Latest news with #FrancisScottKey
Epoch Times
14-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Epoch Times
Francis Scott Key: ‘The Star-Spangled Banner'
Today, America's national anthem, 'The Star-Spangled Banner,' is sung in unison by sports fans across the country each year. It's often considered the nation's most-famous composition. On each patriotic holiday, whether Independence Day, Presidents Day, or Veterans Day, the song is on the minds of countless citizens as they fire up the grill, take in a fireworks show, or enjoy an extra day of rest. The song has become a lasting symbol of American values like bravery and freedom, but its origin story is murky due to writer Francis Scott Key's elusive nature when he published the composition.
CBS News
28-05-2025
- General
- CBS News
WJZ wins Regional Murrow Award for Key Bridge collapse coverage
WJZ won a 2025 Regional Edward R. Murrow Award for our breaking news coverage of the Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse in 2024. The collapse of Baltimore's Key Bridge on March 26, 2024, shook the Maryland community and left lasting impacts on residents and business owners and families who lost loved ones. Covering the Key Bridge collapse The Key Bridge collapsed into the Patapsco River after the container ship Dali crashed into it. The collapse killed six construction workers: Alejandro Hernandez Fuentes, Dorlian Castillo Cabrera, Maynor Suazo-Sandoval, Miguel Luna, Jose Lopez, and Carlos Hernandez. The incident catapulted Maryland leaders and first responders into action, along with WJZ's news team. WJZ kept viewers informed as they woke up to find a major commuter thoroughfare destroyed, as the search for victims turned into bodies recovered, and as the Port of Baltimore was reopened four weeks later. The news team spoke with witnesses, gathered video and detailed the extensive federal investigations, some of which are still playing out. As a Regional Murrow Award winner, WJZ will advance to the national round of the competition. National winners will be announced in August.
Yahoo
28-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Opinion - Keeping terrorists off Airbnb shouldn't undermine Americans' privacy
There's a certain irony in completing the financial surveillance procedures the government requires Airbnb to impose on its hosts. Right along with snapping and submitting a selfie for automatic verification against the required government-issued identification, Airbnb occasionally asks for a guest's country of citizenship, too. It is literally the United States, but is it really the United States? In so many ways, we have become a banal pseudo-security state that betrays our founding ideals. Sure, 'the land of the free and the home of the brave' has always been self-flattering and aspirational. The line was lent to our national anthem from Francis Scott Key's poem, 'Defence of Fort M'Henry,' recalling the War of 1812. That war involved actual death, destruction and threats to the territorial integrity of the United States. The English captured Washington and burned the Capitol before American victories at Baltimore and Plattsburgh set the British back. Andrew Jackson led American forces in repelling a British attack on New Orleans. If you could transport the minds and collective spirit of those Americans to this day, would they have meekly submitted their data to administrative security systems that treat them as prospective suspects in relatively pitiable crimes and wrongs? There is a lot packed into such a broad question. Let's sharpen it through the language of risk management. In true wars, the nation-state suffers existential risk, literal threats to control of its territory. How we scope conflicts has a lot to say about such things, but arguably there has not been a threat of that direct significance to the U.S. since, well, the War of 1812. The two World Wars triggered an expansive sense of our national interest, which is now on the outs. Perhaps the threat of nuclear war counted as an existential threat — global annihilation, in that case, until the Soviet Union fell. When terrorism brought itself into sharp focus a quarter century ago, we figuratively declared a figurative war on it, which, for all the incoherence of fighting a strategy, has been a substantial success. Witness the implicit downgrade terrorism has suffered through the addition of drug cartels to the ranks of 'terrorists.' Doing so keeps the category alive. Many meanings can be poured into the recently declassified word salad called the 'Strategic Implementation Plan for Countering Domestic Terrorism.' Mine is that the domestic terrorism threat is low enough that we can use it to push AmeriCorps. Financial surveillance under the Bank Secrecy Act came into existence out of concern for tax evasion through Swiss bank accounts. Because Congress delegated broad authority in that statute, bureaucratic hands have molded financial surveillance to meet every moment, including making it a part of the counterterrorism arsenal when our politics called for that. The title of this post is a risk manager's absurdity. Terrorists don't use Airbnb to gain an advantage over our society, not to an extent worth spending time and compromising America's privacy and digital security. But Airbnb is every bit a part of the financial surveillance infrastructure. Our security state has become utterly banal. With security benefits vanishingly small, the threats are somewhat sizable. Up front might be the identity fraud risk bestowed on every Airbnb host now that they have submitted key identity documents digitally to yet another database. There is the remote but plausible risk that mass financial surveillance will be turned over to the use of government control in our uncertain future. We have only to look to China's 'social credit' system to see what that looks like. There are many ways to think about all this. One is that our society has not matured into its media environment. Access to imagery from every big auto accident is available nationwide. Any urban explosion we can now see from six different angles. Those dynamics make us white-knuckled exaggerators of security risk. Our politicians and bureaucrats have every reason to indulge us and try to drive risk, impossibly, to zero. In their media environment, there is essentially no incentive to man up and put security threats in perspective. I say 'man up' in the non-gender-specific sense, of course, because it could as easily be a leading woman who calls out the absurdities and tells our nation to grow a pair. But I look forward to the day when we put aside false machismo addressed to inflated threats, cancel misdirected domestic surveillance programs and stand tall, the soil under our feet again constituting a land of the free and home of the brave. Jim Harper is a nonresident senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, focusing on privacy issues. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
28-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Keeping terrorists off Airbnb shouldn't undermine Americans' privacy
There's a certain irony in completing the financial surveillance procedures the government requires Airbnb to impose on its hosts. Right along with snapping and submitting a selfie for automatic verification against the required government-issued identification, Airbnb occasionally asks for a guest's country of citizenship, too. It is literally the United States, but is it really the United States? In so many ways, we have become a banal pseudo-security state that betrays our founding ideals. Sure, 'the land of the free and the home of the brave' has always been self-flattering and aspirational. The line was lent to our national anthem from Francis Scott Key's poem, 'Defence of Fort M'Henry,' recalling the War of 1812. That war involved actual death, destruction and threats to the territorial integrity of the United States. The English captured Washington and burned the Capitol before American victories at Baltimore and Plattsburgh set the British back. Andrew Jackson led American forces in repelling a British attack on New Orleans. If you could transport the minds and collective spirit of those Americans to this day, would they have meekly submitted their data to administrative security systems that treat them as prospective suspects in relatively pitiable crimes and wrongs? There is a lot packed into such a broad question. Let's sharpen it through the language of risk management. In true wars, the nation-state suffers existential risk, literal threats to control of its territory. How we scope conflicts has a lot to say about such things, but arguably there has not been a threat of that direct significance to the U.S. since, well, the War of 1812. The two World Wars triggered an expansive sense of our national interest, which is now on the outs. Perhaps the threat of nuclear war counted as an existential threat — global annihilation, in that case, until the Soviet Union fell. When terrorism brought itself into sharp focus a quarter century ago, we figuratively declared a figurative war on it, which, for all the incoherence of fighting a strategy, has been a substantial success. Witness the implicit downgrade terrorism has suffered through the addition of drug cartels to the ranks of 'terrorists.' Doing so keeps the category alive. Many meanings can be poured into the recently declassified word salad called the 'Strategic Implementation Plan for Countering Domestic Terrorism.' Mine is that the domestic terrorism threat is low enough that we can use it to push AmeriCorps. Financial surveillance under the Bank Secrecy Act came into existence out of concern for tax evasion through Swiss bank accounts. Because Congress delegated broad authority in that statute, bureaucratic hands have molded financial surveillance to meet every moment, including making it a part of the counterterrorism arsenal when our politics called for that. The title of this post is a risk manager's absurdity. Terrorists don't use Airbnb to gain an advantage over our society, not to an extent worth spending time and compromising America's privacy and digital security. But Airbnb is every bit a part of the financial surveillance infrastructure. Our security state has become utterly banal. With security benefits vanishingly small, the threats are somewhat sizable. Up front might be the identity fraud risk bestowed on every Airbnb host now that they have submitted key identity documents digitally to yet another database. There is the remote but plausible risk that mass financial surveillance will be turned over to the use of government control in our uncertain future. We have only to look to China's 'social credit' system to see what that looks like. There are many ways to think about all this. One is that our society has not matured into its media environment. Access to imagery from every big auto accident is available nationwide. Any urban explosion we can now see from six different angles. Those dynamics make us white-knuckled exaggerators of security risk. Our politicians and bureaucrats have every reason to indulge us and try to drive risk, impossibly, to zero. In their media environment, there is essentially no incentive to man up and put security threats in perspective. I say 'man up' in the non-gender-specific sense, of course, because it could as easily be a leading woman who calls out the absurdities and tells our nation to grow a pair. But I look forward to the day when we put aside false machismo addressed to inflated threats, cancel misdirected domestic surveillance programs and stand tall, the soil under our feet again constituting a land of the free and home of the brave. Jim Harper is a nonresident senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, focusing on privacy issues.
Washington Post
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Washington Post
I'm a veteran. The Orioles' national anthem cheer is fine by me.
When I served in Iraq in 2008 and 2009, I had no shortage of challenges: the heat, the long days and, of course, the possibility of danger. But I never felt homesick — with one exception. One April day after returning to Baghdad after a multiday mission to Iraq's Diyala Province, I caught a few innings of the Orioles playing on Opening Day against the Yankees on the Armed Forces Network. I could almost smell the grass and hot dogs through the grainy television feed. But that's the magic of baseball: No matter the time or place, watching it brings you back home. My mother is from Baltimore, so I was born an O's fan. When I was 5, Eddie Murray hit a grand slam at my first game at Memorial Stadium. Cal Ripken Jr. was a rookie the year I was born, and I lived through his two MVP awards and the incredible feat of endurance that led him to break Lou Gehrig's record for consecutive games played. I took issue with Matt Ragone's May 13 letter — 'The Orioles' national anthem chant is unpatriotic. Change it.' — that criticized the tradition of screaming 'O!' during the national anthem. Baltimoreans know a little something about the 'The Star-Spangled Banner.' The original poem was written in Baltimore by Francis Scott Key, a Maryland native. In September 1814, aboard an American truce ship, Key was inspired to pen that famous poem the morning after the British bombardment of Fort McHenry. He learned of the Americans' successful defense of the Baltimore harbor after seeing our flag wave by the dawn's early light. It is appropriate that our country adopted Key's words as our anthem. His poem is not a vow (like Canada's), a rallying cry (like France's) or a prayer (like Britain's) — it is a question. When Key penned his poem, America was still in its infancy. It was still unknown whether the American experiment of democratically electing leaders and guaranteeing basic rights such as free speech would survive. Even today, with Americans so divided, these principles are still at risk. Ronald Reagan noted in his inauguration speech when he became governor of California that freedom is never more than a generation away from extinction. Perhaps we need to relearn it's okay for us to disagree with each other. I do not expect Ragone to join me in shouting 'O!' during the anthem, but maybe he can recognize that some of us do it to respect the brave Baltimoreans who saved our early republic. Justin Swick, Arlington Matt Ragone's May 13 letter, 'The Orioles' national anthem chant is unpatriotic. Change it.' objected to the 'O!' shout during the national anthem. Rangone said the cheer was unpatriotic and was perhaps disrespectful to veterans. I for one, as the widow of a seven-year veteran of the U.S. Navy, am happy to hear the 'O!' when I see the Orioles play in Nationals Park or Camden Yards, and my late husband would be, too. Betty Booker, Salisbury The 2025 baseball season is barely seven weeks old and already — after too many embarrassing losses to Atlanta, Cleveland and St. Louis — the Nats season is all but over. An anemic offense, a bullpen that lets runs flow like water and a mistake-prone team is becoming a far-too-familiar sight for Washington baseball fans. It's been nearly six years since the Nats won the World Series — every one full of awful baseball. The long rebuild that was supposed to bring them back into contention looks like a failure. The trades of beloved stars Max Scherzer and Trea Turner yielded nothing. The Nats draft record has been woeful, as even 2023's 2nd-overall pick, Dylan Crews, struggles to hit over .200. And this year's crop of free agents has done nothing to help the team. Thank you, General Manager Mike Rizzo and Manager Davey Martinez for bringing Washington baseball the 2019 World Series championship, our first in living memory. But after years of lousy baseball, it's time for the Nats to move on with a new duo at the helm. Brian A. Cohen, Washington I was heartened to see The Washington Post-Schar School poll showing that a majority of District residents support the proposed redevelopment of the RFK Stadium site in the May 9 Metro article 'Poll shows stadium support.' Though I am instinctually skeptical of public financing for professional sports stadiums, I'm choosing to think of this plan as a housing project. Our city is in desperate need of additional units, and the project's pledged 5,000 to 6,000 new homes will represent a meaningful addition to the District's housing supply. I chose to make D.C. my home because it is one of the few places in America with a true urban fabric: our neighborhoods provide a pleasant blend of retail and housing; we have easy access to parks, museums and other amenities; and our robust public transit makes it easy to live without a car. The city's high housing prices illustrate that there is substantial demand for this lifestyle, and development of the RFK site will increase the number of people who can access it. The proposal is not perfect — D.C. taxpayers' dollars shouldn't be used for building roughly 8,000 parking spaces at the site, given that they will presumably be used by mostly non-District residents and contribute to our area's worsening air quality. I hope the potential addition of a second Metro station on the site could eliminate the need for these spaces. However, we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good — and the status quo is unacceptable. As it stands, the rotting stadium surrounded by acres of baking asphalt is a blight on our city, and I'm glad that our leaders are taking action to address the problem. D.C. has a winning formula; residents are rightfully excited to expand our successful, transit-oriented urban layout to untapped areas of our city. I'm excited to see new homes, businesses and parks where there's currently cracked pavement. A couple of Commanders Super Bowl wins would be a nice bonus. Tom Nowlan, Washington A slight majority of D.C. residents support spending about $850 million to bring an NFL stadium to the city, according to a recent Washington Post-Schar School poll. But I wish the pollsters had asked different questions. I believe that Mayor Muriel E. Bowser is hiding the full cost of the stadium, and the full extent of her giveaway to the Commanders' billionaire owner Josh Harris. Here are the questions that should be asked: D.C. has proposed more than $2.5 billion in subsidies, almost free land and tax breaks to the Commanders to build an NFL stadium, which one expert says might be the largest public stadium subsidy in U.S. history. Do you support that? The mayor's budget, which has not been released yet, is likely to include notable cuts to core services in light of D.C.'s tight finances. Does that affect your opinion of the stadium subsidy? No wonder the mayor is not explaining the full story: If D.C. residents knew the real costs of the RFK deal — the large subsidies and taking away the opportunity to develop RFK for the community — it's likely that few residents would support it. And because stadiums are used so rarely — and research shows they don't create many good jobs or a lot of tax revenue — the much better approach to the land would be to build out the RFK site as a waterfront residential community with much more housing, including affordable units. That would attract a population base large enough to support new grocery stores, restaurants and other amenities. Ed Lazere, Washington One advantage of buses over trains that was not mentioned in the May 6 Metro article 'Metro's future is on the road' is that riders have the option of 'giving up' if their bus is late. Once a rider enters the Metrorail system, there is a sunk cost. That's because bus riders do not incur a cost until they are actually on the bus. If a bus isn't arriving in a timely manner, sure, it can be frustrating, but riders can opt out and choose to walk, hail a cab, call an Uber or grab a ride using Capital Bikeshare. They are not incentivized to keep waiting because they've already paid. If there's a traffic delay, or other unexpected event, bus riders can usually disembark much sooner than they could while riding the rail. Additionally, if a bus breaks down between stops, riders are not stuck, unlike their unfortunate counterparts in a broken-down Metro car. Also, riders with mobility challenges do not have to play roulette to determine a path that avoids the broken elevators and escalators. Sure, they are sometimes too crowded to accommodate riders who need extra assistance, but again, those riders are not stuck in a system where upon reaching their destination they must backtrack to a station with a functioning elevator. Kevin Cole, Washington
