A Brief Missive on Political “Talking Heads” and Outright Lying


I hate getting political in my blog, but I simply could not let this stand.  So, if you despise the venomous dialog that characterizes what some call “political debate” in this country today then please, please, please skip today’s nonscheduled blog.

I was listening to Rush Limbaugh today. He made the statement that President Obama campaigned directly against the exact operation he ordered earlier this week to kill Osama bin Laden in Pakistan.

This despite the fact that, in August of 2007, candidate Barack Obama said in a policy speech at the Woodrow Wilson Center:

“As President, I would make the hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional, and I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan.

“I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”

Did Rush Limbaugh just make a mistake? Did he perhaps just not know that this was Barack Obama’s public stand as a candidate?

No. He did know. Mr. Limbaugh in fact lied.

How do we know that? Because I remember Mr. Limbaugh attacking Mr. Obama at the time. So, I looked up those previous comments. In response to Mr. Obama’s policy speech, Rush Limbaugh said on September 20, 2007:

“Well, we’ve got another tape from — I get these guys confused — Usama bin Laden. Another tape says he’s going to invade Pakistan and declare war on Pakistan and Musharraf, which, ladies and gentlemen, puts him on the same page with a Democrat presidential candidate — that would be Barack “Uss-Obama.” And let’s go back to August 1st: “U-Bama” gave a speech on counterterrorism, and here’s a portion of what he said.”

Mr. Limbaugh then played this quote from Mr. Obama’s above-cited policy speech:

“If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will.”

After that, Mr. Limbaugh followed up with:

“All right, so, we’re going to attack Pakistan. Poor Musharraf’s going to get it on both ends if Barack’s elected.”

That’s pretty pathetic. Anybody else besides me getting fed up with these talking heads, from both sides of the political spectrum, deliberately lying about the people whom they don’t like rather than just debating their policy differences?

I find this especially hypocritical coming from the Christian right and the likes of self-professed “religious” individuals such as Sean Hannity (yes, I’ve caught him doing this type thing as well) because such tactics run directly counter to Commandment Nine of the Ten Commandments:

Thou Shall Not Bear False Witness Against Thy Neighbor.

Shame, shame, shame on those of all political stripes who partake of such tactics.

Share on Facebook

1 Comment

Filed under Opinion Piece

Taking Pictures in the Raw or Putting on JPEG Pants—Part I


It’s the (digital) age-old question: Raw vs. JPEG.  Today and Friday we’re going to definitively answer it . . . sort of.  If you have one of the more sophisticated cameras currently on the market, particularly if you have a DSLR or one of the newer mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Cameras (ILC), your camera probably has the capability to save photographs in at least two file formats—Raw and JPEG.  The question is, which one should you be using?

First, what is Camera Raw?  Raw is an image file containing data from every single imaging pixel from the sensor in your camera.  That means these files are huge.  It also means that these files are totally unprocessed and are thus unsuited for printing or even display on your computer.  If you were to display the raw image file to your friends and family, the resulting picture would appear to be flat, lifeless, and unflattering, with dull colors and very little contrast.  On the upside your image would show a lot of detail at both ends of the spectrum, from dark shadows to brightly lighted areas (this is called an image’s “dynamic range”).  Raw files also have greater bit depth, usually in the range of 12 bits to 14 bits versus JPEG’s 8-bit depth.  What does that mean?  In simple terms it means that, while you can get nearly 16.8 million colors out of a JPEG, most raw images will give you somewhere between 68.7 billion to 4.2 trillion colors and much smoother tonal transitions . . . theoretically.  More on that later.  One thing to bear in mind here is that there is no true industry standard for the raw file format—each camera manufacturer has its format and almost none are cross-compatible.  The closest thing there is to an industry standard is Adobe’s Digital Negative (DNG) format.

So, what is JPEG?  JPEG is an industry-standard lossy image file compression scheme that was developed by the Joint Photographic Experts Group way back in 1992 and which is still in use today as the primary image format for digital photographic display and printing.  By ‘lossy,’ we mean that every time you open a JPEG file, edit it, and then save the resulting file, the resulting image will be further compressed and image data will be lost.  The more times you edit and save the worse this loss gets, eventually resulting in noticeable visual degradation in the image.  Not a good thing.  If you’re going to edit a JPEG, do it on a direct copy of the original (save that original just in case); don’t edit a copy of a copy of a copy or you’ll soon regret it because the damage is usually irreversible.  Almost every digital camera on the market has the ability to shoot in JPEG, and many cameras with raw capability will give you the ability to save images in both raw and JPEG simultaneously . . . but at the cost of eating up memory card space.  Shooting in JPEG will give your available memory cards approximately three times the capacity over shooting in raw, but shooting in JPEG+raw depletes space quickly because you’re actually saving both a JPEG image and a huge raw file for each image taken.

(A quick word of warning:  Your camera probably allows you to increase compression of your JPEG files from “fine” to “normal.”  Don’t fall for it; there’s nothing normal about “normal.”  Shooting in “normal” might increase the number of images you can store on your memory card, but it comes at the cost of losing image data that you’ll never be able to recover later should you need it.  If you’re shooting in JPEG, shoot in “Fine.”)

So, what does all this mean?  Let’s think about these two formats in old photographic film terms.  Camera raw is the color negative film of the digital world.  To be useful, you have to take the resulting negative and “process” it into a usable “print.”  And being that there’s a post-processing phase involved, raw can cover up a lot of photographic “sins” that were committed at the time you took the shot—everything from bad white balancing to even moderate corrections in exposure control can be fixed.  A JPEG file equates to color slide film, or perhaps even one of those old Polaroid Instant Cameras that spits out a picture seconds after the shot is taken.  Once the slide is developed and mounted or the Polaroid picture rolls out of the camera, you’re done.  What you see is what you took at the moment you pressed the shutter release button, and there’s not a whole lot of leeway after the fact to correct problems with the image.

Before you decide which format is better for you, let’s go back to raw for a moment.  Remember that theoretical color depth advantage?  The promised 68.7 billion or even 4.2 trillion colors over JPEG’s much more limited 16.8 million colors?  Remember that raw needs to be processed into a usable format before you can display it on a computer or print it out.  And to what image format will you ultimately be converting that raw image?  You guessed it.  JPEG.  So, that color depth advantage?  Gone.  You just converted it back to a 16.8 million color JPEG.

Well, maybe.  There’s still a way around the JPEG format that would allow you to take full advantage of raw’s significantly greater color depth advantage.  It’s yet another file format called TIFF, and we’ll discuss it Friday in Part II of Taking Pictures in the Raw or Putting on JPEG Pants.

Share on Facebook

2 Comments

Filed under Photography

A Very Special Thanks to Our Military Heroes


My deepest, most sincere, and heartfelt congratulations to the brave men and women—not only of our armed forces but also our NATO allies as well—who all made this moment of national elation and pride possible. And to Navy SEAL Team Six (or NSWDG, or DEVGRU, or whatever you guys are calling yourselves nowadays), who accomplished the actual deed without so much as a single casualty—Great JOB, Guys!  We owe you BIG TIME!

Now let’s hope we can stabilize Afghanistan and extract our troops from this quagmire at the earliest possible.

And, on a related note:  I heard that The Donald is already demanding to see the long-form death certificate because the usual, legally-recognized short form isn’t good enough for him.

Comments Off on A Very Special Thanks to Our Military Heroes

Filed under Opinion Piece