> In 1986 a pregnant young Irish woman named Anne Marie Murphy was planning on flying to Israel to meet her fiance’s parents. Little did she know the fiance had hidden plastic explosives in her suitcase. Israeli security stopped what would have been a horrific terrorist attack because they did not rely on the profile alone. What Saunders fails to point out in her little example above is that Anne Murphy was stopped from flying not by an X-ray scanner or some other machine, but by trained behavioral experts who ended up finding the bomb in her suitcase after an interrogation.

So yes, profiling by sight alone doesn’t get you your criminal every time. But neither does taking naked pictures of everyone. What Israeli security did with Murphy is exactly what we should be doing here: they asked her some key questions, which then led to more questions, which then led to searching her bags. Not the bags of the 40,000 innocent people flying that day, but just HER bags.

The plastic explosives in Murphy’s suitcase would have made it onto a plane if she had been in the U.S. instead of Israel. Because, hard as it is to believe, the TSA still doesn’t scan everyone’s checked baggage. Only our carry-ons.

Why? Because in the U.S. we spend all of our money on theater. Scanning luggage happens out of public view, whereas the big X-ray machines are right there in front for all to see.

So no, we’re not a nation of whiners. We’re a nation of sheep like you, Ms. Saunders, who happily trade convenience and our constitutional rights for a fake, illogical feeling of safety.

> For government benefits and a salary that starts at $12.85 an hour, these unarmed officers swallow the irritation of others, apply security methods that intensify by the day, stifle the awkwardness they might have about touching other people — oh, and be on alert for bombs, [liquid containers](http://www.tsa.gov/311/ "TSA Web site.") holding more than 3.4 ounces, sharp objects, explosive ingredients and the next Abdulmutallab. > > “I want them to think Abdulmutallab with every pat-down,” Mr. Burdette said. That’s how much our security is worth, in terms of personnel. $12.85 an hour. That’s what the TSA is willing to pay for the men and women on the front lines of our defense against terrorists.

And we’re supposed to take them seriously as an agency?

In-N-Out Burger pays better than that, in case you were thinking about signing up.

How about you save yourself the million dollars on the X-Ray backscatter machine and bump up the base salary to maybe $15 or $20 an hour. Better yet, make it a salaried position at $90,000 a year. Then spend a little more money training your staff on how to detect HUMAN BEHAVIOR and use judgement to figure out who the terrorists are, rather than having them waste time looking for bombs that are almost never there.

Of course morale is low for these employees. It’s not their fault that they are grossly unqualified for the responsibilities they are given. But we have to face facts. They are unqualified, and that’s not going to change as long as you’re paying $12.85 an hour. Keep tacking on more responsibility, including forcing them to grope people’s privates, and it’s no wonder they have an incredibly high turnaround rate.

Any business major would tell you that the more you look at the TSA, the more you see evidence of incredibly poor management, gross mishandling of basic public relations, and massive inefficiencies in the allocation of money and resources. This company wouldn’t last ten days in the private sector. And we’re supposed to believe that it’s the “most effective” way, as our president put it, of preventing terrorism? We’re supposed to just implicitly trust that they know better than anyone in the world how to keep bombs from airplanes?

> The ABC News poll also suggests that opposition to the measures > is higher among those who fly regularly (a distinction that this > blog had [ > previously anticipated](http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/15/the-full-body-backlash/)). Among Americans who fly at least once > a year, 58 percent support the new x-ray scanners, versus 70 > percent of Americans who fly less often than that. Support for the > new pat-down procedures is at 44 percent among fliers, meanwhile, > versus 52 percent among those who do not fly regularly. I love Nate Silver. Not only is he the king of stats, he always explains what the stats mean and how to put them into perspective.

Why would we care about the opinions of those who almost never fly? If you don’t fly at least once a year, you don’t get to tell the guy who has to fly every week that he needs to be exposed to radiation to make you feel safer as you sit in your recliner at home.

There’s a reason that political polls only care about “likely voters.” The only thing that matters for this poll should be frequent fliers, since they are the ones being sexually assaulted by their government on a regular basis.

It’s also very interesting to me that the numbers have shifted so quickly. 81% to 64% in a few weeks? And all it took were some stories on the Internet, which led to stories on the news, which led to Saturday Night Live and other late night parodies? Clearly, then, this is more a question of educating the public than anything else.

It’s safe to say, in other words, that a lot of people support the scanners only because they have no idea what they are or what they do. And they hear “pat down” and assume that it’s a standard frisk-type thing. Once you show them videos of little boys being stripped down, the mood shifts pretty fast.

Give it three more weeks, and more indications that people are going to fly less often as a result of all this, and you’ll see the airlines start pressuring Obama. Remember, the change only comes when one billionaire inconveniences two or more other billionaires.

As Silver suggests, there will be no official announcement. No admission of wrongdoing. They’ll just let up on the procedure quietly and go about their business.

> At this point, the Transportation Security Administration, in consultation with our counterterrorism experts, have indicated to me that the procedures that they’ve been putting in place are the only ones right now that they consider to be effective against the kind of threat that we saw in the Christmas Day bombing,” said Obama. With all due respect, Mr. President, that’s a load of crap, and you know it.

Just once, I’d love to hear you say that you talked with your experts about something but decided that they were wrong. That people may disagree with you, but that you’re going to trust your instincts and the power of your amazing intellect, employ some LOGIC, and strap on a set of balls.

That’s what Presidents of the United States are supposed to do.

The part I don’t get is that this is a win-win political issue for you. It’s one of those magical things that both Rush Limbaugh and Keith Olbermann agree on. You could easily gain favor from all sides for this, buy yourself millions of independent voters in 2012.

It’s not like the people out there who don’t think the scanners are bad are going to care if they go away. There’s no movement to keep our airports more inconvenient and invasive.

But I guess the interests of rich businessmen really do trump everything, including Red and Blue.

If one of your daughters, Mr. President, were being photographed naked and subjected to X-rays every time she flew, you’d change this procedure today. But that’s never going to happen to them, is it? So I guess you really don’t care. That’s the only conclusion I can make, since I know you are far too smart to think that these procedures are “effective” against any sort of threat.

> As if air travel over the [Thanksgiving](http://www.sfgate.com/thanksgiving/) holiday isn’t tough enough, it could be even worse this year: Airports could see even more disruptions because of a loosely organized Internet boycott of full-body scans. > > Even if only a small percentage of passengers participate, experts say it could mean longer lines, bigger delays and hotter tempers. > > The protest, National Opt-Out Day, is scheduled for Wednesday to coincide with the busiest travel day of the year. The [Obama](http://www.sfgate.com/barack-obama/) administration’s top transportation security official implored passengers Monday not to participate, saying boycotts would only serve to “tie up people who want to go home and see their loved ones.” I’d be sympathetic to those who just wanted to get home to their loved ones, but you know what? Just wanting to get home to your loved ones without causing a stir is what got us into this mess. We need to wake people up. Does this have the potential to cause delays, stranded passengers, even some altercations over heated emotions? Yeah. Deal with it. Sometimes the right thing to do trumps convenience.

My guess is that the TSA will lower the percentage of people “randomly selected” for the X-Ray machine on Wednesday, just to decrease the incidents of opting out. Then they’ll use the low number of protesters as a talking point for how most Americans don’t have a problem with these procedures.

Of course, most Americans are completely unaware of these procedures. They walk into the X-ray machine not knowing at all that they are being photographed naked. Most Americans don’t even travel, anyway, so they really shouldn’t get a vote on this.

There are some issues where the majority really shouldn’t rule. If the majority always ruled, after all, women and blacks would still not be allowed to vote.

What we really need is for this issue to go to court. I really can’t see any sane judge making an argument that modern airport security methods don’t violate the fourth amendment. Nor can I see any lawyer making a competent argument that the airport deserves some sort of special status vs. other places where many people gather or travel.