A Philosopher's Blog

Philosophical Essays on Many Subjects

Janet Napolitano

Democrats & Sexual Harassment

by 5 Comments

English: Official portrait of United States Se...
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

While Todd Akin’s “legitimate rape” remarks got considerable media attention, Vito Lopez stepped in to remind us that Democrats are not always angels when it comes to women. Assemblyman Lopez, long a power broker, was recently censured for sexual harassment.

If these accusations are true, the Lopez was clearly behaving badly. In this case, there is really little in dispute-people who engage in sexual harassment should be punished. Of course, some might say that his actions border on an attempt at sexual assault, but that is something left to lawyers to hash out.

What I find most interesting about this situation is that (assuming the claims are true) Lopez engaged in behavior that seems rather irrational. After all, the consequences of sexual harassment are well known these days and presumably Lopez is reasonably intelligent and keeps up with the news. As such, I wonder why Lopez (allegedly) decided to engage in such career ending behavior.

There is also apparently a sexual harassment complaint against Janet Napolitano. In this case, the accusation is that men are being harassed and discriminated against in her department. Naturally, if these claims are true, it would make me wonder why this would take place.

One standard explanation is that people tend to think that they will be the exception. That is, that although other folks get caught and punished, they are too clever or powerful to face the consequences of their actions. While this might sometimes be the case, if Lopez was thinking this, then he miscalculated.  I suspect that people in positions in power sometimes think that they are entitled to break the normal rules (or that they do not apply to them). There is also the matter of the sort of personality that would be involved in power-that sort of person is probably accustomed to simply getting what s/he wants and hence extends this expectation beyond the limits of his/her legitimate authority.

Another explanation is that sometimes people do not realize that they are engaging in harassment. In some cases, this is understandable (there are, after all, some gray areas). However, when a person’s hand is on another person’s leg, the situation is rather clear. Of course, a person might think that his (or her) advances will be appreciated or welcomed and this could perhaps result in unintentional harassment. Except, obviously enough, in cases in which such advances would be automatically inappropriate (such as between a boss and her employee).

A third possibility is that some people simply cannot help themselves, for whatever reason. That is, they have some of defect in will or (in more modern terms) a mental condition that causes them to act in ways they should not.

In the case of females harassing men, there might be a “payback” factor at work. After all, men have been on the giving end of harassment for a long time and it might be rather tempting to certain women to switch roles. Of course, it also might be that there are women who are just as bad as men and it is just a matter of being given the opportunity to behave badly.

It is, of course, always depressing to hear about such incidents. After all, by now I would hope that people in such positions would know better and be deterred from acting in this manner. However, this is clearly not the case.

Any thoughts on why people engage in such career-ending (or damaging) behavior?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Protesting the Pat

by 6 Comments

Male model wearing racing briefs, 2003.
Ready for his pat down. Image via Wikipedia

Some people have proposed protesting the TSA body scans and pats by refusing the body scan and electing for the full body pat down in public view. Presumably the goals are to call attention to the humiliating nature of the procedures and to slow down travel, thus making people angry.

Like Thoreau and King, I do think that civil disobedience and its relatives are legitimate and often morally commendable means of protest. However, the protests should be calculated to win public support and focus the outrage of the public on the target of the protests rather than on the protesters.

As I write this, the protest is planned for the day before Thanksgiving-a rather busy travel day. While this will provide the protesters with a large audience, the members of this audience (their fellow passengers) will most likely be more concerned about getting to grandma’s house than with the injustice of the scans. I suspect that more people will be angered at the protesters slowing down the process than at the government for implementing such invasive and unwarranted procedures. However, I could be mistaken-perhaps there will be a groundswell of support for the protesters and this will be known as the Pre-Thanksgiving Miracle Protest of 2010.

This is a matter of legitimate concern. After all, a protester has an obligation to consider the impact of his/her protest on others. If this impact is morally unacceptable, then the protest should not take place. If it is, then the protest would be (obviously) acceptable. In the case of the travel protest, there is the legitimate concern that the protest might significantly slow down travel. At the very least, the TSA will probably need to put more people on pat down and this will mean fewer people to handle the other tasks. Also, as with any protest, there is the possibility that things might go wrong. Perhaps a tired and annoyed TSA agent will slip and give a fellow a full groin grope, leading to a punch to the face (which would not be unreasonable-touching another man’s junk without permission is a punchable offense) which would probably be followed by an exciting security lock down. Or perhaps an angry passenger will start something. Or maybe everything will go smoothly. In any case, the protesters need to consider what effect their actions will have on others.

I happened to be thinking about this while running and my running attire (shirtless and short shorts) gave me an idea for another type of protest: men going through security in Speedos and women going through in bikinis. I assume that TSA would still have to pat such almost naked people down-after all, bureaucracy is really big on mindlessly following rules.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Countering Yesterday’s Threats Tomorrow

by 49 Comments

Airport Full Body Scan inverted = nude image?
Image by houbi via Flickr

John Tyler’s “don’t touch my junk” video has gone viral, thus bringing the TSA’s full body scanners and pat downs into the public eye-at least until we are distracted by something else.

The gist of the scenario is that Tyler refused the x-ray scan and opted for the pat down. When the TSA agent explained that the pat down would be close to his groin, Tyler said the famous words “You touch my junk and I’m going to have you arrested.” Of course, saying this then meant that the TSA would have to check his junk (after all, a man who makes it clear that he does not want another man touching his junk is clearly a potential terrorist). Eventually he was removed and now faces the possibility of a civil lawsuit for not completing the process. People are required by law to complete the screening process. The reason for the law is, apparently, to prevent terrorists from repeatedly testing security by refusing the process when it is about to expose them. Of course, terrorists can just fly and see how the process works.

The main reason for the full body scans (which expose people to x-rays) and the pat downs is, of course, the failed underwear bomber’s attempt. If it were not real, it would sound like a comic sketch:

TSA Agent: “Hello. You can go through the body scan or get a pat down.”

Passenger: “Um, isn’t radiation bad?”

TSA Agent: “Well, it is believed it increases the risk of cancer and birth defects.”

Passenger: “Well, I fly a lot. I’ll go with the pat down. So, what do you pat down?”

TSA Agent: “Your body.”

Passenger: “Even my…naughty bits?”

TSA Agent: “Well, not directly. Unless you insist that we don’t touch them.”

Passenger: “So, if I were to say ‘please don’t stick a finger up my ass’, then you’d have to do that?”

TSA Agent: “Mabel, get a glove! Cold…”

Passenger: “Jesus! Why are we doing all this?”

TSA Agent: “Well, that guy had that bomb in his underwear.”

Passenger: “So, we have to spend millions and chose between being x-rayed or groped because some idiot failed in an attempt to blow up his underwear?”

TSA Agent: “Yes.”

Passenger: “So, if some terrorist makes an ass bomb, you’ll be playing proctologist ?”

TSA Agent: “Yes.”

Passenger: “And if some terrorists makes a vagina bomb, you’ll be playing gynecologist? ”

TSA Agent: “Well, not me. But Mabel would be.”

Passenger: “Screw this, I’m taking the train.”

TSA Agent: “You can’t leave until we finish the process.”

Passenger: “Even the ass check?”

TSA Agent: “Especially the ass check. That way you will think twice before questioning the government again.”

As I have argued before, I am fine with effective and necessary security measures. However, the TSA always seems to be trying to counter yesterday’s threats and, even worse,the threats that are really not much of a threat. To use the obvious example, the new procedures are aimed at countering underwear bombs. This bomb was, of course, used in one failed attempt. As such, privacy is being violated and large sums of money are being spent to counter a very unlikely and minor threat. It does not seem to be worth the price to counter this sort of threat.

Now, it might be objected that we must have such security because some terrorist might try the underwear bomb again and this time it might actually work.  Surely, someone might say, what if I had my way and the pat downs and x-raying stopped…and then an underwear bomb took out a plane!

I will grant that I am, as argued above, concerned about safety. However, my principle is that the security and safety concerns should be proportional to the threat. So, for example, I think that people should be allowed to drive cars-even though quite a few people are killed each year in accidents (far more than terrorists kill).

But perhaps concerns about costs and privacy do not matter: only securing people from a possible threat matters. This seems to be the principle behind the scanners and pat downs (which have yet to find an underwear bomb).

However, if we follow this principle, then airport security must counter all potential threats-or at least the ones that people can think of. For example, bombs hidden in the rectum or swallowed (as mules sometimes transport drugs) are possible. Hence, TSA must do a GI tract check to protect us, or the terrorists win.

Also, this same principle should apply outside of airports. If what matters most is safety and not things like rights, then we should ban all dangerous things, such as cars and alcohol. After all, no one has been killed by an underwear bomb. But thousands perish ever year because of cars and alcohol. If people make a fuss about rights and freedom, the government can point out that what matters is staying alive and if almost anything goes in protecting us from vague and unlikely terrorist threats, then the same principle should apply to clear and present dangers. Or is it the case that we should only be concerned about being killed by terrorists while on an airplane?

Enhanced by Zemanta

In Defense of Rush

by Leave a Comment

Title: Offshore Description: Offshore platform...
Image via Wikipedia

Rush Limbaugh’s comments on the oil rig explosion and the slick have generated a fair amount of controversy. While I am no fan of Rush, I am a fan of truth and hence will try to refute what I take to be a false accusation against him. Ezra Klein and others seem to be claiming that Rush is blaming Obama for the oil rig explosion.  As evidence, they point to the following:

RUSH:  I want to get back to the timing of the blowing up, the explosion out there in the Gulf of Mexico of this oil rig.  Since they’re sending SWAT teams down there now this changes the whole perspective of this.  Now, lest we forget, ladies and gentlemen, the carbon tax bill, cap and trade that was scheduled to be announced on Earth Day.  I remember that.  And then it was postponed for a couple of days later after Earth Day, and then of course immigration has now moved in front of it.  But this bill, the cap-and-trade bill, was strongly criticized by hardcore environmentalist wackos because it supposedly allowed more offshore drilling and nuclear plants, nuclear plant investment.  So, since they’re sending SWAT teams down there, folks, since they’re sending SWAT teams to inspect the other rigs, what better way to head off more oil drilling, nuclear plants, than by blowing up a rig?  I’m just noting the timing here.

This paragraph, taken by itself, could be read as saying that Obama sent SWAT teams to blow up rigs. However, Klein and the others are engaged in a rather selective reading. Rush goes on to say:

RUSH: Wow. All right, so SWAT teams, we’re sending big sis down there, Janet Napolitano, to look at all the valves and stuff, make sure they’re properly greased. He-he-he-he. Ahem. And Lisa Jackson is doing the same thing. So obviously the regime is open to the idea that this is not an accident. The regime is open to the possibility that this could well have been on purpose. Don’t forget, the original Earth Day, 40 years ago, was inspired by the river in Cleveland catching fire. Forty years later, the day before Earth Day this year, the Gulf is on fire. Coincidence? Jury’s still out. The regime is on the case, soon to tell us what happened.

This paragraph clears things up. Rush is not saying that Obama sent SWAT teams to blow up the rigs. Rather, he is saying that Obama is sending the police because Obama is considering that the rig could have been blown up by people motivated by people with  environmental concerns.

Now that his actual view is known, it can be assesed.

On one hand, it would seem unlikely that an environmentalist would blow up an oil rig. After all, a little thought would reveal that a damaged rig could lead to the sort of massive spill that exists now. A rational person who was genuinely concerned about the environment would not take such a risk.

On the other hand, such an attack is not impossible. After all, people who are strongly devoted to a cause can act and think in ways that seem rather irrational and even evil. Pro-life people who murder doctors and environmentalists who spike trees (which can injure or kill the people cutting them down) show that people can do such things. As such, some “eco-terrorists” could have blown up the rig. Another possibility is that people often act without considering or knowing the possible consequences. In this case, it is conceivable that someone wanted to merely damage the rig and did not realize that such a disaster could take place. Then again, it is possible to imagine an environmental extremist who would be willing to accept massive environmental damage if this would help put an end to offshore drilling.

Of course, while I am wildly speculating, it is also possible that the oil rig was blown up in a ploy to raise oil prices. Or perhaps it was blown up by anti-environmentalists who want to put the blame on environmentalists. That is the thing about speculation without evidence to nail it down-it can go all over the place.

Currently, there seems to be no evidence that this was anything other than an accident. However, it is worth considering that it was not an accident and the administration seems to be looking into this.

As a final comment, it is interesting how Rush takes the administration’s actions to support his own view while at the same time taking shots at it for taking those same actions.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
%d bloggers like this: