This morning I was startled by a chilling Drudge headline:

Men vanish after taking photos of Philly subway system...

Twice in the past two days, SEPTA officials have alerted police to men taking pictures on the Broad Street subway line in South Philadelphia.

On Wednesday, a SEPTA cashier told officers about a man taking pictures at the Lombard-South station, but the man, after being questioned by the cashier about his activities, left before officers arrived.

"We are attempting to identify that male to determine what the nature or the reason for taking the photographs was," Chief Inspector Joseph Sullivan said.

On Tuesday, officers received a report of a male taking pictures in the track area at the Snyder Avenue station.

I read carefully to see whether there might be any conceivable terrorist connection, and the police say there isn't:

So far, neither male has been identified, although Philadelphia Police officials say the two separate incidents have no link to any terrorist activities.

While police have video of the man who they are hoping to interview from the Snyder Avenue Station incident, there is no video of the second man because cameras at the Lombard-South station, and at three of six SEPTA subway stations in South Philadelphia, are covered and not yet working.

SEPTA officials say the security system, which the transit authority describes as "state of the art," is still being installed and they don't yet know exactly when the cameras will be uncovered and begin working.

What I'd like to know is what is "suspicious" about taking a picture in a stupid subway station? I've taken lots of pictures in subway stations -- and even train stations -- both in New York, and in Philadelphia.

And yes, I have specifically taken pictures in SEPTA stations! I decided to use this occasion to publicly confess, and provide evidence of my suspicious behavior for the entire world to see!

The following suspicious photograph was taken on the very suspicious date of May 21, 2008, at the suspicious hour of 12:35 p.m.

May 21, BTW, happens to be the anniversary of a major gay riot in San Francisco -- at which I have publicly admitted to having been present. (Let me tell you, it was no tea party....)

A mere coincidence? (That's what they all say.)

Just so there is no question about the date, take a look at the next photo, which suspiciously shows a train pulling away:

As you can see, the information screen confirms the date, as well as the fact that I was taking photographs right next to the track for the R-5 line.

Why would I be doing that?

While it would be all too easy to claim that I have no conceivable connection to terrorism, isn't that what all suspicious people say when questioned? Considering the position taken by Janet Napolitano's Department of Homeland Security, can I be sure that I'm not some sort of extremist?

And if that isn't enough to convince you of the dire threat I pose, consider these observations by leading terrorism expert Leonard Pitts, Jr. in today's Detroit Free Press:

For the record: No version of health care reform being contemplated by Congress mandates death for the old, the disabled or the infirm. That's a canard. It is mendacity, prevarication, bald-faced lie.

In other words, politics.

The art of the untruth is, after all, the lifeblood of governance. As a brief spin through PolitiFact.com -- the Pulitzer Prize-winning fact-checking Web site -- will attest, no party, ideology or politician has a monopoly on lying.

And yet, the lies that have characterized the debate over health care are in a class all their own -- not simply because they are outrageous, but because they are designed to enflame and terrorize. Those lies are deserving of special rebuke.

There you have it. When (along with M. Simon) I tried to wade through the 1017 page text of the bill, discussed the disappearing death panel language and quoted Sarah Palin with approval, I was not speculating about the interpretation bureaucratic gobbledygook (something I do a lot, BTW), nor was I engaged in partisan anti-Obamacare advocacy.

Instead, I was attempting to terrorize people.

(I only hope the readers of this blog were properly terrorized. Serves you right for coming here!)

Frankly, I found the language very confusing, and even though they took it out, I'm till not sure what it meant, or how it might later have ultimately been interpreted.

So call me puzzled. And I am not alone. Via Glenn Reynolds, Tom Maguire looks at a poll which asks:

Do you think the changes to the health care system under consideration will or will not create government organizations that will make decisions about when to stop providing medical care to the elderly, or don't you know enough about the changes yet to say?

26% say the reforms will create such "government organizations", despite Obama's vigorous denial; 23% embrace Obama's message that this is a lie; and 51% remain puzzled.

I don't know, but just to be on the safe side, the terrorizers probably shouldn't be allowed to carry cameras on subways.

We can't be too careful!