Just a Pitch

      What is happening to baseball? Specifically, what is happening to the opening pitch? Baseball is a game filled with tradition and superstition. Even the Cubs can not seem to shake the curse of the billy goat, and continue to blame every losing season on something that happened in 1945. We religiously sing the National Anthem and "Take me out to the Ball Park", eat hot dogs, peanuts, and popcorn, and even get completely crazed when anyone talks about making a change to any one of our historic ball parks. The first pitch of the game has historically been reserved for U.S. presidents and dignitaries. In recent years, the honor has shifted toward celebrities, and is now sliding deeper into simple publicity stunts. Justin Bieber and Snoop Dog have thrown out the first pitch. Shockingly, someone in a Hello Kitty costume has even stepped onto the mound.
     People win the opportunity to throw the first ball at charity auctions. “We strategically will rotate between season-ticket holders, sponsors, and someone from the community,” said Lou DePaoli, the chief marketing officer for the Pittsburgh Pirates. “Every now and then we’ll say: ‘We know we have a first pitch available, this key account is coming up for renewal and the C.E.O. is coming into town. Let’s offer them the first pitch to make them feel good.’” Throwing the first pitch has stooped to the same level as placing an ad in the outfield. Catching these random pitches can be humiliating for the catcher too. Apparently, Regis Philbin was given multiple tries at the plate. While I understand that baseball is a business, and there is no crying in baseball, it still makes me sad to see how commercialized the first pitch has become. To read more on this article visit: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/29/sports/baseball/baseballs-first-pitch-loses-its-exclusivity.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0

Subtle Interruptions

Yesterday, President Obama was giving a speech at The National Defense University. The topic was focused on how America is going to redefine our approach to terrorism. Mr. Obama was addressing the U.S. use of drones and the potential closing of the Guantanamo prison. Repeatedly throughout his talk, the president was interrupted by a heckler named Medea Benjamin who works for Code Pink. Code Pink is an organization that opposes U.S. military action. At times during the president's speech, it almost felt like more of a debate. Mr. Obama was respectful and engaged the woman in a brief dialog where he acknowledged the validity of some of what she had to say. I can not think of too many world leaders who would have done that. That, to me, is one of the beautiful things about living in a democracy where freedom of speech is guaranteed. While Ms. Benjamin became too disruptive, and was ultimately removed, her point was made. Ms. Benjamin stated: "People around the world are tired of nice words from President Obama, and they want some concrete action. Some say that it is rude to interrupt the president, but it's rude to kill innocent people with drones." After Ms. Benjamin was removed, Mr. Obama responded to what she said by adding: "The voice of that woman is worth paying attention to. Obviously I do not agree with much of what she said, and obviously she wasn't listening to me in much of what I said. But these are tough issues, and the suggestion that we can gloss over them is wrong." I admire the president for leaving his prepared remarks to comment on what Ms. Benjamin had to say. He could have easily dismissed the interruption as a distraction and continued on with his prepared remarks. To read more about this article visit:   http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/24/us/politics/obama-spars-with-activist-during-terrorism-speech.html--

Preventative Measures

          In the Steven Speilberg film, Minority Report, that was release nine months after 9/11/2001, homicide detectives in the year 2054 focus their attention on "crime prevention" rather than crime investigations. Their job is to fight "pre-crimes', or crimes before they are committed. Does this futuristic approach to crime fighting have any basis in today's reality? Following 9/11, the U.S. anti-terrorist agencies and technology have grown in size and scope. 

         Today, we are now able use high-tech surveillance cameras, satellites, wiretaps, facial-recognition software, drones, computer algorithms, and data collection methods in our attempt to stop terrorism before it starts. In 2010, 3,000 government organizations, and their associated private counterparts were employed in activities that supported Homeland Security, intelligence, and counterterrorism in over 10,000 locations across the U.S. In the fall of 2013, The NationalSecurity Agency will open a billion-dollar facility called the Utah Data Center. Two hundred people will work at the Center investigating intercepted computer files and telecommunications. The amount of information that is expected to pass through this agency is roughly the equivalent of "23 million year's worth of Blu-ray DVD's" according to the Massachusetts based advocacy group, Digital Fourth. The potential for abuse in an organization like the Data Center is huge. On the flip side, the number of people assigned to police privacy issues is minimal. Everything can somehow fall under the "war on terrorism" exception. Did Spielberg have ESP when he attempted to show what life in 2054 might be like? Was Orwell headed in the right direction in 1984? No matter what you think, the number of people watching us is growing every day. To read more about this article visit: http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2013/05/20/130520taco_talk_hertzberg

      An new law has been proposed in Illinois that would force Internet providers to hand over user information without a warrant. It is maintained that this information would prevent flash-mobs from forming in the city of Chicago, and would minimize the violence that results from these mass gatherings. While knowing when and where a flash-mob might take place is definitely valuable information, the doors are once again opened to the technical/legal/privacy debate.

      Earlier last month, large groups of people descended on the Mag Mile and assaulted people and looted stores. There were over 30 arrests in one evening. As the summer approaches, the city is growing concerned that a repeat of this activity would definitely impact the tourist industry. Marc Gordon, president of the Illinois Hotel and Lodging Association, ad a supporter of the proposed legislation said that the flash-mob violence would definitely deter people from visiting the city. The bill would propose a $1,000 fine on the Internet Service providers and would also allow a judge to amplify the punishment for people if it was shown that the internet was used to facilitate the criminal captivity. State senator, Kwame Raoul, the sponsor of Bill 1005, said: 'The ability to coordinate a mob action online gives criminals two ket advantages: surprise and large numbers. State law can support police efforts by helping them use one of the criminal's tools-socila media- against them."

It will be interesting to see what happens to this bill and the impact it might have on the city of Chicago.

http://www.chicagolawbulletin.com/News-Extra/2013/04/privacy-4-22.aspx

Easy Access

      It was recently revealed that the United States Justice Department collected two months woth of telephone records from the editors and reporters at The Associated Press, one of the largest news agencies in the world. Today, the AP sent a letter to Attorney General, Eric Holder, expressing their outrage. AP president, Gary Pruitt called the subpoena for the phone records a "massive and unprecedented intrusion" into it's reporting. The reason this information is so sensitive is that it will reveal multiple confidential sources and news-gathering operations of the press. The government has not disclosed exactly why they need this information. They have claimed that theu are trying to figure out how details of a foiled bomb plot that targeted a plane bound for the U.S. were leaked in May of 2012.
     The government has collected information from 20 different AP phone numbers that includes personal numbers too. Pruitt also stated that he believes that the "action by the Justice Department (is) a serious interference with AP's constitutional right to gather and report the news." He wants all of the collected records returned and all copies destroyed. The government states that while they value freedom of the press, it must be balanced against the national interest. In this case, the government was concerned that the leaking of state secrets would endanger future U.S. operations. Ben Wizner, the head of the A.C.L.U's Speech, Privacy and Technology Project said: "Freedom of the press is a pillar of our democracy, and that freedom often depends on confidential communications between reporters and their sources." If the government can easily expand their surveillance to include the press as well as ordinary citizens, there is nothing that they aren't watching. http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/13/us/justice-ap-phones/index.html?hpt=hp_t1