"Security" is the new "Children"

Maybe you've seen the story about Nancy Pelosi and her government jet dust-up. Capsulized, the story is that Pelosi, as the new Speaker of the House, is now entitled to fly on military aircraft back and forth to her district. But because it is a long way from California to D.C., she needs a big jet in order to make the trip without a refueling stop.

Predictably, House Republicans have criticized the request for a large jet, seizing on the fact that it will waste energy, cause excess pollution, waste taxpayer resources, etc, in obvious contradiction to her stated positions on these issues. Whatever.

In rebuttal, the House Sergeant at Arms (this is apparently a bureaucrat charged with arranging these things) has issued this statement:

The fact that Speaker Pelosi lives in California compelled me to request an aircraft that is capable of making non-stop flights for security purposes, unless such an aircraft is unavailable. This will ensure communications capabilities and also enhance security. I made the recommendation to use military aircraft based upon the need to provide necessary levels of security for ranking national leaders, such as the Speaker. I regret that an issue that is exclusively considered and decided in a security context has evolved into a political issue.

Note the overuse of the word "security". Much like politicos in the past have used the word "children" to justify just about any lame-brained scheme under the sun (my personal un-favorite is Janet Reno's use of this justification for burning to the ground a house full of children), the new hotness is to shout, loudly and often, the word "security" in justification of all manner of ridiculousness. Because, see, much like the children of yesteryear, security is the most important and worshipful thing we can possibly have.