The Freedom Bulletin

Last week in the Boston Globe, I read a short but sweet letter about Catherine Greig, loyal companion to James “Whitey” Bulger. Because the Globe decided to charge money to access their website, I cannot link you to it, but I think it’s worth re-posting:

“Let Catherine Greig go. She followed James “Whitey” Bulger, and stayed with him come hell or high water. She didn’t abandon him. Who are we to judge a woman’s heart? She was faithful, so if she’s being prosecuted in order to make an example of her, she is an example – an example of good old-fashioned dedication to the man you love, and a role model for brave women who choose a man and see in him what others don’t and stand by him to the end.”

Jean Pepper, Dover, N.H.

I love this letter, and I agree with the idea behind it. Yes, Bulger has a lot of haters, to say the least, which is understandable given his reputation and the crimes he is accused of committing. And Greig does as well because of her association with Bulger and the assistance she provided him while on the lam. In fact, subsequent letters appeared in the Globe, expressing “dismay” at Greig’s “subservient attitude” and saying that David Kaczynski, the brother of “Unabomber” Theodore Kaczynski who turned him in to the FBI, is a better role model.

It is obvious why people consider it virtuous to turn a suspect in to police, even when the suspect is your brother or your longtime significant other. But as a person who is drawn to underdogs, to unpopular views, and to people that most of society likes to hate on, I also see virtue in what Greig did. Loyalty is one of the highest virtues, and loyalty, to me, means staying true to yourself, true to your principles, your words, and what you believe in, and true to your friends, relatives, romantic partners, and whoever you have chosen to support. Many people define faithfulness in a romantic relationship as – to put it bluntly – having sex with only one person. And far too many women live up to this definition, while constantly nagging their husbands, complaining about them to friends, and throwing them under the bus if they fail to live up to society’s sexist expectations of holidays that they should remember, household tasks they should perform, things they should pay for, and gifts that they should buy. It is this attitude that is not only subservient, but actually disloyal. True loyalty and true faithfulness mean that you love someone for who they are, no matter what society thinks. Just like another couple that I admire, Anne Sinclair and Dominique Strauss-Kahn, this also seems to be true of Greig and Bulger.

In a way, Greig did stand up for what is right. There are plenty of people, including the U.S. Department of Justice, working to punish Bulger for his (alleged) deeds. Greig showed courage by helping and standing up for a man whom she must see some good in, even when the rest of the world feels exactly the opposite. There is nothing subservient about that.

The Boston Globe‘s Jeff Jacoby had a great column today about the recent federal court decision halting, temporarily at least, the FDA’s requirement that all cigarette packages display graphic, paternalistic warnings urging people to stop smoking:

The FDA’s gruesome new labels are not designed to provide consumers with useful information about the hazards of smoking. After 45 years of mandatory Surgeon General’s warnings, every non-comatose American knows perfectly well that cigarettes are a noxious health risk. That’s why the share of Americans who smoke at least occasionally has fallen to an all-time low of 19.3 percent, or less than 1 in 5 — a far cry from the more than 42 percent who were smokers in 1965. No one, not even Big Tobacco, disputes Washington’s right to require cigarette makers to disclose pertinent facts about their product’s dangers. Those disclosures, it’s clear, have been effective.

So why the shrill new labels? Not to inform Americans, but to indoctrinate them. To “grab people by the lapels,” as NPR put it last summer, “and be the visual equivalent of someone yelling: ‘Stop smoking!’”

I couldn’t have said it better than he did. Read it at BostonGlobe.com.

Apparently, the Boston Globe opinion page is the place for people who think it’s perfectly OK for people to be forced to have their private parts either seen or touched in order to board an airplane. Well, to be fair, there were two good letters (1 and 2) to the editor today in support of people’s right to travel freely while keeping their private parts private.

But there was one from a lady who gives “a resounding hurray” for strip-search machines because the metal in her hip would set off the metal detectors, and the strip-search machine is “so much easier, faster, and less invasive” than the pat-down that she would otherwise get. What she doesn’t get, though, is that to have strip-search machines available as a secondary screening measure – for people who set off metal detectors – is one thing. That doesn’t mean that everyone should be forced to go through the virtual strip search instead of the metal detector.

Another letter goes as follows:

“I have voluntarily had my body cupped, patted, and otherwise invaded — by doctors — because I wanted to extend my life as long as possible. I see little difference between what occurs at medical establishments and what happens at airports, especially in this day and age. Both activities are attempting to extend life.”

Well, the letter writer makes a good point: invasive searches and invasive medical procedures both make people safer (in theory) at the expense of dignity, sexual innocence, privacy, and quality of life. I do not believe that this tradeoff is worth it.  I would rather maintain my dignity, sexual innocence, privacy, and quality of life and be exposed to more danger and possibly not live as long. But many people, including the letter writer, have the opposite preference. That’s OK; I wouldn’t stop them from acting on their preferences. But neither should they be able to stop me from acting on my preferences. The TSA’s policy of requiring people to have their private parts seen or touched to fly does exactly that. Doctors do exactly that when they pressure people into undergoing medical procedures or refuse to let people have the medications that they want. The legislators who passed the Durham-Humphrey Amendment in 1951 did exactly that by making it possible for doctors to do what I just described.

I oppose the TSA’s security measures and doctors’ paternalistic practices because they impose the preferences of those who want security and safety at all costs on everyone.

What does the Boston Globe editorial board have against people who want to keep their private parts private? They wrote yet another editorial in support of the TSA’s practice of forcing people to either be virtually strip searched or have their private parts patted down in order to travel by airplane.

The editorial says that we should all “give thanks” that the “overblown reaction to the Transportation Security Administration’s new airport security techniques has finally ended.” Well, I highly doubt that the TSA controversy has ended, since two Harvard Law students have just joined the plethora of lawsuits against the new security procedures. Even if it had ended, the fact that people would complacently give up their sexual innocence, dignity, and freedom as opposed to standing up for what is right is not something that anyone should be thankful for.

The Globe claims that “no real horror stories emerged” on Opt-Out Day and that “as people experienced the security lines for themselves…their opinions seemed to change,” citing, as evidence, an increase in support for the measures from 64% to 75% according to two polls. First of all, every time an innocent person goes through a full-body scanner is a horror story to liberty-loving people. Secondly, an 11-point increase in polls by two different organizations is hardly compelling evidence of a change in public opinion. Third, the editorial fails to mention that smooth travel on the day before Thanksgiving could very well be due to the TSA deciding not to use its naked machines or invasive pat-downs that day, or people deciding to use alternate means of transportation. Fourth, it does not matter how popular the TSA’s policies are - traveling without having to give up one’s dignity or privacy is a right, and rights should never be subject to the popular vote.

Then, they write, “During a slow news week, a minor controversy can morph into a full-blown panic attack.”

A minor controversy? How can the editorial board of a major newspaper think that forcing masses of innocent people to undergo what is essentially a strip search with no probable cause is a minor controversy? This outrageous violation of our freedoms is one of the two worst government policies in American history. (The other, if anyone is counting, is the Durham-Humphrey Amendment).

In conclusion, Globe, please get a new editorial board!

Boston Globe columnist Derrick Z. Jackson wrote in his column today that people who object to being forced to either be seen naked or have their (clothed) private parts touched are “creating a ruckus that has departed the realm of common sense.” I disagree with almost everything he writes, but this takes the cake.

He basically argues that forcing people to give up their dignity to board an airplane is justified because according to polls taken shortly after 9/11, a majority preferred increased security measures, even if those meant increased wait times. This argument fails for two reasons. First, Jackson only mentions polls about ”checkpoints with guards and metal detectors” that cause inconvenience and delays. Security measures that take away people’s dignity and sexual innocence are different in principle. Second, the fact that a majority supports something does not make it right. Everyone has a fundamental right to live as they please, as long as they do not violate the rights of anyone else. Forcing people to sacrifice dignity and privacy to fly violates this right, and rights should never be violated, no matter how many people think they should be.

Then, Jackson actually writes, “The people who said then that they were not willing to accept new restrictions, and those today who are not willing to be scanned or complain about pat-downs, are in a fantasy world of personal entitlement.”

That’s right: there are actually some people who think they are entitled to constitutional protections of privacy and liberty, like those contained in the Fourth and Ninth Amendments. OMG, what jerks!! The audacity!!!

Okay, end of sarcasm. It is also worth mentioning that not all opponents of full-body scanners and pat-downs support profiling instead, as Jackson assumes. I certainly would prefer profiling to the current system, but I would rather just metal detectors for everyone, or no airport security measures at all.

Globe letter writer Leslie Greer apparently likes being seen naked, too. She called Tom Keane’s great anti-TSA piece “barely more than a rant” and writes that “airline passengers have to be willing to be scanned, be searched, or fly with potential bombers.” Radical as it may seem, I prefer the third option. While she claims to be “sorry that Tom Keane was recently discomfited” by his TSA experience, she clearly isn’t, because she wrote a letter to the editor supporting these very measures. And she calls the strip-search machines and pat-downs “annoying.” In any other context, would someone call forced touching of private parts or forced posing for pornographic pictures “annoying”?

…by TSA agents. The Boston Globe ran an editorial bashing people who plan to protest the TSA’s strip-search machines by opting out in favor of a more time-consuming pat-down. “The protesters,” they write, ”should stay home.”

Then the editorial goes on,

“Anyone who is prone to blush and hide should remember that the images of passengers taken by full-body scanners are no more invasive than scans taken at hospitals every day. There is no evidence that TSA employees won’t be just as sensitive as medical technicians. Smart fliers should accept the electronic screening, but if overcome by modesty, they’ll have to trust the patdown. There is only one other option: Don’t fly.”

First of all, I seriously doubt that nude images are no more invasive than scans taken at hospitals every day. I’m pretty sure that hospital scans like x-rays and CT scans show things like bones, lungs, blood flow, and such things…not naked bodies. Having a medical scan that shows your bones or internal organs does not take away sexual innocence or dignity, while having nude images created of you does. Hence I would say that the latter is more invasive.

Also, even if the Globe was right that full-body scans are no more intrusive than medical scans, I would object to a government policy that required people to undergo any type of body imaging in order to exercise fundamental rights (in this case, the right to travel). Arguably, the Durham-Humphrey Amendment does just that by requiring people to get a doctor’s permission to buy medicine, which is often impossible unless one undergoes the scans that the doctor demands. And that is why I oppose the Durham-Humphrey Amendment as well as the use of full-body scanners as a primary method of airport security screening.

Furthermore, I don’t care how “sensitive” the TSA agents are. If one person sees my nude body for a second, that is really no better than if that person saved the picture, printed it out, and showed it to all of his/her friends. I don’t want anyone seeing my nude body but me. Period.

Finally, the editorial uses the phrase “overcome by modesty” as if modesty is a bad thing that “smart fliers” wouldn’t be “overcome” by. What the heck is bad about modesty? Does the editorial board think that smart people would be content with the government looking at them naked and trampling all over their constitutional rights? Well, then I’m proud to be stupid.

I am also proud not to fly. Which, given the TSA’s current policies, is the only option. But of course, there is another option, which is just to let people fly without having to go through these degrading searches. There might be a higher risk of a terror attack, but I’d prefer that to a certainty of losing the freedom that makes life worth living.

In some more encouraging full-body-scanner news, the Globe‘s Jeff Jacoby defied the editorial board and wrote an excellent opinion piece. And it seems like none other than Hillary Clinton opposes the TSA’s policies too!

I just wanted to share with everyone that I had a letter to the editor published in the Boston Globe yesterday, about the MA Senate election. Check it out: “Imagine how non-Democrats have felt all these years.”