Charity and Tax Deductions

So the big argument coming out of the Obama administration is that wealthy people are getting an unfair advantage with their charitable tax deductions. The argument goes like this: someone making $50,000 and giving a $1000 donation gets to deduct $150 (or their 15% tax rate) on their tax return, while someone making $1,000,000 giving that same $1000 donation gets to deduct $350 (or their 35% tax rate). So instead of reducing the 35% tax rate, they just want to reduce the deduction rate. Obama seems to think that charitable organizations will not suffer any decreases in giving. Of course Obama says a lot of things that are just simply not true. Still, his followers believe him, and in this environment where anyone with any money (unless they are from Hollywood) is demonized and targets of class warfare, the wealthy are easy targets for any money the government can force out of them. The thing I don't understand is that the person earning $50,000 is paying $7,500 (15%) in taxes on his $50,000 while the wealthy person is paying $17,500 (35%) on that same $50,000. In fact, since the wealthy person is actually making $1,000,000, he is paying $350,000 in taxes. $7,500 vs. $350,000 . . and they're complaining that the wealthy are not paying their "fair share" in taxes. I'm not an apologist for the wealthy, but I do understand what our country and our economy would be like if we did not have a lot of people making a lot of money. I think it is pretty disgusting when our federal government makes the wealthy out to be the bad guys.

While on this subject, over the weekend "community organizers" put together a tour of AIG employee homes. It is all part of the class warfare agenda. The idea here was to make these people appear to be freaks for living in nice homes. This has been done before in Hollywood . . maps of the star's homes. The difference in Hollywood though is that the general public look at Hollywood stars as royalty. There is a curiosity about where they live, and there is a sense of some day I will have a home like that. With the AIG homes the interest comes from a different perspective. If the people on the tour had a match, they would have very likely set the homes on fire. "That will teach them for being so greedy". What I would love to see is a tour of congressional houses. It could be done online: Pelosi's house . . Biden's home . . Ted Kennedy's . . and on and on. Certainly many of these government employees live in a luxury that defies a government paycheck. They are certainly deserving of the same contempt that people seem to want to give the AIG employees.

How To Pick A Wedding Photographer

Over the past couple weeks, Leesburg Today has been publishing a series: "How To . .", such as how to pick a dentist, how to pick a CPA, how to buy a home. So I got to thinking, how do you go about picking a photographer for your wedding? Do you just open up the yellow pages and start calling? Or do you rely on recommendations from friends? Or maybe you find one by going to some bridal show. Well, of the three I just listed, the last two are probably better than the first one, and the second one is probably the best of the three; but going with your friend's recommendation may not always be the best solution for you. I'll explain in a moment, but first let me explain what I think you should look for in a photographer.

To me, the most important consideration is style. Does the photographer shoot pictures that you enjoy looking at? To answer that you kind of need to know what types of images you are looking to have from your wedding. Do you want posed, studio looking shots, or do you prefer more natural looking ones? Do you want photos that tell a story, or do you want snapshots? Do you want images that convey a lot of creativity, or do you want more traditional images? These are important questions because not all photographers shoot with the same eye or with the same style. Some are extremely creative, and some are extremely not. In the middle are a lot of photographers who mix traditional shots and experimental ones with varying degrees of success. Some photographers who lack creativity will try to mimic other photographer's styles, again with varying degrees of success. I have seen a number of images by photographers where I can tell they are trying to copy a pose they saw online, but they are not reading the location or the people well enough to pull it off. In the end they have an image that looks forced and unnatural. I guess you chalk it up to practice, but do you want them practicing on you at your wedding?

For a lot of people, especially today, price becomes the deciding factor. Just like some cars are out of many people's price range, the same can be true with photographers. I can afford a Honda. I could possibly handle a Lexus, but do I need a Lexus, especially if the Honda will suit me just fine. But there is a point where that reasoning stops working. At some point I am not willing to get by with something less. I don't want to sacrifice quality or comfort or safety in order to save a few more dollars. What good is it to buy a car for less if that car is something that gives me a backache, or if it keeps breaking down? The same can be said about wedding photography.

Style trumps price when it comes to wedding photography. If you are stuck in a budget that gives you few options, then you do the best you can with what you have, but try not to completely sacrifice the style you want. If price is not the deciding factor and you are comparing Photographer A with Photographer B, and A's package doesn't include everything that Photographer B offers, but you like A's images much better . . to me that is a no brainer . . go with Photographer A. Why would you want more of what you don't like when you could have gotten what you do like? If I eat out and this restaurant has below average french fries that do nothing for me, but they have great mashed potatoes, why would I want an extra serving of the fries in lieu of the mashed potatoes at the same price?

If you look at a list online of what to look for in a photographer, many lists include things like: does the photographer work with an assistant, do you get full resolution copies of the images, what kind of equipment does the photographer use, how long before you get to see the images, will the photographer work with a shot list you provide, and on and on. First of all let me just say that many of these lists are not put together by photographers or in many cases by anyone that really knows anything about the process. They were told by their editor to put together a list, and so they come up with as many things as they possibly can, with no context distinguishing which points are important or not. Most of their points are nonsense, and some I believe miss the point. For example every wedding I have ever photographed was shot without an assistant. Now I have absolutely nothing against assistants, and if I had a good one I would maybe wonder how I ever did it without one before; but the truth is I believe I can successfully shoot a wedding without an assistant. I have over 150 weddings I can point to as proof. So if/when someone comes along and makes that an issue in deciding whether to hire me, I have to wonder: are you hiring me or are you hiring an assistant? If you hire a skilled carpenter to install crown moulding around your home, are you hiring the carpenter or are you hiring his helper?

So how do you pick a photographer? Style, I believe is most important. Does the photographer have an eye for the kind of images that you love? Along that line, are you comfortable with the photographer? Will they be a source of frustration or will you look forward to having them at your wedding? Getting back to your friend's recommendation, this can be a good gauge for you. How was their experience? It is important here though to keep in mind that your friends might have a very different style than you do. Maybe they were looking for something different than what is important to you. Maybe they liked working with the photographer, but they (or you) did not like the images. or vice versa. Maybe the photographer was a jerk and they ended up hating the guy, but the images were awesome. Now there is a tough decision.

Global Warming . . You Have To Smile

Headline on today's Fox News website:

"Explorers On Global Warming Expedition Stranded in North Pole by Cold Weather"

“We’re hungry, the cold is relentless, our sleeping bags are full of ice,” expedition leader Pen Hadow said in e-mailed statement. “Waiting is almost the worst part of an expedition as we’re in the lap of the weather gods.”

You have to admit that this is pretty funny.

Backing Up Digital Files

I am pretty anal when it comes to backing up files. I have about 12 hard drives connected to my computer. Five of them are there to back up what is on the other drives. I also have another 10 external drives in my closet with files I am mostly not using any longer, but very well might in the future. If I need them I can pull the drive out and connect it to my computer. I also have important files like weddings backed up on discs and stored at another site away from my office. Another thing I do is after I do a photo shoot, I back up the files from the shoot onto another hard drive and put it in my shed, which is detached from my home. I figure if the house burns down, the shed is far enough away to stay safe. Like I said, I am pretty anal about backing things up. If you are not backing up your files, especially your important or valued files, do it now.

There are a couple online storage sites that I have been experimenting with as well. Online storage makes a lot of sense. Important files are stored far away, giving you just one more tool in case something goes seriously wrong. I am a big fan of dropbox.com. They give you two gbs of storage free. It's a great way to share files that are too large to email, or to store public files for linking to, or to synchronize a desktop and laptop, or for just plain old storage. Another online storage site is Carbonite. Today Carbonite.com announced that they now have a Mac compatible service. For $55 a year you can upload an unlimited amount of data. Any changes you make along the way gets automatically uploaded, so it is a fairly worry free, carefree service. I am using it now on a trial basis, but am thinking this will be a valuable tool.

One more tidbit about external hard drives: Last week I had a Western Digital My Book 500 gb hard drive act up. I could not get it to mount or be recognized by my computer. I tried all kinds of ways to make it work . . even tried it on my laptop . . nothing. I decided to try something I read about last year. I put the hard drive in a sealed plastic bag and then put it in the freezer. I left it there overnight. The next day I took it out of the freezer and out of the plastic bag and let it sit for awhile until it got to room temperature. I then plugged it into my computer. Bingo. It started right up and was instantly recognized by my computer. Not sure what the mechanics are for this, or if the freezer was the deciding factor, but my hard drive is now working and not sitting in the trash can.

Is The Debate Really Over?

Global Warming/Climate Change ala Al Gore is a religion. Like all religions, there are a number of facts you can point to, but there are gaps where you have no facts to lean on. This is where faith comes into the picture. Faith allows you to believe even when you might not have a reason for that belief. Most religions tend to be dogmatic about their beliefs. If I as a Christian believe that Jesus is the only way God established for salvation, and that Jesus is God; that is something that I cannot necessarily prove . . so it is a matter of faith. But if I really do believe that (as I do), then how could I also believe or accept some other religion's belief that directly contradicts this belief? Bottom line is that I cannot. So for me, the matter is settled. There really is no reason for debate. And yet I, as well as other Christians, are more than willing to have that debate with people who do not share my (our) beliefs. I'm not inviting a debate because I am still weighing my own decision. The debate is to hopefully sway others toward my way of seeing things, as well as to refine the argument.

So getting back to Global Warming and specifically Al Gore. Al has been saying for several years now that the Global Warming debate is over. He says that we are beyond that point, that we now need to act on what he believes we as humanity must do, regardless of what the consequences of those actions might be to humanity. He refuses to debate, despite the FACT that there are notable, respected scientists and climatologists who strongly disagree with many of Al's conclusions. Al of course knows what is right, and he carries all the dogmatic, judgmental overtones that you will find in many religions. His is the only way, all others be damned. There are many very serious thinkers out there who want to publicly debate Al Gore. Once Al got his movie out, and won his awards, I'm sure he figured why mess up a good thing with a debate. Why risk having people actually look at his data and his conclusions, and then actually question him? Al stands to make even more money from this scam in the future. I guess I don't blame him for playing it this way. It's too bad because we will be paying for all of this for many, many years to come.

More Global Warming Hype

I'm not sure what draws me so much to this global warming issue. I'm certainly not concerned that the earth is in crisis mode. I think it is more the hypocrisy of those who preach global warming, as well as my own concern about what it will mean if and when we allow people like Al Gore control our energy policies. Al Gore, in response to an environmentalist who dared question the reality of man made global warming, said to this man: "I want to be polite to you," Gore said, in turning him down. "The scientific community has gone through this chapter and verse. We have long since passed the time when we should pretend this is a ‘on the one hand, on the other hand' issue," he said. "It's not a matter of theory or conjecture, for goodness sake," he added.

So is the debate really over? Paul Driessen, in an article titled "Global Warming Bait and Switch", writes this:

"No one yet knows what solar energy fluctuations, planetary orbit shifts, recurrent oscillations in ocean currents, cloud cover variation and other natural forces combined to cause these potent climatic changes. But there is no evidence that they have suddenly been displaced by human CO2 emissions.

Growing numbers of scientists say the climate change debate is far from over, and global warming was never a crisis. Over 650 certified meteorologists and climate scientists are on a US Senate compilation of climate cataclysm skeptics – and 32,000 scientists have signed the Oregon Petition, saying they dispute claims that humans are causing climate change, and the changes will be disastrous."

I would encourage you to read the article. The debate is not over Al.

Federal Control

When Dominion Virginia Power wanted to run power lines along the W&OD bike trail in Loudoun County Virginia, they ran into a long and bitter battle with locals and environmentalists (strangely mostly locals). The major objections had to do with the idea of ripping down trees and putting up steel structures along one of the most beautiful stretches of the bike trail. After years of back and forth, a compromise was struck that probably didn't satisfy either party completely. Hopefully it will work out okay.

We now hear that with the desire of the Obama administration and Congress to impose on us alternative energy such as wind and solar, that the federal government will force state and localities to accept the building of infrastructure wherever the federal government desires. Harry Reid said this week that what the federal government wants to do the federal government will do. If they want to build a stretch of power lines through your neighborhood, you will have no say in it. The federal government, led by Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid, knows what is best for us. It is for the good of the whole that you will have to just accept what they tell us.

So here we are: the federal government, that symbol of incompetence and waste, is now wanting to take over health care, education, and energy, essentially federalizing all three. Liberals blasted George Bush for what they perceived as him crossing the line in assuming increased presidential powers. With those powers they feared he would force ideals and values on the American public, something that never happened. Now we actually do have a president (and a Congress) who are taking on powers and imposing themselves in our lives in ways that George Bush never would have dreamt of during his years. These same liberals are strangely quiet now. I never could understand how these people, especially the Hollywood types who seem to love questioning authority and government in general, seem to be fine when their brand of government ends up being more intrusive than the one they were criticizing. Someone please explain that.

Joe's Restaurant

Joe owns a pizza restaurant. It's not a big place, maybe about 40 seats. At any given time he has 5 employees working. Joe's been in business now for 5 years. He has never made a profit. Joe says that business is not good because he doesn't advertise enough. Truth is business is not good because he serves lousy pizza. In fact nothing he serves on his limited menu is all that good. People come once and never come back, so most of Joe's customers are tourists who don't know any better. It's amazing that Joe stays in business.

I talked with Joe awhile back and he said he was ready to make a change at his restaurant. He was going to increase the size by adding enough space for another 60 seats. He was also going to add a few more items to his menu. Even though he has been losing money since he opened, he figured if he just invested another $100,000 into the business, things would get better. To pay for it he said he would just raise the prices on the menu. I asked him if he was going to change anything about the pizza and he said no. I asked him if he was going to change anything about any of the food he currently serves, and he said no. I asked him if he had ever prepared the kinds of menu items he was considering adding, and he said no. I shook my head, wondering if Joe had any business sense at all.

Joe went ahead and built his addition to the restaurant. He added a few more items to his menu, still everything he served was pretty bad. People stayed away just like they did before. They knew the food was terrible, the service was inconsistent, and it was expensive. People figured they could make a better pizza on their own. No one could understand how Joe stayed in business for this long. Despite having few customers, he always kept a staff of 5 people on duty, even though they mostly just sat around doing nothing.

When I think of what is going on with our country, specifically how much money is being spent in the name of "stimulus" and how much money is being added toward bigger governmental programs, as well as new programs, I think of Joe's restaurant. President Obama wants to pump hundreds of billions of dollars into a nationalized health program, billions of dollars into a larger more intrusive federal educational system, hundreds of billions of dollars into an unproven energy plan, and on and on. You would think that there must be a current governmental program or department that serves as a model for excellence, a model that Obama could point to and say, "this is the kind of excellence I want to see applied to all these larger, newer programs". I wonder what that program or that department could be. The IRS? The current Department of Education? HHS?

Just like Joe's pizza, the federal government is not very good at what it does. If it were a business, it should probably go out of business. Instead, Barack Obama believes that if only we spend more money, add more items to the agenda, and charge citizens more money for all these great services, then everything will be good. Before spending all this money, increasing its size, and adding even more items to its menu, maybe the government should prove that it can get things right with what it currently serves. Right now their pizza stinks. And here we are ready to give them even more money to make even more pizza that stinks. Does that make any sense to anyone?

Imagine if Joe's restaurant was in your area, along with 6 other pizza restaurants. Now imagine that Joe had the power (or the money) to close down the other 6 restaurants, leaving his as the only choice if you wanted pizza. If you like your pizza, it's kind of a scary proposition.

Global Warming Hype, Part 3

Here, in more detail, is additional information regarding the scam known as global warming or "climate change" (amazing to me how the fact that our climate changes is considered a crisis), as well as more on Dr. Harper's testimony to a Senate sub-committee. I know there are people perhaps reading this that probably think I am a kook for not buying into this scam, but the consequences of following Al Gore and his minions is just scary. Billions of dollars will be thrown at a problem that doesn't exist. People talk about man made global warming, but this is really a man made crisis scam. For those who believe the debate is over . . it is just beginning. I'm personally ready for a sensible debate, based on facts. So far we have been fed a steady diet of bad information from people who start with their own agenda and conclusions, then go out to find data that supports those conclusions. That's okay, we all tend to do that. There is a problem though when the data they use is just wrong, or they disregard other data that contradicts their agenda.

A new documentary is coming out soon: Not Evil, Just Wrong. It counters Al Gore's film. Let's see how the media and schools treat it.