Photo by Flickr user caribbSo, because the most recent al-Qaeda dipshit tried to light a firecracker on a plane, we’re not forbidden to get up or hold anything on our laps during the last hour of a flight:

“Among other things,” the statement on Air Canada’s Web site read, “during the final hour of flight customers must remain seated, will not be allowed to access carry-on baggage, or have personal belongings or other items on their laps.”

The suspect in the Friday attempt, identified as Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, 23, tried to ignite his incendiary device in the final hour of the flight while the plane was descending into Detroit.

We all recognize that this is beyond stupid, right? We’re letting al-Qaeda write our flight security regulations by proxy. Whatever they do, we overreact: shoes, liquids, laps. At some point, will Americans get fed up and stop flying?

We just might have the stupidest legislature on Earth:

The Democrats’ health care bill would generally require insurers to provide preventive treatment recommended by the expert panel, the United States Preventive Services Task Force. But lawmakers in both parties made clear that they wanted doctors to decide when a mammogram is medically necessary and that insurers should be required to cover the cost if the procedure is needed.

“There’s much discussion about whether or not you should get a particular service at a particular age,” Ms. Mikulski said during the floor debate. “We don’t mandate that you get a service. We leave that up to a decision made with the woman and her doctor.”

Republicans, in Ms. Murkowski’s amendment and in a separate amendment by Mr. Vitter, specifically sought to set aside the task force recommendations on mammograms and to bar the federal government from relying on the findings. Mr. Vitter’s amendment was adopted without a vote on Wednesday night.

That’s right. By law, we can’t follow the guidelines of an independent, scientific, medical commission. God help us.

This is the greatest product I have ever seen.

It’s true: “No Hanukkah celebration would be complete without a piñata!” Why, I get all misty remembering those wonderful Hannukah celebrations from my childhood, when the family would gather ’round the menorah, light the candles, eat latkes, and whack a giant papier-mâché dreidel with a stick.

(”And even though that piñata only had enough candy in it for one night, the candy lasted for eight whole nights!”)

Photo by Flickr user ChuckHolton Rep. John Shadegg (R-Moron) makes the case against civilian trials for accused terrorists:

“I saw the mayor of New York said today, ‘We’re tough. We can do it.’ Well, Mayor, how are you going to feel when it’s your daughter that’s kidnapped at school by a terrorist?” Shadegg said.

“How are you going to feel when it’s some clerk — some innocent clerk of the court — whose daughter or son is kidnapped? Or the judge’s wife? Or the jailer’s little brother or little sister? This is political correctness run amok,” he continued.

Isn’t this actually an argument against ever trying any criminal anywhere in a court? If the very presence of an accused criminal in a city is a threat to its citizens, shouldn’t we just do without trials and, like, shoot our criminals into space?

Or maybe it’s only super evil terrorists who can, under armed guard in a courtroom, kidnap the mayor’s daughter. Honest to God, the Republicans think Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is Magneto.

(I would like to note that I wrote this post before Ezra wrote his.)

Ha! Ha! See, it’s funny because government is bad:

Government agencies will be eyed as more than the sources of speeding tickets and income tax forms this week at a special job fair to be held on the campus of Bryant University.

Those stupid government agencies, always enforcing public safety laws collecting revenue for the purpose of funding public services. Losers.

Rhode Island’s Knowledge Retention Summit made an interesting decision when they chose a Twitter hashtag.

Today’s submission comes from Michael Crowley at The New Republic:

Should the [balloon boy] family be charged for the huge search and rescue effort?

No.

This has been “Simple Answers to Stupid Questions.” See you next time!

Here’s a journalistic structure that drives me completely insane:

1. Reporter states a fact.
2. Reporter quotes someone (wrongly) casting doubt on the fact.
3. Reporter kinda shrugs.
4. My head explodes.

Here’s an example from the ProJo’s Neil Downing:

The [Social Security Administration] typically hikes benefit amounts each year, based on the increase in the price of goods and services as measured by the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics’ consumer price index.

This time, however, there was no increase in inflation for the year ended Sept. 30, government figures show. Thus, Social Security benefits will not change for 2010.

…

Nicholas Geanacou, 83, of Cranston, a retired rehabilitation counselor, said he had an idea that benefits would remain flat. “I sort of suspected they would pull a fast one,” he said.

He brushed aside talk about inflation. The real reason that there will be no rise in benefits, he said, is unemployment. With fewer people working, fewer people are paying Social Security taxes, reducing the balance in the Social Security trust funds, he said.

Now, Mr. Geanacou is simply wrong. SSA is not “pulling a fast one” and they’re not holding benefits flat because of unemployment. In fact, I’m not sure the SSA exercises any discretion at all about cost-of-living adjustments, because they are statutory and automatic.

So, why is he quoted? Why is this factually wrong speculation in my newspaper? What purpose does it serve?

Update: Here are some intelligent thoughts on the COLA from Drum and Yglesias.

… is perhaps a kinder description than the more accurate “horrifying dank basement for $695/month.”

A truly bad-ass cover, and a truly bad-ass video. I’d never heard of Pomplamoose before, but I am now officially a fan.

(Via kottke, of course.)