I’ve got no problem with the teachers packing rods and heaters but in all fairness the parents should have the final say because it is their kids who have the potential to face death or injury because of this program.
AOC is currently the flavor of the month, in demand because she is a loose cannon who can stir the pot and is a very colorful character.
But she’s also alienating a lot of her fellow Democrats in the process by hogging all the headlines and sucking all the air out of the room.
Remember David Hogg? it wasn’t so long ago that he was a media darling, the flavor of the month.
Now you rarely hear him mentioned
- There has been a lot of talk on social media forums regarding the various right-wing militias mobilizing to head to Texas and confront the migrant Caravan currently winding its way North.
While proponents of such claim such a presence is necessary to prevent murders, robberies and rapes by a hungry and desperate invading Force others question the need for such an operation considering the President Donald J Trump is sending upward of 15k trained and equipped battle ready troops to take on this Caravan.
The question arises, is this “patriotism” or merely adventurism by white males of the right-wing persuasion who have time on their hands.
One way to look at it, copied from an OP spied on a social media forum.
“And you’re saying Reg that Donald J Trump’s small army of active duty combat trained military are not going to be able to handle a couple of handful of broke and hungry and unarmed largely women and children and prevent them from going on robbery and murder and rape rampages throughout Texas.
Well that explains why we’re getting our butts kicked in Afghanistan I guess.
Maybe these right-wing militias should consider service over there too if they are the “Patriots” they claim to be.
Oh, but that’s different you say, those people in Afghanistan shoot back.”
Needless to say this OP does not necessarily represent the Viewpoint of this page.
It is merely offered for educational purposes and presents one point of view on this issue.
Today we have Carl Denham back on the Lifestyles Desk with another installment of his informal series we’re now tagging “Advanced Techniques for the Universal Selfie”.
Today Carl offers various exciting and proven techniques to help the four eyed “Selfie” addict avoid those ugly reflections that often ruin their mugs.
If there’s one thing that makes your average photographer eat their liver it’s being tasked with photographing an individual who wears glasses.
Any time you have bright strongly sourced light, you have to consider the real possibility that the light source be reflected in the lenses of the eyewear worn by your subject (or yourself) and back to your camera or smart phone.
If this is a problem for highly skilled professional photographers it’s a nightmare for the committed “Selfie” addict, with multiple thousands of otherwise excellent efforts ruined every day.
As with everything in life when we have a problem in order to find a solution we must first understand that problem.
As this graphic demonstrates, it’s all a question of angles. Light follows a completely predictable path from source to subject to camera lens just like a ball follows a completely predictable path on the pool table when you ride the nine.
And it is that predictability that allows the professional photographer to avoid the bugaboo of glare by simple adjustments in the relationship between light source, subject and camera.
Now I say “simple”. Simple perhaps for the professional photographer who has control over all the elements of his shooting environment.
But not so simple for the “Selfie” King and Queen who often has no control at all and may be dealing with drunken if not outright hostile friends.
So let’s explore the options.
The most obvious solution is for the subject (be it you or others) is to remove the offending glasses.
That might be fine for somebody who alternates between contacts and analog glasses but maybe not for others.
Very often if somebody wears glasses full time that eyewear can be as much a part of their visual identity as the nose on their face.
Very often when asked to remove the glasses ( the subject be someone else or yourself) no one will be happy with the picture because it’s not going to look like the person as the world has come to know them.
That applies even when the person is ourselves.
So we reject that option out of hand.
The second option is to rearrange the relationship between the subject, the light source and the camera.
As we see in the accompanying photographs this can be quite an effective technique when it comes to avoiding reflections from eyewear. But this option is not without problems of it’s own.
It can be a royal pain to move cameras and lights around, especially if the setup revolves around more than one light source.
And arranging lights to avoid reflections may not give you the results you would like.
And of course if you’re shooting film which more of us are doing these days you won’t have the instant feedback of digital so you won’t even know if your adjustments are effective for days or weeks.
And finally this is time consuming and with the slap ‘n’ tickle nature of the “Selfie” time is not your friend here.
There is a another option that is much quicker, a trick the pros often use. Simply tilt the glasses on the head so the lenses are angled downwards.
Properly done the reflections will not hit the camera lens.
But still not the ideal solution as the glasses can easily look askew.
So what’s left?
What will work for us, quick and dirty and with minimal effort?
Perhaps the Bible can provide some inspiration:
“If your eye offend thee pluck it out.”
Now one saying we should pluck out eyes, but we CAN “pluck out” the lenses of eyewear thus remove the offending elements.
A procedure easily accomplished by some thumb pressure properly applied.
And as we see in this comparison photograph of Dorothy the Plastic Head, removing the lenses from our eyewear is an extremely effective method to avoid glare and reflections.
In fact without the lenses glare and reflections are impossible.
But like they say there’s no free lunch.
If you remove the lenses from your “real” glasses you may not be able to put them back.
Therefore I do not recommend that.
What I DO recommend is that all four-eyed “Selfie” addicts invest in one or more “burner” frames and remove the lenses from them.
For about $7 currently the “Selfie” addict should be able to find frames that match their own more or less.
I found serviceable frames two for $14 at Amazon.
I found several more at Zanni even cheaper and now carry a variety in my standard “Selfie” kit, always available and close at hand and thus always loaded for bear.
One final advantage of lens less frames, without the distortion of interceding glass, the eyes can really pop and as the Bible said:
“Your eye is the lamp of your body. When your eye is healthy, your whole body is full of light but when it is bad, your body is full of darkness.”
So it is when the “eyes have it” with “Selfies” too.
A Carl Denham brand commentary
Coming soon, hot “Selfie” techniques for people with glasses.
Carl Denham on the Lifestyle Desk offers advanced tools and techniques guaranteed to avoid reflections and glare and bring out the beauty of the eyes without resorting to technical tricks and photoshop.
A Carl Denham brand commentary
Statistics from credible sources prove that between two and ten percent of reported rape are false.
The fact that up to 10% of all reported rapes are false is not an insignificant number to the youngsters who are among those 10%.
Reasonable people might put these numbers in perspective this way.
If 2% to 10% of the inmates on death row were innocent when they will put to death society probably would not be so cavalier and dismissive about throwing that number around (unless a member of the base of Donald J Trump of course).
And that aside.
We’re not just talking about rape when we are talking about the danger of alledged predatory women making false reports of a sexual nature.
We are talking the whole range of accusations of a sexual nature that can destroy a person’s life.
Brett Kavanaugh was never accused of rape for example but had he not been a man of influence, had he been Joe Lunch Bucket, the charge of attempted rape without evidence would have been enough to ruin his life even if he never saw the inside of a court of law.
Those who discount the reality that false charges exist in such numbers are comfortable with trading the lives of a certain number of young men if it means the realization of a larger goal.
We see this same concept in military adventurism.
Military leaders routinely accept the fact that a certain number of warriors and civilians are going to die in order to realize military objectives both large and small.
I believe the term is “collateral damage”.
Maybe that’s fine in the military but is it necessary in civilian life to sacrifice a percentage of our youngsters for the “greater good”?
Maybe Society will ultimately accept that ruining the lives of up to 10% of our young men is fair compensation for a system where charges of sexual inappropriateness require no evidence before we find the individual guilty.
Society may make that judgement reasonable people may say it’s not necessary to ruin those lives at all.
Reasonable people may say we CAN punish the guilty AND agree that does not preclude young men from taking the reasonable precautions necessary to protect themselves from the false charges that credible sources claim are generated by anywhere from 2% to 10% of the female population bringing those charges.
What the men and women of reason would say is that we should teach our youth to vet the people (male or female) they allow into their lives and/or interact with in a potentially explosive sexual situation.
Prior to the easy availability of birth control and abortion our young people were taught by loving parents to look beyond their hormones and to be proactive what it came to protecting themselves from individuals that had the potential to be a destructive force in their lives.
It was an easy lesson to teach back then since unwanted pregnancies with life destroying effects would be the price of failure.
It is not so easy today when there is no longer the stigma nor condemnation to having children out of wedlock nor to terminating a pregnancy should should the baby be unwanted.
But it is a lesson that can still be taught.
If young men were taught to choose the people in their lives carefully, let their heads and not their hormones rule their actions when interacting with the opposite sex and to document their interactions to the extent that technology and Common Sense allows then both young men and young women can live their lives to a ripe old age and never fear that false charges from their past will bring the sounds of Jack Boots on their doorstep.
J. Randolf Fuller brand commentary
– 30 –