Backing up computer files and digital photos is an absolute must. Don't even try to argue against that point. Too many people lose their valuable data when their one and only hard drive fails. With the low costs for portable external drives and for cloud storage, there is no good excuse for not backing up your files.
I have used Dropbox pretty much since its inception, and I really like it. Dropbox just works. And once set up it works behind the scenes with no need to manually do anything. Dropbox offers 2 gb of free space, with ways for adding additional free space; and of course they offer additional space at a cost. If you only have a few gb of data, Dropbox might be your best bet. If you have terabytes of data though you might take a look at Amazon.
For the past few months I have been using the unlimited all data Amazon cloud storage. As of July 2015 I have close to 6 tb of data stored in my cloud storage. Most of this data is with photos, but I also have a large amount of documents, videos, large application specific files (i.e., iMovie libraries), and audio files. The unlimited cloud storage runs $60 a year. Amazon also offers unlimited storage for just photos at $12 a year (free if an Amazon Prime member).
By far what impresses me most about the Amazon Cloud is the browser organization. It is clean looking and extremely easy to move and rename files and folders once they have been uploaded. The Amazon Cloud Drive desktop app is also quite minimalist. Simply drag your files/folders into the app window and they instantly start uploading to your cloud storage. One improvement I would love to see is a dropbox style of sync with the Amazon Cloud Drive that would automatically keep folders in the cloud in sync with the folders on my hard drive.
The biggest fail with the Amazon Cloud is their iOS app. It seems to be geared just for their photo storage, and it is a mess. For the life of me I cannot figure out what the app does. Photos show up, but there is no rhyme or reason that I can decipher for their organization.
If you are not using online cloud storage, whether it is Apple's iCloud, dropbox, Amazon, or the dozens of other options out there . . I strongly recommend that you start using one of these right away. External drives are great for backup that you can keep on hand. I have dozens of these drives that I rely on daily, and there have been a number of times when my main hard drive failed and I was able to get back up and running with little relative ease. But when it comes to backup I tend to be pretty anal about it. I don't want to lose someone's wedding photos a day after taking them, so I back up the original files in multiple ways. Part of that backup process now involves immediately uploading the raw files to my Amazon cloud storage. If my house burns down or someone breaks in and steals my gear, I at least know that those files are safely stored off site, along with all of my other data.
Peace of mind. $60 a year seems like a small fee for that.
Amazon Cloud Drive
Tuesday, July 28, 2015
Saturday, July 12, 2014
A Better Lightroom Workflow
I recently stumbled across a better and quicker workflow in Adobe Lightroom, at least for me. First a little background and some context. I typically shoot events and weddings with two cameras. One camera (Nikon d700) will usually have a 24-70 lens. The other camera (Nikon d800) will trade off with a 70-200 and a 14-24 lens. After an event I will transfer all the images to an event specific folder on my primary hard drive. I will then use a batch renaming program that will give filenames specific to that event, plus put the images in the order that they were taken (important to have both camera's clocks calibrated). I would then import the images into Lightroom.
Let me stop here and acknowledge that there are ways to import directly into Lightroom and do the file renaming while in Lightroom, but I prefer to do it the way I described above. I am not sure there is any real difference in the time it takes to do it either way, so I have stuck with the process that makes most sense to me.
At this point I go through and do "quick" edits on all the images in Lightroom. In the past I would work on each image in the order that they were taken. I found though that what was slowing me down was bouncing around between images taken with different cameras and lenses. So I started to experiment with filtering the images in Library mode to separate the images based on what lens (and camera) was used. This grouped just the photos taken with let's say the 14-24 lens. When it came to applying the previous edits to the next photo, I was in a flow with just those images taken with the 14-24, providing more consistently between photos and less time editing.
With my previous workflow, bouncing back and forth between the 24-70 and the 70-200 images disrupted that consistency. In the same scene of a photo shoot, edits I made on an image using the 24-70 were different than ones using the 70-200, especially if I used a radial or graduated filter. I found myself searching backwards for a previous image taken with that lens that I could apply to the image currently before me. By filtering the library of images to just work on those taken with a specific lens, I was able to noticeably reduce my workflow time, and with less headaches.
Of course this workflow only applies if you are using more than one lens when photographing an event.
Let me stop here and acknowledge that there are ways to import directly into Lightroom and do the file renaming while in Lightroom, but I prefer to do it the way I described above. I am not sure there is any real difference in the time it takes to do it either way, so I have stuck with the process that makes most sense to me.
At this point I go through and do "quick" edits on all the images in Lightroom. In the past I would work on each image in the order that they were taken. I found though that what was slowing me down was bouncing around between images taken with different cameras and lenses. So I started to experiment with filtering the images in Library mode to separate the images based on what lens (and camera) was used. This grouped just the photos taken with let's say the 14-24 lens. When it came to applying the previous edits to the next photo, I was in a flow with just those images taken with the 14-24, providing more consistently between photos and less time editing.
With my previous workflow, bouncing back and forth between the 24-70 and the 70-200 images disrupted that consistency. In the same scene of a photo shoot, edits I made on an image using the 24-70 were different than ones using the 70-200, especially if I used a radial or graduated filter. I found myself searching backwards for a previous image taken with that lens that I could apply to the image currently before me. By filtering the library of images to just work on those taken with a specific lens, I was able to noticeably reduce my workflow time, and with less headaches.
Of course this workflow only applies if you are using more than one lens when photographing an event.
Thursday, June 12, 2014
Another Take On Climate Change
I just got back from a few days at Bethany Beach, De. It was great, particularly the weather. One evening I stood at the crest of one of the dune walkways, providing a nice panoramic view of the beach and the boardwalk. There was a pleasant gentle breeze, no humidity, a slight coldness to the air. It was perfect. In that moment I thought to myself that of all the things I could be worried or concerned about, the very last on my list is global warming, or climate change, or whatever they want to call it now.
Here I was in what is arguably the epicenter of climate change hysteria: a small coastal town. Al Gore would want to shout out to the oblivious "hey, don't you know that in 100 years this town will be under 10 feet of water if we don't do something now!" Actually just 10 years ago the surf did come up to the boardwalk at certain times of the year. So the town took action by building a large dune and then building up the beach with replenished sand. Today, as you can see by the attached photo, the beach is as wide and protected as it has ever been. Man adapted, and man will continue to adapt. Sure, money was spent and the beach will need additional replenishing over the years; but all of this pales in comparison to the billions of dollars some in government want us to spend on programs, studies, actions, etc that carry no guarantee of doing anything beneficial.
Here I was in what is arguably the epicenter of climate change hysteria: a small coastal town. Al Gore would want to shout out to the oblivious "hey, don't you know that in 100 years this town will be under 10 feet of water if we don't do something now!" Actually just 10 years ago the surf did come up to the boardwalk at certain times of the year. So the town took action by building a large dune and then building up the beach with replenished sand. Today, as you can see by the attached photo, the beach is as wide and protected as it has ever been. Man adapted, and man will continue to adapt. Sure, money was spent and the beach will need additional replenishing over the years; but all of this pales in comparison to the billions of dollars some in government want us to spend on programs, studies, actions, etc that carry no guarantee of doing anything beneficial.
Sunday, December 29, 2013
A Wedding "First Look"
Some people know that I am a big fan of what is commonly called the "first look" at a wedding. It is that moment when a couple sees each other before the wedding ceremony, as opposed to waiting to first see each other during the ceremony. I have written about this fairly extensively here and here. Sometimes though it takes reading about it from another perspective that convinces couples that having a "first look" might be the right choice for them. To that end I would encourage interested people to read here. A first look is certainly not a deal breaker for me. Couples have to plan their wedding day according to what best suits their desires and expectations. My two cents though is that a "first look" is a winner.
Monday, October 28, 2013
High ISO Low Light Photography
One of the biggest advancements in digital photography over the past 3-4 years has been the ability to shoot without flash in low light conditions. If you are new to photography and are mostly playing around with your aperture and shutter settings, that is great, but don't forget about the ISO settings. ISO refers to light sensitivity. The higher the number you set you ISO, effectively the more light the sensor can pick up. 8-10 years ago the best you could get away with was a setting of 1600 ISO. At that point and beyond, if available, images would start to break down with noise. Even 800 ISO was pushing it back then. Today those numbers are at 6400, and even 12,800; and on some cameras the number goes up beyond 100,000. In layman terms, this means that it can be dusk outside, or low light inside, and you can still get a decent hand held shot. But despite the great improvements with ISO and sensors, you still need to be careful with how you take high ISO images. Noise is still an issue, especially if you do not expose correctly. So below I offer some advice on high ISO images.
1. Regardless of your situation, just because you have high ISO capability on your camera, you should always lean toward the lowest ISO possible to still get the image. Lower ISO gives you better color and less noise, higher ISO gives you less color and more noise. So don't crank up your ISO just because your camera has it. Always default first to maximizing your aperture and shutter speeds to get the most light, then use the ISO to give you more latitude if you need it.
2. Proper exposure is imperative. If anything, you should compensate a bit toward over exposing your image. If you underexpose your image and then try to correct it in your favorite image editing software, you will end up with quite a lot of noise. Over exposing of course risks blowing out highlights, so you have to be careful there too, but I would rather error on that side than with underexposing the image.
3. Take multiple images at different exposures so you have choices afterwards.
4. Shoot raw, if your camera has it. Raw files give you a lot more latitude in correcting your images.
5. Use noise reduction software. Even though noise is not as bad as it used to be at lower ISO, it is still a problem as you reach your camera's ISO limitations. Noise reduction software can do a pretty good job of reducing that noise. You have to be careful with this software though because it can soften an image.
The image here was taken at 6400 in a very low lit church. I added some noise reduction to it. This shot would have been much harder to obtain 10 years ago, and even harder back in the film days when ISO film pretty much only went up to 1600. Click to enlarge.
Does Barack Obama Know Anything?
I find it absolutely amazing how little Barack Obama knows, especially considering that he sells himself as a person who knows everything. Some examples:
1. He did not know, after attending Jeremiah Wright's church for 20 years, that his pastor delivered radical anti-American sermons,
2. he did not know about the Fast and Furious program,
3. he did not know about the security shortcomings of our Benghazi consulate,
4. he did not know that the 9-11-12 assault on Benghazi was a terrorist attack (he did seem to know that the attack was the result of a two bit video, which was never the truth),
5. he did not know about the NSA spying on foreign leaders,
6. he did not know about the pending failure of the ACA website . .
and the list can go on and on. Stunning. Either this is a president who is so protected that he has been left oblivious to reality, or on his own accord he has detached himself from any responsibility, or he just does not care about such details, or in reality he knew about all of these things and is just lying about it. Which option makes him look good? Pretty obvious: none of the above.
This is a president who is unable to accept responsibility for anything, unless it makes him look good. He stands back, waits for a crisis of his own doing (or lack of doing) to stir up, then he stirs it up more by lambasting Republicans for their alleged part in creating the crisis, all the while positioning himself above it all, and then he accepts credit when the crisis is averted, even though he had nothing to do with the solution and everything to do with creating the crisis in the first place. Syria is a good example. Health care is another.
When a person does not accept responsibility for their own mistakes, that is a person you should not trust. Period.
1. He did not know, after attending Jeremiah Wright's church for 20 years, that his pastor delivered radical anti-American sermons,
2. he did not know about the Fast and Furious program,
3. he did not know about the security shortcomings of our Benghazi consulate,
4. he did not know that the 9-11-12 assault on Benghazi was a terrorist attack (he did seem to know that the attack was the result of a two bit video, which was never the truth),
5. he did not know about the NSA spying on foreign leaders,
6. he did not know about the pending failure of the ACA website . .
and the list can go on and on. Stunning. Either this is a president who is so protected that he has been left oblivious to reality, or on his own accord he has detached himself from any responsibility, or he just does not care about such details, or in reality he knew about all of these things and is just lying about it. Which option makes him look good? Pretty obvious: none of the above.
This is a president who is unable to accept responsibility for anything, unless it makes him look good. He stands back, waits for a crisis of his own doing (or lack of doing) to stir up, then he stirs it up more by lambasting Republicans for their alleged part in creating the crisis, all the while positioning himself above it all, and then he accepts credit when the crisis is averted, even though he had nothing to do with the solution and everything to do with creating the crisis in the first place. Syria is a good example. Health care is another.
When a person does not accept responsibility for their own mistakes, that is a person you should not trust. Period.
Monday, October 21, 2013
Football, Parity, Wealth & Equality
A number of years ago the National Football League (NFL) imposed several reforms in order to create parity throughout the league. They wanted to prevent dynasties and give smaller markets/franchises the ability to compete with the larger ones. So through the draft system and salary caps, teams were essentially given an equal chance to do well. Today, some franchises remain perennial winners, largely because of good management and coaching, and great personnel choices. Other franchises continually struggle. So despite that best of plans to create equality and fairness, some succeed and others fail. That is because in football there are all kinds of intangibles: key players get injured, team chemistry falls apart, key players have awful years, there are bad calls by refs or one turnover that ends up changing the outcome of a game; or the exact opposite happens and a team has a once every other decade kind of season. That is football.
I like that a team such as the Kansas City Chiefs, who was 2-14 last year, can bring in a new quarterback and a new coach, and start this season 7-0. I like that a team has the chance to go undefeated for the season. I like that there are teams that end the season 15-1, or 13-3. This demonstrates greatness, even if it is for just one season. What I don't want to see is an entire league where all teams go 8-8 . . a sign of mediocrity (in my mind). Sure, everyone is seemingly equal and has a chance to advance to the playoffs, but where is the greatness in that? Do we look back twenty years ago to an 8-8 team and speak of how great a team that was?
I think this speaks to our society and how people view wealth. You know how it is, people without wealth envy those who do have wealth. A number of social scientists/politicians believe it is wrong that some people have and some don't have, and that the best way to fix that is to take from those who have and give it to those who do not have. Equality, after all, requires that. But a person's stage in life, and their wealth, changes constantly. How many stories have you heard of someone who had a dream, started a company or created a product that a lot of people wanted, and that person seemingly overnight became wealthy. Likewise, how many people have you heard of who had a lot, but then the market changed, and the product they created was no longer desirable, and that person ended up losing much of the wealth they had created. It would not surprise me if the Chiefs finish this season 14-2, and then next year go back to a 7-9 season. The fortune of teams, and people, can go up, and then it can go down, and then it can go up again.
I like that a person such as Bill Gates or Henry Ford can make billions of dollars. We all gain when that happens. The fact that Gates or Ford or Winfrey or some musician can make millions/billions does not mean that I have to make less because they are taking up all the money that is out there. They did not become wealthy at my expense. In fact, their wealth has made a lot of other people wealthy. Just ask the employees at Microsoft. I benefit by using Apple products, so if the people at Apple are making billions, good for them. I hope they keep it up so I can continue to enjoy their products.
Some people though want a society where everyone is 8-8. In their minds, that is equality, and that is when everyone will experience happiness in their lives. Happiness comes from mediocrity, at least that is what they seem to believe. I believe in the importance of government, but I do not believe in the greatness of government. Government is good at producing mediocrity. Outside of our military, what exactly does our federal government excel at? Education? Health care? Financial competence? At best, our federal government is only capable of producing an 8-8 season. . year after year. It is a perennial loser. So why does half the country continue to put so much trust and so much confidence in government? What do they see, or what is it that they want that I do not see and that I do not want? Are they after an 8-8 country? Is that the attraction of socialized medicine or excessively taxing the wealthy? I would hope for more. I like it when people experience greatness on their own accord. That is the greatness of America. Let's pray that does not become something of the past.
I like that a team such as the Kansas City Chiefs, who was 2-14 last year, can bring in a new quarterback and a new coach, and start this season 7-0. I like that a team has the chance to go undefeated for the season. I like that there are teams that end the season 15-1, or 13-3. This demonstrates greatness, even if it is for just one season. What I don't want to see is an entire league where all teams go 8-8 . . a sign of mediocrity (in my mind). Sure, everyone is seemingly equal and has a chance to advance to the playoffs, but where is the greatness in that? Do we look back twenty years ago to an 8-8 team and speak of how great a team that was?
I think this speaks to our society and how people view wealth. You know how it is, people without wealth envy those who do have wealth. A number of social scientists/politicians believe it is wrong that some people have and some don't have, and that the best way to fix that is to take from those who have and give it to those who do not have. Equality, after all, requires that. But a person's stage in life, and their wealth, changes constantly. How many stories have you heard of someone who had a dream, started a company or created a product that a lot of people wanted, and that person seemingly overnight became wealthy. Likewise, how many people have you heard of who had a lot, but then the market changed, and the product they created was no longer desirable, and that person ended up losing much of the wealth they had created. It would not surprise me if the Chiefs finish this season 14-2, and then next year go back to a 7-9 season. The fortune of teams, and people, can go up, and then it can go down, and then it can go up again.
I like that a person such as Bill Gates or Henry Ford can make billions of dollars. We all gain when that happens. The fact that Gates or Ford or Winfrey or some musician can make millions/billions does not mean that I have to make less because they are taking up all the money that is out there. They did not become wealthy at my expense. In fact, their wealth has made a lot of other people wealthy. Just ask the employees at Microsoft. I benefit by using Apple products, so if the people at Apple are making billions, good for them. I hope they keep it up so I can continue to enjoy their products.
Some people though want a society where everyone is 8-8. In their minds, that is equality, and that is when everyone will experience happiness in their lives. Happiness comes from mediocrity, at least that is what they seem to believe. I believe in the importance of government, but I do not believe in the greatness of government. Government is good at producing mediocrity. Outside of our military, what exactly does our federal government excel at? Education? Health care? Financial competence? At best, our federal government is only capable of producing an 8-8 season. . year after year. It is a perennial loser. So why does half the country continue to put so much trust and so much confidence in government? What do they see, or what is it that they want that I do not see and that I do not want? Are they after an 8-8 country? Is that the attraction of socialized medicine or excessively taxing the wealthy? I would hope for more. I like it when people experience greatness on their own accord. That is the greatness of America. Let's pray that does not become something of the past.
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
High School Reunions
So I just wrapped up my high school reunion this past weekend. It was great to see people and to be seen. I walked away exhausted, but satisfied. I know there are some people who shutter at the thought of going to a reunion. They look back at their high school years believing those were awful years in their life . . lots of drama, hurt feelings, awkwardness. Sounds like life to me. I hear it fairly often when I ask someone if they are going to their reunion: "there isn't anyone I want to see". There is a word for this: selfishness. Have you considered that there will be people there who actually want to see you? I know, hard to believe.
I think back on this past weekend and how often someone would ask me: "So whatever happened to . ."? It is their way of saying "I wish so-and-so was here", but so-and-so is not here, instead he is sitting at home, miserable, watching re-runs on tv because there isn't anyone he wants to see at a reunion. I know there are legitimate reasons for not attending a reunion, like a schedule conflict or travel costs; but to not go because there is no one you want to see? That just does not make sense to me. Not after this past weekend.
I think back on this past weekend and how often someone would ask me: "So whatever happened to . ."? It is their way of saying "I wish so-and-so was here", but so-and-so is not here, instead he is sitting at home, miserable, watching re-runs on tv because there isn't anyone he wants to see at a reunion. I know there are legitimate reasons for not attending a reunion, like a schedule conflict or travel costs; but to not go because there is no one you want to see? That just does not make sense to me. Not after this past weekend.
Saturday, July 27, 2013
The Main Difference Between Liberals and Conservatives
There are many points where liberals and conservatives part ways. Abortion . . immigration . . gun control . . taxes . . the list goes on. I am always amazed how even on the most obscure issues or events, liberals and conservatives like clockwork line up directly opposed to each other. It is almost as if people are wired to think and see issues differently. which when you consider how people are raised and educated, may be the case. Liberals start with a different set of premises than conservatives, and how they perceive an issue is largely influenced by those premises. This is true when you look at politics, social issues, and even a person's spiritual life.
I have come to the conclusion that there is one principal premise that drives the liberal mind: the belief in a utopia on earth. They envision a world where no one gets hurt (including animals), no one is offended, everyone is magically given the same resources, money is not an issue when governing, everyone gets along, everyone is of one accord (the liberal accord), the good of the utopian society holds precedent over the individual, and everyone is obliged to support and defend the pursuit of this utopian society. To this end, they need government. More specifically, a centralized, all knowing, omnipresent government. And so through regulations, laws, decrees and policies we have an endless array of intrusions on liberty, all in the name of building a more perfect society, a society with no crime, no pollution, no hate, no inequality of any kind, and where people live in blissful likeness. This is why I am not a liberal. This is not utopia . . it is tyranny. It is government attempting to control the behavior and the thoughts of it's citizens. It is as if they are saying "we don't want fat people in our utopia, or people who use certain words, or people who value God more than the state". Individual responsibility . . a thing of the past.
I think it is fair to say that most people desire to see the world become a better world. We want to see not only our own lifestyles and living conditions improve, but our neighbors as well. Every day people are driven to learn more and take more risks in order to achieve a better life. There are ways to do this though that don't involve the heavy hand of tyranny. The free market and capitalism have been the best tools ever invented for reducing poverty. Take one look at the poverty in countries that have been ruled by dictators. One disaster after another. Socialism and communism were both designed to create a form of utopia. Both have failed.
Conservatives do not believe in a utopian on earth. In heaven, yes; but not here on earth. Conservatives tend to see people as sinners with selfish hearts. There will always be people who are mean, evil, and hateful. There will always be the poor (even Jesus said this in Matt 26:11) and there will always be the wealthy. There are people who are lazy and unmotivated, and there are people who are driven toward success. With 350 million people in America alone, the very idea that social engineering will conform all those people into slender, fit, equally educated, equally motivated and pleasant people is crazy. Liberals have been governing in every inner city in America for most of the past 100 years, a fantastic opportunity to put their utopia dreams into action; and what have they produced? Hardly a utopia. In fact, quite the contrary. Why? Because what some political and educational elites dream up in some university seminar never takes into account the basic sinfulness of man. No amount of regulations or social engineering will ever atone for that.
It is not that conservatives are anti government. Government is good for establishing rules to play by in society. But the rules need to be simple to understand, appropriate and relevant to the game, and applied fairly to all. It doesn't have to be that hard. Politicians are driven by the misguided belief that they know better than their constituents in all things. "If only we can get people to behave this way, our society will be a better place". And so laws are passed and taxes are raised to get people to act "this way". But people don't and won't act "this way". People act the way they want to act, which is kind of what America is all about. Freedom. The right to be an individual pursuing my own dreams. The land of opportunity. The role of government is largely to protect those rights. Some may argue that this is the only role for government. We have gotten so far away from this, all in the name of experiencing utopia on earth. More like hell on earth.
I have come to the conclusion that there is one principal premise that drives the liberal mind: the belief in a utopia on earth. They envision a world where no one gets hurt (including animals), no one is offended, everyone is magically given the same resources, money is not an issue when governing, everyone gets along, everyone is of one accord (the liberal accord), the good of the utopian society holds precedent over the individual, and everyone is obliged to support and defend the pursuit of this utopian society. To this end, they need government. More specifically, a centralized, all knowing, omnipresent government. And so through regulations, laws, decrees and policies we have an endless array of intrusions on liberty, all in the name of building a more perfect society, a society with no crime, no pollution, no hate, no inequality of any kind, and where people live in blissful likeness. This is why I am not a liberal. This is not utopia . . it is tyranny. It is government attempting to control the behavior and the thoughts of it's citizens. It is as if they are saying "we don't want fat people in our utopia, or people who use certain words, or people who value God more than the state". Individual responsibility . . a thing of the past.
I think it is fair to say that most people desire to see the world become a better world. We want to see not only our own lifestyles and living conditions improve, but our neighbors as well. Every day people are driven to learn more and take more risks in order to achieve a better life. There are ways to do this though that don't involve the heavy hand of tyranny. The free market and capitalism have been the best tools ever invented for reducing poverty. Take one look at the poverty in countries that have been ruled by dictators. One disaster after another. Socialism and communism were both designed to create a form of utopia. Both have failed.
Conservatives do not believe in a utopian on earth. In heaven, yes; but not here on earth. Conservatives tend to see people as sinners with selfish hearts. There will always be people who are mean, evil, and hateful. There will always be the poor (even Jesus said this in Matt 26:11) and there will always be the wealthy. There are people who are lazy and unmotivated, and there are people who are driven toward success. With 350 million people in America alone, the very idea that social engineering will conform all those people into slender, fit, equally educated, equally motivated and pleasant people is crazy. Liberals have been governing in every inner city in America for most of the past 100 years, a fantastic opportunity to put their utopia dreams into action; and what have they produced? Hardly a utopia. In fact, quite the contrary. Why? Because what some political and educational elites dream up in some university seminar never takes into account the basic sinfulness of man. No amount of regulations or social engineering will ever atone for that.
It is not that conservatives are anti government. Government is good for establishing rules to play by in society. But the rules need to be simple to understand, appropriate and relevant to the game, and applied fairly to all. It doesn't have to be that hard. Politicians are driven by the misguided belief that they know better than their constituents in all things. "If only we can get people to behave this way, our society will be a better place". And so laws are passed and taxes are raised to get people to act "this way". But people don't and won't act "this way". People act the way they want to act, which is kind of what America is all about. Freedom. The right to be an individual pursuing my own dreams. The land of opportunity. The role of government is largely to protect those rights. Some may argue that this is the only role for government. We have gotten so far away from this, all in the name of experiencing utopia on earth. More like hell on earth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)