"The Nation may want to ask someone what the 'L' in the 'ACLU' stands for"

The Nation, that venerable bastion of progressive journalism and commentary, has let known insane person and serial anti-libertarian fantasist Mark Ames (along with partner Yasha Levine) write about–wait for it!–"TSAstroturf: The Washington Lobbyists and Koch-Funded Libertarians Behind the TSA Scandal." It's an editorial decision on par with having the National Review assign Joe Farah to write about Barack Obama's birth certificate.

Since I am mere butt-maggot and Koch foot-lackey, my arguments against the piece might not persuade. But Salon's Glenn Greenwald, who presumably has more rubles in Ames' debased currency basket, describes the connect-the-dots exercise as "such a shoddy, fact-free, and reckless hit piece...that I'm genuinely surprised its editors published it." More Greenwald:

What's really going on here is clear.  These are [John] Tyner's actual crimes in the eyes of these Nation writers, at least judging by the accusations they make:  (1) he's not a good, loyal Democrat; (2) he did something that politically harmed Barack Obama; and, most and worst of all (3) he failed to submit meekly and quietly to Government orders like any Good, Patriotic "ordinary American" would and should do.  That is what has created their "sense" that he's something other than an "ordinary guy" -- a "fake."

The article highlights three other individuals who object to the TSA procedures (out of the dozens -- at least -- who have complained) who also have (cue the ominous overtones) libertarian ties.  That's not surprising.  In order to do what Tyner did -- firmly assert one's rights against government agents and then vocally and publicly complain about rights infringements -- one has to take one's liberty seriously.  After all, to do something like that is to risk being threatened by the Federal Government and smeared by journalists loyal to those in power.  It's hardly surprising that many of the people willing to take that kind of a risky stand have incorporated the concept of individual liberty into their political identity.  The Nation may want to ask someone what the "L" in the "ACLU" stands for.

One minor addendum. The only one of the Ames/Levine data points I bothered looking into was this:

The links between [Rep. John] Mica, the libertarians, the Kochs, and the TSA scandal are only now emerging, and we hope more journalists will dig deeper. So far, we have learned:

    * Mica's longtime chief of staff, Russell Roberts, lists the Koch-backed Mercatus Center as the top sponsor of Roberts' privately-financed travel expenses, according to Congressional travel disclosure forms. Roberts stated in his form that he participated in discussions related to "transportation policy."

Spooky! Although what Ames/Levine doesn't tell you is that "top" means "most frequent" (as opposed to "most generous"–the National Business Aviation Association, American Association of Airport Executives, and the Congressional Institute all ponied up more travel-related funds to Roberts over the past decade, according to LegiStorm), and that "transporation policy" does not remotely characterize Roberts' own descriptions of his Mercatus Center activities. Which were:

Attended policy forums on regulatory reform, retirement security (Social Security and private pensions) and economic policy

General session on U.S. trade policy, session on health care reform, insuring the uninsured, sub-prime market mortgage crisis

Policy seminar regarding fiscal policy, gasoline market regulation, hurricane response preparedness, Al Qaeda changes, markets and democracy

Chiefs-of-staff retreat; discussions and workshop on economic legislative policy

Chiefs-of-staff retreat on economics and public policy

Chiefs-of-staff retreat

No WONDER Mica is making public comments about a public controversy. Wait, what?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Jeffersonian||

    You mean I'm being all pissed off at the TSA for free?

  • Apogee||

    Of course not. Everyone knows that all those libertarians in office are constantly kicking government pork in your direction.

    People obviously only support libertarian ideals because it leads to incredible political power.

  • ||

    So Reasonoids are not Koch-suckers?

  • ||

    "Tyner attended private Christian schools in Southern California and lives in Oceanside, a Republican stronghold next to Camp Pendleton, the largest Marine Corps base on the West Coast."

    Hang him!

  • ||

    Did he matriculate at the private school ?

  • Sean Connery||

    I matriculated your mom last night, Trebek

  • ||

    What is a Saturday Night Live gag?

  • Sean Connery||

    I gagged your mother last night, Small Rectangle.

  • Alex Trebek||

    I clubbed your mom last night is also an acceptable answer.

  • Brian ||

    The "club" joke is much funnier in reference to baby seals

  • Will Ferrel as Alex Trebek||

    I'm done responding to you when you buzz in, I'm moving on to the next category...
    The Pen is Mightier

  • Turd Ferguson||

    Can we talk about my hat?

  • ||

    What did they say about my beloved Corps? *rolls up sleeves*

  • SteveV||

    Tyner attended private Christian schools in Southern California

    My God, this gets worse and worse! He's not only a libertarian, he's a Christianist libertarian!

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    What's really going on here is clear. These are [John] Tyner's actual crimes in the eyes of these Nation writers, at least judging by the accusations they make: (1) he's not a good, loyal Democrat; (2) he did something that politically harmed Barack Obama; and, most and worst of all (3) he failed to submit meekly and quietly to Government orders like any Good, Patriotic "ordinary American" would and should do.

    I suspect (2) is at the heart of Ames' and the Nation's librage towards Tyner--that it's making their Golden Boy look bad. Witness Eugene Robinson's apologetics for the TSA this week; it's all driven by the same basic motivation to protect Obama from any public criticism at all.

    No way in hell these lights of journalism would be throwing up the barricades for the TSA on this if Bush was still swaggering in the Oval Office.

  • ||

    Exactly. This is so partisan that it's amazing. You'd think these people would be embarrassed to be so obviously shilling for their guy, but it seems there is no shame for TEAM RED TEAM BLUE.

  • ||

    Epi -- it's The Nation we're talking about. Amazement is not justified.

  • Joe M||

    That's exactly what I was thinking. There is absolutely zero loyalty to any principles at this point. The game plan is, anything that could embarrass Obama, attack whoever is responsible, no matter what the issue is.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    I'll give props to Greenwald for calling this out and recognizing it for what it is. He really hammered one of the commenters that tried to pull a red herring about "With the economy so bad, is this really that important?" nonsense by pointing out that the argument of civil liberties is ALWAYS important, regardless of the economy.

    I just gained a new respect for the guy, sock puppets and all, even if we wouldn't agree on a lot of other things. One of the commenters here said a couple weeks ago, "If you have to find out who made the argument before determining if you are for or against the argument, you aren't just part of the problem, you ARE the problem." Glad to see Greenwald has enough integrity to not go down that path.

  • ||

    I agree.
    Especially how little principal there is..."Oh, Bush is using fear mongering to have us searched!!! Obama is doing exactly the same, if not more, but it is OK because you libertards believe in the Constitution...and thats just silly!!!"

    If I could, I would like to waterboard these guys into explaining how Bush and Obama actually disagree...
    Gitmo???
    Afhanistan????
    Wall street bailouts????
    Big medical gubermint????? (remember bush and the biggenst increase in medicare ever)

  • BakedPenguin||

    Again, I have to respect Greenwald for avoiding the TEAM BLUE ALWAYS GOOD TEAM RED ALWAYS BAD TEAM GOLD CRAZEEE bullshit.

  • ||

    I already said that below, BP, you lazy plagiarizing hack. You exceed even NutraSweet in laziness.

  • BakedPenguin||

    I think you're just too hirsute to understand my irony.

  • Kristen||

    Hirsute, you say? That's hot.

    Unhirsute men are wusses.

  • ||

    Kristen meet STEVESMITH.

    STEVESMITH meet Kristen.


    DO YOU LIKE CAMPING AND OR HIKING?!

  • Kristen||

    Um, cha! Does STEVESMITH like hunting and/or fishing?

  • STEVE SMITH||

    FISH, DEER OR FOWL.. STEVE SMITH RAPE ALL WOODLAND CREATURES!

  • Kristen||

    Oh, sorry, STEVESMITH no speak-a dee Eengleesh. It ain't gonna work out.

  • Old Mexican||

    Look, just "The Nation" frontpage feature title tells me EVERYTHING I need to know about the rag:

    "SAVING JOURNALISM: The Patriotic Case For Government Action"

    Q.E.D.

  • Jeffersonian||

    Because nothing says "free press" like drawing your salary from the largesse of the Central State.

  • Almanian||

    That must be where the saying "Freedom Ain't Free" came from

  • ||

    Freedom costs a buck o fiiiiive!

  • ||

    'zactly right.

  • ||

    I wonder if this is related to the widespread government bootlicking the major newspapers are currently involved in.

  • Cyto||

    What happened to the notion that an idea is good or bad on its own merit, regardless of who sponsors the idea?

    TSA policy on terrorism prevention should rise or fall on its own merits, regardless of who questions the policy. If Michael Moore suddenly comes out in favor of dental floss, should I stop flossing? No!

    So why would you attempt to argue that fondling my junk is OK because the Koch brothers oppose it? I lived my entire life so far in a world where it is not OK for some security guard to fondle my junk. And now, just because the Koch brothers say "don't let them fondle your junk" I should suddenly think it is OK for a security guard to fondle my junk?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Cyto,

    What happened to the notion that an idea is good or bad on its own merit, regardless of who sponsors the idea?

    That notion is not held in the minds of the eleutherophobic, statist fucks.

  • Almanian||

    The word "eleutherophobic" is the absolute shit - thank you for introducing me to it, OM!

  • TC@LeatherPenguin||

    Yeah, that word just got jacked into my compy's "recognise" file.

  • Almanian||

    HITLER SAID THE WORLD IS [roughly] A SPHERE!! IT CAN'T BE SO!!!!1!

    Also, Koch Brothers = Hitler, ergo anything they support is bad.

    It's the New Math Journolizm

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    But do you know where Eisenhower got the idea for the U.S. interstate system? Do ya, huh?

  • Apogee||

    From Big Concrete?

  • Almanian||

    Big asphalt?

  • ||

    Nah, that's just the San Andreas fault. Not really all THAT big...

  • Barry O.||

    No, it's all Bush's fault.

  • ||

    They are idiots. And they assume that their readers are idiots. Despite them being idiots, their assumption is correct.

  • ||

    Their readers are disagreeing vehemently to the article in the comments section.

  • ||

    Oh, yes! The comments are running about 75% against the piece.

  • nekoxgirl||

    Maybe there is hope for liberals after all...

  • Apogee||

    If they cancelled subscriptions over this bootlicking crap, I'd agree with you.

  • Mikey||

    Oh, yes! The comments are running about 75% against the piece.

    And the 25% in favor all seem to be written by the commenter calling itself "crabwalk."

  • Joe M||

    It's just like the Krugman nonsense this morning. Just attack the motives of those you don't like.

  • ||

    I don't like Krugman, and I indeed question his motives.

    Of course, that's because he claims to be an economist, but his critique and praise of similar economic policies seems to change 180 degrees depending on who is in office...

    So maybe Krugman is projecting here. He attacks others' motives, because he knows a bit about his own.

  • Zeb||

    Well, the Kochs obviously want the terrorists to win. Because that would be good for business, and kill the middle class. Or something.

  • ||

    ""one has to take one's liberty seriously""

    There's the problem.

  • ||

    During the lunch room chatter on TSA, I mentioned the 4th amendment, I got several eye rolls, and one "here we go again". The arguments were all about whether the policy worked or not. Civil liberties and principle was for the oddball (me).

  • ||

    (mentally fix the noun/verb disagreement please)

  • Alex Trebek||

    did you try "Fuck Utilitarianism". I find it a useful phrase to have around.

  • robc||

    Damn you joke handle! From hell's heart I stab at thee.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    I'll take LOL for $500, Alex.

  • ||

    Whether the policy works or not is quite relevant to the 4th amendment argument. If it doesn't work, then the 4th amendment demands that it be stopped.

  • ||

    I wonder how your little friends will feel when the boss is reading their "private" e-mails, and decides to firm whoever they want when they want because they were shopping on cber monday???

    Your little friends are unfortunately like most - the only principals is that things go their way.

  • ||

    Personally, I think that we should have FUN with our liberty.

    The real problem with the TSA is that they've made joking around TSA agents a Federal crime. If we could legally have a good time at their expense, while expressing our liberty, I'd love the TSA! What better venue for libertarian protest?

  • Zeb||

    I am very tempted to put a cucumber wrapped in aluminum foil in my pants next time I fly.

  • ||

    It's a thin line between clever and ... and stupid.

  • ||

    Yeah, but if they claim you did that for them, just ask if they were impressed by the package. When they say no, say then it wasn't for you.

  • ||

    Wanting to be free is not necessarily congruent with being "reasonable" in the eyes of most people.

  • Brian E||

    Of course there's a cosmotarian conspiracy behind all this. Kochs just don't want to be touched by the TSA.

  • ||

    I see what you did there.

  • ||

    Hey TSA! Hands off our Kochs!

  • Old Mexican||

    +1

    Made me laugh!

  • Derp||

    Well done.

  • ||

    And I have to give Greenwald credit, once again: he is calling out his nominal "side" on this constantly. Which, of course, showcases how few people are actually doing that. Isn't partisanship grand? Thinking for yourself is so damn hard.

  • Brian E||

    Which, of course, showcases how few people are actually doing that.

    To be fair, there used to be more, but then those nasty right-wing hacks called him out on his sock-puppeteering habit.

  • ||

    Yeah, he deserves credit.

    It would be one thing if all these leftists were simply saying, "Well, the Republicans wouldn't be any better." But no, they have blame the evil Kochs and libertarians, and actually defend the policies as a good idea, not even just a politically necessary or astute idea.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Goddammit. Today must be "too slow" day for me or something. I'm going to STFU now, since every post I write has already been covered by someone else.

  • Wind Rider||

    Dude, Epi isn't really hirsute. Those are all really little antennae, and he's scammin all the best stuff from the rest of us. The rat bastage.

  • BakedPenguin||

    That would explain a lot, actually...

  • alan||

    I for one would like to think that in the evolution of legal thought and practice I am the benefactor of the liberalization of rights as they are commonly understood, but, in some of the most important aspects of my life, that is simply not the case. 'Flying is not a right, but a privelege' spouting TSA agents, an eight hundred year step backwards in time:

    www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/10000/pg10000.html

    (41) All merchants may enter or leave England unharmed and without fear, and may stay or travel within it, by land or water, for purposes of trade, free from all illegal exactions, in accordance with ancient and lawful customs. This, however, does not apply in time of war to merchants from a country that is at war with us. Any such merchants found in our country at the outbreak of war shall be detained without injury to their persons or property, until we or our chief justice have discovered how our own merchants are being treated in the country at war with us. If our own merchants are safe they shall be safe too.

  • ||

    I've read that ancient law 5 times and I can't see anything that needs to be changed. And we think we're smarter today.

  • alan||

    Neither do I. For the detractors who may ask, what does this have to do with airport searches and scanners, the in accordance with ancient and lawful customs refers to not having your person violated.

  • ||

    I did have a little problem with:

    ...until we or our chief justice have discovered how our own merchants are being treated in the country at war with us. If our own merchants are safe they shall be safe too.

    I don't think it matters how the enemy treats "our merchants", insofar as "their merchants" have done us no wrong, they do not deserve to be punished for wrongs committed by their government.

  • alan||

    Point conceded. In historical context, it was likely something similar to the MAD strategic doctrine.

  • ||

    """This, however, does not apply in time of war to merchants from a country that is at war with us.""

    Then only those merchants from Iraq or Afghanistan would apply.

  • ||

    Or should I have said, would not apply.

  • Kristen||

    All I can say is "for fuck's sake!"

  • ||

    That is about the sexiest thing a woman can ever say.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    I can think of several more.

  • Kjetil||

    You forgot to link to this more recent quote, in which Mark Ames advocates politically based violence against libertarians:

    >3. Anytime anyone says anything libertarian, spit on them. Libertarians are by definition enemies of the state: they are against promoting American citizens’ general welfare and against policies that create a perfect union. Like Communists before them, they are actively subverting the Constitution and the American Dream, and replacing it with a Kleptocratic Nightmare.

    One can only wonder why the countries who agree with Mark Ames and company always end up so shitty.

    Quote from here: http://exiledonline.com/the-ra.....-lameness/

    PS. The quote is at the bottom. I would not advise you to read the text above as it is the very fucking definition of tl;dr.

  • ||

    Holy shit. Is this guy really this stupid?

  • Apogee||

    Hopefully not, for the sake of his lifespan.

    I get the feeling, however, that he's just following the rah rah team cheer in search of more partisan gigs. All talk and no bite.

  • Warty||

    I skimmed it. This stood out:

    Ever read the preamble to the Constitution? There’s nothing about private property there and self-interest. Nothing at all about that. It’s a contract whose purpose is clearly spelled out, and it’s a purpose that’s the very opposite of the purpose driving Stewart’s rally, or the purpose driving the libertarian ideology so dominant over the past few generations. This country, by contract, was founded in order to strive for a “more Perfect Union”—that’s “union,” as in the pairing of the words “perfect” and “union”—not sovereign, not states, not local, not selfish, but “union.” And that other purpose at the end of the Constitution’s contractual obligations: promote the “General Welfare.” That means “welfare.” Not “everyone for himself” but “General Welfare.” That’s what it is to be American: to strive to form the most perfect union with each other, and to promote everyone’s general betterment. That’s it. The definition of an American patriot is anyone promoting the General Welfare of every single American, and anyone helping to form the most perfect Union—that’s “union”, repeat, “Union” you dumb fucks. Now, our problem is that there are a lot of people in this country who have dedicated their entire lives to subverting the stated purpose of this country.

    So libertarianism is dominant, and anyone who doesn't want a welfare state is a class enemy who must be liquidated. Sounds about right.

  • Kjetil||

    Huh. I have not, praise be to Allah, had to read the entire piece, but I appreciate it very much that some martyr themselves for the cause in order to give us the juicy bits. Kudos to you!

  • Dick Fitzwell||

    I'll see your Ames and raise you a Thoreau:

    The authority of government, even such as I am willing to submit to — for I will cheerfully obey those who know and can do better than I, and in many things even those who neither know nor can do so well — is still an impure one: to be strictly just, it must have the sanction and consent of the governed. It can have no pure right over my person and property but what I concede to it. The progress from an absolute to a limited monarchy, from a limited monarchy to a democracy, is a progress toward a true respect for the individual. Even the Chinese philosopher was wise enough to regard the individual as the basis of the empire. Is a democracy, such as we know it, the last improvement possible in government? Is it not possible to take a step further towards recognizing and organizing the rights of man? There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly. I please myself with imagining a State at least which can afford to be just to all men, and to treat the individual with respect as a neighbor; which even would not think it inconsistent with its own repose if a few were to live aloof from it, not meddling with it, nor embraced by it, who fulfilled all the duties of neighbors and fellow-men. A State which bore this kind of fruit, and suffered it to drop off as fast as it ripened, would prepare the way for a still more perfect and glorious State, which also I have imagined, but not yet anywhere seen.
  • alan||

    Which of course, the guy gets entirely ass backwards. He should RTFM the constitution stems from, the Federalist Papers so he would have at least a hint of an idea what General Welfare means instead of ripping a communistic fantasy no founding father would recognize as being copacetic with their ideas, be they Federalist, Anti-Federalist, or any point in between. Then to call anyone unAmerican based upon his extremely introverted fantasy of what they meant is just creepily unhinged.

    Just so you know, Ames, you wackadoodle, it is not the job of the people to promote the General Welfare. Read the document carefully, it is the government to which that is assigned so that the people can pursue their own enlightened self interest ('happiness', you shit for brains); when the government promotes specific welfare, in other words, causes, then self interest becomes subordinated to the public interest as determined by the ruling class, an occurrence for which that clause is an attempt to avoid. The forefathers were very much familiar with the disaster specific interest wrought on many nations of that time, from Louis XIV to John Law, they witnessed what occurs when the General Welfare is ignored for more grandiose designs. Only a complete fool could read what you did into the constitution as it does not favor your totalitarian political philosophy. Though it is by no means a perfect reflection of libertarian thought, it is so informed by the early theorist of liberty, and comes much closer to my beliefs than yours.

    If any one betrays this nation's first principles, it is not us, it is you, and I have little doubt that you Goddamned well know it.

  • ||

    "There’s nothing about private property there and self-interest."

    Really??? NOTHING at ALL??? Astounding...
    But simply sad that somebody who can actually write words simply cannot read the constitution, and under stand that its one overwhelming purpose is to limit government.

    And sure, private parties have exploited, harmed, and taken advantage of people - but when your talking war, genocide, mass imprisonment, mass oppression - well, it is always and everywhere a gubermint phenomenon

  • Anonymous Coward||

    I posted this to Ames' litter box of a site, but since he is too much of a belching vagina to leave it up as it decimates his entire pathetic rant, I'll just drop it here.

    "Although the preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the government of the United States, or on any of its departments."
    Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 22 (1905)

  • shorter Mark Ames||

    Death to the kulaks!

  • Federal Dog||

    "Like Communists before them, they are actively subverting the Constitution and the American Dream, and replacing it with a Kleptocratic Nightmare."

    Does anyone even know what the fuck this is supposed to mean?

  • ||

    It means libertarians are bad.

  • ||

    Yeah, this really raised my eyebrows. Libertarianism is the only unkleptocratic system. You can't even argue the corporatist kleptocracy angle because there would be no such a thing in a truly laissez faire society. The system he is advocating IS a kleptocracy that justifies redistribution of wealth on the incorrect premise that wealth can't be earned without violating someone else's rights.

    Maybe he's just drug-addled?

  • Apogee||

    Maybe he's just drug-addled?

    No. Attempting to repeatedly label political targets the opposite of what they are has been a partisan angle for a long time.

    You'll notice that it's always all accusation with absolutely no backup. Practitioners of this crap cannot continue the debate the second they're asked for citation.

    That's why you call them hacks.

  • ||

    It was a typo. K/L too close. ACKU

  • Joe M||

    The good news is that about 95% of the comments on that The Nation article are slamming it for the big pile of steaming nonsense that it is.

  • Warty||

    "Pimp hard, libertard, pimp hard!" Koch foot-lackey Matt Welch of Reason magazine thinks he's onto something with his "conspiracy theorist" defense of his Masters...Welch even dragged Yasha Levine into his crazy "conspiracy theory" world...can one of you libertards out there please find Matt, talk him down from his "conspiracy theory" argument-ledge, and tell him, "Matt, it's okay, everything will be all right...your billionaire masters will survive this, and you will be allowed to continue burrowing into their asses like the butt-maggot you chose to be...Shhhh, it's okay Matt, just cool it with the conspiracy theories...No one's gonna get hurt here, just put that conspiracy theory argument down nice 'n easy, and take a deep breath...You're with (libertard) friends now, Matt..."

    You know, butt-maggot is a decent enough thing to call someone, but it's buried way too deep in that pile of insanity and ellipses to be worth digging out. Congratulations to Matt for being able to parse that sentence, I guess.

  • ||

    Warty, you just don't get how to write in retarded-yet-I-think-I'm-witty-stream-of-consciousness mode. I think you are too hirsute for that.

  • Brian E||

    If my beard is protecting me from understanding this bullshit, that's just another advantage to proper hirsuteness.

  • ||

    my 80's porn 'stache is ineffective at protecting me from such gob=smacking idiocy...

  • Anomalous||

    My back hair prevents me from comprehending a word of that drive.

  • Anomalous||

    I meant drivel.

  • Zeb||

    This from someone who thinks that the Kochs are involved in a conspiracy of some sort. It is still a conspiracy theory even if you think it is true.

  • Warty||

    From the Nation peice's comments:

    posted by: Marech at 11/24/2010 @ 12:30pm
    Exactly when did the Left decide to get into bed with Big Coercive Government?

    HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  • Jeffersonian||

    No fucking shit.

  • Mikey||

    Has the left ever gotten OUT of bed with Big Coercive Government? They just pretend to give a shit about the coerciveness when it's a Republican doing the coercing. As long as the "right people" (i. e. Team Blue) are doing the coercing, most of them are fine with it.

  • Brian E||

    Shh. Don't mention the g-men with guns. They can't see them.

  • Masturbatin' Pete||

    "Exactly when did the Left decide to get into bed with Big Coercive Government?"

    No later than Buck v. Bell.

    The left is fine with all manner of government coercion, provided that it has nothing to do with anything going into or coming out of your pelvis. The left will leave you alone to do whatever you wish with your swimtrunk area; the rest of your body and property is the government's to command.

  • Federal Dog||

    "The left is fine with all manner of government coercion, provided that it has nothing to do with anything going into or coming out of your pelvis"

    On the contrary: They are demanding pointless, but mandatory, genital inspection by low-level government functionaries. That specifically targets the pelvis and anything going in, or coming out of, it.

  • ||

    Buck v Bell is the quintessential pelvic coercion example I'd think....

  • 0x90||

    I think Ames & Levine are onto something here -- this stuff is literally everywhere. Check out this quote from what is so obviously yet another tentacle of the Kochtopus:

    "The media has been filled with pundits widely defending the new security procedures. Matt Welsch [sic] says that this betrays the truth that the media is not “liberal” after all, but rather “statist.” I’d probably use the word “authoritarian,” but agree with the general principle."

    What's with all the hyperbolic libertarian buzzwords? Who else sits around opining on the differences betweeen statist and authoritarian? These are so clearly talking points; they read like something straight out of Reason, and no wonder that, as the author doesn't even attempt to hide the fact that she got them straight from Matt Welch, a known Koch-conspirator.

    Oh, wait...that was Hamsher writing on FDL.

  • Almanian||

    AHA! Thus proving The Conspiracy is even deeper than we thought!

    Good work, Ox90

  • ||

    I'm sure this isn't what he meant, but "statist" is sometimes used to describe anyone who supports even the mere existence of a state (as opposed to anarchist).

  • Joe the Plumber||

    this Tyner guy needs to be vetted.

  • ||

    He sounds like he has vetted himself.

  • Katrina||

    STFU Rovebot You're not a REAL PLUMBER

  • Katrina||

    STFU Rovebot You're not a REAL PLUMBER

  • ||

    Warty, you just don't get how to write in retarded-yet-I-think-I'm-witty-stream-of-consciousness mode. I think you are too hirsute for that.

    Or maybe your jeans aren't tight enough.

  • Warty||

    My jeans are tight enough when you're in the room, big boi.

  • ||

    BOINGGGGGGG

  • Tiger Paw||

  • Gaybraham Lincoln||

    About as tired a joke as you can make.

  • Old Mexican||

    From Glenn Greenwald's post:

    And therein lies the most odious premise in this smear piece: anyone who doesn't quietly, meekly and immediately submit to Government orders and invasions -- or anyone who stands up to government power and challenges it -- is inherently suspect. Just as the establishment-worshiping, political-power-defending Ruth Marcus taught us today in The Washington Post, objecting to what the Government is doing here is just immature and ungrateful; mature, psychologically healthy people shut up and submit. That's how you prove that you're a normal, responsible, upstanding good citizen: by not making waves, doing what you're told, declaring yourself a loyal Republican or Democrat and then cheering for your team, and -- most of all -- accepting in the name of Fear that you must suffer indignities, humiliations and always-increasing loss of liberties at the hands of unchallengeable functionaries of the state. I don't really care what political label John Tyner applies to himself: we need far more of his civil resistance in our citizenry and far less of the mindless obedient drone behavior which these Nation writers seem to venerate.
    [Emphasis mine.]

    Right on!!

  • Almanian's Alter Ego||

    I must defend Ms. Marcus. "The American temperment", if I may call it that, is pretty much based on people "shutting up and submitting". There's such a long history of that behavior in this country.

    It's how the place was founded, how westward expansion occurred, how the great cities were built - submission and deference. They're in our very fibre as a People.

    So Mr. Tyner - if that's his real name - is clearly an outlier. A dangerous, Libertarian, troublemaking outlier...

    /stoopid

  • ||

    Raise your game, America!

  • The Devil Inchoate||

    I rarely agree, all right, never agree with Greenwald, but this is AWESOME.

  • nj||

    Do you even read Greenwald? A libertarian should find a lot of things to agree with when it comes to Greenwald. He is a damn good civil libertarian and one of the better anti-war voices out there.

  • alan||

    From the comments:

    As a libertarian, I am anti-war, and pro-drug, proudly, and can safely say the Tea Party, as it stands, and the politics of the Koch's, do not correspond with these beliefs.
    Brian Hagen

    Huh? The Brother's Koch have funded both anti-war and drug legalization causes, so how are you not in agreement with them? I see this too many times. Libertarians who spend their time in largely liberal social circles develop a terrible set of premises in order to go along to get along. Envirototalymentalism is where this regress usually manifests itself.

  • Kristen||

    Sounds like that commenter doesn't know jack about the Kochtopus and since he's only ever heard bad things about them automatically assumes he needs to distance himself.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    It sounds like the "anti-war" and "pro-drug" parts are the only things "libertarian" about him. In other words, he calls himself a libertarian because he thinks it's about neo-hippy protests and getting stoned.

  • RyanXXX||

    Greenwald is by far one of the best political bloggers around. Probably THE best

  • RyanXXX||

    The implicit accusations and innuendo are piling up while the evidence remains non-existent. It continues (emphasis in original)

    So far, all we know about “ordinary guy” John Tyner III, the freedom fighter who took on the TSA agents, is that, according to a friendly hometown profile in the San Diego Union-Tribune, "he leans strongly libertarian and doesn’t believe in voting. TSA security policy, he asserts ‘isn't Republican and it isn’t Democratic'." [emphasis added]

    Tyner attended private Christian schools in Southern California and lives in Oceanside, a Republican stronghold next to Camp Pendleton, the largest Marine Corps base on the West Coast.

    These two paragraphs -- the heart of the case against Tyner -- are insidious. By their own admission, this is "all [they] know" about Tyner: he has failed to swear his loyalty to one of the two major political parties, a grievous sin worthy of deep suspicion. He refuses -- correctly -- to view TSA extremism as the by-product of either party. Worse, he doesn't believe in voting -- a fringe and radical position in which he's joined by merely half of the entire American citizenry (65% in midterm years), 130 million voting-age Americans who -- surveying the choices -- also apparently see no reason to bother voting. What kind of strange person would fail to find great inspiration from one of America's two Great Political Parties or refuse to see the world exclusively through a Democrat v. GOP prism? More suspiciously still, he went to "private Christian schools" as a child and resides in a community that has a lot of Republicans in it; why, his neighborhood is even near a Marine base! This is clearly no "ordinary guy."

    Damn. That's more libertarian than George Will or Michael Moynihan will ever be

  • RyanXXX||

    Whoops, I forgot to put quotes around Greenwald's text.

  • SIV||

    That's more libertarian than George Will or Michael Moynihan will ever be/i>

    You're Mom is more libertarian than Michael Moynihan.

  • ||

    No, he is RyanXXX. But his mom may in fact be more libertarian than Michael Moynihan.

  • ||

    While I don't think refusing to vote as a matter of principle, is sinister at all, that's not why most people who don't vote don't vote. Most are just too lazy and apathetic.

  • ||

    In other words, to find the percentage of Americans who are principled non-voters, you don't just take 100% minus voter turnout rates.

  • Kristen||

    Speaking of the Kocktopus, I have loked and looked on Cafepress and have yet to find any t-shirts or doggie bowls with our corporate overlords on them. What gives?

  • Kristen||

    Kochtopus...damn you no edit!

  • ||

    I want a Koch t-shirt too.

    Possibly one with the Koch's in Che-profile, looking boldly forward into the future, wearing Berets.

  • Gaybraham Lincoln||

    All I know is he and Matt Taibbi hate each other from their days at Exile Magazine in Russia.

    They both sound like douches, and this article was the confirmation for me for on Ames' douche status.

  • SIV||

  • BakedPenguin||

    Compared to Ames, Wilkinson is fucking Murray Rothbard. Christ, Ames reminds me of Godard, who was pissed that Le Parti Communiste Français wasn't extreme enough.

  • ||

    Will Wilkinson is a douche, but now that he's drug the Venus of H&R into this he's going to pay. What say you H&Rers;?!

  • ||

    I'm surprised (astonished!) nobody has latched on to the fact that Tyner was supposed to fly to South Dakota and murder poor defenseless little birds, with evil scary GUNZ!!!!

    Bitter? I should say so.

  • Jeffersonian||

    A clinger!!

  • Cafepress Giftshop||

    Coming to a tee shirt nearest you:

    At Least Our Billionaires Didn't Betray Their Own People

    [Hand waving off to a crowded detention train with a fist full of rings, watches and jewelry.]

  • Max||

    You must be so excited that there is an anti-libertarian fantasist (what ever that is). At least he has heard of you. Well, maybe not of you spefically, but of your kind.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    your kind

    Max-speak for "you people".

  • Max||

    You must be so excited that there is an anti-libertarian fantasist (what ever that is). At least he has heard of you. Well, maybe not of you spefically, but of your kind.

  • Max's Dad||

    Son, you forgot your cane. How are you going to beat up on the Coolies if you don't bring your cane?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Max,

    Max, H&R's pet yorkie.

    Bad Max! Look what you did, you did your banalities on the carpet! Bad boy! Bad, bad Max!

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Max never told us what *his* "kind" is.

    Although we already know the answer.

  • RyanXXX||

    I swear, if tomorrow Obama announced that he was ordering the "indefenite detention" of all muslims living in the United States, the hacks at The Nation would jump to his defense against us "Koch-backed" conspiracy-theorists who objected

  • Justin Raimondo||

    The idea that the stodgy Brothers Koch would endorse, let alone stage manage, a radical tactic like mass resistance to the TSA is laughable to those familiar with the Kochotpus. Like all the best and most successful libertarian initiatives, e.g. the Ron Paul phenomenon, the anti-TSA movement came from the anti-Koch wing of libertarianism. You'll note that the Tyner video and his account of what happened to him at the San Diego airport was first given wide circulation on LewRockwell.com -- surely a site that can hardly be called Kochian "astroturf"!

  • Brian E||

    Details, schmetails. These people could never clearly articulate what the brothers Koch stand for if you asked them. The Kochtopus has money and it supports things that are anathema to progressives and that's all that matters.

  • ||

    How do we know the Koches aren't financing LRO as a fake opponent?

  • ||

    Are the Kochs financing the Nation in an effort to make the Left look like hypocritical careerists who will sell out their principles the second it looks like a Democratic President might be in trouble? Because if that's their plan, they are getting their money's worth.

  • alan||

    +1

    Though the comments section to that slime piece is one of the more hopeful developments on the left in recent years. They soundly thrash Ames and put him in the public stocks.

  • RyanXXX||

    Justin, since when do you comment on Reason H&R???

  • GILMORE||

    Search for his name; he pops up from time to time.

  • GILMORE||

    Search for his name; he pops up from time to time.

  • Esteban||

    While these policies are pretty ridiculous, the outrage by repulican talk show hosts is purely politically motivated. If a Republican was President now, you know Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity would rush to defend these policies. Instead, Rush claimed yesterday that this is a all part of a plan to make the airlines go bankrupt so the government could bail them out and take control of them. I'm no fan of Obama, nor do I trust him, but that's just ridiculous.

  • ||

    Hypocrites are right half the time.

  • ||

    So my dad was on the phone talking to my aunt who is visiting Colorodo.

    He asked her if she got groped at the airport.

    She said no. She got on a plane at Bellingham Washington where they do not have security then landed in Sea tac and got off the plane in the area after the screeners....then got on a plane to Colorado.

    It is that easy for a terrorist to get around this stupid security policy.

  • 0x90||

    It's easier than that.

    I've said it before: I don't care whether you've passed a full cavity search, because it doesn't matter; anybody at all can still pull a D.B. Cooper once the flight is underway. Since prevention can never be 100% guaranteed, the assumption at that point has to be that however unlikely, security at the airport has somehow failed.

    If you want safety, putting the passengers into carbonite hibernation for the duration of the flight is about the only way you're going to get it.

  • alan||

    As demonstrated in Chasm City, even that is not full proof.

  • Sarah Palin||

    We gotta stand with our North Korean allies.

  • ||

    I love North Carolina! I practically grew up there, though they called it Pennsylvania back then.

  • Number 2||

    Remember folks: They only attack people who they perceive to be a threat.

  • ||

    one thing i would like to note.

    RC Dean is "teh Awsome".

    He wrote about wearing speedos to the airport days ago...and now according to Drudge there are people stripping down and wearing speedos and bikinis.

    He totally called this one. Good work sir my hat is off to you.

  • Matt Welch||

    Ames/Levine have responded to Greenwald. The Nation is soooo screwed: http://www.thenation.com/artic.....-greenwald

  • Apogee||

    B.b.b.b.but...NEOCONS!

    And, uh, we're disappointed that our baseless attack on Tyner by linking him to lefty boogeymen like Christian Schools and the Marine Corps was highlighted by distracted Glenn Greenwald from our obvious point.

    Which was, uh, that the TSA practices have suddenly caused such anger - even though, you know, they are actually somewhat new procedures, and, uh, that we, like totally agree that they're outrageous.

    Which doesn't mean that we agree with those nasty Kochs, even though we kinda, apparently, uh, do.
    And even though we think that this Tyner guy, (the neo-fascist militant christ-fag), was "is in all likelihood innocent in his motives", we're still pretty sure that "his discourse and the movement that has embraced it is far from innocent".
    And stuff.

    Oh, and we've been in the shit, fuckers! Unlike that totally cool and respectable pussy never been anywhere dangerous Glenn Greenwald.

    So, like don't call us commies and stuff.

  • ||

    So if they're so virulently opposed to this policy, why does it matter that the first or loudest voices against it are libertarians, their sworn enemies? Should they not be praising our mutual agreement instead of blasting the individuals standing up to government molestation and assuming there's got to be some big conspiracy that people would dare to be outraged about a policy of groping 2-year olds' testicles?

    Also I liked how they tried to connect the libertarians and the Koch brothers who want no profiling and the abolishment of the TSA with the pro-racial profiling right-wingers who are just using this uproar for political gain. I guess it makes no difference to them - we're all just a big, fat, billionaire-titty-sucking right-wing blob, right?

  • ||

    "Rep. John Mica, the author of the TSA bill and the focus of the last section of our article (which Greenwald fails to address)"

    Here's Mica's Chief of Staff Russ Roberts:
    http://cflhomeless.files.wordp.....&h=187

    Here's Mercatus Center's Russ Roberts:
    http://www.invisibleheart.com/IMG_2377.jpg

    A little similar looking, but according to Mercatus' Roberts's biography, not the same guy. Did they get them mixed up or what?

  • ||

    What happened to Ames? I guess the "bad boy" shtick wasn't paying the bills anymore, and he's trying to find a niche as a Democratic ball-licker. Disappointing - back in the Exile days he used to have the capacity for independent thought.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    "Kock-funded libertarians" - The Next Vast Non-Left-Wing Conspiracy. Got it. Thanks for clearing that up.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    That was NOT a Freudian slip. Just misspelling.

  • Barney Frank||

    Suuuuure it was.

  • Sigmund Freud||

    Sometimes a cigar is just a kock

  • Liberal Douchebag||

    This is obviously anti-gay hate speech. There ought to be a law against it, so that you right-wing child-molesting anarchist Bible-thumping capitalist fucks can't say mean things about people you don't like.

  • ||

    The widespread condemnation and fisking of Ames & Levine from the left makes this whole career self-detonation of theirs really fascinating and entertaining. It reminds me of that scene from the end of Stephen King's Dead Zone where Greg Stillson finally reveals himself as a petty monster, and all his old allies and henchmen just watch in horror.

  • fdgfd||

    Hello. My friend

    === http://www.aeooe.com ===

    Dedicated service, the new style, so you feel like a warm autumn!!!

    WE ACCEPT PYAPAL PAYMENT

    YOU MUST NOT MISS IT!!!

    thank you !!!

    === http://www.aeooe.com ===

  • online dating||

    ya nice words

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement