Manus Ferrea

the World changes... and starting very soon, I'll have a new position...

soon new pics from the 24th floor, overlooking downtown LA... :-)

The best Quote I've seen on the iPad... (from Cory Doctorow on boingboing.net)

Doctorow quoted William Gibson's description of a consumer. "...something the size of a baby hippo, the color of a week-old boiled potato, that lives by itself, in the dark, in a double-wide on the outskirts of Topeka. It's covered with eyes and it sweats constantly. The sweat runs into those eyes and makes them sting. It has no mouth... no genitals, and can only express its mute extremes of murderous rage and infantile desire by changing the channels on a universal remote."

 It's a tablet? It's an iPod Touch XL?... what's it matter!!??!!

It matters to me... I don't just want a "consumption device" (Leo Laporte) is in love with that phrase...)

I want a device I can consume AND create content! 

I want to use different browsers! I want to plug in a webcam, my DSLR, a real keyboard (not a special Apple Bluetooth keyboard), I want to use Photoshop on my tablet (not just browse photos in iPhoto), I want to use "applications" I don't want an "app!"   

<start tangent> To me there's an "app for that" is like saying there's a watered down, limited in functionality, single use function, program that might resemble a real application; but don't get to excited, if you want to do something useful you can buy a bunch of single "apps" that combined, might be close in functionality to a real application.  <end tangent>

I don’t want to live in a walled garden no matter how “pretty” it might be.  I don’t want to live in a world of consumption.  I want to live in a world of creation.  I don’t want to give up my freedom, no matter how safe, secure, and mediocre it might be.  Giving in to Steve Jobs and Apple’s tight controls is like allowing the government to broaden the “Patriot Act!”  It’s “sheepeople” herded down the roped off lines of the TSA to get on a 50 minute Southwest flight from Burbank to San Jose!  It’s “acceptable, because it improves our safety.”  You don’t get special seating; you get a number to hold your place in another line of cattle.   It’s the justification for Big Brother…. btw... Didn’t Apple Computers, Inc. run a famous advertisement on that theme? 

 I need to go reboot now; I’m not feeling well…

In our system of politics the process by which we work, debate, advance our ideology and by which we come to settled terms and agree are as important, if not more important than the resulting legislation. The recent tactics of slash and burn, the "fix-it" deals, the partisan zeal with which one party ran roughshod over the other is where the long term trouble will brew and steep.  Congress is about to learn the hard cold truth of not working through the process of compromise; and the pain of allowing the Executive Branch to usurp the Congressional Process (and in essence Congressional Power).

The Republic of the United States is in genuine danger.  Not because of the existence of the Health Care reform act.  It's mere existence does not jeopardize the United States. The New Deal was just as deplorable but it did not destroy the Republic.  However, here's where there is a difference between the New Deal and Health Care reform...the difference is in how they became Law.  Health Care reform became Law because the Executive Branch usurped the power of the Congressional Branch and in doing so the Majority Party forced the Act without Compromise.

In our first Presidents farewell address, George Washington warned us to not allow one branch of government to encroach upon the prerogatives of another. The warning was to not allow "change by usurpation." But that's just what happened. The Executive Branch of government forced the Democratic congressional leadership to institute dramatic social reform without the process of compromise.

I heard no one speak of compromise. And now all I see are the Majority Party glad-handing, and celebrating their victory. Many anxiously running back to their districts to evangelize the Health Care Act. I see posts on-line warning of violence from the right wing demons of the Republican party.  Quickly followed by media disparagement of the Republicans seemingly doing nothing to stem the impending violence.  I see Republicans wearing the face of the disenfranchised; wondering if they have purpose, knowing they can not stop the inevitable (yet many wondering what the inevitable is).

After the spring break, in the following few weeks, Congress will likely become a place of bitterness. Like a mistreated dog, the Republicans are likely to bite back, and do so very hard. And if we even make it to the coming elections in November, when control is likely to change hands.  What happens when Congress grinds to a halt? And even more daunting, what happens if control does not change hands?

Partisan rancor has just been turned up ten-fold. Never in the last 150 years has there been such a huge wedge driven down the Congressional Branch.  And yet even in the time period between 1850 and up to 1860 there remained at least a measured attempt to work through the process of compromise; for Great Compromises are part of our history. The first in 1787 the second in 1850... Unfortunately, in 1860, even in a time when compromise was still entertained, it took a civil war to settle the debate...

Without a dramatic and miraculous event, I doubt reconciliation is possible. ?

Let me first say; I am not a Democrat nor am I a Republican.  I am liberal under the classic definition of the word; that is, and in this particular context, I am of the political ideology of "Classical liberalism." I am committed to the ideology of limited government with a firm foundation based on individual liberty; those including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, free markets, etc.  I define all those as the freedom of individual choice, so long as ones choice does not impede or hinder another’s individual choice.  From a political party stand point, I am closer to a Libertarian; but honestly, those guys sometimes seem a bit on the fringe to me...

I responded to a post where someone was paying a complement to a New York Times writer who fosters the belief the GOP is filled with bigotry and racism (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/opinion/23herbert.html ).

I challenged that writer with the following:

I love how the GOP gets smeared with the Racism and Bigotry label, when it was the Democrats that rallied AGAINST the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Here's a fun fact: in 1964 80% of congressional Republicans voted FOR the Civil Rights act, while only 65% of Democrats voted for Civil Rights.

(Here are the numbers: In the Senate, 6 Republican voted against the Act with 27 Republicans voting FOR the Act; this compared to 21 Democrats out of 67 voted against the Civil Rights Act. In the House it's even worse; 91 Democrats out of the 244 Democrats voted Against the Civil Rights Act; while only 35 out of the 171 House Republicans voted against the Civil Rights Act... But I blame both Parties. The GOP should be shouting out these little reminders. Lincoln? A Republican! Senator Byrd; KKK member and the only Northern Democrat to vote Against the Civil Rights Act of 1964

So why do the Dems get credit for the Civil Rights Act... without Republicans the Civil Rights Act would have never passed...from 1875 to 1964, Democrats kept any form of Civil Rights Act from passing... in 1870 it was two Republicans that Senator Charles Sumner and Republican Congressman Benjamin F. Butler that introduced the first Civil Rights Act which passed in 1875; but was latter struck down as Unconstitutional by a left leaning Supreme Court. Version of the 1875 Act were later introduced again by Republicans throughout the years; really starting back up in 1927 but Democrats would not have it so I don’t get it any one looking back in time would clearly believe the Democrats bigots but we don’t look at history do we?

So why do Dems get the credit for this landmark legislation! Because it was Johnson that signed the bill? Or was it that JFK went against his own party along with Mansfield to push for Civil Rights? Either way; we don't see courage in today’s political Parties. It's extremely divisive. And we have a system that flounders because individuals have agendas to maintain power; but in the end, We the People will suffer.

Update on Wednesday, March 24, 2010 at 1:17PM by Manus Ferrea

I was recently told I was defending the hatered the GOP espoused for the last 8 years...  below is my response...

...the GOP and DNC are the same. In today’s society they both profit from the misfortunes of others.  The Democrats and Republicans enable their members to become bigots.  They both proselytize the evils of the other, enabling the bigotry that has becoming the center of public discourse.  There are no champions on either side of the isle espousing the value of individual liberty, the basic tenet of our country’s foundation. 

We are thus, thrust into a world of divisiveness; and the members of the DNC and GOP happily put on their blinders and march in lock step with the party line.  I pointed to the history of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to showcase a time in our history when members of a political party broke away from their own party and challenged the paradigms of the past; and I purposely choice a time in history when it was a group of Democrats challenging other Democrats.  Because to have control of the government, such as the Democrats have now and as they had in 1963, comes with a greater responsibility to the People; not just the Party.  At the moment, I only see politicians sticking to the party line. 

Is this political divisiveness really a good thing for the country?  Is the finger pointing working for anyone?  Is the disenfranchisement of 49% of the population a positive step in our political history?  Since 1860, there was never a time more tenuous; but through the goggles of history, do I look and speculate

There was a recent story published on jpgmag.com by a member that suggested photography of transportation systems and/or certain buildings was illegal. The story was meant to provide Ten Tips for Street Photography; and it's not a bad list of tips (http://jpgmag.com/stories/15194)

However, there was one comment I wanted to expand upon; in the United States, there are very few restrictions to shooting in a public space (However if you intend the photographs for commercial use, you need a model release of individuals but not in all cases.  The rule of thumb is if the individual is the central theme or a very large part of the photograph one needs a model release; if its a structure that is not a government building one would need a property release).

Bert Krages at http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

Provides a great deal of information on the topic and the challenges photographers face in the post 9/11 world we live in.  However, the author of the Ten Tips, suggested the best defense as the theme of his article.  That of Kindness.  Being kind to someone that is upset is often the best way to defuse the individual or group.  However, your safety can be compromised, so while it's important to understand your rights and you have a right to defend those rights, a broken camera is not easily replaced and a broken skull is often harder to replace.

The bottom line; In Street Photography it is very likely one will face a challenging moment.  Kindness is your best first defense; and in some cases the security guard or individual will react positively to Mr. Krages pamphlet (though that usually just fans the flames, if you're at that point; and while pointing at the security camera might work; it is usually well past logic at that point.) But through all this be kind; do not get overly defensive, do not turn over your gear, film or memory card! You can welcome a call to the police; because at this point, it might be the safest way to get you and your gear out of harms way.  And the police are likely to react better to a kind photographer with a pamphlet explaining the photographers rights; then the 'outraged' individual or security guard. 
'
By all means; know your rights. Understand how to protect your rights; but most importantly, keep Safe and keep your equipment safe.