Is it "new" to acknowledge Muslim interests and show respect to the Muslim world? Obama doesn't just think so, he said so again to millions in his al-Arabiya interview, insisting on the need to "restore" the "same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago."
Astonishing. In these most recent 20 years -- the alleged winter of our disrespect of the Islamic world -- America did not just respect Muslims, it bled for them. It engaged in five military campaigns, every one of which involved -- and resulted in -- the liberation of a Muslim people: Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraq.
The two Balkan interventions -- as well as the failed 1992-93 Somali intervention to feed starving African Muslims (43 Americans were killed) -- were humanitarian exercises of the highest order, there being no significant U.S. strategic interest at stake. In these 20 years, this nation has done more for suffering and oppressed Muslims than any nation, Muslim or non-Muslim, anywhere on earth. Why are we apologizing?
Friday, January 30, 2009
America's "New" View of Muslims
Charles Krauthammer is one of my favorite thinkers and writers. His latest article makes some excellent points about Barack Obama's proclamation about America needing a new way of looking at Muslims. Below is an excerpt, but I recommend reading the whole thing (it's short).
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Obama & Lincoln
I know it is outright blasphemy to some people to say or think anything critical of Barack Obama, but I find this quote from the blog "iOwntheWorld" to be pretty humorous (and well written):
It might have been quaint had Obama likened himself to some B-List American President. The temerity to go from 0-60, like a Porsche Boxster, straight to Lincoln is usually a bit too much hubris for the average politician to pull off. Is one pit stop at the James K. Polk exit too much too ask?
But Obama is no ordinary politician. The righteous wind that Obama feels at his back is the Media Tabernacle Choir constantly singing his praises.
Consider the media's reaction to Lloyd Bentson's smackdown of Dan Quayle when Bentson said, "Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy: I knew Jack Kennedy; Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy." The media's take was that this was a well deserved shot across the bow of the impudent young senator.
And what was Quayle's brazenness? He pointed out that he was the same age as Kennedy. Not that he was Kennedy.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Random Thoughts
1. If we could not afford to build infrastructure when the economy was doing well, how can we afford it now?
2. When you hear someone talk about being in awe of Barack Obama, or their heart beating faster when they saw him in person, keep in mind that is the exact same way a twelve year old girl talks about the Jonas Brothers.
3. Is there a Republican leader out there with any spine? Actually, is there a Republican leader out there?
4. So who is going to keep track of how many times Joe Biden has to apologize for something he said?
5. 24 still has the goods. Wish it were on more than once a week.
6. Once again, I hate to see the football season come to an end.
7. There are few things better than the warmth of a wood fire. Woodstove . . football on tv . . snowing outside . . what a combination.
8. There has to be a better way to lose weight than exercise and diet.
2. When you hear someone talk about being in awe of Barack Obama, or their heart beating faster when they saw him in person, keep in mind that is the exact same way a twelve year old girl talks about the Jonas Brothers.
3. Is there a Republican leader out there with any spine? Actually, is there a Republican leader out there?
4. So who is going to keep track of how many times Joe Biden has to apologize for something he said?
5. 24 still has the goods. Wish it were on more than once a week.
6. Once again, I hate to see the football season come to an end.
7. There are few things better than the warmth of a wood fire. Woodstove . . football on tv . . snowing outside . . what a combination.
8. There has to be a better way to lose weight than exercise and diet.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
The Inauguration
Here are some of my initial personal observations after watching the inauguration:
The Event: It is an awesome site . . the inauguration. A beautiful picture, and a great testimony of our American system of government. I hope the ceremony and the Constitutional basis for transition is not lost on all those who experienced it.
The Crowd: Impressive images from the air. I'm sure for those who are "followers" it will be a memorable time in their life.
The Speech: Mostly uninspiring. I kept waiting for that one line that would live on forever, and it never came. There was some good content: a united strength against terrorism . . what I interpreted as a subtle encouragement toward parents choosing life . . a recognition of the value of private enterprise; but I have to wonder just what all of this will look like in practice under the Obama administration.
The Poem: Whatever.
The Benediction: Generally fine, until he got into the "color" thing. Sounded to me like a lot of empathy toward black, red, brown and yellow . . if only white would get it right. It just seemed to me that after all the celebration of forgiveness and "we are one" and the first African-American president, the inauguration ends with a reminder that for some people color is everything.
The Invocation: I thought Rick Warren did fine. Hard to read what kind of reception he was getting from the crowd. On the side, why is Rick Warren always introduced by news people as "controversial"? Warren sided, not only with the majority of voters in California who wanted marriage to retain its historical meaning, but also with Barack Obama. Shouldn't "controversial" be used for the other side of this argument?
The Obamas: They are an attractive, composed family and couple. They will bring a very different feel to the White House. Not saying that is good or bad, but it should be very different than the Bushes or even the Clintons, mostly because of their two little girls. I guess I tend to think it will be a good thing.
The Bushes: Say what you want about George Bush, there may not have been a more gracious president in recent history. I get the sense that the Bushes see the bigger picture, realize the integrity of the office and the White House, and want the people around them to succeed. That includes Barack Obama. No funny business like in the Clinton transition . . no ill will. It's been reported that, when President Bush was introduced, at least parts of the crowd starting singing the "hey, hey, say goodbye" song. Anyone singing this, especially in light of the ceremony . . the gracious transition . . the fact that he kept us safe for the past seven years . . and the "we are one" Obama theme, are scum. Shame on them.
The Event: It is an awesome site . . the inauguration. A beautiful picture, and a great testimony of our American system of government. I hope the ceremony and the Constitutional basis for transition is not lost on all those who experienced it.
The Crowd: Impressive images from the air. I'm sure for those who are "followers" it will be a memorable time in their life.
The Speech: Mostly uninspiring. I kept waiting for that one line that would live on forever, and it never came. There was some good content: a united strength against terrorism . . what I interpreted as a subtle encouragement toward parents choosing life . . a recognition of the value of private enterprise; but I have to wonder just what all of this will look like in practice under the Obama administration.
The Poem: Whatever.
The Benediction: Generally fine, until he got into the "color" thing. Sounded to me like a lot of empathy toward black, red, brown and yellow . . if only white would get it right. It just seemed to me that after all the celebration of forgiveness and "we are one" and the first African-American president, the inauguration ends with a reminder that for some people color is everything.
The Invocation: I thought Rick Warren did fine. Hard to read what kind of reception he was getting from the crowd. On the side, why is Rick Warren always introduced by news people as "controversial"? Warren sided, not only with the majority of voters in California who wanted marriage to retain its historical meaning, but also with Barack Obama. Shouldn't "controversial" be used for the other side of this argument?
The Obamas: They are an attractive, composed family and couple. They will bring a very different feel to the White House. Not saying that is good or bad, but it should be very different than the Bushes or even the Clintons, mostly because of their two little girls. I guess I tend to think it will be a good thing.
The Bushes: Say what you want about George Bush, there may not have been a more gracious president in recent history. I get the sense that the Bushes see the bigger picture, realize the integrity of the office and the White House, and want the people around them to succeed. That includes Barack Obama. No funny business like in the Clinton transition . . no ill will. It's been reported that, when President Bush was introduced, at least parts of the crowd starting singing the "hey, hey, say goodbye" song. Anyone singing this, especially in light of the ceremony . . the gracious transition . . the fact that he kept us safe for the past seven years . . and the "we are one" Obama theme, are scum. Shame on them.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
We Are One?
I have to admit that I am a bit conflicted over all of this inauguration stuff. I understand the historic nature of this particular inauguration, and I enjoy the American spirit and the way our country transitions between leadership. So on that end I can appreciate all that is going on at this moment, just as much as I did during previous inaugurations. But I am already fatigued by all the Obama hype and worship. And I am a bit disappointed with many of the people who are now all excited about this country, but were absent over the past eight years.
I watched some of the "We Are One" concert Sunday. It was a nice, Hollywood produced event. But I wasn't quite sure what to make of the "We Are One" theme. Don't get me wrong . . I like the concept. If I was a coach of a team, I would be preaching an "all for one and one for all" approach, rather than a "play only for your own glory" concept. But the perception I got from the limited amount of the show I saw was that "we are one" is considered a new concept for America, something that could have only come about from Barack Obama. The perception these people seem to hold is that, when it comes to common purpose and helping others, Americans over the past eight years have been uncommonly selfish, and that it is the fault of George Bush. I don't agree with that. Certainly Americans, or should I say people, can be and often are selfish. This is part of our sinful nature. It has nothing to do with George Bush or Republicans or really anything else other than our self-absorption. But Americans are also extremely generous, and they have been consistently over the past eight years.
So just what does it mean: "We Are One"? It seems to me it can mean one of two things: 1) that when it comes to issues and policies, both foreign and domestic, when it comes to how we see life, priorities, values . . we are one in our perspective; or 2) when it comes to being in this grand American experiment, defending and fighting for freedom, respecting and protecting fundamental personal rights, lending support whenever possible . . we are one in that endeavor. On the second point I do not believe that has been challenged, perhaps ever, in our history. It is something that has never been lost, and it is something that is not new. On the first point, it is impossible to achieve. When people speak in those terms, when they see our country "finally" coming together in unity, what they are really saying is that "finally" their side is in power. That's not unity. They conveniently forget that there are millions of people out there who have honest disagreements when it comes to policies and issues. While it is possible to get along (something that I think most people do), it is not always possible to force or sway people to alter their deeply held convictions.
Sunday night, after the concert, Stevie Wonder was on Larry King Live. He seemed to imply (it was actually pretty overt) that anyone who doesn't grab hold of the Obama point of view is a "hater". That was his word. He repeated it several times. Hater? Really? Is this part of the "we are one" philosophy . . anyone who expresses disagreement is a "hater"? I guess my question is where were all these people during the past eight years? Why were they not willing to give George Bush the same kind of respect, right from the beginning. Instead they went into a full blown "hate" mode of their own, doing their best to discredit George Bush from the moment he stepped into office.
So you can see that I am conflicted. I want to enjoy this inauguration, just like I have past ones, regardless of who was coming into office. But between the media love affair with Barack Obama, the adoring crowds, the "we are one" feel good hype that comes with all the depth of a Hollywood star, the continual "historic" this and "historic" that, the stirring speeches "challenging" people with meaningless randomness . . well, you get the picture . . I'm conflicted.
I watched some of the "We Are One" concert Sunday. It was a nice, Hollywood produced event. But I wasn't quite sure what to make of the "We Are One" theme. Don't get me wrong . . I like the concept. If I was a coach of a team, I would be preaching an "all for one and one for all" approach, rather than a "play only for your own glory" concept. But the perception I got from the limited amount of the show I saw was that "we are one" is considered a new concept for America, something that could have only come about from Barack Obama. The perception these people seem to hold is that, when it comes to common purpose and helping others, Americans over the past eight years have been uncommonly selfish, and that it is the fault of George Bush. I don't agree with that. Certainly Americans, or should I say people, can be and often are selfish. This is part of our sinful nature. It has nothing to do with George Bush or Republicans or really anything else other than our self-absorption. But Americans are also extremely generous, and they have been consistently over the past eight years.
So just what does it mean: "We Are One"? It seems to me it can mean one of two things: 1) that when it comes to issues and policies, both foreign and domestic, when it comes to how we see life, priorities, values . . we are one in our perspective; or 2) when it comes to being in this grand American experiment, defending and fighting for freedom, respecting and protecting fundamental personal rights, lending support whenever possible . . we are one in that endeavor. On the second point I do not believe that has been challenged, perhaps ever, in our history. It is something that has never been lost, and it is something that is not new. On the first point, it is impossible to achieve. When people speak in those terms, when they see our country "finally" coming together in unity, what they are really saying is that "finally" their side is in power. That's not unity. They conveniently forget that there are millions of people out there who have honest disagreements when it comes to policies and issues. While it is possible to get along (something that I think most people do), it is not always possible to force or sway people to alter their deeply held convictions.
Sunday night, after the concert, Stevie Wonder was on Larry King Live. He seemed to imply (it was actually pretty overt) that anyone who doesn't grab hold of the Obama point of view is a "hater". That was his word. He repeated it several times. Hater? Really? Is this part of the "we are one" philosophy . . anyone who expresses disagreement is a "hater"? I guess my question is where were all these people during the past eight years? Why were they not willing to give George Bush the same kind of respect, right from the beginning. Instead they went into a full blown "hate" mode of their own, doing their best to discredit George Bush from the moment he stepped into office.
So you can see that I am conflicted. I want to enjoy this inauguration, just like I have past ones, regardless of who was coming into office. But between the media love affair with Barack Obama, the adoring crowds, the "we are one" feel good hype that comes with all the depth of a Hollywood star, the continual "historic" this and "historic" that, the stirring speeches "challenging" people with meaningless randomness . . well, you get the picture . . I'm conflicted.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Leesburg Photo On Display
My January 1996 photo of downtown Leesburg during the blizzard is now on display in the Town Of Leesburg office building. The image on display is 3 foot by 4 foot, printed on metal, and divided into 12 pieces. It is on the first floor near the Personnel Office. If you are downtown, take a moment and check it out. It will be on display until the end of February.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
The Value In A Professional Photographer
In our digital age it seems like everyone has a decent camera. It doesn't mean that they know how to use it or that they can take decent photos, but carry a big enough camera and people think you know what you are doing. Don't get me wrong, there are quite a few amateurs out there that really do know what they are doing. Just because they are not making a living out of their picture taking doesn't mean they are inferior to what a professional could do. But you have to admit that there are a lot of people out there with a nice camera that just don't know what they are doing with that camera, or they don't have the eye to capture above average images. I admit that I'm a bit biased. As someone who does make my living by my photography, and as someone who takes it seriously, I believe there is value in hiring a professional to cover an important event, especially someone that you are confident will get the kind of images you want.
Along that line, we also live in a time when people want and expect fast results. Digital images can be posted online moments after they are taken. We go to a wedding and the day after everyone is posting their images on Facebook. So why does it take the professional photographer so long to get their images online? Not too long ago, about a week after one of my weddings, I stumbled upon a blog written by the bride. I know there was absolutely nothing nasty meant in what she wrote, but she was writing about the wedding and said they were still waiting on the images from the photographer (me) . . one week after the wedding (I was on schedule to post the images just a couple days after her post). If you are curious as to why most wedding photographers take awhile to get through their images, I would highly recommend reading a blog posting by Anne Ruthmann. She does a nice job of walking people through the process. Generally speaking, I deliver my images within 2-3 weeks of the wedding. I deliver all the images I take, and I go through and color correct, crop, level, and check exposure on every image. Anne is right in saying that today the photographer is the lab. It is time consuming work, and it is tough at least for me to spend long periods of time doing the work. My creativity and my body can only take so much of it at any given time. Add other weddings and projects to the equation, recognize there is only so much time available, and you realize why images just cannot be posted the day after the wedding. Hopefully though it is all worth the wait.
Along that line, we also live in a time when people want and expect fast results. Digital images can be posted online moments after they are taken. We go to a wedding and the day after everyone is posting their images on Facebook. So why does it take the professional photographer so long to get their images online? Not too long ago, about a week after one of my weddings, I stumbled upon a blog written by the bride. I know there was absolutely nothing nasty meant in what she wrote, but she was writing about the wedding and said they were still waiting on the images from the photographer (me) . . one week after the wedding (I was on schedule to post the images just a couple days after her post). If you are curious as to why most wedding photographers take awhile to get through their images, I would highly recommend reading a blog posting by Anne Ruthmann. She does a nice job of walking people through the process. Generally speaking, I deliver my images within 2-3 weeks of the wedding. I deliver all the images I take, and I go through and color correct, crop, level, and check exposure on every image. Anne is right in saying that today the photographer is the lab. It is time consuming work, and it is tough at least for me to spend long periods of time doing the work. My creativity and my body can only take so much of it at any given time. Add other weddings and projects to the equation, recognize there is only so much time available, and you realize why images just cannot be posted the day after the wedding. Hopefully though it is all worth the wait.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)