I'm late to this party and don't have anything particularly original to add. Just this: I don't fly. I do what I have to do to avoid the TSA. The fact that an entire federal agency exists for the purpose of ridiculously ineffective security theater designed to make cowards feel better is repugnant to me. The need to feel safer (without actually being safer) is something people ought to be embarrassed of. It is not something that should be used to justify violating constitutionally protected rights. Being subject to "random" (and I ain't bad-looking and tend to ooze attitude when .gov drones are busy showing how much control they have over me, so it's anyone's guess how random "random" would be) invasive searches is not reasonable and therefore violates my rights to travel freely and to be free from unreasonable searches.
I'm a single mom with not a whole lot of cash to spare. If I make a scene at an airport, I'm taking on an unacceptable level of personal risk. Therefore I don't go. Could be at some point I'll decide the travel is worth it. Two road trips to NOLA, one to CO, and one to NY (including twenty hour drive over ice-coated roads) later, I haven't gotten to that point yet. But I'm grateful to anyone who has the money/power/exposure to be willing to cause headaches for the TSA. If more congressmen would create a stir over security, it could only be a good thing. Not as good as if every American who thinks the TSA is fos made trouble, but still a good thing.
Seriously? We the little people can't afford to make a stink about it, and Congressmen shouldn't because somehow when they demand reasonable treatment they're being elitist scmucks? Really? That's a great way to ensure the TSA continues to thrive and grow in its size and ludicrosity. Any bar, any cross, any impediment anyone at all throws at the TSA is valuable. Even if congresscritters are involved.
