By Debbie Schlussel
I wrote about this latest Homeland Security boobery, last year. The Bush Administration, last November, asked American boaters to look for small boats that could deliver a nuclear or radiological bomb somewhere among America’s coastline and inland waterways. And they wanted to license every boat, an idea which thankfully failed:

The ever-failing, incompetent “leadership” at the Department of Homeland Security has a brilliant new plan. Be on the lookout for small boats. And license them, so we can create a new, useless bureaucracy.

18 Million of These Aren’t the Threat . . .

Do they have any idea how many small boats there are? Millions owned by Americans alone (that’s aside from those owned by foreigners)–17 million, to be exact. The fear is that a small boat could be used to launch a nuclear attack or lethal explosion at a U.S. port. Glad they only just discovered this, since it was a plotline on “24” like two seasons ago. Guess they’ve never heard the phrase, “Life imitates art.”

Now, they’re asking the same thing, again–that we should look for any small boat that might hold a dangerous bomb.
As I said then, that means millions of boats–17-18 million (no-one knows exactly how many). And it’s stupid.
What America really needs to tell its boaters is to look for small boats . . . with MUSLIMS and/or Arabs on them. Hello . . . ? With millions of boats out there, how the heck is anyone gong to know if any of the small boats they see is carrying a bomb. Is there a giant orange, “Bomb On Board!” sign?
But the feds, with their stupid memos telling their minions they can no longer talk about Jihad, Mujahedeen, Islamic Terrorism, and Islamo-Fascism, and their unwillingness to profile Arabs and Muslims, won’t commit to real law enforcement methods . . . like calling a spade a spade, and profiling.
So, forget that Mohammed or Hamida you see on a small boat near you. We wouldn’t want to appear prejudiced. And call Homeland Security about Dick and Jane and little Bobby. Their matching blue docksiders on that awfully small boat sound like a sure sign of a bomb to me:

As boating season approaches, the Bush administration wants to enlist the country’s 80 million recreational boaters to help reduce the chances that a small boat could deliver a nuclear or radiological bomb somewhere along the country’s 95,000 miles of coastline and inland waterways.
According to an April 23 intelligence assessment obtained by the Associated Press, “The use of a small boat as a weapon is likely to remain al-Qaida’s weapon of choice in the maritime environment, given its ease in arming and deploying, low cost, and record of success.”
While the United States has so far been spared this type of strike in its own waters, terrorists have used small boats to attack in other countries.
The millions of humble dinghies, fishing boats and smaller cargo ships that ply America’s waterways are not nationally regulated as they buzz around ports, oil tankers, power plants and other potential terrorist targets. . . .
To reduce the potential for such an attack in the United States, the Department of Homeland Security has developed a new strategy intended to increase security by enhancing safety standards. The Coast Guard is part of the department.
Today officials will announce the plan, which asks states to develop and enforce safety standards for recreational boaters and asks them to look for and report suspicious behavior on the water — much like a neighborhood watch program. The government will also look to develop technology that will help detect dangerous materials and other potential warning signs. . . .
There are about 18 million small boats in the country, contributing to a $39.5 billion industry, according to a 2006 estimate from the National Marine Manufacturers Association.
Fetterman and his officers regularly get intelligence reports about unknown or unrecognized boaters taking pictures of a bridge or measurements of a dam. But he says there just aren’t enough officers on the water to address every report.

Here’s a hint: If a preppy family is taking photos of a bridge, likely not a prob. If a Muslim guy is, you have your man.
What’s the definition of insanity? Is it really, performing the same behavior over and over again, expecting a different result?
Or is it, asking Americans to look for a non-descript needle in a haystack, when you could vastly narrow the search by telling them to look for an Islamic needle . . . and expecting any results at all?