Another way to BAN photographers

[wgerrard]

It's good you found info on it. Are you really saying that this "corrections" bill will change the Senate bill before the house votes on it? Where are you getting that info? I have searched and I only find partisan descriptions of hearsay, on the right and left. Evidently, any such new rule is not being put forth with any details.

None of this has actually happened, so we don't know what the House will do until it does something. However, before reconciliation can proceed, the House must accept the bill the Senate has already passed. That's a weaker bill than the House bill, and many in the House are reluctant to support it. Many also appear to be reluctant to "go first" or to trust that the Senate will amend its bill due to GOP obstructionism. Slaughter's plan -- I don't believe she's released the text yet -- would amend House rules to state that Senate bill would be considered accepted by the House after the House passed a separate bill containing the changes it wants to see made to the Senate bill.

LOL! I am not going make the obvious comparison of your comments here and your reply to Ronald's post! 🙄

There's no paranoia involved in suggesting that much of the GOP's obstructionism and partisanship is fueled by the very large amounts of lobbying and campaign money the insurance industry pours into their pockets. Dems get the money, too, but conservatives seem to believe as an article of faith that the profits of rich private corporations take precedence over the health of all Americans. The market cannot -- not "will not", but "cannot"-- provide health care to people who unable to pay for it.

 

[wgerrard]

...I would suggest that is is often a (small) aspect of the climate of fear in which people live, and which is stoked by the media.
R.

Absolutely, Roger. I'm struck by the fear sustained and shown by so many of us these days because of terrorism compared with the the Cold War era. The damage potential from the latter was many orders of magnitude greater than any conceivable threat from terror.

The terror threat is more unpredictable and the media and the government do constantly beat on that drum. I grew up a few miles from both a Strategic Air Command B-52 base and the facility that made the triggers for U.S. nuclear weapons. Now, that was fear inducing.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

Well, they were successful this time. The photographer put away his cameras. Which means the next photographer will have an even harder time. That's how rights are taken away.

 

[gdi]

None of this has actually happened, so we don't know what the House will do until it does something. However, before reconciliation can proceed, the House must accept the bill the Senate has already passed. That's a weaker bill than the House bill, and many in the House are reluctant to support it. Many also appear to be reluctant to "go first" or to trust that the Senate will amend its bill due to GOP obstructionism. Slaughter's plan -- I don't believe she's released the text yet -- would amend House rules to state that Senate bill would be considered accepted by the House after the House passed a separate bill containing the changes it wants to see made to the Senate bill.



There's no paranoia involved in suggesting that much of the GOP's obstructionism and partisanship is fueled by the very large amounts of lobbying and campaign money the insurance industry pours into their pockets. Dems get the money, too, but conservatives seem to believe as an article of faith that the profits of rich private corporations take precedence over the health of all Americans. The market cannot -- not "will not", but "cannot"-- provide health care to people who unable to pay for it.

The first part of your post does a fairly good job of paraphrasing my earlier post. 🙄 Except, of course, your mention of GOP obstructionism - to be accurate I would have added the democrat obstructionism going on as well.

As for paranoia, there is little difference in these two situations in this thread.

 

[wgerrard]

But when someone comes at you yelling and screaming and telling you that you have no right to do something perfectly legal, it's sometimes hard not to respond by telling them that they're wrong, and to stand by your rights.

I am curious about what prompted the coffee shop staffer to abandon the shop and run out to the street to chase down the photographer. That seems an extreme reaction for a first incident. Because he'd been photography there for a year or more, I doubt it was the first time someone in or on their way to that coffee shop had noticed the camera. Was there any previous contact between store owners and the photographer? What kind of contact?

 

[jsrockit]

The second encounter, is described well enough in the article. I was using a telephoto lens that day to create a compressed perspective between foreground and background. Why? Because I thought it made for pretty pictures of the snow falling. I was far enough away from the store that I didn't realize she was associated with it. She was outside smoking and, with the snow in the background, the scene looked timeless. So, I took the picture.

She became aware of me just after I took it. She yelled at me. Told me to stop taking her picture. She was very agitated. I simply said "ok" and then she insisted that I delete the one I had taken. I told her that I couldn't do that. I then turned away and left. It was obvious she wasn't interested in why I was taking pictures on the street. Here's the photo:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/38261591@N06/4386517442/

Yeah, this is your best photo IMHO. I'd have a hard time deleting that as well. I mean, it is actually a very respectful photo, not creepy. However, some people will never get why you are photographing them. Some people just don't get art in general.

 

[wgerrard]

The first part of your post does a fairly good job of paraphrasing my earlier post. 🙄 Except, of course, your mention of GOP obstructionism - to be accurate I would added the democrat obstructionism going on as well.

As for paranoia, there is little difference in these two situations in this thread.

Wrong. The House is not going to magically, and undemocratically, declare the Senate bill passed.

Absent GOP partisanship and obstructionism, reform would have passed months ago. And, yes, conservative Dems like Stupak are to be equally condemned. No one has the right to impose their religious views on the nation, especially by holding necessary legislation hostage.

Obama's mistake was trying to be bipartisan with a party that is not. He should have made his first priority the permanent weakening of the GOP and conservatism as a viable political force. Now, that would do the nation a welcome service.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

There is a Center here that houses and deals with troubled kids. They have a policy that no one can take photos of the kids. Every time I'm at a festival or event where they show up with a group of their kids (that's every time), someone from the Center approaches me and tells me I can't take photos that their kids might be in. Every time (this has gone on for years) I explain that I can shoot anything I like in a public place. The police have explained this to them, the sheriff has explained this to them, the City Council has explained this to them (they have approached them all about my taking photos at public events). Yet, it continues. I explain my rights nicely and then ignore them. But...they go around to everyone they can see with a camera and demand the same, and these tourists, not knowing any better, put their camera away. I've explained to some of the folks they can't be forced to not take photos, but they "don't want to offend anyone." Good luck with that.

 

[sepiareverb]

Well these stores are private property.

The interior of the stores are private property, yes. But this is not a mall as one might think of it, it is a public road which has been blocked off from vehicle traffic. This is a public space in every possible meaning of the word- and in fact used for all kinds of public events including a very large Jazz fesitval, where many people use cameras. There is a mall on Church Street, the Burlington Marketplace, but Church Street is a public plaza of sorts.

 

[BillBingham2]

Perhaps she did not want her boyfriend/husband/partner to know that she was smoking? Perhaps the owner of the establishment told her 1,000 times not to smoke that close the front door, next time she did she was gone? Perhaps she was having a really bad day? Embarrassment can often cause people to overreact. I learned the hard way as a teenager that when a jerk comes yelling at you making demands and you yell back people can not tell which one is the biggest jerk.

B2 (;->

 

[BillBingham2]

Many people seem to forget that the US, while mostly bound by a common language has vastly different cultures. What works in the North East will fail in the South West and again equally in the Upper Midwest. There are pockets of culture in each that are even more unique like West Virginia, Utah and others. Tolerance, helpfulness, and listening are skills many in the US have lost. The divide between all sides top and bottom, left and right continues to grow. I have a bad feeling this is not going to end well.

B2 (;->

 

[Finder]

First of all, where and when did you last see any, outside Dharamsala?

In Tokyo. Several times. I also so saw that, surprisingly, in Tibet as well.

 

[JSU]

Wrong. The House is not going to magically, and undemocratically, declare the Senate bill passed.

Absent GOP partisanship and obstructionism, reform would have passed months ago. And, yes, conservative Dems like Stupak are to be equally condemned. No one has the right to impose their religious views on the nation, especially by holding necessary legislation hostage.

Obama's mistake was trying to be bipartisan with a party that is not. He should have made his first priority the permanent weakening of the GOP and conservatism as a viable political force. Now, that would do the nation a welcome service.

No one has the right to impose their religious views on the nation,

then it holds that you have no right to impose your views, religious or political, on the nation or on the internet.

Oh wait, the USA does have a Constitution and a Bill of Rights, perhaps you would be well served by familiarizing yourself with these documents as well as an understanding of the political process within a representative democracy.

 

[Finder]

As soon as someone attempts to define himself or herself one-dimensionally, e.g. by religion or intellect or race or nationality or political beliefs, he or she is indeed deeply dysfunctional.

Cheers,

R.

I wonder if that also applies to people who try to define others one-dimensionally by their religion, intellect, race, nationality, (fashion) or political beliefs.

 

[Ranger Copy]

then it holds that you have no right to impose your views, religious or political, on the nation or on the internet..

\Correct, because doing so impedes my pursuit of happiness. :angel:

 

[wgerrard]

then it holds that you have no right to impose your views, religious or political, on the nation or on the internet.

Oh wait, the USA does have a Constitution and a Bill of Rights, perhaps you would be well served by familiarizing yourself with these documents as well as an understanding of the political process within a representative democracy.

Well, you edited my remarks, but still... I'm not imposing my religious views on anyone. However, when Stupak says his religious views compel him to place anti-abortion language in legislation, he is leveraging the political pocess to impose his religious views on society.

Look, this is way off topic in this thread. Suffice it to say I am not opposed to using the political process to impose my political views on the nation. That's the purpose of the political process. I do not want to compromise with conservatives. I want fewer conservatives. I want single payer health care, and think the reaction to the lame amalgamation that is Obama's current plan is a sad and condemning comment on the failings of American society. I think the extremist and proto-fascist conservatism of the GOP and its corporate and media supporters is the single biggest threat to the nation today. I don't trust them. I don't believe them.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Absolutely, Roger. I'm struck by the fear sustained and shown by so many of us these days because of terrorism compared with the the Cold War era. The damage potential from the latter was many orders of magnitude greater than any conceivable threat from terror.

The terror threat is more unpredictable and the media and the government do constantly beat on that drum. I grew up a few miles from both a Strategic Air Command B-52 base and the facility that made the triggers for U.S. nuclear weapons. Now, that was fear inducing.

Dear Bill,

Yeah. In the early 70s I lived on the other side of the Clyde from Holy Loch (British nuclear submarine base) - a prime target.

It's confluence of interest. Governments need an external enemy; newspapers need shock value; unscrupulous employers need a frightened workforce.

As for hysterical overreaction, two or three years back I was taking pictures of a municipal camp-site for www.semiadventuroustraveler.com. A woman came out of a caravan, VERY angry, and said, "Are you taking pictures of my property?"

I said politely, "No, I don't think so. Just of the facilities over there" (indicating the shower/toilet block). "The corner of your caravan might be in the picture but I doubt it."

She became angrier and said, "You have no right to photograph my property."

I replied, "How do I know what is your property? And actually, I have every right to photograph anything from a public highway."

She became incandescent with rage so I walked away. Was I going to delete a picture which didn't even have her in it? Or her bloody caravan? Hardly.

As I say, society is not obliged to submit to the whims of the hysterical.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I wonder if that also applies to people who try to define others one-dimensionally by their religion, intellect, race, nationality, (fashion) or political beliefs.

Most assuredly. Which is why I try not to.

Cheers,

R.

 

[JSU]

Actually, I didn't edit your remarks. Look at your entire post that I referenced, I quoted it in its entirety. I then pulled out a salient point on which I desired to comment.

If you find this discussion so off topic to this thread, why didn't you stop at that point? Rather, you chose to continue with the off topic expression.

I FIND INTOLERANCE INTOLERABLE.

--Steve

Originally Posted by JSU
then it holds that you have no right to impose your views, religious or political, on the nation or on the internet.

Oh wait, the USA does have a Constitution and a Bill of Rights, perhaps you would be well served by familiarizing yourself with these documents as well as an understanding of the political process within a representative democracy.

Well, you edited my remarks, but still... I'm not imposing my religious views on anyone. However, when Stupak says his religious views compel him to place anti-abortion language in legislation, he is leveraging the political pocess to impose his religious views on society.

Look, this is way off topic in this thread. Suffice it to say I am not opposed to using the political process to impose my political views on the nation. That's the purpose of the political process. I do not want to compromise with conservatives. I want fewer conservatives. I want single payer health care, and think the reaction to the lame amalgamation that is Obama's current plan is a sad and condemning comment on the failings of American society. I think the extremist and proto-fascist conservatism of the GOP and its corporate and media supporters is the single biggest threat to the nation today. I don't trust them. I don't believe them.

 

[JSU]

Originally Posted by JSU
then it holds that you have no right to impose your views, religious or political, on the nation or on the internet..

\Correct, because doing so impedes my pursuit of happiness. :angel:

This is one of the best and earliest examples of political compromise with respect to the USA.

The original phrase was to be: Life, liberty and property. In the interest of compromise it was revised to: Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

No representative democracy, or pure democracy, can exist without compromise and the associated tolerance necessary for compromise to happen.