The Way of the Johnny

Being a new parent, I've found that I'm starting to take a lot more video. I consider myself a still photographer first, but I'm really starting to get into videography. Especially since I can take video on my Canon EOS Rebel T1i, I'm enjoying the ability to get shallow depth-of-field in both my stills and my videos. Smaller point-and-shoot cameras can even take HD video now. I was using my Canon Powershot SX110IS for video, but it was only capable of taking a maximum video resolution of 640x480. So I've upgraded to a SX200IS, which is capable of 720p, 30 fps video. This way video from both the SX200IS and T1i will be in HD. Getting a camcorder would be nice, but at this point I can't afford one and I don't feel a need to get one. However, camcorders are specially built for video, so they have features that are absent from most still cameras. This makes taking video using a still camera somewhat of a challenge in some situations. On the other hand,...

I've been wanting to write about moral relativism ever since I attended a local symposium entitled "The Constitution . . . in the Age of Obama". While the symposium was supposed to be about the Constitution, the symposium speakers spoke more about moral relativism and the natural law. The reason for this is that the Constitution, as written by the founders of the USA, was written from the basis of natural rights, which has a direct relationship with natural law. While there are many theories on what constitutes natural law, all the theories have commonalities, namely that there exists law(s) which are set by nature (and by extension, God. if you're a monotheist) that are valid everywhere. Thomas Jefferson believed in natural law, as did Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas. The idea of natural law has been around for thousands of years. So what is moral relativism? And where did it come from? Dr. Charles E. Rice, who spoke at the symposium I mentioned above, explained ...

**Note: In my original unedited version of this post, I received some comments stating I was being too judgmental and arrogant in my language. After much thought and second opinions, I believe this resulted from the fact that I mixed my own opinions with the facts I was trying to state. I saw no problem with this before because I write my blogs unedited and uncensored as I think of them, in much the same way a person keeps a diary or journal. However, in the spirit of Catholic apologetics, I must be charitable to those who disagree with my views while at the same time not being afraid to voice my opinions. Therefore, in the future, I will make a concerted effort to post my opinions in separate blog entries from entries with more apologetic, factual material. This way, I hope to achieve both my goals of debunking factual errors stated about the Catholic Church (and other subjects I'm passionate about) and of voicing my uncensored opinion on all kinds of subject matter. I recent...