Update: Newspaper Refuses To Help FBI

So the Haiku contest was canceled and they’re not going to pick a winner. Why? Becasue bloggers put up too much of a fuss.

Tuesday’s Daily Haiku was a bad call

The paper’s decision not to run photos of the two Seattle ferry passengers sought by the FBI didn’t take long yesterday to become part of a widespread debate that provoked readers around the country.

Here are some other blog posts on the subject:

• CQ: “Seattle has spent the last couple of weeks redefining journalistic objectivity — downwards…”
• MALKIN: Seattle P-I: No, we won’t help the FBI… we’ll hold a haiku contest instead!…
• NEWSBUSTERS: Seattle PI Continues to Refuse to Aid FBI in Terror Probe…
• PALOUSITICS: Suspicious Behavior - By Seattle Newspapers…

The P-I also had to recant for another misstep. I’ll post on it soon.

Newspaper Refuses To Help FBI

The FBI has been trying to find two men who have engaged in suspicious activities on Puget Sound ferries, the largest ferry system in the U.S. and the No. 1 target for maritime terrorism according to the Justice Department. The agency released a picture of the two, but the Seattle Post-Intelligencer won’t help. They ran a story on the issue, but cited “civil liberties” and “privacy” reasons for not publishing the pictures.

The FBI said the two men “showed an inordinate interest in the operation of the shipboard systems as opposed to the beautiful scenery passing by.”

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer wrote, “The PI selected not to publish the photos, citing civil liberties and privacy concerns, which editors felt outweighed the newsworthiness of the images. ‘We have no confirmation that these men’s behavior was anything but innocuous, and to forever taint them by associating them with terrorism under these circumstances is not consistent with our policy,’ said David McCumber, P-I managing editor.”

Bill Hobbs over at Newsbusters has a good insight on the whole “privacy and civil liberties” issue. The men in the photo were photographed in public while on a public ferry. I have no right to privacy when it comes to my appearance when I am in public. Yes, I have a right to privacy of my person, but not of my appearance. These men were in a public forum and had no legal right to privacy at the time.

“There is no invasion of their privacy, nor of their civil liberties, by publishing the photos so that the authorities can locate and speak with the men.”

Hobbs also points out that newspapers post pictures of anonymous crowds all the time without citing privacy concerns, so it a little hypocritical to pull the “privacy” card when so much could be at risk.

This activity is not new to the Washington state ferry system. In 2004, “Groups of men, including one tied to a federal terrorism investigation, have videotaped Washington ferry operations, prompting federal authorities to conclude the system has been under surveillance as a possible target for an attack.”

An audit of the state ferry system found that many of the ferries do not have enough flotation devices and rafts to fit the number of for only half their passenger capacity.

The paper is holding a haiku-writing contest for readers to write about how they feel about the FBI alert and the way the paper handled it.

“The local media had four options after they received an alert from the FBI about two ferry passengers wanted for questioning: run the photo, run the story, run the photo and the story or don’t run anything at all.

“In an earlier post, Managing Editor David McCumber explained our decision to leave the photo out of it.

“As the story develops today, what concerns you most: The possible threat to security? The way the alert was released? Something completely different? Put it in a three-line, 5-7-5 syllable bit of pop haiku for today’s contest.”

Government Regulation Vs. Innovation

Government is a necessary evil, and as such, should be limited to the absolute necessities. Government is necessary because people are prone to wrong, because we are fallen. Many people believe that government is the preferable entity for enacting standards and change, protection and prevention, due to its scale and a false assumption of its responsibility and prerogative.

Perhaps most egregious and insidious of the government’s accepted roles today is regulation. This is applicable both for Federal and State government. Each has responsibilities, which do not constitutionally overlap, and each oversteps its bounds. I will speak of the government as a conglomerate encompassing both the Federal and State leve though, because the problem is the same as is the solution.

Innovation is what occurs where there is little no protection of the status quo. I’m not a strict libertarian, I do not believe, for instance, that researchers ought to be allowed to do as Bretons are considering, creating transgenic creatures part human and part animal through embryonic and DNA manipulation even for the sake of research. And I believe that government has a moral responsibility to prevent this and throw the weight of justice behind it’s policy in the matter. Similarly I believe that the government has the responsibility and the right to protect the innocent, punish the wrongdoer, provide for the common defense, wield the sword against evil, protect the currency and protect commerce.

Government is not well suited to decide and define technology and professional standards. Consider the stifling climate of radio communication, where technology is old and innovation is very limited and drastic in impact. Consider the ending of all analog TV signal broadcasts coming very soon. Given a free and open playing field there may be wildly divergent technologies out there in use, but they would value backwards compatibility as companies would need to ease the upgrade process for their consumers. Instead we get the “punctuated equilibrium” theory of social technology change, which doesn’t work for us any better than it did for the evolutionary theory.

If you fear the ability of money-grubbing, profiteering pirates in the free business world to regulate themselves, develop standards and foster innovation in a natural, progressive manner, you’ve not been watching the technology scene for the last 20 years. As needs appeared, grew, and changed (eg. the internet, flash, java, html, css, ISO, IEEE, IETF, etc) standards bodies supported and funded by the industries have grown and taken over the managing of standards. They maintain equilibrium and allow technology to grow in a measured, gradual and stepwise manner which supports and encourages innovation while maintaining and stable environment for the end user.

In the power and energy and general utilities arena, local governments have the responsibility to decide their involvement in providing services to the citizenry. By giving money to companies for research the government breaks up the innovation-finding, problem-fixing nature of the free market, and any time the natural form of the free market is broken, it loses its efficiency and limits its ability to develop those innovations and fix those problems. If the government didn’t take that money it gave back in the first place, the companies would have immeasurably more resources at their disposal, and it wouldn’t be prone to the common issues of the government giving money back such as cronism, and political contracting and favors.

There is a question I’d ask of anybody regarding this issue. If Thomas Edison were alive today which entity would be the greatest enemy of his innovation: Government or Business?

Government regulation prevents, hampers, impedes, restricts, all in the name of protecting. Business expands, develops, creates, grows, all in the name of profit. Which is worse? Who is protected? Who benefits?

Those protected by government regulation are those who have the most money to buy political influence, businesses. Instead of competing and changing and innovating, they buy off politicians and gain their legislative protection. If it were not acceptable for government to regulate there would be less reason for politicians to be bought off. Think back to early telephone days, you don’t have to be too old to recall when it was illegal for answering machines to be connected to phone lines. It was once illegal to have anything besides the clunky early telephones provided for you by the phone company connected to the phone lines, and they convinced the government this was the case. Eventually the preponderance of evidence that third party systems were so incredibly superior to the bloated, marginally functional systems provided by “Ma Bell” that the government did act in the favor of the consumer and allow alternate systems on the networks. One can only wonder where we’d be at today in telephone technology if the government hadn’t seen fit to regulate the telephone industry to the point where Bell Telephone was the monopoly controller.

In the arguments over Net Neutrality, I feel for the plebes. I don’t want my traffic throttled any more than it already is by the ISP. But is it the government’s responsibility to control this? And if we allow the government to say who can access the internet and at what speed, where is our moral authority when the government wants to say who can’t access the internet?

Perhaps I am more libertarian than I like to think myself to be.

Unfortunately I do not have a hard and fast rule on what should and shouldn’t be regulated. Should local governments be allowed to sign exclusivity agreements with cable companies? The people benefit because the company has a big incentive to build infrastructure to get their service. And the people lose because where competition is stifled, prices go up and innovation (extra and new services and features) go down. Ever wonder why you pay $50/month for cable and only $15/month for DSL? Cable runs on exclusive contracts with metropolitan areas and they can charge whatever they want. DSL runs over telephone wires, which have now been regulated to allow all services and carriers. AT&T owns most of the wires, but they have to lease the wires to any comer, and they still have to service the wire and cannot limit the functionality of the wire in any way. A rare example of good regulation.

Perhaps the best regulation is that which forces the acceptance of free enterprise. Laws which prohibit exclusive service provider agreements with municipalities and mandate phased buyouts of existing contracts. But what are the hidden perils of this regulation? I do not know.

Perhaps a better model will emerge, in a newly deregulated environment. A separation of the infrastructure and the service. AT&T, for instance, will provide only the wire, and will be controlled by a consortium of the service providers, who vote on infrastructure upgrades and changes, and together, based on their respective interest in the infrastructure, finance the changes. This is admittedly a pie-in-the-sky vision at the moment, but it may be workable, and it is an option to government regulation. The industry is already familiar with consortium and groups and it wouldn’t be too much of a leap, just a huge change from what is now.

But the issue is regulation, and regulation is generally bad for those involved. It stifles innovation and protects those who would benefit more from being unprotected.

Dilbert The Evangelist

While I make no claims that Scott Adams, author of the (in)famous Dilbert comic strip, is a Christian, he certainly explains clearly some fallacies of Atheism. In a series of posts initially begun in the spirit of what he terms “philosotainment” and driven on by comments to his articles and the responsive ravings of Austin Cline, Adams shows some rare jewels of the logical arguments for the likelihood of the existence of God. By no means does he come to correct conclusions all the time, and he makes no bones about the fact that he does this primarily as entertainment and only secondarily as serious philosophy.

Adams begins with “The Atheist Who Thought He Was God“:

In order to be certain that God doesn’t exist, you have to possess a godlike mental capacity - the ability to be 100% certain. A human can’t be 100% certain about anything. Our brains aren’t that reliable. Therefore, to be a true atheist, you have to believe you are the very thing that you argue doesn’t exist: God.

In the comments Pascal’s Wager is brought up. This argument is boiled down into the statement that it is a better ‘bet’ to believe in God than not to. Adams responds with “Pascal’s Wager” and includes a particularly brilliant jewel of wisdom:

…if you assume our perceptions are often flawed, you have to allow the possibility that some apparent absurdities are due to our limited powers of perception. So, for example, while the notion of a loving God who allows eternal damnation seems absurd, it is less absurd than assuming the world is run by invisible unicorns, or that God discriminates against those who believe in him.

He then goes on to say that given his own observation of current world religions he’d put his money on Islam as being the religion most likely to be correct based on several criteria, mostly stemming from a human view of current events and the goals and desires of God.

Austin Cline then chimes in with what he considers a withering response but which is in effect a series of adjective-laden phrases claiming that Scott Adams is an adjective-laden phrasologist, not a serious thinker. Austin does ignore the fact that Adams considers himself an adjective-laden phrasologist and makes no claims to serious mental inquiry here. Ironically it is the admitted adjective-laden phrasologist who submits the substantive arguments and it is the claimed substantive-intellectual who succeeds only in creating a storyline with no character or plot. Maybe he should take lessons from Adams, it could only help.

Adams, happy with the increased traffic to his blog, no doubt, responds gaily and with great relish in “The Poster Child For Cognitive Dissonance” in which he recognizes the ridiculous nature of the argument and ends with an admonition to Austin to “dance, monkey, dance!”

I’ve read a few bits and pieces of Adams philosophical explorations and I maintain a healthy level of respect for this man. Novelists and those who have to entertain with story and narrative are a special breed who usually command a greater than normal level of understanding regarding the human condition. Otherwise they would not be able to command an audience, as people would recognize the unreal nature of their characters and plot. Adams is by no means right about many things, but he is thoughtful and I would bet his keen wit and sharp mind against many people without fear.

Maybe I just like to laugh.

Thanks to Vox Populi for this story.

Blame Game: America’s Response To Tragedy

Gary Gross over at the Let Freedom Ring blog posts an email he received regarding the Minnesota Bridge tragedy.

I can only say that I’m with him 100%. America is indeed in a sad state. The root of the issue is not one of politics. Politics do not define a culture, it is culture that defines politics. Our culture is one of personal irresponsibility and blame-shifting.

I’m Bored, And Next Week At I, Pandora

…and I respond: “Why is it our purpose to entertain you and your puerile mind? Get a job, accomplish something besides your own pleasure, give of yourself sacrificially, live!”

Next week I’m going to be spending with a beautiful girl, meeting her family and friends and spending lots and lots of time with her. Yes, I’m courting. Beautiful and I have not seen each other for around 8 weeks now as she’s spent the summer working with Child Evangelism Fellowship in the New York area, and so we’re very much looking forward to this reunion.

As such I, Pandora will not be a priority to me next week. The good news is, I’ve already written articles for all of next week, which, thanks to WordPress are scheduled for posting each day. The articles are less time sensitive and some have more human interest than my more regular verbiage here, but you needn’t stop reading just because I’m not going to be here.

Oh, Poor Baby

Or “Want Some Cheese To Go With That Whine?”

Nifong is news again. He’s resigned after the prejudicial and destructive way he wielded the power of the law defaming and slandering the names of members of the Duke University LaCrosse team. A judge was about to begin an investigation into removing him from office when he voluntarily vacated his chair. His disbarment trial is over now, with predictable results. He is no longer allowed to practice law. And he’s complaining:

“Mr. Williamson’s e-mail assertion that the addition of a new conclusion of law based on the request of a Duke University law professor is merely a ‘clerical correction’ is preposterous beyond belief, and is further evidence of the fundamental unfairness with which this entire procedure has been conducted,” Nifong wrote.

His own lawyers, during his disbarment hearings, said that Nifong “believes this has been a fair and full hearing of the facts, that he believes disbarment is the appropriate punishment in this case.”

Has this man no shame? No, of course not. He does not believe in truth or justice, only in perception, power, and privilege. All morals come down to that trinity to a relativist.

I ask this of Nifong, though I know that he will not see any significance in it: What about those lives you sought to destroy? Where are there complaints? They are still tainted, their buddies will still ask them, furtively, “did you do it?” Employers know them now and will likely be reticent to hire them regardless of their stated innocence. What about your victims?

Perhaps it is good that the men have disappeared, going back to and salvaging what they can of their lives after this malicious attempt on their lives. From my armchair I’d like to see lawsuits for libel, slander, and defamation against Mr. Nifong. But perhaps they are right. Mercy prevails. They are men.

Mr. Nifong is a coward, not a man.

Shut up, Mr. Nifong.

Elsie Dinsmore, Snob

Reading The Point today an article regarding Victorian era children’s literature and it stuck out to me because I’ve had a brush with one of the series mentioned in the article: Elsie Dinsmore. A more egregiously pompous, self-righteous, and mind-poisoningly pious series there could not be…

…and to think I was spared reading those books by the merest threads of gender and age.

Aptly titled “Little Pharisees in Fiction“, this review of of the series awoke my memories and pointed to many of the issues I found with Miss Dinsmore.

A family friend family loaned my family the Dinsmore books several years ago. Being a boy and being a little older than the target audience at the time, I had no idea what I was being spared.

As my young sisters began reading the books and proceeding through the entire series eventually, I could not help but wonder, in those rare moments I chanced to overhear a reading occurring, at the drivel-level of story and theme and moral guide of these books. They were, I believe, appreciated most by my mother, who, though well meaning and wonderful that she is, remains human and is prone to searching and seeing significance beyond what is natural in such things.

Reading that review I do agree that Elsie would have indeed been an insufferable snob, had I known her. And, while snobs exist at all levels of assumed piety, they are most thickly concentrated where piety is deepest.

The books ‘teach women their place’ in the Victorian social and moral strata and no doubt Pollyanna’s aunt was quite happy reading them growing up.

Perhaps I am more sensitive to this particular aspect, but the description of the hard lesson Lulu was taught by her best-knowing father is particularly frightful to me. The father is responsible before God for his actions and intentions and thoughts raising and guiding his children. An accident, even by a strong-willed and thick-skulled child, such as Lulu is described to be, is only an accident. And to punish excessively a child for this damages your credibility and ability to punish in the future because you punish capriciously and without cause. My father thankfully for the most part did not discipline in anger (there were times he was angry while disciplining, but I can attest, whenever it happened to me, I was most definitely deserving of the discipline) and even more rarely did he discipline unjustly (I cannot recall a single time). One of the commands to fathers is to not provoke their children to anger. Excessive and especially unjust punishment is a sure method of provoking the child.

This philosophy of the inerrancy of a father in his house is dangerous and can lead to abuse, serious abuse. It does not always, and I’m thankful that my parents examples should overshadow the errs espoused and taught by Miss Dinsmore. But more insidious are the tentacles of foolish pride in a religion of form and function, of appearance and propriety, and I can only hope that my sisters and others recognize the need for judging themselves and loving others, while Elsie seems content to judge others and love her religion.

More Comments Than Posts

It is a proud day, I must say.

Not proud that I was in the car home still trying to remember whether or not I’d actually gotten around to posting something here today (after wading through the ever-deepening pool of my blog feeds).

Not proud that I felt close to saying things I’d regret to people who apparently hadn’t allowed their brains to feed on oxygen lately a few times earlier in the day.

Not proud in that I deleted 60 more spam posts from the Akismet queue.

Not proud that I saw “The Last Mimzy”, a horrendous waste of brain cells and a decent storyline. Oh, I’ve got nothing against the acting or the actors, only against the fact that they chose a promising story to hang the tired old bags of eastern mysticism mixed in with an unhealthy dose of “they’re out there” alien superstition stitched around a “polluted world, polluted body, polluted mind” mythos and all rolled up in two cute kids. I’m just glad I didn’t pay anything to see it.

No, this is a proud day for I, Pandora. There are, as of today, more comments than there are articles!

Once this article is posted there will be 279 posted articles, and 280 comments.

Of course, there are the 1374 spam comments that Akismet has graciously and efficiently removed from before your virgin eyes. But who’s counting?

Thank you to all those who read.

But please: I’d really like to know what y’all think. What about I, Pandora do you appreciate? What would you like to see more of or less of? I’m still searching for my niche, it would seem.

Bemused Amazement…

“Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early twenty-first centuries developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age.”

~ Dr. Richard Lindsen, MIT