by Blake Thomas

www.blakethomaseditorial.com

Next year's 2008 presidential election could prove to be an election full of firsts for our two hundred and thirty two year old republic - the question I have to ask. Are we as a nation ready yet for our first gay president?

This campaign not only features our first candidate of color, but our first female as well. If elected, she will be the first female president whose husband happens to be a former president. I guess that would make her former First Lady, President Hillary Clinton and her husband would be - First Husband, Former President Bill Clinton. To take a line from one of my favorite TV game shows; "Will the real President Clinton please stand up?"

With the latest headlines swirling around the now resigned Senator Craig from Idaho allegedly soliciting sex from an undercover male police officer in the news, and the state of Florida's own Mark Foley, who was out-ed during an investigation regarding his solicitation of congressional pages in 2006, we must be getting close. Keep in mind these two gentlemen are not the first.

There was the Honorable Steve Gunderson, a Republican who was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Wisconsin - Gunderson is considered to be the first known gay elected to the House of Representatives. The Honorable James Kolbe who also served as a Republican in the U.S. House of Representatives from the state of Arizona is credited with being the second known openly gay Representative.

Can you imagine some of the initial questions asked of our first openly gay president upon his arrival to the White House? Assuming the now gay president has a significant other, what would he prefer his significant other to be called? Would protocol dictate he be called the First Lady or the First Significant Other? What about decorating the private Presidential quarters? Would the President or his male companion make those final decisions regarding semi-gloss, egg shell, or faux finish? Would it be appropriate that all the presidential guest rooms like the Lincoln bedroom for example be retrofitted with chenille bolster pillows and animal print throws on every bed?

I'm sure there would be plenty of fresh cut flowers. Flowers always seem to create a happy and calming mood in any home. I wonder if the new President and his friend would designate Bravo and HGTV as the official cable networks of the White House. What about all of those painted portraits of past surly presidents, some sporting powdered wigs and strong overcoats that line each hallway and parlor? I'm sure they would stay.

Then there is his Cabinet, would he appoint representatives from the "Fab-Five" to help him spruce up his wardrobe, or add a little color to the oval office? Maybe a special cocktail could be created in honor of his new found Presidential status. I guess we finally won't be so surprised when he spends $400 on his haircut this time. The question is - will he choose to use a clear polish on his nails or just a good buff after each manicure?

I'm sure we are closer than we think. Some would say we have already had a president that has been gay. One head of the FBI comes to mind. I'm sure when the time comes and it finally happens, he or she will be the most qualified for the job. If anything, maybe this will be the event that puts a little pride back into the office of the Presidency. Surely one good side effect will be an almost certain rise in property values in either direction on Pennsylvania Avenue. May God Bless America!

Blake Thomas's work is regularly seen in the Baker County Standard.

Some people my age are so ignorant. It is almost an embarrassment to the rest of us to call these people our peers.

I heard that this past Friday night at the football game two boys from Red Bud showed up at the game belligerently drunk. This was the first mistake. Then they proceeded to "fight" behind the crowd and caused a scene. Eventually it was stopped and the kids got in a bunch of trouble.

I personally was not at the game so I didn't get to witness the idiotic performance but that is the gist of it all.

First I am going to ask: Why would you go to a SCHOOL FUNCTION drunk? That is probably one of the most stupid things you could do. If you really want to get drunk don't go to a public event afterwards... let alone a school football game.

Secondly, if you do choose to go to a school activity drunk, why would you cause a scene and draw attention to yourself? That is pretty much just begging to get in trouble.

Third, do you think you're cool? It might just be my opinion but I am going to have to go with a big fat NO to answer that question.

Basically all these kids accomplished was making big fools of themselves, getting in a lot of trouble that could have easily been avoided, and they will from now on always be known as the drunk idiots from Red Bud that got into a fight at the football game.

Even my ten year old sister can understand that going to public places while intoxicated is not a good idea; why can't these 17, 18 year old boys understand? Plus, you are underage... isn't the point to not get caught?

Let's try and step it up a notch peers. If you want to party and drink, at least be sneaky about it. Let's not make our generation the next laughingstock of society.

A cold clamminess swept over my entire body last week when, while taking some routine pictures, my old, dear, and trusted camera made a peculiar noise and refused to work anymore, flashing the error message "99."

I don't know what that means, but it can't be good.

I have a particular fondness for this camera, a Canon 10D digital. It's not my first camera, but it's the only camera I've used since becoming what I consider a pretty fair photographer.

I was a late and reluctant comer to the field of photography, and I suppose if and when I ever get out of the newspaper business (scandal?... retirement?... death?...), I probably won't ever pick up a camera again.

But it's an important part of what we do, and our newspaper never truly came into its own until I learned this very elemental lesson of community journalism: people like to see their pictures in the paper. More specifically, pictures of their kids, their friends, and their friends' kids.

So even though I wasn't a good photographer, and even though I had little interest in becoming a good one, I figured I should try, for the sake of the business.

When we bought the Sun, previous owners John Glanzner and Bud Strake didn't even own a camera. They took zero pictures.

After a couple of months, I bought a Minolta film camera, and I ended up buying two or three more along the way, thinking if I bought a better camera, I'd take better pictures. That's another lesson I learned the hard way.

I never really learned to use any of the film cameras I bought.

When digital photography came into play, I bought a cheap digital camera that I used for a while before popping for the 10D. Even then, I used it for quite a while before I really started trying to learn about photography, how to consistently produce quality images in all sorts of environments.

And while I didn't exactly become Helmut Newton overnight, I began to study and understand the principles of aperture and shutter and film speed and the way they affect images.

The first couple of times I shot an event using manual rather than automatic settings, I actually wrote crib notes on my hand. Lower aperture number, more light, less depth of field. Lower shutter speed, more light, more depth of field.

I am only a decent photographer because of the advances of digital. Since I basically taught myself how to take pictures, the immediate feedback provided by digital allows me to make the adjustments I need to, even now.

I have great respect for photographers who never saw the digital age and were able to produce outstanding images simply by trusting their own instinct for understanding light and shadow and the way the camera interprets them.

So I grew up as a photographer using my trusty 10D. At times, it has felt like it was attached to my body, in place of a hand. Edward CameraHands.

For the past week or so, I've been using another camera that I bought when we still had a reporter working for us. It's a nice camera, a Canon Rebel, but it's been sitting on a shelf for the better part of a year.

I despise it, mostly because it doesn't feel right. Everything is about small these days when it comes to cameras, and this one is no exception. I feel like Gulliver using a Lilliputian's camera.

The down side of digital photography is that cameras have become like computers. With each new generation--and it seems like they come up with something new every couple of months--the older models become outdated.

And as the cameras change, so do the places where they hide the controls and settings. I've become so accustomed to the combinations of lever flicks and button pushes that produce different images on the 10D, I can change settings without looking for the most part.

Everything is different on the Rebel, or almost everything. I think the shutter is at least in the same place.

Even so, it doesn't seem right to go spend a couple of grand on a new camera when I already have a perfectly functioning one on hand, and doing so would contradict my own principle that the equipment has much less to do with the quality of images than the operator.

I admit there's a certain satisfaction in seeing photographers from large dailies show up with expensive lenses and bags of accessories and 80 million mega-pixel cameras, and knowing I can produce images that are as good or better than theirs with my cheap old four-megapixel 10D and a knockoff utility lens.

Even if I bought a new camera, it wouldn't be possible to buy a 10D, because they don't make them anymore. So I'd still have to adjust.

And who knows? Maybe Error 99 isn't as ominous as it sounds. Perhaps the 10D will ride again.