I just wanted to give a shout out to my college, Wittenberg University in Springfield, Ohio. This past December I watched online the Wittenberg's women volleyball team defeat Christopher Newport University for the NCAA Division III National Championship. Wittenberg has long been a football/basketball school. Their football program was the first (and only) Division III school to reach 700 wins. The basketball program, celebrating its 100th season this year, has more wins than any other Division III school. Additionally the basketball program has not had a losing season over the past 50 years, as well as appearing in the Division III tournament more times than any other school. While I attended Wittenberg, both the football team and the basketball team won a Division III national championship. Overall, the football team holds five national titles while the basketball team holds two.
The Princeton Review named Wittenberg as number 18 on their list of most beautiful campus in America. It also came in at number 19 for top professors. More Wittenberg professors have been named top professor of the year in the state of Ohio than any other school in Ohio, including Ohio State.
I enjoyed my time at Wittenberg. Last November I went by the campus for a quick visit and was impressed with how well they have improved the facilities over the years. The school makes a good first impression. Not sure I could afford the cost of today's Wittenberg though, but that is probably true with most private schools today.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
The Updegroves and Bethany Beach
Our family has been going to Bethany Beach, Delaware for pretty much my whole life. It is like my second home, wanting to be my first. Anyhow, I've been wanting to put together a photo book for the family, revolving largely around my brother Dave's family. This past Christmas was a good time to finally put it together. Here is a preview. Click on the large version for best viewing.
Monday, January 9, 2012
A Better Finder Rename
One of my pet peeves with digital photography is the random filenames people use for their photos. Most people seem to do one of two things with their digital files: 1. they leave the filename as is from their camera (ie, dsc001), or 2. they rename the file with something like "Doug&Joanne_front_of_house". I guess for some people this all makes sense, but for me it does not. I like organization; and for me, with hundreds of thousands of photos on various hard drives, I need organization. I want my file names to make sense to me. So what do I do?
When I download images from my camera(s), the very first thing I do is batch rename all of the images. Now, I usually shoot with two cameras. That means at least two cards with photos taken trading off cameras throughout the day. When I bring all the images from all the cards onto my computer hard drive, I want to be able to organize all the photos by the time they were taken, and then rename all the files in a manner that makes sense to me for that particular photo shoot. Most people do not use two cameras, but those who do, here is the important step you need to take before shooting: be sure to sync the time clock between both cameras. You want to get them at least within maybe 3-4 seconds of each other. It does not matter if you are using two different kinds of cameras. Of course if you are shooting with only one camera, the time stamp does not matter, although I would strongly encourage you to set your camera time clock to the accurate time.
With all your images out of the camera and now on your hard drive, you want to be able to batch rename the files into a file name that makes sense. I use a very powerful program called A Better Finder Rename. To me it is the most intuitive program out there, with loads of options for all of your files, not just photos. Have 2000 images you want to change the file name . . piece of cake. Want to put all your images into chronological order AND rename them . . that is the whole idea of this program. So for something like a wedding, I will take the first initials of the bride and groom, add an underscore, then start the numbering with 0001. This will change my camera file name of "dsc6382", which means nothing to me, and changes it to "AB_0534". Or, as way of another example, photos taken on family vacation are changes from "_dsc3861" to "beach2011_0103". Like I mentioned before, there are loads of options: add text to the beginning of the file name, remove a couple digits in the middle, etc.
If you just have 3 or 4 files to rename, it is probably easier to do this manually; but if you have thousands or even hundreds to change, get A Better Finder Rename. There are other programs out there, some free, but this program is perfect at what it does. You can download a trial version that limits how many files you can batch rename, but it will give you a great experience with how well this program works.
When I download images from my camera(s), the very first thing I do is batch rename all of the images. Now, I usually shoot with two cameras. That means at least two cards with photos taken trading off cameras throughout the day. When I bring all the images from all the cards onto my computer hard drive, I want to be able to organize all the photos by the time they were taken, and then rename all the files in a manner that makes sense to me for that particular photo shoot. Most people do not use two cameras, but those who do, here is the important step you need to take before shooting: be sure to sync the time clock between both cameras. You want to get them at least within maybe 3-4 seconds of each other. It does not matter if you are using two different kinds of cameras. Of course if you are shooting with only one camera, the time stamp does not matter, although I would strongly encourage you to set your camera time clock to the accurate time.
With all your images out of the camera and now on your hard drive, you want to be able to batch rename the files into a file name that makes sense. I use a very powerful program called A Better Finder Rename. To me it is the most intuitive program out there, with loads of options for all of your files, not just photos. Have 2000 images you want to change the file name . . piece of cake. Want to put all your images into chronological order AND rename them . . that is the whole idea of this program. So for something like a wedding, I will take the first initials of the bride and groom, add an underscore, then start the numbering with 0001. This will change my camera file name of "dsc6382", which means nothing to me, and changes it to "AB_0534". Or, as way of another example, photos taken on family vacation are changes from "_dsc3861" to "beach2011_0103". Like I mentioned before, there are loads of options: add text to the beginning of the file name, remove a couple digits in the middle, etc.
If you just have 3 or 4 files to rename, it is probably easier to do this manually; but if you have thousands or even hundreds to change, get A Better Finder Rename. There are other programs out there, some free, but this program is perfect at what it does. You can download a trial version that limits how many files you can batch rename, but it will give you a great experience with how well this program works.
Monday, January 2, 2012
Batman Meets Lion King
This is an impressive bit of editing. Take the audio from the new Batman movie (Dark Night Rises) trailer and superimpose it over clips from The Lion King, and this is what you get:
Time To Not Get Serious About Climate Change
If I was interested in being politically and socially correct, I would blindly rally behind the global warming cause, joining those who blame humans for any change of weather. I would call for government to outlaw oil and coal, and to invest billions of dollars in alternative energy sources such as solar and wind, which admittedly are much more expensive and much less effective. I really would not care that going "green" would bankrupt our country, send millions of people to the unemployment line, and raise costs for every product out there. That is a small cost for me to feel good about saving the planet, and possibly prevent the earth's temperature from raising .3 degrees over the next hundred years.
I am willing to say it: I do not believe in man made climate change. I cannot say I am skeptical about climate change itself. That would be like saying I am skeptical of air. Air exists, regardless of what I choose to believe. The same holds for climate change. The earth we live on has been changing for thousands of years. Ice ages come and go. In between those ice ages are warming periods. If the earth is capable of shifting into a definitive period of time called an "ice age", it is also capable of shifting into less definitive periods of time when the earth temperature drifts up or down by fractions of a degree. This happened before man burned carbon for energy, it will most likely happen when man relies on some other energy source. Is it possible that the real deniers are those who just don't accept this?
Those who are climate change devotees will say that those who do not buy into man made climate change are anti-science. That could not be further from the truth. We are actually anti-bad science, and there seems to be plenty of bad science out there masquerading as "truth" when it comes to climate change. Likewise there is a lot of bad policy being implemented out there, all based on bad science. Today I recommend two articles that should help you understand why I have not jumped on this green bandwagon. Please take the time to read both articles in their entirety.
F. Fred Singer, professor emeritus at UVA, writes of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project:
What the BEST result shows is that surface thermometers from the land area of the globe (about 29% of the earth's surface) show a warming trend. But this is not global warming. And BEST director Professor Rich Muller explicitly disclaims that his trend results indicate a human cause.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/fake_fake_fake_fake.html#ixzz1iJI6w7Oz
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/two_silly_notions_biofuel_mandates_as_carbon_neutral_and_rhino_horn_medicine.html#ixzz1iJQb9snM
I am willing to say it: I do not believe in man made climate change. I cannot say I am skeptical about climate change itself. That would be like saying I am skeptical of air. Air exists, regardless of what I choose to believe. The same holds for climate change. The earth we live on has been changing for thousands of years. Ice ages come and go. In between those ice ages are warming periods. If the earth is capable of shifting into a definitive period of time called an "ice age", it is also capable of shifting into less definitive periods of time when the earth temperature drifts up or down by fractions of a degree. This happened before man burned carbon for energy, it will most likely happen when man relies on some other energy source. Is it possible that the real deniers are those who just don't accept this?
Those who are climate change devotees will say that those who do not buy into man made climate change are anti-science. That could not be further from the truth. We are actually anti-bad science, and there seems to be plenty of bad science out there masquerading as "truth" when it comes to climate change. Likewise there is a lot of bad policy being implemented out there, all based on bad science. Today I recommend two articles that should help you understand why I have not jumped on this green bandwagon. Please take the time to read both articles in their entirety.
F. Fred Singer, professor emeritus at UVA, writes of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project:
What the BEST result shows is that surface thermometers from the land area of the globe (about 29% of the earth's surface) show a warming trend. But this is not global warming. And BEST director Professor Rich Muller explicitly disclaims that his trend results indicate a human cause.
He also correctly points out that many of the weather stations used are badly distributed, mostly in the U.S. and western Europe, and possibly subject to local heating effects, such as urban heat islands. He cautions that a third of his monitoring stations show a cooling, not a warming. And that 70% of the U.S. stations are poorly situated and don't satisfy the requirements of the U.S. Weather Service. It is likely that stations elsewhere have similar problems.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/fake_fake_fake_fake.html#ixzz1iJI6w7Oz
And Clarice Feldman writes about the impact of biofuel farming in Africa:
The collapse of the London-based company Sun Biofuels, which grew jatropha in the district of Kasarawe for biodiesel, has left hundreds of villagers landless, jobless and in despair. In Mhaga village alone, a quarter of the land was acquired by the company in 
2008, with a promise of financial compensation, 700 jobs, water wells and improved schools, health clinics and roads. But the villages have not been paid for the land, and their neighbors in Mtamba tell the same story of broken promises and unpaid compensation. Tabu Koba is one of 9 in this village who received no payment for their land.We are very angry.' He says.'My children have left school and have nowhere to farm.'
2008, with a promise of financial compensation, 700 jobs, water wells and improved schools, health clinics and roads. But the villages have not been paid for the land, and their neighbors in Mtamba tell the same story of broken promises and unpaid compensation. Tabu Koba is one of 9 in this village who received no payment for their land.We are very angry.' He says.'My children have left school and have nowhere to farm.'
'The situation in Kisarawe is heartbreaking, but the real tragedy is that it's not unique, comments Josie Cohen of Action Aid. 'Communities across Africa are losing their land as a result of the massive biofuel targets set by [the UK] government.' Legalbrief Environmental
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/two_silly_notions_biofuel_mandates_as_carbon_neutral_and_rhino_horn_medicine.html#ixzz1iJQb9snM
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Obama and Christmas
I bash Barack Obama quite a bit, mostly because I believe he and his policies deserve it, and because it is so easy. Today's bashing comes from Andrew Schwartz, who comments on Obama's short speech at the "Christmas in Washington" television special. In his speech, Obama says: "This is the season to celebrate the story of how, more than two thousand years ago, a child was born to two faithful travelers who could find rest only in a stable, among cattle and sheep. He was no ordinary child. He was the manifestation of God's love. And every year we celebrate His birth because the story of Jesus Christ changed the world. For me, and for millions of Americans, His story has filled our hearts and inspired our lives. It [the story] moves us to love one another; to help and serve those less fortunate; to forgive; to draw close to our families; to be grateful for all that has been given to us; to keep faith; and to hold on to an enduring hope in humanity." --Barack Obama, Dec 11, 2011.
Schwartz comments:
Christians do not believe that it was "the story" of Christ that changed the world. It was the actual presence of Christ -- His birth, His ministry, His death, and His resurrection -- that changed the world. Nor is it "the story" of Christ that fills the Christian heart and inspires his life. It is the actual forgiveness of our sins, and His constant intercession, which allows the absolutely abhorrent to commune with the Supreme and Ultimate Authority of the universe, that inspires worship.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/12/obama_misses_the_real_reason_for_the_season.html#ixzz1gQ73Ci6z
Christians do not believe that it was "the story" of Christ that changed the world. It was the actual presence of Christ -- His birth, His ministry, His death, and His resurrection -- that changed the world. Nor is it "the story" of Christ that fills the Christian heart and inspires his life. It is the actual forgiveness of our sins, and His constant intercession, which allows the absolutely abhorrent to commune with the Supreme and Ultimate Authority of the universe, that inspires worship.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/12/obama_misses_the_real_reason_for_the_season.html#ixzz1gQ73Ci6z
Saturday, November 26, 2011
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Chris and Carlene at The Birkby House, Leesburg, VA
A few images from a small, short wedding ceremony at the Birkby House. We had a fair amount of rain and wet ground for most of the session, but all in all things worked out pretty well. Click on image to enlarge. For more images from this wedding, please click here.
Tommy & Anna at Berry Hill, South Boston, VA
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Occupying Wall Street
I suppose a person should not make a judgement on something without actually being there, but I believe I have seen enough of the Occupy Wall Street to draw a couple conclusions: 1) despite the handful of "normal" people shown on conventional news programs, the majority of the people involved are socialists, Marxists and anarchists; and 2) despite these OWS people hating having other people tell them how to live their lives, these OWS people are fundamentally telling other people how to live their lives. Let me start with that.
Back in the 1980's, the Christian Coalition and the Christian right were flexing their political muscle for the first time. Most of this revolved around social issues, specifically abortion. They wanted Roe v. Wade overturned. People on the left fought back. They did not want other people, especially church people, telling them how to live their lives or not giving them the ability to make their own choices regarding their lives (who cares if we're talking about the life of an unborn child). The catch phrase of the 80's was that you cannot legislate morality. In other words, individuals, particularly in America, have an expectation of personal responsibility and freedom to make moral decisions on their own, absent of compulsion from the government or from a group of outsiders. That was something that the left and the right could seemingly agree on.
Flash forward to 2011 and Occupy Wall Street. What do these people want? Well, the best answer to that is "who knows". They are all over the place. But fundamentally what I hear most of them demanding is what other people (and specifically the "rich") should do with their money and how "the rich" should live their lives. It ranges from placing limitations on how much someone can earn to hanging these people if they don't repent from making so much money. What they ultimately want is to legislate morality. They want to strip away an individual's freedom of choice; in this case, how much money that person chooses to make or retain. I'm not "rich", but I certainly do not want some smelly 20 year old Socialist wanna be telling me how much money I can earn or what I should do with what money I have.
Make no mistake, these OWS people are mostly Socialists, Marxists and anarchists. How do I know that? Listen to them. I heard several interviews with people saying that we should abolish money. One girl lamented how messed up our system is that a person has to work so hard just to make money so they could buy food. Others talk in what I could only call "college classroom talking points". They seem to parrot what they heard someone else say in a classroom, with no substance or rational thought that would help push their argument. "We demand that all debt be forgiven" Really? I'm guessing that is because no one owes you anything, right?
The OWS people want to overthrow America . . period. They want to do away with our Constitution and form a union that more resembles their utopia: the 1960's Soviet Union. To that end they have received the blessing of the Communist Party of America, Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and yes, Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi. Ah, the company you keep. These are Barack's people: rich trust fund white kids, socialist in nature, who love a good party with plenty of weed and sex; so they could take photos with their iphone and post on their facebook page, and say "I was there. Not sure what it was all about, wasn't quite sure how to answer the reporter's questions, but I scored some good weed, shouted some good chants, learned some new hand signals, got some free food. It was really groovy man."
And in the end: absolutely nothing was accomplished.
Back in the 1980's, the Christian Coalition and the Christian right were flexing their political muscle for the first time. Most of this revolved around social issues, specifically abortion. They wanted Roe v. Wade overturned. People on the left fought back. They did not want other people, especially church people, telling them how to live their lives or not giving them the ability to make their own choices regarding their lives (who cares if we're talking about the life of an unborn child). The catch phrase of the 80's was that you cannot legislate morality. In other words, individuals, particularly in America, have an expectation of personal responsibility and freedom to make moral decisions on their own, absent of compulsion from the government or from a group of outsiders. That was something that the left and the right could seemingly agree on.
Flash forward to 2011 and Occupy Wall Street. What do these people want? Well, the best answer to that is "who knows". They are all over the place. But fundamentally what I hear most of them demanding is what other people (and specifically the "rich") should do with their money and how "the rich" should live their lives. It ranges from placing limitations on how much someone can earn to hanging these people if they don't repent from making so much money. What they ultimately want is to legislate morality. They want to strip away an individual's freedom of choice; in this case, how much money that person chooses to make or retain. I'm not "rich", but I certainly do not want some smelly 20 year old Socialist wanna be telling me how much money I can earn or what I should do with what money I have.
Make no mistake, these OWS people are mostly Socialists, Marxists and anarchists. How do I know that? Listen to them. I heard several interviews with people saying that we should abolish money. One girl lamented how messed up our system is that a person has to work so hard just to make money so they could buy food. Others talk in what I could only call "college classroom talking points". They seem to parrot what they heard someone else say in a classroom, with no substance or rational thought that would help push their argument. "We demand that all debt be forgiven" Really? I'm guessing that is because no one owes you anything, right?
The OWS people want to overthrow America . . period. They want to do away with our Constitution and form a union that more resembles their utopia: the 1960's Soviet Union. To that end they have received the blessing of the Communist Party of America, Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and yes, Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi. Ah, the company you keep. These are Barack's people: rich trust fund white kids, socialist in nature, who love a good party with plenty of weed and sex; so they could take photos with their iphone and post on their facebook page, and say "I was there. Not sure what it was all about, wasn't quite sure how to answer the reporter's questions, but I scored some good weed, shouted some good chants, learned some new hand signals, got some free food. It was really groovy man."
And in the end: absolutely nothing was accomplished.
Friday, October 14, 2011
Jeremy & Betsy at Rust Manor, Leesburg Virginia
Here are a few quick picks from Jeremy and Betsy's October 8 wedding at Rust Manor. Click on image to enlarge. To see more images, go here.
Friday, September 30, 2011
Loudoun County Wedding Venues, Part 3
I previously posted some reviews of wedding venues in and around Loudoun County (click here and here). As with those reviews, my primary focus has to do with photography. Every venue but one I have been to has done an excellent job serving their clients (for the one exception, click here), and they have treated me well. In other words, when it comes to service and attitude and comfort, my perception is that all of these places are great. We are fortunate in this area to have so many outstanding places for weddings. Maybe the competition is what makes them that much better. Your decision on which venue to choose is probably more based on things like availability, price, size, and whether the venue fits your personality. My intent with these reviews is to give you a view from one photographer's perspective. I'm not judging the quality of the chicken served at dinner, but rather the quality of photo opportunities.
1757 Country Club - This is a relatively new venue for weddings. Photographically there are some nice spots out by the pond and along the course visible to the clubhouse. I have not had a chance to scope out the rest of the course to see if there are even better prospects for photos . . my guess is that there are a few more. Around the clubhouse/reception hall there isn't much to work with. The driving range is right up by the building in the back, the front is mostly parking, and the building, while nice inside, is not that picturesque on the outside. My guess is that most people use 1757 for the reception only and not for the ceremony. That is probably a good thing. I would hope that the ceremony would take place either in a better venue for photos, or that you could build in some time to stop somewhere else close by for photos (Claude Moore Park, Sully Park, Dulles Office Park are all possibilities). The room and facilities inside are very nice. Click here for sample photos from Leesburg and 1757 Country Club.
River Creek Country Club - I've done several receptions at River Creek and wish I had more there. Inside there is plenty of space and it is a good room for photos. Outside you have the golf course, and more importantly, the riverfront park. The park works well for the bride and groom. Not sure I would recommend taking a large wedding party down there, but that kind of depends on the lighting and the time of day. I would prefer to do larger groups up by the clubhouse. I have a full wedding at River Creek in June 2012 and can review what that was like. To me the ideal situation is to have the ceremony somewhere in Leesburg so you can do photos in downtown Leesburg, then complement that with photos down by the river at River Creek. Here too, there is not a whole lot to work with in front of the clubhouse. The back is more versatile, although still not perfect for photos. That is why having another location to use prior to the reception I think would be ideal. Click here for some sample photos taken in Leesburg and at River Creek.
Stone Manor - This Middletown Maryland venue is probably the best set up property I have seen for weddings. The reception takes place under a tent, which might not appeal to everyone; but the tent is set up and landscaped to look almost like just another building (okay, you still know it is a tent, but it is nice). The focal point of the property is the large stone manor house. Very nice inside and out. Plus there are old barns, a small bridge, gravel roadways, and lots of greenery. I was impressed with this place. A bit spread out for my taste, but all in all, lots to work with for photos. From a non-photo perspective, this place is pretty remote, with Frederick being the closest big town. Not the most convenient place for Loudoun folks, but not all that bad either. Definitely worth a look. Click here for sample photos from Stone Manor.
1757 Country Club - This is a relatively new venue for weddings. Photographically there are some nice spots out by the pond and along the course visible to the clubhouse. I have not had a chance to scope out the rest of the course to see if there are even better prospects for photos . . my guess is that there are a few more. Around the clubhouse/reception hall there isn't much to work with. The driving range is right up by the building in the back, the front is mostly parking, and the building, while nice inside, is not that picturesque on the outside. My guess is that most people use 1757 for the reception only and not for the ceremony. That is probably a good thing. I would hope that the ceremony would take place either in a better venue for photos, or that you could build in some time to stop somewhere else close by for photos (Claude Moore Park, Sully Park, Dulles Office Park are all possibilities). The room and facilities inside are very nice. Click here for sample photos from Leesburg and 1757 Country Club.
River Creek Country Club - I've done several receptions at River Creek and wish I had more there. Inside there is plenty of space and it is a good room for photos. Outside you have the golf course, and more importantly, the riverfront park. The park works well for the bride and groom. Not sure I would recommend taking a large wedding party down there, but that kind of depends on the lighting and the time of day. I would prefer to do larger groups up by the clubhouse. I have a full wedding at River Creek in June 2012 and can review what that was like. To me the ideal situation is to have the ceremony somewhere in Leesburg so you can do photos in downtown Leesburg, then complement that with photos down by the river at River Creek. Here too, there is not a whole lot to work with in front of the clubhouse. The back is more versatile, although still not perfect for photos. That is why having another location to use prior to the reception I think would be ideal. Click here for some sample photos taken in Leesburg and at River Creek.
Stone Manor - This Middletown Maryland venue is probably the best set up property I have seen for weddings. The reception takes place under a tent, which might not appeal to everyone; but the tent is set up and landscaped to look almost like just another building (okay, you still know it is a tent, but it is nice). The focal point of the property is the large stone manor house. Very nice inside and out. Plus there are old barns, a small bridge, gravel roadways, and lots of greenery. I was impressed with this place. A bit spread out for my taste, but all in all, lots to work with for photos. From a non-photo perspective, this place is pretty remote, with Frederick being the closest big town. Not the most convenient place for Loudoun folks, but not all that bad either. Definitely worth a look. Click here for sample photos from Stone Manor.
Friday, September 23, 2011
The Republican Debate of September 22
So I only caught the last half or so of the Republican Debate on Fox (there were better things to do, like watch Community and Big Bang Theory), but I got enough of a glimpse to form a few thoughts:
Gary Johnson - Probably the only reason this guy is making the highlight reel is his dog joke regarding shovel ready jobs. I listened to Rush Limbaugh earlier that day, and Rush used the same joke (not sure if Rush "borrowed" it from someone else or what). Johnson admitted this morning that the joke came as a suggestion from a caller to a local New Mexico radio show. Who knows, maybe that caller got it from Rush. Regardless, the joke was not something Johnson came up with on the spot or even on his own, so why should he get credit or extra debate points for using it? At the very least he should have prefaced the joke by saying something like "it reminds me of a joke I heard . ."
Rick Perry - I really want to like Rick Perry, but for some reason I am still unusually suspicious of him. His debate performances have been awful, and they don't seem to be getting any better. Right now he reminds me of Fred Thompson four years ago: lots of hype coming in, but just cannot live up to it. Organizationally he is in much better shape than Thompson ever was, which might save him; but as someone who doesn't know all that much about the guy, I have not been impressed with him yet.
Mitt Romney - Romney is someone I do not want to like, but his preparation and up front skills are two things that appeal to me. With Romney, I am not convinced that he would come into office ready and willing to wipe away all the junk that Obama and his administration have managed to add to government in the past three years. He seems fickle. Either he is coming into his own over the years, learning from his past mistakes, or he is just wishy washy. Wishy washy equals moderate. Of course even just being a moderate would be a stark contrast to Obama, but I want someone with conservative convictions at their very core. Yes, Romney has some business experience in his background, something he is quick to bring up to contrast himself with those candidates (Perry in particular) who have spent their careers in politics; but as someone pointed out, Romney drifted back into his business career only because he lost a political campaign. If Romney had won all those times, he would have had a longer political career.
Michelle Bachmann - I have always liked Bachmann. She seems sharp and accomplished. She is not a lightweight. It just does not seem possible that she would get the nomination. Whether that is because she is a woman or because she comes from the House or because she sometimes says something that make your head spin . . I don't know. She does not seem to have the straight talk populace appeal that Sarah Palin had as a vice presidential candidate, but I think Bachmann would actually make a better candidate as vice president than Palin, if given the chance.
Ron Paul - This guy will always be a fringe, cult-like candidate. He says some great things and then he says some really off the wall things. He, of all the candidates, would probably come into office with the biggest agenda shift. Questionable if he could get anyone else (particularly in Congress) on board with him though.
All the other candidates I thought did a good job actually. They all seemed informed, passionate, and in many respects qualified for the job. No one candidate has wowed me though, which means that they all have their faults. It's a good process for all of us to go through, trying to determine what criteria is ultimately the most important to us individually and as a country. Do we want someone who supposedly speaks well (look what that got us today), or do we want a policy wonk? Are we comfortable with someone who has some moderate stands on some issues, or do we want a hard core conservative? This is the time to makes these considerations in a thoughtful and deliberate manner. If we don't, we get Obama. That should motivate us all.
Gary Johnson - Probably the only reason this guy is making the highlight reel is his dog joke regarding shovel ready jobs. I listened to Rush Limbaugh earlier that day, and Rush used the same joke (not sure if Rush "borrowed" it from someone else or what). Johnson admitted this morning that the joke came as a suggestion from a caller to a local New Mexico radio show. Who knows, maybe that caller got it from Rush. Regardless, the joke was not something Johnson came up with on the spot or even on his own, so why should he get credit or extra debate points for using it? At the very least he should have prefaced the joke by saying something like "it reminds me of a joke I heard . ."
Rick Perry - I really want to like Rick Perry, but for some reason I am still unusually suspicious of him. His debate performances have been awful, and they don't seem to be getting any better. Right now he reminds me of Fred Thompson four years ago: lots of hype coming in, but just cannot live up to it. Organizationally he is in much better shape than Thompson ever was, which might save him; but as someone who doesn't know all that much about the guy, I have not been impressed with him yet.
Mitt Romney - Romney is someone I do not want to like, but his preparation and up front skills are two things that appeal to me. With Romney, I am not convinced that he would come into office ready and willing to wipe away all the junk that Obama and his administration have managed to add to government in the past three years. He seems fickle. Either he is coming into his own over the years, learning from his past mistakes, or he is just wishy washy. Wishy washy equals moderate. Of course even just being a moderate would be a stark contrast to Obama, but I want someone with conservative convictions at their very core. Yes, Romney has some business experience in his background, something he is quick to bring up to contrast himself with those candidates (Perry in particular) who have spent their careers in politics; but as someone pointed out, Romney drifted back into his business career only because he lost a political campaign. If Romney had won all those times, he would have had a longer political career.
Michelle Bachmann - I have always liked Bachmann. She seems sharp and accomplished. She is not a lightweight. It just does not seem possible that she would get the nomination. Whether that is because she is a woman or because she comes from the House or because she sometimes says something that make your head spin . . I don't know. She does not seem to have the straight talk populace appeal that Sarah Palin had as a vice presidential candidate, but I think Bachmann would actually make a better candidate as vice president than Palin, if given the chance.
Ron Paul - This guy will always be a fringe, cult-like candidate. He says some great things and then he says some really off the wall things. He, of all the candidates, would probably come into office with the biggest agenda shift. Questionable if he could get anyone else (particularly in Congress) on board with him though.
All the other candidates I thought did a good job actually. They all seemed informed, passionate, and in many respects qualified for the job. No one candidate has wowed me though, which means that they all have their faults. It's a good process for all of us to go through, trying to determine what criteria is ultimately the most important to us individually and as a country. Do we want someone who supposedly speaks well (look what that got us today), or do we want a policy wonk? Are we comfortable with someone who has some moderate stands on some issues, or do we want a hard core conservative? This is the time to makes these considerations in a thoughtful and deliberate manner. If we don't, we get Obama. That should motivate us all.
Michael & Crystal River Creek Country Club Wedding
Here are a few images from Michael & Crystal's September 17 wedding. Photos were taken in downtown Leesburg and at River Creek Country Club. Click on image to enlarge. Click here to see more images from this wedding.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Full Moon Over Washington DC
Saturday, August 27, 2011
Tough Love
While watching coverage of Hurricane Irene, it has stuck me how blunt officials have been in their warnings to people who might decide to stay put rather than evacuate. The warning from these officials: if you stay and get into trouble, don't bother calling us for help . . we will not risk the lives of first responders. One official went so far as to recommend that people who stay write their name, social security number, and next of kin contact on a 3x5 card and keep it in their pocket in case they don't survive the storm. Serious warnings for a serious event. The government here is basically saying that people are responsible for their own decisions and actions. If people get into trouble, too bad. You will have to live (or die) with those decisions and actions. Pretty harsh, but it is this kind of tough love that motivates people to respond.
So what would happen if the government took this same approach when it came to day to day decisions and actions by the general public? Imagine what would happen if the government said to people: you bought this house or that car . . if you cannot now pay for it, don't come to us looking for us to save you . . if you are in financial trouble, too bad. Or: if you wasted your days while we provided you with a free education, don't come to us looking for handouts because your minimum wage job doesn't cover your bills. I know, it sounds harsh; but it seems to me that our government is making it way too easy for people to live off of the government. No doubt, there are political leaders who desire to see more of that. Even as food stamps are being used at their highest level in history (surely a sign of failed government), this administration is currently seeking out more people who they can qualify for food stamps (surely the sign of a failed administration).
What would happen if, just prior to a hurricane, officials told citizens it didn't matter whether they evacuated or stayed, emergency officials would be out rescuing people throughout the hurricane? "You have nothing to worry about, we will be there as a safety net to save you, no matter what". More people would stay, putting a much bigger burden on first responders to find and save them. That is exactly where we are right now in our economy, especially when it comes to social services and the big social contract items. Over the years our government, and more specifically the politicians who promised everything for just a few more votes, have basically told the public to take advantage of the multiple safety nets government keeps adding to its arsenal. They have relaxed the rules for who qualifies for these programs. They have extended the length of time people can qualify for these programs. And they have opened the door for abuse on so many levels. So how do people respond? They relax, make stupid decisions, get themselves in trouble . . then come running to the government for a bailout.
Does the government need to offer a safety net to certain people? Absolutely. Some people have needs that are so extreme and so beyond them that the government can be helpful (although it could be argued that a private non profit could serve that person better). But that is not what I am referring to here. I am speaking here about the purposeful shift to draw even more people into that fold, if for no other reason than to make people more dependent on government. When people become more dependent on government, they will more likely vote for the people who want to expand the list of goodies that government will hand out to the people. And that cycle perpetuates itself, growing government to a point where it is nearly impossible to trim it back.
Oh to hear officials tell people: you make bad decisions in your life . . too bad . . we will not rescue you. You will bear the costs for that, we will not burden the American people.
So what would happen if the government took this same approach when it came to day to day decisions and actions by the general public? Imagine what would happen if the government said to people: you bought this house or that car . . if you cannot now pay for it, don't come to us looking for us to save you . . if you are in financial trouble, too bad. Or: if you wasted your days while we provided you with a free education, don't come to us looking for handouts because your minimum wage job doesn't cover your bills. I know, it sounds harsh; but it seems to me that our government is making it way too easy for people to live off of the government. No doubt, there are political leaders who desire to see more of that. Even as food stamps are being used at their highest level in history (surely a sign of failed government), this administration is currently seeking out more people who they can qualify for food stamps (surely the sign of a failed administration).
What would happen if, just prior to a hurricane, officials told citizens it didn't matter whether they evacuated or stayed, emergency officials would be out rescuing people throughout the hurricane? "You have nothing to worry about, we will be there as a safety net to save you, no matter what". More people would stay, putting a much bigger burden on first responders to find and save them. That is exactly where we are right now in our economy, especially when it comes to social services and the big social contract items. Over the years our government, and more specifically the politicians who promised everything for just a few more votes, have basically told the public to take advantage of the multiple safety nets government keeps adding to its arsenal. They have relaxed the rules for who qualifies for these programs. They have extended the length of time people can qualify for these programs. And they have opened the door for abuse on so many levels. So how do people respond? They relax, make stupid decisions, get themselves in trouble . . then come running to the government for a bailout.
Does the government need to offer a safety net to certain people? Absolutely. Some people have needs that are so extreme and so beyond them that the government can be helpful (although it could be argued that a private non profit could serve that person better). But that is not what I am referring to here. I am speaking here about the purposeful shift to draw even more people into that fold, if for no other reason than to make people more dependent on government. When people become more dependent on government, they will more likely vote for the people who want to expand the list of goodies that government will hand out to the people. And that cycle perpetuates itself, growing government to a point where it is nearly impossible to trim it back.
Oh to hear officials tell people: you make bad decisions in your life . . too bad . . we will not rescue you. You will bear the costs for that, we will not burden the American people.
Thursday, August 25, 2011
What We Now Know About Obama That We Did Not Know In 2008
During the 2007-2008 timeframe, Barack Obama was largely an unknown U.S. Senator from Illinois. His biggest claims to fame were a well received autobiography (that most likely was not written by him), and a speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention. That was it. No other noteworthy accomplishments . . he never ran anything . . hardly voted on anything . . and was coy about his academic background, who influenced and inspired him, and his relationships with questionable personalities. We really did not know all that much about Barack Obama in 2008, and the press was absent when it came to exploring these questions. Obama was for all practical purposes a blank slate. His hope was that the general population would get wrapped up in the facade of his persona, believe the hype that Obama and the media fed, and that he would get swept into the presidency. And it happened.
Nearly three years later there are still many questions about Obama that remain unanswered, but for the most part we now have a pretty clear picture of the man. His world view is decidedly socialist. Some may argue that Obama should not be called a card carrying socialist, but the man clearly is comfortable with socialist ideology. I certainly have never heard Obama issue an unequivocal denouncement of socialism as an ideology, contrasting it with the American concept of capitalism. And Obama was comfortable with hiring actual card carrying socialists to work within his White House. I just cannot imagine someone who rejected socialism being comfortable with socialists in their administration, but that is just me. To put it another way, a president comfortable with socialism would be comfortable having socialists in his administration.
Spiritually, Obama says he is a Christian. I am not in any position to question that, but I do believe it is okay for me to question what exactly that means to Obama. His experience with the Christian church seems to be entirely rooted in Trinity Church in Chicago, with Reverend Wright his pastor. Obama somehow sat there for 20 years listening to Reverend Wright, but not really. Somehow Obama missed the anti-America rants and the anti-white rants. It is not clear what exactly Obama did hear while at Trinity, but I am guessing that was a form of Christianity that was heavy in social justice and light in sin and grace. Some people believe Obama is a Muslim. Again, that is something I am not in any position to assess. My own personal view is that Obama is quite possibly neither Muslim or Christian, comfortably parking his belief system in a more undefined position that doesn't require him to follow anything. When appropriate, he can refer to and quote either "religion" as great, all the while never fully committing himself to one or the other.
In 2008 Obama presented himself as the person we have all been waiting for to be president. He would rise above partisanship, pull the country together, pull the world together, restore America's reputation in the world, restore the economy, be transparent, and bring us "hope and change". None of this has happened. Obama is quick to blame circumstances and other people as the reasons these promises have not been kept, but all presidents face resistance and obstacles. Obama has faced nothing that George Bush or Bill Clinton or any other president did not face. He had two years with a Democratic Senate and House. Can't blame the Republicans for whatever happened during that period of time. And if he is re-elected to a second term, undoubtedly he will face much more resistance, especially if the Republicans take the Senate.
I believe we knew enough about Obama three years ago to realize that this was a man unprepared to be president. Regrettably he still got elected, and we will be paying the price for years to come. I do believe however that when he loses in 2012, and if the right person comes in to replace him, the contrast will be so profound and so deep that our economy and the spirit of the American people will explode. It happened with Reagan after the Carter years. It can happen again.
Oh yeah, one more thing we have learned about Obama: he loves his golf. Just cannot get enough of that. Every time I hear that Obama is playing golf, I cannot help but remember that George Bush also loved to play golf early in his administration. But when Bush commanded troops into Afghanistan and Iraq, he purposely gave up golf. He just could not bring himself to play that particular game while troops were in harm's way. Funny how that has not stopped Obama.
Nearly three years later there are still many questions about Obama that remain unanswered, but for the most part we now have a pretty clear picture of the man. His world view is decidedly socialist. Some may argue that Obama should not be called a card carrying socialist, but the man clearly is comfortable with socialist ideology. I certainly have never heard Obama issue an unequivocal denouncement of socialism as an ideology, contrasting it with the American concept of capitalism. And Obama was comfortable with hiring actual card carrying socialists to work within his White House. I just cannot imagine someone who rejected socialism being comfortable with socialists in their administration, but that is just me. To put it another way, a president comfortable with socialism would be comfortable having socialists in his administration.
Spiritually, Obama says he is a Christian. I am not in any position to question that, but I do believe it is okay for me to question what exactly that means to Obama. His experience with the Christian church seems to be entirely rooted in Trinity Church in Chicago, with Reverend Wright his pastor. Obama somehow sat there for 20 years listening to Reverend Wright, but not really. Somehow Obama missed the anti-America rants and the anti-white rants. It is not clear what exactly Obama did hear while at Trinity, but I am guessing that was a form of Christianity that was heavy in social justice and light in sin and grace. Some people believe Obama is a Muslim. Again, that is something I am not in any position to assess. My own personal view is that Obama is quite possibly neither Muslim or Christian, comfortably parking his belief system in a more undefined position that doesn't require him to follow anything. When appropriate, he can refer to and quote either "religion" as great, all the while never fully committing himself to one or the other.
In 2008 Obama presented himself as the person we have all been waiting for to be president. He would rise above partisanship, pull the country together, pull the world together, restore America's reputation in the world, restore the economy, be transparent, and bring us "hope and change". None of this has happened. Obama is quick to blame circumstances and other people as the reasons these promises have not been kept, but all presidents face resistance and obstacles. Obama has faced nothing that George Bush or Bill Clinton or any other president did not face. He had two years with a Democratic Senate and House. Can't blame the Republicans for whatever happened during that period of time. And if he is re-elected to a second term, undoubtedly he will face much more resistance, especially if the Republicans take the Senate.
I believe we knew enough about Obama three years ago to realize that this was a man unprepared to be president. Regrettably he still got elected, and we will be paying the price for years to come. I do believe however that when he loses in 2012, and if the right person comes in to replace him, the contrast will be so profound and so deep that our economy and the spirit of the American people will explode. It happened with Reagan after the Carter years. It can happen again.
Oh yeah, one more thing we have learned about Obama: he loves his golf. Just cannot get enough of that. Every time I hear that Obama is playing golf, I cannot help but remember that George Bush also loved to play golf early in his administration. But when Bush commanded troops into Afghanistan and Iraq, he purposely gave up golf. He just could not bring himself to play that particular game while troops were in harm's way. Funny how that has not stopped Obama.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Great Video
This video is mesmerizing. As I understand it, there were 1500 photos used in this 2 minute film, with 500 people holding them. Very creative, and I'm guessing a lot of time to produce.
Monday, August 22, 2011
9/11 Motorcycle Ride in Leesburg, Virginia
Roughly 1800 motorcycles made their way through downtown Leesburg August 19, all part of the 911 Foundation annual ride from Pennsylvania to Washington to New York.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Labels
- photography (50)
