|
|
| |
 - Endorsed - Indifferent - Contested
|
| |
| The Nashville Statement
|
| |
|
|
| |
Name:Daniel
Home: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
About Me: I used to believe that evolution was reasonable, that homosexuality was genetic, and that people became Christians because they couldn't deal with the 'reality' that this life was all there was. I used to believe, that if there was a heaven - I could get there by being good - and I used to think I was more or less a good person. I was wrong on all counts. One day I finally had my eyes opened and I saw that I was not going to go to heaven, but that I was certainly going to suffer the wrath of God for all my sin. I saw myself as a treasonous rebel at heart - I hated God for creating me just to send me to Hell - and I was wretched beyond my own comprehension. Into this spiritual vacuum Jesus Christ came and he opened my understanding - delivering me from God's wrath into God's grace. I was "saved" as an adult, and now my life is hid in Christ. I am by no means sinless, but by God's grace I am a repenting believer - a born again Christian.
My complete profile...
|
| |
Daniel's posts are almost always pastoral and God centered. I appreciate and am challenged by them frequently. He has a great sense of humor as well.
- Marc Heinrich
His posts are either funny or challenging. He is very friendly and nice.
- Rose Cole
[He has] good posts, both the serious like this one, and the humorous like yesterday. [He is] the reason that I have restrained myself from making Canadian jokes in my posts.
- C-Train
This post contains nothing that is of any use to me. What were you thinking? Anyway, it's probably the best I've read all day.
- David Kjos
Daniel, nicely done and much more original than Frank the Turk.
- Jonathan Moorhead
There are some people who are smart, deep, or funny. There are not very many people that are all 3. Daniel is one of those people. His opinion, insight and humor have kept me coming back to his blog since I first visited earlier this year.
- Carla Rolfe
|
| |
|
email
|
|
| I'm a Red Herring, er... I mean Journalist. |
So, on his birthday, this Ferrari engineer drives one of the companies 2012 prototypes to a bar in Redmond, and gets plastered enough that he takes the bus home, forgetting the company prototype.
After he leaves, another customer sees the car parked in the lot, unlocked, and decides, in good faith, to take it home, and try and find the owner. What a saint. He sees the driver's license on the seat, but realizes, as he drives the new Ferrari home, that this is not just any Ferrari, but must be a prototype Ferrari.
So rather than try and return the car to the dude from facebook from the license, he calls the Ferrari help desk. After spending an hour in their automated answering loop, he finally talks to a person and somehow fails to communicate the fact that he has one of their top secret prototype Ferraris.
Now this being in California, the law says that if he find someone's car parked on the street, and decides to take possession of it, he obligates himself to that person as a steward of their property. A stewardship that he willfully assumed the moment he presumed to take possession of the lost vehicle; a stewardship that does not grant him the right to say, sell the car, or worse, disassemble it, or still worse, show photos of the innards to every Ferrari competitor in the world.
His stewardship is limited to keeping it as he found it while doing all that is possible (within reason) to return it to its rightful owner.
As said, rather than call the police and let them know that he had a prototype Ferrari that had been driven by the man from facebook the license, or better yet, taking driving the vehicle to the Ferrari head office in town, and delivering it there - this fellow determines to sell the found car to the highest bidder.
The highest bidder is a car magazine blogger. The seller explain that the car is not his to sell, but belongs to Ferrari and is a prototype, and after examining the car, the blogger is so entirely convinced that it truly is a prototype from Ferrari that he lays down $5000 in cold, hard cash. The deal is done.
Now the moment the original finder stopped trying to return the vehicle to Ferrari, and instead decided to fence it on the black market, that finder transgressed the stewardship that the law imposed on him. As mentioned earlier, just as an airport is the steward of property left in paid lockers, and cannot, as steward, legally sell the property after a few days and leaving a message on someone's answering machine, so also the finder is not granted the right to sell property that they are in fact obliged by law to return - especially when the owner is known at the time of the sale.
Likewise, the shield laws that were written to protect journalists from revealing their informants, was not written to protect bloggers who deal in black market goods, under the pretense of journalism. Make no mistake. This car blogger was not purchasing a story, he was purchasing a prototype Ferrari from someone who was not qualified to sell it. The moment the seller determined to set aside his legal obligation, and instead sell the car for profit - in that moment he stole the vehicle and became a theif, so that at the point of sale the blogger was knowingly purchasing stolen goods, even if he was convinced that journalists are free to do so.
But the tale doesn't end there. The car blogger doesn't return the vehicle either. First he takes it apart and takes pictures of its innards. Then (in the name of journalism) he smugly posts the pictures for all Ferrari's competitors to see, and makes a bundle of cash for his blog by and through the multitude of curious er, gawkers, who flock to see the new secret Ferrari.
So we have a tale of two theives, the first who turned theif the moment he or she sold the car, and the second who purchased the car from the first, then disassembled it.
Now, here is where the story takes a fun turn. After raping the virgin Ferrari online, the car blogger then makes a big deal of how he returned her to her betrothed.
Well, because one or more crimes were committed, the police eventually get a search warrant, and search the car blogger's home for evidence. But the blogger claims that he is allowed to be a criminal because he is a journalist, and as a journalist, he can't have his stuff seized.
The problem with that is, that blogger isn't a person of interest because they are protecting some informant, rather they are a person of interest because they knowingly purchased property from someone who did not have the right to sell it, and once in possession of that property they disassembled it and published the contents of its innards to the world.
Do we live in a country where car journalists are free to engage in crime, just because the fruit of their crime produces a story that makes them hundreds of thousands of dollars?
Time will tell. |
posted by Daniel @
7:22 AM
 
|
|
| 4 Comments: |
-
It seems in a lot of these cases the police only act if there is a public outcry.
-
I am clueless as to what you are referring to. But it sounds nasty.
-
Matt - clearly you are not a gadget geek.
-
Nope. Can't say that I am.
I've had the same cell phone for 3 years.
I didn't buy my first iPod until last Christmas.
That sums up the extent of my gadget inventory.
|
| |
| << Home |
| |
|
|
|
|
It seems in a lot of these cases the police only act if there is a public outcry.