THOU ShALT NOT PHOTOGRAPH VA HOSPITALS

[johnnywalker]

David,
All the arguments about privacy aside, I found your letter basically unreadable. It's much too long, repetitive, wandering and has too much irrelevant information. I found myself "scanning" it half way through the first paragraph. It would have much more effect if it were considerably shortened and presented in a logical manner. As it is, it will end up in the waste basket.

 

[David Lyga]

johnnywaker: Thank you for your comments about my 'unreadability' and 'irrelevance'. I strongly, but politely, disagree. That does not make me right and you wrong but does expose a different mindset about these things. The great many people who thought Bush's invasion of Iraq was very relevant to the aftermath of 911 is a stunning example of the human capacity to 'believe' (and isolate that belief from reason) what one is TOLD and EXPECTED to believe, enhanced and 'justified' by wishful thinking and pseudo-patriotic fervor. I respect my multitude of detractors but can openly state that I still believe, except for the caveats heretofore mentioned (privacy, etc), that what I said was highly relevant and not disconnected from the main problems causing these 'knee jerk' restrictions. Too often the APPEARANCE of effectiveness supplants the REALITY of effectiveness when it comes to security concerns. If the guard had brought up the privacy issue (but for the patients, not the hospital per se) I doubt if I would have challenged him. - David Lyga

 

[Dan Daniel]

Poor writing is poor writing, no matter the politics of what is being written. Writing that is too convoluted and complex for the intended audience is poor writing. Rather than a modern interpretive jazz dance piece, learn to be a mime. Both are equally annoying, but at least one actually communicates, and can even make people laugh now and then.

 

[johnnywalker]

David, I was not commenting on what you wrote but how you wrote it.

 

[pbromaghin]

And the way you wrote it makes you sound like a Kook.

I had hoped that the rest of my post made it clear that I wasn't saying you were a kook, that your writing style made it look that way, but satire and sarcasm are often misinterpreted.

 

[tkamiya]

Whether this writing is good or bad depends on why it's written and its desired outcome. My understand is, our OP, David, wants an answer to this central question. "May I photograph the exterior of a VA hospital". The expected answer is, "yes," "no," "yes with the following conditions."

The answer doesn't change depending on OP's thought on the subject or what transpired this query. The answer also doesn't change no matter what the guard at the hospital has said or done. Policy is already there and Daivd is simply asking, "what is it?" With that in mind, 90% of the original letter is unnecessary.

On the other hand, if the intention of the letter is to file a complaint against the guard, VA hospital, or policy concerning photographing VA hospital, and engage in open debate with the agent or the agency in question, then the OP's opinion must be fully explained. Then what's written may be appropriate.

If David wants an answer, it must first be read and understood. The current letter is too long and cluttered for that. That's my take on it.

 

[Edwardv]

As a Veteran, I find security is inconsistent at VA hospitals I have attended, I been to at least 10 of them. For example, the DC VA, security personnel are not at their post, and the Baltimore VA you get waved in. It all depends on who is on duty, what VIP is arriving, etc. Besides you could have said, I am visiting a patient and they wouldn't even bat an eye.

 

[steve1871]

Start with the director of the local VA and go up from there... The old adage of dont go around someone in a chain of cammand will shurely be present here as it was in the Military. If you think the VA is bad, walk around a naval base with a camera on your shoulder. Even if you are in the clear and not on the base, I am sure you will be tracked down and questioned. Even the slightest bit of temperment about your fredoms will get you in a holding facility and your camera and gear confiscated for examination.

 

[steve1871]

Different bases different rules

Sorry you feel that way. 35 years retired Army Colonel, And yes since 9-11, Military bases are continually changing their policy about Photographs and cameras. Even off the facility but potentially pointed at or could have been pointed at what is considered sensitive areas. In this case it was at Naval Amphibious Base Coronado, where an Aircraft carrier came in the night before. I was off base walked down near one of the gates, but then I decided to go around and go on base and get a better shot. Before I could get around to the front gate I was pulled over by Shore Patrol and local police. The camera was taken until they could verify that nothing of a sensitive nature was recorded and that my ID card was real and matched me. I was told NO Photos of the aircraft carrier at dock were allowed, even by base personnel. Fort Hood Texas has banned all photographic devices from within 1000 feet of any gate or entry point. (No one told them about telephoto lens) Also MP’s regularly go off base to intercept individuals taking photos from an off base position to buildings on base.

 

[David Lyga]

Well, I think that we, collectively, need to evaluate reality vs. appearance. I could take photos, undisclosed, at any of the venues you mentioned folks. Like one said, guess they never heard of telephoto lenses. And why is what is out in the open so 'secret'?

Being a leftist and being 'anti' this military garbage, what freedoms do we thank the Vets for, from Vietman to Iraq, honestly? I think that the resrrictions are 90% ego and 10% reason. And I think that there are a LOT of vets who just happen to (quietly) agree with this queer given both their experiences during engagement and the aftermath.

I think that our obsessive secrecy is borne both out of a need for an 'enemy' (in order for us to feel whole) and a hegemonic agenda to fulfill. - David Lyga