David McElroy

Remember when Madonna was shocking and outrageous? Back in the early ’80s, she combined sexuality with religious imagery in ways that shocked and angered many people. (Personally, I thought Weird Al did it better in his parody than she did.)

Who else has shocked you? Lady Gaga and her meat dress or her recent nude video? Or maybe you’re old enough to remember when John Lennon shocked people by proclaiming that the Beatles were more popular than Jesus.

When I got online Monday morning, it seemed as though the whole world was talking about something scandalous that Miley Cyrus did on an MTV awards show Sunday night. On Facebook, it seemed for awhile that half the posts I saw were about her — some outraged, some disgusted and a few defending her.

I honestly don’t know the specifics of what Cyrus did to get everybody upset — and I don’t care to know. As I’ve mentioned before, I don’t watch television, but this isn’t something I’d have been watching even if I did still watch TV. It’s apparently popular with millions of people, but it’s beyond my comprehension to understand why. It’s not that I think I’m too good for a pedestrian medium such as television or something like that. I just don’t think that participating in most of pop culture is very good for me — and I don’t think the culture that’s emerged is a healthy one for anyone.

Keep Reading

The United States and Great Britain seem poised to launch a military attack on Syria later this week, if we’re to believe various news accounts. Is this a victory for humanitarian action to save people from their dictator? Or is it yet another mistake by politicians and bureaucrats who seem determined to make even more people around the world hate us?

The situation in Syria is being presented to us — once again — in a simplistic fashion. According to this narrative, this is a simple story of a terrible dictator facing off against rebels who seek their freedom. The evil dictator is using chemical weapons to kill innocent people as the rebels gain strength in fighting for truth and justice. Or something like that.

The “evil dictator” part of the narrative is the truth. The part about chemical weapons is probably true is well. (And a UN official said it was actually the rebels who used the chemical weapons, so there’s even a question about that.) The rest of it is pure fiction.

The United States has no business getting involved in Syria. The first reason is that there aren’t any “good guys” in this conflict. The second is that the war is none of our business and all we’re going to do is create new enemies and intensify the hatred that certain older enemies already have for us.

Keep Reading

If Rand Paul weren’t the son of his famous father, how many libertarians would be enthusiastic about him? He would be one of the less-offensive members of Congress, but he would ultimately be just another politician who’s defending the fundamentals of the status quo.

When Rand Paul ran for the U.S. Senate and his father, Ron Paul, retired from politics, many long-time Paul supporters saw the son as the natural successor to the man they had idolized for years. As much as I admire certain things about Ron Paul, I couldn’t support his candidacy, as I explained two years ago. What’s worse, no outsider candidate of the Ron Paul sort has any chance of being elected president running with libertarian principles.

Ron Paul was the ultimate outsider as a member of Congress. His fellow congressmen called him “Dr. No” because he voted against anything that wasn’t specifically authorized by the Constitution. He didn’t compromise and he didn’t play political games. He spoke the truth as he understood it and people thought he was a nut. And he left with a bang, asking a series of questions that statists are still ignoring.

His son is taking a very different path. Anyone who expected a principled libertarian has to be badly disappointed by Sen. Rand Paul.

Keep Reading