I have a bunch of quotes, notes and pictures pasted on my office wall - some are Sciptures some are airplanes - go figure.
Today I saw again, for the thousandth time a quote by John Adams:
"Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone, which can establish the principles on which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue; and if this cannot be inspired into our people in greater measure than they have it now, they may change their rulers and the forms of government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty. They will only exchange tyrants and tyrranies."
I could not express this any better - let this sink in before you vote...
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Saturday, September 25, 2010
HDR?
So Lance's post (which I read a few minutes ago) would have helped me a lot on this shoot...
I got to pretend to be a photographer a few weeks ago and am just now getting a moment to post stuff from this summer - and comments on others' posts too.
Before you look too closely, I need to make a few disclosures...
Most of these were shot at 1/125, which makes holding the camera steady VERY critical. I found through the shoot that I could go up to about 1/350 and still keep the prop moving. Next time, huh? I hope there is one.
Lastly, I want to thank everyone involved in this. Along with the photoshoot we took a soon-to-be-deployed soldier (army) for a flight - as a "Thanks for serving gesture". I am grateful on many levels to have been a part of this.
I got to pretend to be a photographer a few weeks ago and am just now getting a moment to post stuff from this summer - and comments on others' posts too.
Before you look too closely, I need to make a few disclosures...
- That day was a smokey one, so all the pics started out gray and blue.
- I was in a chase plane that could not keep up easily, and had only 2 clear angles to shoot from. Distance was difficult to maintain as was angle... ...often you got one or the other, not both.
- Airplanes move. Imagine trying to shoot from a boat plowing through small wakes and you get the idea. My shoulders were sore from holding the camera when I got back.
- I always try to expose for the brightest part of the composition. When you shoot airplanes, you are often shooting a brilliant white or highly reflective surface. Couple this with the motion of everything in your shot and you might want to bump the shutter speed - that would be mistake #1. You DO NOT want to show a pilot a beautiful picture of his airborne masterpiece with a "frozen" prop! Nice, round discs are the thing to have - "it ain't a glider!"
- My wife quite literally saved these pics with her instructions on editing - and I got maybe a half dozen that are "good-enough" - out of a possible 400 that I shot.
- I shot the whole thing without considering a different white balance. Might have helped!
Lastly, I want to thank everyone involved in this. Along with the photoshoot we took a soon-to-be-deployed soldier (army) for a flight - as a "Thanks for serving gesture". I am grateful on many levels to have been a part of this.
Global Warming...
I am sure that I have crossed my mind a few times by now in previous posts - but who's really paying attention, right? So, at the risk of doing that now or reversing my own thinking later...
The recent "carbon footprint" publicity has taken center stage in public life. Scientists, educators, newsies and politicians have presented a global front of man-made global warming. At the moment, it is all about carbon.
Why carbon? It has been learned that carbon, present in the atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide (CO2), as well as other gasses, is linked to temperature increases in lower atmosphere. That part we "know" - they say.
But I think there is a lot that we don't know. I am open to consider anything - as long as it considers itself a truth.
Frankly, I heard Al Gore's debate with Dan Quayle, and I was completely mortified by his logic back then. Now, he has made a LOT of money in purporting an Armagedon-esque man-made global warming theory. I might respect a scientist with the proposition of truth and a "prove-me-wrong-if-you-can" attitude; but my suspicions are on overload when a public figure presents science in a theatrical manner and then shuts down any discussion thereafter. It just resembles the Inquisition or the old Pravda propoganda to me.
I have mentioned before that I am considering things - in spite of a bad presentation, perhaps there is truth in it somewhere, right? My Dad always told us, "There are always two sides to every story." He knows the value of getting all the information before you make a judgement.
It makes sense to me that carbon would increase with our use of fossil fuels. (Though the levels being thrown around seem pretty small in the grand scheme.) However, it also makes sense to me that all that carbon came from somewhere - and I don't think it was space aliens. (That I may never cross my mind about...)
As I read the Bible, I learn that God created the heavens and the earth, and six chapters later, destroyed every land animal and bird in a global flood. The only people and animals that survived were those that were on a boat.
Prior to that flood, the Bible says there was a firmament of water over the earth. That is to say, a vapor barrier that would have blocked a lot of solar radiation and would also have kept the entire planet at a relatively constant temperature. Part of the flood, the Bible says, was the breaking up of that firmament. So, notice first that there is likely the same amount of water before the flood and after, but it now takes the form of large oceans, clouds and lakes, instead of being a vapor barrier high in the atmosphere.
In much the same fashion, I contend that there was a lot more carbon in the system in the form of plants and animals, including dinosaurs. We still have all that carbon; but now we have it, not only in the forms of plants and animals, but also in the form of coal and petroleum deposits in the ground. This is not a disputed point - how it got there certainly is disputed.
What it is doing to the atmosphere certainly is disputed as well. In my mind, we are likely coming out of a 4,000 year ice age that followed the flood of Genesis. What that means is that the processes we are observing are both anecdotal (being too short to extrapolate reasonable conclusions) and irrelevant (because things now are not the same as they always have been).
Change is a scary thing. People naturally want to find a home, find a job, have a family and live happily ever after. Every day, peoples' jobs are lost, homes are lost, wars are started, cancer strikes and people are stressed.
Scientists are people too - analytical people. They want to make sense of things that they observe but they have to make assumptions about things they do not or cannot know. Because scientists are people, those assumptions are often based on the present conditions, and they do extrapolate from their observations without regard to the record of the Bible.
So with all the dinosaurs being burned up in our gasoline, all that carbon being put back into the system but having no firmament, what will that actually do to the Earth? Is carbon actually the biggest cause of global warming?
I heard some discussion of the global warming yesterday on my way home from work. Janet Parshall was interviewing Dr. Roy Spencer. Dr. Spencer is not a new name to me - Rush used to mention him all the time.
He contends that the carbon concetrations are a minimal part of the whole. I try to make things simple, so at the risk of being wrong, consider this: I mentioned the water both before and after the flood of Genesis? I then mentioned the carbon levels in comparison? Those are just two components of a large, complex system. One component's rise or fall is most often and obeservably offset by another's opposing reaction.
I understand that there are 21 climate models presently being studied. These models attempt to take into account all of the systems and cycles to generate a probable response to changes. Dr. Spencer contends that all 21 of these climate models assume that warmer temperatures cause by carbon produces more clouds, which in turn causes more heat (greenhouse effect). He questions that the clouds do, in fact generate more heat. I understand him to say that the effects of clouds is not understood. They could, in fact, actually have a cooling effect. I think that this might also be a part of the greenhouse effect - neither extreme, warmth or cold is reached. I cannot tell you who is right, but I am glad to learn that someone is legitimately trying to learn the truth.
I found his blog and I hope to read some of his writing sometime as well. He is not one to follow the mainstream blindly and is one in pursuit of truth. I think he and I would get along quite well - if I were smarter, that is.
For his explanation of man-made global warming:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/
The recent "carbon footprint" publicity has taken center stage in public life. Scientists, educators, newsies and politicians have presented a global front of man-made global warming. At the moment, it is all about carbon.
Why carbon? It has been learned that carbon, present in the atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide (CO2), as well as other gasses, is linked to temperature increases in lower atmosphere. That part we "know" - they say.
But I think there is a lot that we don't know. I am open to consider anything - as long as it considers itself a truth.
Frankly, I heard Al Gore's debate with Dan Quayle, and I was completely mortified by his logic back then. Now, he has made a LOT of money in purporting an Armagedon-esque man-made global warming theory. I might respect a scientist with the proposition of truth and a "prove-me-wrong-if-you-can" attitude; but my suspicions are on overload when a public figure presents science in a theatrical manner and then shuts down any discussion thereafter. It just resembles the Inquisition or the old Pravda propoganda to me.
I have mentioned before that I am considering things - in spite of a bad presentation, perhaps there is truth in it somewhere, right? My Dad always told us, "There are always two sides to every story." He knows the value of getting all the information before you make a judgement.
It makes sense to me that carbon would increase with our use of fossil fuels. (Though the levels being thrown around seem pretty small in the grand scheme.) However, it also makes sense to me that all that carbon came from somewhere - and I don't think it was space aliens. (That I may never cross my mind about...)
As I read the Bible, I learn that God created the heavens and the earth, and six chapters later, destroyed every land animal and bird in a global flood. The only people and animals that survived were those that were on a boat.
Prior to that flood, the Bible says there was a firmament of water over the earth. That is to say, a vapor barrier that would have blocked a lot of solar radiation and would also have kept the entire planet at a relatively constant temperature. Part of the flood, the Bible says, was the breaking up of that firmament. So, notice first that there is likely the same amount of water before the flood and after, but it now takes the form of large oceans, clouds and lakes, instead of being a vapor barrier high in the atmosphere.
In much the same fashion, I contend that there was a lot more carbon in the system in the form of plants and animals, including dinosaurs. We still have all that carbon; but now we have it, not only in the forms of plants and animals, but also in the form of coal and petroleum deposits in the ground. This is not a disputed point - how it got there certainly is disputed.
What it is doing to the atmosphere certainly is disputed as well. In my mind, we are likely coming out of a 4,000 year ice age that followed the flood of Genesis. What that means is that the processes we are observing are both anecdotal (being too short to extrapolate reasonable conclusions) and irrelevant (because things now are not the same as they always have been).
Change is a scary thing. People naturally want to find a home, find a job, have a family and live happily ever after. Every day, peoples' jobs are lost, homes are lost, wars are started, cancer strikes and people are stressed.
Scientists are people too - analytical people. They want to make sense of things that they observe but they have to make assumptions about things they do not or cannot know. Because scientists are people, those assumptions are often based on the present conditions, and they do extrapolate from their observations without regard to the record of the Bible.
So with all the dinosaurs being burned up in our gasoline, all that carbon being put back into the system but having no firmament, what will that actually do to the Earth? Is carbon actually the biggest cause of global warming?
I heard some discussion of the global warming yesterday on my way home from work. Janet Parshall was interviewing Dr. Roy Spencer. Dr. Spencer is not a new name to me - Rush used to mention him all the time.
He contends that the carbon concetrations are a minimal part of the whole. I try to make things simple, so at the risk of being wrong, consider this: I mentioned the water both before and after the flood of Genesis? I then mentioned the carbon levels in comparison? Those are just two components of a large, complex system. One component's rise or fall is most often and obeservably offset by another's opposing reaction.
I understand that there are 21 climate models presently being studied. These models attempt to take into account all of the systems and cycles to generate a probable response to changes. Dr. Spencer contends that all 21 of these climate models assume that warmer temperatures cause by carbon produces more clouds, which in turn causes more heat (greenhouse effect). He questions that the clouds do, in fact generate more heat. I understand him to say that the effects of clouds is not understood. They could, in fact, actually have a cooling effect. I think that this might also be a part of the greenhouse effect - neither extreme, warmth or cold is reached. I cannot tell you who is right, but I am glad to learn that someone is legitimately trying to learn the truth.
I found his blog and I hope to read some of his writing sometime as well. He is not one to follow the mainstream blindly and is one in pursuit of truth. I think he and I would get along quite well - if I were smarter, that is.
For his explanation of man-made global warming:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/
D_____ If You Do If You Don't...
So, a long time ago I had a boss who was always running. I would say that he was so ambitious and must have felt the pressure of doing things better all the time that his thoughts must have gotten scrambled before they became audible - or legible.
I once grabbed a work order for a set of tires to be put on a white Coosco. To my knowlege no one ever made one of those. I figured that he meant Corsica, of which there were at least three to choose from, but I digress...
As to the title of this post, it was his rendition of the well known line... ...I have thought of it often over the years. If you don't know the line, then just wait till you've had to work in a beuracracy, corporate or state - you'll hear it somewhere eventually.
Here is a recent story that emphasizes it even more: http://www.publicradio.org/columns/marketplace/business-news-briefs/2010/09/better_sorry_than_safe.html
It is short and sweet... ...just the way we busy people like things.
My thoughts on the story... ...there is another saying that I have heard used, "Better to ask forgiveness than permission..." What a sorry State of affairs. I hope that the airline in this story finds a way to appeal - or sees fit to.
I once grabbed a work order for a set of tires to be put on a white Coosco. To my knowlege no one ever made one of those. I figured that he meant Corsica, of which there were at least three to choose from, but I digress...
As to the title of this post, it was his rendition of the well known line... ...I have thought of it often over the years. If you don't know the line, then just wait till you've had to work in a beuracracy, corporate or state - you'll hear it somewhere eventually.
Here is a recent story that emphasizes it even more: http://www.publicradio.org/columns/marketplace/business-news-briefs/2010/09/better_sorry_than_safe.html
It is short and sweet... ...just the way we busy people like things.
My thoughts on the story... ...there is another saying that I have heard used, "Better to ask forgiveness than permission..." What a sorry State of affairs. I hope that the airline in this story finds a way to appeal - or sees fit to.
Friday, September 24, 2010
Air Polution...
I am not a big fan of the green movement - not the way it is presented today. I am a big fan of stewardship and proper management of things. What's the big difference?
I don' t really know... ...maybe that I cringe every time I hear a politician or a newsy talk about how people are ruining everything. I like renewable resources. But not at the expense of food crops. I like polution standards, but there has to be a better way than just penalizing everyone for their "carbon footprint"... I am sure that I lost some of you by now, so I am adding this little item that I found on the Market Place site today:
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/standard/display/slideshow.php?ftr_id=81574
The graphics are pretty surprising...
I don' t really know... ...maybe that I cringe every time I hear a politician or a newsy talk about how people are ruining everything
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/standard/display/slideshow.php?ftr_id=81574
The graphics are pretty surprising...
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Old School -
About two weeks ago our then four year old asked me, "Daddy, what's 'old school' mean?" I happily explained it as best I could for being a little blind-sided at the time, but I am thinking a lot about that lately.
For now, I ran into this article in today's update of the big EAA airshow in Oshkosh about an extraordinary long-time hero of mine - definitiely "old school" by any measure...
http://airventure.org/news/2010/100728_olds.html
For now, I ran into this article in today's update of the big EAA airshow in Oshkosh about an extraordinary long-time hero of mine - definitiely "old school" by any measure...
http://airventure.org/news/2010/100728_olds.html
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Rambling....
I can't wait to get old.
One of my running lines for a looonnngg time has been, "I started senility when I turned 18". Ben Franklin said it even better, "I am in the prime of my senility."
Some people have Irish tempers. Others have, well, grumpy, grouchy, snippy, whiskery, thorny, and don't forget sneezy temperaments. So, not exactly the personality that I wish I had - especially not the personality that my wife wishes I had - but honesty, brutal honesty is hard to keep to oneself as one ages.
I don't wish to offer excuses either. Well, except for coffee - and sleep. Sleep is a tough one now and then. I could go on about the subject of sleep for a very long time, but it's a lot harder to ramble when you have to type out your thoughts. It's pretty hard just to finish the sentences...
...that reminds me of a conversation that I had recently. Four of us were discussing various things, some important, some personal, some frivolous and one of the others mentioned that his daughter's yet to arrive baby boy would be named "Calvin". One of the men laughs, "You don't mean the Calvin with the cat?!!"
"No, no" he said. "Calvin, you know, the Reformer."
We all settled for a moment and I piped up, "I like R.C."
Granddad turned and looked my way, "Huh?"
"Like RC Sproul..." What can I say. I do like that. Maybe someday, I'll get to name a boy RC. Ryan Charles though - Charles was one of my grandfathers' names. No, this is not a "reveal"... OK fingers are tired... back to Sproul.
I have been reading RC Sproul for a long time. I have come to greatly appreciate his views on the Gospel and what it means to us. If you ever get your hands on his writings, then relish them. You can tell people you are a slow reader - that's what I do, but then, that's entirely true of myself. I read about three words per minute faster than I can type, which adds up to almost 18.
I once read that JFK could read up to 12,000 words per minute!
Some people talk about him in reverence, saddened to recall the images of that awful day. Others point out that he wasn't exactly a saint. We have our ways of perceiving things - I think its referred to as "subjective." Seeing things from our own perspective.
We perceive everything through a filter of ourselves. Circumstances, surroundings, whatever are OK, or deprived, or happy, or sad, or hungry, or whatever. Long term, we hope that someone will be nice to our legacy when we leave. Personally, that is one of my goals too; and I hope that there is something besides this nasty, grumpy fellow that cannot be pleased with himself.
So, that's where Sproul comes in. (and now my fingers are tired... ...go figure.) In reading Sproul, who is something of a student of Calvin several hundred years removed, I understand better those Scriptures saying that there is none that does good - not even one. He points at Hitler, perhaps the greatest of villains in our culture, that even Hitler likely loved his own mother and did nice things for her. I recall reading that Al Capone, one of the most notorious mobsters in American history regarded himself "a public benefactor". But we miss the point to look to these evil doers and think ourselves far removed.
It's not that I think that we are a hair's breadth from the FBI's Most Wanted List. It is that we, and everything that we do or touch is tainted, ruined by sin. Like a chalk mural in the rain, the paintings of our lives are obliterated with this awful sin. It has fouled all of mankind, and all of Creation.
But just when you realize that the ruined life is hopeless, God in His most amazing, yet often repeated miracle, shows to you the work of Jesus. He offers grace, forgiveness, peace and hope in one fabulous motion.
I remember the moment of my conversion. No, I wasn't "in the gutter" - I was seven. Yes, I know it was then, and not later in any of my later learnings. That is a good way to think of it too. Sproul wrote, perhaps quoting another, that conversion is not the result of our finding God; instead, it is the beginning of our finding Him. I like that for a lot of reasons, but put these two things together and, well I have gone for days pondering how nifty it is.
I have no desire to seek God. I have no ability to offer Him a "good" thing. My best is like the filthy rags that the Apostle Paul talks about, stained with sin and scarred with hurts. But He saw fit to reveal Himself to me. Oh, there really are no words... ...without Him I am helpless, but with Him... ...with Him... ...there is peace, joy - hope.
Glad to be typing now... I couldn't possibly speak. But it is a little hard to see the keys...
One of my running lines for a looonnngg time has been, "I started senility when I turned 18". Ben Franklin said it even better, "I am in the prime of my senility."
Some people have Irish tempers. Others have, well, grumpy, grouchy, snippy, whiskery, thorny, and don't forget sneezy temperaments. So, not exactly the personality that I wish I had - especially not the personality that my wife wishes I had - but honesty, brutal honesty is hard to keep to oneself as one ages.
I don't wish to offer excuses either. Well, except for coffee - and sleep. Sleep is a tough one now and then. I could go on about the subject of sleep for a very long time, but it's a lot harder to ramble when you have to type out your thoughts. It's pretty hard just to finish the sentences...
...that reminds me of a conversation that I had recently. Four of us were discussing various things, some important, some personal, some frivolous and one of the others mentioned that his daughter's yet to arrive baby boy would be named "Calvin". One of the men laughs, "You don't mean the Calvin with the cat?!!"
"No, no" he said. "Calvin, you know, the Reformer."
We all settled for a moment and I piped up, "I like R.C."
Granddad turned and looked my way, "Huh?"
"Like RC Sproul..." What can I say. I do like that. Maybe someday, I'll get to name a boy RC. Ryan Charles though - Charles was one of my grandfathers' names. No, this is not a "reveal"... OK fingers are tired... back to Sproul.
I have been reading RC Sproul for a long time. I have come to greatly appreciate his views on the Gospel and what it means to us. If you ever get your hands on his writings, then relish them. You can tell people you are a slow reader - that's what I do, but then, that's entirely true of myself. I read about three words per minute faster than I can type, which adds up to almost 18.
I once read that JFK could read up to 12,000 words per minute!
Some people talk about him in reverence, saddened to recall the images of that awful day. Others point out that he wasn't exactly a saint. We have our ways of perceiving things - I think its referred to as "subjective." Seeing things from our own perspective.
We perceive everything through a filter of ourselves. Circumstances, surroundings, whatever are OK, or deprived, or happy, or sad, or hungry, or whatever. Long term, we hope that someone will be nice to our legacy when we leave. Personally, that is one of my goals too; and I hope that there is something besides this nasty, grumpy fellow that cannot be pleased with himself.
So, that's where Sproul comes in. (and now my fingers are tired... ...go figure.) In reading Sproul, who is something of a student of Calvin several hundred years removed, I understand better those Scriptures saying that there is none that does good - not even one. He points at Hitler, perhaps the greatest of villains in our culture, that even Hitler likely loved his own mother and did nice things for her. I recall reading that Al Capone, one of the most notorious mobsters in American history regarded himself "a public benefactor". But we miss the point to look to these evil doers and think ourselves far removed.
It's not that I think that we are a hair's breadth from the FBI's Most Wanted List. It is that we, and everything that we do or touch is tainted, ruined by sin. Like a chalk mural in the rain, the paintings of our lives are obliterated with this awful sin. It has fouled all of mankind, and all of Creation.
But just when you realize that the ruined life is hopeless, God in His most amazing, yet often repeated miracle, shows to you the work of Jesus. He offers grace, forgiveness, peace and hope in one fabulous motion.
I remember the moment of my conversion. No, I wasn't "in the gutter" - I was seven. Yes, I know it was then, and not later in any of my later learnings. That is a good way to think of it too. Sproul wrote, perhaps quoting another, that conversion is not the result of our finding God; instead, it is the beginning of our finding Him. I like that for a lot of reasons, but put these two things together and, well I have gone for days pondering how nifty it is.
I have no desire to seek God. I have no ability to offer Him a "good" thing. My best is like the filthy rags that the Apostle Paul talks about, stained with sin and scarred with hurts. But He saw fit to reveal Himself to me. Oh, there really are no words... ...without Him I am helpless, but with Him... ...with Him... ...there is peace, joy - hope.
Glad to be typing now... I couldn't possibly speak. But it is a little hard to see the keys...
Saturday, July 3, 2010
Any ideas what this thing is?
On a short family hike - a walk by many standards - we saw this crazy looking flower. Well, I guess it is a flower. It looks a bit extraterrestrial... ...The Internet has been no help for me so far...
Edit: After originally posting this, I wrote to Mr. Smartyplants at The Ladybird Johnson Wildflower Center and got this response:
"Dear Ryan,
This appears to be a Clematis species and is, perhaps, Clematis columbiana, rock clematis, but other species are possible.
Here are links to more information and photos:
http://www.wildflower.org/plants/result.php?id_plant=CLCO2
http://calphotos.berkeley.edu/cgi/img_query?stat=BROWSE&query_src=photos_flora_sci&where-genre=Plant&where-taxon=Clematis+columbiana&title_tag=Clematis+columbiana
Thank you for your question.
Best wishes,
Nan"
Thanks to Nan - I am relieved of this nagging question in my brain...
Edit: After originally posting this, I wrote to Mr. Smartyplants at The Ladybird Johnson Wildflower Center and got this response:
"Dear Ryan,
This appears to be a Clematis species and is, perhaps, Clematis columbiana, rock clematis, but other species are possible.
Here are links to more information and photos:
http://www.wildflower.org/plants/result.php?id_plant=CLCO2
http://calphotos.berkeley.edu/cgi/img_query?stat=BROWSE&query_src=photos_flora_sci&where-genre=Plant&where-taxon=Clematis+columbiana&title_tag=Clematis+columbiana
Thank you for your question.
Best wishes,
Nan"
Thanks to Nan - I am relieved of this nagging question in my brain...
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)