What can one do?

Suppose you were a doctor in the midst of an epidemic. You would not ask: "How can one doctor treat millions of patients and restore the whole country to perfect health?" You would know, whether you were alone or part of an organized medical campaign, that you have to treat as many people as you can reach, according to the best of your ability, and that nothing else is possible.
 
...
 
If you are seriously interested in fighting for a better world, begin by identifying the nature of the problem. The battle is primarily intellectual (philosophical), not political. Politics is the last consequence, the practical implementation, of the fundamental (metaphysical-epistemological) ideas that dominate a given nature's culture. You cannot fight or change the consequences without fighting and changing the cause; nor can you attempt any practical implementation without knowing what you want to implement.
 
In an intellectual battle, you do not need to convert everyone. History is made by minorities -- or, more precisely, history is made by intellectual movements, which are created by minorities. Who belongs to these minorities? Anyone who is able and willing actively to concern himself with intellectual issues. Here, it is not quantity, but quality that counts (the quality--and consistency--of the ideas one is advocating).

        --Ayn Rand, "What Can One Do?", 1972

Happy Ayn Rand's birthday, February 2.

Links on the Boston "wiretap" prosecution

Here are two recent links on the prosecution of Simon Glik for recording an arrest in Boston Common.

• Harvey Silverglate for The Phoenix (good analysis)
• Overcoming Bias

171 hits yesterday!

I think this was an all-time high for one day, mostly thanks to a link from Universal Hub.

Obviously I'm not playing in the big leagues, but it's always good to know when I'm getting some message through.

Boston prosecutes lawyer for recording arrest

The trial of lawyer Simon Glik for the "crime" of recording an arrest in Boston Common has been delayed as the judge considers a motion to dismiss.

The case is a clear outrage. The police were making a drug arrest in Boston Common, and Glik used his cell phone to record the arrest. Officer Peter Savalis was apparently doing something he didn't want to be caught doing, so he arrested Glik. The City of Boston brought felony wiretapping charges. The charges against him simultaneously claim that his recording action was surreptitious and that his holding out the phone obstructed the cop. That's right, Savalis is simultaneously claiming that he almost didn't notice the phone and that it was so much in the way that the drug suspect almost got away.

I suspect the motion to dismiss will go through. I don't think the purpose of the charges was to bring a conviction; the city would look too ridiculous if it pressed forward. It was to intimidate people who record police misconduct. There should be an independent investigation of Savalis's actions.

A similar incident happened in Nashua a couple of years ago, when a man was charged with a felony for recording police intimidation in his own home. The police dropped the charges under public pressure, and the local news mentioned in passing that they destroyed the evidence against them. That was probably all they were after in the first place.

ACLU opposes paper ballots

The voting machine companies have found an unlikely ally: The ACLU of Ohio. The ACLU has filed a challenge to the return to paper ballots in Cleveland. Calling paper ballots a "dangerous technology" (!), it has invented from whole cloth a right of voters to "be alerted to possible problems with their ballot." This "right" would take precedence over the danger of undetected errors and tampering which sloppily-designed electronic voting machines pose.

The report states: "The ACLU said other counties using electronic systems notify a voter if they make an error while the paper ballot system doesn't, which contravenes the U.S. Constitution's equal protection laws." If this line of argumentation is valid, then it was a violation of the constitution to deploy such machines in the first place without simultaneously deploying them statewide. (In the 2004 presidential elections, some counties of Ohio used electronic machines while others didn't.) In the absence of total simultaneous statewide deployment, the ACLU should have been demanding that the capability to correct mistakes be banned from the machines, since it gave the voters using them an unfair advantage.

While the ACLU often does good things, its lack of a consistent philosophy sometimes makes it take completely lunatic positions, such as this one. The problem is that rather than basing its actions explicitly on individual rights, it often takes the position of upholding "victims." When these are victims of unjust laws, the two positions coincide; but when they're "victims" of circumstance or their own mistakes, the ACLU too often finds itself fabricating the "right" to be provided with something rather than defending civil liberties. To implement this "right," the ACLU wants Ohio to put the integrity of its elections at risk, possibly repeating the shadow which was cast over the 2004 election -- or worse yet, misrepresenting voters without being noticed.

Beauty judge rejected on religious grounds

The Miss Toronto Tourism pageant has rejected Stephanie Conover as a judge because she practices Tarot reading and Reiki. These are both silly practices, but don't seem like disqualifying characteristics for a beauty pageant judge. The news coverage suggests that the real problem is that she's a Wiccan. Karen Murray, Miss Toronto Tourism pageant director, is quoted as saying, "Our board of directors has eliminated her as a judge as tarot card reading and reiki are the occult and is not acceptable by God, Jews, Muslims or Christians. Tarot card reading is witchcraft and is used by witches, spiritists and mediums to consult the dark world."

And, of course, thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. But if they can't burn her, at least the directors can keep her from judging a beauty pageant.

Murray then declared that Conover is "obviously a very vindictive person." "Vindictive," to her, apparently means "not willing to be spat upon by religious fundamentalists." The sponsors of the pageant, Murray said, "adhere to God's principles. We're God-fearing."

The article also says, "Conover said she's looking into challenging the Miss Toronto Tourism pageant in court." This would be wrong also. The pageant is apparently a private organization, and as such can make whatever choices it wants. My impression is that it's really just a small group of bigots which is trying to appear important through its choice of name. They can adhere to whatever principles they want, but I hope that the people of Toronto will make it clear that such a pathetic group doesn't represent them. (Update: My hope is being fulfilled. See this selection of letters to the Toronto Star.)