"It Could Be Worse, I Suppose..."

Dateline: Topeka, Kansas. Traveling Salesman Killed Crossing The Street

Thomas L. Ledbetter was just steps away from entering the front door of his Kingsbury Heights apartment when he was killed while crossing the street Wednesday afternoon by a hit and run driver. Mr. Ledbetter, employed by Turner Tool & Die, had appeared earlier that day on a local Landover, Maryland television station, wherein he provided his personal opinions on the controversial new TSA security checks now being fully implemented in all the nation's major airports. A seasoned air traveler, having logged thousands of miles in the past 12 years on his company's behalf, Mr. Ledbetter was quoted as saying that he personally had "no problem with the full body scanners. I'd rather know I am safe in the air from any form of terrorist attack, and if a couple of more minutes going through the added security screening can better guarantee that, then I'm all for it." "Besides," concluded Mr. Ledbetter, "I could be run over by a truck just crossing the street." Police have few clues as of press time as to what type of vehicle may have fatally struck Mr. Ledbetter. He was 46.

Allegedly, the news media would have one believe that the majority of Americans were up in arms over the Transportation Safety Administration's newly rolled out screening procedures, being particularly alarmed and reticent in opposition to the "enhanced body pat downs." A major effort to have the flying public "opt out" of the screenings on the day before Thanksgiving, and thus snarl significantly flight departure times nationwide, resulted in very few observed oppositional demonstrations. Recent opinion polls illustrate that well over eighty percent of airline passengers, although somewhat wary of the residual effects of the x-rays being emitted from the full body scanners, still have little overall concern that the additional inconvenience out weights their overriding desire to know that they are safe while flying at thousands of feet above terra ferma. What ties the American public's undergarments in a bunch is what is perceived to be the flagrant violation of their personal space when indiscriminately subjected to the next level of the enhanced screenings; the enhanced body pat downs.

Whereas previous pat downs began initially with an electronic wand passing unobtrusively over ones outer clothing, which then over time graduated to a more hands on approach, whereby the individual TSA screeners gently used only the backs of his or her hands to rub perceptibly the passenger's outer apparel, has now evolved into a full assertive grope. Incident after disturbing incident continues to be reported daily whereby overly enthusiastic TSA screeners devoted to their charged responsibilities have taken the task of assuring that the individual before them in not harboring some type of device that could result in an in-flight catastrophe. Perception is reality and if a female perceives that a total stranger in a TSA uniform is fondling her breast, then it is difficult to convince her otherwise.

Some of the reported, no common sense, antics by TSA screeners boarders on the criminal. Now utilizing the fronts of their hands to run their probing fingers fully up, around and into a person's most private parts is an blatant invasion of one's person. I didn't manage to make such similar intrusive advances on selected members of the opposite sex until I was a sophomore in high school, which as often as not resulted in my getting my face soundly slapped! Such should be, at minimum, the similar fate of the inspectors who venture beyond the merely cursory determination that the person before them in not in fact an agent for Al Quida.

The fictitious Mr. Ledbetter is (was) right: the flying public entertains a far greater risk to life and limb while merely engaged in hailing a cab than logging in-flight hours above the clouds. Personally, therefore, I would rather be safe than sorry and elect to endure the extra minute or two that is required to have my person x-rayed down to my epidermis...in all of its glory...or otherwise. Mind you, however, I expect some minimum degree of discrete and professional decorum from the TSA when it is deemed necessary that an individual undergo an enhanced pat down. Perpetrating a third-degree assault in order to ascertain if such individuals really poses a perceived risk is totally unwarranted. All reported and verified fact based instances in which such a battery occurs should be investigated rigorously and the perpetrator of such an attack prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. A reprimand, a slap on the wrist, and a promise " to do better" will not suffice. The flying public has rightfully an expectation to know that they are safe from all potential terroist harm once they board the airplane. They should have the same expectation that they will also be safe from being sexually acousted by a misguided and overly zealous TSA employee once they cross into the land of the pre-boarding screening checks. That, in my opinion, shouldn't be too much to ask.