April 07, 2005

News 2...Viewer's Email

Immediately after the newscast last night, I got an interesting email from someone named "C P."

In order to provide you, the reader, both sides of the story, I will repost CP's email in its entirety (unedited other than one word on the end due to my continuing effort to keep this a family friendly blog).

From: C P
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 10:09 PM
To: blake@nashvillefiles.com
Subject: What?

Why woudl you care if a camera is up in PUBLIC PLACES?
I mean what does it hurt? It can only help.....IT IS A
PUBLIC PLACE...you plannin on doing some lovin in
public......Im all about fighting the government but
if one camera stops just one crime at anytime over its
the life it is worth it to me. It does not hurt
anyones privacy because its in a public place. Pretty
idiotic if you ask me.........I loved the line at the
end "Some people critize the cameras because they tend
to only watch over high crime areas" Well, NO S***.

Good grief

Good grief indeed.

Comments:

Please Note! Failure to abide by the following may result in your comments being edited or deleted: Remain on topic. Foul language and/or personal attacks are not permitted. Excessive links (more than three per thread) must be approved first. If you do include a link in your comment, make sure it is a short link (go to tinyurl.com if it is too long). Try to keep comments to 125 words or less. Thank you.

HAHAHA Brilliant!!!

Posted by: Jakester at April 7, 2005 03:28 PM

Thanks for being so fair & balanced, Blake.

;)

Posted by: Miss O'Hara at April 7, 2005 03:43 PM

Yes CP, let's sink thousands of dollars in to cameras, take more cops off the street through lack of funds, and then -when the cameras magically witness a crime taking place- we'll send the police to arrest them!!

Except we took money away from police officers to have the cameras, so we have less police. And if by chance the camera happens to catch the crime taking place -provided the criminals are stupid enough to commit a crime IN FRONT OF A CAMERA- we'll be lucky if the police get there in time to identify the body.

Yes, a fabulous idea.

Posted by: Tman at April 7, 2005 09:45 PM

There's only one question to be answered: Historically, who is for Big Brother and who is for civil liberties? (Hint: Who calls the admittedly imperfect ACLU some awful names at every opportunity while quietly killing civil liberties?)

The Bush administration is single-handedly responsible...no, they're not "responsible" for anything. So I'll use "to blame" for the current Soviet-style paranoia infecting this country.

How many bogus "terist alerts" were issued after 9/11 and right up to--BUT NOT SINCE--the presidential election?

Who invented the oxymoronic--and otherwise moronic--Patriot Acts?

Who wants us to look for terists under our beds every night when there hasn't been an attack in 3 1/2 years?

Who has spent uncountable zillions on "Homeland Security" to stop all the invisible terists? (Did you know that when you sell real estate now, you have to sign a statement that goes to DeptHomeSec? Yup, true story.)

Who has arrested, humiliated, tortured, sodomized or otherwise abused hundreds if not thousands of innocent people before releasing them from places like Gitmo and Abu Ghraib?

Who has created a climate of sheer lunacy that leads to what happened in the story? (Click link)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/4/1/163740/1449

The White House has become a looney bin populated by people with several communicable brain diseases. The only way to restore sanity to our country is to replace the insane people causing the problems.

Good news is, the mid-terms are only a year and a half away. Get ready to vote for Democrats and send every possible rethuglicon off to play celebrity golf with Dan Quayle.

Posted by: ChristianLibrul at April 8, 2005 12:30 AM

Webcams are in principle a basic unconstitional violation of personal liberty and freedom. Not surprising that a Dem. police chief & Dem. mayor are approvingthis. On another topic, do you know about the new "coffeenashville.blogspot.com" site? The coffee nashville blog talks about someones strange experiences in Nashville coffeehouse... Restaurants like 23 Psalm and Kozibean. Anyway you might want to check it out.

Posted by: Kath Porter at April 8, 2005 08:43 AM

Christianlbrul,

Um, it's a democrat pushing for the cameras.

Thanks though.

Posted by: Tman at April 8, 2005 01:50 PM

@Tman: BWAAAHA HAHA!

@Christianlbrul: Did you actually read the thread you posted? You do realize that the Secret Service investigates EVERY threat on ANY American President's life, right? Not that I think the guy actually threatened anyone, but it is clear that someone SAID he did.

Posted by: BobDoble at April 8, 2005 04:48 PM

Good work Blake. Cameras on the street today, cameras in your living room tomorrow.

Posted by: Glen Dean at April 9, 2005 12:40 AM

You guys don't seem to understand the concept of deterrents. Its a fact that these cameras reduce crime wherever they are installed. Either become a volunteer deputy and get out there and do something yourself to decrease crime or stop bitching.

Posted by: Merle the Pearl at April 13, 2005 08:43 AM

Mearle

You mean like in the UK?

http://tinyurl.com/6shtf

Good call. But do a little research before you put forth your argument next time.

Posted by: B at April 13, 2005 08:53 AM

Oh, you're right. The one study concerning one city in a foreign country using unmonitored CCTV cameras totally disproves my point. I'll leave in embarassed shame now.

Posted by: Merle the Pearl at April 13, 2005 02:18 PM

What studies, references, or examples have you brought to the table?

I'll help out and give you one example: Chicago

Chicago has installed CCTV cameras. Their crime rate has dropped.

From a casual observation it would seem like a direct correlation. However, what you may not know is that about the same time they were installing cameras, they completely changed the way the police department approached crime in the city. From the way officers were dispatched to the way they patrolled. That has gone a lot farther in the way of reducing crime in Chicago than installing cameras has.

The only thing cameras have done there is to cause the crime to move somwehere else. This, as in the UK, (which is a good example of a watched society...which is where all of this will eventually lead, so it makes sense to look at them) would cause the police to just keep adding cameras. Eventually, every facet of society is watched...at which point, I would welcome you to Orwell's world.

Hey, I support the police, but as with any governmental power, it must be kept in check, and there have to be voices out there to do that.

Posted by: B at April 13, 2005 02:45 PM