It is Interesting

When liberals want to introduce the latest talking point into the conversation, they often start by saying, "It is interesting that..." I guess that is because they want to cast aspersions without thoroughly looking at all sides of an issue. For example, "It is interesting that we had a budget surplus under Bill Clinton but not under Ronald Reagan." They know they cannot support the conclusion that they want to imply, i.e. that Clinton benefited the economy.

Isn't it also interesting to hear government functionaries and the press attack the Reverend who is going to burn Korans after they just finished supporting the mosque at ground zero. It seems that the same statement that it is allowed under our constitution, though it may be unwise and insensitive applies to both actions. The argument is advanced by the left, with rare exceptions, for the mosque but not the Koran burner.

I suppose that the two proposals are materially distinguishable, but I do not need to go there. My issue and question is this: If the reverend agrees not to burn the Korans, what will the radical Muslims do in return? Stop blowing up Innocent people maybe? What about other, nonviolent Muslims, will they do anything about the radical killers in their midst? We could certainly use more vehemence from Muslims directed against those who murder in the name of their religion.