Setting up a new camera brought to mind thirds as in the “Rule of Thirds.” Composing a shot, one might think the subject  should be centered, but this is wrong. The idea of the “Rule of Thirds” according to Google “ means that the subject isn’t centered in the image, which is how many new photographers frame their shots. Instead, the main focal point is a bit off to one side. … Using the rule of thirds draws the viewer’s eye into the composition, instead of just glancing at the center.” Painters also have long used this rule.  Take a look at Winslow Homer’s 1889 painting “Deer in the Adirondacks”

No question the deer is the focal point but the other elements make the painting interesting but secondary.. How many moments passed before you noticed the dog?

The thought came to us that maybe Donald Trump is a master of thirds. When he’s seen against the background of opponents  he stands out in relation to them. When he is viewed centered in isolation he can seem diminished with all his flaws evident. By sparring with the press, political antagonists or anyone else in his way, he can stand out against the  background they provide. In the “Access Hollywood Incident’ he was alone front and center and made smaller. On the other hand, sharing the scene with his opponents on a debate stage allowed him with  his celebrity to make himself strand out from the duller crowd. He knows how to position himself to be the focus while making the whole thing interesting, hence, the constant personal conflicts. He needs them to complete the scene.

Continue reading →

The recent problems in Charlottesville and Berkeley got us thinking  about how we can have protests and counter protests with each having their say without the shadow of violence being cast over all.  Remember, we have a constitutional right to freedom of assembly. Maybe some simple commonsense rules could allow both sides to actually get their message out without interruption. Let’s say Group A applies for a Rally Permit for a public location such as a park. Opposition Group B upon finding out about A’s permitted rally also apply for a rally  permit. (If one group needs a permit then both do as equal treatment is a must.) How should the Governing entity proceed?

• Which Group has preference? Group A had the permit first and is entitled to a hold their rally in peace at the  permitted  location. Group B must go elsewhere.
• Where? A different location a safe distance away.
• How would the distance be determined? The very minimum distance allowed would be simply if Group A can hear can hear anything from Group B, B is too close. If Group B can drown out what Group A has to say then they have a veto over A’s free speech. Think of the Verizon guy asking “can you hear me now.” If A can hear B, the latter is too close.
• Is their any circumstance where a member of group B could attend Group A’s rally? If Group A allows for a Q & A session some of Group B with legitimate questions should be allowed but only if Group B reciprocates at their rally. Even then the questions should be respectful but the questioner should  be allowed a followup just as in press conferences. Free speech should foster a dialogue between opposing points of view and this would encourage it. If B’s rally has no Q &A, none of their members would be allowed to attend A’s rally and visa versa.
• What else? You can’t have a Rally if people aren’t allowed arrive and leave safely. Safe corridors to the rally location are essential.  They should be made clear to all and enforced.
• Can we divorce ourselves from using our own likes and dislikes in decision-making and planning? Think of  group A as fervent dogs lovers and Group B as equally fervent cat lovers. That might help in arriving at balance.

Continue reading →

The wave of demands for removal of monuments offensive to some, got us to thinking about wantonly destroyed structures we have encountered. Some years back,on our visit to Varanasi, India our guide took us to Sarnath on the outskirts of the City. The site of Buddha’s first discourse and for centuries a major Buddhist Center, at one time there were 30 monasteries and 3000 monks. Unfortunately, at the end of the 12th century it was sacked and destroyed by invading Muslims. Our guide, a Muslim, strangely gave us a quick orientation and disappeared for a couple of hours. We roamed the ruins left after the destruction and thought it sad members of one religion could wreak such havoc on the revered places of another.

Sarnath Ruins

The Dhamekh stupa was all that remained standing, probably because it was simply to massive to destroy.

Continue reading →

“Can’t Anybody Here Play This Game?,” Casey Stengel

A fellow named Jason Kessler obtained a permit to hold a rally protesting the removal of a statue of Robert E. Lee from a Charlottesville, Va park. Citing the obvious constitutional right to hold the rally in public space, the city granted the permit to hold it in that park. Later the city tried to change the rally location to a different park but a federal judge blocked the change in a suit brought by the organizers and the ACLU, allowing the rally to take place in the proper park. Those planning to attend among others were members of the Klu Klux Klan and the American Nazi Party. Not the most lovable of people, but if the freedoms of speech and assembly embodied  in our Constitution are to have any real meaning, we must protect even the most unpopular. Given these planned attendees, some opposed then planned to show up and counter demonstrate. They too were given permit to assemble and rally but at a different park. This group contained members of the Antifa or “antifascist” groups. Let’s see the Klan, the Nazi and Antifa all in  the same city at the same time, what could go wrong? Violence and chaos seems to follow in wake of each.

Given the obvious possibility of trouble, the authorities from the City to the State needed a workable plan to keep things under control. No matter what you think of those rallying to save the statue, they had every right to safely assemble at the park and  have their rally. That means counter protestors kept at a distance preventing them from denying those favoring the statue their constitutional rights.

The job of the authorities was plain to see and they should have done their sworn duty. Instead they failed miserably. They knew or should have known who was coming and planned accordingly.  Given the strong possibility of violence, needed resources should’ve been in place to quickly prevent anyone from acting in an unlawful manner. No room for things to get out of hand. A bloody melee in the park on rally day between the two groups gave proof the authorities were clueless. Why were the Antifa and their allies even in the park? Their permit was for a different park. Their presence alone infringed on the pro statue people’s rights to free speech and assembly.  According to ACLU observers, the police did nothing.  Apparently, no one gave the orders  to prevent the ensuing battle.

Continue reading →

At Wednesday’s White House news briefing the President’s senior policy advisor Stephen Miller attempting to explain an administration backed immigration bill was engaged in verbal battle by CNN’s senior white house correspondent Jim Acosta. More a clash of philosophical policy positions than a normal press conference Q & A, their conflict tells us a lot about how Americans actually perceive news.  If you didn’t see it, just go to YouTube and search Miller V. Acosta. The whole story is there on Video. Even though we are all looking at the same episode, what people say they witnessed varied with their place in the political spectrum.  CNN endlessly ran interviews with Acosta where he was treated as a hero defending America’s Historic wide open immigration policy. Acosta chastised Miller for ignoring the constitutional importance of the Statue of Liberty. How dare the proposed legislation give greater preference to English speakers. After all, his forebearers couldn’t speak English when they arrived at our shores. We took in the “Huddled Masses” from everywhere and it made us great.  Emma Lasarus’ poem “the New Colossus” defined our immigration policy for all times. How dare Miller propose any limits. Chris Cuomo on the same network also held up  his grandparent’s lack of English up as proof of our historic wide open policy. Stephen Colbert and a bevy left of center media writers echoed this sentiment.

Miller ridiculed Acosta’s comment about the bill limiting immigration only to those from Great Britain or Australia to the applause of the right. Guess Acosta has never dealt with an out sourced call center. Apparently giving preference to those with the immediate skills including English proficiency to contribute over the unskilled struck the right chord with many on the right. A sharp lowering of overall legal immigration gathered additional applause. To them, Acosta came across as the embodiment of the biased arrogant media. Charles Krauthammer on Fox News declared Miller the winner of the exchange on points. Most of Fox News concurred. Rush Limbaugh played a series of exchange cuts that had Miller besting the “cosmopolitan” Acosta.

Continue reading →