And I'd like to say up front that I don't have the cojones necessary to, based on a Reuters article, claim that I'm smarter than a federal judge. But the reason, this article claims, that the subway searches are considered constitutional is they are "an effective and appropriate means to fight terrorism."

The hell they are. Go read this. And this. And come back here and tell me how this is effective. Screw appropriate. Just tell me how it's effective.

If you want effective searches, you have to search everybody and it cannot be optional. Now, how you make that legal and constitutional isn't my problem. I'm just saying: when you can opt-out at one entrance, cross the street and enter the same subway station via another entrance, you have done nothing but delay an attack by two minutes. Whoopee.

Drudge set me off.