Eliot Spitzer
Mar. 12th, 2008 10:42 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumWas, as Lindsay nails it ultimately, the victim of hubris.
As someone who has made a big deal about reform, who has campaigned as a moralist, this shit is stupid, almost beyond words.
Given the enemies he's made, he was foolish to think he could keep this below the radar (and in an election year... WTF, has he no political sense?). Should he resign over it? I don't know. I'm not in NY, and don't have a feel for the actual magnitude of the offense. From the outside, given his track record as a prosecutor, and his recent efforts to increase the punishment for johns; to say nothing of simple consistency, I think he needs to resign, and face the music. Mind you, if he should stay, I don't have a real problem with that either. What I'd really like to see is some consitency on the part of all those people who were up in arms about the attempts to make a structuring charge against Limbaugh protesting the attempts to frame such a charge against Spitzer.
I'd also like to see all the people who've been defending Vitter, step up and defend Spitzer. The folks who've been ignoring Vitter, can help themselves to a steaming mug of shut-up. If they want to try and explain why Vitter's actions are somehow different (in a legal sense) from Spitzer's, well that's some sophistry I'd like to see.
But I'd really like to see how it is anyone can howl for the head of Spitzer when what he did was venal, but not really a threat to the office. His jeopardy is more from it being illegal (because of the potential for someone who wasn't looking to get him put out of office) to blackmail him for favors.
It's not as if he was violating a law written specifically to prevent him from doing something. A law like, oh, I don't know, FISA. It's not as if, when caught he said, "yes, I've been breaking the law, and I'm going to keep breaking it," as with the President and, oh, I don't know, FISA.
There are a lot of things I wonder about. Why were the feds looking at this prostitution. It's not a crime they care about much. Wiretaps are expensive. Legal ones even more so. They take warrants, personell to man, equipment, and people to go over the tapes.
It's a nice piece of luck for someone that Spitzer just happened to be using the service they were tapping.
The conspiracy minded might say it looks too convenient.
Jane Hamsher, and some of the other folks at Firedoglake, which includes a former prosecutor in the US Atty's office, have more, questions about the details. There are also some interesting speculations about the why of this, and just what purpose the charges have.
Paul Campos (of the Rocky Mountain News) want's to know if Spitzer was targetted becuase it seems the bank reported him to the IRS who reported him to the FBI. One would think Spitzer, as someone who did that sort of prosecuting would either have avoided the problem altogether, or had a better idea how to hide the trail.
The argument that the money looked suspicious, on its face, is somewhat farcial. Spitzer has a lot of money, these were large sums for most of us (I can't really imagine spending $5,000 grand on date, even if I knew I was gauranteed to get lucky at the end of the evening. I'd be buying a new camera, or car, perhaps a horse. Not a night on the town), but for him they aren't all that big a deal.
It's not as if there's not a history of such things being done in the past; some such things being done by people in the present Gov't (the Young Republicans is nothing, if not an amazing tale of sordid tricks to get access to power).
So Spitzer was stupid, but everyone who is manning the barricades and yelling for his ouster, who isn't also screaming for similar accountability for far worse crimes; crimes against the people, not just a dipping into the sordid stories of personal weakness on matters earthy, is, at best, deluded about what really matters, at worst a cynical ass; looking to consolidate power, or (most likely) just a run of the mill hypocrite who doesn't care about keeping one set of rules for friends, and another one for opponents.
As someone who has made a big deal about reform, who has campaigned as a moralist, this shit is stupid, almost beyond words.
Given the enemies he's made, he was foolish to think he could keep this below the radar (and in an election year... WTF, has he no political sense?). Should he resign over it? I don't know. I'm not in NY, and don't have a feel for the actual magnitude of the offense. From the outside, given his track record as a prosecutor, and his recent efforts to increase the punishment for johns; to say nothing of simple consistency, I think he needs to resign, and face the music. Mind you, if he should stay, I don't have a real problem with that either. What I'd really like to see is some consitency on the part of all those people who were up in arms about the attempts to make a structuring charge against Limbaugh protesting the attempts to frame such a charge against Spitzer.
I'd also like to see all the people who've been defending Vitter, step up and defend Spitzer. The folks who've been ignoring Vitter, can help themselves to a steaming mug of shut-up. If they want to try and explain why Vitter's actions are somehow different (in a legal sense) from Spitzer's, well that's some sophistry I'd like to see.
But I'd really like to see how it is anyone can howl for the head of Spitzer when what he did was venal, but not really a threat to the office. His jeopardy is more from it being illegal (because of the potential for someone who wasn't looking to get him put out of office) to blackmail him for favors.
It's not as if he was violating a law written specifically to prevent him from doing something. A law like, oh, I don't know, FISA. It's not as if, when caught he said, "yes, I've been breaking the law, and I'm going to keep breaking it," as with the President and, oh, I don't know, FISA.
There are a lot of things I wonder about. Why were the feds looking at this prostitution. It's not a crime they care about much. Wiretaps are expensive. Legal ones even more so. They take warrants, personell to man, equipment, and people to go over the tapes.
It's a nice piece of luck for someone that Spitzer just happened to be using the service they were tapping.
The conspiracy minded might say it looks too convenient.
Jane Hamsher, and some of the other folks at Firedoglake, which includes a former prosecutor in the US Atty's office, have more, questions about the details. There are also some interesting speculations about the why of this, and just what purpose the charges have.
Paul Campos (of the Rocky Mountain News) want's to know if Spitzer was targetted becuase it seems the bank reported him to the IRS who reported him to the FBI. One would think Spitzer, as someone who did that sort of prosecuting would either have avoided the problem altogether, or had a better idea how to hide the trail.
The argument that the money looked suspicious, on its face, is somewhat farcial. Spitzer has a lot of money, these were large sums for most of us (I can't really imagine spending $5,000 grand on date, even if I knew I was gauranteed to get lucky at the end of the evening. I'd be buying a new camera, or car, perhaps a horse. Not a night on the town), but for him they aren't all that big a deal.
It's not as if there's not a history of such things being done in the past; some such things being done by people in the present Gov't (the Young Republicans is nothing, if not an amazing tale of sordid tricks to get access to power).
So Spitzer was stupid, but everyone who is manning the barricades and yelling for his ouster, who isn't also screaming for similar accountability for far worse crimes; crimes against the people, not just a dipping into the sordid stories of personal weakness on matters earthy, is, at best, deluded about what really matters, at worst a cynical ass; looking to consolidate power, or (most likely) just a run of the mill hypocrite who doesn't care about keeping one set of rules for friends, and another one for opponents.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: Cameras
Date: 2008-03-20 12:35 am (UTC)I think (based on my D2, that the D3 would require an extension tube, but the D300 wouldnt.
Worst case, I get make a board, and put a mount ring on it. Those are dirt cheap (the easiest would be to glue a filter into the board (thus reducing the dust in the bellows), and then using a reversing ring ($10) et voila.
I with the exception of a couple of Tamron lenses (which are of congifurations which weren't practical as little as ten years ago) I don't have lens more recent than about 1989.
Which has led to some amusing assumptions of the whippersnappers on flickr.
TK
Re: Cameras
Date: 2008-03-20 12:58 am (UTC)Still haven't come across anything sharper than my old dual-range Summicron, unfortunately, it doesn't focus closer than to about a sheet of typing paper. Worked well with Kodachrome, though. Once did a series of a goldsmith sizing a ring with it, using Tri-X, you could make a fingerprint ID from the pix.
Still waiting for a winning lottery ticket to get another Linhof and a digital back. Dangit. One of these days, maybe.
Yep, some of the stuff on Flickr is ... interesting. I still get giggles from the newbies and multi-frame drives. May as well use a Hulcher.
Re: Cameras
Date: 2008-03-20 02:07 am (UTC)The precious one was my praising someone for a good use of DoF, and being told, "It's not depth of field, it's bokeh."
Heh.
The Summicron, if it were on a different mount, wouldn't suffer from a tube. You could make one.
TK
Re: Cameras
Date: 2008-03-20 03:30 am (UTC)I like that. Nothing like wearing blinders, eh?
Hadn't thought about mounting the Summicron in a tube. May talk to Bob Vaughan about machining one. Almost regret it not having 39mm threads, it'd be easier to machine. I suppose Leitz could make one up, if I sent them my left arm and firstborn. Bob will only want a bit of money for it.
lwj
Re: Cameras
Date: 2008-03-20 03:54 am (UTC)The trick with both of those (and the PVC was something like 500mm of extension) is to take a flat black (ideally velvet flocking) spray to the inside, so you don't get reflective flare/loss of contrast.
I don't know how hard it would be to tap the PVC, beacause the pitch isn't a standard one (to say nothing of the diameter).
A lathe (ideally a screw lathe) would do it (yes, I used to be a machinist).
If you have a community college near you, with a machining program, the director might be willing to work with you to make a project.
And yeah, Bokeh is a quality of the non-focused area, in a picture with a limited DoF, so WTF?
TK
Re: Cameras
Date: 2008-03-20 03:34 pm (UTC)Main problem with my DR Summicron is that it's a Leica bayonet mount, makes things a bit more interesting.
If I do this, I'll probably set it up for a view camera and pick up an inexpensive one somewhere. (Unless, of course, someone has lost their mind completely and I can get a Deardorf or Linhof for a hundred bucks.) Making a mount with a flat piece of brass or steel will be a lot easier.
Then all I'll have to do is find someone with an in-control Ekachrome line around here. Probably have to go to Richmond or the D.C metro area.
Lathe isn't a problem, Bob Vaughan has a lovely machinist's lathe, he makes parts for old woodworking equipment with it, or my cousin, who has both a Bridgeport and a Southbend lathe. (We won't discuss moving those bastards, it was ... interesting. Never underestimate what you can get out of a bunch of teenagers who need money for the weekend.)
Peculiar, how tastes change back and forth. When I was learning the basics of portraiture at Glogau Studios, we never took a shot with less than a twelve inch lense, usually stopped no further down than f8, if not f5.6 for what Madame called "selective focus." Retouched the hell out of the negs, too. Very old-European school.
lwj
Re: Cameras
Date: 2008-03-20 04:47 pm (UTC)After all, since you don't care which body ring you have (so long as it mounts to the lens) you can probably find a trashed camera on e-bay/craigslist and salvage the parts.
That 12", what was the format, 8x10? If so, the changes aren't so dramtic, since that's a (roughly) 75mm lens, and the f-stop is (more, or less) about 2. The present trend is to about a 105, with an f-stop of about 4. I think the longer length just lets people get a narrower depth of field, at the higher f-levels.
Since there are some quirks with Dof (the finest thing you can resolve will be no smaller than the opening of the aperture, once you leave the plane of critical focus) and that allows the eyes to be in focus, even if the photographer is a little off.
TK
Re: Cameras
Date: 2008-03-22 01:05 am (UTC)We used to use 90mm Angulons for exhibit work with a Crown Graphic 4x5, a 65mm Super Angulon for interior work. Commercial studio stuff we usually used about a 250mm on 4x5. Probably a Symmar. (We likes Schneider lenses, yes, we does, the precioussss.)
Used M-2/3/4 series bodies are going for beaucoup bucks, even trashed. I sold a junker for about $750 ten years ago to a dealer on your side of the country. ISTR he had about $500 in repairs to make -- old age had caught up with it, needed a shutter overhaul, minor cosmetic stuff and he was going to re-calibrate the rangefinder.
I haven't seen a bayonet mount as such that wasn't part of a body, the only one Leitz offered (to my knowlege) was an adapter ring for 39mm screw thread to the bayonet body, last I looked it was running almost $100. Leitz will never be low bid on anyone's list.
Leitz is still making a rangefinder camera, as I recall it's running about 5+ grand, box only, new.
It's available as digital (M-8) or film (M-7), here's the urls:
http://en.leica-camera.com/photography/m_system/m8/
http://en.leica-camera.com/photography/m_system/m7/
Funny story from way back, Terry. Press conference at Russkie embassy (late sixties), usual horde shows up. Photog from the Washington Post drags out a Nikon F. Politely escorted out by KGB guard, "We only allow professionals here." Those of us with Leicas, the odd Contax and Rolleis in our bags laughed our asses off. The Russkies are still (or were then) touchy about the 1905 war, it seems.
lwj