Personal Attacks

It's time for a glance at first principles. 


The foundation of political freedom is freedom of speech. It's been established that, as long as your speech is no threat to other people, you have the right to say anything you want. It can be true or false, brilliant or moronic, insightful or totally beside the point - doesn't matter. You have the right to say it.


More nuanced but underlying this freedom is the principle that, if you disagree with a statement that someone else makes, you still grant him or her the right to say it. Furthermore, if you don't like what someone says, you have the right to attack the idea but not the person who makes it.


A personal attack thus is an attack on a person instead of an idea. Put another way, it's a method of dissing an idea by slandering the person who states it.


There is no necessary connection between an idea and the person who holds it.


Attacking an idea or a product by attacking a person who holds the idea, or makes or sells the product, is logically beside the point.


The idea or the product is either good or not good. The moral qualities or motivations of the people who promotes the ideas or the products are also beside the point.


History, for example, is littered with artists whose personal lives didn't match the quality of their creations. The classic example (from classical music) is Richard Wagner who was anti-semitic, slept with his best friend's wife, cheated people out of money, and may have influenced Hitler in his hatred of the jews. Certainly his music was used for propaganda by the Nazis.


Nonetheless, he composed some of the most beautiful operas ever written and they are performed almost everywhere in the world today - including Israel.


In sum: Wagner - bad, The Flight of the Valkyries - good.


In short: If you don't like something, explain why and forget the rest.


Cab drivers and the culture of freedom.


We cab drivers are famous for being opinionated. The saying is that you can't get two cab drivers to agree on anything. I would go beyond this and say that any time you have two cab drivers in an argument you'll have at least five opinions.


It's one of the joys of being a cab driver. It's something we're proud of. We can be stupid. We can be crazy. We can say what we like about anything we like and nobody cares.


We have the right to speak.


At least we did until about a month ago.


Personal Attacks ... on Me.


To address this subject, I'm going to start with myself and, of all things, Open Taxi Access (OTA). I'm using this as example because it's a subject about which few people are emotional. First, I'll tell you why I like the plan. Then, I'll give you the attack.


I like it because the plan;

• Should virtually eliminate no-goes.
• Will give drivers rides in remotes areas.
• Will get customers cabs in remote areas.
• Should improve the incomes of radio players by about 10% - judging by my use of Cabulous.
• Might keep Malcom Heinicke from flooding the city with taxis thus reducing the value of my medallion.

Now - there are legitimate reasons not to like OTA. Charles Rahbone of Luxor Cab doesn't like plan because he thinks that Cabulous should not be given public funds to compete against Taxi Magic and Luxor. I think his argument is a little off point but it's not a personal attack.

The personal attack came as a comment to my blog. I broke out laughing when I first read it.

"Who are you to defend Open Taxi Access," it began. "Are they paying you off?" This was followed by an attack on my imagined sexual behavior and, of course, an attack on my supposed association with Deputy Director Christiane Hayashi.


The anonymous author of this attack then ended by proclaiming that Cabulous should not be given public funds. Unlike Charles Rathbone, he did not give a reason for this. He simply decreed it.


The reason that I laughed when I read this smear is that the cowardly, anonymous idiot who wrote it clearly does not even understand what OTA is. It's an idea not a company. As such, it can't pay me off.


All the schmuc knows is that I'm for OTA and Hayashi favors it; and that's reason enough for him to launch his slanderous assault.


I'm received about 40 comments like this over the last few weeks. They've all followed the same pattern.

• They attack me instead of arguing against my ideas.
• They argue that I'm being paid for speaking against their ideas - to the extent that they can be said to have actual thoughts.
• They accuse me of participating in sexual activity that they probably would love to imitate but will never get the chance.
• And, of course, I'm accused of guilt by association.
• Almost all these attackers tell me that I have no right to speak.

And, of course, all of them are anonymous - meaning that the attackers are too cowardly to identify themselves. 

Mob Mentality.

I've received a few more anonymous comments/attacks since yesterday.

One was sent to my post, This Week's Town Hall Meetings, and goes:


"Bullshit and lies. That's what you are doing. Are you defending your girlfriend. Wait till she get fired. The die is casted. Murai did not defend her. I found Tariq the most powerful and great leader this industry has ever seen."


I know that this will sound ridiculous - like satire - but I believe that Tariq Mehmood actually wrote this. I have three reasons why:

1. Tariq has written me using his name in the past and the word choice, the sentence structure and the mistakes were similar.
2. His statement, "Murai did not defend her." 
3. Chris Hayashi most certainly was defended by Murai but Murai did so when Tariq wasn't in the room.

What Murai said was that she was ashamed to be a cab driver and that the people attacking Chris were acting like "pigs."

The second "comment" went:

"... I do not know what scare you from Tariq or why you are spending time on accusing him. He is not alone ... This is run by Tariq, Tone Lee, Shawni, John Han, Dean Clark, David, John Hanif, Peter, Bill, and nearly 50 others. Medallion holders and some cab are involved ... so not much can be given her ... she will be walked out one day."

Except for electonic waybills, this literary masterpiece barely mentions the policies that Hayashi is recommending. It's clear that these people are not so much interested in changing her plans as they are in hunting her head.

I have two questions:

1. I've disagreed at times with everyone I know on the above laundry list, why should I suddenly agree with them simply because they've become a mob?
2. If they are so united, if there are so many of them, if they are so great and powerful, what the hell do they care what I say?

And, what I'm saying is that Chris Hayashi does not deserve these attacks. Two years ago she saved this industry and she's devoted the time since trying her best to improve it. If she "be walked out," it would be a disaster for the vast majority of drivers and the City of San Francisco.

In short, Murai had it about right.