Litter

I remember hearing a speaker talk about what it means to be a servant . . a servant of God that is. Part of what it means is not considering yourself to be any better than someone else, or to put it another way, not looking at someone else as being lower than you. What I remember most from this person's talk was when he said that is why he hates litter. He mentioned McDonalds and the tendency for people to leave their tray of trash on a table rather than putting it in the trash can. He said that when you do that, you are basically saying that there is someone else around who is lower than you who will come along and pick up your mess. To me, what the speaker said makes sense, and it is something that I personally try to live out in my own life, whether it is cleaning up after myself in McDonalds or by not leaving trash anywhere where someone else would have to come and clean up after me.

All of this to bring you these photos: one from Obama's inauguration, the other from this past weekend's Tea Party event in Washington. Both events brought hundreds of thousands of people to Washington. The inauguration was understandably mostly a liberal crowd. The Tax Protest was mostly a conservative crowd. Liberals love to talk about the environment. They also love big government and happily turn over responsibility for their own lives over to that big government. Conservatives are big believers in smaller government and personal responsibility. Liberals believe there will always be someone else who will come along and clean up their mess, conservatives don't. Dare I say that liberals believe in being a servant to that big government, conservatives believe in being a servant to God. And the result? I think the pictures tell you pretty clearly. The difference is pretty stark.

Random Questions About Health Care

It seems to me the more President Obama talks about health care reform, the more questions there are about health care reform. No doubt it is a complicated issue; but there is a definite disconnect between what Obama says (promises) and what would actually take place in a real world. Is he lying? . . or is he naive? . . or is he right? I lean toward thinking he is just naive and that he really doesn't understand real world economics. Here are a few reasons why I think this:

Insurance Companies. When Obama says that he will demand that private insurance companies cover pre-existing conditions, and that

"They will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or a lifetime. We will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses.... And insurance companies will be required to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventive care",

he seems to believe that insurance companies can just absorb all of this without any affect on them or on policy holders. Or he is after one or both of the following: 1) he wants to force the private insurance companies to go out of business, and/or 2) he believes that insurance companies should not be profit making enterprises in the first place. This should scare any business owner. Imagine the government deciding that it is ridiculous how much barbershops charge for haircuts. Why should a person earning $30,000 pay the same amount for a haircut as someone earning $130,000? We will require barbers to charge less to people earning under $50,000. We will also require barbershops to cover, with no extra charge, routine shaves. To keep barbers honest, the federal government will set up public barbershops, offering discounted and subsidized haircuts. Yeah, this would have no affect on barbers.

Illegal Alien Coverage. This is a hot topic. Most Americans seem to believe that illegal aliens should not be covered under national health care. The president has made promises to that affect, even though he co-sponsored earlier in his career legislation that specifically included illegal aliens in health care coverage. On a practical level though, my question is this: Let's say that all Americans are covered, so people are supposedly not going to the emergency room for routine illnesses. Because everyone is covered, there is no longer a need to require emergency rooms to not turn people away. In fact emergency rooms would tell people to go see their government paid doctor using their government covered insurance to take care of their poison ivy rash. But on a practical level, what happens when an illegal alien shows up to the emergency room. Will the government or civil right organizations tolerate hospitals not providing health care to someone in need, even if they are here illegally? I doubt it. Will illegal aliens be covered? It might be through the back door, but yeah, they will be covered.

Fraud and Waste. The president says we will pay for health care reform largely through savings experienced by identifying and eliminating fraud and waste, particularly in Medicare. It would be really, really, really great if we could eliminate fraud and waste. So why have we not done it so far? On day one Obama could have tackled this without one piece of legislation. Has he tried yet? It doesn't appear so. Instead he wants to grow the very beast that seems to encourage fraud and waste. If my house was built with a lot of wood that easily rots, and I later build onto my house using that same kind of wood, how stupid is that? Wouldn't I have even more rotted wood five years from now? Compounding the issue is the notion that any monies saved by eliminating fraud and waste should go right back into additional spending, rather than paying off debt or perhaps even saving it, or giving it back to its rightful owner (the American public). This promise is a scam. Anyone who believes that Obama is serious about tackling corruption will believe anything.

Two Recommendations

Here are two articles I recommend reading. Good stuff here.

"Health Care - If Government Doesn't Do It, Who Will?"

"In Obama We Trust?"

Digital Photo Tip: Renaming Files

If you take a lot of digital photos, you probably are familiar with seeing file names that start with "img" or "dsc" or some other 3 letter code followed by some kind of number. This is what your particular camera names each file. The problem is a file name of "img_00003245" does not really tell us much of anything about the image. Wouldn't it be better if the file was named "beach2009_012"? We would then know just by looking at the file name that the image was taken while on a beach trip in 2009. With that in mind, let me offer a couple recommendations about renaming your digital photos.

Many cameras have the ability to change the default 3 letter code given to each image. You'll have to check your menu (or even better your manual) to see if your camera has this feature. I changed mine to my initials (RAU). By just doing that I am tagging the images coming from my camera with a file name associated with me. If my images were mixed in with other people's images from an event, the file name "RAU_006765" would indicate that image came from me. This is certainly better than having my images tagged with the generic "img_".

Even better though is to rename your image files with a name that corresponds with the event where the images were taken, like my "beach2009_012" example above. Here is my own workflow: I usually shoot with two cameras so I can always have lenses with two different focal lengths. I have the internal clocks of both cameras in sync. When I import onto my computer the images from the two memory cards, all those images are loaded into one folder. My desire is to rename all the images, and at the same time put them into the order in which they were taken. Because the two cameras' clocks are in sync, and because the time each image was taken is imbedded into each image, it is possible to put them in chronological order. I use a program called "A Better Rename Finder", a Mac only shareware program, that allows me to batch rename thousands of images automatically, all at one time. There are several renaming freeware and shareware programs out there that you could try. Because it can be done as a batch, and because it makes renaming files so easy, there really is no reason not to rename your digital photos. I highly recommend doing so. Let me know if you have any questions about this.

Health Care, Housing, & Food

If health care is a constitutional right, then so is housing and food. All three are fundamental needs every person has (arguably housing and food more so), all are substantial pieces of our nation's GDP, all can be expensive for individual consumers. In that light, why shouldn't government be involved in fundamentally changing and reforming how we eat and where we sleep? Here is my modest proposal:

Let's start with food. There is no need for anyone to consume more than 2000 calories each day, and yet some people are wastefully doing that in one meal. Consider the amount of money saved if every person was limited to a daily diet of 2000 calories. Also consider how this program will turn fat and unhealthy people into thin and healthy people. A huge windfall for our health care system. I am proposing a Food Czar who will take care of administering this program. Anyone caught consuming more than their alloted 2000 calories will incur a 2.5% tax. The government will distribute coupons (to be known as Food Stamps) which will be the only accepted form of payment in purchasing food. Grocery stores found to not comply by also accepting dollar bills will incur a 7.5% tax.

Now to housing. It is fundamentally unfair that 50% of the people in the United States do not own their home. To rectify this, the federal government will buy all housing. People who currently do not own their home will have to rent from one of the government approved (owned) rental properties. People who currently own their home can keep it, for now. If they should move, they will have to turn their current home over to the government and rent from one of the government approved (owned) rental properties. If they still live in their home 5 years after this bill is passed, they will at that point have to turn their home over to the government and rent from one of the government approved (owned) rental properties. It should be noted here that the government really does not want to be in the housing business, and anyone who says otherwise is misled, lying, and un-American.

Whole Foods

Sometimes I wonder if by writing about things political, it has any affect on whether people would select me as their photographer for their wedding. After watching the response by ultra liberals to John Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods, and his opinions about health care, I have to imagine that yes it might affect the decision of some people. But to be honest, I don't really care. People can be petty and intolerant of other people and their opinions. I'm not quite sure why it should affect their decision though. My doctor had an Obama campaign poster hanging in his office the day Obama declared he was running for president. I did not change doctors. I go to him for medical advice and care, and I trust him. Period. I would hope people would treat me with that same kind of regard.

I do find it disgusting though what has been written about Mackey, as well as the boycotts these people are organizing against Whole Foods. I have no particular affection for Whole Foods. They are listed as one of the top 25 companies to work for though. They apparently offer great benefits, treat their employees very well, and generally line up with the liberal line of thinking on how to run a responsible company. They are non-union, so they have the union thugs to contend with, and undoubtedly the unions have seized on this moment to disgrace Mackey and Whole Foods. The flyer here (click on to enlarge) was being passed out by union members outside Whole Foods the other day. Pretty over the top in its wording. The UFCW website calls Mackey a "radical" for his stance against Obama's health care reform. Liberals seemed to love Mackey and Whole Foods, until Mackey took a stand against a policy pushed by their messiah. The nerve of this man.

Nikon D'Town

It's been a rainy day today, and fortunately no wedding to shoot in the rain, so I caught up on some old podcasts I've been meaning to watch. For those of you who shoot with Nikon cameras, you might enjoy watching the Nikon D'Town video podcasts. These 30 minute shows are hosted by Scott Kelby and Matt Kloskowski, two guys best known for their Photoshop/Lightroom expertise. It's easy enough to skip through the podcast, just watching what you want. Probably not everything they talk about is relevant to your photography, but there are some good tips and explanations on camera and menu features. Good way to spend a rainy day. By the way, I subscribe to the podcasts through iTunes.

A Reasonable Health Care Reform Proposal

I've been on this health care reform debate for some time now. Sorry about that, but this is important stuff for our country. A lot has been written denouncing the Obama plan for being a back door way for the federal government to take a fuller and deeper control over our lives; less has been written about what real reform should look like. A couple months ago I used an analogy about building motels and the need for choice. To take that analogy further, imagine the federal government mandated what every motel has to offer. Let's say that mandate includes everything from free internet to room service to ballrooms. Now, to be sure, motels already must conform to building and health codes, but after that motels are free to be different. It's those differences that make one motel cost $39 a night while the one next door is $139 a night. I'm usually fine with the $39 one. I don't need the ballroom or room service or the fancy bed sheets. If motels were mandated to offer not only everything, but the same things, chances are I would never have the $39 choice.

So what should real health care reform look like? How about the following:

1. Less regulation and fewer mandates laid on insurance companies by the federal government. Let insurance companies develop plans that don't cover every illness or disease represented by some lobbyist. If I am single with little chance of getting pregnant, why do I need pre-natal coverage?

2. Let insurance companies compete nationwide. I heard one senator mention that one of the problems with this is that coverage in northern Virginia costs more than in the midwest, so people in northern Virginia would be wanting to buy coverage from a midwest insurance company. Certainly companies can set a price structure depending on location, much like auto insurance companies do. Bottom line is competition and the inevitable result of lower prices.

3. Tort reform. This is the big elephant in the room that Democrats refuse to acknowledge. Reform the role lawyers play in jacking up costs in health care, and you could probably pay for all of those who are currently uninsured from that.

4. Reform Medicare. I don't have any proposals here, but this has been the government's attempt at federalized health care, and even while doctors continue to be underpaid through Medicare, it is still running a huge deficit. If Medicare was a stellar example of being a winner for everyone involved, perhaps a socialized style of health care would enjoy a better sell. On the contrary Medicare is in trouble and the government has been slow and ineffective in fixing it. That should be all the warning we need to have about the federal government's attempted takeover of health care.

Politicians make promises during election campaigns. While their numbers never add up and their promises seem empty, we let them slide because it is all part of the campaign. Health care promises are no longer part of an election campaign. Now the numbers need to add up, and the promises need to have substance and foundation to be believed. Obama is offering neither. His numbers don't make sense, his promises are not trustworthy. More and more people are realizing this, and consequently more and more people are unwilling to buy into the health care reform proposed by Obama and the democrats. For the sake of our country, this is a good thing.

My Town Hall Question

Mr. President: When it comes to health care reform, the only bill we have available to look at is the 1000 page bill in the House (H.R. 3200). When you tell the American people that detractors of health care reform are either misinformed or outright lying about the proposed legislation, by default you must be referring to this particular bill. Now, people smarter than me have read the entire bill, and they have in a very reasoned manner listed by section and page(s) aspects of the bill that they believe are troubling. Indeed, they have used the actual wording in the actual bill to make many of their points, points that you now describe as being false and/or misleading. For someone like me I have to ask myself, do I trust these people who have read the bill? Do I trust their assessment of the language, the intentions, the loopholes, and the ultimate consequences of this bill, or do I trust you?

The fact is that all of this is very confusing. You tell us that these people have it all wrong, and that the bill does not say what these people say it says; but I have yet to hear you point to any of the sections or any of the pages of the bill to make your point. In other words, you are asking us to simply trust you when you say that you don't want the federal government to take over health care, that we get to keep our own private health insurance, our own doctors, that all of this will cost us less and give us more, even though the bill seems to be saying the exact opposite. My question: would you provide the sections and the pages of the bill that support what you are telling us? As a follow up, if only one aspect of this bill were to survive, would you tell us the section and page(s) of the bill that you believe is the most important?

UPDATE: This following video is indicative of what I am referring to above. This video is on the White House Reality Check website. Everything that this doctor says, and everything that Obama says, is said without any reference to the actual bill. They make these promises and they tell us what they think we want to hear, but that doesn't matter if the bill says otherwise. Show me in the actual bill that congress might be voting on where it supports what you are promising.