The Texas Tornado, Mark Bennett, writes about the significance of hiding in the shadows, a problem with which he’s taken issue for a very long time.
I don’t, as a general principle, allow anonymous comments here. Chief among the reasons is that the more anonymous people are, the worse they behave. People do things behind tinted glass on the freeway that they would never do on the sidewalk. They say things from the cover of darkness that they would never say in the light of day.
Despite the fact that he’s right, I’ve chosen to allow anonymous comments. But like hearsay at a suppression hearing, the assertions of anonymous commenters, whether thoughts, feelings or beliefs, aren’t given the credit that goes with putting your name and reputation behind them. You want to hide? Okay, but then don’t complain that you aren’t treated with the respect you think you deserve. That’s the price.
Anonymity on a blog is relatively benign. Sure, it can offer misleading, even dangerous “advice,” but I trust that others reading it understand that if the person lacks the guts to put his name to his words, his advice is worth no more than his reputation.
But the same concerns that Bennett has about commenters hiding in the shadows apply to others who, though you know what they’re wearing, are similarly anonymous.
Why do TSA goons steal? They steal because they can. They steal from your checked luggage because when you get to Chicago and your cufflinks are missing, there is no way for you to track down the guy in the Atlanta airport who stole them. If TSA wanted to stop its employees stealing from checked luggage, there’d be a simple solution: any TSA employee who opens a bag puts his name in it.
But that would create accountability, and the security state cannot operate if its functionaries are accountable. If screeners knew that their mothers were likely to read on the internet about what they were doing on the job, they would be on much better behavior, which would not aid in the government’s avowed program of unquestioning compliance.
The argument against this is one heard frequently, and used a blanket excuse for any wrong that occurs as an unfortunate by-product of a safe society. If the functionaries of government could be put in fear for the performance of the job the government demands of them, then we risk their hesitation, their failure to act as the government tells them, and we will all be put at risk and suffer for their fear. We can’t have that, the government says.
The argument is valid, with the caveat that the government imputes good will to the people it pays to do a job. If no TSA agent ever pulled out a pair of cufflinks from a bag he was checking for bombs that have never been found, then it wouldn’t be an issue. The government assumes that no agent in its service will do wrong, because they aren’t supposed to do wrong, and makes rules based on its assumption.
They are sound rules if the assumption proved accurate. It never does, completely. There are always some who violate the authority and trust, and on the rare occasions that they’re revealed, the isolated-incident trope is pulled out of safekeeping.
But Bennett’s point is not only that it’s not an isolated incident (provided you agree that when something happens constantly, isolated isn’t a proper characterization), but that if the assumption was true, it need not happen at all. Why, if our government functionaries are so honorable and trustworthy, should they live in mortal fear? If they steal nothing from your bag, touch nothing on your body, that would give rise to anger, hatred, fear of publicly outing them to their mother, should they need to conceal their identities?
Thoughts immediately flashed back to the Oakland police preparing to put an end to Occupy Oakland, when the first thing they did after strapping on their battle gear was cover their nameplates in black tape. In a bit of total irony, my post about this included a video posted by Carlos Miller, which has since been removed because, according to the Youtube message:
The You Tube account associated with this video has been terminated due to multiple third-party notifications of copyright infringement.
If you’re not aware, Carlos has been at the forefront of recording police, making sure the light (if not sun, then klieg) shines on their conduct, and they absolutely hate him for it. Copyright infringement? Not likely.
The black tape didn’t appear on their shields by magic. It didn’t sneak into their closets at night and affix itself to their nametags. The Oakland cops made an affirmative decision to conceal their identities, since the only description anyone could provide about them aside from their names is that they looked like Federation Storm Troopers in black. And the only answer back would be, “we would love to help, but without knowing whose club broke your skull open, there’s nothing we can do.”
Anonymity is the refuge of coward and scoundrels. It’s where evil can have its way. It’s the means by which the psychological forces that prevent our worst angels from taking control of our thoughts and actions are swept away, and we devolve into our most vicious, malevolent selves.
You want to be anonymous when you comment on a blog? Big deal. Say something stupid and that’s how you’ll be treated. Ideas can be dangerous, but by hiding in the shadows, everyone knows you aren’t to be taken seriously. You render yourself worthless by choice, and your cries that you don’t want to suffer the consequences of your spewing are a joke for the rest of us to laugh at.
But this can’t be said for agents of the government, who bask in anonymity to avoid accountability. The excuse that they can’t do their job if they’re afraid is a lie, no matter what court, agency or official perpetuates it. Their attempt to conceal themselves is, alone, a wrong perpetrated by an agent of the government on the public, as clearly as the Oakland cops who put tape over their names. And it is incumbent on good people to get the names of those who hide in the shadows and utter them so they don’t get away with it.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“If the functionaries of government could be put in fear for the performance of the job the government demands of them, then we risk their hesitation, their failure to act as the government tells them, and we will all be put at risk and suffer for their fear. We can’t have that, the government says.”
I can accept that as a society we don’t want certain persons to be compelled to answer to everyone with black ink and white paper. The problem with this is that to benefit society, as opposed to benefiting government employees, the government itself must demand high standards of performance and punish mis and malfeasance by its minions . And we have only ourselves to blame when we continue to decline to elect officials who will demand high standards of performance.
You can accept it for yourself. Have you been authorized to accept it for anyone else, at the expense of their rights? If so, please provides pictures.
I’m not really being snarky about this, because the issue remains that we can all accept it to some greater or lesser degree. The argument isn’t entirely unreasonable. But where that degree is differs. You argue (correctly) that if the government cleaned up its own mess, we would be less disturbed by the anonymity. That’s fine, except the government has never shown the ability or inclination to clean up after itself, so why argue for something that seems historically contrary to the nature of the beast?
“Why, if our government functionaries are so honorable and trustworthy, should they live in mortal fear? If they steal nothing from your bag, touch nothing on your body, that would give rise to anger, hatred, fear of publicly outing them to their mother, should they need to conceal their identities?”
I certainly understand your and Bennett’s perspective on this, but this argument strikes me as eerily reminiscent of the argument that “people who are criminals have nothing to hide” that has been put forward in support of arbitrary police searches or efforts by police either to interrogate individuals in “non-custodial” situations or to dissuade them from retaining counsel. Certainly if someone has committed an offense or civil wrong, the opportunity for redress should be available and any claims to anonymity should evaporate.
Unfortunately, Bennett’s comment seems to suggest that anger, hatred and fear of being outed to your mother are products only of malfeasance, rather than possible reactions of individuals to either honest mistakes, or to those who inherently object to the screening process, regardless of the fact that the TSA individuals may have acted with the utmost respect, courtesy and squarely within the bounds of the law and dignity. I don’t know exactly what the solution is to balance the right of reasonable privacy of honest workers and to ensure liability exists where it is warranted, something over which individual TSA employees may have limited influence.
That said, I find the Oakland police situation completely different, as the function of police strikes me as completely different. Each officer who covered his or her badge essentially acknowledged, through that act, that they did not believe that they should be held personally responsible for their actions, ones which were likely to be undertaken in a situation with a significant potential for physical confrontation and the choices of officers could very easily determine whether force used would be reasonable and justified or unreasonable and criminal.
It’s funny, I had the same sense when I wrote that, it being reminiscent of the search ploy. But after some thought, I realize that as much as it was similar in sound, it wasn’t in substance. These aren’t citizens being coerced into waiving their rights; these are government employees being subject to scrutiny in the exercise of their authority. This isn’t their power, but the power of the government placed in their hands. They have no individual right to exercise governmental authority in secrecy, for their own benefit or to the public’s detriment. It’s entirely different.
I see your point, though for some reason I still find the actions of the Oakland police to be far more odious than those of the TSA (thought there are certainly cases of TSA abuse which I find utterly abhorrent and inexcusable). Bennett’s use of the term “TSA goons” strikes a sour note in a way that a term like “police goons” does not. I acknowledge, however, that this might just be my personal bias.
What is your purpose in saying this? Are you trying to tell those who disagree with your personal bias in favor of the TSA that they’re wrong for not sharing your personal bias? If not, then why post this comment? I find it deeply troubling.
If someone wants to comment about a controversial topic e.g. police abuse of a citizen, or maybe something about a judge etc., that commenter might feel more at liberty to say something that maybe they would be reluctant to say, if they knew there’s a chance they might be
embarrassed – or worse, should their name be “outed” as the author.
He might. Wouldn’t we all like to say whatever we want without ever risking embarrassment or consequences, or being accountable for our words? All the upside with none of the down, and no one would ever hold it against us.
It would also be nice if we lived in a world where people openly acknowledged their mistakes and errors, and accepted the consequences of such without a fuss.
However, I don’t think we live in such a world, nor is such a utopia likely to come about anytime soon. As for the TSA searchers; they accepted a job which allows them to abuse the trust placed in them. A simple precaution that ensures some accountability does not strike me as overly onerous. The idea that anyone in a public position has an expectation of anonymity which allows for the free commission of crimes seems overly trusting of our fellow man; a trust, I might add, not given to those who choose to fly as passengers. If passengers may be presumed without evidence to harbor ill intent, I fail to see why the same standard cannot be applied to those who search them.
There are people who put their name to their thoughts. I do. You do. Tom does. Bennett does. So do plenty of others. While I won’t foreclose people from anonymous speech, I don’t excuse it. It’s cowardly. Safe and cowardly.
I was a Firefighter/Paramedic in Houston for nearly 21 years, including nearly 7 in a supervisory role. And I have frankly never understood the mindset that created a situation where LEOs feel it is OK to cover their name badges. I’ve seen the same behavior and justifications from ER nurses, who were under a statutory requirement to wear identification, justifying the hiding of their names by stating, “I don’t want crazy people finding me.”
But in a position of public trust, you shouldn’t be hiding behind a piece of black tape. I had three complaints in my years in HFD, all turned out unfounded. But my attitude was always that these things happen, but please spell my damn name right if you are going to complain about me (one of the complaints stated that a white female paramedic stole rings off her fingers after she had been shot multiple times in the belly. I’m not sure if I or the other guy – a big black guy – should have been insulted more).
So it really burns me that the TSA and many (though not all) LEOs seem to think that they have free rein to impose their version of order. It doesn’t make us any safer, nor does it enhance our freedom. Especially when the agents of the government use anonymity in my name to impose that order.
Is there any valid reason why a cop covering up his name plate shouldn’t be summarily fired?
None. It’s utterly inexcusable.
I apologize. I was following up with my personal perception; I was not intending to criticize those that see the situation differently, yourself included. My comment was unclear and, likely, unnecessary.
No apology necessary. Just trying to get the significance of what you write on your radar.
I purport to speak only for myself. If we can’t hope that we can use peaceful means to cause the government to “clean up after itself,” what remains save vigilante justice? Mr. Dooley pointed out that the Supreme Court follows the election returns.
We haven’t yet exhausted peaceful means. And if you think what we have is bad, vigilante justice could well make it look like nirvana. The only thing I trust less than guys in uniforms are guys with torches and pitchforks.
The cop is sending a message that they intend to violate the civil rights of anyone they encounter.
I must be going thru a period when I cannot write. I thought I was advocating peaceful means of change, and only pointing out we have only ourselves to blame when we get the government we elect. As for being against vigilantism and the lynch mob, I am with you.
Love your work; I will try to read and write more carefully should I indulge my conceit and offer comment.
Or maybe I just misread it. Sorry, since I obviously misunderstood. Comment any time your conceit moves you, with my compliments.
I am an anonymous commenter. However, I’d like to offer a justification:
1) I use the same pseudonym on all English-language sites I comment on. (Of course, not all “Lurkers” are me. That is a fairly common pseudonym.) Thus, I have some stake in not ruining my reputation.
2) For personal reasons, I cannot comment using my own name. My employer doesn’t forbid me from public participation, but it is untypical and would be greatly frowned upon. Thus, if I cannot act pseudo-anonymously, I can’t comment at all.
I think you’ve gone from anon to pseudonymous, where we kinda know you even though we don’t know your name by virtue of consistent commenting over time under the same handle. Your reasoning is why I allow anon comments, and I don’t hold it against you. Of course, if we knew more about you, your comments would mean more, but that’s the trade-off.
Bravo!