I like this quote by Paul Mirengoff:
"The conversation that Obama intends to have with Gates and Crowley over a beer could get a little tense if Gates (and Obama?) think they are working on the issue of racial profiling, while Crowley thinks they are working on the issue of privileged people with connections in high places acting abusively toward police officers who are trying to do their jobs."
Everyone seems to believe that this incident is all about racial profiling when it really might be more about an angry old guy being abusive toward the police. If people want to have a discussion about race, that's fine; but please don't use this particular incident as the catalyst for the discussion. In doing so you will malign a police officer who appears to have been just doing his job. Gates attitude seems to be absent in how people on the left see this. All they see is a white cop and they assume racial profiling. It begs the question: can a white cop perform any of his or her duties when dealing with people of another color, or are they automatically going to be dealt the race card? It seems like Gates brought this up right away when asked for identification. Is the white cop supposed to back off at that point, fearful of a lawsuit or of being placed on suspension for allegedly racial profiling? What if instead of Gates at the house it was a black man actually trying to break into the house? When asked for identification, the burglar cries out that the cop is only asking for that because he is black, so the cop backs off and leaves. Is that what people want?
I am not at all denying that racial profiling takes place . . it just doesn't appear in this case to be something brought on by the cop. Maybe by Gates, but not the cop.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Obama, Cambridge Police & Gates
Some random thoughts:
1. Seems to me that this would be a perfect time for someone to break into Henry Louis Gates home. Do you really think he or a neighbor is going to call the Cambridge police for help?
2. Obama "apologized" that with "my choice of words I unfortunately gave an impression that I was maligning the Cambridge Police Department or Sgt. Crowley specifically". Two thoughts here: First of all, if that was not your intent in saying they "acted stupidly", what exactly was your intent? It seemed pretty clear when you said it. Secondly, by now using the word "impression" Obama is implying that anyone who interpreted "acting stupidly" as an insult and/or a condemnation is at fault for drawing that conclusion. He is essentially saying "how could anyone have that impression?" In others words, I didn't make a mistake, the public did.
3. I'm a bit conflicted whether the Cambridge cop (Sgt. Crowley) should go to the White House to meet with Obama and Gates. Again two points: First, there is no question that Obama and Gates see this as a teaching moment about racial profiling. They have said so. In other words, they are saying that Sgt. Crowley was indeed profiling Gates, even if he was not. Or even sneakier, they are saying that even if Sgt. Crowley was not racial profiling, for the sake of making this a teachable moment, we're going to pretend that he was. That is an insult to Sgt. Crowley and he should not walk into that trap. Secondly, this has become a political issue now that Obama has weighed in with his own "stupid" remarks. Crowley is a professional, and he should maintain his professional status by not accepting what is basically a photo propaganda session. The only person who can win with this meeting is Obama, the One who poured gas on the fire. Okay, maybe I am not so conflicted about this.
4. Obama's observation of the incident between Gates and Crowley was that cooler heads should have prevailed, presumably that they were both at fault. That is debatable; but couldn't Obama make the same observation about his own remarks? When originally asked the question at the press show, Obama easily should have said "no comment". That is what cooler heads would have done. Just because he is our first black president does not mean he has to make pronouncements about any and every event that involves a black person. In the name of NOT racial profiling, not all blacks think and act the same, so Obama does not speak for or represent all black people.
5. It's been reported that Obama had 15 unpaid parking tickets from the Cambridge police when he attended Harvard Law School back in the early 90's. He did not pay the tickets ($375) until about a month before he announced his run for the presidency. I think that tells us a lot about this man.
1. Seems to me that this would be a perfect time for someone to break into Henry Louis Gates home. Do you really think he or a neighbor is going to call the Cambridge police for help?
2. Obama "apologized" that with "my choice of words I unfortunately gave an impression that I was maligning the Cambridge Police Department or Sgt. Crowley specifically". Two thoughts here: First of all, if that was not your intent in saying they "acted stupidly", what exactly was your intent? It seemed pretty clear when you said it. Secondly, by now using the word "impression" Obama is implying that anyone who interpreted "acting stupidly" as an insult and/or a condemnation is at fault for drawing that conclusion. He is essentially saying "how could anyone have that impression?" In others words, I didn't make a mistake, the public did.
3. I'm a bit conflicted whether the Cambridge cop (Sgt. Crowley) should go to the White House to meet with Obama and Gates. Again two points: First, there is no question that Obama and Gates see this as a teaching moment about racial profiling. They have said so. In other words, they are saying that Sgt. Crowley was indeed profiling Gates, even if he was not. Or even sneakier, they are saying that even if Sgt. Crowley was not racial profiling, for the sake of making this a teachable moment, we're going to pretend that he was. That is an insult to Sgt. Crowley and he should not walk into that trap. Secondly, this has become a political issue now that Obama has weighed in with his own "stupid" remarks. Crowley is a professional, and he should maintain his professional status by not accepting what is basically a photo propaganda session. The only person who can win with this meeting is Obama, the One who poured gas on the fire. Okay, maybe I am not so conflicted about this.
4. Obama's observation of the incident between Gates and Crowley was that cooler heads should have prevailed, presumably that they were both at fault. That is debatable; but couldn't Obama make the same observation about his own remarks? When originally asked the question at the press show, Obama easily should have said "no comment". That is what cooler heads would have done. Just because he is our first black president does not mean he has to make pronouncements about any and every event that involves a black person. In the name of NOT racial profiling, not all blacks think and act the same, so Obama does not speak for or represent all black people.
5. It's been reported that Obama had 15 unpaid parking tickets from the Cambridge police when he attended Harvard Law School back in the early 90's. He did not pay the tickets ($375) until about a month before he announced his run for the presidency. I think that tells us a lot about this man.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Health Care
I know others have made this point in some form or another, but I don't mind repeating it here: how often do you hear about Americans having to travel to Canada for health care needs versus how often do you hear about Canadians having to come to America for their health care needs? The key words here are "having to". No doubt that there are plenty of capable Canadians health care providers. I would tend to believe that America offers better care, but that is because I believe America tends to have the best of everything. My understanding though is that Canadians come to the U.S. because they cannot wait the 6 or 12 months for needed or desired procedures. Those 6 or 12 months are the results of the Canadian universal health care system, soon to come to America if Obama gets his way.
Most people seem to believe that we need some kind of health care reform. That's fine. The question is whether the federal government should essentially take the entire program over, dictating guidelines, requirements, and costs. It is laughable whenever a government official (or president) claims that government intervention means lower costs. Since when? Oh sure, every politicians and civil servant comes to their job believing they will be the exception, that they will make things right. It almost never happens. Instead they over regulate and over legislate to the point that everything gets out of control. What drives up health care? Lawyers and lawsuits. Legislators who require insurers to include a long list of covered procedures, all of which is passed on to the us through higher premiums. My guess is that if insurers and doctors were not hand tied by what Congress has legislated over the years, our premiums could be cut by half. Instead Congress finds more things to intangible and muck up the entire system. And now they want to just take it over completely . . all in the name of urgency, lower costs, and reform. Yeah, right.
They tell us that if we don't take care of this right now (never mind what is actually in the legislation . . who has time to read that kind of stuff), then we will pay for it later down the road. Well here is my list of things that if we don't take care of it now, it too will come back to bite us: Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, immigration, education, terrorists intent on destroying us, excessive spending by government, a rapid move by those within who wish to see America become socialist. Isn't this enough to keep Washington busy? Have they proved to us that they are capable of reform? So why should we trust them with our health care system. It is just one more thing for them to mess up.
Most people seem to believe that we need some kind of health care reform. That's fine. The question is whether the federal government should essentially take the entire program over, dictating guidelines, requirements, and costs. It is laughable whenever a government official (or president) claims that government intervention means lower costs. Since when? Oh sure, every politicians and civil servant comes to their job believing they will be the exception, that they will make things right. It almost never happens. Instead they over regulate and over legislate to the point that everything gets out of control. What drives up health care? Lawyers and lawsuits. Legislators who require insurers to include a long list of covered procedures, all of which is passed on to the us through higher premiums. My guess is that if insurers and doctors were not hand tied by what Congress has legislated over the years, our premiums could be cut by half. Instead Congress finds more things to intangible and muck up the entire system. And now they want to just take it over completely . . all in the name of urgency, lower costs, and reform. Yeah, right.
They tell us that if we don't take care of this right now (never mind what is actually in the legislation . . who has time to read that kind of stuff), then we will pay for it later down the road. Well here is my list of things that if we don't take care of it now, it too will come back to bite us: Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, immigration, education, terrorists intent on destroying us, excessive spending by government, a rapid move by those within who wish to see America become socialist. Isn't this enough to keep Washington busy? Have they proved to us that they are capable of reform? So why should we trust them with our health care system. It is just one more thing for them to mess up.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Digital is Way Cool
I went down to D.C. with a couple friends on Saturday evening to photograph some sites. This image was probably the last one taken: handheld at 1/125 second at f2.8. ISO? 6400! That's right, 6400 iso. For those who understand these kinds of things, you know that it had to be fairly dark to only get 1/125 shutter speed when working with f2.8 and iso of 6400. What is remarkable is how clean the image is. I did apply some noise reduction, but still. With film I doubt you would have ever gotten these results under these conditions. Shot with the NIkon D700. Very sweet. Be sure to double click on the image to enlarge it.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Better Off Ted
If you have not caught on to "Better Off Ted" on ABC, let me nudge you toward it. This show has become one of my favorite comedies, along with 30 Rock, The Office, Scrubs, and sometimes The Big Bang Theory. This summer they have been occasionally broadcasting new episodes, and when one shows up on my DVR, I get a big grin on my face. You can catch up on past episodes on abc.com. Check it out.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Charlie & Maggie
Charlie and Maggie graduated from Loudoun Valley. Their wedding was held at Hillsborough Vineyard on July 11. Despite a few sprinkles, everything went well and a good time was had by all.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Zach & Danielle
I had the pleasure of photographing a couple Park View grads' wedding this past weekend: Zach and Danielle. The weather was great and the dance floor was well used. Many more photos to come.
Monday, July 6, 2009
"Deeply Concerned"?
Obama and the White House now have a favorite phrase to convey how they feel about just about everything: "deeply concerned". This was the official White House response to all of the following over the past couple weeks: 1) 2 journalists kidnapped in North Korea (June 8); 2) action toward protesters in Iran (June 16); 3) ouster of Honduran president (June 28); 4) unemployment numbers (July 2); 5) violence in China (July 6). I know "deeply concerned" is a common phrase used by previous administrations. It might even be in the book of official phrases to use when talking about crisis situations. It just seems a bit unconvincing when it is used every week like this administration seems content doing.
My question is this: what exactly does it mean? Okay, the phrase is out there . . America is officially "deeply concerned" . . so what? How does using that phrase change anything, or how are the people in Iran or China or North Korea or America supposed to interpret that phrase? Isn't this the equivalent of Clinton's "I feel your pain"? In the end it means absolutely nothing. It is just a phrase with no backbone or no consequences. All it does is offer a temporary appeasement to people who are easily appeased. Do I feel any better knowing that Obama is "deeply concerned" about everything that happens? Hardly. This might just be one of the least genuine responses a person can make because in the end it means nothing. It sounds empathetic, but in reality it is cold and detached, with no strings. Don't they have a Thesaurus in the White House?
My question is this: what exactly does it mean? Okay, the phrase is out there . . America is officially "deeply concerned" . . so what? How does using that phrase change anything, or how are the people in Iran or China or North Korea or America supposed to interpret that phrase? Isn't this the equivalent of Clinton's "I feel your pain"? In the end it means absolutely nothing. It is just a phrase with no backbone or no consequences. All it does is offer a temporary appeasement to people who are easily appeased. Do I feel any better knowing that Obama is "deeply concerned" about everything that happens? Hardly. This might just be one of the least genuine responses a person can make because in the end it means nothing. It sounds empathetic, but in reality it is cold and detached, with no strings. Don't they have a Thesaurus in the White House?
Saturday, July 4, 2009
One Photographer Versus Two
Every once in awhile I have someone email me asking if I use an assistant. I usually figure this question originates with some online wedding site that suggests asking this question, along with about 50 other questions. I tell people that every wedding I have ever done over the past 20+ years I have done without an assistant. Many photographers use assistants . . I just never have. And for the style of photography I shoot I have not had a need for one. It strikes me as a bit odd that someone will tell me they really like my photos, but decide not to use me because I do not use an assistant, whereas the photographer they chose does use an assistant. Are they hiring me or are they hiring an assistant? How do they figure those photos they said they really liked happened?
The main reason I figure I don't need an assistant is because I work my weddings hard. This is important to understand: at the end of the day I have never had a couple say to me they were ready and willing to do more photos. On the contrary they are usually wiped out. People are just not used to having a lot of photos taken of them. Inevitably there comes a point when they are ready to be with their guests, they are tired of sitting or standing for photos, they are done. I, on the other hand, am usually all hyped up . . still looking for that one last killer shot. But I can see it in their eyes or in their posture . . no more photos. Okay, it might not be that bad, but I can just tell that before long I am going to lose them.
I guess people believe if they have two photographers, more will be covered. Maybe, maybe not. My feeling is that in many cases two photographers can be overkill. After awhile you feel like you cannot make a move without someone there recording it. Even your guests might feel like they are constantly getting bombarded with photos. I believe I offer full coverage of a wedding. Not much will happen without me being there. I'm not against assistants. Maybe one day I will start using them. But at least for now I know I capture pretty much everything on my own.
The main reason I figure I don't need an assistant is because I work my weddings hard. This is important to understand: at the end of the day I have never had a couple say to me they were ready and willing to do more photos. On the contrary they are usually wiped out. People are just not used to having a lot of photos taken of them. Inevitably there comes a point when they are ready to be with their guests, they are tired of sitting or standing for photos, they are done. I, on the other hand, am usually all hyped up . . still looking for that one last killer shot. But I can see it in their eyes or in their posture . . no more photos. Okay, it might not be that bad, but I can just tell that before long I am going to lose them.
I guess people believe if they have two photographers, more will be covered. Maybe, maybe not. My feeling is that in many cases two photographers can be overkill. After awhile you feel like you cannot make a move without someone there recording it. Even your guests might feel like they are constantly getting bombarded with photos. I believe I offer full coverage of a wedding. Not much will happen without me being there. I'm not against assistants. Maybe one day I will start using them. But at least for now I know I capture pretty much everything on my own.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)