It’s not how they should be done in any religion, but sadly that just isn’t the world we live in.

Much has been written in recent days on the pickle “South Park” creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone put themselves in by depicting (or rather not depicting by dressing him in a bear costume) the prophet Mohammed in an episode of their popular cartoon series. By now, the absurdly over-the-top reaction of a New York-based jihadist group has been too ubiquitously documented to require reprise here.

Much of what I’ve seen in commentaries adopts the same point of view as an editorial in today’s New York Post titled “Cowardly Central.” The bottom line of the editorial is summed up in a single, closing sentence: “And until the West decides—culturally and collectively—not to take it any longer, it’s only going to get worse.”

The general point is hard to dispute. Behind it is the attitude—in a very real sense it was a warning—that we Americans conveyed in the days and weeks after 9/11 by flying the American flag and displaying posters showing Old Glory and carrying the legend “These colors don’t run.”

But there is an important distinction between that situation and this one. It is one thing to stand tall and hang tough as a nation. It is quite another to do the same when you as an individual have been singled out and have a bounty on your head.

Before you exception me your exceptions, understand: I agree with the general tenet that if you give the islamist cretins an inch, they’ll take a mile, and that we should not tolerate their threats, which are little more in the end than thinly veiled excuses to kill more of us “non-believers.” They certainly needed no provocation to wantonly murder 3,000 innocent Americans on 9/11, and we now know from another headline this morning that they will keep on trying with every last breath in their being.

That eventuality—a day when the last of these monstrous miscreants takes his last breath—is something to be devoutly wished for. But until it arrives, we need to do what it takes to survive—both en masse and as individuals. If that means we resist depicting their prophet, so be it. It’s a small sacrifice to make it if means living to fight another day.

It is a truism of survival that under threatening circumstances it is important first and foremost to keep you head. At this critical juncture in the lives of Trey Parker and Matt Stone, let us all pray that they are able to keep theirs.

Follow me on Twitter or join me at Facebook. You can also reach me at howard.portnoy@gmail.com or by posting a comment below.

Ironically, the topic of rubber rooms was addressed on Glenn Beck’s program yesterday, where he recounted some of the many outrages of a system that refuses to suspend teachers who are awaiting disciplinary hearings for misconduct. In some cases, the waits are measured in years and one or two have dragged on for decades. All the while, teachers earn full pay, which translates to $70,000 or more, for “playing Scrabble, reading or surfing the Internet.”

The Post reports that Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the city’s teachers’ union, which has long backed the arrangement, have reached an agreement that will have the centers close this coming fall.

Currently, rubber rooms are the daily haunt of more than 600 teachers accused of misconduct ranging from educational incompetence to sexual abuse. At a time when New York State is grappling with a $9 billion budget shortfall, news of this spectacular bureaucratic waste is particularly galling.

Under the new arrangement, teachers accused of lesser charges will now report to Department of Education administrative offices or schools to perform clerical duties. In addition, the city will hire more arbitrators and set a strict time limit on the length of investigations in order clear up the logjam in disciplinary hearings.

Now comes word of a bill proposed by State Assemblyman Felix Ortiz to ban the use of salt altogether. If passed, the measure—known as Bill A10129—would fine restaurants $1,000 every time they added salt to a dish.

The latest assault on personal freedoms is a reprise of Bloomberg’s earlier meddling but goes much further.

Ortiz claims his bill is designed to save lives. “It’s time for us to take a giant step,” he reportedly told The New York Daily News. “We need to talk about two ingredients of salt: health care costs and deaths.”

The paper offers a rebuttal, from no less a cooking authority than Tom Colicchio, who is quoted as saying, “New York City is considered the restaurant capital of the world. If they banned salt, nobody would come here anymore. Anybody who wants to taste food with no salt, go to a hospital and taste that.”

Here is a modest proposal for Assemblyman Ortiz. Why doesn’t he take the recommendation in his bill for a personal test drive for, say, six months or a year? If he’s satisfied that unsalted food is just as palatable as food with flavor, well—then he can continue having it that way. As for me, I’d like to be able to taste what I eat, whether Felix Ortiz thinks I should or not. How about you?

As Democrats close in on unilateral passage of the most sweeping piece of social legislation in a generation, their main defense in using ill-advised, if not criminal, tactics like the Slaughter rule and  nuclear option is that the Republicans did it. This mantra has also been picked up members of the mainstream media. It is nothing new for the current crop of Democrats and their minions in the press. The same argument was used to defend the misguided decision to try KSM and Company in a civilian court, before that idea was recognized as profoundly stupid and wisely bagged.

Then as now, of course, the Democrats are missing the point badly. Yes, terrorists were tried in civilian courts under the Bush administration, but that is only because the apparatus for trying them before military tribunals was still in the development stages. In the same vein, yes, Republicans have used seemingly underhanded tactics like reconciliation to force through their own agenda. But—big but—never for anything of the magnitude of the Obama health care initiative and never when public opposition was as intense and ubiquitous as it is currently.

But let’s suppose for the sake of argument that the Republicans had used the nuclear option to pass legislation that usupred a sixth of the economy, placing it in the hands of the federal government. How in the minds of Democrats does that justify repeating that mistake?

If the Democrats succeed in forcing their will on the American people in a (one hopes) futile attempt to salvage the Obama presidency—and it appears at this juncture that they might—the cost to them as a party and to current individual members will be staggering. Idaho Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter has already drawn a line in the sand, signing a measure requiring his attorney general to sue Congress if it passes health reforms that force residents to buy insurance. Similar legislation is pending in 37 other states. Republicans in Congress have been fairly up front in their plans to contest both the process and elements of the bill on the grounds of their dubious constitutionality.

In sum, Democrats run the risk not only of losing their control of the House but of passing into law a piece of legislation that will ultimately be repealed. The fact that its repeal will demand painfully long and Herculean efforts will only further enrage the American electorate and alienate them from the Democrats in the future.

I just wonder if somewhere in the ranks of the Democrats there isn’t a single adult who can function as surrogate parent and ask Pelosi, Reed, and the others what they hope to accomplish by following the Repbulicans over the side of the bridge.

I was able to endure exactly 11 minutes of the spectacle before my blood began to boil and I switched channels. So what did Bret and the president talk about? Nothing in the time I watched. Baier attempted to conduct an interview, and the great speechifier spent his time before the cameras talking over Baier, attempting to silence him, and stonewalling any time the questions cut ice—which was almost continuously.

When Baier challenged him on the crass machinations Congress is contemplating to pass health care by any means, which Obama himself decried back when he was a senator, Obama proudly displayed his Allinskyite pedigree, explaining that the ends in this case justify the means.

When Baier mentioned having received 18,000 emails from viewers anxious about the devious process underlying the House’s actions, Obama went into schoolyard-retort mode, noting that he receives lots of emails, too (nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah), all of them from people who are eating their left arm for dinner so they can pay for health insurance. Even if this were true, it misses the point badly. Then again, Obama long ago put the lie to the claims by various acolytes that he’s “scary smart.” Scary, no question. As to how bright he is, I’ll let you know after he completes grade 5 math, which will help him avoid making statements like the following, uttered Tuesday in Ohio: “Your employer, it’s estimated, would see premiums fall by as much as 3,000 percent, which means they could give you a raise.”

I do know that he’s contentious. After shouting Baier down repeatedly for asking legitimate questions that most Americans, let alone FOX viewers, would like answered, Obama had the temerity to tell Baier how frustrating he found the interview.

The biggest question of all was why he entered the lion’s den in the first place. Evidently, Obama still believes ironically that he is in possession of some gift—that he has the power to talk his way out of any mess. Tom Bevan at Real Clear Politics writes that Obama’s decision to do this interview was a mistake and that the president appeared to be “coming from a position of weakness and desperation, rather than strength and confidence.” Not terribly surprising, considering what an awful bill this is or what an awful president Obama is.

Follow me on Twitter or join me at Facebook. You can also reach me at howard.portnoy@gmail.com or b

I was able to endure exactly 11 minutes of the spectacle before my blood began to boil and I switched channels. So what did Bret and the president talk about? Nothing in the time I watched. Baier attempted to conduct an interview, and the great speechifier spent his time before the cameras talking over Baier, attempting to silence him, and stonewalling any time the questions cut ice—which was almost continuously.

When Baier challenged him on the crass machinations Congress is contemplating to pass health care by any means, which Obama himself decried back when he was a senator, Obama proudly displayed his Allinskyite pedigree, explaining that the ends in this case justify the means.

When Baier mentioned having received 18,000 emails from viewers anxious about the devious process underlying the House’s actions, Obama went into schoolyard-retort mode, noting that he receives lots of emails, too (nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah), all of them from people who are eating their left arm for dinner so they can pay for health insurance. Even if this were true, it misses the point badly. Then again, Obama long ago put the lie to the claims by various acolytes that he’s “scary smart.” Scary, no question. As to how bright he is, I’ll let you know after he completes grade 5 math, which will help him avoid making statements like the following, uttered Tuesday in Ohio: “Your employer, it’s estimated, would see premiums fall by as much as 3,000 percent, which means they could give you a raise.”

I do know that he’s contentious. After shouting Baier down repeatedly for asking legitimate questions that most Americans, let alone FOX viewers, would like answered, Obama had the temerity to tell Baier how frustrating he found the interview.

The biggest question of all was why he entered the lion’s den in the first place. Evidently, Obama still believes ironically that he is in possession of some gift—that he has the power to talk his way out of any mess. Tom Bevan at Real Clear Politics writes that Obama’s decision to do this interview was a mistake and that the president appeared to be “coming from a position of weakness and desperation, rather than strength and confidence.” Not terribly surprising, considering what an awful bill this is or what an awful president Obama is.

Follow me on Twitter or join me at Facebook. You can also reach me at howard.portnoy@gmail.com or b

He meant that when an arm needed to be twisted, he would take the owner of the arm for a ride on the fancy airplane that is on loan to him. (He does understand, I hope, that once the electorate drums him out of office he doesn’t get to keep Air Force One. Remember, this cretin not-likable person did have the word President embroidered into his seat on the plane he used during the 2008 campaign.)

The arm that needed twisting belonged to a fellow weasel, not-nice individual in stature as well as in statesmanship, Dennis Kucinich, who according to today’s New York Times will change his vote on the health care proposal before the House to aye. “I’ve decided to cast a vote in favor of the legislation,” Kucinich is quoted as saying, “and, man, is that one snazzy aeroplane the president got himself there!” (No, he didn’t actually say that last part. He kept it to himself.)

Kucinich reportedly added, “If my vote is to be counted, let it count now for passage of the bill, hopefully in the direction of comprehensive health care reform.” Those are some important words—if my vote is to be counted. The collection of liars and losers unattractive people that currently make up the majority party in Congress hasn’t decided which unethical tactic they’ll use to ram a hugely unpopular piece of legislation down Americans’ throats. They won’t need Kucinich’s vote if they resort to the Slaughter rule.

Before Barack Obama’s election, his wife promised that Obama would “never let you go back to your lives as usual.” And Alejandro Echevarria, principal of Broadway Elementary, seems hell-bent not only on keeping Michelle Obama’s threat but making it a reality from the tenderest ages on.

In case you were worried that enforced play at recess was free of charge—or as Obama himself is fond of saying, “won’t cost you [the taxpayers] a dime—the cost of the program is $23,500 a year.

And just how much are the little darlings at Broadway enjoying their newfound playground imprisonment? The article answers that question with a frank exchange between 11-year-old Esmeilyn Almendarez and 28-year-old Brandi Parker, the “recess coach with a whistle around her neck, corralling children behind bright orange cones to play organized games.”

Esmeilyn: I don’t like to play.

Brandi: Why do I have to go through this every day with you? There’s no choice.

What is Spanish for dolce far niente?

But surely some of the children like the new regime, right? Well, not Jose Salcedo, a fourth grader, who misses the old recess when “nobody would tell us what to do.” And not Khizeeq Murphy, aged 10, who used to enjoy just running and dribbling a basketball. Or Kazmir Payne, a second grader, who “wishes he could have his free time back.” At least Kazmir’s mother, Kizzy, is on board. She is quoted as saying “I think the more supervision, the better.”

Presumably, in the interests of fairmindedness, the article even goes so far as to cite a study from the journal Pediatrics which found that “children still benefit most from recess when they are let alone to daydream, solve problems, use their imagination to invent their own games and ‘be free to do what they choose to do.’”

Not to worry, though. Brandi Parker knows better. “These are the things that matter in life: who you are as a human being at the core,” the article quotes her as saying. Never too soon to take the weight of adult responsibility on your shoulders. Or put it on the shoulders of children in their formative years.

Raines’s rant against Roger Ailes and FOX, which appears in today’s Washington Post, is certain to come away with honors as the decade’s unintentionally funniest commentary on the state of the modern fifth estate. Just take this quote alone: “Through clever use of the Fox News Channel and its cadre of raucous commentators, Ailes has overturned standards of fairness and objectivity that have guided American print and broadcast journalists since World War II.”  Standards of fairness and objectivity? Raines couldn’t be more of a stranger to fairness and objectivity.

Raines’s disquisition on the alleged unfairness of FOX centers on one beef: its biased treatment of the current health care fiasco. In support of his claim, Raines relies on an unattributed quote he ascribes to FOX: “The American people do not want health-care reform.” Crack journalist that he is, Raines probably should name the FOX employee whom he is quoting, but remember—this is the man who gave the world Jayson Blair.

But never mind any of that. Raines, oblivious to blunt self-contradiction, shoots himself in the journalistic foot a paragraph later by noting “It is true that, after 14 months of Fox’s relentless pounding of President Obama’s idea of sweeping reform, the latest Gallup poll shows opinion running 48 to 45 percent against the current legislation.”

You have to hand it to the Washington Post for publishing this bit of self-righteous drivel and, in so doing, demonstrating that they are willing to hire, if only on a freelance basis, the handicapped.

The first came from Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who in a typically belligerent, typically high-handed fashion gave utterance to the lie that the American people can’t afford to have Congress start the process over because they’ve reached the last straw.  She went on to recite sob stories of voters who have written to her(!), claiming they are using food money to buy medicine they can’t otherwise afford. What Pelosi conveniently overlooked is that none of the legislation in the package her house passed will go into force before 2013.  By that time, the poor souls she was describing will have started devouring each other.

The next untruth came from Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, who insisted the root of the problem is the “vulturous” insurance companies, who prey on the public. I wonder if Rockefeller was listening when his fellow Senator Lamarr Alexander of Tennessee pointed out that the combined profits of the entire insurance industry would cover exactly two days of health care for the country out of 365. I wonder if any of the Democrats is aware that the health insurance industry’s profit margin is among the lowest of any current active industry.

But far and away the funniest line of the day had to be Obama himself admonishing John McCain that the time for campaigning is past. Lucky Obama didn’t add that the time for exaggeration and egotism are past, which probably would drawn lightning bolts to Blair House.

Obama, who had the floor more than all the representatives of either party combined, concluded the side show by throwing up his hands and saying we can’t afford “baby steps,” adding that in a few weeks the final determination on the bill will be made. His final words were “That’s what elections are for.”

Precisely, Mr. President. You want to start cleaning out your desk now, or do you need the weekend?