Ames and Levine smear again

Mark Ames and Yasha Levine are at it again. You may not know who these people are. I didn't before last November, and I hadn't heard of them since until Mr. Ames tried to contact me last night and his and Mr. Levine's article was published this morning. Let me refresh your memory. Last November, when I had my run-in with the TSA, these two "reporters" wrote an article trying to connect me and other like-minded individuals with a vast right-wing conspiracy funded by the billionaire Koch brothers. I never responded to it because it was so quickly derided as a fact-free smear by all sorts of media outlets, most notably Glenn Greenwald.

It seems to be a consensus even among liberal, Nation-friendly journalists that the attack on Tyner was not merely misguided, but odious, as all such journalists who commented (at least that I know of) condemned it, often in terms at least as harsh as the ones I used.  In addition to their own Nation colleague Jeremy Scahill (who denounced it as a "shameful smear"), Mother Jones' News Editor Daniel Schulman wrote:  "This Nation story is journalistic malpractice of the worst kind"; The American Prospect's Scott Lemieux, on his blog, called it "Liberal McCarthyism" and an "embarrassment"; and the usually rhetorically restrained Ezra Klein condemned it as a "hit piece" which I had "rightfully hammered."

The Nation article utterly failed to connect me to anyone on the right or any sort of activities of an "activist" nature (other than possibly my blog). Fast forward to yesterday. In keeping with his journalistic standards, Mr. Ames waited until 8:30pm EDT to contact me for a comment on his story. He tried to goad me into calling him back telling me that he was on a deadline for that evening and by referencing a blog post about the TSA that I admitted to deleting saying that it contradicted everything that I said during my interviews following my TSA encounter in San Diego. First, who waits until 8:30pm to get a comment for a story that is going to run the following morning? It was clear to me that Mr. Ames already had his story and there was nothing that I could have said that would have made a bit of difference, and that brings me to my second question. What made Mr. Ames think that I would talk to him? It's clear from the content of his article that it's a good thing that I didn't.

The thrust of the current article is that all of the anti-TSA "hysteria" is an attempt to block the TSA from unionizing. I'll come back to that charge, shortly. The article spends only a few sentences talking about me, but I'd like to address them:

The anti-TSA campaign was at its media-hysteria peak in the weeks after the Republican election sweep, spurred on by last year’s hero, John Tyner, who refused a pat-down, telling TSA agents, “You touch my junk and I'm going to have you arrested.” Tyner disappeared from the scene after he apologized on his blog, and admitted that he didn't tell the whole story and had actively tried to erase it (Tyner did not return our call or answer our message requesting comment).*

This is all true, such as it is. The context if the story would lead the reader to believe that I had concocted the entire incident either for personal gain, or as the writers suggest, to prevent unionization of the TSA (again, I'll get to the anti-union charge). Note the asterisk at the end of the paragraph. It leads to the end of the article where this final note appears:

*“To those of you who feel duped, I apologize”—so writes John Tyner in a contrite blog post headlined “The ‘Whole’ Truth”  dated November 30, 2010. A week earlier, he was the biggest media sensation in America, freeing us from state tyranny; by the time he apologized to America, America had already lost interest and moved on.

Again, true. Mr. Ames shows his journalistic integrity, adding a final, snarky smear to his article but leaves out the immediately following sentences from my blog post, from which he quotes, because they completely contradict his premise. Here they are:

There is no reason to feel that way, though. I stand by my assertion that the encounter was not planned or staged. I stand by my account of the events that occurred at San Diego airport. And I stand by everything that I have said and written since the event. I stood up to what I saw as an affront to everyone's 4th amendment protections and dignity, and that has started a real conversation about how much liberty we're willing to give up in the name of feeling safe. Let's not lose sight of what's really important, here.

But we have lost sight. In fact, in my previous post, on April 14th, I wrote about this very idea. The point of that post was that fear of terrorism has caused us to overlook TSA misbehaviors including stealing from passengers, failing to prevent terrorist attacks/attempts, and abridging civil liberties. Mr. Ames apparently isn't concerned about the TSA's incompetence or its "Gestapo" tactics. No, he only wants them to be unionized; personal property, safety, and civil liberties be damned.

So, what about the charge that I'm part of this vast right-wing conspiracy? Much like his last attempt to associate me with the TEA party (of whom I've been critical), the Koch brothers (if only I could get them to send me some of their billions), or any other right-wing entity, Mr. Ames presented no evidence to support his charge: absolutely none. Here's where Ames' and Levine's journalistic standards really shine. Here is a blog post of mine from October of last year, previous to any of these events, where I stated that I don't vote. (I did vote from approximately 2004 to 2008. I registered as a "decline to state" voter, California's equivalent of non-partisan.) Here's a blog post from February of this year where I argue that democracy is a tool by which the majority can and does oppress minorities (note the specific mentions of drug legalization and gay marriage, some issues the "right" is very against). Good work tying me to right-wing ideologues, guys.

And finally, what about the charge that my encounter was rigged to prevent TSA unionization? Again Ames and Levine are wildly off-base. Here's a blog post of mine from February of this year in which I argue that preventing unions is illegal under the First Amendment. I clarified my position in response to a commenter to this post. I had suggested that the proper remedy was for the government to fire workers who wanted to unionize, not restrict their civil liberties. The commenter responded that firing workers would also be a violation of First Amendment protections because it was a different method of "breaking the union". I responded:

Firing workers does not violate the workers' freedom of association. The first amendment protects the right to freely associate. Nothing grants a person the *right* to be hired/employed by another.

Employers want to pay as little as possible; employees want to be paid as much as possible. Let them sit down and negotiate. If they can't reach an agreement, then they don't contract with each other. End of story.

Typically, in a (non-union) negotiation, the employer has more power because the prospective worker needs the job more than the employer needs the *particular* employee. Unions are an attempt to deal with this by predicating a significant number of jobs on any particular member's job. So, employees [sic] fired union workers to try to break the unions, and then the government made it illegal to fire workers because they are in a union, a clear violation of the employers' property rights.

Now the government is suffering the blowback of its own policy. It can't fire the workers because of the Wagner Act, but to try to regulate them is a violation of the first amendment. It's such delicious irony.

For those of you who missed it, I believe the Wagner Act to be unconstitutional for the same reasons that I believe union regulation to be so: it violates the freedom of association. My own writing, from months ago, again contradicts Ames' and Levine's "reporting". Good work tying me to anti-union factions of the right-wing, guys.

Ames' and Levine's assertion that my encounter with the TSA was a stunt is based on my own "admission" which, as it turns out, is an unequivocal denial that it was anything other than a stand against an infringement of civil liberties. Their attempt to tie me to right-wing entities is based on... well... nothing. It is contradicted by my numerous writings critical of any number of things that the right wing does. And finally, the implication that I'm anti-union is again contradicted by my own writing. I hesitate to call Ames and Levine hacks. Arguments should be about issues, not the people promoting them. Ames and Levine have twice now, though, smeared me in clear contradiction of the facts, in an attempt to make their case. It's really a wonder to me that anyone continues to print what they write.

Scariest thing(s) I've seen in awhile

Saw this on an Internet forum I frequent:

I think it's wrong to look at the Military as a defensive tool, only to be deployed in defense of our country.
It is an instrument of political, social, and ECONOMIC might.
Fighting for oil or to promote economic stability is as patriotic as fighting to physically defend your homeland.
If it makes the country stronger in any way I'm for it.
The more global the economy becomes the more important it is that everyone play nice and do business and if America has to carry a big stick and bust some heads once in a while to achieve that then so be it.

It was followed shortly thereafter by another who said:

[I agree]
Oil is an essential part of the economy and our nation. It cannot run without it so it is worth war. Even though the two current wars in the Middle east are NOT because of it.

These comments were in response to someone asking about people's feelings about "liberals" who hate the military. Like any Internet discussion, the comments took off in a number of different directions, but these comments especially caught my attention because despite the tendency of this forum to lean somewhat to the (political) right, the people there generally seem to have their heads on straight with respect to freedom and liberty.

To hear people suggest that might makes right, that because we have a strong military, we should be able, if not have the right, to impose our will on others is really very sobering to me. I once heard someone say that the Tea Party doesn't have a coherent view of liberty. I don't want to make any statement about the Tea Party other than to say that these comments illustrate the point the gentleman was making at the time. For all the talk about freedom and liberty, many people seem to think that those things are reserved only for Americans and that our military is not simply a defensive tool but can and should be used to promote our own well-being at the expense of others'.

How can anyone simultaneously cry foul at U.S. government's trampling on its citizens' rights while at the same time demanding that it trample on someone else's? Rights come from our Creator, not the constitution. The constitution does not grant rights but instead restrains the federal government from infringing them, and people who truly understand what liberty and freedom are understand that all people have those rights.

***

Glenn Greenwald writes about the U.S. government's treatment of its detainees, specifically Bradley Manning, the army private accused of leaking classified information to WikiLeaks. I'll admit that I'm a little conflicted about Mr. Manning's case. On the one hand, he allegedly leaked documents in violation of his promise to keep them secret. On the other, assuming he did leak them, he's brought to light a number of horrible, horrible things that the government has done in its pursuit of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the end, I think he ought to be commended for bringing these things to light. It's unfortunate that his "crime" against the government is getting all of the coverage instead of the crimes committed by the government. That's not what really scares me, though.

Read Glenn's article. What scares me is the treatment of Mr. Manning, a U.S. citizen, who has not yet been convicted of any crime and his visitors who have not even been accused of any crime. This treatment screams authoritarian "police state" and people of all political stripes, regardless of their feelings about Mr. Manning should be appalled by his and his visitor's treatment.

Government wants bigger government

As I thought about what I wrote yesterday, something hit me that was completely lost on me when I wrote it:

Congressman Robert Brady (D-PA) is proposing that the ban against threatening the president be extended to all federal officials (presumably congressmen, judges, etc.) Congressman Pete King (R-NY) is proposing that guns not be allowed within 1000 feet of "powerful federal officials".

I included party affiliations behind each congressman's name to show that the knee-jerk reaction wasn't limited to either party. What didn't hit me at the time was that the limitation on free speech was proposed by a Democrat, and greater gun control was proposed by a Republican. Did these gentlemen forget which party they are members of? I doubt it. Rather, in a rush to take advantage of the crisis and the public's visceral reaction to it, they simply revealed their true, statist colors.

"Tone down the rhetoric"

This is a topic that I really didn't want to weigh in on, but I keep reading about it, and I'm having a hard time not responding to others who have written on it. First, some background: in case you've been living under a rock for the past few days, you've likely heard about Jared Loughner. In response to his shooting spree, much has been written about Mr. Loughner's politics, the politics that may have lead to his actions, and the politics to come.

As to Mr. Loughner's politics, I don't care. In the immediate aftermath of his actions, much was made of his anti-government stance. For many this seemed to place him firmly on the radical right side of the political spectrum. Shortly thereafter, an old friend (acquaintance?) of Mr. Loughner's began tweeting that Mr. Loughner was "quite liberal". And neither side can distance itself from him fast enough. Let's keep our eye on the ball here, though. The shooter is now in custody; he ought to be given a trial and, if convicted, made to answer for his crime(s). The end.

But that's not the end, and we can't keep our eye on the ball. Instead, we're being told to "tone down the rhetoric". Clarence Drupnik, the sheriff of Pima county, where the shooting occurred, has been making news because of comments he made after the shooting, mainly this one:

When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government. The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous.

I've seen it pointed out that there is nothing inherently political about this statement, and in a vacuum, I would agree. Unfortunately, we don't live in a vacuum, so let's call a spade, a spade. Mr. Drupnik is referring to those on the political right and those who oppose (big) government. (Note that those are two distinctly separate groups.) Based on his statement, Mr. Drupnik thinks that those groups are responsible for Mr. Loughner's actions. Writing for the Wall Street Journal, John Fund thinks that Mr. Drupnik, himself, bears some responsibility for Mr. Loughner's actions. You know who's really responsible for Mr. Loughner's actions? That's right; it's Mr. Loughner.

Unfortunately, though, we're all about to be reminded that our liberty is in the hands of the worst members of our society: those who commit these atrocities or those who pass laws in response to them, take your pick. In its all too predictable knee-jerk reactionary way, congress is already proposing a slew of new laws to "keep this from happening again". Congressman Robert Brady (D-PA) is proposing that the ban against threatening the president be extended to all federal officials (presumably congressmen, judges, etc.) Congressman Pete King (R-NY) is proposing that guns not be allowed within 1000 feet of "powerful federal officials". (Right, the guy who was willing to ignore the law against murder is suddenly going to respect this law. Good thinking, congressman. I'm reminded of the wisdom of Jerry Seinfeld, or at least his writers, here, "You can make all the laws you want, he's still gonna bother people.") What's good for the goose is apparently not good for the gander, and the gulf between what's acceptable for those in power and those who aren't grows ever wider. Isn't anyone disturbed by the fact that federal officials deserve "more" equal protection under the law than the rest of us mere "people"?

Toning down the rhetoric isn't about restoring civilized debate; it's about stifling dissent. It's about chipping away at rights (supposedly) protected by the 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendments. It's about making abundantly clear exactly who rules over whom. Don't misunderstand; I am unequivocally not supporting threats of or actual violence. However, there are already laws against such things. Passing new ones like those described here are about separating the "rulers" from the "people" so that the people can be better controlled.

Just... hold on a second

I came across a number of weird/wacky news stories this morning, and since I didn't really feel like writing very much, I was going to just post a few links with some commentary to accompany them. Then a friend of mine posted a link to an opinion piece entitled "Just Stop" over on the Mesa Democratic Club's website. Well, I loves me some politics, so I went over to read it. The article started out well enough (read: I agreed with it), but then it lost me. Since this friend of mine and I have agreed not to discuss politics over our social network of choice, I decided to write this post.

The article starts out pointing out that Sarah Palin is not a "political outsider", that the Tea Party is not an independent group, and that John McCain no longer has any discernible political positions outside of whatever it takes to get elected. These are all excellent points with which I could not agree more. It's at this point that our respective positions diverge.

Stop pretending that the deficit we’re all facing is the fault of President Obama and the Democratic Congress. During the Bush administration, we went from a surplus to a massive deficit, largely thanks to two wars that were never (until Obama) added to the federal budget—wars, in other words, fought entirely on credit. We compounded the problem with tax cuts that largely benefited the wealthy, and a huge Medicare increase, and all those were also on credit. When the economy tanked in fall 2008, Bush quickly pushed through the TARP bailout, adding to the deficit (but pulling the economy back from the cliff).

President Obama is not entirely responsible for the deficit. He is quickly adding to it, though. Yes, Obama added the wars to the federal budget, but that does not change the fact that they (along with the much of the rest of the budget) are still paid for on credit. And while Bush may have pulled the economy back from the cliff, he did not change it's direction; it is still headed that way under Obama.

Stop pretending that the near-ruinous economic crash that we’re still reeling from was Obama’s fault, too. The root causes stretch back decades, to a continued process of deregulating financial institutions, allowing them ever more leeway to prey on the vulnerable, to sell mortgages to people who couldn’t afford them, and to manipulate financial products that were ultimately guaranteed to fall apart.

And stop pretending that Obama and the current Congress should have been able to fix the two above problems in 18 months, when it took eight years to create the first one and literally decades of foxes guarding financial henhouses to create the second.

Again, the author is correct that the economic crash was not caused by Obama, and that it is unrealistic to think that the government would be able to fix it (I would argue, in any amount of time). The author implicitly places the blame on the private sector, however, when he talks about mortgages and financial products. Those mortgages that people couldn't afford were promoted and backed by the government in the form of Fannie and Freddie and FHA and VA loans. Obama has continued this process with the homebuyer tax credit and the HAFA and HAMP programs. For non-mortgage related financial instruments, look no further than the Federal Reserve serving as the "lender of last resort". Even though the Fed is nominally a private entity, it's ludicrous to think that they really are, and when banks get into trouble, the Fed bails them out via the power of "printing" money, a power that Congress abdicated to it long ago.

Stop pretending that saying “No” is the same as governing. We pay our legislators good money to go to Washington and make difficult decisions that keep the country moving. By voting “No” on every bill, by refusing to negotiate in good faith, by deciding that short-term political advantage was more important than the everyday lives of Americans, the Republicans set back our recovery, made needed reforms fall short, and put our lives and our economy at unnecessary risk.

I hate the idea that governing means "doing something". Saying "no" is a legitimate act, one in which all politicians engage because nobody can agree on the exact role of government. In this way, saying "no" is doing something. That is not to say that Republicans are not being obstructionist for political gains; however, the author would be better advised to point out Republican hypocrisy on things like expanding Medicare under Bush but railing against the PPACA, now.

Stop pretending that the economy is magic. You can’t continue to give millionaires and billionaires huge tax cuts, make tiny, cosmetic cuts at the margins of things, and still reduce the deficit. You can’t create jobs without spending money. Tax cuts for millionaires and up are not stimulative because those people don’t spend the money from the cut—it’s not like you’re giving them a wad of cash and sending them to the store. When you put an unemployed person to work or give a tax cut to a poor or middle class family, that’s exactly what it’s like—they go buy things they need and those dollars flow through the economy, creating jobs and wealth everywhere they go.

I'm not sure anyone is pretending that the economy is magic; however it is far more complex than most imagine. Not only that, but the government via regulation or the Fed often arbitrarily moves the market in ways that could only be predicted by magic. The author is correct that tax cuts (to anyone) won't balance the budget. He is mistaken, though, if he thinks that tax increases will do the job, either. Federal spending is out of control, and the only way to save this country's economy, over the long term, is to start cutting Social Security, Medicare, the military, everything.

And stop talking about stimulus. It's too bad that people believe that Keynesian economics preaches deficit spending. Keynes, mistaken as I believe his theories to be, spoke of stimulative spending out of savings. Yes, it takes money to create jobs, but it also takes money to keep those jobs. To think that the government (or anyone) can throw a one-time bucket of cash at the economy to "unstick" it is ridiculous. It will only lead to the government having to throw ever increasing amounts of money at the economy. It's amazing to me that most people agree that easy credit was the proximate cause of the economic conditions in which we all now live and at the same time believe that if the government just borrows more from China that that will fix the problem. We will end up back in this very situation again, only it will be much, much worse.

The things that Pelosi and Reid have supported these past 18 months have been programs that will help America move into the 21st century. Health care reform, in spite of great efforts at pretending, is not a “government takeover” of health care—it institutionalizes, in law, the presence of the health insurance industry, and gives that industry millions of new clients.

Whoa! Stop right there! Did you catch that? The government, under Democratic control, via the coercion of law, just delivered millions of customers to the health insurance industry. It's not just the Republicans that are in bed with big business.

It will, in the long run, reduce the deficit and create a healthier nation, by allowing more people to get preventive care and long-term care and keeping the sick and impoverished from turning to emergency rooms when there’s a crisis.

This entire problem was created by the government in the first place, though.

Stop pretending that “lifelong politician” is some kind of curse. Most people who hold public office do so because they genuinely want to help people, they genuinely want to make government responsive to the needs of their fellow Americans, and they’re willing to put themselves on the line every few years to get the chance to do so.

Here's a thought experiment: If "most" people who hold public office genuinely want to help people and make government better, why hasn't it happened?

Stop pretending that “big government” is the problem. When’s the last time you were seriously inconvenienced or injured by something that big government did?

Gay rights, TSA body scanners, highway checkpoints, the PATRIOT Act, warrantless wiretaps, extra-judicial assassinations, indefinite detentions, inflation, etc. Don't tell me that (some of) these don't affect me. When one person's rights are trampled, everybody's are, and that's just at the federal level. Not only that, but all of this ignores the fact that every year I have to fill out a number of forms figuring out, on the government's behalf, how much money they want from me, and then send them that amount under the threat of force if I either figure wrong or don't send the right amount.

Stop pretending that anybody’s going to come and take your guns away. [...] There’s no truth to it, there’s never been any truth to it, and if you actually believe it, you just might be so simple-minded that you shouldn’t be trusted with a firearm.

They may not be trying to take them away, per se, but the laws (at least in CA) are clearly not conducive to gun purchases or ownership. One must wait 10 days to purchase any gun, even if one already owns one or one hundred of them. AB962, once in effect, will make the mail-ordering of handgun ammunition illegal and require fingerprints be taken of law-abiding citizens when they do purchase ammunition. It is illegal to actually carry one's gun in a manner that would actually allow it to be used effectively in self-defense, and many counties around the state deny CCW applications to all but the wealthy and connected.

Perhaps the author can explain to me why the BATFE and the state of CA keep records of gun sales if not to retain the possibility of rounding up guns in the future. I realize that that has a bit of a "tin foil hat" sound to it, but it is a legitimate question.

The author goes off the rails at this point with a lot of name calling. He tries to bring it home at the end, though.

Finally, stop pretending that voting doesn’t matter, and don’t let the 2010 Class of Crazy take office and convince you otherwise.

A variation on the previous thought experiment I proposed is apropos here: If voting mattered, why is government the way that it is? Perhaps it's because we've gotten the very government for which we voted. Voting doesn't matter and arguably does more harm than good. A voter is statistically more likely to be killed going to or coming from his/her polling place than to cast the deciding vote in an election. I refer the reader my previous posts on voting and the nature of government.

If you vote, you're a statist

I began reading a book called Moral Politics last night. (It can be found on Google Books, here.) I plowed through the first two chapters which basically comprise an introduction for the rest of the book relatively quickly. So far, it appears that the author divides politics, and those who participate in them, into two basic camps: conservative and liberal. He then introduces the idea that the nation, the U.S. in particular, is a family (or at least that it is viewed this way by its citizens) with the government acting as a parent and the citizenry as its children. Finally, he lays down his main thesis that people's view of government comes from the moral structure by which they live their own lives. Ultimately, he arrives at the conclusion that conservatives view the government as a "strict father", and liberals view it as a "nurturing mother" (or "parent").

The strict father model holds that the government's job is to give "tough love" to its citizens to prepare them to be self-sufficient. As such, it should be tough on crime and make sure that discipline is swift and decisive. It should also not get involved with "entitlement" programs like social security, health insurance, or unemployment benefits. The strict father view is not heartless. Social programs may have their place for short periods, but the emphasis is always on discipline and self-reliance.

The nurturing parent model holds that the role of government is to support its citizens by understanding their problems and the causes of them and helping them work through them so that they can become self-sufficient. In this role, the government would provide rehabilitation programs to criminals while they "do their time". It would be understanding that people's economic troubles are not necessarily of their own doing and that things like health insurance and unemployment benefits are necessary to help people get "back on their feet" and become self-sufficient. In short, discipline and self-reliance are good things, but the emphasis is always on helping people find their way back to those ideals.

As I read these first two chapters, I couldn't help but feel that I didn't fit into either category. And maybe that's not the point. I think the author's purpose is not to help people fit into one camp or the other but to explain why the two camps think the way they do. Nevertheless, I couldn't help trying to fit myself into some neat little box so that I could then decide how I felt about what the author was saying. Eventually, I realized that my problem with this book (at least so far) is that the author never questions the existence, legitimacy, or authority (moral or otherwise) of the government (or as I like to refer to it in these types of discussions, the State). (I'd like to explore this in later posts.)

In the context of the book, the conservative and liberal labels only apply insofar as they describe political views. As far as I am concerned, conservatives and liberals are the same. While they disagree about the means (strict vs. nurturing) by which to achieve their ends (a disciplined and self-reliant society), they do agree that those means are best carried out by the State. They're statists. I imagine that statism is most closely associated with fascism in many people's minds and therefore typically associated with conservatives and those on the political right. Statism, though is the belief that the State has a major role, economic or otherwise, to play in people's lives. Given this view, statism can be equally associated with socialism which is a commonly associated with liberals and those on the political left.

Now, let me connect the dots between the title of this post and everything I've written up to this point. When a person participates in the electoral system and votes, he legitimizes the system. As such, he agrees to be bound by the outcome, and regardless of which person is put into power or which law is enacted, the result is always the same: the State is legitimized. No matter which person or law a person votes for or against, that person is always voting for the State. The only way to vote against the State is to not vote at all.

If you're still reading, you've probably realized that I don't vote. If you were paying attention, then you'll realize that the old line, "if you don't vote, you can't complain" is exactly backwards. By voting, you agree that the process and the outcome are legitimate and to be bound by them. I, on the other hand, by refusing to vote lend no such legitimacy to the process or the outcome. Therefore, I'm actually the only one who can complain.