The Meaning of the IRS / Journalism Snooping Scandals

Last week, I was watching the Morning Joe panel discuss the IRS and the AP scandals. The focus of  the discussion was about the political ramifications of the recent Obama administration scandals. In particular, the discussion was about whether the Republicans would appear to be too zealous and overreach in their investigation of these scandals. The implication was that this was the Republicans' chance to make a play for the next election cycles if they played this right.

Now, I actually find that Morning Joe to be one of the more useful and well-balanced shows on politics. This may be because I don't watch it often and therefore misinformed, or this may say something about the quality of politics shows. In either case, what this discussion revealed was that those that spend their time ringing their hands over politics see this as a game--a game for power. To the extent that those employed in the service of the state or the general public could relate to this discussion, this is disturbing. The political gain (or loss) the Republicans may yield from these scandals is (or should be) of little concern, for the party holding political power doesn't matter. Instead, the primary issue should be about how much power the state wields. What's obvious from the last two administrations--one from the Republicans and one from the Democrats--is that neither is concerned with the economic or civil liberties, peace, justice, or the rule of law.

Surely more needs to be uncovered regarding these scandals, but regardless of how deep these scandals go, they reveal very clearly that the state has too much power. The take home message should not be about Democrats or Republicans; this is all a side-show. Instead, these scandals are more and very clear evidence of an abusive state.

That the IRS was targeting Tea Party and conservatives groups raises eye-brows because these are the President's political enemies, but the political implications is not the point. What's interesting is that the IRS wasn't targeting mainline "conservative groups" (e.g., the Heritage Foundation), at least as far as we know so far. Instead, they were targeting groups that were their opponents--those that have raised fundamental questions about the nature of taxes.

The DOJ's snooping of journalists is the example of why we no longer can claim to be a free society. Glenn Greenwald has pointed out in a  number of contexts that in a free society the public sector should be transparent and open, and the private sector should be just that: private. This situation is just the opposite. The DOJ's snooping was prompted by information that became public, such that their snooping signaled to other informants that such behavior won't be allowed. In short, the public sector is shielded behind a veil of secrecy and guarded by intimidation. The private sector, on the other hand, is threatened with email snooping, wire tapping, and more. No; it is more than threatened; it's now been admitted and discovered that this occurs regularly on US citizens.

Together, we see the massive abuse of power derived from power not granted to it by the rule of law. Politics holds no allure to me anymore. That this may or may not have political implications is of no concern, and it should be of no concern to anyone. We've seen the markers of a free, prosperous, peaceful, and civil society slip, regardless of which party is in charge. These scandals reveal little about political parties, but an abusive state. This should be the point of discussion.

Miscellaneous Weekly (5/20 - 5//24)

More on the Problems with the DSM: Carol Tarvis discusses the new DSM, which is  "...often called the "Bible" of psychiatric diagnosis."

Free R. C. Sproul Books: Ligonier ministries is offering 14 free Kindle books by R. C. Sproul. (HT2: Tim Challies)

The Gov't Executes Four US Citizens Without Trail: This news certainly merits more than a mention in my Miscellaneous Weekly run-down of interesting stuff I found on the Internet, but is additional commentary needed? Does this not speak for itself?

Has President Obama Broken the Law?: I was once reprimanded by an Obama supporter for insinuating that Pres. Obama was a criminal. The Atlantic says, "There is clear evidence that he has broken the law on multiple occasions. And not even Republicans seem to care."

The "Tyrants" of the Majority: Judge Napolitano warns about the tyranny of the majority: "A few weeks ago, President Obama advised graduates at Ohio State University that they need not listen to voices warning about tyranny around the corner, because we have self-government in America. He argued that self-government is in and of itself an adequate safeguard against tyranny, because voters can be counted upon to elect democrats (with a lowercase “d”), not tyrants. ...Under Mr. Obama’s watch, the majority has, by active vote or refusal to interfere, killed hundreds of innocents — including four Americans — by drone; permitted federal agents to write their own search warrants; bombed Libya into tribal lawlessness without a declaration of war so that a mob there killed our ambassador with impunity; attempted to force the Roman Catholic Church to purchase insurance policies that cover artificial birth control, euthanasia and abortion; ordered your doctor to ask you whether you own guns; used the Internal Revenue Service to intimidate outspoken conservatives; seized the telephone records of newspaper reporters without lawful authority and in violation of court rules; and obtained a search warrant against one of my Fox News Channel colleagues by misrepresenting his true status to a federal judge." 

The Obama Administration's Criminalization of Journalism: MSNBC's Chuck Todd says that the Obama administration is criminalizing journalism. Glenn Greenwald drives this point home in discussing the Department of Justice's spying on Fox News's reporter, James Rosen. He writes, "The DOJ specifically argued that by encouraging his source to disclose classified information - something investigative journalists do every day - Rosen himself broke the law."

Say What?

These videos have been going around lately as a way to make the case for 2nd Amendment rights.



Both videos essentially make the same point. They show MSNBC hosts, who at one time (and particularly following the Sandy Hook school shooting) were critical of those that opposed gun control regulations, are now, in light of the 'scandals' that have emerged out of Washington DC, saying that the gov't can't be, or at least, has not demonstrated itself to be a responsible holder of such power. More crudely said, gun-rights activists have been frequently portrayed as conspiracy theory, tin-foil wearing hat people, who erroneously, naively, and even ignorantly believed that the gov't was out to get them.  Now, here, they are at least acknowledging that the case against these people is less persuasive.

We are all a lot like children at times. We base our decisions on our immediate emotional state and the present context we find ourselves, blindly disregarding any and all other information. It seems to me that this is exactly what we find here. The media follows the pervading narrative of each story and cries out for some kind of response. In the aftermath of Sandy Hook, there was a call for greater gun control and an outrage that this hadn't been done before, and in the wake of the IRS and journalism snooping scandals, the pervading narrative (although, admittedly much more reluctantly) is an acknowledgement that gov't should have some limits.

The point of these videos is much more telling about this fact, rather than a poke at media figures who had called for greater gun regulation. What these incidents should show us is the importance of rule of law that restrains gov't and minimizes the state and its power--in short, one that protects civil liberties. In the presence of or following some threat (whether that be a terrorist attack, a school shooting, etc.), civil liberties continue to matter. A gov't that has power uses it, and when at the time of any particular threat, we may want to provide them with power and praise them for protecting us from the immediate danger, what we fail to realize is that that power once given is never returned. As a result, we are left with a much more enduring threat--the state that has garnered greater power. The right of people to posses guns does not disappear in the wake of mass murder, even as horrible as that is; neither does the right to speech or any other natural right.

What we find in these videos is not a victory for the second amendment, but evidence of  all of our child-like tendency to be persuaded by the momentary context. Liberty is for a mature and principled people, who are cognizant of and willing to take on the corresponding responsibilities and are also willing to protect them, even when it is hard.

Miscellaneous Weekly (5/13 - 5/17)

Spring classes have ended at LVC, but somehow I found myself very busy this week. I hope to blog some next week. For now, enjoy a weekly wrap-up of miscellaneous links. This week, there is plenty of psychology links.
-- -- -- -- -- 
Psychiatry's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual is Under Fire: The psychiatric (not psychological) manual used to diagnose mental illness is being attacked as invalid and unscientific, much to the delight of psychologists I know. "In a groundbreaking move that has already prompted a fierce backlash from psychiatrists, the British Psychological Society's division of clinical psychology (DCP) will on Monday issue a statement declaring that, given the lack of evidence, it is time for a 'paradigm shift' in how the issues of mental health are understood. The statement effectively casts doubt on psychiatry's predominantly biomedical model of mental distress – the idea that people are suffering from illnesses that are treatable by doctors using drugs. The DCP said its decision to speak out 'reflects fundamental concerns about the development, personal impact and core assumptions of the (diagnosis) systems', used by psychiatry."

Grammar Quiz: I got 2 out of 10 wrong, but I disagree with one of those that got counted wrong.  See what you can do.

Rand Paul Is NOT a Libertarian: He says: "I’m not advocating everyone go out and run around with no clothes on and smoke pot... I’m not a libertarian. I’m a libertarian Republican. I’m a constitutional conservative." For the record, I am not advocating everyone get naked and smoke pot, either.

Replication and The Decline Effect: In my course discussions on research ethics, I subtly show (i.e., not explicitly state) students how the gov't regulations on research ethics fail and are combersome. Instead, I think what we find in the sciences is that self-policing through replication of work is how fraud, for example, is identified in science. The problem with motivating researchers to replicate their work (or another researcher's work) is that the chance for publication--the score-card of researchers-- is near zero. Recently, the field of psychology has made a major advance in science by providing an outlet for replications--and importantly even failed replications--for publication. Replication studies may also provide some insight into this fascinating problem that psychologist, Jonathan Schooler raises on the decline effect, in which effects found in research seem to go away over time.

Muscle Strength Has Political Implications: This research study that has been published in Psychological Science, a top-tiered journal in the field, has been making the rounds in the news. It shows an association between the size of men's biceps and their acceptance of wealth redistribution.

Fun and Beautiful:This is funny. This is beautiful (HT2: Tim Challies).

Miscellaneous Weekly (5/6 - 5/10)

A Silver-Lining in the Fraud Discovered in Psychology: Diederik Stapel, a social psychologist, was well-published and respected in the field, until it was discovered that he was making up his results. The New Yorker describes some positive aspects emerging from this dark moment in social psychology. "More importantly, there is something positive that has come out of the crisis of replicability—something vitally important for all experimental sciences. For years, it was extremely difficult to publish a direct replication, or a failure to replicate an experiment, in a good journal. Throughout my career, and long before it, journals emphasized that new papers have to publish original results; I completely failed to replicate a particular study a few years ago, but at the time didn’t bother to submit it to a journal because I knew few people would be interested. Now, happily, the scientific culture has changed."

Suggested Reading List College-Bound Christians: From Truth for Life.

Gun Violence is Down, but People Don't Know: "National rates of gun homicide and other violent gun crimes are strikingly lower now than during their peak in the mid-1990s, paralleling a general decline in violent crime, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of government data. ... Despite the attention to gun violence in recent months, most Americans are unaware that gun crime is markedly lower than it was two decades ago. A new Pew Research Center survey (March 14-17) found that 56% of Americans believe the number of crimes involving a gun is higher than it was 20 years ago; only 12% say it is lower and 26% say it stayed the same."  ...read more

Another Reason Christians Should Oppose the U.S.'s Interventionist Foreign Policy: Our Christian brothers and sisters in Iraq have suffered persecution resulting from the Iraq War. "Shortly after combat operations concluded on May 1, the real conflict began. Amid the chaos and sectarian violence that followed, Iraq’s Christians suffered severe persecution. Neither the military nor the State Department took action to protect them." 

A Pastor Wrestles with Whether he Should Pray...In Front of Congress: Dr. Brian Lee is a Reformed pastor in Washington, D.C. I really appreciated his candid description of deciding whether to pray before Congress. He concludes: "Frankly, as I write this, I remain torn about whether I should have prayed publicly before the House. None of my arguments in favor of praying for the state suggest that you should do so publicly in the halls of government, outside the home, or the context of a worship service. None of them fundamentally overcome Christ’s warning against hypocrisy and vanity. Why then did I accept? God is near to those who call on him in faith. If someone asks a Christian to pray for them — especially a Christian minister — and you can do so in truth, with the love of Christ, and without violating your conscience, you accept."

Drones are War-Crimes: A Pakistani court has declared, at least, some of the U.S.'s drone strikes illegal under international law.

3D Printing: One of the latest advancements in technology is 3D printing. As I understand it, this means something could be copied (e.g., a part) and printed it out. One of the latest things to get printed was a gun. 3D printing raises some interesting questions about copying (i.e., copyrights, pattens, etc.) and, in this case, the ability of gov't to regulate guns.

Tax Harassment: "The Internal Revenue Service inappropriately flagged conservative political groups for additional reviews during the 2012 election to see if they were violating their tax-exempt status, a top IRS official said Friday. Organizations were singled out because they included the words 'tea party' or 'patriot' in their applications for tax-exempt status, said Lois Lerner, who heads the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt groups." ...read more