Global Warming Hype

I've always been suspicious of the whole global warming hype. I know for some people that may sound naive or misguided, but there is too much evidence and too many people who know what they are talking about that also see no merit in the global warming crisis as expressed by Al Gore and his buddies. And no one in the media seems to want to listen. For the past 10 years the earth's temperature has not risen by even a fraction of a degree. NASA has reevaluated their numbers and recently altered them in a manner that contradicts the global warming hysteria. Do you ever hear about this?

John Coleman is a meteorologist and the founder of the Weather Channel. He has been on his own personal crusade to counter the global warming hype with what can only be called facts. This video is an excellent interview with Coleman as he systematically dismisses many of the arguments presented by the global warming alarmists. It makes you wonder how the religious zeal behind global warming ever got to the point we now find it. Ten years from now when we are most likely talking about global cooling, where will Al Gore be, and will he be held into account for all the money and attention that is being invested into this hypothetical crisis?

Ethanol is proving to be a poor substitute for gasoline, and the cost of corn and related biofuels is now soaring as these crops are being used for fuel rather than as food. Back when Congress was voting on the implementation of Ethanol into our fuel stockpile, the vote was so close that it took a vote by Vice President Al Gore to break the tie. So we have Al Gore to largely thank for the non-environmentally friendly consequences of farmers cutting down fields of trees in order to grow corn . . and for the price of corn rising so much that the price of its byproducts are inflating the overall price of other foods.

I'm all for conservation. I don't like to see things go to waste. But the direction our world seems to be going in concerning "eco" this and "green" that borders on craziness. And more and more it seems like good intentioned people with what seems like good ideas are actually causing more problems for the environment as a consequence of their ideas. Do yourself a favor and watch the above video.

Playa del Carmen, Mexico

Just got back from a week at the Fairmont Mayakoba in Playa del Carmen, Mexico. I was there to shoot Cort's top sales people who earned this trip by having a great 2007 year of sales. Mayakoba is a beautiful, sprawling property with lots of great spots for shooting images. I've been doing this trip with Cort for the past 16 years, with trips to such places as Barbados, Bermuda, Hawaii, Canada (Banff, Victoria, & Whistler), and several trips to Mexico (Cancun, Acapulco, Cabos). Cort is a great company and it has been my honor to have them include me in on these trips each year.

Wedding Photography: Asking The Right Questions

Let's say you were given 10 minutes to conduct an interview with Britney Spears. What would you ask her? This is the challenge journalists and other people who conduct interviews for a living are faced with every day. With a limited amount of time available, what subjects do you want to address, what questions will best support those subjects, and how do you best frame those questions so you get the best answers. Of course professionals are trained and experienced in making those kind of decisions. For a new bride to be, knowing what to ask or what to look for in a photographer for her wedding is most likely something new.

I recently received a long list of questions from someone who was (is) considering me for her wedding. There were 59 questions. My assumption is that this questionnaire came from some book or website, written by someone who most likely sat at a desk and tried to come up with every conceivable question you could possibly think of to ask a photographer. Many of the questions were fine and legitimate: What is your primary style? Will you be the photographer who actually takes our pictures? Can you provide current samples of your work? But just as many of the questions were annoying: How many lenses will be used and what type and size? What kind of software do you work with? Do you shoot in color, black and white or sepia tone or all three? (I only point this one out because I am not aware of any photographer that shoots in sepia tone; which goes to the mind set of the person who put this list of questions together).

Asking questions is important. Asking the right questions though is a sign of respect and thoughtfulness. As a photographer who takes my time and my profession seriously, I am not about to answer a 59 item questionnaire that ultimately doesn't get to the right questions: Do I like this photographer's eye and style? Am I comfortable with this person? Will they provide me with the end product that I want (this presumes you know what is important to you)?

My response to this person was that if she finds a photographer who answers all 59 questions, do not hire them because they have way too much time on their hands. Maybe this was all a test, just to see how photographers deal with this kind of questionnaire. And maybe I failed the test. I guess my thinking is that I would like to help educate prospective brides and grooms, and help them identify what is important to them when it comes to their wedding. If you have lots of questions, questions that were provided to you from a book or from some website, I would encourage you to take that list (let's say it's 59 questions) and narrow it down to 6. Which 6 would you most like to know the answer to. Then rewrite or ask those 6 questions using your own words. That way you and the photographer you are interviewing will both know that you know what you are talking about, and consequently what is important to you. The best way to do this though is in person. A lot of the other questions, perhaps even the annoying ones, will either be answered in passing, or you may realize that the answers to those questions are just not important.

Can We Believe Hillary?

I'm not sure we're supposed to believe politicians. It doesn't matter what party or what level of government they "serve", politicians continually prove themselves not to be trustworthy. I think most people would agree with that assessment. It's a mystery why we continually turn to the government for answers, and continually want to give more power to the government. But that is an argument for another day.

Hillary Clinton is an obvious example of someone who is not to be trusted. She owns a long list of claims and statements that just don't hold up under scrutiny. Her story of ducking sniper fire in Bosnia is just one of the latest. But there is another aspect of her claims that I find just as suspect. For the past month Senator Clinton has been arguing that the votes and delegates from Florida and Michigan should count, even though she agreed  with the National Democratic Party prior to any of the primaries that they should not be counted. Back when it was widely speculated that the Democratic nomination was hers for the taking, she was not bothered by the exclusion of Florida and Michigan; but now that she is trailing Senator Obama she is outraged that the Democratic party is turning their back on these two states.

Additionally she is arguing that all delegates are uncommitted and free to vote for who they want at the convention, implying that any delegates "committed" to Senator Obama can and should vote for her. Does anyone believe she would be making this same argument is she was ahead in both the popular vote and with delegates? Of course not. Hillary will say what will only best serve her politically. But then again, the same is true with just about all politicians. It's called spin, and they are all masters at it. It's up to us to see through it. Our only other choice is to believe them. I don't like being a cynic, but in the case of the Clintons, how can you be anything but a cynic?

Middle East Peace

When I hear people talk about the Middle East and prospects for peace, I tend to tune out. It's an old, old problem that doesn't seem to have a viable ending. If you want a good, quick read of what Israel (and America) is up against, I would highly recommend reading this article by Peggy Shapiro.

My Name Is Earl

There are some really good comedies on television: The Office, Scrubs, & 30 Rock are all great. The Big Bang Theory is pretty good too. But the one show that consistently delivers is My Name Is Earl. I've been watching this show since it first came on a few years ago, but this has been its best season. The writing is sharp and the scenes move quickly with each moment counting. What I like most though is the creativity. Tonight's episode has Earl in a coma after being hit by a car. While in the coma he "dreams" of his life being a 60's family sitcom. Pretty simple, but the way they weave his current predicament with the sitcom, and how his brother and friends work to try and save him was perfect.

I've always enjoyed films and shows that start with an idea or a point, works through the story line, and then ends up referring back to where it started; and it's at that point you realize how the story line served to support that idea or point. Grey's Anatomy is good at using this form of storytelling. So is My Name is Earl. If you have not seen it, check it out (Thursdays, 8:00 pm). 

Obama Not Making Sense: What Else Is New?

Senator Obama remarked recently while on "The View" that if Reverend Wright had not retired, he (Obama) would most likely have left his church, presumably because of the statements that Reverend Wright had made. During the same interview, Obama dismissed the controversy over Reverend Wright's comments, saying that people are taking 30 seconds of sound bites out of a whole career of sermons and using those sound bites to discredit Reverend Wright. If that is the case, then why would Senator Obama say he would leave the church?

Obama also characterized the comments as taking someone at their worst and making a judgement of that person. But is that really accurate in this case? These comments were found on a "Best Of" dvd after all. They weren't part of a blooper real. They were selected most likely for their passion and for their content. No one is questioning the passion. The content however is rightly being questioned. So where is Reverend Wright? How come he hasn't appeared on Larry King or on Meet The Press? Damage control would be my guess. Do you really think the Obama campaign wants this man out in public explaining his views? I don't think so.