Power Line's John Hinderaker calls it "Banana Republic Capitalism."
The Chrysler reorganization is shaping up as another milestone in the decline of the rule of law under Barack Obama. We've said for quite a while that bankruptcy is the only viable option for Chrysler and General Motors, not--as Obama claims--because they don't know how to make the right kinds of vehicles, but because their unsustainable union contracts make it impossible for them to be profitable. That reality has now been turned on its head, as the administration has tried to bully Chrysler's secured creditors into going away, while the United Auto Workers Union, solely on the basis of political clout, would be paid at an implied rate of 50 percent and would emerge owning 55 percent of the company, with the government also holding a stake.
This is banana republic capitalism at its worst. Political influence, rather than the law, dictates the rights of the parties. When some of the secured creditors refused to be intimidated, Obama libeled them in the press, saying, outrageously, "I don't stand with those who held out when everyone else is making sacrifices." Actually, under Obama's plan the politically favored parties, principally the UAW, will benefit--will steal money, to put it crudely--from the parties who held out. Those parties call themselves the "non-TARP lenders."
Obama's a liar. "[E]veryone else is making sacrifices" is just not true. The UAW isn't making any sacrifices whatsoever.
For Chrysler, the administration's plan spells disaster. It is inconceivable that the UAW, the principal source of Chrysler's problems, will manage the company back to profitability. More likely, Chrysler will become a vehicle through which the federal government provides uneconomic subsidies to unionized auto workers and retirees.
Barack Obama's conduct in this affair has been disgraceful. Our bankruptcy laws are well developed and are fairly implemented by experienced bankruptcy judges. Priority among creditors is established according to legal rules and precedents. The process is transparent and subject to appellate review. But in this case, the law did not favor the parties who have the most influence with the White House--notably, the United Auto Workers--so Obama substituted political threats and bullying for due process. Il Duce would have approved.
Hinderaker has an update at the bottom of the post, quoting Michael Barone's explanation on how this policy of Obama's is turning the rule of law on its ear.
Hinderaker's follow-up post Saturday has more. He quotes from a Saturday Island Turtle blog post that provides a transcript of an interview with a bankruptcy attorney involved in the Chrysler case, Tom Lauria:
Lauria: Let me tell you it's no fun standing on this side of the fence opposing the President of the United States. In fact, let me just say, people have asked me who I represent. That's a moving target. I can tell you for sure that I represent one less investor today than I represented yesterday. One of my clients was directly threatened by the White House and in essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under the threat that the full force of the White House Press Corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight. That's how hard it is to stand on this side of the fence.
Island Turtle (a retired newspaper man) concludes this way:
There is a pattern here. Financial institutions holding billions of Chrysler’s secured debt are being held hostage by the TARP loans they are not permitted to pay back. They are being forced to accept just pennies on the dollar for loans they made in good faith less than two years ago. Just like mob loan sharks, the administration wants them under its thumb so they can extort more and more concessions.
This is an abuse of power that goes beyond Nixon.
Indeed. And it's just the tip of the corruption iceberg.
Monday, May 04, 2009
Friday, May 01, 2009
May Calendar Photos
It's a new month. Time for some calendar photos.
The family calendar has Port Townsend, Washington, the town where my dad was born. My mom and I went there on our trip, so you may have seen the lighthouse (which isn't a lighthouse) picture before.
My patterns calendar has this display of purple marten houses, from Hannibal, Missouri, another place my mom and I visited.
The family calendar has Port Townsend, Washington, the town where my dad was born. My mom and I went there on our trip, so you may have seen the lighthouse (which isn't a lighthouse) picture before.
My patterns calendar has this display of purple marten houses, from Hannibal, Missouri, another place my mom and I visited.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Day Off
It's my birthday tomorrow, and I'm going to Disneyland!
Disneyland has a special offer for this year only: If you register ahead of time, you get free admission on your birthday. I registered a couple weeks ago, printed the right email, and I'm ready.
Tomorrow morning my kids will come over and we'll all head up to Anaheim to the Happiest Place on Earth. My daughter has an annual pass, and my son will have to buy a ticket.
I hope my feet hold up OK.
Disneyland has a special offer for this year only: If you register ahead of time, you get free admission on your birthday. I registered a couple weeks ago, printed the right email, and I'm ready.
Tomorrow morning my kids will come over and we'll all head up to Anaheim to the Happiest Place on Earth. My daughter has an annual pass, and my son will have to buy a ticket.
I hope my feet hold up OK.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Another Milestone
No, I'm not talking about Obama's 100th day in office.
I've been on my weight-loss program for 2 - 1/2 months, and today I hit the -20 lb. mark! I got to eat the piece of See's chocolate (dark chocolate chip truffle) that I bought a couple weeks ago to be my 20-lb reward. I wasn't sure how long it would take, so I went to See's when I hit -15 and kept the chocolate in the refrigerator to await the Big Day.
My slacks I wear to work are droopy, but I don't care, because they aren't tight anymore. My old jeans (not the new curvy ones) no longer feel like I'm sausage meat poured into a casing.
Life is good.
At least 10 more pounds to go...
I've been on my weight-loss program for 2 - 1/2 months, and today I hit the -20 lb. mark! I got to eat the piece of See's chocolate (dark chocolate chip truffle) that I bought a couple weeks ago to be my 20-lb reward. I wasn't sure how long it would take, so I went to See's when I hit -15 and kept the chocolate in the refrigerator to await the Big Day.
My slacks I wear to work are droopy, but I don't care, because they aren't tight anymore. My old jeans (not the new curvy ones) no longer feel like I'm sausage meat poured into a casing.
Life is good.
At least 10 more pounds to go...
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Good Question
I had to take my car in to get a smog check, so I called the repair shop where my daughter takes her car (mine usually goes to the dealer, but that was too far to drive this morning before work) and got their recommendation for a smog check place.
I went there this morning, and it was a Christian-owned shop. On both sides of the front door, taped to the inside of the windows, were printer papers that said, "No Soliciting. This Means You." It made me wonder just who it was who came selling stuff and what they sold and why they didn't think it should count for them, but I didn't get a chance to ask, because the lady went to the back when she finished doing my paperwork.
I made sure not to solicit while I was there.
They had the Calvary Chapel radio station on the speaker system, with a preacher I didn't recognize. I was reading a book, so I didn't pay a lot of attention to the preacher, and his voice was drowned out when the smog test on the car before mine got loud.
But there was a moment of calm, when the preacher asked a good question for all those people who cling to their sins: "When has your sin ever truly made your life better?" And he invited his listeners to email him if it has.
Naturally, he doesn't expect to receive any replies. I certainly won't be sending one.
I went there this morning, and it was a Christian-owned shop. On both sides of the front door, taped to the inside of the windows, were printer papers that said, "No Soliciting. This Means You." It made me wonder just who it was who came selling stuff and what they sold and why they didn't think it should count for them, but I didn't get a chance to ask, because the lady went to the back when she finished doing my paperwork.
I made sure not to solicit while I was there.
They had the Calvary Chapel radio station on the speaker system, with a preacher I didn't recognize. I was reading a book, so I didn't pay a lot of attention to the preacher, and his voice was drowned out when the smog test on the car before mine got loud.
But there was a moment of calm, when the preacher asked a good question for all those people who cling to their sins: "When has your sin ever truly made your life better?" And he invited his listeners to email him if it has.
Naturally, he doesn't expect to receive any replies. I certainly won't be sending one.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Mark Steyn on Obama's World
Mark Steyn's column this week deals with a couple depressing topics. The first he addresses is the way the Left has managed to depress small children about the future.
According to an Earth Day survey, one-third of schoolchildren between the ages of 6 and 11 think the Earth will have been destroyed by the time they grow up. That's great news, isn't it? Not for the Earth, I mean, but for "environmental awareness." Congratulations to Al Gore, the Sierra Club and the eco-propagandists of the public education system in doing such a terrific job of traumatizing America's moppets. Traditionally, most of the folks you see wandering the streets proclaiming the end of the world is nigh tend to be getting up there in years. It's quite something to have persuaded millions of first-graders that their best days are behind them.
Call me crazy, but I'll bet that in 15-20 years the planet will still be here, along with most of the "environment" – your flora and fauna, your polar bears and three-toed tree sloths and whatnot.
Of course he's right. The Left loves to scare small children for the sake of "the children." And they're good at preying on innocent, undeveloped minds by planting unrealistic fears in them.
But when it comes to realistic dangers, well, the Left doesn't even want to know about it, let alone teach the children.
Next, Steyn discusses some of the dangers that are looming on the world stage.
For example, Hillary Clinton said the other day that Pakistan posed a "mortal threat" to … Afghanistan? India? No, to the entire world! To listen to her, you'd think Pakistan was as scary as l'il Jimmy in the second grade's mom's SUV. She has a point: Asif Ali Zardari, the guy who's nominally running the country, isn't running anything. He's ceding more and more turf to the local branch office of the Taliban. When the topic turns up in the news, we usually get vague references to the pro-Osama crowd controlling much of the "north-west," which makes it sound as if these guys are the wilds of rural Idaho to Zardari's Beltway. In fact, they're now within some 60 miles of the capital, Islamabad – or, in American terms, a couple of I-95 exits north of Baltimore: In other words, they're within striking distance of the administrative center of a nation of over 165 million people – and its nuclear weapons. That's the "mortal threat."
What's going to stop them? Well, not Zardari. Nor his "summit" in Washington with President Barack Obama and Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan. The creation of Pakistan was the worst mistake of postwar British imperial policy, and all that's happened in the six decades since is that its pathologies have burst free of its borders and gone regional, global and, soon, perhaps nuclear. Does the Obama administration have even a limited contingency plan for the nukes if – when – the Pakistani state collapses?
It would be reassuring to think so. But I wonder.
What's the greater likelihood? That in 10 years' time things in Pakistan will be better? Or much worse? That nuclearization by basket-case dictatorships from Pyongyang to Tehran will have advanced, or been contained? That the bleak demographic arithmetic at the heart of Europe and Japan's economic woes will have accelerated, or been reversed? That a resurgent Islam's assaults on free speech and other rights (symbolized by the recent U.N. support for a global Islamic blasphemy law) will have taken hold in the Western world, or been forced to retreat?
A betting man would check the "worse" box. Because resisting the present careless drift would require global leadership.
And a serious look at Barack Obama's approach to foreign affairs tells us he's abdicating leadership to anyone who's willing to take it. And the most likely to accept that challenge are regional despots with nuclear weapons who, taken together, will destabilize the world because Obama's America isn't going to lift a finger to help.
Steyn concludes:
Since January, President Obama and his team have schmoozed, ineffectively, American enemies over allies in almost every corner of the globe. If you're, say, India, following Obama's apology tour even as you watch the Taliban advancing on those Pakistani nukes, would you want to bet the future on American resolve? In Delhi, in Tokyo, in Prague, in Tel Aviv, in Bogota, they've looked at these first 100 days and drawn their own conclusions.
According to an Earth Day survey, one-third of schoolchildren between the ages of 6 and 11 think the Earth will have been destroyed by the time they grow up. That's great news, isn't it? Not for the Earth, I mean, but for "environmental awareness." Congratulations to Al Gore, the Sierra Club and the eco-propagandists of the public education system in doing such a terrific job of traumatizing America's moppets. Traditionally, most of the folks you see wandering the streets proclaiming the end of the world is nigh tend to be getting up there in years. It's quite something to have persuaded millions of first-graders that their best days are behind them.
Call me crazy, but I'll bet that in 15-20 years the planet will still be here, along with most of the "environment" – your flora and fauna, your polar bears and three-toed tree sloths and whatnot.
Of course he's right. The Left loves to scare small children for the sake of "the children." And they're good at preying on innocent, undeveloped minds by planting unrealistic fears in them.
But when it comes to realistic dangers, well, the Left doesn't even want to know about it, let alone teach the children.
Next, Steyn discusses some of the dangers that are looming on the world stage.
For example, Hillary Clinton said the other day that Pakistan posed a "mortal threat" to … Afghanistan? India? No, to the entire world! To listen to her, you'd think Pakistan was as scary as l'il Jimmy in the second grade's mom's SUV. She has a point: Asif Ali Zardari, the guy who's nominally running the country, isn't running anything. He's ceding more and more turf to the local branch office of the Taliban. When the topic turns up in the news, we usually get vague references to the pro-Osama crowd controlling much of the "north-west," which makes it sound as if these guys are the wilds of rural Idaho to Zardari's Beltway. In fact, they're now within some 60 miles of the capital, Islamabad – or, in American terms, a couple of I-95 exits north of Baltimore: In other words, they're within striking distance of the administrative center of a nation of over 165 million people – and its nuclear weapons. That's the "mortal threat."
What's going to stop them? Well, not Zardari. Nor his "summit" in Washington with President Barack Obama and Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan. The creation of Pakistan was the worst mistake of postwar British imperial policy, and all that's happened in the six decades since is that its pathologies have burst free of its borders and gone regional, global and, soon, perhaps nuclear. Does the Obama administration have even a limited contingency plan for the nukes if – when – the Pakistani state collapses?
It would be reassuring to think so. But I wonder.
What's the greater likelihood? That in 10 years' time things in Pakistan will be better? Or much worse? That nuclearization by basket-case dictatorships from Pyongyang to Tehran will have advanced, or been contained? That the bleak demographic arithmetic at the heart of Europe and Japan's economic woes will have accelerated, or been reversed? That a resurgent Islam's assaults on free speech and other rights (symbolized by the recent U.N. support for a global Islamic blasphemy law) will have taken hold in the Western world, or been forced to retreat?
A betting man would check the "worse" box. Because resisting the present careless drift would require global leadership.
And a serious look at Barack Obama's approach to foreign affairs tells us he's abdicating leadership to anyone who's willing to take it. And the most likely to accept that challenge are regional despots with nuclear weapons who, taken together, will destabilize the world because Obama's America isn't going to lift a finger to help.
Steyn concludes:
Since January, President Obama and his team have schmoozed, ineffectively, American enemies over allies in almost every corner of the globe. If you're, say, India, following Obama's apology tour even as you watch the Taliban advancing on those Pakistani nukes, would you want to bet the future on American resolve? In Delhi, in Tokyo, in Prague, in Tel Aviv, in Bogota, they've looked at these first 100 days and drawn their own conclusions.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Getting Watery
My daughter moved out today to rent a room in one of her friends' parents' house, and I only came to tears about 5 or 6 times.
The first was after she and her friends had left to take all the heavy stuff to her new place. The second was when she came back home from that trip and asked me if I'd cried yet.
I was fine again until I got to work and my manager asked how my day was going. My eyes watered up, and I couldn't even talk to let her know why. But I recovered and went out to help customers for five hours.
It happened again when I got off work and came home to a too-quiet house.
It's not like this is a surprise. I had told her she needed to go, because I have to try to sell my house. I can't afford to keep it anymore without a better-paying job than part time at a shoe store.
I'll be moving in with my friend the cardiac nurse, who has an extra bedroom and is excited about getting some company (though we probably won't see each other much during the week because of our schedules). And even though I love her dearly and I'm looking forward to being unburdened by this house, it doesn't take away the tears.
Penny's not the only one with an empty nest.
The first was after she and her friends had left to take all the heavy stuff to her new place. The second was when she came back home from that trip and asked me if I'd cried yet.
I was fine again until I got to work and my manager asked how my day was going. My eyes watered up, and I couldn't even talk to let her know why. But I recovered and went out to help customers for five hours.
It happened again when I got off work and came home to a too-quiet house.
It's not like this is a surprise. I had told her she needed to go, because I have to try to sell my house. I can't afford to keep it anymore without a better-paying job than part time at a shoe store.
I'll be moving in with my friend the cardiac nurse, who has an extra bedroom and is excited about getting some company (though we probably won't see each other much during the week because of our schedules). And even though I love her dearly and I'm looking forward to being unburdened by this house, it doesn't take away the tears.
Penny's not the only one with an empty nest.
Penny Has Flown the Coop
We haven't seen Penny in her nest in our awning for a couple weeks. She had been sticking close to home, only leaving the nest when we got too close to her, and even then she flew to the nearest rooftop to watch for us to leave her danger zone.
What I figure is that she suffered from prematurely empty-nest syndrome, because no eggs arrived, because that golden-tongued, red-chested fellow who had been sweet-talking her never really came through with the goods. Poor girl!
What I figure is that she suffered from prematurely empty-nest syndrome, because no eggs arrived, because that golden-tongued, red-chested fellow who had been sweet-talking her never really came through with the goods. Poor girl!
Thursday, April 23, 2009
California EPA Gets One Right
Will wonders never cease?!
WorldNetDaily reported Tuesday on a draft report about corn ethanol, scheduled to be released yesterday.
In a decision anticipated as a major setback for proponents of renewable biofuels, California regulators appear ready to conclude that corn ethanol cannot help the state reduce "global warming."
In a hearing scheduled tomorrow in Sacramento, the California Environmental Protection Agency has evidently concluded that corn ethanol will not help the state implement Executive Order S-1-07, the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger Jan. 18, 2007, mandating a 10 percent reduction in the carbon intensity of the state's fuels by 2020.
"Ethanol is a good fuel, but how it is produced is problematic," Dimitri Stanich, public information oOfficer for the California Environmental Protection Agency, told WND. "The corn ethanol industry has to figure out another way to process corn into ethanol that is not so coal intensive."
Stanich pointed out that the formula the California Environmental Protection Agency utilizes to assess the net greenhouse gas impact of alternative fuels takes into consideration that typically the electricity used to produce corn ethanol involves burning coal, which emits carbon dioxide and defeats states regulatory intent to reduce net greenhouse emissions.
Also problematic, Stanich explained, was that increased demand for ethanol will encourage recognition worldwide that more ethanol can be sold. The result is that more land globally will be converted to producing corn for ethanol.
"Converting land that is now a 'carbon sink' to farmland producing ethanol also defeats the purpose of the regulations, because land now absorbing carbon dioxide would be cleared to produce corn," he said.
Another problem Stanich pointed out was that the waste product from producing corn ethanol also requires the burning of coal to convert it into animal feed.
The California Environmental Protection Agency formula assesses as a loss the conversion of the carbon dioxide-absorbing land now populated with trees into cleared farmland producing corn for ethanol.
Stanich told WND the California Environmental Protection Agency has scheduled six hours for public testimony, expecting to hear strong opposition from the ethanol industry.
Yes, they did. And the environmentalists are none too happy too. Reuters reported yesterday on that front.
California regulators preparing on Thursday to adopt landmark rules curbing carbon emissions from transport fuels made an eleventh-hour bid to woo critics who call the measures unfair to corn-based ethanol.
If adopted by the Air Resources Board as expected, the low-carbon fuel standard would become the first measure in the nation to impose on motor fuels limits on the amount of greenhouse gases, which contribute to global warming.
Similar rules are being considered in 11 other states that are waiting for California to act. President Barack Obama has also called for a nationwide low-carbon fuel standard to help meet his goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions more than 80 percent by mid-century.
Ethanol industry advocates and scientists are among those who have vehemently opposed rules drafted last month by the state's Air Resources Board, saying they put grain-based biofuels at a competitive disadvantage.
In a move to quiet those concerns, the state's top air quality regulator, Mary Nichols, sent a letter on Wednesday to biofuels industry executives insisting that "corn ethanol will play an important role in helping California achieve the goals" of the proposed regulations.
"What we're trying to convey is that we are open, that we are listening and that we are determined to adapt the rule on a real-time basis as we get new and better science," Nichols said in a telephone interview.
I'm sure what Nichols means by "better science" is the kind they can skew to fit the results they want to achieve. We can't have science telling us what we don't want to hear, now, can we?
WorldNetDaily reported Tuesday on a draft report about corn ethanol, scheduled to be released yesterday.
In a decision anticipated as a major setback for proponents of renewable biofuels, California regulators appear ready to conclude that corn ethanol cannot help the state reduce "global warming."
In a hearing scheduled tomorrow in Sacramento, the California Environmental Protection Agency has evidently concluded that corn ethanol will not help the state implement Executive Order S-1-07, the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger Jan. 18, 2007, mandating a 10 percent reduction in the carbon intensity of the state's fuels by 2020.
"Ethanol is a good fuel, but how it is produced is problematic," Dimitri Stanich, public information oOfficer for the California Environmental Protection Agency, told WND. "The corn ethanol industry has to figure out another way to process corn into ethanol that is not so coal intensive."
Stanich pointed out that the formula the California Environmental Protection Agency utilizes to assess the net greenhouse gas impact of alternative fuels takes into consideration that typically the electricity used to produce corn ethanol involves burning coal, which emits carbon dioxide and defeats states regulatory intent to reduce net greenhouse emissions.
Also problematic, Stanich explained, was that increased demand for ethanol will encourage recognition worldwide that more ethanol can be sold. The result is that more land globally will be converted to producing corn for ethanol.
"Converting land that is now a 'carbon sink' to farmland producing ethanol also defeats the purpose of the regulations, because land now absorbing carbon dioxide would be cleared to produce corn," he said.
Another problem Stanich pointed out was that the waste product from producing corn ethanol also requires the burning of coal to convert it into animal feed.
The California Environmental Protection Agency formula assesses as a loss the conversion of the carbon dioxide-absorbing land now populated with trees into cleared farmland producing corn for ethanol.
Stanich told WND the California Environmental Protection Agency has scheduled six hours for public testimony, expecting to hear strong opposition from the ethanol industry.
Yes, they did. And the environmentalists are none too happy too. Reuters reported yesterday on that front.
California regulators preparing on Thursday to adopt landmark rules curbing carbon emissions from transport fuels made an eleventh-hour bid to woo critics who call the measures unfair to corn-based ethanol.
If adopted by the Air Resources Board as expected, the low-carbon fuel standard would become the first measure in the nation to impose on motor fuels limits on the amount of greenhouse gases, which contribute to global warming.
Similar rules are being considered in 11 other states that are waiting for California to act. President Barack Obama has also called for a nationwide low-carbon fuel standard to help meet his goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions more than 80 percent by mid-century.
Ethanol industry advocates and scientists are among those who have vehemently opposed rules drafted last month by the state's Air Resources Board, saying they put grain-based biofuels at a competitive disadvantage.
In a move to quiet those concerns, the state's top air quality regulator, Mary Nichols, sent a letter on Wednesday to biofuels industry executives insisting that "corn ethanol will play an important role in helping California achieve the goals" of the proposed regulations.
"What we're trying to convey is that we are open, that we are listening and that we are determined to adapt the rule on a real-time basis as we get new and better science," Nichols said in a telephone interview.
I'm sure what Nichols means by "better science" is the kind they can skew to fit the results they want to achieve. We can't have science telling us what we don't want to hear, now, can we?
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Scolded at the Grocery Store (Updated)
I hate Earth Day. That happens to be today, in case you weren't following. They've been shoving Earth Day and my personal responsibility to Save The Planet! down my throat since I was in junior high school, and now I just gag on it.
A couple months ago, I was at the grocery store, and the lady in front of me brought her own canvas grocery bags that the bagger loaded up. When it was my turn, I asked for paper bags. The bagger asked me how come I wasn't using the reusable bags like the other lady.
Well, in contrast to a planet-saving specimen of womanhood, I suppose I compared poorly, despite my reuse of the paper bags as kitchen garbage bags. Annoyed as I was, I wrote off that incident.
Until last night, when I got that same bagger again. I asked for paper, and he said, "Lady, why aren't you using the reusable bags?" He was frowning at me.
I told him that I do reuse the paper bags, but he insisted that I should be using the reusable bags. I told him I wanted the paper bags.
What is it? Do I have a Kick Me sign on my forehead?
Maybe it's my choice of paper over plastic that sets the guy off. I have no idea.
If I have time today (doubtful, between a smog check, paying my car registration, work, and picking up something for the potluck for our last night of Billing class tonight), I might take a minute and tell the grocery store manager that I don't like being scolded for my choices. People might stop shopping at their store if the "service" comes with a tongue-lashing.
Update:
I stopped at the store yesterday on my way to work and talked to the assistant manager. I was hoping to talk to the manager, who I've complimented several times about his store and employees, but he was at lunch, and I didn't have time to wait.
I told the assistant manager the story and then said I'm not a professional whiner. I said that suggestive upselling is fine with me--I do it all the time at the shoe store--but the bagger needs to accept the answer without pushing.
He said mine wasn't the first complaint they'd received, and he'd be sure they had a talk with the bagger.
I feel bad for the guy, but at the same time he needs to learn, or he's going to be out of a job.
A couple months ago, I was at the grocery store, and the lady in front of me brought her own canvas grocery bags that the bagger loaded up. When it was my turn, I asked for paper bags. The bagger asked me how come I wasn't using the reusable bags like the other lady.
Well, in contrast to a planet-saving specimen of womanhood, I suppose I compared poorly, despite my reuse of the paper bags as kitchen garbage bags. Annoyed as I was, I wrote off that incident.
Until last night, when I got that same bagger again. I asked for paper, and he said, "Lady, why aren't you using the reusable bags?" He was frowning at me.
I told him that I do reuse the paper bags, but he insisted that I should be using the reusable bags. I told him I wanted the paper bags.
What is it? Do I have a Kick Me sign on my forehead?
Maybe it's my choice of paper over plastic that sets the guy off. I have no idea.
If I have time today (doubtful, between a smog check, paying my car registration, work, and picking up something for the potluck for our last night of Billing class tonight), I might take a minute and tell the grocery store manager that I don't like being scolded for my choices. People might stop shopping at their store if the "service" comes with a tongue-lashing.
Update:
I stopped at the store yesterday on my way to work and talked to the assistant manager. I was hoping to talk to the manager, who I've complimented several times about his store and employees, but he was at lunch, and I didn't have time to wait.
I told the assistant manager the story and then said I'm not a professional whiner. I said that suggestive upselling is fine with me--I do it all the time at the shoe store--but the bagger needs to accept the answer without pushing.
He said mine wasn't the first complaint they'd received, and he'd be sure they had a talk with the bagger.
I feel bad for the guy, but at the same time he needs to learn, or he's going to be out of a job.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Pear-Shaped Perfection
Those of us with a pear shape (relatively small waist, compared to the hips) have always had trouble finding jeans that fit right. We try on a pair of Levi's 501 (or any other number) jeans, only to have the waistband stick out so far in the back that our cat or small dog could curl up back there and take a nap.
So we resort to buying relaxed fit because the hips are looser, but even so we need a belt to keep the waistband from sticking out. Not to mention that the waistband doesn't quite go high enough in the back to completely cover the top of our underwear (too much info, I know).
A couple weeks ago, when I was wandering around the mall after work at the shoe store, I stopped at Sears to look at jeans. I used to buy all my jeans at Mervyn's, but since they went out of business, I've been at loose ends to know who has a good enough selection of Levi's 550 (relaxed fit, stretch, boot cut). Sears had mostly their own brand, but they had a smattering of Levi's that the employee told me wasn't going to be replenished.
That's when I saw them: Levi's Curvy 529 jeans. I heard the sound of violins and a choir singing praise to God as I looked at the tags.
But they didn't have my size, and the singing faded away.
I found my size online and ordered them, and they arrived last night. The dark wash, like Stacy and Clinton say to buy. The catalog/online picture above doesn't do them justice. They don't look like anything special just hanging there disembodied.
I wore them to church today, and then I took my picture in my daughter's friend's long mirror. Here's what they look like on a real person. See how they fit my curves. And my waist! Hallelujah! Praise the Lord!
If you're a pear shape and you're still looking for that perfect pair of jeans, look no further. Levi Strauss has finally woken up to the fact that you exist, and he has created perfection.
So we resort to buying relaxed fit because the hips are looser, but even so we need a belt to keep the waistband from sticking out. Not to mention that the waistband doesn't quite go high enough in the back to completely cover the top of our underwear (too much info, I know).
A couple weeks ago, when I was wandering around the mall after work at the shoe store, I stopped at Sears to look at jeans. I used to buy all my jeans at Mervyn's, but since they went out of business, I've been at loose ends to know who has a good enough selection of Levi's 550 (relaxed fit, stretch, boot cut). Sears had mostly their own brand, but they had a smattering of Levi's that the employee told me wasn't going to be replenished.
That's when I saw them: Levi's Curvy 529 jeans. I heard the sound of violins and a choir singing praise to God as I looked at the tags.
But they didn't have my size, and the singing faded away.
I found my size online and ordered them, and they arrived last night. The dark wash, like Stacy and Clinton say to buy. The catalog/online picture above doesn't do them justice. They don't look like anything special just hanging there disembodied.
I wore them to church today, and then I took my picture in my daughter's friend's long mirror. Here's what they look like on a real person. See how they fit my curves. And my waist! Hallelujah! Praise the Lord!
If you're a pear shape and you're still looking for that perfect pair of jeans, look no further. Levi Strauss has finally woken up to the fact that you exist, and he has created perfection.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Golgoto
I blogged about my trip to Poland in September of 2006 (here, here, here, here, here, and here), when two other ladies from my church joined me and we went to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the Polish church we support.
In these posts, I mentioned the trip to Poland I had taken with another couple in 1997. What I haven't mentioned, however, is that during the '97 trip I received two cassette tapes with Christian music on them when we were there, and one song, Golgoto, was on both tapes. It was haunting, and when I played it later for the lady I traveled with (she's also the organist and sometimes pianist at church), she said, "That's in a minor key. Oh! That's a really minor key."
The version I played for her opens with the sound of a very large metal hammer striking a very large nail three times. Then it pauses and strikes three more times. Another pause and three more strikes, and then the music and singing begin.
I tried translating it myself with my Polish-English dictionary (which I've since misplaced), but didn't do a good enough job. So the organist wrote to the woman who does most of the translating of news from the Polish churches, and she had already translated Golgoto into English. She sent the organist the English lyrics and the sheet music.
I knew it was coming, but one morning at church, during communion, the song the organist played was Golgoto. That was the way she told me it had arrived, and I cried my way through communion, because she knew I was the only one who would recognize it.
She and I practiced together, and not long after that, I actually sang the song for the church to her accompaniment. I sang the second verse (it's more pronounceable than the first verse) and chorus in Polish and then sang the same ones in English. Here are the (English) lyrics that I sang:
I see You, my Lord, on the cross,
So many bruises and wounds.
Your love was the power that held You there
To free me from guilt and from sin.
Chorus:
It was not the nails that pierced You, but my sin.
It was not people who wronged You, but my sin.
It was not the nails that held You, but my sin.
Though it happened long ago, You did it for me.
I found a performance of Golgoto on YouTube. Beata Bednarz has a choir, and her arrangement of the chorus is more jazzed up than mine, but you get the idea (the verse I sang starts at 0:33 into the video)...
It's the perfect song for Good Friday.
In these posts, I mentioned the trip to Poland I had taken with another couple in 1997. What I haven't mentioned, however, is that during the '97 trip I received two cassette tapes with Christian music on them when we were there, and one song, Golgoto, was on both tapes. It was haunting, and when I played it later for the lady I traveled with (she's also the organist and sometimes pianist at church), she said, "That's in a minor key. Oh! That's a really minor key."
The version I played for her opens with the sound of a very large metal hammer striking a very large nail three times. Then it pauses and strikes three more times. Another pause and three more strikes, and then the music and singing begin.
I tried translating it myself with my Polish-English dictionary (which I've since misplaced), but didn't do a good enough job. So the organist wrote to the woman who does most of the translating of news from the Polish churches, and she had already translated Golgoto into English. She sent the organist the English lyrics and the sheet music.
I knew it was coming, but one morning at church, during communion, the song the organist played was Golgoto. That was the way she told me it had arrived, and I cried my way through communion, because she knew I was the only one who would recognize it.
She and I practiced together, and not long after that, I actually sang the song for the church to her accompaniment. I sang the second verse (it's more pronounceable than the first verse) and chorus in Polish and then sang the same ones in English. Here are the (English) lyrics that I sang:
I see You, my Lord, on the cross,
So many bruises and wounds.
Your love was the power that held You there
To free me from guilt and from sin.
Chorus:
It was not the nails that pierced You, but my sin.
It was not people who wronged You, but my sin.
It was not the nails that held You, but my sin.
Though it happened long ago, You did it for me.
I found a performance of Golgoto on YouTube. Beata Bednarz has a choir, and her arrangement of the chorus is more jazzed up than mine, but you get the idea (the verse I sang starts at 0:33 into the video)...
It's the perfect song for Good Friday.
Thursday, April 09, 2009
Working at the Shoe Store
We've got two people on vacation this week and next at the shoe store, so I'm working a lot. Not much blogging time.
These are my favorite pair of shoes that we have available. They look like a girl should put on a swirly dress, take Fred Astaire's hand, and hit the dance floor.
I'll be making sure they're properly displayed (and all the other shoes are too). See you back here when I get a chance to come up for air.
Sunday, April 05, 2009
Animal Pictures
The Telegraph (UK) posted its animal pictures of the week (there are 31 photos), and this one of the deer at the drive-thru liquor store is the first. These deer must be underage...
This one is my other favorite picture from this week's collection:
It's a landmine-sniffing rat in Mozambique. I blogged about these rats in 2007.
On the home front, we have a nesting birdie (who my daughter named Penny) in our awning.
We got to watch her building her nest. She'd bring stuff to build it with, and then she sort of flattened herself on it and wiggled before she flew off to get some more.
Now she seems to be staying put, so there are probably some eggs. When the nesting started, there was this red-chested guy hanging around the place, but he's made himself scarce since he obviously got the job done already.
I'll keep you posted when there's more Penny news to report...
Saturday, April 04, 2009
Muslim-Episcopal Minister Finally Defrocked
A couple years ago, I blogged about the Episcopal priest who became a Muslim and stayed a priest. At long last, the Episcopal church has resolved the issue.
CNN reported Thursday that the Episcopal church removed her from the priesthood.
For nearly 30 years, Redding has been an ordained minister in the Episcopal Church. Her priesthood ended Wednesday when she was defrocked.
The reason? For the past three years Redding has been both a practicing Christian and a Muslim.
Redding said her conversion to Islam was sparked by an interfaith gathering she attended three years ago. During the meeting, an imam demonstrated Muslim chants and meditation to the group. Redding said the beauty of the moment and the imam's humbleness before God stuck with her.
Ten days later Redding was saying the shahada -- the Muslim declaration of belief in the oneness of God and acceptance of Mohammad as his prophet.
But Redding said she felt her new Muslim faith did not pose a contradiction to her staying a Christian and minister.
"Both religions say there's only one God," Redding said, "and that God is the same God. It's very clear we are talking about the same God! So I haven't shifted my allegiance."
Umm... there's that little question of Jesus. Islam teaches that Jesus is just another prophet, and He isn't the greatest prophet, either. Christianity teaches that Jesus is NOT a prophet but the unique Son of God.
Redding said she sees the theological conflicts but that the two religions, at their core, "illuminate" each other.
"When I took my shahada, I said there's no God but God and that Mohammed is God's prophet or messenger. Neither of those statements, neither part of that confession or profession denies anything about Christianity," she said.
The Diocese of Rhode Island, where Redding was ordained, told her to leave either her new Muslim faith or the ministry. A diocese statement said Bishop Geralyn Wolf found Redding to be "a woman of utmost integrity. However, the Bishop believes that a priest of the Church cannot be both a Christian and a Muslim."
It has been said about the mainline denominations that have cut their moorings to Scripture that when they believe in nothing, they'll believe in anything. Redding illustrates this point perfectly.
CNN reported Thursday that the Episcopal church removed her from the priesthood.
For nearly 30 years, Redding has been an ordained minister in the Episcopal Church. Her priesthood ended Wednesday when she was defrocked.
The reason? For the past three years Redding has been both a practicing Christian and a Muslim.
Redding said her conversion to Islam was sparked by an interfaith gathering she attended three years ago. During the meeting, an imam demonstrated Muslim chants and meditation to the group. Redding said the beauty of the moment and the imam's humbleness before God stuck with her.
Ten days later Redding was saying the shahada -- the Muslim declaration of belief in the oneness of God and acceptance of Mohammad as his prophet.
But Redding said she felt her new Muslim faith did not pose a contradiction to her staying a Christian and minister.
"Both religions say there's only one God," Redding said, "and that God is the same God. It's very clear we are talking about the same God! So I haven't shifted my allegiance."
Umm... there's that little question of Jesus. Islam teaches that Jesus is just another prophet, and He isn't the greatest prophet, either. Christianity teaches that Jesus is NOT a prophet but the unique Son of God.
Redding said she sees the theological conflicts but that the two religions, at their core, "illuminate" each other.
"When I took my shahada, I said there's no God but God and that Mohammed is God's prophet or messenger. Neither of those statements, neither part of that confession or profession denies anything about Christianity," she said.
The Diocese of Rhode Island, where Redding was ordained, told her to leave either her new Muslim faith or the ministry. A diocese statement said Bishop Geralyn Wolf found Redding to be "a woman of utmost integrity. However, the Bishop believes that a priest of the Church cannot be both a Christian and a Muslim."
It has been said about the mainline denominations that have cut their moorings to Scripture that when they believe in nothing, they'll believe in anything. Redding illustrates this point perfectly.
Friday, April 03, 2009
The Latest on the Grumpiness
My sunburn has faded a bit, so it's only pink on my forehead, the tops of my cheekbones, and especially my nose. I've been living with aloe vera (no makeup) on my face for two days, and now it feels like my nose is about to start peeling. Already.
Last night when I got home, there was a message on my answering machine from the school. They said there was an opening in the online coding class I wanted, and I should give them a call if I'm still interested. I called right away (after school hours) and left a message that emphatically said that, yes, I was interested and I'd sign up this morning when I came in for my Friday morning class.
I got to class this morning, only to realize that I'd left my permission slip at home on my dresser. And my schedule didn't allow me enough time to go home after class, come back and register, have lunch, and get to work at the shoe store on time.
Our instructor (who will be teaching the coding class) told us we'd have about an hour to an hour and a half to work on our final project, so I told her that I needed to go home and get my slip, and I'd be back within an hour. She told me not to. Then she proceeded to pull out a pad of permission slips and wrote one for me on the spot. So I went to the office and registered for my class. Thankfully, I did not see the woman I had the altercation with Wednesday night.
So now all is well with school, and I'll be typing up my recommendations for changing the registration process soon-ish (my boss at the shoe store told me she scheduled me to work over 30 hours next week, which will be good for my income, but it cuts into my productive time away from work).
Thank you, Tsofah, for your prayers!
Last night when I got home, there was a message on my answering machine from the school. They said there was an opening in the online coding class I wanted, and I should give them a call if I'm still interested. I called right away (after school hours) and left a message that emphatically said that, yes, I was interested and I'd sign up this morning when I came in for my Friday morning class.
I got to class this morning, only to realize that I'd left my permission slip at home on my dresser. And my schedule didn't allow me enough time to go home after class, come back and register, have lunch, and get to work at the shoe store on time.
Our instructor (who will be teaching the coding class) told us we'd have about an hour to an hour and a half to work on our final project, so I told her that I needed to go home and get my slip, and I'd be back within an hour. She told me not to. Then she proceeded to pull out a pad of permission slips and wrote one for me on the spot. So I went to the office and registered for my class. Thankfully, I did not see the woman I had the altercation with Wednesday night.
So now all is well with school, and I'll be typing up my recommendations for changing the registration process soon-ish (my boss at the shoe store told me she scheduled me to work over 30 hours next week, which will be good for my income, but it cuts into my productive time away from work).
Thank you, Tsofah, for your prayers!
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
Grumpy (Updated)
Today was registration for next semester's medical classes, and I had requested Medical Coding, which would be offered online only. I love online classes, because I can do the work when I want to and don't have to miss things like my Wednesday night Bible study.
The process is that you get approval ahead of time from the teachers and administrators, in the form of a purple slip that you take to registration with you. This does not guarantee you a spot in the class. Placement in each class is first-come first-served.
In our Medical Billing class, they emphasized that we were the only competition for Coding, since Billing is a prerequisite, so I didn't get in line as early as I had before.
I should have. The class filled up just ahead of me, so I'm second on the wait list, and I'm pretty ticked that they told us not to worry about our class. And that I believed them.
But what makes it worse is that their ability to process people through registration took a severe nosedive over last time. In January, I got in line at around 6:00 am, they opened the office at 8:00, and I was finished before 9:00 am.
This time I got in line at 7:00 am (not much farther back than in January), they opened the office at 8:00, and they didn't let me in until 2:00 pm. Only to be told that my class was full. Seven hours of waiting for no results.
I am not happy.
Update (after Wednesday night class):
My face is very red from standing in the sun for 5 or 6 hours (it was heavily overcast when I got there then cleared up). I put my stuff down in class tonight and went to the office to register my complaint over the incredibly long time it took to register everyone.
After waiting my turn, I told the lady at the desk (normally a very perky woman) that I wanted to complain. She told me I couldn't complain, and they couldn't do anything for me. I told her I didn't want her to do anything for me (the situation with being on the waiting list is what it is, and I have to live with it), but I just wanted to be heard.
She shut up and listened. I asked her what caused the delay in helping everyone, and she said she couldn't tell me (not sure if she meant they didn't know or just weren't telling). She then went on to tell me what a hard day they had and I had no right to complain.
I tried a compliment, saying that they did a beautiful job with registration last time, and she shot back that they did a beautiful job this time, because they got everyone taken care of.
At that point, I said, "Oh, never mind," and I left the office about ready to burst into tears of frustration.
I vented to the people around me in class (we were working on our PowerPoint assignments, so this wasn't a disruption of class), and then I was fine again. Except for the sunburn that kept people commenting and recommending aloe vera.
After class, I talked with someone about another topic, and then the conversation turned to registration. She and I decided that things could be seriously improved (people had fought in line over cuts or saving spots for friends) if they established some criteria and assigned registration dates by priority.
Perhaps they value attendance and would assign the people with perfect attendance to Day 1 registration, people who missed a class to Day 2, and people who missed more than one class to Day 3.
Or maybe they value grades and can assign the people with the best grades to Day 1, etc. Or they could do some combination of the two, or whatever other criteria make sense and seem fair. Then we wouldn't have the camping-out-all-night (some people started waiting at 6pm the night before) free-for-all disaster that we had today. And they'd be able to spread the students over the three official registration days, rather than having everyone try to register on the first day.
With the economy what it is, more and more people are coming to the school hoping for retraining in the medical field. It's only going to get worse if they don't make some drastic changes.
The process is that you get approval ahead of time from the teachers and administrators, in the form of a purple slip that you take to registration with you. This does not guarantee you a spot in the class. Placement in each class is first-come first-served.
In our Medical Billing class, they emphasized that we were the only competition for Coding, since Billing is a prerequisite, so I didn't get in line as early as I had before.
I should have. The class filled up just ahead of me, so I'm second on the wait list, and I'm pretty ticked that they told us not to worry about our class. And that I believed them.
But what makes it worse is that their ability to process people through registration took a severe nosedive over last time. In January, I got in line at around 6:00 am, they opened the office at 8:00, and I was finished before 9:00 am.
This time I got in line at 7:00 am (not much farther back than in January), they opened the office at 8:00, and they didn't let me in until 2:00 pm. Only to be told that my class was full. Seven hours of waiting for no results.
I am not happy.
Update (after Wednesday night class):
My face is very red from standing in the sun for 5 or 6 hours (it was heavily overcast when I got there then cleared up). I put my stuff down in class tonight and went to the office to register my complaint over the incredibly long time it took to register everyone.
After waiting my turn, I told the lady at the desk (normally a very perky woman) that I wanted to complain. She told me I couldn't complain, and they couldn't do anything for me. I told her I didn't want her to do anything for me (the situation with being on the waiting list is what it is, and I have to live with it), but I just wanted to be heard.
She shut up and listened. I asked her what caused the delay in helping everyone, and she said she couldn't tell me (not sure if she meant they didn't know or just weren't telling). She then went on to tell me what a hard day they had and I had no right to complain.
I tried a compliment, saying that they did a beautiful job with registration last time, and she shot back that they did a beautiful job this time, because they got everyone taken care of.
At that point, I said, "Oh, never mind," and I left the office about ready to burst into tears of frustration.
I vented to the people around me in class (we were working on our PowerPoint assignments, so this wasn't a disruption of class), and then I was fine again. Except for the sunburn that kept people commenting and recommending aloe vera.
After class, I talked with someone about another topic, and then the conversation turned to registration. She and I decided that things could be seriously improved (people had fought in line over cuts or saving spots for friends) if they established some criteria and assigned registration dates by priority.
Perhaps they value attendance and would assign the people with perfect attendance to Day 1 registration, people who missed a class to Day 2, and people who missed more than one class to Day 3.
Or maybe they value grades and can assign the people with the best grades to Day 1, etc. Or they could do some combination of the two, or whatever other criteria make sense and seem fair. Then we wouldn't have the camping-out-all-night (some people started waiting at 6pm the night before) free-for-all disaster that we had today. And they'd be able to spread the students over the three official registration days, rather than having everyone try to register on the first day.
With the economy what it is, more and more people are coming to the school hoping for retraining in the medical field. It's only going to get worse if they don't make some drastic changes.
April Calendar Pictures
Another month is upon us, and that means another month's calendar pictures.
First, the family's travel photos are not the same ones you saw in Photography 101 Lesson 5 or Lesson 8, although you may have seen the one on the right as my mom and I traveled through St. Louis.
For my Patterns calendar, these daisies were in a big planter-box somewhere in New York.
First, the family's travel photos are not the same ones you saw in Photography 101 Lesson 5 or Lesson 8, although you may have seen the one on the right as my mom and I traveled through St. Louis.
For my Patterns calendar, these daisies were in a big planter-box somewhere in New York.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Most Sincerely Dead
No, it's not the Wizard of Oz. But it's close.
The Daily Mail (UK) reported March 22, 2009, on a man whose father had died.
A son got so fed up with hospital staff sending letters to his dead father that he took the ashes to an appointment.
Andrew Wild, 44, received more than 20 reminders asking his father Peter to attend kidney clinics at the University Hospital of North Staffordshire – despite repeatedly telling them he had died in 2007 – so he took the urn to one of his own appointments.
He said: ‘The consultant asked how I was feeling. I said I was OK, then produced dad’s ashes and asked, “But what can you do for him?”
You gotta love it!
The hospital has since apologized.
And just in case you think it only happens with socialized medicine, I heard a story a couple months ago of something similar happening here.
The woman's father-in-law passed away, and the family divided up the various tasks. Her job was to notify all the utilities and insurance and other companies that sent him bills. It all went fine until she called the phone company. They requested a copy of the death certificate, which she faxed to them, and they assured her that it would be taken care of.
A month later, she and her grandkids stopped at Dad's house for something. The granddaughter picked up the phone and announced that it worked. So the lady called the phone company later from home to get Dad's service stopped.
"I'm sorry, but we can't cancel phone service unless the customer himself calls to cancel."
"Well, he's dead. He won't be calling."
"Let me put you through to a supervisor."
So she explained the situation to the supervisor, who said, "I'm sorry, but we can't cancel phone service unless the customer himself calls to cancel."
"HE'S DEAD! I'm just trying to help you, so you're not trying to collect money from someone who won't be paying."
"You know, it's a black mark against his credit if he doesn't pay his bills."
She gave up. They'll figure it out eventually.
The Daily Mail (UK) reported March 22, 2009, on a man whose father had died.
A son got so fed up with hospital staff sending letters to his dead father that he took the ashes to an appointment.
Andrew Wild, 44, received more than 20 reminders asking his father Peter to attend kidney clinics at the University Hospital of North Staffordshire – despite repeatedly telling them he had died in 2007 – so he took the urn to one of his own appointments.
He said: ‘The consultant asked how I was feeling. I said I was OK, then produced dad’s ashes and asked, “But what can you do for him?”
You gotta love it!
The hospital has since apologized.
And just in case you think it only happens with socialized medicine, I heard a story a couple months ago of something similar happening here.
The woman's father-in-law passed away, and the family divided up the various tasks. Her job was to notify all the utilities and insurance and other companies that sent him bills. It all went fine until she called the phone company. They requested a copy of the death certificate, which she faxed to them, and they assured her that it would be taken care of.
A month later, she and her grandkids stopped at Dad's house for something. The granddaughter picked up the phone and announced that it worked. So the lady called the phone company later from home to get Dad's service stopped.
"I'm sorry, but we can't cancel phone service unless the customer himself calls to cancel."
"Well, he's dead. He won't be calling."
"Let me put you through to a supervisor."
So she explained the situation to the supervisor, who said, "I'm sorry, but we can't cancel phone service unless the customer himself calls to cancel."
"HE'S DEAD! I'm just trying to help you, so you're not trying to collect money from someone who won't be paying."
"You know, it's a black mark against his credit if he doesn't pay his bills."
She gave up. They'll figure it out eventually.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Obama Wrote to Chirac
President Obama's gaffes keep piling up. The guy is just not ready for prime time.
The latest came via the Teleprompter's blog, where TOTUS linked to this March 19, 2009, article in Le Figaro (France).
Le président américain vient d'adresser une lettre «très sympathique » à Jacques Chirac, selon l'expression de ce dernier. «Je suis certain que nous pourrons au cours des quatre années à venir collaborer ensemble dans un esprit de paix et d'amitié afin de construire un monde plus sûr» , écrit le successeur de George W. Bush au prédécesseur de Nicolas Sarkozy. En évoquant le mot de « paix», Obama rend un hommage implicite à l'action de l'ancien président français qui s'était opposé à la guerre en Irak. Une intervention américaine contre laquelle le futur président américain s'était opposé comme sénateur, lors du vote au Congrès.
Translation (loosely):
The American President just addressed a letter "very kindly" to Jacques Chirac, according to a statement by the latter. "I am certain that we will be able over the course of these four years to collaborate together in a spirit of peace and amity in order to build a more safe world," wrote the successor of George W. Bush to the predecesseur of Nicolas Sarkozy. In evoking the word, "peace," Obama gave implicit hommage to the action of the old French President who was opposed to the war in Iraq. An American intervention against which the future American President was opposed to when a Senator, at the time of the vote in Congress.
So now our Gaffe-meister-in-Chief is seen as a screw-up in the Left's beloved France. When will it end?
TOTUS had this to add to his comments about the Chirac/Sarkozy faux-pas:
Now you know why we seemed so unprepared for our meeting two weeks ago with Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Great Britain. We were expecting Tony Blair, and had all this really cool personalized stuff for him, but we couldn't very well give those gifts to Brown. It would've been rude, so we just gave him crap from the Smithsonian gift shop.
Exactly.
And Mark Steyn's comments at The Corner at National Review Online Friday referred to another of Obama's mistakes (by way of Hillary's State Department) when he discussed Obama's recorded message to Iran:
Michael, I wouldn't worry so much about President Obama's video message to Teheran. It almost certainly won't work in Iranian VCRs.
Alternatively, if the State Department's Russian outreach is anything to go by, the attempt to sign off with "Have a nice day!" in Farsi will inevitably turn out to mean "I ran into Ayatollah Khamenei and his catamite in the leather bar".
The words, "President Biden," are starting to sound only half-bad these days. Maybe Obama will abdicate...
The latest came via the Teleprompter's blog, where TOTUS linked to this March 19, 2009, article in Le Figaro (France).
Le président américain vient d'adresser une lettre «très sympathique » à Jacques Chirac, selon l'expression de ce dernier. «Je suis certain que nous pourrons au cours des quatre années à venir collaborer ensemble dans un esprit de paix et d'amitié afin de construire un monde plus sûr» , écrit le successeur de George W. Bush au prédécesseur de Nicolas Sarkozy. En évoquant le mot de « paix», Obama rend un hommage implicite à l'action de l'ancien président français qui s'était opposé à la guerre en Irak. Une intervention américaine contre laquelle le futur président américain s'était opposé comme sénateur, lors du vote au Congrès.
Translation (loosely):
The American President just addressed a letter "very kindly" to Jacques Chirac, according to a statement by the latter. "I am certain that we will be able over the course of these four years to collaborate together in a spirit of peace and amity in order to build a more safe world," wrote the successor of George W. Bush to the predecesseur of Nicolas Sarkozy. In evoking the word, "peace," Obama gave implicit hommage to the action of the old French President who was opposed to the war in Iraq. An American intervention against which the future American President was opposed to when a Senator, at the time of the vote in Congress.
So now our Gaffe-meister-in-Chief is seen as a screw-up in the Left's beloved France. When will it end?
TOTUS had this to add to his comments about the Chirac/Sarkozy faux-pas:
Now you know why we seemed so unprepared for our meeting two weeks ago with Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Great Britain. We were expecting Tony Blair, and had all this really cool personalized stuff for him, but we couldn't very well give those gifts to Brown. It would've been rude, so we just gave him crap from the Smithsonian gift shop.
Exactly.
And Mark Steyn's comments at The Corner at National Review Online Friday referred to another of Obama's mistakes (by way of Hillary's State Department) when he discussed Obama's recorded message to Iran:
Michael, I wouldn't worry so much about President Obama's video message to Teheran. It almost certainly won't work in Iranian VCRs.
Alternatively, if the State Department's Russian outreach is anything to go by, the attempt to sign off with "Have a nice day!" in Farsi will inevitably turn out to mean "I ran into Ayatollah Khamenei and his catamite in the leather bar".
The words, "President Biden," are starting to sound only half-bad these days. Maybe Obama will abdicate...
Friday, March 20, 2009
Obama's Teleprompter Has a Blog
President Obama takes his teleprompter everywhere. It went with him on vacation to Hawaii.
It danced with him at the inaugural balls.
And now that the Teleprompter of the United States (TOTUS) has gained some media attention, it has turned its head to the blogging world. And he's doing a great job.
Read Barack Obama's Teleprompter's blog here (and be sure to check out the comments too).
It danced with him at the inaugural balls.
And now that the Teleprompter of the United States (TOTUS) has gained some media attention, it has turned its head to the blogging world. And he's doing a great job.
Read Barack Obama's Teleprompter's blog here (and be sure to check out the comments too).
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Monday, March 16, 2009
Binary Nature of the Brain
I've noticed something about the human brain--mine, at least. In matters of self-control, the brain is binary. It's either on or off. It's either yes or no. There's no such thing as middle ground.
We have a tendency to think our controls are analog, from too many years spent turning the volume knob on the radio up or down. Smokers think they can cut back. Alcoholics think they can handle just one drink. People who struggle with weight think they can have an extra snack "just this once."
It's as though we picture our mental control board as being covered by dials. When we go on a diet, we turn down the Junk Food Dial all the way to OFF, and there it stays, and as long as we keep it there, the weight comes off.
But then we start feeling in control as we reach our target, and we give ourselves permission to have a tiny, harmless indulgence. We turn the dial to the first position up from OFF, secure in the knowledge that we'll be fine.
What we don't understand, however, is that the brain is not analog. Behind what we think is the control board, lie the real controls: toggle switches. Back when we started the diet and turned the dial all the way down, it flipped the switch to the OFF position. We no longer had permission to cheat with our eating.
But when we turned that dial to the '1' position, the toggle switched ON. Permission granted. All systems GO. If you've fought the fat battle before, you know what happened next.
When my mom and I were on our trip, we did a great job of eating right and keeping our weight from getting out of hand, the way weight can when you travel. But sometime after I got back home, I turned up the dial a tiny bit, and--because I was mostly careful--very, very slowly, I gained weight. Enough that some of my clothes didn't fit right anymore.
So about six weeks ago, I embarked on a diet program with supplements (nothing dangerous) and an eating-right plan and a workout plan (that I usually ignore). I turned the Eating switch to OFF (aka, Diet Mode) and began obediently following the food part of the plan.
About a week into it, my daughter brought me one of those tiny squares of dark chocolate, about three-quarters of an inch across. She prefers milk chocolate, and dark is my favorite, so that's why she gave it to me. But I left it on the counter, unwilling to eat it, and not even tempted to break my diet for it, except that she was disappointed that I didn't eat her gift right away. What to do?
After giving it some thought, I told my daughter that the chocolate would be my reward for losing ten pounds. It's been sitting on the counter, next to my supplements and food plan/recipe book, ever since.
Until today.
Yes, today I finally hit -10 lbs., and tonight I had that piece of chocolate in four leisurely bites with a cup of tea.
I think my decision to use the chocolate as a reward for a finite event is enough to keep my brain from flipping ON the Chocolate Permission switch. At least, I certainly hope it is. And it helps that there's no other chocolate in the house.
So tomorrow I should be back with the program, obediently OFF for all the edible perils that lurk in the world around me. But only time will tell...
We have a tendency to think our controls are analog, from too many years spent turning the volume knob on the radio up or down. Smokers think they can cut back. Alcoholics think they can handle just one drink. People who struggle with weight think they can have an extra snack "just this once."
It's as though we picture our mental control board as being covered by dials. When we go on a diet, we turn down the Junk Food Dial all the way to OFF, and there it stays, and as long as we keep it there, the weight comes off.
But then we start feeling in control as we reach our target, and we give ourselves permission to have a tiny, harmless indulgence. We turn the dial to the first position up from OFF, secure in the knowledge that we'll be fine.
What we don't understand, however, is that the brain is not analog. Behind what we think is the control board, lie the real controls: toggle switches. Back when we started the diet and turned the dial all the way down, it flipped the switch to the OFF position. We no longer had permission to cheat with our eating.
But when we turned that dial to the '1' position, the toggle switched ON. Permission granted. All systems GO. If you've fought the fat battle before, you know what happened next.
When my mom and I were on our trip, we did a great job of eating right and keeping our weight from getting out of hand, the way weight can when you travel. But sometime after I got back home, I turned up the dial a tiny bit, and--because I was mostly careful--very, very slowly, I gained weight. Enough that some of my clothes didn't fit right anymore.
So about six weeks ago, I embarked on a diet program with supplements (nothing dangerous) and an eating-right plan and a workout plan (that I usually ignore). I turned the Eating switch to OFF (aka, Diet Mode) and began obediently following the food part of the plan.
About a week into it, my daughter brought me one of those tiny squares of dark chocolate, about three-quarters of an inch across. She prefers milk chocolate, and dark is my favorite, so that's why she gave it to me. But I left it on the counter, unwilling to eat it, and not even tempted to break my diet for it, except that she was disappointed that I didn't eat her gift right away. What to do?
After giving it some thought, I told my daughter that the chocolate would be my reward for losing ten pounds. It's been sitting on the counter, next to my supplements and food plan/recipe book, ever since.
Until today.
Yes, today I finally hit -10 lbs., and tonight I had that piece of chocolate in four leisurely bites with a cup of tea.
I think my decision to use the chocolate as a reward for a finite event is enough to keep my brain from flipping ON the Chocolate Permission switch. At least, I certainly hope it is. And it helps that there's no other chocolate in the house.
So tomorrow I should be back with the program, obediently OFF for all the edible perils that lurk in the world around me. But only time will tell...
Dolphins Blow Bubble Rings
NEWS.com.au (Australia) reported Friday on Sea World's latest dolphin discovery. There are no new pink dolphins. Instead, the dolphins have a new game.
SEAWORLD in the US has revealed incredible footage of dolphins blowing bubble rings from their blowholes. The creatures can be seen entertaining crowds at SeaWorld Orlando's Dolphin Cove by creating the bubbles and then spinning them with their noses.
The dolphins also bite the bubble rings to make them smaller and then use eddies to patch them back together.
One of the females can pop out a perfectly formed ring, before she swims through it like a hoop.
SeaWorld trainers said they discovered the underwater show three months ago when they were showing around VIP guests.
"I caught myself going to the glass and just sitting and staring. I couldn't even talk," one trainer said.
"It was one of the most amazing things I have ever seen."
Enjoy the video:
SEAWORLD in the US has revealed incredible footage of dolphins blowing bubble rings from their blowholes. The creatures can be seen entertaining crowds at SeaWorld Orlando's Dolphin Cove by creating the bubbles and then spinning them with their noses.
The dolphins also bite the bubble rings to make them smaller and then use eddies to patch them back together.
One of the females can pop out a perfectly formed ring, before she swims through it like a hoop.
SeaWorld trainers said they discovered the underwater show three months ago when they were showing around VIP guests.
"I caught myself going to the glass and just sitting and staring. I couldn't even talk," one trainer said.
"It was one of the most amazing things I have ever seen."
Enjoy the video:
Friday, March 13, 2009
Obama Changes Terms of War
The AP reported today that the Obama Administration is changing terminology.
The Obama administration said Friday that it is abandoning one of President George W. Bush's key phrases in the war on terrorism: enemy combatant. The Justice Department said in legal filings that it will no longer use the term to justify holding prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.
But that won't change much for the detainees at the U.S. naval base in Cuba _ Obama still asserts the military's authority to hold them.
That's fine. He can call them whatever he wants, and the longer he keeps them in Gitmo, the better.
What concerns me, however, is this paragraph farther down in the article:
There are some changes in legal principles in Obama's stance. The Justice Department said authority to hold detainees comes from Congress and the international laws of war, not from the president's own wartime power as Bush had argued.
This is a sea change. A polar shift. A quantum leap.
President Obama, as Commander in Chief, has the constitutional duty to prosecute war and command the military. And yet he as just abdicated his authority over the captives of war to the US Congress and international law. This is unconstitutional, and it's a dangerous precedent to set, because it puts the safety and the sovereignty of the USA in the hands either of idiot politicians or those of nations that don't have our best interest at heart. Neither of these should be allowed to be in a position to hamstring our military's ability to prosecute a war.
Let's hope this new policy is challenged and is thoroughly discredited by the US Supreme Court.
The Obama administration said Friday that it is abandoning one of President George W. Bush's key phrases in the war on terrorism: enemy combatant. The Justice Department said in legal filings that it will no longer use the term to justify holding prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.
But that won't change much for the detainees at the U.S. naval base in Cuba _ Obama still asserts the military's authority to hold them.
That's fine. He can call them whatever he wants, and the longer he keeps them in Gitmo, the better.
What concerns me, however, is this paragraph farther down in the article:
There are some changes in legal principles in Obama's stance. The Justice Department said authority to hold detainees comes from Congress and the international laws of war, not from the president's own wartime power as Bush had argued.
This is a sea change. A polar shift. A quantum leap.
President Obama, as Commander in Chief, has the constitutional duty to prosecute war and command the military. And yet he as just abdicated his authority over the captives of war to the US Congress and international law. This is unconstitutional, and it's a dangerous precedent to set, because it puts the safety and the sovereignty of the USA in the hands either of idiot politicians or those of nations that don't have our best interest at heart. Neither of these should be allowed to be in a position to hamstring our military's ability to prosecute a war.
Let's hope this new policy is challenged and is thoroughly discredited by the US Supreme Court.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Justice Investigates Sheriff Who Enforces Law
CNSNews reported today that President Obama's Justice Department is investigating a law enforcement official for enforcing immigration law.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) has launched an investigation of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office in Arizona following requests by congressional Democrats and allegations by liberal activists that the department has violated the civil rights of illegal aliens.
Reps. John Conyers (D-Mich.), Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), and Robert Scott (D-Va.) requested the investigation, and activists groups such as National Day Laborer Organizer Network and ACORN launched petition drives and rallies in support of the probe.
The investigation focuses on Sheriff Joe Arpaio and dozens of officers under his command who were trained through the Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Agreements of Cooperation in Communities to Enhance Safety and Security (ACCESS), which partners federal and local law enforcement to enforce immigration laws. (The Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement division is known popularly as ICE.)
Justice officials sent a letter to Sheriff Arpaio, which included the following:
"The investigation will focus on alleged patterns or practices of discriminatory police practices and unconstitutional searches and seizures conducted by the MCSO, and on allegations of national origin discrimination, including failure to provide meaningful access to MCSO services for limited English proficient (LEP) individuals."
So... what really is the problem these "activists" and Congressmen have with Sheriff Arpaio? It's that he's been effective against illegal immigrants in his county.
In an August 2008 press release, Arpaio's office detailed those results.
"While the Sheriff’s illegal immigration and human smuggling operations conducted on the streets and roadways here have netted nearly 2,300 arrests, another very successful effort to locate illegal aliens has been quietly happening inside Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s jails," the release said.
It continues: "Despite the growing criticism of the Sheriff’s illegal immigration fight by some valley politicians and activists, Sheriff Arpaio says 60 detention officers trained by ICE officials have conducted over 106,000 interviews and investigations of inmates booked into jail since April of 2007.
"In those 18 months, 16,000 inmates were determined to be illegal aliens. Either they have already been deported or will be deported after being tried and/or serving their sentences for crimes committed in the valley. The work being done be Arpaio’s detention staff is a likely contributor to the recent reduction in crime in the valley,” the press release added.
"That number of 16,000 represents a full one-third (1/3) of all inmates in the United States who have had holds placed on them after being identified by jail or prison officials as illegal aliens."
The press release goes on to say that 20 percent of inmates in the Maricopa County Jail are illegal aliens and that of those, 2,000 illegal aliens - 70 percent - were arrested for felony crimes.
It's a little tough to organize day laborers when the illegal alien day laborers have been deported or thrown in jail. How can they get funding in Maricopa County when there's no one left there to help?
Pro-illegal immigration activists don't like the enforcement of immigration law, and Sheriff Arpaio is the best-known enforcer of the law. They'll take him down if they possibly can, even if that means leaving all those felons on the streets in Arizona and the rest of our country. It's just too bad for the law-abiding citizens if the crime rates go back up as a result.
I'd slam President Obama for his lax policies on illegal immigration, but unfortunately John McCain probably wouldn't have been any better. He and GW Bush gave nothing more than lip-service to closing the border and only caved in to public outrage on the issue when they were forced to. Frankly, I'm surprised the ICE program of training local law enforcement officers for the task was even implemented. But since it's here and Arpaio's deputies have been trained, we need to let them do their jobs without Justice Department harrassment.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) has launched an investigation of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office in Arizona following requests by congressional Democrats and allegations by liberal activists that the department has violated the civil rights of illegal aliens.
Reps. John Conyers (D-Mich.), Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), and Robert Scott (D-Va.) requested the investigation, and activists groups such as National Day Laborer Organizer Network and ACORN launched petition drives and rallies in support of the probe.
The investigation focuses on Sheriff Joe Arpaio and dozens of officers under his command who were trained through the Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Agreements of Cooperation in Communities to Enhance Safety and Security (ACCESS), which partners federal and local law enforcement to enforce immigration laws. (The Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement division is known popularly as ICE.)
Justice officials sent a letter to Sheriff Arpaio, which included the following:
"The investigation will focus on alleged patterns or practices of discriminatory police practices and unconstitutional searches and seizures conducted by the MCSO, and on allegations of national origin discrimination, including failure to provide meaningful access to MCSO services for limited English proficient (LEP) individuals."
So... what really is the problem these "activists" and Congressmen have with Sheriff Arpaio? It's that he's been effective against illegal immigrants in his county.
In an August 2008 press release, Arpaio's office detailed those results.
"While the Sheriff’s illegal immigration and human smuggling operations conducted on the streets and roadways here have netted nearly 2,300 arrests, another very successful effort to locate illegal aliens has been quietly happening inside Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s jails," the release said.
It continues: "Despite the growing criticism of the Sheriff’s illegal immigration fight by some valley politicians and activists, Sheriff Arpaio says 60 detention officers trained by ICE officials have conducted over 106,000 interviews and investigations of inmates booked into jail since April of 2007.
"In those 18 months, 16,000 inmates were determined to be illegal aliens. Either they have already been deported or will be deported after being tried and/or serving their sentences for crimes committed in the valley. The work being done be Arpaio’s detention staff is a likely contributor to the recent reduction in crime in the valley,” the press release added.
"That number of 16,000 represents a full one-third (1/3) of all inmates in the United States who have had holds placed on them after being identified by jail or prison officials as illegal aliens."
The press release goes on to say that 20 percent of inmates in the Maricopa County Jail are illegal aliens and that of those, 2,000 illegal aliens - 70 percent - were arrested for felony crimes.
It's a little tough to organize day laborers when the illegal alien day laborers have been deported or thrown in jail. How can they get funding in Maricopa County when there's no one left there to help?
Pro-illegal immigration activists don't like the enforcement of immigration law, and Sheriff Arpaio is the best-known enforcer of the law. They'll take him down if they possibly can, even if that means leaving all those felons on the streets in Arizona and the rest of our country. It's just too bad for the law-abiding citizens if the crime rates go back up as a result.
I'd slam President Obama for his lax policies on illegal immigration, but unfortunately John McCain probably wouldn't have been any better. He and GW Bush gave nothing more than lip-service to closing the border and only caved in to public outrage on the issue when they were forced to. Frankly, I'm surprised the ICE program of training local law enforcement officers for the task was even implemented. But since it's here and Arpaio's deputies have been trained, we need to let them do their jobs without Justice Department harrassment.
Monday, March 09, 2009
Pink Dolphin in Louisiana
Photo credit: CATERS NEWS
The Telegraph (UK) reported Thursday on the new tourist attraction in Louisiana.
The world's only pink Bottlenose dolphin which was discovered in an inland lake in Louisiana, USA, has become such an attraction that conservationists have warned tourists to leave it alone.
Charter boat captain Erik Rue, 42, photographed the animal, which is actually an albino, when he began studying it after the mammal first surfaced in Lake Calcasieu, an inland saltwater estuary, north of the Gulf of Mexico in southwestern USA.
Capt Rue originally saw the dolphin, which also has reddish eyes, swimming with a pod of four other dolphins, with one appearing to be its mother which never left its side.
He said: "I just happened to see a little pod of dolphins, and I noticed one that was a little lighter.
"It was absolutely stunningly pink.
"Surprisingly, it does not appear to be drastically affected by the environment or sunlight as might be expected considering its condition, although it tends to remain below the surface a little more than the others in the pod."
Regina Asmutis-Silvia, senior biologist with the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society, said: "I have never seen a dolphin coloured in this way in all my career.
"Albinism is a genetic trait and it unclear as to the type of albinism this animal inherited."
I had no idea there were multiple types of albinism. When I was about 10, some family friends had a little girl who was albino, and she was adorable with her prescription sunglasses she had to wear all the time. That was well before Edgar Winter became famous, and while his coloring was the same as hers, he was not adorable.
The San Diego Zoo has an albino python that's been in the Reptile House in a big corner enclosure for years. It's not pink, but white with yellow markings.
Wikipedia has an article on albinism that explains the different types, but it's so technical that (keep in mind I love learning about the human body) my eyes glazed over. Read it right before nap time.
Sunday, March 08, 2009
Global Warming vs. Reality
Global warming is back in the news. Yet, in spite of the alarmists' cries of, "Resistance is futile!" it looks like the skeptics are winning. At least, that's what Nature is telling us.
Peter C. Glover's February 23, 2009, article in American Thinker addresses the question of global warming.
There's nothing more the climate alarmist media loves than a 'melting Arctic' ice cap story. So why not stories from the far larger expanse of ice that is the 'melting' Antarctic? Well it might have something to do with the fact that the Antarctic ice grew to record levels in 2007 - and continues to grow.
Climate scientist Dr Ben Herman, past director of the Institute of Atmospheric Physics and former head of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Arizona, notes that for the media, "What happens in the Arctic may be an indicator of what will happen in the rest of the world. How about what happens in the Antarctic then? Since its ice area has been increasing, is this also an indicator of what might be happening in the rest of the world?" The FACT is that the majority of Antarctica has cooled over the past 50 years and ice coverage has grown to record levels. Take the well-publicized collapse of a 160 square mile block of the Wilkins Ice Shelf in Antarctica in March 2008. For the alarmist media this was conclusive proof of the dramatic global warming effects. The Los Angeles Times ran, 'Antarctica Collapse' referring to the "rapid melt of the Wilkins Shelf". The Sydney Morning Herald ran 'Ice Shelf Hangs By a Thread' and the Salon online news site had the absurd headline 'Bye-bye Antarctica?' But Joseph D'Aleo, first Director of Meteorology at The Weather Channel and Chief Meteorologist at Weather Services International, was more prosaic. On his IceCap website, D'Aleo wrote that the collapse was the equivalent, given the enormity of Antarctica, of "an icicle falling from a snow and ice covered roof." He added, "The latest satellite images and reports suggest the ice has already refrozen around the broken pieces. In fact the ice is returning so fast, it is running an amazing 60 percent ahead of last year when it set a new record." Noting the ludicrous media hype, D`Aleo laments, "Yet the world is left with the false impression Antarctica's ice sheet is also starting to disappear."
In December 2006, Dr Duncan Wingham, Professor of Climate Physics at University College London and Director for Polar Observation and Modelling, presented evidence that showed "Antarctic thinning was no more common than thickening". Wingham and his colleagues found that 72 percent of the Antarctica ice sheet was growing at the rate of 5 millimetres per year. Most significantly, Dr Wingham commits media heresy when he states: "That makes Antarctica a sink, not a source, of ocean water. According to their best estimates, Antarctica will 'lower global sea levels by 0.08 mm' per year." Sacrilege.
Yes, you say, but what about the melting Arctic? That's real, isn't it?
During October and November 2008 the extent of Arctic ice was 28.7 percent greater than during the same period in 2007. According to data published by the International Arctic Research Center (IARC/JAXA) October 2008 saw "the fastest ever growth" of Arctic Sea ice since records began.
A NASA study published in the peer-reviewed Geophysical Research Letters in October 2007 had already noted that thinning Arctic ice was more likely the result of "unusual winds" that had blown "older thicker" ice into warmer southern waters. In other words, the Arctic warming experienced more recently could well be the result of the unusual strength of winds, not man-made warming.
According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center's own figures, world sea ice in April 2008 reached "unprecedented" levels for the month of April. The World Meteorlogical Organization (WMO) went to declare 2008 the coolest since 2000.
Moreover, the WMO reports that the fall in the global mean temperature since 1998 is not just affecting the polar ice caps either, it is also affecting glaciers elsewhere.
Glaciologist Bruce Molnia of the US Geological Survey said, "In mid-June, I was surprised to see snow still at sea level in Prince William Sound." He adds "On the Juneau Icefield, there was still 20 feet of new snow on the surface in late July. At Bering Glacier, a landslide I am studying did not become snow free until early August." In short, 2008 was the first time since record began that Alaskan glaciers did not shrink during the summer months.
In late November 2008, reports from Norway showed that Alaska's glacier experience was being replicated there too. Hallgeir Elvehoy of the Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate (NVE) reported that the magnitude of glacial growth appears to have been underway for two years. Glacier growth has also been reported from Canada and New Zealand.
Still, the global warming alarmists insist that their message is true. We must Do Something to save the planet from becoming awash in glacial meltage, they say. Sadly, President Obama is listening to the alarmists and not to the truth.
Peter C. Glover's February 23, 2009, article in American Thinker addresses the question of global warming.
There's nothing more the climate alarmist media loves than a 'melting Arctic' ice cap story. So why not stories from the far larger expanse of ice that is the 'melting' Antarctic? Well it might have something to do with the fact that the Antarctic ice grew to record levels in 2007 - and continues to grow.
Climate scientist Dr Ben Herman, past director of the Institute of Atmospheric Physics and former head of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Arizona, notes that for the media, "What happens in the Arctic may be an indicator of what will happen in the rest of the world. How about what happens in the Antarctic then? Since its ice area has been increasing, is this also an indicator of what might be happening in the rest of the world?" The FACT is that the majority of Antarctica has cooled over the past 50 years and ice coverage has grown to record levels. Take the well-publicized collapse of a 160 square mile block of the Wilkins Ice Shelf in Antarctica in March 2008. For the alarmist media this was conclusive proof of the dramatic global warming effects. The Los Angeles Times ran, 'Antarctica Collapse' referring to the "rapid melt of the Wilkins Shelf". The Sydney Morning Herald ran 'Ice Shelf Hangs By a Thread' and the Salon online news site had the absurd headline 'Bye-bye Antarctica?' But Joseph D'Aleo, first Director of Meteorology at The Weather Channel and Chief Meteorologist at Weather Services International, was more prosaic. On his IceCap website, D'Aleo wrote that the collapse was the equivalent, given the enormity of Antarctica, of "an icicle falling from a snow and ice covered roof." He added, "The latest satellite images and reports suggest the ice has already refrozen around the broken pieces. In fact the ice is returning so fast, it is running an amazing 60 percent ahead of last year when it set a new record." Noting the ludicrous media hype, D`Aleo laments, "Yet the world is left with the false impression Antarctica's ice sheet is also starting to disappear."
In December 2006, Dr Duncan Wingham, Professor of Climate Physics at University College London and Director for Polar Observation and Modelling, presented evidence that showed "Antarctic thinning was no more common than thickening". Wingham and his colleagues found that 72 percent of the Antarctica ice sheet was growing at the rate of 5 millimetres per year. Most significantly, Dr Wingham commits media heresy when he states: "That makes Antarctica a sink, not a source, of ocean water. According to their best estimates, Antarctica will 'lower global sea levels by 0.08 mm' per year." Sacrilege.
Yes, you say, but what about the melting Arctic? That's real, isn't it?
During October and November 2008 the extent of Arctic ice was 28.7 percent greater than during the same period in 2007. According to data published by the International Arctic Research Center (IARC/JAXA) October 2008 saw "the fastest ever growth" of Arctic Sea ice since records began.
A NASA study published in the peer-reviewed Geophysical Research Letters in October 2007 had already noted that thinning Arctic ice was more likely the result of "unusual winds" that had blown "older thicker" ice into warmer southern waters. In other words, the Arctic warming experienced more recently could well be the result of the unusual strength of winds, not man-made warming.
According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center's own figures, world sea ice in April 2008 reached "unprecedented" levels for the month of April. The World Meteorlogical Organization (WMO) went to declare 2008 the coolest since 2000.
Moreover, the WMO reports that the fall in the global mean temperature since 1998 is not just affecting the polar ice caps either, it is also affecting glaciers elsewhere.
Glaciologist Bruce Molnia of the US Geological Survey said, "In mid-June, I was surprised to see snow still at sea level in Prince William Sound." He adds "On the Juneau Icefield, there was still 20 feet of new snow on the surface in late July. At Bering Glacier, a landslide I am studying did not become snow free until early August." In short, 2008 was the first time since record began that Alaskan glaciers did not shrink during the summer months.
In late November 2008, reports from Norway showed that Alaska's glacier experience was being replicated there too. Hallgeir Elvehoy of the Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate (NVE) reported that the magnitude of glacial growth appears to have been underway for two years. Glacier growth has also been reported from Canada and New Zealand.
Still, the global warming alarmists insist that their message is true. We must Do Something to save the planet from becoming awash in glacial meltage, they say. Sadly, President Obama is listening to the alarmists and not to the truth.
Random Church Thoughts
I skipped Sunday School class at 8:30 today. When I showed up for the 10:00 service, some of my fellow classmates thought I forgot to change my clock, but I hadn't.
I'm getting a cold. It started Friday night just enough to make me take a Sudafed before I went to my friend's son's house to play Settlers of Catan (which I didn't win, as usual). The Sudafed kept my nose under control, but then my cold moved to my throat and hurt enough yesterday that I checked my tonsils by looking in the mirror and by feeling them from the outside, but the size was normal. By last night, my cold was settling into my nose more and moving to my lungs, with the scratchy throat as the extra bonus.
So I didn't sleep well last night. That added to the time change and my extra-long time journalling from my Bible reading which kept me up later than usual, and I just couldn't bring myself to get up in time for Sunday School.
At church, I had to warn my friends about my incipient pestilence before they could hug me, along the lines of lepers shouting, "Unclean!" So I got a bunch of air-hugs this week, which is fine, because it's the thought that counts.
During the service, we got to see the Evangelism Linebacker video. That was fun. And I caught a whiff of somebody's perfume every now and then. It was the same scent I smelled many years ago when I visited the women's restroom at Scripps Aquarium in La Jolla and they perfumed the restroom to make it smell better. I think they officially call it "vanilla," but it doesn't quite have the right combination to make it really smell like vanilla. Instead, it smells exactly like Play-Doh. Whichever poor woman was wearing it today probaly has no idea.
Because of my scratchy throat, I sang with the men for most of the songs, and our minister preached about the conversion of Saul on the Damascus Road (kind of like Jesus as the Evangelism Linebacker to Saul), and then he told the story of John Newton and his conversion to Christianity. And as our minister talked, I remembered one of my favorite parts of the movie, Amazing Grace (which I watched again last week on a big-screen TV when I was dog-sitting for friends), when John Newton says, "Although my memory's fading, I remember two things very clearly. I am a great sinner, and Christ is a great Savior." The thought brought tears to my eyes and made it hard to sing (of course) Amazing Grace, Chris Tomlin's version.
There are times, like this morning, when I'm tempted to skip church altogether and just stay under the covers in bed. But each time I refuse to give in, like this morning, I'm glad I refused. Not because anything incredible happened, but just because it feels good. I described it this way back in 2006, when I was preparing for a trip to Poland:
[N]early every church [that I visited in Poland when I was there in 1997] had a Bible verse painted or mounted on the front wall. My favorite front-wall verse (because I could both pronounce it and figure out what it meant) was this one:
Lecz moim, śćeśćem być blisko Boga. (I probably didn't spell that "s" word right because there are multiple ways to spell the same sounds, and I'm working from memory.) It means, "But for me, it is good to be near God."
In September when I go to Poland, it will also be good to be near the people of God.
I'm getting a cold. It started Friday night just enough to make me take a Sudafed before I went to my friend's son's house to play Settlers of Catan (which I didn't win, as usual). The Sudafed kept my nose under control, but then my cold moved to my throat and hurt enough yesterday that I checked my tonsils by looking in the mirror and by feeling them from the outside, but the size was normal. By last night, my cold was settling into my nose more and moving to my lungs, with the scratchy throat as the extra bonus.
So I didn't sleep well last night. That added to the time change and my extra-long time journalling from my Bible reading which kept me up later than usual, and I just couldn't bring myself to get up in time for Sunday School.
At church, I had to warn my friends about my incipient pestilence before they could hug me, along the lines of lepers shouting, "Unclean!" So I got a bunch of air-hugs this week, which is fine, because it's the thought that counts.
During the service, we got to see the Evangelism Linebacker video. That was fun. And I caught a whiff of somebody's perfume every now and then. It was the same scent I smelled many years ago when I visited the women's restroom at Scripps Aquarium in La Jolla and they perfumed the restroom to make it smell better. I think they officially call it "vanilla," but it doesn't quite have the right combination to make it really smell like vanilla. Instead, it smells exactly like Play-Doh. Whichever poor woman was wearing it today probaly has no idea.
Because of my scratchy throat, I sang with the men for most of the songs, and our minister preached about the conversion of Saul on the Damascus Road (kind of like Jesus as the Evangelism Linebacker to Saul), and then he told the story of John Newton and his conversion to Christianity. And as our minister talked, I remembered one of my favorite parts of the movie, Amazing Grace (which I watched again last week on a big-screen TV when I was dog-sitting for friends), when John Newton says, "Although my memory's fading, I remember two things very clearly. I am a great sinner, and Christ is a great Savior." The thought brought tears to my eyes and made it hard to sing (of course) Amazing Grace, Chris Tomlin's version.
There are times, like this morning, when I'm tempted to skip church altogether and just stay under the covers in bed. But each time I refuse to give in, like this morning, I'm glad I refused. Not because anything incredible happened, but just because it feels good. I described it this way back in 2006, when I was preparing for a trip to Poland:
[N]early every church [that I visited in Poland when I was there in 1997] had a Bible verse painted or mounted on the front wall. My favorite front-wall verse (because I could both pronounce it and figure out what it meant) was this one:
Lecz moim, śćeśćem być blisko Boga. (I probably didn't spell that "s" word right because there are multiple ways to spell the same sounds, and I'm working from memory.) It means, "But for me, it is good to be near God."
In September when I go to Poland, it will also be good to be near the people of God.
Thursday, March 05, 2009
Photography 101 - Lesson 8
This is the final lesson.
Play with the light.
Sunlight. Candlelight. Moonlight. Whatever light you find. Play with it. Break "the rules" about it. Light is the oxygen that keeps photography alive.
On our cruise ship last year, this was one of the swimming pools for the kids. While I stood in the shade, I shot this toward the sun as it lit up the spray of water from the fountains.
At Old Sturbridge Village, I didn't know the picture would turn out like this when I took it. I just wanted to get a shot of someone carding the wool. But the final result reminded me of Georges De La Tour's painting of St. Joseph as a carpenter. Direct sunlight through a window in an otherwise-unlit room creates a mood...
Try sunlight through colored glass, or through colored liquids in glass.
And give photographing the sun a whirl, seen here hiding behind the St. Louis Gateway Arch.
A word of caution about photographing the sun. Do not look at it. For this photo, I glanced through the viewfinder at my composition quickly, then looked away and took the picture. I don't think it hurts the camera to do this--I haven't noticed any ill effects in my photos.
Bonus Lesson:
Train your eyes.
As you go through your daily life, look around you and mentally compose photos you could take. Sometimes when I walk under a tree, I look up to see if the shape and direction of the branches would make a good picture. Usually, they wouldn't, but I keep looking.
If you're having trouble seeing photos, consider carrying an empty frame from a 35mm slide and looking through that at the world around you.
Is there an old farmhouse lit up by the afternoon sun, while a dark storm is approaching from behind it? Is there a shoe, scuffed and alone on a long stretch of empty road? Is the late afternoon sunlight sparkling on fresh snow? Are there weathered, aged hands resting on a Bible or on the soft curls of a toddler? Teach your eyes to see these things and even seek them out. Let yourself want to find the images that deserve to be matted and framed and hung on the wall in a place of honor.
Get closer. Use the Rule of Thirds. Look for diagonals and curves. Frame your pictures and find patterns. Change your perspective and play with the light. Look at the world with a photographer's eye, and soon we'll be ooh-ing your pictures too.
Homework:
Take pictures in three different lighting situations. If you like some of your shots and want to share, post them on your blog and leave a comment here with the link.
Previous Lessons:
Photography 101 - Lesson 1 and Homework
Digital Photography 101 - Quickie Version
Digital Photography 101 - Update
Photography 101 - Lesson 2
Photography 101 - Lesson 3
Photography 101 - Lesson 4
Photography 101 - Lesson 5
Photography 101 - Lesson 6
Photography 101 - Lesson 7
Play with the light.
Sunlight. Candlelight. Moonlight. Whatever light you find. Play with it. Break "the rules" about it. Light is the oxygen that keeps photography alive.
On our cruise ship last year, this was one of the swimming pools for the kids. While I stood in the shade, I shot this toward the sun as it lit up the spray of water from the fountains.
At Old Sturbridge Village, I didn't know the picture would turn out like this when I took it. I just wanted to get a shot of someone carding the wool. But the final result reminded me of Georges De La Tour's painting of St. Joseph as a carpenter. Direct sunlight through a window in an otherwise-unlit room creates a mood...
Try sunlight through colored glass, or through colored liquids in glass.
And give photographing the sun a whirl, seen here hiding behind the St. Louis Gateway Arch.
A word of caution about photographing the sun. Do not look at it. For this photo, I glanced through the viewfinder at my composition quickly, then looked away and took the picture. I don't think it hurts the camera to do this--I haven't noticed any ill effects in my photos.
Bonus Lesson:
Train your eyes.
As you go through your daily life, look around you and mentally compose photos you could take. Sometimes when I walk under a tree, I look up to see if the shape and direction of the branches would make a good picture. Usually, they wouldn't, but I keep looking.
If you're having trouble seeing photos, consider carrying an empty frame from a 35mm slide and looking through that at the world around you.
Is there an old farmhouse lit up by the afternoon sun, while a dark storm is approaching from behind it? Is there a shoe, scuffed and alone on a long stretch of empty road? Is the late afternoon sunlight sparkling on fresh snow? Are there weathered, aged hands resting on a Bible or on the soft curls of a toddler? Teach your eyes to see these things and even seek them out. Let yourself want to find the images that deserve to be matted and framed and hung on the wall in a place of honor.
Get closer. Use the Rule of Thirds. Look for diagonals and curves. Frame your pictures and find patterns. Change your perspective and play with the light. Look at the world with a photographer's eye, and soon we'll be ooh-ing your pictures too.
Homework:
Take pictures in three different lighting situations. If you like some of your shots and want to share, post them on your blog and leave a comment here with the link.
Previous Lessons:
Photography 101 - Lesson 1 and Homework
Digital Photography 101 - Quickie Version
Digital Photography 101 - Update
Photography 101 - Lesson 2
Photography 101 - Lesson 3
Photography 101 - Lesson 4
Photography 101 - Lesson 5
Photography 101 - Lesson 6
Photography 101 - Lesson 7
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
Hawaii's Health Insurance Lesson
This news is a month old, but ChuckL's post on Irresponsibility brings what's been happening in Hawaii right back to the forefront.
Carrie Lukas, in her January 30, 2009, TownHall column, talked about the consequences of government programs that have the best of intentions.
When President Obama signs the "Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009," (which passed the Senate by a vote of 66-32 last night) he will take the country on the first of what are likely to be several steps during his Administration toward "universal" health insurance.
Those who already have quality healthcare may assume that this debate really doesn't have much to do with them. After all, as a candidate, President Obama promised "if you like your current health insurance, nothing changes." Yet Americans should consider the dynamic that would occur as the government provides more and more publicly subsidized insurance options.
The experience of Hawaii in launching the first state-based "universal" child health insurance program is instructive. The program was created in hopes of helping the island state's uninsured children (estimated to number between 3,500 and 16,000) by providing free health insurance coverage and access to doctor's visits for just a $7 co-pay.
What lawmakers soon learned was that it isn't just the existing pool of uninsured who wants to take advantage of a free government alternative; many parents dropped their private coverage in order to qualify for the government-funded plan. A staggering 85 percent of those who enrolled previously had health insurance. Dr. Kenny Fink, an administrator at Hawaii's Department of Human Services, summed up what was happening: "People who were already able to afford healthcare began to stop paying for it so they could get it for free. I don't believe that was the intent of the program." Just seven months after the program's launch, government officials decided to shut it down.
The problem is, when "help for the uninsured" (or whatever they decide to call it) goes national and people start dropping insurance, they won't be shutting the program down. They'll just make it universal, paid for by the government, which this administration seems to believe has an endless supply of money to spend.
It's the same as the irresponsible-home"owner" foreclosure bailout making responsible people wish their morals were low enough to let them stop paying their mortgages, so the government can step in and throw some money their way. Why be forced to pay twice for something you can get for free?
Obama's policies are enough to make the good people who voted for him hang their heads in shame.
Carrie Lukas, in her January 30, 2009, TownHall column, talked about the consequences of government programs that have the best of intentions.
When President Obama signs the "Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009," (which passed the Senate by a vote of 66-32 last night) he will take the country on the first of what are likely to be several steps during his Administration toward "universal" health insurance.
Those who already have quality healthcare may assume that this debate really doesn't have much to do with them. After all, as a candidate, President Obama promised "if you like your current health insurance, nothing changes." Yet Americans should consider the dynamic that would occur as the government provides more and more publicly subsidized insurance options.
The experience of Hawaii in launching the first state-based "universal" child health insurance program is instructive. The program was created in hopes of helping the island state's uninsured children (estimated to number between 3,500 and 16,000) by providing free health insurance coverage and access to doctor's visits for just a $7 co-pay.
What lawmakers soon learned was that it isn't just the existing pool of uninsured who wants to take advantage of a free government alternative; many parents dropped their private coverage in order to qualify for the government-funded plan. A staggering 85 percent of those who enrolled previously had health insurance. Dr. Kenny Fink, an administrator at Hawaii's Department of Human Services, summed up what was happening: "People who were already able to afford healthcare began to stop paying for it so they could get it for free. I don't believe that was the intent of the program." Just seven months after the program's launch, government officials decided to shut it down.
The problem is, when "help for the uninsured" (or whatever they decide to call it) goes national and people start dropping insurance, they won't be shutting the program down. They'll just make it universal, paid for by the government, which this administration seems to believe has an endless supply of money to spend.
It's the same as the irresponsible-home"owner" foreclosure bailout making responsible people wish their morals were low enough to let them stop paying their mortgages, so the government can step in and throw some money their way. Why be forced to pay twice for something you can get for free?
Obama's policies are enough to make the good people who voted for him hang their heads in shame.
Sleeping With Your Girlfriend
Frank Turek's column at TownHall yesterday had a great look at the state of religion in the minds of many people.
My friend David has a knack for cutting through the smokescreens people throw up when they’re trying to avoid making commitments, be they commitments to God or to other people. Last week, with one comment, he blew away all the smoke that a young agnostic was hiding behind. It was a demonstration of tremendous insight, and it required some courage to say.
For several weeks David was teaching through a series on Christian apologetics, which involves providing evidence for the truth of Christianity. In addition to the biblical mandate to provide such evidence, David thought it would be wise to do so because 75 percent of Christian youth stop attending church after age 18. Many of them abandon the church because they’re bombarded by secularism in college and they’ve never been taught any of the sound evidence that supports Christianity.
Last week, after David finished a presentation refuting the “new atheists”—Dawkins, Hitchens and the like—a young man approached him and said, “I once was a Christian, but now I’m an agnostic, and I don’t think you should be doing what you’re doing.”
“What do you mean?” David asked.
“I don’t think you should be giving arguments against atheists,” the young man said. “Jesus told us to love, and it’s not loving what you’re doing.”
David said, “No, that’s not right. Jesus came with both love and tuth. Love without truth is a swampy, borderless mess. Truth is necessary. In fact, it’s unloving to keep truth from people, especially if that truth has eternal consequences.”
The young man continued to argue with David, coming up with one objection to Christianity after another, and not stopping to listen to David's replies.
So after the kid fired off another objection, David decided to end the charade and cut right to the heart. He said, “You’re raising all of these objections because you’re sleeping with your girlfriend. Am I right?”
All the blood drained from the kid’s face. He was caught. He just stood there speechless. He was rejecting God because he didn’t like God’s morality, and he was disguising it with alleged intellectual objections.
How many people are out there hating God because He tells them they shouldn't be doing what they want to do? And how many of them hide behind intellectual theological arguments vaguely reminiscent of the woman at the well (John chapter 4)?
Christians, when you find yourselves engaging in this kind of fruitless exercise with someone, it might not be a bad idea to look at what's behind it.
I'm just saying...
My friend David has a knack for cutting through the smokescreens people throw up when they’re trying to avoid making commitments, be they commitments to God or to other people. Last week, with one comment, he blew away all the smoke that a young agnostic was hiding behind. It was a demonstration of tremendous insight, and it required some courage to say.
For several weeks David was teaching through a series on Christian apologetics, which involves providing evidence for the truth of Christianity. In addition to the biblical mandate to provide such evidence, David thought it would be wise to do so because 75 percent of Christian youth stop attending church after age 18. Many of them abandon the church because they’re bombarded by secularism in college and they’ve never been taught any of the sound evidence that supports Christianity.
Last week, after David finished a presentation refuting the “new atheists”—Dawkins, Hitchens and the like—a young man approached him and said, “I once was a Christian, but now I’m an agnostic, and I don’t think you should be doing what you’re doing.”
“What do you mean?” David asked.
“I don’t think you should be giving arguments against atheists,” the young man said. “Jesus told us to love, and it’s not loving what you’re doing.”
David said, “No, that’s not right. Jesus came with both love and tuth. Love without truth is a swampy, borderless mess. Truth is necessary. In fact, it’s unloving to keep truth from people, especially if that truth has eternal consequences.”
The young man continued to argue with David, coming up with one objection to Christianity after another, and not stopping to listen to David's replies.
So after the kid fired off another objection, David decided to end the charade and cut right to the heart. He said, “You’re raising all of these objections because you’re sleeping with your girlfriend. Am I right?”
All the blood drained from the kid’s face. He was caught. He just stood there speechless. He was rejecting God because he didn’t like God’s morality, and he was disguising it with alleged intellectual objections.
How many people are out there hating God because He tells them they shouldn't be doing what they want to do? And how many of them hide behind intellectual theological arguments vaguely reminiscent of the woman at the well (John chapter 4)?
Christians, when you find yourselves engaging in this kind of fruitless exercise with someone, it might not be a bad idea to look at what's behind it.
I'm just saying...
Monday, March 02, 2009
Photography 101 - Lesson 7
Change your perspective
Most people take almost all of their pictures from the same position: standing up. So about 95% of the pictures out there were taken with the camera held at around 5 to 6 feet off the ground. How very ordinary.
But this class is here to help you get your photos to be anything but ordinary. One way to do that is to get your camera at some other height.
This first picture was taken from a standing position when my mom and I were at the Golden Spike National Monument. It's looking down on the train's wheel and doesn't look all that wonderful.
After that picture, I remembered this lesson and crouched down to wheel height for another try:
This looks better.
At the photography workshop I attended in Washington, DC, they took us to Chinatown for a morning of picture-taking. I tried getting a shot of that lion statue across the street, framed by the top and arm of the fire hydrant, but the lion was too far away for the photo to work.
Back at the hotel at critique time, the professionals weren't any more thrilled with these pictures than I was. Until it was another guy's turn, and he had a shot of me sitting down on the sidewalk with my legs straddling the hydrant. The pro turned to me and said, "Now I'm impressed."
He still wasn't impressed with the picture, but he appreciated my willingness to get a little dirty and make myself uncomfortable for the sake of getting (or trying to) a good photo. And that's what Lesson 7 is about.
Climb up on a ladder or a park bench and look down on something instead of looking straight at it. Crouch down, kneel down, sit down, lie down, if that's what it takes to make your picture better.
You saw this spiral staircase in the Cabrillo Lighthouse in Lesson 4. In that lesson, the picture was taken from the top. When I got to the bottom of the stairs, I went inside the central space, put my back against the wall, and pointed the camera straight up. It didn't look as good as I'd hoped, so I slid down to sit on the carpet. That's when I took the picture. The doorframe and the lower end of the bannister made nice diagonals that led to the central spiral.
It wasn't easy getting back to my feet in that tiny space.
This shot got me crouched low, with one knee on the rocks for balance.
And for the mushrooms, I had to get the camera down to their level. I'm pretty sure my knees and elbows got damp.
Homework:
Look up. Look down. Move away from a standing position and take pictures from a different perspective. If you like some of your shots and want to share, post them on your blog and leave a comment here with the link.
Previous Lessons:
Photography 101 - Lesson 1 and Homework
Digital Photography 101 - Quickie Version
Digital Photography 101 - Update
Photography 101 - Lesson 2
Photography 101 - Lesson 3
Photography 101 - Lesson 4
Photography 101 - Lesson 5
Photography 101 - Lesson 6
Most people take almost all of their pictures from the same position: standing up. So about 95% of the pictures out there were taken with the camera held at around 5 to 6 feet off the ground. How very ordinary.
But this class is here to help you get your photos to be anything but ordinary. One way to do that is to get your camera at some other height.
This first picture was taken from a standing position when my mom and I were at the Golden Spike National Monument. It's looking down on the train's wheel and doesn't look all that wonderful.
After that picture, I remembered this lesson and crouched down to wheel height for another try:
This looks better.
At the photography workshop I attended in Washington, DC, they took us to Chinatown for a morning of picture-taking. I tried getting a shot of that lion statue across the street, framed by the top and arm of the fire hydrant, but the lion was too far away for the photo to work.
Back at the hotel at critique time, the professionals weren't any more thrilled with these pictures than I was. Until it was another guy's turn, and he had a shot of me sitting down on the sidewalk with my legs straddling the hydrant. The pro turned to me and said, "Now I'm impressed."
He still wasn't impressed with the picture, but he appreciated my willingness to get a little dirty and make myself uncomfortable for the sake of getting (or trying to) a good photo. And that's what Lesson 7 is about.
Climb up on a ladder or a park bench and look down on something instead of looking straight at it. Crouch down, kneel down, sit down, lie down, if that's what it takes to make your picture better.
You saw this spiral staircase in the Cabrillo Lighthouse in Lesson 4. In that lesson, the picture was taken from the top. When I got to the bottom of the stairs, I went inside the central space, put my back against the wall, and pointed the camera straight up. It didn't look as good as I'd hoped, so I slid down to sit on the carpet. That's when I took the picture. The doorframe and the lower end of the bannister made nice diagonals that led to the central spiral.
It wasn't easy getting back to my feet in that tiny space.
This shot got me crouched low, with one knee on the rocks for balance.
And for the mushrooms, I had to get the camera down to their level. I'm pretty sure my knees and elbows got damp.
Homework:
Look up. Look down. Move away from a standing position and take pictures from a different perspective. If you like some of your shots and want to share, post them on your blog and leave a comment here with the link.
Previous Lessons:
Photography 101 - Lesson 1 and Homework
Digital Photography 101 - Quickie Version
Digital Photography 101 - Update
Photography 101 - Lesson 2
Photography 101 - Lesson 3
Photography 101 - Lesson 4
Photography 101 - Lesson 5
Photography 101 - Lesson 6
A Message to President Obama from DC Kids
Courtesy of Michelle Malkin:
My favorite line was from one of the young boys. "I am going to grow up and be a good man."
Get more information at: VoicesOfSchoolChoice.org
My favorite line was from one of the young boys. "I am going to grow up and be a good man."
Get more information at: VoicesOfSchoolChoice.org
March Calendar Pictures
Yes, it's that time again. A new month is suddenly upon us (OK, yesterday), leaving us swiveling our heads to find the tail end of February as it races away.
March's calendars have pictures you've seen before if you've been reading since my mom and I left for our trip. From the family calendar come these shots of Connor Prairie.
And my calendar has the swirling grain of the root-end of a piece of driftwood in Acadia National Park.
Stay tuned next month for more...
March's calendars have pictures you've seen before if you've been reading since my mom and I left for our trip. From the family calendar come these shots of Connor Prairie.
And my calendar has the swirling grain of the root-end of a piece of driftwood in Acadia National Park.
Stay tuned next month for more...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)