I simply don't buy the argument that the definite possibility someone could try another (and much more sophisticated) shoe bomb justifies the shoe carnival--or, if you prefer a less pejorative term, the extra and very specific attention paid to shoes.

One could easily construct an argument of equivalence, finding other threats that are ignored, many of them much more probable than another shoe bomb. Why, then, aren't we working to prevent them with the same gusto we are the shoe bomb? Could it be that the shoe carnival is reactionary in every way? I can come up with many scenarios now much more likely than a shoe bombing, yet we do nothing to prevent them:

For some--like a bad guy in a barge off a coastal airport with a shoulder-fired SAM--cost is the issue. Yeah, we could install chaff and flares in every plane to the tune of many billions the industry and taxpayers can't support, or we could run much tighter interdiction of every ship approaching our coast. Neither is feasible, so on the whole, even though it's bantered about, we largely ignore the risk, relying on human intelligence and sheer luck to prevent such attacks (the chain of events resulting in succesful interdiction in some gov't-produced scenarios I've seen reads like winning the lottery three times in a row)

For others, like bombs concealed in clothing, we've tried very untenable solutions (remember the bra pat-downs?) Maybe the "bomb in a body cavity" or "bomb in a cast" or "bomb wrapped in thin layers around the torso" possibilities aren't very probable in the big scheme, but we seem to be devoting NO attention to them.

So why are they that different than the shoe carnival? Why not have strip searches for everyone? Because the public is willing to put up with the hassles of the shoe carnival and feels it effective, however untrue we know that latter fact to be. They'd never put up with the overt methods of interdicting more creative bombers, and many of the less visible means are considered invasions of privacy or racial profiling and thus equally unpalatable to the public.

To be fair, I haven't offered a compromise; I've said, "Do away with the shoe carnival," rather than offering a way to protect against the vague possibility of a shoe bomb (for which a sole, no pun intended, past incident does not serve as ample justification). I agree the TSA is in a tough spot here trying to find a way to defend against what they feel is a danger and doing so in a way the public as a whole largely finds acceptable. I'm just not sure this particular danger is "worth it."