The Supreme Court just OK'd a version of the travel ban. The gist: If you're from one of six countries with no connection to someone here, you can't come. It's a start, I'm OK with it. What I'm not OK with are the knee-jerks who call any part of this ban bigoted.
If you're shrieking that this is somehow hateful, then it's an emotional and not an intellectual response. Because on paper, it's merely a pause that allows a review of processing visa applicants from lawless lands. Although the ACLU calls it a Muslim ban, which is kind of weird considering that many Muslim majority countries that are not on the list. Why conflate high-risk radicals with all Muslims? That bigotry, ACLU, plain and simple.
What's just as bad: Those who criticize this pause without offering a single alternative but hugs and hashtags. It's my only question: Do you have anything better or do you just like to complain? Those are two questions.
It must be great to be in the media and shoot everything down because no one is driving vans into your well-protected buildings. So maybe we should ask why a travel ban now? It's a reaction to inaction, the result of one party being more obsessed with Celsius than ISIS.
And so this decision is just a start. Just one tool in a set that's needed to fight terror. For we must keep thinking about the next bad thing. Because there's always a next bad thing: a dirty bomb, a power grid attack, bioterror -- stuff that can make 9/11 look small. It's no fun to think about which is maybe why only one side thinks about it.
Get all the stories you need-to-know from the most powerful name in news delivered first thing every morning to your inbox