In her recent piece for the Washington Post, Ruth Marcus tells us that any American leery of the new TSA security procedures should grow up.
She admits that the "pat-downs" are intrusive, but she assures us that we might not have to submit to the groping if we agree to simply walk through the "souped-up screeners". Besides, she writes, ".....where is the harm if some guy in another room, who doesn't have a clue who I am and doesn't see my face (it's obscured on the machine), gets a look at my flabby middle-aged self? "
Abortion advocates have been telling us for years that abortion should remain legal because of the Constitutional Right to Privacy. So now, with the present administration, this Constitutional Right to Privacy is abandoned for the sake of national security.
We must, she tells us, put up with any inconvenience and the lack of privacy because Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab had been able to board a plane with explosives in his underwear. On Christmas Day 2009, Abdulmutallab boarded a plane in Amsterdam, headed for Detroit. To the best of my knowledge, Amsterdam does not use the same intrusive security procedures that the TSA uses. Our security methods would only catch would be terrorists already in the USA.
I don't understand the government's obsession with airplanes. A terrorist in this country can travel anywhere he chooses by car. Anyone hellbent of terrorizing the citizens of our nation could do more damage to our national psyche by killing 20 people at 2 different Walmarts than by killing 300 in a plane flying from one American city to another. How long before we can look forward to being subjected to "pat-downs" and "souped-up screeners" before we can enter a theater, subway or football stadium?
Referencing a recent Washington Post Poll, Marcus is certain that most Americans are not bothered by the new TSA regulations. She was wrong about the Tea Party as well.
Obama's approval rating is the lowest it's ever been. The brouhaha over airport security certainly won't bring his rating back up.