Why is Arlen Spector worried about Spygate?

[HellYeahHokie]

I can somewhat understand why congress gets involved with the steroid issue. These are illegal substances and taking them, or distributing them breaks federal law.

But what the hell does the The New England Patriots taping practices have to do with federal law? If the Pats did tape the Rams practice, they have only broken NFL rules, and that's Roger Goddell's problem. Why should Goddell have to answer to Specter? Why are our tax dollars being spent by Specter for an issue that has nothing to do with federal law or policy? Why isn't anyone telling Specter he should worry more about the economy, or health care, or anything else that matters to the country. I suspect he's just a pissed Steeler's fan flexing his muscle. But someone should tell him to STFU and get back to the work he was elected to do.

[Lincoln Tower]

I can somewhat understand why congress gets involved with the steroid issue. These are illegal substances and taking them, or distributing them breaks federal law.

But what the hell does the The New England Patriots taping practices have to do with federal law? If the Pats did tape the Rams practice, they have only broken NFL rules, and that's Roger Goddell's problem. Why should Goddell have to answer to Specter? Why are our tax dollars being spent by Specter for an issue that has nothing to do with federal law or policy? Why isn't anyone telling Specter he should worry more about the economy, or health care, or anything else that matters to the country. I suspect he's just a pissed Steeler's fan flexing his muscle. But someone should tell him to STFU and get back to the work he was elected to do.


Exactly. Shows you how vile Steelers fan are. Not as bad as boston fans, but close.

Well, not close, but maybe next in line.

[TommyTrojan]

Comcast Cable is one of Spector's biggest contributors, and they've been in a long-running dispute with the NFL over broadcast rights. The NFL has a broadcast exemption to monopoly law that allows them to collectively negotiate broadcast contracts for all teams. Comcast doesn't like that and Spector is in their pocket financially. He already tried to end the monopoly altogether during the lame-duck session of 2006, when he was still chairman. It went nowhere, and this won't either.

[HellYeahHokie]

The monopoly exemption is what has made the NFL the best run and most successful sports league in the country, perhaps the world. Screwing that up would screw up everything.

[BossTalker]

I can somewhat understand why congress gets involved with the steroid issue. These are illegal substances and taking them, or distributing them breaks federal law.

But what the hell does the The New England Patriots taping practices have to do with federal law? If the Pats did tape the Rams practice, they have only broken NFL rules, and that's Roger Goddell's problem. Why should Goddell have to answer to Specter? Why are our tax dollars being spent by Specter for an issue that has nothing to do with federal law or policy? Why isn't anyone telling Specter he should worry more about the economy, or health care, or anything else that matters to the country. I suspect he's just a pissed Steeler's fan flexing his muscle. But someone should tell him to STFU and get back to the work he was elected to do.

We as fans deserve to know what were on the tapes and how they possibly could have been used. Goodell quickly destroyed the tapes and brushed the issue under the rug which IMO was f'd up....

[HellYeahHokie]

We as fans deserve to know what were on the tapes and how they possibly could have been used. Goodell quickly destroyed the tapes and brushed the issue under the rug which IMO was f'd up....

Sure we do. What the hell does that have to do with the United States Government?

[BossTalker]

Sure we do. What the hell does that have to do with the United States Government?
Who besides the Government had nuts big enough to challenge Goodell on this issue?

[HellYeahHokie]

Who besides the Government had nuts big enough to challenge Goodell on this issue?

Who says anyone has to do so? NO LAWS WERE BROKEN. This has absolutely NOTHING to do with the United States Government, and Goodell is smart enough to indulge Spector. But he really should tell him to STFU.

[BossTalker]

Who says anyone has to do so? NO LAWS WERE BROKEN. This has absolutely NOTHING to do with the United States Government, and Goodell is smart enough to indulge Spector. But he really should tell him to STFU.

HYH, Goodell f'd this Spygate thing up!!

[HellYeahHokie]

HYH, Goodell f'd this Spygate thing up!!

What if he did? Again I ask, why is this an issue for the United States Government?

What if a Vice President of a company was caught looking at porn on his computer at work, against company policy. After the VP got punished, the company CEO decided to erase the VP's hard drive of all traces of any porn and any viruses that might have gotten on the computer.

Would this be an issue for a United States Senator? What's the difference? This is an internal matter in which company rules were broken, not federal, state, or local laws. Somehow, since the NFL was granted an anti-trust exemption, Specter somehow thinks he's entitled to rights not granted his office.

What right does any government official have to stick their nose into the internal operation of any company, unless that company is breaking laws?

The answer: Absolutely NONE!

[happjack]

The Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 and NFL teams playing in taxpayer funded stadiums is the reason Spector is doing what he is doing.

Roger Goodell put himself in this situation with the way he handled the whole thing.

[HellYeahHokie]

The Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 and NFL teams playing in taxpayer funded stadiums is the reason Spector is doing what he is doing.

Roger Goodell put himself in this situation with the way he handled the whole thing.

Taxpayer-funded stadiums are funded by local and/or state taxes. They have nothing to do with the federal government.

The Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 only deals with the negotiation of television broadcast rights. It has nothing at all to do with the operation and the rules of the NFL. Specter has no more business sticking his nose into this matter than he does sticking his nose into whether a referee should be suspended for making a bad call on the field.

Since following this story, it's become obvious why he's doing it. Comcast is in his pocket and wants to break the anti-trust deal the NFL has through that Sports Broadcasting Act. So Specter is doing nothing less than to hurt the credibility of Goodell, so he can repeal this anti-trust exemption.

Goodell broke no laws. The Patriots broke no laws. Neither Belichick or Goodell tried to negotiate television broadcast rights outside the Sportsbroadcasting Act of 1961. This is just another pathetic example of our government wasting our money because they are getting paid well by lobbyists.

[HellYeahHokie]

HYH, did you ever see the film Quiz Show?

Yes. It was a good movie (except for Rob Morrow's bad Boston accent). But if you are making a connection between the two cases, one involved fraud, which is against the law. This situation with spygate is someone breaking company policy.

[HellYeahHokie]

Yes, I can easily frame the "spygate" situation in terms of fraud.

I'm not advocating Congressional interference, but it's really not completely unlike the game show scandal.

You know this has nothing to do with Spygate and everything to do with Comcast, right?

[Bucs90]

It's because Democrats are taking over. They are commies, and want to take down New England's dynasty. Just like they want to outlaw the .50 caliber round becaue it's "not fair" to the enemy. Seriously.

[Blue Hen]

Hey B90, I thought of you ( and Zoom) after the latest campus mass gun killings at NIU. If only every incoming student was issued a hand gun w/ plenty of ammo, plus the faculty and staff and every other campus employee...well, these gun slaughters just wouldn't happen anymore. Right ?

[ZOOMBAG]

If, say a half dozen students sitting that audience had weapons, and at least one or two had the courage to fire back, either taking him down, or scaring him off before he had a chance to kill as many as he did, it might have at least saved a few more lives.

It's getting to the point, where had I still had kids going to college I'd urge the to go on campus armed, regardless of school rules, for their own safety. At least if stuck in a situation like that, they'd have an option other than to hide behind a chair and wait until it's your turn to die....

[HellYeahHokie]

And I would like to know why he's spending time on this when the US Attorney abuse scandal remains unresolved.

This is my main point.

[HellYeahHokie]

If, say a half dozen students sitting that audience had weapons, and at least one or two had the courage to fire back, either taking him down, or scaring him off before he had a chance to kill as many as he did, it might have at least saved a few more lives..

You hit the nail on the head there Zoom. If one or two had the courage to fire back, a few more lives might have been saved. The reality, however, is that the gunman is the only one not afraid to kill and is the only one who isn't afraid of dying. The killing is over in a matter of a minute or two, and the shooter kills himself (or its suicide by police).

It's a fantasy that regular citizens, without any combat experience, are going to be able to react in a way that could prevent these shootings from occurring. Most people would be too busy pissing their pants to even be able to shoot straight. As a military person, you understand that's why soldiers go through drill, after drill, after drill. So when the bullets become live, they know what to do. And even then, some soldiers freeze up. Heck, I've seen these shootouts on TV video shows, where trained cops can't even hit their targets in a shootout.

I still contend there would be far more injuries and deaths from accidental shootings than deaths prevented by armed students hoping to 'fight back' under fire of a lunatic.

[Blue Hen]

You guys are nuts !... So what happens when one (or some) of all these students you want to arm has a bad day and flips out and goes off on their own shooting spree ? Young US brains and psyches are more fragile than at anytime in history and you want to make gun killing more convenient by arming everybody ?????????????????.

We've got a population of about 280 million or something like that, right ?.....and we have gun stores on every corner and about 200 million guns circulating around our citizenry....all of which results in the highest murder/suicide/accidental shooting rate in the entire civilized world.......BY A MILE ! So you guys are suggesting we arm everybody , everywhere, in order to 'fight back' and protect themselves ?. Maybe increase the gun total, four times over, to 800 million ???? That surely will make everything safer.

[Bucs90]

Good debate. When I was a cop, we called it "drawing fire". In other words, if a gunman is shooting, and someone shoots back, 99% of the time he will direct his fire at the person shooting back. So, the answer isn't to arm everyone. Far from it. The answer is to have 1 or 2 people willing to carry a gun, train to use it, and be brave enough to shoot back, draw fire, and save lives. And out of 100 people, maybe 4 or 5 are mentally suited to be "that guy" who would return fire and save lives. The issue is ALLOWING someone to be that person. If I was in that auditorium and was the only armed person other than the nutjob, there is a 100% chance I would have fired back and hopefully drawn fire and saved a life or two.

Hen, I agree arming everyone is an awful idea. A bullet parade is obviously not the desired effect. However, the point is that of those 100 people, the 2-3 people who wish to take on that responsability should be allowed to. THAT is the issue. I'm obviously no longer a cop, maybe again after school, but not now. I've been to some big classrooms at Clemson, and I can't carry my weapon there. God forbid anything happen, but if it did, and I was armed, I would not hesitate to draw fire by shooting back, and military and police studies have proven without a doubt that shooting back will draw fire towards the 2nd gun and away from the innocents. But will we allow a "few brave men" to be those guys willing to step up to protect the others?

I think this is the issue that so many people support. Arming everyone is not only a terrible idea, but wouldn't happen anyway, as 95% of people would have no desire to be armed. But allow that 5% to carry, and allow them the chance to draw fire if they wish, for their own protection and others. "Draw fire" is a very courageous act, and a few citizens want only to be allowed the chance if tragedy strikes. Why would anyone want that chance? Same reason men become cops and soldiers. Either someone has to do it, or everyone can sit and pray and hope they aren't killed. We've seen what happens when this small percentage of courageous men aren't allowed to fight back. I think it is time to allow that 5% the chance to hit back when these whackos pull this sh**.

Hen, I hope I clarified myself. I would never suggest arming everyone, becaue everyone is not fit to be armed. But allow those that are fit and willing to fight back to do it.

[Blue Hen]

Yeah, glad to hear that more and more guns and arming everybody is not your answer. That clarifies much. It's a terrible problem. Lets throw around some ideas ( realistic or not ) on how to get all these guns off the street. what do you think ?

[GatorGrad]

Arming everyone would be a complete disaster. Ridiculous idea.

[Bucs90]

Well, Hen, part of me thinks we simply can't. It's like saying "Lets get these illegal immigrants off the streets". There are simply too many on the black market, and even if the government decided to "round 'em up" there aren't enough LE personnel to execute such a large scale confiscation. I fear deterrent is our only real solution, through extremely tough laws on crimes involving guns. And when a person is desperate or angry, that often won't work either. It is truly a complex issue, and one that our government obviously can't find a way to handle.

I saw a proposal that would develop all trigger systems through an electronic device, much like a computerized car ignition, that would allow certain areas of public places to disable these triggers through radio waves or something- I'm not a computer guy so not sure about the technical workings. It sounded great: Triggers would actually not function in areas where the computers have disabled the sensor inside them.

But the problem is no previously manufactured gun would be vulnerable, and the price of production would be so high no company would attempt it.

Like I said, it is easier to buy $500 worth of ILLEGAL crack on a corner than $500 of LEGAL gun on the corner. So outlawing them isn't the answer. Deterrence is. And only politicians with the guts to attack the existing gun crime laws can do it. Unfortunately, all our politicians are spineless cowards now.