut up (apologize to Obama for slandering him)**. The Clintonistas get to have their cake and eat it, too. I guess what they really want is a public outpouring of gratitude from Obama for not actually disclosing the dirt. Never mind the smear.

Am I the only one who remembers the venality of the Clintons? The attacks against Monica Lewinsky, characterized by Bill as a 'stalker' and by Hillary as part of the 'vast right-wing conspiracy.' The demonization of Ken Starr. The selling of pardons to upstanding folks like Marc Rich? The destruction of an innocent man's character (Billy Dale) in order to enrich political contributors? The lies?

And now this. Thank goodness the Clintons and their supporters are such upstanding folks. I mean, they're decent enough to annouce to all and sundry that they're not going to use shockingly scandalous information about Obama against him.

What a crock.

*Novak knew Richard Armitage, a Clinton administration holdover in the State Department, was the source of the Valerie Plame leak and not Scooter Libby or Dick Cheney... but did he come forth? No. Better to let an innocent man be crucified by yet another Democrat holdover (Patrick Fitzgerald) with political motivations.

**Of course, I understand. The drive-by media will not do anything to threaten the coronation of the Rightful Heiress to the Throne.

Aviation Nation 2007The Nellis AFB-Las Vegas Air Show

The US Air Force celebrated their 60th anniversary with a spectacular two-day air show at Nellis Air Force Base just north of Las Vegas. As an air show fanatic, how could I not go?

There was a wide variety of static displays, including one of my favorites, the Lockheed C5-A Galaxy:

The C5 is designed to carry three(!) M1 Abrams tanks, and as you can see it is huge outside and inside:

There was also a sample of airplanes from the 1940s on, including several Stearman biplane trainers in both Navy and Army colors, an AT-6, a C-47, a B-17 Flying Fortress, and a B-25 Mitchell. Here's the nose art from the B-17 and B-25:

There was also some examples of Korean War-era planes including a Mig-15, an F-86 Sabrejet, and it's immediate predecessor the F-80/T-33:

The F-80 actually was sent to Korea but proved to be no match for the Mig-15; the F-86 was rushed into production forthwith and proved to be a very fine Mig killer.

While the jets were fine for air-to-air combat, the bulk of ground support was done using reciprocating-engine propellor-driven airplanes. The Marines used the F4-U Corsair, while the Navy and the Air Force both used the Douglas Skyraider:

The Skyraider served on into Vietnam and was very popular. As an aside, my father flew these off of straight-deck carriers back in the late '50s and early '60s.

Speaking of the Navy, they did have a minor presence here with a static flight simulator trailer and a recruiting booth. The Marines and the Army were present also, with recruiting booths, but the Air Force kept its fellow services well back from the flight line! Even more notable (to this ex-swabbie) was that although the F-18 Hornet put on a show, it was a CF-18 Hornet from the Canadian Air Force:

I could have sworn I heard someone whisper, "Better a sister in a whorehouse than a brother flying for the Navy!" Probably my imagination....

The civilian flyers weren't left out, both with the classic military planes as shown above, and with purpose-built sport acrobatic aircraft. The Red Bull Flying Team put on one awesome display, with pilot Kirby Chambliss and his Extra 300 doing everything from the mundane to the incredible... check out this Lomcevak:

You can see from the trailing of the smoke how the plane is tumbling, instead of flying, moving horizontally in the direction that the bottom of the plane is pointed. The Red Bull helicopter was doing loops and barrel rolls, too, and it literally dove after the skydiving team while Chambliss was doing rings around the whole formation as the helicopter and skydivers free-fell. I've never seen a crazier aerobatic show.

Of course, what Air Force celebration would be complete without one of the BUFFs making an appearance?

The aircrew opened up the bomb doors for a simulated run, with special-effects explosions on the ground (the EOD folks were having a field day blowing off C-4 underneath jugs of diesel fuel for that 'napalm' effect).

Of course, all of this was merely a prelude to the main event... the Thunderbirds:

Note that the pilot in the F-16 below is Major Nicole Malachowski, one of two female Thunderbirds (the other is Major Samantha Weeks, flying the #6 Opposing Solo (the upside-down plane, above):

All good things must come to an end, as the Thunderbirds park their steeds on the Nellis flightline, with Las Vegas in the background:

But wait, the Air Force wasn't done yet... seems that something had been watching us all day (a Predator drone, complete with Hellfire missiles!):

The Air Force's ground attack community put in an appearance with the A-10 Thunderbolt II, also known as the 'Warthog'. This tank-killing plane was designed around its 30mm 6-barreled electric Gatling gun, shooting projectiles the size of Coke bottles at a rate of 70 per second. Ouch!

Interestingly, there was not a single F-15 Eagle at the air show. I believe that all F-15s are grounded due to concerns about fatigue after an F-15 came apart during a training flight in the midwest a few weeks ago. The Air Force couldn't let the celebration end without some fighter presence. The best surprise of the airshow was an appearance by the brand-new F-22 Raptor:

Note the unique exhaust signature with its multiple rings:

The Raptor was joined by a little bit of Air Force history in the form of a P-51 Mustang from WWII, an F-4 Phantom from the Vietnam era, and an A-10 Warthog from the Gulf War, for a final flyby....

And thus ended a fantastic airshow.

Fuggetaboutit!

So, the pissant president of Iran wants to go to Ground Zero to lay a wreath for the victims of the Twin Towers terrorist attacks, and is "amazed" that Americans would take offense?

Give me a break!

Ahmadinejad just wants to go in order to obtain a photo op. The only "victims" he plans to pay his respects to are the terrorist hijackers, whom he has stated acted with the knowledge and assistance of the US government. This man is the president of a country that, at his orders, is participating in the killing of Americans on a daily basis. This man has openly called for the destruction of the United States, the "Great Satan" as he refers to us. This man was one of the "students" who took American diplomats hostage back in 1979, yet he understands that he is safe in America with his diplomatic credentials. And he wonders why Americans don't like him, or Iran? Puh-leeze!

I've got a better idea. I understand that the US is bound by the agreement with the UN which requires us to let anyone with diplomatic accreditation from a foreign government come to New York to visit the UN, and that's fine. No one says that visitors get the freedom to move about the City, however. Meet this wretch's plane with a pair of F-15s when he approaches US airspace, ensure his flight path stays over water and unpopulated areas until it arrives at the airport. Meet his plane with a security detail, for his protection of course. If he stays overnight, escort him to his accomodations and station security outside of his room. Do not allow him to leave his room without US-provided security, and then only to go to and from the UN. Once he's there, let him make his speech, meet with representatives from other countries, etc. When his business is concluded at the UN, take him to the airport, put his sorry butt back on his airplane, and then once again escort that airplane with a pair of F-15s until he is well beyond US airspace. Make sure he understands that, once his plane touches the ground back home, our promise to guarantee his safety ends and the next US airplane he sees might well have already dropped the smart bomb that will send him to his own special place in Hell.

If he has a problem with that, remind him that he is still alive at our discretion, and that if he would prefer, we can treat him the same way he calls for the treatment of his enemies.

Update: I called into a local radio talk show today to give them grief about the liberal host's position that perhaps this was a missed opportunity to "connect" with Ahmadinejad. Give a listen and see what you think! If you get a 'page not found' error when you click on the link, just hit 'refresh' and that should start up Windows Media Player and start playing the MP3...

The First Leaf of Autumn

Taken on Labor Day in the Lisabeula area of Vashon Island, Washington.

Does the tree wake up from summertime drowsing to notice the first dead leaf, and only then realize its mortality? Regardless of how bright the sun or how warm the day, winter eventually comes to us all.

Seafair 2007 Sunday Airshow

I have too many long telephoto shots at airshows, so I thought I'd try something a little different. These photos were taken from just above the I-90 tunnel on the Seattle side of Lake Washington, using my Sigma SD14 and either the 18-50/2.8 EX DG Macro or 50-150/2.8 EX DG lens. I don't know who the first group is (I think it's a group of private pilots who own ex-European military trainers... update: it's the Patriots Jet Demonstration Team), but the second group are the Blue Angels in their very recognizable F-18s.


This first group was actually very good, but they have (had?) the misfortune of going before the Blue Angels in front of a crowd that is used to the levels of performance that only a world-class top-of-the-line military fighter can give... and that only a government can afford to operate! Very precise flying, and the group was fast, but not quick (very slow to accelerate, rejoin, etc.).


Another great hour filled with sonic booms, turnin' and burnin', etc. Until you viscerally feel the vibration from an F-18 making a high speed subsonic pass maybe 100' overhead, watch them go from sea level to 15,000 feet in under 20 seconds, etc., you can't appreciate how astoundingly fast and agile... and loud these planes are.


The 'smoke' (condensed water vapor) above the inboard leading edges of the wings is a sign that the plane is really pulling some 'G's (the air pressure above the wing is dropping so low that the water vapor condenses). I meant to bring my 70-200/2.8 EX and use the TC with it... but my son was in too much of a hurry this morning so I grabbed the small Lowepro instead. No big deal... all's well that ends well.