I read an article today from Mike Schmidt, former Phillies great and HOF'er, who stated his position on Interleague play in Major League Baseball. He was clearly against further play stating that the "experiment should be over" as the fans are disinterested, the players are angry, and baseball is hurt by the two circuits playing games during the regular season.
My response to his article, as well as to the one respondent (thus far) who agreed...a poor response by the way. This respondent nearly echoed the words or article writer Schmidt...
"I disagree with the article. Interleague play is long overdue. I grew up in an AL city and always wished I could see the NL teams. Unfortunately, the All Star game and the playoffs (if my team made it) just didn't sate my hopes of seeing the "Senior Circuit" on a regular basis.
Now that interleague play is here, I am greatly enjoying seeing the various NL teams playing my lifelong favorite. The addition of NL teams on the schedule has actually increased my interest in baseball. I don't think interleague play hurts anyone besides the snooty baseball purists who firmly believe that any tinkering with their hallowed sport is blasphemy.
Interleague play is good for fans, good for players--a majority of whom, according to a recent poll, stated they enjoy interleague play--and good for the sport and health of Major League Baseball."
Sunday, June 26, 2011
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
TSA Taking Illegal Liberties
**The following article appeared in the 22 June 2011 edition of the Seattle Times. Full credit is given**
"TSA curbs checkpoint photography by travelers — but it's legal"
By Christopher Elliott
Tribune Media Services
Mind your camera when you're traveling this summer.
Taking an innocent snapshot in a public area in the U.S. may get you in trouble, even if photography is allowed. It almost landed Ryan Miklus behind bars when he flew from Phoenix to Reno with his parents recently.
When Miklus tried to videotape an altercation between his mother and a TSA agent, another officer tried to stop him. "You are not allowed to film," the officer says on the video. "You need to go. You cannot film us."
"Where does it say that?" Miklus asks. "Show me the law. Show it to me and I'll stop."
The agent doesn't answer, but leaves and returns with several airline employees, one of whom tells Miklus that it's "against the law" to take photos at a security checkpoint.
"Put down the camera!" the employee orders. Miklus continues taping. A police officer later refuses to arrest him.
Such incidents are becoming increasingly common, making shutterbugs hesitant to take pictures that they're well within their rights to take. They include security guards harassing a photographer shooting in a Los Angeles park and a man being threatened for videotaping a whale in the Florida Keys. TSA screening areas are a flashpoint for these encounters, with officers sometimes threatening passengers, blocking their view or citing nonexistent rules in an effort to force them to stop taking photos.
"I used to deal with one of these a month," says Mickey Osterreicher, the general counsel of the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA). "Then it was weekly. Now it's almost every day. Citizens are being told that they can't take pictures out in public — whether it's a building, a bridge or a train."
Travelers are confused. Bridget Garrity, an attorney from Torrington, Conn., recently spotted a sign at BWI Marshall Airport suggesting that taking photos of TSA screeners is illegal. "It was hung on the wall right above the entry to the security lanes for the machines," she says. "It did have some reference to a federal code, but I couldn't get it all down." Garrity was tempted to take a picture of the sign, but was afraid that she might be breaking the law.
Jonathan Dean, a spokesman for BWI, confirmed the signs near the screening area, saying that they're there because "TSA typically discourages photography at its checkpoints."
Why the crackdown on photography? Carlos Miller, a Miami-based multimedia journalist and author of the blog Photography Is Not a Crime, says that law enforcement agencies have felt threatened by photographers since the videotape of Los Angeles police officers beating Rodney King made the rounds in 1991. It accelerated after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and has spun out of control with the development of social media, location-based technology and cellphones with easy-to-use digital cameras. "Cops feel as if they have to protect themselves," he says.
There's a second reason why photography in public places is frowned upon, according to Miller and others. Officials assume that there's a link between photography and terrorism, so anyone taking pictures of airports, screening areas, parks, bridges or any other site that terrorists could put in their crosshairs becomes a suspect, they say.
The Miklus incident has prompted the TSA to review its policy on photography at screening areas, according to a post on the agency's website. Many agency-watchers worry that the government will try to ban photography, but when I asked the TSA about the review, it said that the statement on the website has been misinterpreted. "We recognize that using video and photography equipment is a constitutionally protected activity," TSA spokesman Greg Soule told me.
The agency is only reviewing its guidance to officers, he said, "to ensure consistent application" of its regulations. TSA posted a clarification on its site shortly after my inquiry.
What really are the rules?
So what are the rules? And what should you do if you're told to stop filming or photographing?
Osterreicher says that there are only two public areas in the United States where you can't shoot pictures: military bases and nuclear facilities. "The warnings are clearly posted," he says. "Otherwise, if the public is allowed, then so are their rights."
But officials don't necessarily agree with that broad interpretation. For example, the TSA's current policy is that photography at security screening areas is permitted, as long as it doesn't interfere with the screening process. But what, exactly, constitutes interference? The agency also prohibits photography of its screening equipment, specifically the screen that shows scanned items. But that rule would appear to contradict federal law, since the screening equipment is in a public area.
And while it's OK to take personal photographs in state and national parks, commercial photos usually require a permit. Park police who don't want you to take pictures can exploit that rule by drawing a fine line between an amateur and a professional photographer.
Indeed, what constitutes the difference? Is it the tripod, the price of the camera or the quality of the footage? When I tried to take photos in Florida Caverns State Park near Marianna, Fla., last year, a park official told me that I would have to pay $75 for a photography permit. But I could avoid the fee if I left some of my equipment in the car — specifically my tripod.
It's an odd predicament, since we travel in a surveillance society. Law enforcement agencies can place cameras in public areas and monitor our comings and goings, but when we try to take pictures, we're sometimes told that it's not allowed. Why the double standard? Should you stand up for your constitutional rights the next time you try to take a snapshot of your family at the airport and a stern-faced security agent tells you that it's illegal?
If you're on vacation, it's probably not worth it. That's the advice Osterreicher gives NPPA members, too: It's not worth a trip to jail. "Be courteous, be respectful and don't get into an argument," he says. "Should you have the time and want to push the issue, ask to speak to a supervisor or report the incident to that agency as soon as possible. Otherwise, they have a badge and you may lose the argument."
"Just say, 'Yes, officer, thank you, officer.' And walk away."
The reader comments accompanying this article were uniform in their alarm at this clear indication of a leap forward in governmental intrusion, and against civil rights. I've stated before that the TSA is a dangerous entity that must be curbed, or even eliminated. They consistently trample the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and expect everyone to just accept it without question.
As citizens of the United States, it is our duty and obligation to question the government, and push for change when change is needed. The TSA is overstepping its authority once again. Write to all of your elected officials and insist that change happens. Let them know the TSA is not only a black hole for taxpayer money, but it is, as evidenced by repeated Constitutional abuses, time for it to go! If your elected officials don't speak out, then get involved in your local politics and support candidates who advocate change. Do something constructive; don't just sit around and complain.
"TSA curbs checkpoint photography by travelers — but it's legal"
By Christopher Elliott
Tribune Media Services
Mind your camera when you're traveling this summer.
Taking an innocent snapshot in a public area in the U.S. may get you in trouble, even if photography is allowed. It almost landed Ryan Miklus behind bars when he flew from Phoenix to Reno with his parents recently.
When Miklus tried to videotape an altercation between his mother and a TSA agent, another officer tried to stop him. "You are not allowed to film," the officer says on the video. "You need to go. You cannot film us."
"Where does it say that?" Miklus asks. "Show me the law. Show it to me and I'll stop."
The agent doesn't answer, but leaves and returns with several airline employees, one of whom tells Miklus that it's "against the law" to take photos at a security checkpoint.
"Put down the camera!" the employee orders. Miklus continues taping. A police officer later refuses to arrest him.
Such incidents are becoming increasingly common, making shutterbugs hesitant to take pictures that they're well within their rights to take. They include security guards harassing a photographer shooting in a Los Angeles park and a man being threatened for videotaping a whale in the Florida Keys. TSA screening areas are a flashpoint for these encounters, with officers sometimes threatening passengers, blocking their view or citing nonexistent rules in an effort to force them to stop taking photos.
"I used to deal with one of these a month," says Mickey Osterreicher, the general counsel of the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA). "Then it was weekly. Now it's almost every day. Citizens are being told that they can't take pictures out in public — whether it's a building, a bridge or a train."
Travelers are confused. Bridget Garrity, an attorney from Torrington, Conn., recently spotted a sign at BWI Marshall Airport suggesting that taking photos of TSA screeners is illegal. "It was hung on the wall right above the entry to the security lanes for the machines," she says. "It did have some reference to a federal code, but I couldn't get it all down." Garrity was tempted to take a picture of the sign, but was afraid that she might be breaking the law.
Jonathan Dean, a spokesman for BWI, confirmed the signs near the screening area, saying that they're there because "TSA typically discourages photography at its checkpoints."
Why the crackdown on photography? Carlos Miller, a Miami-based multimedia journalist and author of the blog Photography Is Not a Crime, says that law enforcement agencies have felt threatened by photographers since the videotape of Los Angeles police officers beating Rodney King made the rounds in 1991. It accelerated after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and has spun out of control with the development of social media, location-based technology and cellphones with easy-to-use digital cameras. "Cops feel as if they have to protect themselves," he says.
There's a second reason why photography in public places is frowned upon, according to Miller and others. Officials assume that there's a link between photography and terrorism, so anyone taking pictures of airports, screening areas, parks, bridges or any other site that terrorists could put in their crosshairs becomes a suspect, they say.
The Miklus incident has prompted the TSA to review its policy on photography at screening areas, according to a post on the agency's website. Many agency-watchers worry that the government will try to ban photography, but when I asked the TSA about the review, it said that the statement on the website has been misinterpreted. "We recognize that using video and photography equipment is a constitutionally protected activity," TSA spokesman Greg Soule told me.
The agency is only reviewing its guidance to officers, he said, "to ensure consistent application" of its regulations. TSA posted a clarification on its site shortly after my inquiry.
What really are the rules?
So what are the rules? And what should you do if you're told to stop filming or photographing?
Osterreicher says that there are only two public areas in the United States where you can't shoot pictures: military bases and nuclear facilities. "The warnings are clearly posted," he says. "Otherwise, if the public is allowed, then so are their rights."
But officials don't necessarily agree with that broad interpretation. For example, the TSA's current policy is that photography at security screening areas is permitted, as long as it doesn't interfere with the screening process. But what, exactly, constitutes interference? The agency also prohibits photography of its screening equipment, specifically the screen that shows scanned items. But that rule would appear to contradict federal law, since the screening equipment is in a public area.
And while it's OK to take personal photographs in state and national parks, commercial photos usually require a permit. Park police who don't want you to take pictures can exploit that rule by drawing a fine line between an amateur and a professional photographer.
Indeed, what constitutes the difference? Is it the tripod, the price of the camera or the quality of the footage? When I tried to take photos in Florida Caverns State Park near Marianna, Fla., last year, a park official told me that I would have to pay $75 for a photography permit. But I could avoid the fee if I left some of my equipment in the car — specifically my tripod.
It's an odd predicament, since we travel in a surveillance society. Law enforcement agencies can place cameras in public areas and monitor our comings and goings, but when we try to take pictures, we're sometimes told that it's not allowed. Why the double standard? Should you stand up for your constitutional rights the next time you try to take a snapshot of your family at the airport and a stern-faced security agent tells you that it's illegal?
If you're on vacation, it's probably not worth it. That's the advice Osterreicher gives NPPA members, too: It's not worth a trip to jail. "Be courteous, be respectful and don't get into an argument," he says. "Should you have the time and want to push the issue, ask to speak to a supervisor or report the incident to that agency as soon as possible. Otherwise, they have a badge and you may lose the argument."
"Just say, 'Yes, officer, thank you, officer.' And walk away."
The reader comments accompanying this article were uniform in their alarm at this clear indication of a leap forward in governmental intrusion, and against civil rights. I've stated before that the TSA is a dangerous entity that must be curbed, or even eliminated. They consistently trample the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and expect everyone to just accept it without question.
As citizens of the United States, it is our duty and obligation to question the government, and push for change when change is needed. The TSA is overstepping its authority once again. Write to all of your elected officials and insist that change happens. Let them know the TSA is not only a black hole for taxpayer money, but it is, as evidenced by repeated Constitutional abuses, time for it to go! If your elected officials don't speak out, then get involved in your local politics and support candidates who advocate change. Do something constructive; don't just sit around and complain.
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Gee! Dubya--What a Hypocrite
*OK, this one is all about railing on former Prez, Gee! Dubya Bushie.*
As I was watching today's coverage of the US Open, the announcers mentioned a charity event being hosted by our inept former President, Gee! Dubya Bushie. This event is a golf tournament for which its sole fundraising purpose is to benefit service men and women who were injured in either of the current engagement areas in the Middle East; namely, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Hearing this drew an immediate, sharp verbal response from me because of the glaring hypocrisy of the event. Don't get me wrong--these men and women of our military, injured in their service, need all the financial support they can get, and this golf tourney is a fantastic way to raise both money and awareness for their plight.
My issue lies in its being hosted by Bushie.
This is a man who during his presidency was the first sitting President (I believe) to avoid going to Andrews Air Force base to greet the planes carrying the bodies of our servicemen and women home from the two wars that Bushie himself started. He also avoided greeting any injured soldiers who likewise returned home. When asked about this, the reason given was the Gee! Dubya didn't want to be photographed over the caskets of dead soldiers because he, El Prezzo Inepto, didn't want to be perceived by the American public as a President who sent our men and women to die in a war.
What the hell?! Bushie DID send our military to war! What a damned idiot...
Do you see the hypocrisy? Gee! Dubya will send our military off to war knowing there will be casualties, and not acknowledge their ultimate sacrifices; yet here he is hosting a charity event that benefits the very same military personnel he couldn't even bring himself to face once they returned home scarred and maimed...or dead.
What a hypocrite.
But hey! That pretty much sums up Gee! Dubya Bushie in a nutshell.
As I was watching today's coverage of the US Open, the announcers mentioned a charity event being hosted by our inept former President, Gee! Dubya Bushie. This event is a golf tournament for which its sole fundraising purpose is to benefit service men and women who were injured in either of the current engagement areas in the Middle East; namely, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Hearing this drew an immediate, sharp verbal response from me because of the glaring hypocrisy of the event. Don't get me wrong--these men and women of our military, injured in their service, need all the financial support they can get, and this golf tourney is a fantastic way to raise both money and awareness for their plight.
My issue lies in its being hosted by Bushie.
This is a man who during his presidency was the first sitting President (I believe) to avoid going to Andrews Air Force base to greet the planes carrying the bodies of our servicemen and women home from the two wars that Bushie himself started. He also avoided greeting any injured soldiers who likewise returned home. When asked about this, the reason given was the Gee! Dubya didn't want to be photographed over the caskets of dead soldiers because he, El Prezzo Inepto, didn't want to be perceived by the American public as a President who sent our men and women to die in a war.
What the hell?! Bushie DID send our military to war! What a damned idiot...
Do you see the hypocrisy? Gee! Dubya will send our military off to war knowing there will be casualties, and not acknowledge their ultimate sacrifices; yet here he is hosting a charity event that benefits the very same military personnel he couldn't even bring himself to face once they returned home scarred and maimed...or dead.
What a hypocrite.
But hey! That pretty much sums up Gee! Dubya Bushie in a nutshell.
Thursday, June 9, 2011
Caffetz for U.S. Senate?
An article appeared in my local paper today that stated House Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R) will likely seek the U.S. Senatorial seat now occupied by six-term Sen. Orrin Hatch.
I have lived in Utah since before Chaffetz was elected to the House, and have written him on a number of issues. Any correspondence I send is returned with a Republican party agenda that promises blah, blah, blah and all other such rhetoric. I wrote the following comment to the article:
"I have seen what happens economically to a state that loses a long-serving Senator; and Utah would feel those ramifications for years to come should our awful Rep from central Utah succeed in supplanting Hatch in the Senate.
Chaffetz got elected to the House based solely on his past as a BYU Cougar. Since then, he has done next to nothing as a Representative besides bark his Republican masters vitriolic party agenda/rhetoric instead of doing what he was elected to do...serve his constituency. In all my decades as a voter, I have never seen as useless and inconsequential a Representative as Jason Chaffetz has turned out to be.
Hatch is trying to make a difference for us. Chaffetz only wants the title, then be the lapdog for the Republican National Committee. After all, based on his record thus far, what else would the voters of Utah expect from a Congressman as worthless as Chaffetz? "
What a mistake it would be to elect this guy to the Senate. The representation we would receive in return would be non-existent, as evidenced by Chaffetzs' efforts thus far in the House.
*Note (06/10/11): In the nearly 36 hours since I posted the above response, I have yet to receive a reply of any sort. Maybe I have a point...
I have lived in Utah since before Chaffetz was elected to the House, and have written him on a number of issues. Any correspondence I send is returned with a Republican party agenda that promises blah, blah, blah and all other such rhetoric. I wrote the following comment to the article:
"I have seen what happens economically to a state that loses a long-serving Senator; and Utah would feel those ramifications for years to come should our awful Rep from central Utah succeed in supplanting Hatch in the Senate.
Chaffetz got elected to the House based solely on his past as a BYU Cougar. Since then, he has done next to nothing as a Representative besides bark his Republican masters vitriolic party agenda/rhetoric instead of doing what he was elected to do...serve his constituency. In all my decades as a voter, I have never seen as useless and inconsequential a Representative as Jason Chaffetz has turned out to be.
Hatch is trying to make a difference for us. Chaffetz only wants the title, then be the lapdog for the Republican National Committee. After all, based on his record thus far, what else would the voters of Utah expect from a Congressman as worthless as Chaffetz? "
What a mistake it would be to elect this guy to the Senate. The representation we would receive in return would be non-existent, as evidenced by Chaffetzs' efforts thus far in the House.
*Note (06/10/11): In the nearly 36 hours since I posted the above response, I have yet to receive a reply of any sort. Maybe I have a point...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
