Did you know that this blog is a minion in the Koch brothers’ astroturfing? I was shocked to hear it, myself! According to Mark Ames and Yasha Levine at Alternet, all of us progressives who got outraged about the TSA naked bodyscanners and grope-downs were mere pawns in a right-wing game – dupes to an anti-union conspiracy.
Ames and Levine’s argument is basically as follows:
1) John “don’t touch my junk” Tyner was a phony who plotted his confrontation with TSA agents. They cite an apology he wrote on his blog for taking down a post in which he contemplated how he would react if subjected to an intrusive patdown – but they take it completely out of context.
To those of you who feel duped, I apologize. There is no reason to feel that way, though. I stand by my assertion that the encounter was not planned or staged.
Ames and Levine quote only the first line of this, making it sound as if Tyner admitted he’d staged the confrontation. This is especially nasty given that they’d already scurrilously attacked him last fall in The Nation as a plant of the Koch brothers, and Glenn Greenwald had debunked it as dishonest innuendo.
The Nation’s editors had to apologize for this smear. While Ames and Levine’s latest doesn’t go quite as far as the first, they’re still imputing guilt-by-association to Tyner. Alternet’s editors should never have published this unethical crap, and they too ought to apologize. Tyner has defended himself in a new post, and Alternet ought to link to it.
2) Republicans such as Dick Armey and Jim DeMint are virulently anti-union.
Yep, can’t deny that. But they have no sway over the TSA and didn’t have any demonstrable influence over the roll-out of the intrusive new searches. So, your point is …?
3) Charles Krauthammer and his ilk seized on the new TSA procedures and whipped the public up into a frenzy. This “hysteria” was manufactured so that the TSA leadership could squelch a union drive for TSA employees. Therefore we can conclude that all the progressives who objected to the virtual strip-searches and grope-downs were mere patsies, duped by the right.
This is horseshit. Most of us progressive bloggers and journalists were onto the new TSA tricks before Krauthammer and Glenn Beck started fulminateing. Yes, Krauthammer and his ilk seized upon our outrage to press a right-wing agenda. That doesn’t make our anger manufactured, nor does it make us dupes.
The “logic” behind this article is stunningly stupid. The authors act as though they’d never heard of the distinction between correlation and causation. Just because a lot of people who are normally political adversaries got mad about the same thing at the same time doesn’t mean we were manipulated by the righties. You know what explains the timing of it? Not the TSA unionization effort, but the fact that the TSA rolled out its scanners and new grope-down procedures last October. The right-wingers tried to use it opportunistically, but as Ames and Levine admit, they didn’t fully succeed in halting the TSA union drive. (Granted, the powers the union gained are pathetically paltry, but the Dems in charge of the agency share in the blame.) Oh, and nowhere in the article do the authors trace a direct link from the Koch brothers to the anti-TSA activism of last fall. (They claimed to have done this in their Nation article, but even there the evidence was sketchy.)
I don’t know what axe Ames and Levine have to grind, but they are such apologists for the TSA that you’ve got to wonder if they might be on its payroll. Recently, the TSA-critical We Won’t Fly blog busted one or more TSA agents engaged in sockpuppetry, trolling their comment section and slinging invective at the site’s owners. Ames and Levine’s ethics – as shown by their defamation of John Tyner – are no more impressive.
Ames and Levine scoff at the idea that there were real issues here – issues of privacy, bodily autonomy, and civil liberties in general. Instead, they reduce the outrage over TSA violations to con job that took “valid criticisms” and transformed them into “hysteria”:
The strategy: 1) concoct and magnify fake government oppression at the hands of the TSA; 2) Demonize and blame the crisis on your political target, TSA screeners, so that the public turns against them; 3) Push and PR the message, focusing on valid but largely trivial aspects of the problem; and 4) Now you can appear, not as cruel union-buster, but as a hero defending the public.
This is not “fake government oppression.” This is the real thing, targeting vulnerable people. And while our ire might be most easily roused by concerns about how children, sexual abuse survivors, and people with disabilities are harmed, even the distress of a young, middle-class white male like John Tyner counts.
And it continues. Just this week, a former Miss USA, Susie Castillo, posted her account of being groped on YouTube:
Within recent weeks, the mother of an eight-year-old boy complained about his treatment …
… as did the parents of a six-year-old girl.
So what hoax, exactly, are Ames and Levine pointing to when they ask in their article’s title, “Did You Fall for It?” There’s nothing faux about the abuse that these people describe. Where’s their empathy for the elderly and disabled who are singled out for intrusive searches? Where do Ames and Levine stand on the use of genital patdowns on preschoolers? Is that, too, trivial and “fake”?
That the Republicans foam at the mouth against unions isn’t news. Right-wing interference with unions predates Scotty Walker by decades. For the record, I support a strong union for the TSA, as I do for all workers. This isn’t just rhetoric; I was working on a union drive until Ohio’s SB 5 shut down the chance for university faculty to exercise the human right of collective bargaining. If the TSA enjoyed real collective bargaining rights, it might attract better-qualified applicants and become a more professional force. Perhaps it could even engage in real behind-the-scenes security work and intelligence gathering, rather than just security theater.
The problem here is not that progressive yelled too loudly about TSA abuses. It’s that we didn’t yell loudly enough. It’s that we were too few in number. If progressives – and moderates, too – had rallied against the loss of our civil liberties, our voices could have swamped those of the right wing. Shame on those progressives who silently watched our liberties erode. Ames and Levine have done them one worse, becoming active apologists for the dismantling of our privacy and basic human dignity.
Patron cat of Kittywampus (1985-2001)
The problem here is not that progressive yelled too loudly about TSA abuses. It’s that we didn’t yell loudly enough. It’s that we were too few in number. If progressives – and moderates, too – had rallied against the loss of our civil liberties, our voices could have swamped those of the right wing. Shame on those progressives who silently watched our liberties erode. Ames and Levine have done them one worse, becoming active apologists for the dismantling of our privacy and basic human dignity.
Brava, Sungold! Hear, hear!
But of course you know what happened to some of us who dared question the abuses of our security overlords on ostensibly leftwing, ostensibly civil-liberties-loving sites — we got shouted down. Can’t criticize “our” side during “our” administration! Can’t point out hypocrisies and try to correct them! Can’t stand for social justice!
Precisely why, time and time again, the left is no better than the right it so loves to decry. We don’t become better by sinking a level, we become better by rising a level. We have to call out injustice wherever we see it, whoever perpetrates it. It has nothing to do with “our” side or the “other” side — this left/right paradigm is becoming obsolete anyway. It’s just one more way for our corporate overlords to divide us, and Alternet fell right into the trap. The people who hold the strings in this country don’t give a shit about left/right — they’re only on the side of power. Power is neither left, right, nor in between. It’s just power, and it will be used against us if we don’t fight it.
And the media, indeed, isn’t helping. You know the names of certain reporters, which I won’t print here, who have consistently ridiculed and dismissed these abuses of power, whether of the TSA or any other part of the National Security State. They’re cowards. They pooh-pooh what’s going on because they’re not interested in challenging authority, they’re only interested in holding on to their cushy positions. Maybe one of these days I will name names.
Sungold, this is an absolutely superb response to that insulting, ridiculous piece at Alternet–Alternet, of all places! While the logic behind the indifferent and oftentimes condescending attitude of numerous liberals toward TSA critics remains a mystery, it is somewhat reassuring, I guess, to learn that it was not just some weird campaign against Lisa and me. No, it appears to be a quirk (cognitive defect?) that’s not uncommon among the left-leaning, particularly those possessed of the celebrated ‘junk’.
I am pasting a note I wrote to some fellow progressives as part of a discussion about the Alternet piece (and yeah, shame on Mark Ames):
I remember touching on the futility/intrusivenss of airport security in one of my very first posts as a n00bie blogger in 2006. Back in 2001, security operated under a different name, and in the weeks following the reopening of American airports, uniformed staff and armed personnel outnumbered passengers to an almost comical degree. They went through all your stuff and swabbed people’s luggage for traces of explosives, cranked up the metal detectors to 11, and wanded everyone who set them off. That is, they ran a hand-held metal detector close to your body, but they didn’t touch you.
In 2004, I experienced the first of several over-the-line intrusive “pat-downs” by TSA personnel. I wrote letters then, and I was outraged then. I remain so today.
Don’t even get me started on the Chertoff-Rapiscan angle.
Progressives would do well to sieze, and properly frame, this argument against the wholesale violation of our civil liberties. And in so doing, argue for unionization, diligent pre-employment screening, and careful training of TSA agents and the concomitant better outcomes.
Otherwise, we are left holding up the other end, that is, supporting the groping of children, the humiliation of cancer survivors and disabled folks, and, let’s not forget, the notion of creeping police state. Because we are backing the right of Napolitano and, by extension Obama, to order that citizens submit to violative searches merely because they want to move about their own country by plane, and now, by train and even Greyhound bus. (Yes, it’s both creeping and creepy.)
Of course, we should also support the rights of our citizens to be secure in their person and protected from unwarranted search and seizure *simply because it’s the right thing to do*, but for reasons I have yet to determine, that doesn’t always resonate as powerfully, with some, as *it’s the politically expedient thing to do*.
So, do it for *all the above*.
Thanks to both of you for chiming in. Deborah, I didn’t realize that your history with the TSA goes waaaay back. I have actually had many more uncomfortable experiences with their European counterparts – including one where my husband was dragged off with my son’s luggage to determine that his LeapPad was not in fact a bomb. We didn’t know where he was being taken and had no ability to communicate. It is probably lucky that he’s a German citizen (this incident happened in Berlin). Maybe it’s because I’m not a citizen in Germany and my husband only recently gained U.S. citizenship, but I’ve long felt very vulnerable crossing borders. All it takes is one threat from an immigration official who’s feeling a little bored, and you worry about it forever.
That’s all a slightly different issue, of course, but maybe it helps explain why I react to allergically to TSA incursions. And maybe you all didn’t need to follow along with my navel-gazing, but it was useful to me.
Then again, both of you remember FBI and CIA abuses going back to the 1970s and 1980s – Tricky Dick and J. Edgar Hoover and FBI interference with groups critical of Reagan’s Latin American policies. This isn’t a new thing, it’s just an opportunistic expansion of the illiberal strain that runs through American history.
The blogger seems to forget the circumstances under which the current screening system came about. I sincerely hope that people like you will not succeed in compromising my security when I fly. And I do fly all the time, and have never once been subjected to groping or any of the other horribly sounding procedures you’re describing. Have been patted down a few times, but feeling “vulnerable” because of that–give me a break! And what do cancer survivors have to do with all of this?
And if Tyner first planned his little incident, and then said that he didn’t, then he is a liar, no matter how you flip it.
I think Mark Ames and Yasha Levine may be onto something, and people like you are too absorbed in yourself to see it.
This comment is pure demagoguery. The key changes since 9/11 have nothing to do with forcing people through body scanners and seizing their half-full water bottles. According to security experts like Bruce Schneier, we are safer because the cockpits are hardened and because passengers are unlikely to remain passive during a hijacking. That is all.
Tyner explains clearly what he did and did not “plan.” He said in advance that if he were selected for “enhanced” screening he would refuse. Go read his blog before you add your voices to those who risk libeling him. (I don’t know Tyner; I just see people doing a smear job.)
The cancer connection is this: Women have been forced to remove their post-mastectomy prostheses while undergoing TSA searches. Doesn’t that cross a line?
We’d all be “safer” if we consented to straitjackets during the flight, right? So why not straitjacket or handcuff all the passengers?
“People like me” oppose scare tactics that undermine democracy. That’s not self-absorption, that’s concern for this country and its nobler traditions.
But then again, you are posting with a Rumanian email address. Nothing against Rumanians, but your email gives rise to the suspicion that you are merely trolling. I let this comment through in the name of free speech, but further comments along these lines won’t be posted. You’ve had your say and life is too short to waste on demagogues, fear-mongerers, and trolls.
I meant to say, “…people like you are too absorbed in themselves…” in my previous post. The mistake was accidental and was not preplanned.