Hunting trip cancelled

A man's experience with airport security here in San Diego has blown up like a bad pun about terrorism. Local yokle John Tyner recorded his encounter with TSA officials after objecting to a full-body x-ray scan and refusing an admittedly intrusive pat-down. After a few minutes of squabbling, he was escorted off of the premises and faces a potential fine of $11,000.00. Tyner has since posted the recording on his blog, which is presumably less interesting than mine.

Tyner's experience and the TSA's refusal to sympathize with the fact that his hunting trip is totally ruined raises two questions in particular, both of which are easily answerable and not all that interesting.

First, are the security measures imposed on airline passengers an invasion of privacy? Of course they are not. You have neither a right nor a duty to fly; thus, any hoops that you might have to jump through to get onboard a plane are as strictly voluntary as getting on a plane in the first place. It's very fashionable to cry "invasion fo privacy" whenever security procedures are heightened, but it seems clear to me that airports and airplanes are a unique and special circumstance and that the TSA really has its hands full already.

Next, should we really be fining someone for refusing the security screening when the ultimate result is that they don't end up on an airplane? Absolutely not. An individual should have every right to refuse the screening, just as the TSA has every right to prevent him from flying when he does so. Also, Tyner needs that money to buy a bus ticket to South Dakota.

The justification for the mandatory nature of the security procedures is flimsy at best: to apprehend terrorists who might try to back out of their plot at the last minute. To me, that totally misses the mark. The TSA's job is not to catch terrorists -- that's up to the FBI and CIA -- it is to keep us safe when we fly; if a bomber backs out of his plot because he doesn't want to chance going through security, it has done it's job. No reason to punish bashful non-terrorists in the process.

Ironically, $11,000 is exactly the amount that I was planning to offer the TSA for a copy of Tyner's nude x-ray image.

Campaign 2012 begins today

Earlier today, as a direct result of yesterday's election returns, President Obama did somthing that he's been refusing to do for months: he acknowledged his own unpopularity. In his speech, the President acknowledged that he felt humbled by the Democrats' predictable failure in the midterm elections, and stated that he would be willing to work with the new Republican majority in the House. This can easily be viewed as an Obama who has finally decided to read the writing on the wall, but that's not what I make of it.

As a cynic when it comes to political figures, I'm inclined to view Obama's remarks today as the first move of his 2012 campaign for re-election. When you look at it that way, it's a smart political move; and if I'm right about what the Prez is up to, I think it's likely to work.

So what could Obama's plan be? If he's conceding his own lack of popularity, doesn't that make him look weak and un-re-electable? Sure, for now. But as any successful politician knows, the electorate has a short memory. The current political climate means nothing in terms of predicting that of 2012 in the same way that what happened in 2008 said nothing about what's happening now. Like any great campaigner, Obama and his posse are thinking two steps ahead.

I think that from today until 2012, we're going to see a much less ambitious Mr. President who is willing to meet the Republicans half way on many issues. Not only does this make Obama the kind of guy who voters presumably want him to be (or at least say that they do, which may ultimately mean nothing), but it puts the Republicans in Congress in a tough spot: they compromise with Obama, thereby becoming a party to any failed policy that they'd prefer to use to criticize him; or, they refuse to compromise, thereby exposing themselves to the criticism that they are getting nothing done and exposing them as part of the same old partisan system that the voters claim to despise while playing right in to. It puts them in a real pickle.

Of course, I might be wrong. One thing's for sure, if Obama doesn't make some kind of major change in his approach, he may be dooming himself to a one-term presidency. Despite comments that he's made to the contrary, I don't think he'd be okay with that. Then again, even if Obama maintains his lack of popularity among voters, there are conceivable ways that the Republicans could screw things up in '12, the most obvious of those being to come at us with Palin or some Palin-esque nominee who, while appealing to conservatives, would scare moderates into voting for an unpopular President who they at least know that they can live with.

So, I guess what I'm saying is that despite all of the anti-Dem furror displayed in this election, 2012 is still political lightyears away. It's anyone's ballgame, and Obama has made a brilliant first move. Of course, that's assuming we'll all still be here.