Yes I know, first I'm writing about the likelihood of contacting alien civilizations, then I'm talking about immortal humans who have sex for three days straight and write books in their sleep, and then about creepy flickrites, and now I am writing about watching ants.  You don't come here for consistency.

I was leaving my office around lunchtime the other day for a brief walk.  The front of the building has a raised garden with some azaleas and a really nice looking stone wall bordering it.  As I walked out I noticed the wall was swimming in tiny black ants.  Not the big ones you see wondering solo, but hordes of teensy ones.  Usually that means that a tasty food item has been discovered and the colony is out to disassemble it and carry it back.  I could see where the ants were clumped up, but didn't notice anything there that I recognized as anything ants would want to eat.  But I figured maybe somebody had spilled a soda and they were gobbling up dried sugars right off the rockface.  I went off to my walk and didn't think any more about it.

Later that night when I left work, I glanced at the wall and noticed the big cluster of ants was still there, but it had moved a few feet to the right.  Again no food was evident.  Just ants in a big tangled mass.  So I leaned close to peer at them and noticed that ants were bunching up around other ants, and apparently biting each other.  Other ants seemed to be carrying away dead (or dying ants).  I leaned back and noticed that unlike a typical feeding situation where you see a river of ants leading from the colony to the food and back, this was the meeting place of two rivers of ants.  One from one crevice about 5 feet to the left, and another from a crevice about 4 feet to the right.

That's when I realized I wasn't watching a feeding frenzy.  I was watching a war.  It was an epic battle between two colonies of ants that had both claimed this rock wall as their territory.  Thousands upon thousands of ants continually poured from both crevices, and converged in the center to engage in a massive melee.  It was mesmerizing to watch the supply lines bringing in fresh ants as the wounded or the dead were hauled away (presumably as food).  They moved in tides and complex whorling patterns as they made war... it was so intricate it was actually mesmerizing.  I checked my camera bag but I had neglected to bring ANY macro lenses with me that day, or I would have had pictures of all-out insect warfare and abject carnage to upload to my photostream.

It made me a little sad to think of these ants fighting for hours over a few feet of turf.  After 15 minutes I suddenly realized the time and made a mental note to bring my macro lens to work today.

But when I arrived this morning, the battle was over, and the battlefield had been swept clean.  Had I not noticed it, the day before, I never would have known it had happened.  In my inner thoughts I could not help but make the connection between the affairs of the ants and the affairs of humanity.  In 100,000 years, if humans are still here, what great battles and wretched suffering of ours will have passed into the unknown?  Will we forget World War 2?  Will we forget the Holocaust?  Will we repeat it?  Big thoughts from the tragic ant war of June 25, 2008.

---

What is it that prevents some people from realizing when they are being creepy?  I recently uploaded some photos to my flickr photostream from a birthday party I attended.  Then later I was tooling around in the Fitchburg Photo Pool and saw some cool architectural photos, so I left a comment telling the photographer I thought the shots were nice.

Within minutes I had three e-mails.  The first was flickr informing me that the photographer had added me as a contact.  The second seemed nice enough, the photographer wanted to talk about other landmarks that were good to shoot.  The third seemed a little peculiar and forward for someone who doesn't know me from dirt:

 "Hey how do you know that girl XXXXX in your photostream?  She's a real knockout!"

So I responded about Fitchburg landmarks, and on the second item, remarked just that she was a friend of a friend, and that she was very photogenic.

Within minutes, two more e-mails.  More chatting about landmarks and camera gear as well, and the second:

 "Man is she cute.  Hmm."

So I'm getting a little weirded out by this dude.  I mean, if you are friends with someone it's one thing to compliment someone they know once, but if you barely know a person it's kind of creepy to do it repeatedly.  So I decided I didn't really want to keep talking to this guy, and chose not to respond.

A few minutes later, another e-mail comes along:

 "Do you think she would let me take some shots of her sometime?"

Yeah.  That will happen.  She's going to pose for some stranger on the internet because a friend of a friend photographed her at a party.  Who asks a question like this of someone they barely know?  I have a terrible time just asking people I do know if they will pose for me.

Any way, I really didn't want to talk to creepy dude any more, I knew if I called him on it I'd get assured up and down that his request was completely innocent in nature.  As if it is quite normal to ask strangers on the internet if you can photograph their friends.  I mean seriously, if you are THAT desperate for models, there are places to go (http://www.modelmayhem.com/).  So I just blocked him... that will be the end of that, thanks.

I generally think it wise, when someone adds you as a contact on flickr, or favorites one of your photos, to check their profile and see what groups they subscribe to, and to also check their favorites.  It's usually quite clear when they are using flickr for something other than an appreciation of great (or even mediocre) photography.  If you see anything that looks creepy, it's probably a good idea to block them.

Creepy dude didn't have any bizarre group subscriptions or prurient favorites that I could see, but his behavior was enough to warrant the block IMHO.  The only thing his profile had to say about him other than a laundry list of his gear was that he was "Male and single".

Call me "Male and unsurprised".

---

Street photography isn't really my thing, but I try to do it from time to time.  The problem I have is that I am very shy about taking pictures of people without their permission, even though by and in large, I have a right to do so in public.  I find if you get permission, the subject changes and loses the look that drew you to the photo in the first place.

This is why I am always amazed (or cringing) when I see real street photographers at work.  I am just not as brave as these guys:

(video) Joel Meyerowitz On Street Photography

(video) WNYC Streetshots: Bruce Gilden

 

Friends and readers, ULev has acquired its own troll.  I should feel flattered I guess, but this coward is such a scumbag he's not above leaving anonymous comments insulting my daughter.  What does this mean for everyone else?  From now on once you post a comment it will be sent to me for moderation.  This means it will not appear on the blog until I approve it.  I apologize for the delay.  Thank the asshole.

"What you have to spew and spread is extremely dangerous ... it's dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists! This is the Land of Lincoln where people believe in God. Get out of that seat ... You have no right to be here! We believe in something. You believe in destroying! You believe in destroying what this state was built upon."

-- Rep. Monique Davis (D-Chicago), speaking to atheist Rob Sherman

If Rob Sherman was a Jew or a Muslim or a Methodist or anything but an atheist, Representative Monique Davis would be openly castigated from every direction (and deservedly so).  But it's okay to hate atheists here.  Welcome to my country.

Mr. Sherman was testifying to the Illinois House State Government Administration Committee about a one million dollar grant slated to go to a Baptist church that was trying to rebuild from a fire.  As you know churches already don't pay taxes, so it seems rather curious that anyone would think it okay for tax money to go to a church--especially in a country where church and state are supposed to be separate.  The grant money story is pretty smelly all on its own, but I am not at all surprised that any outspoken atheist would have an opinion on the matter, and might choose to testify to government bodies on the matter.

But Monique Davis feels otherwise.  She feels atheists have no right to testify to the American government.  And for that matter we are destroyers, and dangerous to children.  And it's okay to censor or silence us.  Oh and the country was founded on Christian principles.

How does someone like this even get elected in the first place? Shame on you Monique Davis.  You madam, are no Democrat.

Hat tip to the excellent science blog Pharyngula for the story.  You won't be hearing about it on Fox.

Well I hit the polling station this morning on my way to work and did my civic duty.  I stared at that ballot for a long hard time trying to decide what was most important to me.

I like both of these candidates, and I have an admiration for them both.  In the end, in what was to my mind, a battle between practicality and idealism, practicality won, and Hillary Clinton got my vote.

But I think Barack will be the winner, and that's okay too.  I'll be just as happy to vote for him on election day.

After voting I asked the election observer if I could photograph the polling station.  She called her boss and checked and said that I could do so but only if I stood "behind the rail" which put me in an awkward position, leading to the overly wide crop you see above.  But that's okay, I was still happy to take the shot.  I think it came out pretty good considering I was rushing.  Two different wards vote here, 2B and 2A.  I'm in ward 2A.  Turnout, according to the volunteers and staffers present, had been slow.  When I put my ballot in the counting machine said it was number 67 for the day.  One of the volunteers said the weather was contributing to the slow turnout and that she thought it would pick up later.

I would hope so!

I had heard on Save Fitchburg that someone would be present collecting signatures for a petition to revisit the charter of the City of Fitchburg for possible revision.  The charter hasn't been updated since the early 1970's, but nobody was there doing that when I showed up.  Hmm.

EDIT: I forgot to mention, I handed out a couple of my photography business cards while I was there!  Hopefully something good will come of that.

It's funny that James wrote about this today, because I wrote about it last night on a discussion forum.  I'm pleased that James and I saw the same videos and came to the same conclusions.  If you haven't heard, a young man (Andrew Meyer) caused a disruption at a John Kerry Q&A forum and finally was removed by the police.  During his removal he became more combative and resisted the officers which ended up getting him arrested and finally tasered as it was the only way to get him to stop shouting and remove him from the hall.  Predictably (I suppose) people have seen an editted version of the video that makes Mr. Meyer look like more of a victim than he actually was and the most outspoken conclusions I see on YouTube basically boil down to "he asked a question 'they' didn't like so he was tasered and arrested, wake up America, we are living in a dictatorship".  *yawn*

Anyway, here's what I wrote on a discussion forum where someone had posted the editted version of the video under the heading "A Most Terrifying Video":

The video was editted to make the kid look more like a victim than he was. There is a more complete video with commentary that makes the kid's behavior easier to see through and makes the cops behavior more understandable:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=1na1hcGQCHg

I'm a liberal and I believe in civil liberties. The kid was totally in control of that situation, he WANTED a big scene and he got it. He was totally playing to the cameras.

The cops were standing behind him because he had a reputation for causing trouble at public events. The moment he took the mic and began speaking one of the college officials went to the police and said "he's a troublemaker, watch out". This made the police suspicious of him. At one point a police officer told him to finish his question and let Kerry answer, he responded rudely (through the mic so everyone could hear) and continued. As Kerry tried to answer the boy's first question, he ignored Kerry and launched into his second question. It was clear at that point he was there to talk not to Kerry, but to the crowd.

Well it's cool if you want to talk to a crowd. You can put a video on YouTube, or you can schedule your own rally and see who shows up, but you can't just grab the mic, take the floor, and talk whatever crap you want as if it is your show. It's not your show and the organizers are going to eject you if you won't play nicely, which they attempted to do at the end of his THIRD question which is the part you got to see. No surprises there.

All this boy had to do is say "sorry officer, I'll cooperate" and in all likelihood they would explain to him why they were ejecting him the moment they got him out of the room. Which by the way, they did, except you don't get to see that because the video that was posted at the top of the thread doesn't include it. Heck, if he had cooperated they probably would have let him go at the door.

This video does show his detainment once they get him outside the room:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=7NWukZhsiBw

Watch that video where he reveals by his own behavior just how much of a neurotic nut he is:

"They're going to give me to the government! They're going to kill me!"

Those of you who think its actually okay to scream HELP HELP and WHY WHY when a police officer has decided to detain you should take heed: when the police arrest you, they are allowed to hold you and don't have to charge you with ANYTHING for 48 hours. That is the law of this country. If you don't agree with it, please contact your representatives and work to get the law changed. If a police officer tries to escort you out of a building, you DO NOT have a right to know why. If a police officer chooses to arrest you, you do not have a right to be told immediately why you have been arrested. If a cop tells you "stop shouting, and stop resisting me or I am going to arrest you (or taser you)" and you choose to continue shouting and resisting, well duh, do the math.

The rights you do have upon arrest are read to you in long form, or in the abbreviated form:

"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to be speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense."

Did you see "you have the right to know why you are being arrested" or "you have the right to scream loudly and resist arrest"? Me neither. That's because we don't have those rights.

It's a shame this boy provoked the police into tasering him by repeatedly refusing to cooperate. I'm sorry he got tasered, but freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom to disrupt a political rally. Watch the full video and pay attention to the commentary, and watch the second video that shows what happens outside, how he keeps craning his neck so he can shout to the cameras... because he's all about the cameras.

1. http://youtube.com/watch?v=1na1hcGQCHg

2. http://youtube.com/watch?v=7NWukZhsiBw

I'm trying not jump to conclusions (paranoia is unhealthy). As far as I can see, this boy orchestrated what happened to him through his own behavior and could have put a stop to it at any time.

There are a lot of affronts to free speech in this country, serious ones that we should be concerned about ("free speech zones" for example: http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/08/04/hilden.freespeech/index.html), but this nut and his bad performance art does not qualify. He should have been ejected, and he was.

(Or anywhere on the internet really.)  People will find your images, copy them, and use them for their own purposes.

I mention this because I have just heard about  Flickr user "Lara Jade" who recently discovered that a self portrait she photographed when she was 14 years old was used as the cover for a pornographic DVD without her knowledge.  The responses she has received from the DVD company border on the bizarre and betray an extremely warped sense of morality and personal responsibility.

Sadly for Lara Jade, she cannot afford the legal fees necessary to pursue the matter, especially since she lives in the UK and the photo was misappropriated by a company operating in the USA.

Read her story here.

Those of you who post personal or family photos are advised to publish them as "private" photos -- viewable only by people you name as family or friends.  This is not something I've ever worried about on my blog, but I am now wrestling with the idea of marking some of my photo albums as private.  If that happens, anybody who wants to view those albums will need to create a reader account so I can add you as an approved reader.  I haven't decided what I am going to do.  This could be a good opportunity to just switch to Flickr.  I'll have to think on it.