Once again, James Lileks says it.
Also grateful I’m not flying this weekend, but I would not refuse the scanners. This I do not understand. If everyone was having their groinal departments mauled I would be annoyed, but if you only get the blue-glove love after you’ve turned down the scanners, well, go through the scanners. Underlying the anger – of course – is the idea that everyone has to suffer indignities and suspicion because the TSA refuses to consider some people more likely to kaboom a Boeing than others. Add to that the suspicion that so much of the security check-through is just make-believe, and you have people who view the process of flying with fury and dread – the former because it TAKES SO FARGIN’ LONG, and the latter because you don’t think it works.
From what I've seen, I think that, like many "stories", this one said more about the media herd instinct than anything else. Somehow a reporter somewhere picked up on some one's whining, and through the magic of modern communication, it became something worth reporting on national news, despite the fact that they often mentioned in those reports that there really wasn't anything to it.
This makes me sympathize with the editor of Charles Kane's Inquirer when he said in response to Kane asking about a questionable "murder" story that there wasn't any proof, and they don't report that type of thing. Perhaps it wouldn't be bad to bring back a bit of that editorial discretion.