The TSA PR campaign is focusing on the safety issue.

Reporters are apparently reluctant (or too disinterested/untrained) to ask other questions about the NoS.

For example, even if safe, is it moral? Is it constitutional? Does it interfere with people's religious beliefs or value systems?

There are lots of people (mostly male, but some females too) who say they like exhibiting their bodies, or don't mind exhibiting their bodies. That's their value set, their right to practice their own moral viewpoint.

But how would these free-spirited people feel if someone mandated the opposite of what they found to be good or right?

For example, what if a law was passed against men going barechested (ever) in public, against wearing shorts in public, or against wearing bikinis, speedo's, etc. What if all gyms were required to make people wear sweatpants and sweatshirts, no wifebeaters allowed, no stretch pants, etc. It would surely be safe to require such things, and let's say we could come up with a reason to make these laws.

They'd be upset, because their value set was not being respected. They'd want very good reasons to give up their freedoms. Not just any old reason would do.

But certainly, health codes could take into account that the more bare skin one reveals in pubic, especially at gymnasiums or similar places, such as athletic fields, the less safe we all are. More skin diseases are transmitted this way. Wrestling teams are notorious for spreading ringworm, their sweaty skin comes into contact with mats and other equipment.

Making all swimmers wear microbe-proof neoprene bodysuits instead of regular swim gear would almost certainly improve water quality at pools. Maybe all swimmers should be made to wear a plastic diaper as well, to make sure no one pees in the pool - we'd all be safer.

Student athletes could be prohibited (as they used to be in many places) from wearing athletic shoes and socks to the classroom, as certainly there's a risk that they've brought some fungus from the gym.

Maybe everyone should have to shave their heads, too.

Face masks, really, should be mandated for all persons in schools, clinics, offices or hospitals, and on public transportation. We'd be much safer. And, since our identities would be obscured by the masks, perhaps we should just all have identity chips implanted in our forearms. Would make security lines so much faster - isn't that what everyone wants?

Wait. We'd all be wearing burkas (men included of course, since this is America).

They should invent puffer style technology to scan people for the common cold and the flu, so that everyone showing up for work could be automatically sent home and docked two sick days before they reappear in the workplace or school.

We'd be so much safer. And of course, just as "it is only a matter of time until terrorists use babies to carry explosives," it is also just a matter of time until terrorists use super-viruses as weapons (if they aren't, already).

I can think of so many impositions that could be made on the public, in the name of safety. I surely do wonder if the anti-modesty crowd has any limits at all, on what they would accept. If they are so happy to show their junk, I assume they'd be equally happy not to see scantily clad women at the gym or beach volleyball tourneys, right?

Doesn't really matter, safety is so much more important than people's values and rights...right?

Anyway, today was a victory, because the TSA admitted to the world on one of the busiest (obviously terror-prone) days, that the NoS were unnecessary, in general, to the process of securing public transport.

If only the average citizen understood why billion dollar contracts to buy stuff are so important to the people who lead these agencies...who profit so much from the contracts both during and after their tenure in office. That's where the real shame lies.