Copyright © 2019, Los Angeles Times | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy


Golf photo lighting was very ‘unnatural’

As a lifetime professional retired photographer and teacher, I was intrigued by the Photo of the Week, “Shot to a tee,” Feb. 23.

Breaking the rules of composition and lighting is acceptable when one can explain the purpose for doing it, which was the case.

However, having two key lights coming from different directions, one on the club and ball and the other on the golfer is somewhat bizarre and way too unnatural.


Using a wide-angle lens with excellent depth of field was effectively executed.


La Crescenta

  Columnist is a gem for students, readers


I would like to nominate Glendale News-Press columnist Dan Kimber for president of the United States.

Well, I guess that’s a long shot, but he would be great.

I look forward to his Education Matters column every Friday, and I am never disappointed.

His “Sharing a common language is key,” column on Feb. 15 is a shining example.

One of my pet peeves concerns the ubiquitous outsourced customer service people. Too many of them have never quite mastered the English language.

Difficulty in communication is bad enough, but what’s worse, try asking a question that’s not in their script. But I digress. I hope that Kimber’s students realize what a gem they have. I only wish that I had the privilege to be one of them.




‘Common sense’ prevailed on vote

Three common sense Glendale city councilmen — John Drayman, Frank Quintero and Dave Weaver — did the right thing in voting to pass the much-maligned absentee ballot application ordinance (“Application ordinance passes,” Feb. 20).

They stood their ground, despite fierce opposition from primarily an Armenian opposition and from two of their council colleagues, Mayor Ara Najarian and Councilman Bob Yousefian.

Yousefian, who has a habit of dominating comments made by the City Council, stooped to a new low by declaring that the ordinance was “un-American.”

The ordinance, approved after nearly two months of ample debate, including a special community forum called by the council, improves the procedure on the handling of absentee ballot applications and avoids possible voter fraud. What’s wrong with that?

As it has been said time and again, no one is deprived the right to vote. Yet, that key fact didn’t seem to be understood by the opponents.

Najarian, who made a futile attempt to have the council reject the ordinance, said there was no reason not to keep things as they were and, siding with those gathered to oppose the ordinance, spoke of voting rights as if the ordinance would keep people from voting.


Even the state Democratic Party got into the act on the side of the opponents. The party doesn’t miss a beat.



Mayor should focus on next election

I disagree with a comment that Mayor Ara Najarian made about the vandalism regarding the church property (“Church graffiti deemed hateful,” Feb. 20). I feel it is wrong for anyone to destroy property.

Najarian needs to worry about the next election, and not how the absentee ballot applications are handled.

We have laws in this country. No one needs to be a third party in handling the ballots. This is fair play. The city clerk has a job to do, and we are watchdogs to make sure elections are by the law.



  Leaders need to make test more difficult

In his “Sharing a common language is key” column of Feb. 15, Dan Kimber alluded to “. . . older people who have been here for 20 years or longer . . . ” i.e., those who thus don’t have to take the U.S. naturalization test in English.

Then, in his “Vote was not a good mark on the record,” Mailbag letter of Feb. 22, Roupen Akmakian hyperbolically, and/or seemingly sarcastically, referred to “90-year-old immigrant voters” as examples of those who were being subjected to Councilmen John Drayman, Frank Quintero and Dave Weaver’s “insensitivities.”

Regarding Akmakian’s elderly immigrant bleat — say a totally English-illiterate immigrant, from whatever country, was granted legal permanent resident status on his 40th birthday. Then say he frittered away all opportunities for learning even just basic English for 15 years. Well, he will still be permitted to take the naturalization exam in the language of his choice on his 55th birthday.

If he had obtained legal permanent resident status on his 30th birthday, then he could have done the same thing, but been eligible to take the exam, again in the language of his choice on his 51st birthday.

I wonder why did they ever wrote such English-devaluing, foreign-language-coddling, naturalization requirements in the first place?

At any rate, how about our calling on our current and/or new representatives to change them, so the tests will require naturalization applicants to manifest a deeper understanding and greater practical use of our should-be common language: English?

Another reason these tests are too easy is that the testees are categorically given all the possible questions and answers ahead of time. Nice, huh?

And the questions are standard; no surprises here.


Los Feliz