<< MAZDA LIKED ~ MAIN ~ WE WANT MONKEY CYCLING >>

NEW RULES IN PLACE

Muslim taxi drivers at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport are refusing service to passengers carrying alcohol:

Flight attendant Eva Buzek said she was refused service in March after she told a driver to be careful with her suitcase because it had wine in it. Other drivers in the taxi line passed the word, she said, and four more refused her service. A dispatcher finally steered her to a driver who would take the fare.

Buzek, who grew up in Poland, said her treatment goes against American values. “I came to this country and I didn’t expect anybody to adjust to my needs,” she said. “I don’t want to impose my beliefs on anyone else. That’s why I’m in this country, because of the freedom.”

“What’s going to be next? ... Do I have to cover my head?”

Well, yes. In time.

Posted by Tim B. on 09/30/2006 at 03:53 AM
  1. So, if they live in the land of free then surely the Muslim drivers have the right to pick and choose their customers, as a free market would allow? Seem like a restriction on their liberty that they have to pick up every passenger they come across.

    Posted by Kalli on 2006 09 30 at 04:16 AM • permalink

  2. They probably take you the long way home too, so they can avoid driving past the bottle shops…

    Posted by anthony_r on 2006 09 30 at 04:30 AM • permalink

  3. I think these are the problems you get when the state limits the number of taxi drivers.

    Posted by drscroogemcduck on 2006 09 30 at 04:35 AM • permalink

  4. Back in 1994, this prick taxi driver refused to take me from Melbourne Airpirt to a nearby suburb because he’d waited at the airport taxi queue for two hours and wanted a longer fare to make it worthwhile.

    So I had the airport taxi rank supervisor send the prick on his way without taking any fare.

    Then I reported him to his taxi company and they took him off the air - no more radio calls that night.

    And then I reported him to the state government and found out that what he did could incur a maximum fine of $1,500. I formalised my report, but never found out if the fine was in fact levied.

    Fuck him.

    Posted by Oafish and Infantile on 2006 09 30 at 04:48 AM • permalink

  5. But if we don’t get in their taxi because we think they are muslims, they will get offended and likely turn to terrorism.  At least that’s CAIR’s take on any anti-muslim backlash.  So what’s a alcohol-carrying passenger to do?  Try this.  Carve the middle out of a Koran, and hide your bottle in that.

    Posted by Diggs on 2006 09 30 at 04:51 AM • permalink

  6. I wonder if they’ll refuse to even drive their taxis if there is only ethanol-blended petrol available?

    Perhaps another reason to mandate 10% ethanol in all petrol?

    Posted by TOGITV on 2006 09 30 at 05:09 AM • permalink

  7. It’s not hard to fix.  Just lift their license.

    What will be left is drivers who will take all fares.

    Problem solved.

    Posted by rhhardin on 2006 09 30 at 05:26 AM • permalink

  8. If it weren’t for alcohol, how much business would taxi drivers do anyway?

    Posted by Dan Lewis on 2006 09 30 at 05:30 AM • permalink

  9. Now the airports commission has a solution: color-coding the lights on the taxi roofs to indicate whether a driver will accept a booze-toting fare.

    I have a better solution.

    Posted by slammer on 2006 09 30 at 05:55 AM • permalink

  10. Why are the religious prohibitions of muslims being imposed upon everyone else in society? When are we going to stop eating beef to make Hindus feel more comfortable?

    I’m pretty sure this stems from the ‘consumption of alcohol is haram’, which has been interpreted as not to have anything to do with any alocohol.

    Childish idiots.

    Posted by kae on 2006 09 30 at 06:23 AM • permalink

  11. Do they refuse to carry honor killers?
    Genital Mutilators?
    Women Not Accompanied By a Male Relative?

    Posted by blogstrop on 2006 09 30 at 06:25 AM • permalink

  12. Its the land of free.  They should be able to pick and choose their passengers as they please.  More harm to them (unless, of course, like here in Melbourne they get murdered by drunks/drug addicts now and then) if they exclude potential passengers. Dan Lewis (8) has a point in that respect, so to say they are imposing their values on everyone in a very Christian country is kinda strange.

    Posted by Kalli on 2006 09 30 at 06:33 AM • permalink

  13. #4.

    That poor, poor taxi driver. Your behavior towards hium was oafish and infantile.

    Oh, wait…

    MarkL
    Canberra

    Posted by MarkL on 2006 09 30 at 06:35 AM • permalink

  14. This type of discrimination is not new.

    In Oslo, militant Muslim Taxi drivers have also refused to carry blind people as their ideology doesn’t like dogs.

    Posted by Dan Lewis on 2006 09 30 at 07:06 AM • permalink

  15. #12 They license taxis to guarantee a standard service when you hail one ; otherwise you’re left with hitchhiking.

    If you don’t want to meet the standards, find some other line of work.

    Posted by rhhardin on 2006 09 30 at 07:07 AM • permalink

  16. #12 Kalli:

    Its the land of free.  They should be able to pick and choose their passengers as they please.

    How far are you allowed to take this? Could a cab driver refuse to take someone because they’re muslim?  Or how about black?  Or a woman?  Or is it just muslims who get to choose?  Why limit this right to cabs?  How about restaurants?  Could they choose to service just muslim customers? whites?

    I believe in the free market and all that, but it seems to me like an awfully slippery slope…

    Posted by Not My Problem on 2006 09 30 at 07:12 AM • permalink

  17. Really?  Is a taxi driver required to pick up a drunken passenger at night?

    If so then its a rule widely flaunted. 

    And I should know…I’ve had to walk home more than once.  And I’m Anglo, and so were many of the drivers who refused me.

    Posted by Kalli on 2006 09 30 at 07:16 AM • permalink

  18. #16 Not My problem.

    Most discrimination in the US is against non-whites, so your question seems odd.

    Posted by Kalli on 2006 09 30 at 07:20 AM • permalink

  19. #17

    I think you need to draw a distinction between drivers refusing a potentially dangerous (or vomitous) drunk versus refusing a well-dressed sober woman as she is carrying a case of wine or an unopened bottle.

    Posted by Dan Lewis on 2006 09 30 at 07:20 AM • permalink

  20. # 19 well-dressed sober woman

    Where is the evidence for that?

    Posted by Kalli on 2006 09 30 at 07:23 AM • permalink

  21. In Oslo, militant Muslim Taxi drivers have also refused to carry blind people as their ideology doesn’t like dogs.

    I’d prefer a “Seeing-Eye Tiger” anyway…

    Posted by AlburyShifton on 2006 09 30 at 07:24 AM • permalink

  22. More business for the drivers who don’t mind. I’m sure they’re ok with it.

    Posted by bongoman on 2006 09 30 at 07:26 AM • permalink

  23. #20

    Where is the evidence for that?

    Perhaps I’ve misunderstood what you are looking for, but from the article:

    Flight attendant Eva Buzek said she was refused service in March after she told a driver to be careful with her suitcase because it had wine in it.

    Now I’m just guessing here, but I’ve never seen a poorly dressed flight attendant at an airport. Not exactly a pissed pubgoer. I think the story speaks for itself, and the cursory Google I’ve just done has led me to numerous well-cited examples such problems. I have also learnt that miniature horses can replace guide-dogs and these seem to be allowed in cabs.

    Posted by Dan Lewis on 2006 09 30 at 07:29 AM • permalink

  24. #22 I agree, its supposed to be a free market, after all.

    Posted by Kalli on 2006 09 30 at 07:30 AM • permalink

  25. #20
    I would imagine if she had just arrived at a US airport she would need to be well dressed and definintely sober, or the airline would not have carried her.

    so to say they are imposing their values on everyone in a very Christian country is kinda strange.

    But they are. These impositions are impacting on other members of society.

    Re #16 and your reply of

    Most discrimination in the US is against non-whites, so your question seems odd.

    Nothing odd about Not My Problem’s question. Where do you draw the line on refusing to serve/provide a service to a particular type of person? It’s NOT ok to discriminate against people because of their race or colour.

    Posted by kae on 2006 09 30 at 07:33 AM • permalink

  26. hmmm, wronwright, when you (drunkenly)  said you were going out to the shops in the tardis to pick up some bacon the other night, did you by any chance leave anything behind?

    Pig’s head dumped outside mosque at start of Ramadan

    Posted by Art Vandelay on 2006 09 30 at 07:35 AM • permalink

  27. Kalli you are a jerk. Fuck off.

    Posted by blogstrop on 2006 09 30 at 07:43 AM • permalink

  28. #20
    I would imagine if she had just arrived at a US airport she would need to be well dressed and definintely sober, or the airline would not have carried her.so to say they are imposing their values on everyone in a very Christian country is kinda strange.
    But they are. These impositions are impacting on other members of society.

    Well, i guess that’s the price of freedom of religion and expression, I mean surely she could have got another cab?
    And don’t the taxi drivers lose out from not getting her fare?

    Re #16 and your reply of

    Most discrimination in the US is against non-whites, so your question seems odd.
    Nothing odd about Not My Problem’s question. Where do you draw the line on refusing to serve/provide a service to a particular type of person? It’s NOT ok to discriminate against people because of their race or colour.

    I’m not discriminating against anyone. No, its not ok to discriminate against people because of their race or colour.  Actually, which is why the entire rationale behind posting the story is strange in the first palce, given most discrimination in the US is against non-whites.

    Posted by Kalli on 2006 09 30 at 07:44 AM • permalink

  29. #27 Kalli you are a jerk. Fuck off.

    Charming…

    Posted by Kalli on 2006 09 30 at 07:50 AM • permalink

  30. ...and you forgot to close the italics tag… It’s going to take hours to clean this mess up.

    Posted by Dan Lewis on 2006 09 30 at 07:54 AM • permalink

  31. #28

    I’m not discriminating against anyone. No, its not ok to discriminate against people because of their race or colour.  Actually, which is why the entire rationale behind posting the story is strange in the first palce, given most discrimination in the US is against non-whites.

    What is your point? Are you saying it’s OK for a muslim to discriminate against a person wishing to carry alcohol in their taxi? The point of the post is that it isn’t OK. Would it have been more noteworthy in your opinion if some white taxi driver had refused to carry a black person/asian/orange person/presbyterian because, as you seem to think, discrimination by whites against other minorities is the usual discrimination in the US?

    Posted by kae on 2006 09 30 at 07:54 AM • permalink

  32. italics off

    Posted by kae on 2006 09 30 at 07:55 AM • permalink

  33. aarrgh

    Posted by kae on 2006 09 30 at 07:56 AM • permalink

  34. woohoo

    I did it!

    Posted by kae on 2006 09 30 at 07:57 AM • permalink

  35. I did it!

    How?

    Posted by Dan Lewis on 2006 09 30 at 08:01 AM • permalink

  36. #31 Hey this italics thing is tricky eh?

    I reckon its unfortunate that people let their religous ideas determine their behaviour, like banning alcohol from taxis…‘cos as far as I can see its going to hurt the taxi driver more than the fare who can most likely get another cab.

    But yeah, for sure discrimination by whites against other minorities is the usual discrimination in the US.

    Posted by Kalli on 2006 09 30 at 08:02 AM • permalink

  37. secret wimmins business….

    typed in the growl then italicised it
    then got rid of the first bit of the code and cut and pasted the growl after…

    clear as mud, ay?

    Posted by kae on 2006 09 30 at 08:08 AM • permalink

  38. Oh, Kalli, Kalli, Kalli.  You tipsy Anglo you. 

    What in God’s name is your point?  Seems to me you instinctively came to the defence of a practice which, when given further thought, you seem to find unacceptable.

    #27 Kalli you are a jerk. Fuck off.

    Charming…

    Hey, everyone!  We might have another Nigel here!

    Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 09 30 at 08:11 AM • permalink

  39. But yeah, for sure discrimination by whites against other minorities is the usual discrimination in the US.

    No shit, Sherlock?

    I’d be pretty pissed coming home with a heavy suitcase and then having to find a taxi to carry me because I had alcohol in my suitcase. Sometimes there aren’t that many taxis hanging around at the airport.

    It’s still discrimination. And heaven knows, the muzzies know all about discrimination, they’ve been victims of it all over the place for ever, poor things.  Especially the violent backlash resulting from terrorist bombings and and those terrible cartoons.

    Posted by kae on 2006 09 30 at 08:13 AM • permalink

  40. Let these bastards starve.

    Posted by harryc on 2006 09 30 at 08:14 AM • permalink

  41. Well maybe I’m not expressing myself too well?

    My point is that the Muslim taxi drivers have the right (as far as I can tell, under the freedom of religion clause in the US constitution) to choose thier customers as they want.  But I also think its probably detrimental to their economic wellbeing (they get less fares).  Which I guess is just another way of saying that religion can be a hindrance…like those full-on Christians in the US who believe in Creationsim (or Intelligent Design, same thing).

    So, yeah the Muslim taxi drivers are discriminating but its like a drop in the ocean compared to all the discrimination that goes on in the US, mostly by whites, against minorities.

    Posted by Kalli on 2006 09 30 at 08:19 AM • permalink

  42. #36 I cant stand muslims anyway and i wouldnt dream of giving my money to a dumb raghead who doesent like what i have in my duty free bag.

    Also i think a lot of people on the tubes and buses in the UK didnt like what muslim trash had in their bags on the 7th July 2005, not that they got a choice.

    My advice to muslims is if you dont like the country, its people or its customs, FUCK OFF!.

    Posted by phillip on 2006 09 30 at 08:19 AM • permalink

  43. # 39. It’s still discrimination. And heaven knows, the muzzies know all about discrimination, they’ve been victims of it all over the place for ever, poor things.  Especially the violent backlash resulting from terrorist bombings and and those terrible cartoons.

    Well, there were the crusades.  But that was a long time ago.  But in more recent times the British, French, US and Israeli governments have been messing around in the Middle East which would affect mostly Muslim people.

    Hey, the thing about the cartoons was…I was thinking, would a major newspaper in Europe (especially France, Italy and Spain) have published a cartoon of Jesus buggering an altar-boy?  B/c that’s the main reason the Catholic church gets in trouble, like the main reason Islam gets in trouble is b/c of supposed links to terrorism?

    Posted by Kalli on 2006 09 30 at 08:30 AM • permalink

  44. Kalli

    So youd be fine with a white supremacist taxi driver leaving a black passenger behind then? And the cab company installing lights on “blacks only” taxis?
    Your arguement is muddled, foolish, untenable, lacking logic and bordering troll in its stupidity. Go and read what you wrote and change nationalities /race/forbidden items, and see if you can defend it.


    38.
    “Hey, everyone!  We might have another Nigel here!”

    Niiiiiigellll swarm!!!!!!!

    Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2006 09 30 at 08:31 AM • permalink

  45. Does this mean that if I come out of the terminal at Mascot carrying a bag of duty-free booze, I can walk down the taxy line until I find a driver who can speak English?

    Posted by Skeeter on 2006 09 30 at 08:31 AM • permalink

  46. #26 I saw that, Art. Looks like ramadam is popular over in Perth, also.

    I try hard, but I just can’t find any compassion in me for muslims who are eternally bleating and seething.

    With regards to the taxi-drivers refusing to take fares on the basis of grog in the case, that would surely constitute a breach of their licensing regs.

    If they are so devout that they can’t even have alcohol in the boot of the car, then what the fark are they doing in the job? They should be back in the mosque praying that someone will shout them a ticket back to the craphole they came from.

    That is imposing their belief system on the majority, and that is unacceptable, and it is being done purely to test the limits and find ever more chinks in western armour.

    Mind you, that armour looks mighty like tinfoil to me.

    Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2006 09 30 at 08:33 AM • permalink

  47. #43 Kalli
    Hey, the thing about the cartoons was…I was thinking, would a major newspaper in Europe (especially France, Italy and Spain) have published a cartoon of Jesus buggering an altar-boy?  B/c that’s the main reason the Catholic church gets in trouble, like the main reason Islam gets in trouble is b/c of supposed links to terrorism?

    My first reaction on reading this was that you were gradually peeling the layers away and we shall shortly see you in a glorious “The people in the World Trade Centre got what they deserved…” type of situation.

    But no.  On a second read I figure you must be pissed (pretty funny, considering the subject here) as you jump from one incoherant thought to another.

    And as for European papers publishing cartoons of the type you are after, er sorry, the type you describe… OF COURSE THEY WOULD - and have published ones a lot more offensive.  But there weren’t any murders or riots by ‘offended’ Catholics, so you probably didn’t notice.  Only ‘the religion of peace’ seems to automatically react with murderous violence when ‘offence’ is deemed.

    Fuckwit.

    Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 09 30 at 08:40 AM • permalink

  48. Kalli

    It’s not because of supposed links with terrorism.

    There’s a whole shitload of stuff that most sane people have a problem with which is linked with Islam and it’s record of, misogyny, victimhood, invasion and murder. It’s a death cult.

    They’d rather be dead. And they want us dead too.

    And looking at how they, er, enjoy themselves while they are alive, I’m not surprised that they’d rather be dead.

    They don’t value life, not even their own.

    Crusades? I’m talking about now, the 21st century.

    The presence of the military of the west in the Middle East really has no bearing on mussies being angry. They hate everyone. They hate the west, and they hate muslims who aren’t muslim enough for them.

    Did you get fed how to think your information at school?

    By the way, much of what passes for humour/cartoons in the ME are offensive to Christians and Jews, but I don’t hear of any Christians and Jews rioting, pillaging, plundering and murdering because God or Jesus (or anyone) is offended.

    Go to bed, Kalli, I think it’s past your bedtime.

    Posted by kae on 2006 09 30 at 08:52 AM • permalink

  49. My point is that the Muslim taxi drivers have the right (as far as I can tell, under the freedom of religion clause in the US constitution) to choose thier customers as they want.

    Actually, given the requirements of the license they operate under, they may not have that right. If the requirements of their job offend them, then they can find another line of work.

    You don’t find too many strict Baptist bartenders, for example. Or Jewish barbecue pit operators. Or pacifist generals. Or…

    Posted by Rob Crawford on 2006 09 30 at 08:57 AM • permalink

  50. #45 Skeeter

    Does this mean that if I come out of the terminal at Mascot carrying a bag of duty-free booze, I can walk down the taxy line until I find a driver who can speak English?

    Depends on how long the line is and how far from the airport you live (ie. you might have to walk home…).

    Posted by kae on 2006 09 30 at 08:59 AM • permalink

  51. #49 Rob
    Like your point, but I think Kalli has gorn to bed.

    Posted by kae on 2006 09 30 at 09:01 AM • permalink

  52. No religious sect of the present age demands so much of others, so little of itself.
    Victor Davis Hanson

    Just repeat this.

    Posted by JoeJr on 2006 09 30 at 09:03 AM • permalink

  53. Exactly, Rob!  It is not, strictly speaking, a free market.  The government limits the number of cabs and requires them to buy a permit, among other restrictions, and it also limits the amount that they can charge.  There are distortions in the market.

    Kalli:  I can’t believe I am actually answering since you aren’t making any sense, but here goes:  Nothing in my comment suggests that the majority of discrimination is against whites.  It is partly because your line of thinking would allow discrimination against minorities that it should be a problem.  If all establishments were allowed to discriminate in the way you want to allow it, the ones on the losing end of that proposition would be, among others, muslims.

    Posted by Not My Problem on 2006 09 30 at 09:09 AM • permalink

  54. Some kiddy fiddlers who are Muslims just for our new pet nigel.
    This crime isnt the preserve of a few bad catholics you silly chap.
    The 3rd is worth a read, a site by muslim women complaining about their treatment. Should be sent to every lefty who tries the moral equivelance line.

    http://tinyurl.com/zkan8
    http://tinyurl.com/jfbw2
    http://tinyurl.com/fwfkt

    That from a quick google.

    Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2006 09 30 at 09:11 AM • permalink

  55. A case has been commenced in an Australian state against a taxi driver of middle eastern origin who refused to carry a blind passenger and his guide dog (against the law in Oz to refuse to carry the dog-even on buses,planes etc).
    Said taxi drove off with the blind person’s head and shoulders still in the window of the car,unfortunately for driver,another person in the queue took the license number.
    Also the would be passenger was the head of a “lobby” group for blind persons.

    Posted by crash on 2006 09 30 at 09:20 AM • permalink

  56. #49, excellent point.  Cab companies may not be classed precisely as common carriers, but in states which tightly restrict hack licenses they may be pretty close to that, and common carriers by definition don’t get to pick and choose their customers.  If these guys don’t want to pick up customers carrying alcohol, they shouldn’t be allowed the privilege of queuing for the higher fares generally available at airports.

    Posted by Celaeno on 2006 09 30 at 09:21 AM • permalink

  57. “My point is that the Muslim taxi drivers have the right (as far as I can tell, under the freedom of religion clause in the US constitution) to choose thier customers as they want.”

    No, they don’t. Businesses are forbidden under US law to discriminate against potential customers by reason of race, religion, or sex. There are well-defined exceptions, mostly conscience clauses (e.g., Catholic hospitals are not compelled to perform abortions), but these involve actions to be performed, not people to be served.

    I’m not familiar with the Minneapolis ordinances on cab drivers, but in most cities, cab drivers are licensed - in part, to limit the number of cabs, and so keep fares up, and in part to ensure that people who hail a cab are going to get a ride from a driver who is reasonably competent, in a vehicle that is reasonably well maintained. (I know, I know, but that’s the idea.) In return, a cab driver agrees to take anyone anywhere, apart from people who present an obvious danger. We all know exceptions to that; but the fact is that a cabbie who refuses to take a fare for a reason other than the ones I cited above can lose his license, and should.

    With regard to your examples of anti-black discrimination, are you saying that because blacks are discriminated against, that a white woman who encounters that should shut the fuck up? Are you saying that every instance of discrimination must be scored against your race’s balance sheet, and you get to complain only if your group is more discriminated against than discriminating? Bullshit! We are, each of us, free individuals, who should be treated as such. Your racial score-keeping is the antithesis of democracy.

    You are right in the sense that the cabbies are perfectly free to discriminate if they so choose. But no one is free to evade the consequences of their actions; and the case of these cabbies, that consequence should be that they lose their licenses.

    Posted by Urbs in Horto on 2006 09 30 at 09:21 AM • permalink

  58. Hey, I just met Wayne Carey!

    Btw, who is Nigel?

    #47. Oh, seriously, do you really think major papers in those countries would publish a cartoon with Jesus molesting an altar boy?  Are you serious?

    He, as for the ‘religion of peace’, what about Protestantand Catholicterrorists in Nothern Ireland.  The Basques are also Catholic I presume?

    Posted by Kalli on 2006 09 30 at 10:03 AM • permalink

  59. #57 There are well-defined exceptions, mostly conscience clauses (e.g., Catholic hospitals are not compelled to perform abortions), but these involve actions to be performed, not people to be served.

    I can’t really see the difference here. The woman seeking the abortion at the clinic is a customer to be served, yeah?

    Posted by Kalli on 2006 09 30 at 10:06 AM • permalink

  60. #57 With regard to your examples of anti-black discrimination, are you saying that because blacks are discriminated against, that a white woman who encounters that should shut the fuck up? Are you saying that every instance of discrimination must be scored against your race’s balance sheet, and you get to complain only if your group is more discriminated against than discriminating? Bullshit! We are, each of us, free individuals, who should be treated as such. Your racial score-keeping is the antithesis of democracy.

    But we ain’t all free individuals.  Especially if we are systematically discriminated against, like minorities in the US.

    Posted by Kalli on 2006 09 30 at 10:14 AM • permalink

  61. Oh, seriously, do you really think major papers in those countries would publish a cartoon with Jesus molesting an altar boy?  Are you serious?

    Yes. They would.

    Are you that poorly exposed to current events?

    I can’t really see the difference here. The woman seeking the abortion at the clinic is a customer to be served, yeah?

    The act of driving someone from point A to point B is no different if the person is carrying a bottle of wine than if they’ve never taken a drink in their life.

    The act of providing an abortion is the issue in that case, not the identity of the person seeking one.

    And, again, I suspect the requirements of a taxi license are to carry anyone who is not a danger, and “danger” wouldn’t include spiritual danger. Otherwise, you’re arguing that it would be acceptable for someone to refuse service to a homosexual for religious reasons.

    Posted by Rob Crawford on 2006 09 30 at 10:18 AM • permalink

  62. But we ain’t all free individuals.  Especially if we are systematically discriminated against, like minorities in the US.

    How does that excuse people refusing service for discriminatory reasons? Again, if they are unwilling to perform the job, they should find another line of work. They should not receive special dispensation that no other person would receive.

    Do you believe Muslim taxi drivers should also be allowed to refuse to carry homosexual passengers? Or Jewish passengers?

    Or are you holding the perfect—complete absence of any discrimination—the enemy of the good—the elimination of blatantly illegal discrimination which the disciminators legally bound themselves not to commit?

    Posted by Rob Crawford on 2006 09 30 at 10:23 AM • permalink

  63. #61. Let’s get this straight,... a cartoon in like, Corriere della Sera, or La Stampa,...featuring a cartoon of Jesus…sodimising an altar boy?

    Do you reckon though the Muslim taxi driver who refuses to carry the passenger is incurring the cost of the fare?

    isn’t the act of providing the abortion the determined by the person, i.e too young, too far advanced in their pregnancy etc…the abortionist and taxi driver are both servicing a customer, no?

    Posted by Kalli on 2006 09 30 at 10:49 AM • permalink

  64. #62. Most institutions in the US I would are legally bound not to discriminate.  Vut that doesn’t meant they don’t.

    Posted by Kalli on 2006 09 30 at 10:52 AM • permalink

  65. Hmmmm.

    I’m planning on calling the commission on Monday and telling them precisely what I think of that.  Then I’m going to call the goddamn Gov of that state and give him whatfor.

    And if I ever encounter any crap like that anywhere in the USA I’m damn well going to off on them like a nuclear bomb.

    Posted by memomachine on 2006 09 30 at 10:55 AM • permalink

  66. If the taxi business is regulated, then the regulators owe the public free access to transportation.  If I were that Polish lady, I would sue.

    Posted by Patricia on 2006 09 30 at 10:55 AM • permalink

  67. Hmmm.

    Or better yet stand there by the curbside and give a free cold and frosty beer to anyone getting into a muslim driven cab.

    That oughta fry someone’s ass.

    Posted by memomachine on 2006 09 30 at 10:57 AM • permalink

  68. Kalli, while I think some of the reaction of people here to your comments are uncalled for, you are starting to become irritating. You seem intent on picking fights with people, which is standard troll behavior. As you are bothering the people here, I suggest you find something else to do for a while.

    As for the subject of this post, the Muslim taxi drivers may or may not have been acting in concordance with their company policy as well as city statutes (or whatever municipality has jurisdiction over taxi drivers). Some companies have the policy that drivers can refuse fares for any reason as long as it does not circumvent anti-discrimination laws. However, they are probably not allowed to write their own rules as to whom they prefer to transport, and if I were the company employing them these drivers would shortly be looking for some other place to work. (Personally, I rarely take taxis anywhere, as it sets off any number of inner warnings, such as my dislike of social contacts, and the don’t-get-into-cars-with-strangers rule that was drilled into me from childhood. Also, taxis cost the earth in my part of the world.)

    Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 09 30 at 11:07 AM • permalink

  69. This crap has been building since the 60’s and 70’s and finally has come to fruitation, with the election of gutless, money hungry politicians, around the western world, who will sell their souls for the ‘power trip’.
    Political Correctness, Dhimmitude surrender attitude in Western Countries, with their immigration policies have reaped the harvest.
    So, it does not surprise me, that some muslim hack driver is dictating to a non muslim women customer, in a majority Judeo Christian nation.
    After all, he probably thinks, that we are well on the way to Dhimmitude status, whether in the USA, Europe or Australia.
    She should have told him, that he is in the USA, not bloody France.

    Posted by BJM on 2006 09 30 at 11:18 AM • permalink

  70. 68. Kalli, while I think some of the reaction of people here to your comments are uncalled for, you are starting to become irritating. You seem intent on picking fights with people, which is standard troll behavior.

    Hi Andrea,
          i didn’t mean to pick a fight with anyone really, i just felt like I had to stick up for my original comment (that started the discussion).

    As you are bothering the people here, I suggest you find something else to do for a while.

    Well, yeah, I was just trying to make my point and all these people went mental at me including this blogger (#27 Blogstrop “Kalli you are a jerk. Fuck off.”!

    So, yeah, I guess its bedtime, eh?

    Posted by Kalli on 2006 09 30 at 11:18 AM • permalink

  71. A Joke that kind of ties some ideas here together:

    These two women are out walking their dogs when they decide to head for a drink. When they arrive at the pub, a sign informs them that dogs are not allowed in the bar unless they are “Seeing Eye” dogs.

    Thinking quickly, one lady tells the other to pretend to be blind and they walk in.

    The bartender shouts, “No dogs allowed!” The women respond, “We’re blind and these are our guide dogs.”

    The bartender is skeptical and asks, “A Bichon and a Chihuahua are your guide dogs?”

    One woman looks stunned then angry and says, “A Chihuahua!?! Those fucking assholes!!!!

    Posted by JDB on 2006 09 30 at 11:38 AM • permalink

  72. In all fairness, the taxi drivers had the right to refuse service. If they don’t want her money, that’s their damn problem.

    Posted by Korgmeister on 2006 09 30 at 11:49 AM • permalink

  73. Kalli,

    I fly in and out of the Minneapolis airport each week, and take a taxi home each time.

      The airport commission provides a special, sheltered loading zone for taxis and a dispatcher to direct passengers to them. For this, I pay an extra $3 per trip. And as someone else noted, fares from the airport tend to be higher due to longer distances.
      If I’m being charged directly and indirectly for the service provided to the taxi drivers, they had better be ready to transport me, as long as I do not pose a threat to them, carry anything illegal, or am a public nuisance.

    On occasion, especially in bad weather causing flight delays, there is a wait for taxis. I’ve waited 20 minutes.
      So- sometimes, waiting for the sixth driver to show up is not a practical option.

      If a driver ever refuses to carry me because of the legal contents of my suitcase, I will file a report with the airport and I will do my damnedest to have the taxi company barred from airport-sponsored pick-ups.

    Posted by D F Eyres on 2006 09 30 at 11:58 AM • permalink

  74. korgmeister,
    She mentioned that she had alcohol in her luggage, NOT drinking it. Since when does warning a cab driver of your bag content, deny you right of service. THAT IS OUR PROBLEM! with these muslim service providers. Their dictats to our society.

    Posted by BJM on 2006 09 30 at 12:00 PM • permalink

  75. isn’t the act of providing the abortion the determined by the person, i.e too young, too far advanced in their pregnancy etc…the abortionist and taxi driver are both servicing a customer, no?

    If the taxi driver refused to drive anyone, that would be a valid point. See, Catholic hospitals won’t provide abortions to anyone; they don’t discriminate against the person but against the act. See the difference?

    Closest equivalent I can think of is if the taxi driver said “sorry, I don’t drive to that part of town”.

    *shrug*

    The solution is simple—once they come up with the color of taxi light that says “Muslim bigot driving”, people should refuse to take those cabs. And they should call the cab companies to let them know why they’re not getting their business.

    Posted by Rob Crawford on 2006 09 30 at 12:10 PM • permalink

  76. I’m betting Kalli is a European grad student, currently studying in the US, who trumpets American “racism” at every opportunity in order to establish herself as a non-American and thus superior being.

    I met many of these persons in grad school.  Therefore, I took care to study their own countries’ racism, and would toss the “racist” ball right back to them.  Belgian Congo, anyone?

    If I must risk my life and sanity by taking a taxi, the demented SOB driving it had better take me where I wish to go, regardless of what may be in my luggage.  That is the very definition of his lunatic job.

    Posted by ushie on 2006 09 30 at 12:20 PM • permalink

  77. There has been some speculation as to the actual rules that govern taxi drivers at this particular airport. Here is the law: Ordinance 102. It’s in .pdf format, so I couldn’t cut and paste. See Pages 23 and 24.

    Posted by ErnieG on 2006 09 30 at 12:21 PM • permalink

  78. Should a New York cabbie be permitted to decline a fare to a dangerous section of the city knowing that, in addition to putting himself at risk, he has little chance of getting a fare back downtown? Should the Catholic church and its charities be permitted to refuse to cover birth control, abortion and sterilization in its health care insurance programs? Should the Baptist pharmacist be permitted to refuse to dispense the “morning after” pill?

    Last time I was in Chicago, a cab driver of “Middle Eastern appearance” took us to the airport. Beginning his tirade with the announcement that Jews are no longer the largest religious minority in Chicago, Muslims are, he continued in that vein for most of the trip. We chose to ignore him. Once we had safely arrived and our belongings were back in our possession, I handed him his fare and explained loudly and in detail exactly why he would get no tip (and that I was going to report him to the cab company which I never actually got around to doing). He was practically purple by the time I was done, but I felt a little better.

    Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2006 09 30 at 12:26 PM • permalink

  79. If it was up to me, individuals and NGOs would have the full freedom to discriminate for any reasons they chose.

    If some bigot taxi driver wanted to refuse me service because he doesn’t like guys with long hair, he could.

    That’s the price of freedom.

    Posted by Dave Surls on 2006 09 30 at 12:30 PM • permalink

  80. “And i’m anglo,and so were many of the drivers who refused me”.

         
    you are not “anglo” nige.

    Posted by wombatant63 on 2006 09 30 at 12:41 PM • permalink

  81. For future reference, ErnieG, you can copy/paste from a pdf. Use “Select Text” in the toolbar.

    Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2006 09 30 at 12:50 PM • permalink

  82. Amen, Dave Surls.

    Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2006 09 30 at 12:52 PM • permalink

  83. #4. Re prick taxi driver.
    Ar Malburn Airpit, a similar place to yours,Oafish, the solution is to rise to a higher place.

    You ascend a heavenly staircase to a different world called Arrivals, where a steady stream of taxis kindly chuck out their passengers for you, they are so nice. Also they don’t mind short fares because their previous passengers pay them. They still all speak Arabic and are called Moumoud or Imran though, but not Oafish at all, and smile when you get in the cab.

    Posted by The Young Contrarian on 2006 09 30 at 12:59 PM • permalink

  84. I’d think an anglo saxon, australian would refer to the latter rather than former in describing himself, an american i would assume would say much the same “i’m an american first and foremost”.       
      The term anglo seems to indicate to me you are a liar and as such your arguments have no legs ,or your are a fascist white supremist supporting your bound in common jew hatred arab pals.nige.

    Posted by wombatant63 on 2006 09 30 at 01:05 PM • permalink

  85. I guess that means no muslim can be an ambulance driver, not with them being so devout and all.
    allah be fucking praised and all that shit.

    Posted by phillip on 2006 09 30 at 01:07 PM • permalink

  86. The main objection I have to kalli’s post is the continual mis-presentation of First Amendment Rights.  She(?) sounds like she never had (or maybe understood) a decent undergraduate coures on American Government.

    The First is not a total license to do or say as one pleases.  We have restrained religious beliefs in many cases, going back Constitutionally (i.e. SCOTUS decisions) to at least the 1930s, and in various circumstances.

    Of course,  if you remove that part of her rant,  she has nothing left to stand on.  No one forced the Muslim to become a taxi driver,  but the moment he got his license, he, either explicitly (by signing papers saying such) or implicitly (by accepting his license) was *bound* to obey the regulations that state the circumstances under which he may refuse service.  Nowhere does it appear that there is a circumstance relating solely to religious belief or practice.  (I believe he could probably refuse service to, say, a houdon priest who wanted to sacrifice a goat in the back seat, but perhaps if the priest also included adequate plastic sheeting to prevent a mess he could not even refuse under those circumstances.  It would make a dandy SCOTUS case, just to see where Ginsberg and Stephens would tie themselves into knots trying to appease their various interests.)

    That is the law and the Constitution in the US today.  If kalli believes otherwise, she should point to appropriate SCOTUS decisions.  Otherwise, lose the First Amendment arguments.  Like I said, though, then her only supportive material would be her own obvious bias.

    Posted by JorgXMcKie on 2006 09 30 at 01:27 PM • permalink

  87. This is certainly illegal.  They are providing a public accomodation, and someone doing so is prohibited from discriminating based on religious grounds.  A taxi driver is not allowed to deny service to someone because they are black, Muslim, Jew, or (in this case) not-Muslim.

    The First Amendment does not prohibit laws that apply equally to all regardless of religion. Thus, anti-discrimination laws that say no person may refuse public accomodation, such as taxi service, to another based on religious grounds, are not prohibited by the First Amendment.

    Belonging to a particular cult or sect is not a license to break the law.

    Posted by R C Dean on 2006 09 30 at 01:39 PM • permalink

  88. People in Minnesota are pussies. The first muslim taxi driver who tries this stunt in Texas will get his ass beaten into the ground (likely as not by me)—problem solved.

    Posted by Shaky Barnes on 2006 09 30 at 02:03 PM • permalink

  89. Interestingly enough, I do not read Little Green Footballs so didn’t see the report there, but I (American) read it in the Egyptian blog http://www.bigpharoah, where the author stated:
    Now, I live in a Muslim dominated country, we have airports, cabbies, duty free shops that sell alcohol, yet such a thing never ever happened before. (Read the whole thing)
    Something tells me we are being taken as “patsies”.  And just think of all those Republican National Conventioneers who will be arriving (or perhaps not, if they read about this!)

    Posted by dotsy on 2006 09 30 at 02:22 PM • permalink

  90. The .pdf file is password-protected, and cannot be edited, copied, or printed. Following is a copy I made by hand of the relevant sections:

    7.4 Trip Refusal
    a. Trip Refusal Generally Prohibited

    Except as provided in Section 7.4(b), Section 9.5, or the Taxicab Manual as amended, no Taxicab Driver shall refuse or neglect to convey any Person or Persons and their reasonable and legal property upon request to their destination, provided such Person or Persons agree to pay the legal rate of fare.

    A Driver will not be subject to the penalty in Section 7.4(c) because the Driver cannot transport excessive luggage. However, the decision that too much luggage exists must be made before the destination has been discussed.

    b. Grounds for Refusal

    A Taxicab driver may refuse service to a passenger only if the passenger is (a) significantly impaired by or under the influence of any intoxicating liquor or any drug, or (b) poses a threat to the physical safety of the Driver. In such instance, the Taxicab Driver must bring the situation to the attention of the Taxicab Starter on duty and explain the reasons that the Driver believes that the passenger is impaired, intoxicated, or a threat to the driver’s safety. In the event that a Taxicab Starter is not on duty, the Taxicab Driver shall call the Airport Police for assistance.

    c. Penalty for Refusal

    The penalty for violation of Section 7.4(a) will be an Immediate Dismissal from the Permitted Taxicab Lanes, pursuant to Section 12.2.

    d. Unlawful discrimination

    Under no circumstance may a Taxicab Driver refuse service to a passenger at the Airport on account of race, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity, marital status, disability of any passenger who may be safely transported in the Taxicab, status with regard to public assistance, sexual orientation, or age. Without limiting the foregoing, under no circumstances will a Taxicab Driver refuse service to a passenger at the Airport solely on account of the passenger’s being accompanied by a Service Animal.

    Regardless of whether anyone agrees or disagrees, this is the Law. It appears to me that the drivers are in violation. (I got my legal training watching reruns of Law & Order.)

    Posted by ErnieG on 2006 09 30 at 02:39 PM • permalink

  91. Kali is wrong. The First Amendment readss as follows: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...”. That’s it.

    All religious practices are subject to the law. No religious creed trumps the law. Islam, for example, allows polygamy and slavery, but US law forbids both. Likewise, religions that sacrifice animals (such as Santeria) must confirm to animal-welfare laws. During Prohibition, the law had to make an explicit exception for the Mass and other religious ceremonies that involve the consumption of alcohol. My point is that religious practice must conform to the law. The law usually gives religions a great deal of latitude, particularly when managing their own affairs; for example, anti-discrimination laws make an exception for religions that traditionally have had single-sex clergy, such as the Catholic Church. But outside those exceptions, the law is supreme.

    Members of a religion do not have carte blanche to impose their practices and customs on the population at large. If a Muslim cabbie has a problem with fares solely because they have alcohol in their luggage, he should find another line of work. Period.

    If a cabbie discriminated against me because I had wine in my luggage, be he a Muslim, or a Mormon, or a member of any other teetotalling sect, I would make damned sure I got it ID and filed a complaint with the city bureau that regulated livery services, and followed up on it. This behavior is intolerable.

    Posted by Urbs in Horto on 2006 09 30 at 02:45 PM • permalink

  92. It’s useless to argue with someone like Kalli.  It’s being deliberately obtuse, and repeating the same phrases over and over like a toy bear with a pull-string.  It isn’t really interested in rational discussion, just repeated whining.

    And I’d be willing to bet Kalli’s never been to the US.

    Posted by RebeccaH on 2006 09 30 at 03:06 PM • permalink

  93. People generally discriminate all the time.  It’s normal behavior.  We discriminate who we choose as friends, dating partners, lovers, spouses, business associates, partners, fraternal members, and so on.  We do it on the basis of many factors including personality, background, religion, race, everything you can think of.

    Basically US law says that is OK as long as one is dealing with personal decisions (who to be friends with, who to share a house with). But the law looks very closely as the forms of discrimination to determine whether it involves a decision that is not so personal, infringes of the rights of others, and is based on certain unacceptable criteria (race, color, religion).

    I could see the law allowing tax drivers to choose not to carry passengers who carry alcohol.  On the other hand, if I was the owner of the taxi company, I would not consider this an acceptable practice.  I would think it be acceptable to fire a Muslim taxi driver if he cannot perform his duties, said duties being the reason for being for the business.

    Posted by wronwright on 2006 09 30 at 03:22 PM • permalink

  94. hmmm, wronwright, when you (drunkenly) said you were going out to the shops in the tardis to pick up some bacon the other night, did you by any chance leave anything behind?  Pig’s head dumped outside mosque at start of Ramadan—Posted by ArtVandelay

    Merry Christmas Merry Mosque!

    Uh, no, that wasn’t me.  But I will fess up to something I now know I probably should not have done:

    The apsû (also known as abzu or engur) was the name for the mythological underground freshwater ocean in Sumerian and Akkadian mythology. Lakes, springs, rivers, wells, and other sources of fresh water were thought to draw their water from the apsû.

    The Sumerian god Enki (Ea in Akkadian) was believed to have lived in the apsû since before human beings were created. His wife Damgalnuna, his mother Nammu, and a variety of subservient creatures also lived in the apsû.

    In the city Eridu, Enki’s temple was known as E-abzu (“the abzu temple”) and was located at the edge of a swamp, an apsû.[1]

    Certain tanks of holy water in Babylonian and Assyrian temple courtyards were also called apsû or abzu. Typical in religious washing, these tanks may be regarded as precursors to the washing pools of Islamic mosques, or the baptismal font in Christian churches.

    And here all along I was wondering why this Babylonian mead didn’t seem to have any zip.  I served it at the White House and I had to tell Karl it was “Sumerian mineral water”.  Now I find out it was Babylonian holy water?  No wonder those priests in that ziggurat were so angry.

    Posted by wronwright on 2006 09 30 at 03:34 PM • permalink

  95. Ugh!  You were serving The Great and Powerful Rove bath water?  Wronwright, I foresee you taking a one-way taxi ride in the very near future…

    Posted by ushie on 2006 09 30 at 03:37 PM • permalink

  96. “It’s become a significant customer-service issue,” said Patrick Hogan, a spokesman for the Metropolitan Airports Commission, on Thursday.

    Now the airports commission has a solution: color-coding the lights on the taxi roofs to indicate whether a driver will accept a booze-toting fare. The actual colors haven’t been decided on yet, but commission officials met Thursday with representatives of the taxi drivers and the Minnesota chapter of the Muslim American Society to continue working on the plan

    Per Ernie’s post, obviously the airports commission is “solving” the problem in violation of its own rules and should be called on it. How come no one has sued yet? Lawsuits, after all, are the Great American Pastime.

    Here’s a corrected link to dotsy’s Big Pharaoh report.

    Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2006 09 30 at 03:47 PM • permalink

  97. But yeah, for sure discrimination by whites against other minorities is the usual discrimination in the US.

    Kalli, you not only don’t know shit, you don’t even suspect shit.

    The biggest source of racial violence in the US today is minority on minority, i.e., hispanics vs. blacks, blacks vs. asians, etc.

    You want to see racism?  If you’re hispanic, try to move into a black apartment building.  If you’re black, try to buy a house from a Korean or Chinese realtor.

    Save your provincial limey nonsense for the Guardian, dear.

    Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 09 30 at 04:07 PM • permalink

  98. So what color will the light be if (when) Abdul doesn’t want to drive a returning US serviceman?

    Those hack licenses come with specific obligations on the drivers.  If they don’t want to honor them, pull the license.  Period.

    Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 09 30 at 04:09 PM • permalink

  99. 90, 96, 98 (I’m losing count ...) Ernie, nothing wrong with your reading—and note that even if a driver believes a customer is substantially impaired, alcoholically speaking, he’s required to report this to the airport authorities at the moment when he refuses service.

    What consistently infuriates me is the reflexive cringe that the authorities adopt when confronted by Muslims on ANY issue.  Gutless panderers, all, and be damned to their endless accommodations.  Cute colored lights as the solution if reps of the ROP don’t want to transport someone with bourbon on board?  Hell with that noise—richard’s right: yank their licenses.

    And yes, another poster’s right: I call BS on this whole ploy.  Muslims aren’t supposed to drink alcohol themselves, but I defy anyone to find a Koranic teaching that says they can’t be in the same room/car/phonebooth with the stuff.  This smells to high heaven.  They’re pushing the edge of the accommodation envelope, just to see how far far we’ll stoop, how much we’ll give up.  Damn.

    Posted by Celaeno on 2006 09 30 at 05:05 PM • permalink

  100. #43 Kalli;

    “Well, there were the crusades.”

    Which, if you’d paid attention, was largely a war to retake what used to be Christian territory back from the Muslims that had conquered it by force.

    “But that was a long time ago.”

    And yet, it’s repeatedly listed as a prime reason for current Islamist bombings and other terrorist actions.

    Posted by steveH on 2006 09 30 at 05:18 PM • permalink

  101. # 92, Rebecca H - “And I’d be willing to bet Kalli’s never been to the US.”

    I’d be willing to bet that you are correct, Rebecca H.  And I’m 99% sure that he/she is not a native English speaker either.  Fluent, but not native.

    Posted by texasred on 2006 09 30 at 05:24 PM • permalink

  102. #43 The “buggering” cartoon was one of the cartoons added by the Imam (I used to know his name, I have a post on my blog that includes it) who deliberately worked up the rage over the “Danish” cartoons.  There were three added that weren’t printed in the Danish paper *at all*.  The french pig calling contestant with a beard was on of them and the picture of *someone* bowed over to pray getting it from behind from a dog.

    This is one of the reasons that every last newspaper in the world should have printed the Danish cartoons because unless someone had seen them, and seen the added pictures, they couldn’t possibly understand just exactly what happened, which wasn’t muslims getting violent over pictures of Muhammad, though that would have upset many, but the deliberate inciting to violence by adding truely offensive pictures and lying about where they came from.

    As for the cabbies… “Now the airports commission has a solution: color-coding the lights on the taxi roofs to indicate whether a driver will accept a booze-toting fare.”

    The result of this will be that taxi customers, even if they are *not* carrying alcohol, will be able to legally refuse taxi drivers according to the color coded lights.  I don’t think they’ve thought this through.  No one is going to check to see if people are *actually* carrying alcohol when they ask to pass up those drivers.

    Posted by Synova on 2006 09 30 at 06:15 PM • permalink

  103. #94 Wronwright

    Your secret is safe with us…

    Posted by kae on 2006 09 30 at 06:37 PM • permalink

  104. I, for one, thank the Minneapolis commission for the color-coding system. Thanks to them, I’ll be able to avoid bigoted Muslim cabbies whenever I travel to Minneapolis, and give my business to more open-minded hacks.

    Just wondering, though: how long will it take the anti-alcohol brigade to start bellyaching when their income plummets? Five will get you ten, they’ll demand that riders be forced to ride with them, even while they reserve the right to refuse to serve them.

    And the slide into dhimmitude will continue.

    Posted by Urbs in Horto on 2006 09 30 at 06:38 PM • permalink

  105. Hmmmm.

    @ richard mcenroe

    If you’re black, try to buy a house from a Korean or Chinese realtor.

    And don’t forget asian on asian either.  Being Chinese or Japanese won’t earn you any brownie points from Koreans either.  And such views are a lot more open in asian societies than here in America.

    Posted by memomachine on 2006 09 30 at 07:14 PM • permalink

  106. Hmm… I think if I ever saw one of those taxis with the “Muslim Asshat” light on, I’d be sure to have a cold forty readily accessible, and then start drinking half way to my destination. See, the correct means of adressing this (besides taking advantage of our much abused tradition of lawsuits) is to publicly defy them; you don’t want people carrying alchohol in your cab? Well, now everyone is going to be DRINKING alchohol in your cab. You’re going to get violent when we draw pictures of Muhammed? Well, now we have a new line of toliets sculpted to look like Muhammed (Actually, that is a good idea. I wonder if cafepress does toliet seats?). Every time they want us to abide by their religion, we should go out of our way to violate their tenants in the most spectacular fasion possible.

    So, even if you don’t want to take a cab, if you see the Islamomonkey light on, hang out by that car while drinking a six-pack.

    Posted by JSchuler on 2006 09 30 at 07:43 PM • permalink

  107. I think that the real problem here is that the name Buzek means bacon.

    Posted by SWLiP on 2006 09 30 at 07:47 PM • permalink

  108. #100. “But that was a long time ago.”

    And yet, it’s repeatedly listed as a prime reason for current Islamist bombings and other terrorist actions.

    Except that US intelligence agencies have recently released a report citing the invasion and occupation of Iraq as a major stimuli to terrorist attacks.

    #97. “African Americans tend to be the last to be hired when the economy is booming. That means that they also tend to be the first to lose their jobs when a downturn hits,” according to Stephanie Armour writing in USA Today in December 2002. She goes on to say, “job losses have been deep in manufacturing and construction, they have also hit retailers, which lost 39,000 jobs in November. Jobs in those industries tend to be disproportionately held by African Americans…department store hiring was down by 17,000, the worst November for store hiring since 1982.“13 In July 2003, the New York Times reported:

    I don’t think you can be taken seriously if you claim discrimination by whites against minorities is the not the predominant form of discrmination.

    #101.  Why is it a problem if I am not a native English speaker if I am fluent.  Would you discriminate against me if I weren’t native?

    p.s. I’m not a European grad student, and I have been to the USA and had a great time.

    Posted by Kalli on 2006 09 30 at 07:52 PM • permalink

  109. #102. Sorry I’m not sure what you are saying.  Are you saying that a major Western paper published a cartoon fittng the description I mentioned?

    Posted by Kalli on 2006 09 30 at 07:59 PM • permalink

  110. Kalli—I don’t think you can be taken seriously if your little un-attributed blurb is supposed to be conclusive proof of discrimination in general and/or by whites specifically.

    OT—Gunman shoots into Australian mosque, narrowly missing worshippers: police. This is a terrible act regardless of who is perpetrating it on whom, but I was struck most by this:

    Ameer Ali, who heads the government’s Islamic advisory committee, said that while this was the first shooting in an Australian mosque, others had been ransacked and worshippers’ cars had been vandalized. He suggested an ongoing debate on the threat of radical Islam was encouraging violence and intimidation against Muslims.

    “This is a criminal act, but my question is: where do the criminals get the courage to do this?” Ali told The Associated Press. “It comes from what our leaders say in public, so I think our leaders share some responsibility for these acts.”

    Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2006 09 30 at 08:31 PM • permalink

  111. ... given most discrimination in the US is against non-whites.

    Kalli, my dear old thing, the greatest danger to non-whites in this country since about 1964 is quite frankly getting patronized to death.  In fact, if you care to review a little world history, this was the first multi-racial social experiment of its kind.  And imperfect as it has been, its been one of the only ones that not only worked, but resulted in a rising unimagined properity for all involved.  The kind of white people who use the “n” word have been rightly relegated to the edges of society, whispering to each other and giggling in the dark.  So I’m not sure where you obtained your observations about America or what you feel guilty about, but it is simply wrong-headed.  If you care for an example, Oprah weighs in with a cool billion dollars.  Which is far more than my whitebread family has made in a combined 7 generations since we wised up and left Europe.

    Posted by Vanguard of the Commentariat on 2006 09 30 at 08:32 PM • permalink

  112. Kalli

    An election ad.

    http://tinyurl.com/4as4u

    Art (?)

    http://tinyurl.com/4cppu

    A whole mainstream movie

    http://tinyurl.com/jnpjp

    Student paper

    http://tinyurl.com/o2k2p

    More art

    http://tinyurl.com/zs99f


    Hmmm I wonder which group they were worried about the sensitivities of????

    http://tinyurl.com/qldlu

    Quite frankly a depiction of jesus in a mainstream newspaper would be rather old hat. I found a blasphemy prosecution from the 1800’s that failed so I think the whole daring bit has long gone. Try using google for a bit Ive given you a few. Put up or shut up or at least make a coherent arguement.

    Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2006 09 30 at 08:47 PM • permalink

  113. #109 There was a picture (not a cartoon) that was added to the infamous Danish Muhammad cartoons that showed a dog humping a praying man, supposedly Muhammad, and circulated around the middle east as though it *was* one of the cartoons printed in the Danish paper.  It was added deliberately to incite violence.

    Are you not aware of this?

    If you aren’t.  Ask why.

    Posted by Synova on 2006 09 30 at 09:09 PM • permalink

  114. 102# Synova your comment gave me the idea that if dogs where permitted by Islam, prayer time could be problematic.  Can you imagine all the “Asshats” being dry humped by the dogs every time their heads hit the ground.

    Posted by Howzat on 2006 09 30 at 09:17 PM • permalink

  115. More business for the drivers who don’t mind. I’m sure they’re ok with it.

    I’m sure bongoman would be equally blase if a Christian cabbie refused him service because he was carrying Planned Parenthood literature. Right, BM?

    Posted by Dave S. on 2006 09 30 at 09:23 PM • permalink

  116. If you come across one of those drivers, convince him you’re not carrying alcohol and engage his services. At your destination, pay him and inform him that you have in your bag 2kilos of bacon that slipped out in transit and may have smeared his back seat. And don’t forget to bid him “You have a good day, now.”

    Posted by slatts on 2006 09 30 at 09:38 PM • permalink

  117. That aging, talentless slut Madonna is trying to revive her career by offensively portrying Jesus. Hasn’t been any rioting I know of outside her concerts. Probably has been much activity of any sort outside her concerts.

    Posted by slatts on 2006 09 30 at 09:41 PM • permalink

  118. # 113 You are spot on.  And Kalli, the point, since you appear to need it spelled out, is that your comparison is entirely spurious.  The Muslims went bezerk over twelve entirely innocuous cartoons.  There was no buggery by prophets or mortals.  The the most provocative of the set was ‘explosive Mo’, standard political satire in our daily papers.

    Have you even seen the cartoons?  If you take a look you may find that your adoloscent mind has misconstrued the one described as ‘Mo with donkey’.

    Posted by Big Jim on 2006 09 30 at 09:44 PM • permalink

  119. Looks like we have our newest troll in Kalli.  I think I’ll grab a cluebat and join the troll bashing, although I know I should not feed the trolls.

    I notice that he, she, or it does not offer any evidence that there is significant discrimination against non-whites in the USA at this time, but simply asserts it as if it was a fact that everybody knows.  The little blurb about jobs does not show anything of the kind.  Don’t talk about Jim Crow, that’s dead.  What is going on now?  And what is going on now is that not only is discrimination insignificant in magnitude, it is now also against the law.  Probably the most discriminatory things against blacks in the US today are compulsory unionisation in closed shops and minimum wage laws, both of which have historically been associated with, indeed intended to produce, job discrimination against blacks.

    As for the taxi driver, I think his action is unreasonable.  She wasn’t forcing him to drink any of the wine, in fact she would probably have objected if he had tried.  So there was no violation of the Quranic injunction against wine just for carrying someone else’s property.  But if the terms of his license did not forbid such an action I would agree that he had the right, unreasonable as it may be, to refuse her service.  I also think that his bosses had the right to fire him for cause over an act of such petty bigotry.

    Taxi drivers who refuse to go to a neighborhood or who refuse to pick up a fare are almost always doing so because they know of drivers who have been murdered by thieves posing as fares or because they think the fare looks like a gangster.  Cabbies are not paid to risk death.  Black cabbies will refuse to pick up black men who look like gangsters, so it’s not a matter of racial discrimination.

    And if we are considering discrimination, how many of you think that the Muslim cabbie would still have refused to carry the fare with the wine if the fare had been a six foot six inch tall man built like a tackle for the Seattle Seahawks football team?

    I don’t see any terrorists crying Deus vult as they blow up Muslims or gun them down in Western countries, as we often hear about Muslims gunning down or blowing up non-Muslims all over the world.  Spare us any talk about Christian terrorists until there actually are some.  The IRA, the ETA, and Prod mobsters don’t qualify for that title.

    Posted by Michael Lonie on 2006 09 30 at 09:48 PM • permalink

  120. “Kalli”, that name rings a bell, hmmmm….....

    Wasn’t he keeper for Trolls United in the 80’s?

    Posted by Tex Lovera on 2006 09 30 at 10:00 PM • permalink

  121. Okay, I’ll bite.
    Kalli, you should know something about your topic before talking about it. The cartoon you describe was a fake. It was not part of the true, original Danish cartoons, which you can see here. As thefrollickingmole at #112 shows, satire of Jesus and Christianity is routine in the West. This includes gentle satire (I include the movie “Life of Brian” in this category) as well as satire that is very hostile toward Christianity (Serrano’s “Piss Christ” being the most infamous example). I can’t tell you how many comedy sketches I have seen that have made fun of Jesus or the Pope.

    Posted by daddy dave on 2006 09 30 at 10:08 PM • permalink

  122. The thin end of the wedge - these people are trying to force their ways onto us at all levels. A friend who lives in Shepparton, Vic. told me that the community has been forced to accept ‘Muslim only’ hours at their local swimming pool. The Shepperton pool is huge and plays an important role in the community, since they are so far from beaches, rivers etc.
    This - and other things - has caused massive seething resentment there, and it is not being addressed.

    In the Sunraysia/Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area it was fruit picking/cannery work that saw the Muslims arrive. They bought up the worst and cheapest of the housing, and are now exerting influence at local and state level. They don’t like a lot of what they see around them…..which we call Australia.

    In Churchill, there has been a hostile Bangladeshi take-over of the local cricket practice nets. These charmers, who have access to Australian Institute of Sport facilities (state of the art and the best in rural Victoria) prefer NOT to play/practice with the kafirs because women play cricket there, in shorts and T-shirts!!!!! So, they intimidate the local kids away from their nets and have the facility to themselves.

    There is one gent who does all the talking, and he is so affable and gregarious, so willing to talk about Islam! He is always in the full Muslim rig -a grey, ankle length smock and one of those lace-doily skull caps, not cricket whites. The rest of the “cricketers” slink around in the background, letting him do all the talking. He seems not to play cricket - perhaps his job is to make sure his fellows can, without undue influence from youthful infidels?

    Too bad the idiots who suck up to Trad and Irf Yusuf cannot see that its their neighbourhood next.

    Posted by dee on 2006 09 30 at 10:15 PM • permalink

  123. I too am all for colour coded lights on taxi cabs.  I would love to find yet another way to avoid the Muslim Religion of Peaceniks..

    Posted by heather on 2006 09 30 at 10:53 PM • permalink

  124. From the Times:

    The proposal, which would allow airport workers to direct travelers to cabs more efficiently, needs approval from the airport’s taxicab advisory committee, and airport officials hope to have the lights ready by year’s end.

    If the proposal is adopted, cabdrivers without the light who refuse a fare will be sent to the back of the line, which often means a three-hour wait.

    Someone posted at BP’s, that each taxi cab at the airport is privately owned.  So essentially, each cab driver is his own business, and they simply need to be licensed by the state to drive a cab.  I don’t know how many cab fairs have alchohol, but it can’t be a majority.  So I suspect that this sort of thing would have a minimal impact on overall cab business, unless people decide on moral principal to not drive with the Somali cab drivers who won’t drive the infidel.

    On a side note, I had a layover at the Minneapolis airport this summer for about 3 hours.  The airport is truly magnificent, similar to a mall, with everything you could imagine.  It also had a *lot* of Somalis, who are quite distinguishable racially, in a lot of the service sector jobs.  Didn’t see any hijabed women and every Somali seemed like your typical American.  But if I had to bet on another airport disaster, it would be at a place like this.

    Posted by Cornelius on 2006 09 30 at 10:53 PM • permalink

  125. #112. So, a major Western newspaper would publich a picture/cartoon of Jesus molesting an altar boy?

    Quite frankly a depiction of jesus in a mainstream newspaper would be rather old hat.

    But weren’t the Danish cartoons depicting Mohammed?

    119. Spare us any talk about Christian terrorists until there actually are some.  The IRA, the ETA, and Prod mobsters don’t qualify for that title.

    Didn’t the British government, the political wing of the British Army, condemn the IRA as terrorists?  Also I’m fairly sure Timothy McVeigh was connected to the Christian Identitymovement…

    Posted by Kalli on 2006 09 30 at 10:55 PM • permalink

  126. 117. Orthodox Protest Against Madonna
    Combined Reports
    Members of a radical Russian Orthodox group speared a poster of pop star Madonna on Monday and demanded a ban on her show, in which she stages a mock crucifixion.

    The Orthodox Church has urged believers to stay away from the show, in which Madonna sings from a crucifix, wearing a crown of thorns, describing it as “blasphemy.”

    http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2006/09/05/012.html

    “Slut”?  that’s a bit offensive, eh?

    Posted by Kalli on 2006 09 30 at 10:58 PM • permalink

  127. Not long to go until the beanbag is full of pink lint. I’ll keep you posted.

    Posted by Margos Maid on 2006 09 30 at 11:11 PM • permalink

  128. “Didn’t the British government, the political wing of the British Army…”

    Oh, I see where this is going.  To that sort of sickening moral equivalence so often found in progressive circles.  It doesn’t matter if you push an old lady in front of a bus, or you push her out of the way of a bus, its all the same in the end, you’re just pushing old ladies around.

    Never mind that McVeigh’s terrorist career got terminated with “extreme prejudice” (with no caterwauling from the usual progrssive anti death penalty circles you may recall), and the IRA “political wing” got invited to join said evil British government.  We don’t much cotton to terror as a political tactic here in the West, whether its Christos or Muzzies or what have you.  Its just lately its all been Muzzies in case you and your mates on the “caring and sharing” side of the spectrum have not noticed.

    Posted by Vanguard of the Commentariat on 2006 09 30 at 11:15 PM • permalink

  129. Folks, kalli’s IP address resolves to Canberra, Australia. Whether he’s been to my country I can’t say, but he seems to have the usual ignorance of the place, and all the standard prejudices foreigners have against us whether they’ve been here or not. For instance, the notion that the only serious form of bigotry that exists in the US is whites against all non-white minorities is a comforting myth most foreigners believe about us. It’s a way of soothing their inferiority complexes, and also a device for turning attention away from their own prejudices, which are often much more sweeping in scope as well as being much more entrenched in their own cultures.

    Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 09 30 at 11:18 PM • permalink

  130. #126

    Kalli

    The Russian Orthodox may be urging their believers not to support Madonna’s blasphemy (which I believe it is), but I don’t see them wearing masks and holding signs saying that she should be beheaded, or burning stuff, or killing people.

    Posted by kae on 2006 09 30 at 11:23 PM • permalink

  131. #110 Kyda Sylvester.A shooting at the Lakemba Mosque in August 2001 resulted in the death of one Ali Abdul-Razzak.Citizens subsequently arrested in relation to that murder just happened to be members of that happy congregation. Perhaps Amer Ali wasn’t acquainted with the details of that event or maybe he was just splitting straws since the murder wasn’t actually inside the building.Then there was the Christian Church at Auburn that was attacked recently,perhaps he didn’t hear about that either.

    Posted by Lew on 2006 09 30 at 11:33 PM • permalink

  132. #127 Much of the later lint is fluffier and lighter in colour than earlier, denser specimens. What do readers think, should I mix it up, or leave it in the current strata?

    Posted by Margos Maid on 2006 09 30 at 11:46 PM • permalink

  133. Can’t wait to wear something other than these red flannelette shirts and relax in front of the television on my new beanbag. Man, that’s living.

    Posted by Margos Maid on 2006 09 30 at 11:50 PM • permalink

  134. I was wondering when Timothy Mcveigh was going to get a mention, next up Eric rudolph.

    Posted by phillip on 2006 09 30 at 11:55 PM • permalink

  135. “I was wondering when Timothy Mcveigh was going to get a mention, next up Eric rudolph.”

    Or Pinochet!

    Posted by Vanguard of the Commentariat on 2006 10 01 at 12:12 AM • permalink

  136. #129 Andrea:

    Canberra, you say? No further explanation needed for his/her opinions; it’s like Wonderland down there, except that the Mad Hatters number in their thousands. I’m not at all surprised.

    BTW, Andrea, your “most foreigners”, should read as “many foreigners”. I know that anti-Americanism is rampant at the moment but, contrary to what you may read in the media, there’s a hell of a lot of us (foreigners) who don’t have our heads shoved up our @sses. Most of the people I know like Americans, and take the stories of discrimination with a large (read huge) grain of salt.

    Posted by Mr Snuffalupagus on 2006 10 01 at 12:37 AM • permalink

  137. 129 Andrea.  Many millions of foreigners also strive in droves to get here, despite its apparent status as world’s most racist nation.  And most of the minorities who live here have no intention of going anywhere else (crackpots like Randall Robinson notwithstanding).  Those are two overwhelming trends which lead me to believe that the only foreigners who consider this a hopelessly racist enterprise are privileged Westerners like Kalli who are most likely the victims of an substandard education or the willing dupes of a destructive ideology.  Sorry, a’la CSI, the evidence doesn’t lead anywhere else.

    Posted by Vanguard of the Commentariat on 2006 10 01 at 12:56 AM • permalink

  138. Ignorance of the details of the Oklahome Bombing is widespread, so Trolls feel thay can use McVeigh. Jayna Davis has published a very well researched book about the Iraqi connection, called The Third Terrorist.

    “Five witnesses independently fingered Al-Hussaini and several of his Middle Eastern associates as frequent visitors at an Oklahoma City motel in the months, weeks, days, and hours leading up to 9:02 a.m. on April 19.  On numerous occasions the Arab subjects were seen in the company of Timothy McVeigh, and during a few rare instances, associating with Terry Nichols.  More significantly, detailed interviews with key witnesses proved conclusively that the man whom witnesses named as the nefarious “third terrorist” had no provable alibi for the critical hours of April 19.”
    Frontpage

    Posted by blogstrop on 2006 10 01 at 02:35 AM • permalink

  139. Oh! kalli you are a droll Troll, bleating the usual victim orientated nonsense.  Imagine this analogy, that the world is told that it has cancer, but you are more worried about a few old boils on it’s bum.

    Posted by Howzat on 2006 10 01 at 02:58 AM • permalink

  140. Have to agree with Mr Snuff at #136. The stuff written by commenters like Kalli are common dinner party discourse in canberra.

    In the circle of people i know i’m like the token rightie that whose main role is to stop the whole table nodding in agreement the entire night.

    Posted by Francis H on 2006 10 01 at 03:47 AM • permalink

  141. #128. “Didn’t the British government, the political wing of the British Army…”

    Oh, I see where this is going.  To that sort of sickening moral equivalence so often found in progressive circles.

    Your right, it certainly is not equivalent, the British armed forces have killed far more innocents than the IRA.

    We don’t much cotton to terror as a political tactic here in the West, whether its Christos or Muzzies or what have you

    This from Newsweek…

    ‘The Salvador Option’
    The Pentagon may put Special-Forces-led assassination or kidnapping teams in Iraq.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6802629/site/newsweek

    Sounds like terror to me!

    Posted by Kalli on 2006 10 01 at 04:04 AM • permalink

  142. “aging, talentless slut Madonna”

    C’mon guys, no need for nastiness here.  There’s always Clive James’ immortal words…

    She sings better than she looks
    She dances better than she sings
    She can’t dance.

    Posted by rampisadmukerjee on 2006 10 01 at 04:20 AM • permalink

  143. When I sent this item to a friend he countered - or thought he did - with:

    http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0408/p01s02-ussc.html

    I replied:

    By the way, I would consider a drug like the morning after pill which destroys a fertilised egg not a contraceptive but an abortifacient.  That puts such medication in a different moral category.  The Church considers any artificial inteference with the reproductive process wrong; I wouldn’t go that far. Matters start to get dicey for me after fertilisation.

    The Koran forbids Muslims to consume alcohol.  I’m not sure which verse forbids them to see it.  I also doubt that a Muslim, at least as we once knew them, or anyone else for that matter, would regard these two situations as morally equivalent.  Only Isalm in its current puritan phase would produce such touchy intolerance and moral vanity.

    I guess a man has the right to say who goes in his cab or not but when a person enjoys the privilege of living in my country he should respect the mores of his host - that is, unless he is intent on changing them. Will we see next the introduction of cabs in the West where women must be covered? I can’t see how that’s a scaremongering speculation in this context.

    Just where should the line between respect for other cultures and what our culture expects of them be drawn?  The St Paul’s Somali cabbies have stepped well over in my opinion.  Entirely ersatz and undiscriminating ‘respect’ for other cultures and a scepticism for our own so radical that it amounts to self-contempt does not go undetected - and a cabbie, I guess, would be the first to know.

    Posted by Inurbanus on 2006 10 01 at 05:58 AM • permalink

  144. Margos:

    Where do you get the pink lint from?  I can only ever get blue.

    Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 10 01 at 06:44 AM • permalink

  145. Kalli from Kanberra, eh?  What chances a luvvie from the Australian National University?  A course ending in “Studies” ?

    God, how to convey to Americans what a luvvie cesspit Canberra is.  Ah!

    See the first sentence.

    ‘nuf said.

    Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 10 01 at 06:47 AM • permalink

  146. Kalli, I don’t know your motivation to come here and sprout your anti British, anti American and I’m sure if given the chance, anti Australian hatred.  But it chills me to know that, if you are an Australian, there are people like you in our society who carry such hatred against our allies and us.

    I’d be fascinated to know your opinions on the Bali bombings?  Presumably you would say that the Australian army killed far more people than Indonesian terrorists?  And the tourists who died deserved it for offending Muslim sensitivities by their partying, not to mention the fact that Australians keep electing John Howard?

    I guess you grind your teeth at the injustice of the Japanese defeat in WW2.  Those damned Americans again!  Invaders and occupiers of Japan and the Philippines!

    Are you an indigenous Australian?  If not, how can you bear to occupy their land?  Invader!  Another source of anguish for you.  Waaa! Where does it end?

    One last question.  Do you still “maintain the rage”?

    Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 10 01 at 07:14 AM • permalink

  147. Ooooh, sorry about the rant.  It was the mention of ‘Canberra’ that did it.

    Australian moonbat central and the greatest sink hole of tax dollars known.

    Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 10 01 at 07:28 AM • permalink

  148. Sorry to differ, but I think that the muslim taxi driver should have the right to refuse passengers on religious grounds, just as I should have the right to request a non-muslim taxi driver when booking a cab. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander afer all, and I’m sick to death of hearing the conspiracy theories of these low IQ whining, seething nutjobs whenever I am forced to take a cab. Actually I’d prefer it if cab companies had a moratorium on all whining seething conspiracy theorising nutjobs of low IQ, whatever their persuasion.

    Posted by Jim Geones on 2006 10 01 at 08:37 AM • permalink

  149. Hmmm.

    @ Jim Geones

    Frankly I’d be happy if the various cab drivers refrained from discussing their life stories, marriages, children, politics, religion and the oddball theories involving herbal remedies.

    Note to cab drivers worldwide:

    *Drive me to my bloody destination ASAP and leave me the hell alone!*

    IMHO I tip generously to any cab driver that follows that simple rule.

    Posted by memomachine on 2006 10 01 at 09:16 AM • permalink

  150. Hmmm.

    About muslims and alcohol.

    Is it possible that muslims perhaps don’t realise that leavened bread, i.e. bread risen with yeast, has trace amounts of alcohol in it?  Or do they simply not eat leavened bread at all?

    I mean really.  If their religion is such that they can’t even look at, or drive with, an unopened bottle of wine then wouldn’t the mere presence of leavened bread cause religious issues?

    Posted by memomachine on 2006 10 01 at 09:22 AM • permalink

  151. #144

    Red flanellette SCD. It changed my life.

    Posted by Margos Maid on 2006 10 01 at 09:32 AM • permalink

  152. Also I’m fairly sure Timothy McVeigh was connected to the Christian Identitymovement…

    Sorry, K - that dog won’t hunt.

    “It is not clear whether Timothy McVeigh had Christian Identity associations” - Michael Barkun, professor of political science, Syracuse University, author of Religion and the Racist Right: The Origins of the Christian Identity Movement.

    Google is your friend.

    Also, the Irish conflict is political, not religious.

    And before you bring him up, Eric Rudolph is not a Christian - he’s a fan of Nietzsche.

    Posted by Dave S. on 2006 10 01 at 09:50 AM • permalink

  153. 150 ed

    Your question presupposes that a 7th century world view would recognize concepts of modern chemistry such as molecules. Alcohol in liquid form is haraam because Allah says so. Thus, one cannot bring vanilla wafers into Saudi Arabia because they are made with vanilla extract, which contains alcohol. It does no good to argue that the heat of baking drives off the alcohol: the curse remains. Perhaps the closest modern concept to this is schoolyard notion of “cooties.”

    Yes. Alcohol that can be poured, whether as a beverage or as a cooking ingredient has cooties. Alcohol produced as dough rises does not contain cooties. Indeed, I can imagine that an imam might argue that it is not alcohol at all.

    Posted by ErnieG on 2006 10 01 at 09:59 AM • permalink

  154. Kali is in Canberra eh?
    Probably Margaret in disguise, sounding off after her recent kicking here.
    The intellectual level of her discourse sounds about right.

    Posted by Baldman on 2006 10 01 at 10:24 AM • permalink

  155. 141. Kalli, so lets stipulate this is a “terror” tactic in the eyes of moral equivalizers.  Who do you reckon is going to be our target?  School kids on a bus?  Aid workers?  Journalists?  Nuns?  3000 people at work in a tall building?  Or maybe the kind of people who indiscriminately target such people to advance their twisted aims.  And when do you think our “terror” tactics will end?  When they say enough or when we feel like it? Your ideology which incessantly proclaims compassion for the “little guy” has an odd definition of the little guy.  It seems to be anyone with a grievance, justified or not.  Maybe you ought to apply some of those famous left wing powers of nuance to this subject.  You might figure it out.  Good luck though, we need all the help we can get to preserve the best way of life the planet has yet come up with for members of all races and religions.  And right now you appear to stand opposed to that.

    Posted by Vanguard of the Commentariat on 2006 10 01 at 11:03 AM • permalink

  156. What Kalli is trying to teach us is that two wrongs do, in fact, make a right.
    It’s a morality adhered to by many nutjobs and criminal organizations.

    In other words, if Pope Innocent XIII did wrong by a party, Islam is entitled to any amount of atrocities against infidels. Simple, when you think about it.

    “Also I’m fairly sure Timothy McVeigh was connected to the Christian Identity movement…”

    Posted by Harry Bergeron on 2006 10 01 at 01:49 PM • permalink

  157. I can see the liberal elft tying itself in knots over thsi. Competing rights will bring them unstuck.
    Humble example 1: As a devout Christian I refuse to travel in a cab driven by a man whose religion slaughters ud simply because they’re Christian. I will stand in the cab line holding a sign “Christian Driver only”.

    Humble Example 2: Because I am a devout Christian, I will stand in the cab line holding a sign “Christian Driver Only” AND a couple of bottles of bourbon.

    What do the sniveltarians do about this? Talk about the horns of a dilemma.

    Posted by Bonmot on 2006 10 01 at 06:08 PM • permalink

  158. #149—Just tell ‘em “Shup and drive.”

    Posted by Achillea on 2006 10 01 at 10:27 PM • permalink

  159. And more on morons, woof, woof:
    http://tinyurl.com/oojzq
    (Pray you never lose your sight, Kalli.)

    Posted by andycanuck on 2006 10 02 at 12:14 PM • permalink

  160. Page 1 of 1 pages

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

Members:
Login | Register | Member List

Please note: you must use a real email address to register. You will be sent an account activation email. Clicking on the url in the email will automatically activate your account. Until you do so your account will be held in the "pending" list and you won't be able to log in. All accounts that are "pending" for more than one week will be deleted.