David McElroy

If you see a guy in a certain kind of blue uniform — with a tie and a badge — he’s obviously a police officer. Right? That’s what we all assume in this country, but if you see a TSA screener wearing a badge, it’s a sham. He’s not a real police power. A new bill in Congress aims to end the sham.

Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) has proposed that the agency be forced to take away the uniforms that make people assume TSA personnel are police. They’re not. They have no powers to arrest anybody. Blackburn isn’t happy with the TSA’s performance, and she wants to help the public understand that they’re not dealing with actual police when they’re mistreated by TSA staff:

“Congress has sat idly by as the TSA strip searches 85-year-old grandmothers in New York, pats down 3-year-olds in Chattanooga, and checks colostomy bags for explosives in Orlando. Enough is enough! The least we can do is end this impersonation, which is an insult to real cops.”

The badges weren’t added until 2008, and they were a sore point with real cops at the time. I’m not terribly concerned with the feelings of police officers, but I do like making it clear to everyone that the people they’re dealing with aren’t police.

Make ’em wear McDonald’s uniforms or something. Make them feel just as ridiculous and humiliated as they frequently make the public feel. Blackburn’s bill won’t end the security theatre farce that the TSA has become, but it’s a step in the right direction.

Some of my friends think I’m cynical when I say we’re never going to convince the majority to vote for individual freedom. Most people who are steeped in the current left/right divide are honestly confused by what we believe. Let me show you two brief examples from the same newspaper story.

This is an Associated Press article that ran Sunday about Ron Paul in the lead-up to today’s Iowa caucuses. I want to look at two points, one which shows the reporter’s confusion and another which shows a voter’s confusion.

The article is just one of those feature stories with colorful details about a candidate leading up to an election. The sub-text of the piece is that Paul is sort of like a crazy uncle who acts in ways that nobody can predict.

In the fourth paragraph of the story, the reporter refers to Paul as “the mercurial congressman.” When I first saw that adjective, I wondered briefly whether the reporter misunderstands what it means to be mercurial. But then it hit me that he does know what the word means. He simply doesn’t know what Paul means.

To be mercurial is to be “subject to sudden or unpredictable changes of mood or mind,” according to my dictionary. Those of us who admire Paul realize that he’s anything but that. It’s his principled consistency that makes us admire him. But for those who spend all of their time with other politicians — those who see the Republican and Democratic versions of Big Government as opposites — his views are truly confusing.

Keep Reading

When I was a child, I admired Richard Nixon and supported him during the dark days of Watergate. Why not? He was my president. He was the great man who had been selected to “run the country.” My civic indoctrination taught me this. I eventually grew up and learned better, but it seems that many people never outgrown this childish desire to put politicians onto pedestals.

USA Today released its annual poll last week of who Americans admire most. I shouldn’t be disgusted — because I know human nature — but I am disgusted. Topping the list of men is Barack Obama. Topping the list of women is Hillary Clinton.

I’m not making a partisan statement in saying this. My issue isn’t that they’re both Democrats. I’d have felt the same way when it was George W. Bush during his administration. My issue with it its that we deify politicians in this culture — instead of honoring the people who actually achieve things worth doing.

Take a look at the list and see all the politicians. I’ve colored all the political figures in red. (And, yes, I count Michelle Obama and Laura Bush as politicians. You’d have never heard of them if they weren’t associated with politics.) On the women’s side, 80 percent are politicians and the two remaining choices are entertainers. Why do we admire these people?

Keep Reading