Monthly Archives: April 2011

1. Freedom of speech is so important that we must allow burning of symbols, even symbols considered sacred to an entire country or culture…well, unless that symbol is the Koran.

2. One must speak out against all acts of hatred and violence towards homosexuals…well, unless such acts are committed by Muslims.

3. The more criticism of religion, the better…well, unless the religion you are criticizing is Islam.

4. Subjugation, abuse, and unequal treatment of women will not be tolerated…well, unless…well, you know.

5. War is never the answer…well, unless the question is, “How can we help Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood bring about a more Islamically correct government in Libya while telling the world our purpose is to prevent a tyrant from attacking his own people?”

6. The more traditions one can break with, the better…well, unless they are traditions the Islamic Hadith tells us must be practiced, in which case we must accommodate them at taxpayer expense. See also here.

7. Separation of Church and State is an essential principle of our nation’s founding…but a little bit of Sharia never hurt anyone.

8. Tolerance is an essential virtue, one that should be possessed by all in civilized society…well, unless…oh hell!

9. Pedophilia is abhorrent and those who commit acts of pedophilia should be shunned, prosecuted, disgraced or boycotted…well, unless they happen to be Mohammed…or Roman Polanski.

10. Slavery is terrible. So terrible in fact that we must frequently remind Americans that, hundreds of years ago, the founders of their nation held slaves…But if slavery is found to still exist somewhere today, condoned by Islamic law, it should be largely ignored. (But see here.)

*This post was inspired by Time’s Joe Klein, who recently said that the act of Koran burning by Terry Jones was as “murderous as any suicide bomber’s.”

[UPDATE: For an exception to the above generalizations, check out Bill Maher, in an excerpt from last week’s show.]

I just saw a report that the GOP is proposing a budget that would result in 5.8 trillion in cuts over a 10-year period. And this supposedly includes significant changes to Medicare and Medicaid. Why do politicians, whether Democrat or Republican, always report these cuts as occurring over a 10-year period? Maybe because they don’t want to admit that they’re cutting very little up front, and leaving the big cuts until later, when they’ll be repealed or overridden anyway?

Update 4/5: Paul Ryan published this piece today, saying their proposed budget would cut $6.2 trillion over the next ten years. And he even includes a nice little graph, comparing their budget to the status quo. Only problem is, so far as I can tell from the graph, the status quo and the proposed budget are identical for the next few years. And by that time, who knows what could happen! Am I wrong? I would love to be shown that I’m wrong and that finally we have politicians willing to propose significant cuts that take effect immediately.