When did we start running scared? (rant warning!)

[stephen_asprey2]

<p>I'm old enough to remember 1954, so here is my take:</p>

<p>We have allowed our governments to create Nanny States where there is a rule for everything, and where initiative and common sense have been pushed aside by govermnents telling us what to do, rather than us telling our elected governments what we want to happen.</p>

<p>Until we stand up and assert our democratic rights, then we have ourselves to blame for letting it happen.</p>

<p>In terms of implementing policy its different here. We elect a Party to government and the Party's policy platform binds them to how the elected members of that party will vote in Parliament. Over there you elect a President who espouses policy positions an a number of important matters...defence, social security medical care etc on behalf of the Democratic Party. Then you have this ludicrous situation whereby it takes forever to convince Democrat members of Congress (of his own party) to support it. Excuse me? Here you vote as a party. If you vote against party policy, you are out, and you lose endorsement for your seat. It may not be quite as democratic as your system, but it gets stuff done.</p>

<p>Take medical care. I really don't know what the argument is. The USA is the ONLY 1st world country in the world to not have means tested, universal, medical care for the disadvantaged. A supposedly advanced and wealthy, civilised country like yours should be leading the world in the provision of universal medical care. Why is this so hard? Is it perhaps that ALL medical care in the US is currently provided by the private sector, and they don't want to be told who and for how much they treat their sick.</p>

<p>So at the next election, if you want something, pin the pollies down and say that you won't vote for them unless you deliver. I do think that you need a third political party in the US, as there is just not enough choice.</p>

<p> </p>

[tholte]

<p>"It is heartening to see that I am not permitted freedom of thought or speech by some members of this community" You are permitted freedom of thought and speech here, it's just that most of us don't agree with you. Ian and Phylo, I would be interested in who you think was responsible for 9/11 and how they managed to pull it off with nary a trace of evidence left behind. </p>

[William Kahn]

<p>Look at it this way: Think about the thousands of people who would have had to participate in the most massive, elaborate hoax in history; and, in eight years, <em>not one</em> has spilled the beans? Give me a break! The likelihood of a secret remaining a secret decreases exponentially with the number of people who know it.</p>

<p>It happened. 9/11 was real. Anyone who believes otherwise is either remarkably stupid or seriously deranged.</p>

[Brad_]

>>> No, I'm not, did I say so ?

 

Odd question... If you had said you were a physicist why would I have asked the question?. I asked because you were speaking authoritatively on the subject, thus my curiosity. I now understand why you give credence to alternate theories.

[Brad_]

>>> Look at it this way: Think about the thousands of people who would have had to participate in the most massive,

elaborate hoax in history; and, in eight years, not one has spilled the beans?

 

Bingo!

[lex_jenkins]

<p>I enjoy a good conspiracy theory as much as the next person... for entertainment. I even listen to Alex Jones several times a month. (I was also a fan of William Cooper, but not a devout believer, for the same reason I enjoy Jon Stewart but still think he's full of gas.) But there are a lot of flaws in the popular conspiracy theories, starting with misunderstandings about the engineering of high rise buildings. Conspiracy theorists should start with the basics of pre-stressed/pre-cast and post-tensioned concrete construction. We had to study this stuff when I worked for OSHA, and this was years before 9/11. There were failures of similarly designed buildings before then. (BTW, I'm far from an expert, my studies were related solely to employee protection during construction, and I've been away from the field for a decade.)</p>

<p>A simple demonstration: Take an ordinary light weight aluminum beverage can. Be sure the sides are perfect, no dents. Set it upright on a solid, level floor. With care, any adult weighing 150-200 lbs should be able to stand on that can without crushing it. For best results, be sure the weight is on the heel of one foot. Now, with your weight carefully balanced on one foot (brace yourself if necessary), use your free foot to tap a dent in the side of the can. It will collapse straight down. Most of you are already familiar with this party stunt.</p>

<p>That's pretty much what happens with typical high rise buildings using the pre-stressed/post-tension concrete type pans. As long as everything is perfect, that type of construction is very durable and reliable. But if anything goes wrong - materials or assembly that doesn't meet specs - it all comes straight down. The uppermost floor collapses onto the floor immediately below it. Now you have the weight of two floors collapsing onto the next... and so on. That's how it happened. It happened before 9/11, but wasn't widely publicized, mostly because the most spectacular failures occurred *during* the construction phase of shorter buildings. Relatively few casualties, so there was little publicity.</p>

<p>9/11 forced a reconsideration of the entire industry built around that type of engineering and construction. But not because of any conspiracy theories. See the following website, among dozens - probably hundreds - of such studies since 9/11:<br>

http://concreteproducts.com/mag/concrete_safety_integrity_key/</p>

<p>If there has been anything remotely approaching a conspiracy to cover up the truth, it's been to keep quiet about the possibility of the same catastrophic collapses occurring with other similarly engineered buildings. And it has nothing to do with airplanes used as guided missiles, men in black sneaking shaped charges inside buildings or any of the other hoo-hah being floated around. If there is a hush-job going on, it's about technical issues such as fire resistance and mundane technical issues about the point at which connections shear under pressure. But that kinda stuff is boring and doesn't make for entertaining radio and TV for conspiracy buffs.</p>

[GerrySiegel]

<p>There has been a Nova special on the catastrophic collapse of the towers. The towers' construction was intended to take a lot of explosive energy, because there was a previous plane smashup to one of the top floors of the Empire State Bldg. What was not anticipated was that the sprayed foam that was used on the floor steel beams would all be blown off in the impact and tons and tons of jet fuel would then raise temperatures to the point of bending the steel support floor beams. Bent enough that their points of connection to the exterior frame became "unbuckled." Like the Titanic, once that happened, collapse was inevitable. Now, one could say that noone anticipated that civil aviation aircraft would be hijacked and flown into the buildings with full loads of fuel. It was something we never anticipated or perhaps never could anticipate. Better to think simulation or conspiracy than to admit our failure to imagine the worst case scenario by people who just plain hate us and will kill for their religious belief in jihad. (And -psst- let us not forget, the Jewish bank and investment workers were told not to report..... I heard that screwball idea floated for a while. Was it maybe from I'madinnerjacket.) Thing is that scientific method and Occam's razor is forgotten. Astrology and Nostradamus is back in style as well as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Latter now in its 100th year of publication..Steve Allen wrote a book about this pride in sense free zoning, called "Dumpth." Aah, so much to get peeved about...so little time to effectively bitch and moan about this generation...I still want to see more students and youth actually register <strong>and</strong> vote as I wrote- better than sign waving...</p>

<p>I hope Obama next week tells the children to put aside the Nintendo and check out some Dickens novels at the library. We also personally need to teach our offspring how to use a baloney detector kit a la Carl Sagan. So I believe. Be well.</p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>To me things like 9/11 conspiracy theories and health care hysteria all stem from one source (two if you count insanity) and that's lack of credability. We've been lied to so many times (see my post above) that it's hard to believe anyone in power. I've gotten to the point where I don't even believe the people who I vote for. Politicians live in a world of spin and hype and that's all you'll ever get from them. You only get the truth if it happens to coinside with the spin and hype. The news media should try to seperate the truth from the spin, and some news people do, but mostly they are interested in whatever makes the best story because that what produces ratings and circulation. I heard one top politician say that the problem with moderates is that moderation is boring and doesn't make a good story. We used to listen to the calmest voices. Now we listen to the loudest.</p>

<p>Still, I'm basically an optimist. Bill Clinton once said that there's nothing wrong with America that can't be fixed by what's right with America. I still believe that.</p>

[blithelydoubting]

<p>Why do you guys insist on arguing with the conspiracy theorists? Ideas that are not conceived in reason will not be swayed by reason. Save your finger joints for more productive conversations.<em><br /> </em></p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Gilbert, people are persuaded to believe sound principles in much the same way they are persuaded to believe unsound principles. Some are persuaded by quiet logic, others by noisy repetition. To dismiss those who do not share all of your beliefs is to risk losing potential allies. Most of us can't afford that.</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>The foreign policy's of the U.S.A throughout history. The judgment is always in the mirror.</p>

[jon_mullen1]

<p>Stephen, in Australia's political situation, as you know, we have preferential voting. To the rest of the world this technique means that individual votes for a specific party, like the "Shooters Party" can be given to another political party like the "Greens" (a political travesty), that the original voter does not agree with. We still have a two tier system, as the Americans have. I agree with you Stephen that we need a third political party, and we have - it's called religious, corporate, industrial etc. affiliation and as for party politics, that is what prevents our local members standing up for the concerns and wishes of the franchised voting public.<br>

Our political parties still stand for gun control, crime prevention, better health care, better roads, educational refinement, etc. but quite often the senate, or the incumbent Party(which has a left and right inclined faction) determines otherwise, depending on who has the majority.<br>

as for health care, in Wyong shire, population 140,000, (June 2001 census) we still have no maternity ward due to a lack of obstetricians . The majority of pregnant mothers are sent to Gosford Shire to have their babies, the rest of the mothers have their children in the family car on the way to Gosford hospital, or if they present themselves - post partum - to the local hospital, they wind up in the Accident and Emergency ward.<br>

and as for Democratic right, we are forced to vote even if there is no perceptible difference between candidates and knowing that our vote can be given to another political party. On top of that we are fined up to $70.00 if we don't, or choose not to vote.<br>

Our Indigenous health problems - where do I start - I'm not gunna, there isn't room enough here<br>

Our aged care...see above.<br>

Our oncology services for the Central Coast - people needing radiation, or chemo have to travel to Sydney, usually by train, which can take up to two hours, and as friends have informed me, due to the bodies reaction to chemo this can be very embarrassing to them.<br>

Stephen, mate, this is what happens up here, this is what happens all over Australia, now what were you saying about America?</p>

<p> </p>

[jon_mullen1]

<p>Just looked up steel melting point, temperature at which steel buckles, aviation fuel open air burning temperature and stress loading. A joke from my childhood came to mind that had parents disconcerted when they first heard it from a lad of ten - Son: Dad why is a barmaid (bar made) hot in the middle?<br>

Father:What!<br>

Son: So it can bend easier....<br>

and on that note Goodnight all. (please excuse the black humour)</p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>Jon, in Australia you vote for a party and your vote can be given to a different party? How does that happen?</p>

[blithelydoubting]

<blockquote>

<p>people are persuaded to believe sound principles in much the same way they are persuaded to believe unsound principles</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Lex, while I wish this were true, I just don't think it is. People that are committed to an idea that is not logical build up walls against sense on that topic. This is usually why they believe the idea in the first place, b/c they didn't listen to both sides of the discussion.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>To dismiss those who do not share all of your beliefs is to risk losing potential allies. Most of us can't afford that.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>With this, I agree entirely. I wouldn't dismiss a person b/c I disagree with him/her on a few topics. But, on that topic, sometimes it is easy to dismiss the idea. (e.g. fairies are in my garden)</p>

<p>P.S. very interesting portfolio</p>

[jon_mullen1]

<p>Hi Mark, it's a convoluted system that's difficult to explain, google "preferential voting" then you can see how your 4th or 5th vote can be given precidence over your primary vote<br>

I would prefer the "first past the post" system.</p>

[bmm]

<p>Jon - wow for once I'm agreeing in a broad sense with a fellow Aussie on here.</p>

<p>Ian and others - there are so many important things to say about the human condition through photography in areas that <strong>don't</strong> require the combination of expert knowledge of physics and a high level security clearance to work out. Why get all wound up about things that you can't and won't possibly know the reality of, and why don't you get out there and say something important with your work in an area of your life, in an area you can reach and you can touch and you can communicate about with some credibility?</p>

[User_502260]

<p>Getting back to the original posting, there is no doubt in my mind that terrorism has been used as an excuse by many governments, both national and local, to curtail civil liberties. The irony of limitations on photography is that the very governments which limit photography have their own massive photo/spy operations ramped up. I was in England in June for a week, took plenty of pictures and had a nice time. All of my photography was with film and none of it was damaged by any x-rays. I noticed that almost every store or office building in London either had security cameras or had signs stating that they had security cameras. Unfortunately there is no way for any police department to monitor all of these cameras in real time simultaneously. They just don't have enough people. If something bad happens then old tapes can be reviewed for clues but people who are willing to kill themselves in the process of killing others will not be waiting to be interviewed. There are signs on several large bridges in the NYC area which forbid photography of any kind. Someone who is really looking to cause trouble will not need to set up a tripod and take 4X5 images of a bridge. It seems to me that many of the restrictions on photography are more about having the authorities look like they are doing something than about anything else. </p>

[aurel1]

<p>Another one of those recurring discussions - except for the conspiracy theory stuff, that's new. Question is, what are you gaining by challenging local authorities and standing your ground despite the strange looks you get? If this makes you happy in some strange, perverted way, then by all means, please martyr yourself for the rest of us. But this environment of mass hysteria isn't going away until a calm society with civil liberties for all becomes more profitable than war and panic. Take solace in the fact that future photographers will probably have it worse than we do. At least we can still buy cameras without a special license and take certain kinds of photos (nature & landscapes come to mind) without harassment.</p>

<p>A less cynical way of looking at it - photography is a hobby to me and many others on these forums. It entertains and relaxes me. Arguing with cops and crazy, ignorant people is neither entertaining nor relaxing so I'll go take my pictures in places where I don't have to deal with those types and politely take my leave if I happen to encounter them.</p>

[thomas_sullivan]

<p>....the Matrix has us all</p>

<p>;-)</p>

[tomwatt]

<p>So who's scared? And I certainly ain't running.<br>

Is this what you do when you should be doing your homework?</p>

[edgreene]

<p>The nerve of all of you!<br>

<br>

I spent 37 years as a PJ traveling through 70 countries and provinces. <br>

In many of those venues, <em>permission to shoot</em> had to be obtained <em>in advance</em> by my sponsoring organization/agency.<br>

Further, in certain circumstances, I was told where and when to shoot whenever I was in “protected” or “Secure” areas, the caveat being I <em> never know when I was in such areas. </em><br>

Pointing your camera in the direction of some buildings in DC for exampled will get you watched if not interdicted. Shooting near or around water works in nearly every major city will or might get you interdicted.<br>

Whereas Zoos are fair game, City Halls are not. Some downtown venues may have federal government offices in them (like <em>the World Trade Center did</em>) and these days, might get your gear confiscated.<br>

Private property is another horse of another color: while US law generally lets you shoot into/onto private property from a public street, some private property is still off limits to many photographers and you should know if you fit into that category.<br>

*<em>For instance, in my town we surround an incorporated (gated) city wherein the residents own the streets you, the public-drive on. </em><br>

<em>That is while the streets are 100% “public” (access), you cannot shoot onto their private property from their streets.</em><br>

<br>

It seems that “hobbyist” photographers think that any area which is “open” is also “public” and therefore, are accessible to them on their say-so or whim. A camera does not make you or me a sleuth or PJ. No does the mere possession of a camera make us immune to the laws, regulations or situations wherein photography, in particular “street” photography is either banned or circumscribed. </p>

 

[waltz]

<p>Ed,</p>

<p>Thanks for taking the time to share your experiences. I have no doubt that you have much, much more experience with this than I do. I'm not clear, however, how much of this is your direct personal experience, and how much is simply more fear mongering....</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Pointing your camera in the direction of some buildings in DC for exampled will get you watched if not interdicted.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Absolutely. I actually <em>was </em> shooting in DC recently, and I <em>was </em> approached by armed men. It was a very civil exchange, and none of us were any worse for the encounter. But my point is: why should fear of interdiction stop any of us? <br>

Maybe I'm assuming too much...I assume we're generally law-abiding people, that we can keep our wits about us, and that we can be pleasant and respectful in potentially inflammatory situations.<br>

I know I said "<strong>any </strong> country", and I know this is a long thread, but I'm not encouraging people to be idiots or break the law, and I'm not talking about police states or dictatorships.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Some downtown venues may have federal government offices in them (like <em>the World Trade Center did</em> ) and these days, might get your gear confiscated.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Have you actually had gear confiscated when you were shooting in downtown locations? I'm not trying to pick a fight, I just want to know if you have any specific examples you can share. Because if not, it seems to me all you're doing with statements like this is feeding the fear.</p>

<p>What I was trying to get at was the amount of self-censorship we do, primarily based on fear of the unknown, and that if we were to generally have an idea what the laws are regarding photography in public places (AFAIK: shoot anything you can see from a public place, with some government restrictions), then we should have no reason to fear.</p>

<p>Thanks for the discourse.</p>

[edgreene]

<p><em><strong>Ed,</strong></em><br>

<em><strong>Thanks for taking the time to share your experiences. I have no doubt that you have much, much more experience with this than I do. I'm not clear, however, how much of this is your direct personal experience, and how much is simply more fear mongering....</strong></em></p>

<blockquote>

<p><em><strong>Pointing your camera in the direction of some buildings in DC for exampled will get you watched if not interdicted.</strong></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><em>Absolutely. I actually was shooting in DC recently, and I was approached by armed men. It was a very civil exchange, and none of us were any worse for the encounter. But my point is: why should fear of interdiction stop any of us?</em><br>

<em></em><br>

I agree. But recently, I was on a (legal) shoot in Battery Park-Manhattan.<br>

My 66" tripod with footstool was set up when after 8-10 minutes or so two M-16 toting Homeland Security guards dressed in black approached. As I noticd them, another black-clad HS guy, M-16 at the ready-snuck up on me from the blindside. Asked for my ID, I presented same, they said "thanks" and walked off. My point? We all acted accordingly and I was not detained after verifying myself.<br>

<em>I <strong>was</strong> shooting towards the Staue Of Liberty wth my 4.5 pound, extreme length 120-600mm Vivitar lens which does look rather ominous on a big tripod.</em><br>

Base point? Nothing happened.</p>

<p>(SNIP)<em>Some downtown venues may have federal government offices in them (like the World Trade Center did ) and these days, might get your gear confiscated.</em><br>

<em><strong>Have you actually had gear confiscated when you were shooting in downtown locations? I'm not trying to pick a fight, I just want to know if you have any specific examples you can share. Because if not, it seems to me all you're doing with statements like this is feeding the fear.</strong></em><br>

<strong><em></em></strong><br>

No, but then I am a PJ with verifiable credentials. Most tales of confiscation are themselves anecdotal and themselves leave out details which might suggest why the items were confiscated. Then again, the gist of my previous post was ordinary "civilians" are not "protected" under Constitutional laws under ordinary circumstances, includng harrassment by "Rent-a-cops" and ordinary law enforcement officerswho do confiscate gear. </p>

<p><em><strong>What I was trying to get at was the amount of self-censorship we do, primarily based on fear of the unknown, and that if we were to generally have an idea what the laws are regarding photography in public places (AFAIK: shoot anything you can see from a public place, with some government restrictions), then we should have no reason to fear.</strong></em><br>

<em><strong>Thanks for the discourse.</strong></em><br>

<strong><em></em></strong></p>

<p>Fact of the matter is since 9-11, <em><strong>nothing should be assumed</strong></em> to be as it was after 9-11 by ordinary photographers shooting in public places. <br>

Even as we photographers have been proscribed by new and many times confusing laws since 9-11("<em>ordinary" civilians with cameras may not be so "ordinary</em>") in their eyes, most of us are aware that the climate has changed. My post admitted such and that we with cameras may be seen as something out of the ordinary.<br>

Of course the "fear" you speak of may be self-generated and worse, angry responses to being circumscribed by ordinary acts of law enforcement or even rent-a-cops.<br>

Also, read into the hubris presented here as tales of arrogant people, many of them Americans, who think: "<em>By Damn, I ought to be able to shoot wherever and whenever I want</em>".<br>

Not so now or in the past. There never has been a "Free fire zone" in photography. </p>

[tholte]

<p>"<em>By Damn, I ought to be able to shoot wherever and whenever I want</em>" I freely admit this is my attitude. I won't do anything stupid that will endanger national security or get me arrested but I will look for cracks in the system that allow me to take some photos. I think it is a throwback to when I was kicked out of the Boy Scouts. The Marines took me however in 1969 and molded me into the rockhead I am now. My drill instructors in boot camp always said "can't means won't" so if someone tells me I "can't" do something, I figure out ways of doing it anyway. </p>