> It’s kind of creepy, and I wish they didn’t have to do any of > it,” Hanchak, 25, said while advancing in a security line on her > way to New York. “But they have to do what they have to do, even > though it’s an invasion of privacy. via [instapaper.com](http://www.instapaper.com/text?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sfgate.com%2Fcgi-bin%2Farticle.cgi%3Ff%3D%2Fc%2Fa%2F2010%2F11%2F24%2FMNI81GGK9D.DTL%26feed%3Drss.news&article=98273384)This kind of faulty logic is so infuriating…

> I sympathize with everyone who’s being screened or groped against their will, but there is some irony here. When male bodily autonomy is challenged, it’s a social emergency! A man’s junk is his castle. What did our ancestors fight and die for if not the right of the penis to be left alone? Women are expected to compromise whenever their bodily autonomy conflicts with someone else’s idea of the greater good. I’m thinking of bringing a “Don’t touch my junk!” sign to my next…

> 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. via [sfgate.com](http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/11/23/ED921GFQG9.DTL&feed=rss.news)What Saunders fails to point out in her little example above is that…

> 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. via [nytimes.com](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/…

> 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. via [instapaper.com](http://www.…