I'm a little annoyed by the picture, to be blunt. Do you know for sure she's a Muslim in the first place? Entitling this thread "The Fox Guarding The Hen House," and following it with this picture assumes sinister motives on her part.

I'd hope a position like airport security requires a background check. I'm just bothered by a patent inference about someone you don't even know.

A left-wing Spanish journalist supports Israel:

http://www.aish.com/jw/me/85943662.html

Amy, you're a wonderful columnist and a lovely person, but the way you hammer through these (limit as x approaches "terrorist" for Muslim = X) stories is getting off-putting.

Yes, the sight of a hijab-wearing TSA employee is ironic and worth a wry comment, but these threads are showing up really often and without a trace of whimsy or winks of the eye. Colbert could get a whole segment out of this photo.

Important difference - there's no trace you're kidding. They are nigh-Coulterian in their fervor. Your replacement of "Most" for her "All" in the line about all muslims are not terrosists doesn't serve much to separate your feelings from hers.

I've said it before; there's lots of examples in the Bible that are just as vicious about how to treat your enemies, how to control your kids, et al, and though no rational people follow and believe them (even the most devout tambourine-whacker doesn't think it's proper to sacrifice 100 virgins in the name of the Lord), they're still in there.

It is the fundamentalist, analogy-is-for-pussies interpretation of religion that give culture the most trouble, not the religions themselves. But the number of Muslims who actively and literally want to strike the necks of the infidel are in the vanishing minority. There is simply no way one can say that a little cautioned prejudice against Muslims in toto is reasonable. That's no different than claiming that there are enough black people who steal that's it's reasonable to watch them a little more closely in stores.

Do the much-lauded El-Al security guards automatically assume every Muslim is potentially guilty? Or do they professionally assume that the proper method is to observe the individual for tells and reveals, and take extra action when it's deemed required?

"Patent inference" is goofy locution: inferences aren't especially condemnable, especially in matters of security. Imagine flying in from Tel Aviv and being greeted at the gate by this child. Her folded arms are a nice touch, aren't they?

> these threads are showing up really often
> and without a trace of whimsy or winks of the eye.

Maybe whimsical winkydom wasn't the effect Amy was after. The internet is not your favorite TV show, where all is merriment and gentle sarcasm.

It's a degree thing, right? These women cover their hair because to not do so would shameful, like an American insurance agent walking around with her tits out. It's a habit of dress from a world tradition where women alone are responsible for the feelings their sexuality generates for men. That wearing of scarves hasn't been a fashion trend in the United States for about 70 years, probably for two reasons: One, warm water bathing became common enough that women could expect to have a clean and attractive head of hair every day of their lives; And two, women in twentieth century America decided they were going to move through the world as they fucking well pleased, without worry that men needed to be protected from the monsters within their own hearts lest all Hell break loose.

> Do the much-lauded El-Al security guards
> automatically assume every Muslim is potentially
> guilty? Or do they professionally assume that the
> proper method is to observe the individual for tells
> and reveals, and take extra action when it's deemed
> required?

Jesus. That is so priggish and politically correct.

Yes; they assume every Muslim is potentially "guilty", i.e. capable or inclined to multiply murderous acts of insane violence without warning. That's why they watch them so closely. Everyone I know who's been there tells the same tale: The attention from their security peeps is indeed professionally proficient; but it's also intensely personal. They're eyeballin' you, boy.....

Guys, life is not a press release that's been vetted by a button-down public relations agency.

This is one of those things were it feels like coddled white Americans are trying to turn everything into a simplistic marketplace experience, so that they'll know what to do by meekly scanning Consumer Reports in the privacy of their own homes....

And if anyone finds an insurance agent like that, please take her card for me.

To me this photo is out of bounds. It's like the Americans who always make jokes about the French being cowards and always surrendering. There were tens of thousands of incredibly brave and patriotic French citizens who risked everything to fight the Nazis, and to lump them into a one-size-fits-all category is just plain ignorant.

And I am no apologist for Islam, by the way. If I were the one making decisions, Mosques where the Imam's are inciting others to bomb or Mosques that shelter munitions would be a military target.

I've said it before; there's lots of examples in the Bible that are just as vicious about how to treat your enemies, how to control your kids, et al, and though no rational people follow and believe them (even the most devout tambourine-whacker doesn't think it's proper to sacrifice 100 virgins in the name of the Lord), they're still in there.

Read the stuff from the Quran above.

The Quran is to be taken literally and everything Mohammed did is to be emulated. A great many Muslims have never read the Quran, but Islam, properly practiced, orders the conversion or murder of others.

Jewish women, Christian women, atheist women, are not going around in headscarves. Watch that video series I posted today, and see the way women in Islam are seated on the other side of the wall, and "the sisters" wait for "the brothers" to decide everything for them. I'm no fan of religion, but Judaism and Christianity don't tell their flock that they'll win a place in paradise for murdering those who don't believe as they do; in fact, Jesus says stuff about turning the other cheek, etc.

We have an enormous problem on our hands with Islam; less so than Britain and other countries in Europe, but I hope I never stop being upset at seeing women with their head covered. Note that in Muslim societies, women who are uncovered are considered rapeworthy and are attacked by men. Read this:

http://www.islamreview.com/articles/WOMEN_ARE_RESPONSIBLE.shtml

What I want to know is why more of you aren't upset by Islam -- do you just not know what it's really about?

As Americans, we want to believe whatever anybody wants to believe is okay, go right ahead, live and let live -- which is fine if their belief centers around live and let live, which Islam does not, not by any stretch of the imagination.

Here's more on Islam's treatment of women:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLN11ym5uXE

Watching a woman coopt herself into this should upset all of you as well. It is not nice that women wear headscarves, it is a sign that they are captives and cooperators in their own oppression.

How many of you are considering blowing up a plane for Allah? This woman has a job at the airport because some Muslims do that sort of thing. There's a whole Muslims blow up planes for Allah industry now, and it's spawned the TSA, and it's why you get to the airport two-plus hours early for a one-hour flight.

Do you hear Muslims speaking out against this sort of thing? Murder of the infidel for Allah? They don't -- perhaps because non-Muslims are supposed to be less than people under Islam (like women), or perhaps because they fear being murdered by other Muslims (as Ayan Hirsi-Ali is, as Wafa Sultan is).

Again, my question is, why aren't all of you upset by a woman in a headscarf, and all that's behind it?

> There were tens of thousands of incredibly brave
> and patriotic French citizens who risked
> everything to fight

And more than a few who didn't, and I'd hate to guess the proportion.

Exodus 22:18 "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."

Try being openly pagan in this country for a while especially in the bible belt.

I prefer this photo:

http://twitpic.com/8bxsv

To me this photo is out of bounds.

Given that most terrrorists are Muslims, and given that fear of Muslim murderers is the reason for these intrusive, time-intensive TSA searches, it is altogether within bounds to question why the job of ferreting out Muslim terrorists (if only!) is given to one who is overtly Muslim.

Try being openly pagan in this country for a while especially in the bible belt.

Have there been many killings of pagans in the Bible belt of late? Strange, I don't remember reading of any. Ever.

No, the difference is that islam is the protected, state sponsored ideology from Morocco to Indonesia. It cannot be challenged or contradicted.

> Try being openly pagan in this country for a
> while especially in the bible belt.

I grew up in Indiana and lived in the Ozarks for a couple years. No biggie.

Besides Eric, what do you mean "out of bounds"? It's an image, but a literal depiction. Does it tell some sort of lie?

If observant Muslims are responsible for our airport security, this is worth knowing.

Exodus 22:18 "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."

Try being openly pagan in this country for a while especially in the bible belt.

You might not have fun, but chances are, nobody's going to murder you.

I prefer this photo:

http://twitpic.com/8bxsv

Ask yourself why that woman is wearing a headscarf at all?

What's struck me from this exchange is how okay people are with Muslim women being told to wear headscarves -- and how little people know about why. Read this link I posted above:

http://www.islamreview.com/articles/WOMEN_ARE_RESPONSIBLE.shtml

A woman’s whole body is ”Awrah”, arabic word for pudendum ( the external genitals), according to several hadiths.It is natural that the sighting of awrah arouses men and creates an uncontrollable sexual urge. This urge is specially very acute in muslim men due to their higher sexual potency. Allah gives all muslim men a higher libido to enable them to enjoy their sharia permitted four wives, and their slave girls/captured women (our prophet was given the libido of 30 men to enjoy his 9+ wives and the continuos supply of captured women from jihadi raids. Here is an example of our prophet’s instant arousal at the sight of a woman)....

Muslim, Book 008, Number 3240:

“Jabir reported that Allah's Messenger saw a woman, and so he came to Zainab (the woman must have turned him down) as she was tanning a leather and had sexual intercourse with her”.

It's the inference clearly. There was an excellent documentary on Islam on National Geographic a few weeks/months back. It centered mostly on the differences between Shiite versus Sunni Islam, but also upon how different even sub-sects within those two sects were.

Attaching the photograph of an individual is irresponsible if you know nothing of that individual.

(Sorry- off for the rest of this sunny day to go hiking with the terrorist bears and wolves!)

PPS-
Amy-HB2U, HB2U, HBDA, HB2U 1DE!

I have never flown El Al, but I have read plenty by those who did. Security looks at everyone, Muslim or not, as a threat. They search everything and everyone, and everyone who flies with them is grilled in a serious interview before hand. They had better have a good reason to be going to Israel.

As I said, this is second hand information.

Interesting that wearing a scarf is now proof of more evil men do to women. Older women where I worked before retiring often wore scarfs. They didn't say why, and frankly I never thought to ask, since I didn't realize it was proof of the evil patriarchy. No one was going to tell these women anything, so it was obvious without thinking about it they had a good reason to wear one.

I suppose I just thought they wore them to keep their hair straight under their cold weather parkas until they got to work. Some of those white haired old women can be pretty vain.

It centered mostly on the differences between Shiite versus Sunni Islam, but also upon how different even sub-sects within those two sects were.

I'd guess most of us are not interested in the minute differences between one Islamic sub-sect or another. Why should we be? The only part of Islam that concerns most Americans is how they interact with the infidel, meaning us. When it comes to hatred of the infidel, they're not all that different, are they? Both Shiites and Sunnis are well-represented in Muslim terrorist groups. As for the rest of the details of their sub-sects, frankly, I don't give a damn.

Crid: "Patent inference" is goofy locution: inferences aren't especially condemnable, especially in matters of security.

And Crid, in his usual tiresome, dry manner, once again demonstrates his pseudocleverness at plucking a phrase out of context. If two words qualifies as a phrase, that is.

If this is your only trick, Crid, I'm afraid it gets very old very quickly.

Go away, child. Your mother's calling you.

Crid: Yes; they assume every Muslim is potentially "guilty", i.e. capable or inclined to multiply murderous acts of insane violence without warning.

They assume that about Americans, too. Ask any American who has visited Israel.

Amy, to be blunt, you're giving me the impression that you've become a giddy shutterbug, snapping photos of ruddy-complected citizens, shrieking, "MUSLIM! MUSLIM! Wonder what she's going to blow up and how many will she take with her!"

Surely, there is more to you than "The Girl Who Cried 'Muslim!'"

If you want to discuss the verses of the Qu'ran, fine. Then bring it. Ditto the jihadist agenda. But, please, enough of this photographing innocent people doing their jobs and assuming diabolical motives. I should think being raised a Jewess would make you appreciate being on the receiving end of bigotry.

You don't know she's a terrorist, and it is highly unlikely that she is a terrorist, but referring to her as "The Fox Guarding The Henhouse" makes it plain that you're assuming she is. You don't even know if she's a Muslim, for that matter. There are other religions in the Middle East, including Christianity.

You asked for solutions? I don't think rampant paranoia over every person of Middle Eastern descent is among them.

"I'd hope a position like airport security requires a background check."

Just like I am sure we had all hoped that Major Hassan at Fort Hood would have had the same?

I'm with Amy. Not so much because I believe she is some radical who will blow herself up, but if asked by one who was going to? Like if she wouldn't mind looking the other way -- for the good of Allah? For the good of Jihad?

Come on folks. I dislike a broad brush approach to these types of situations but let's be real. Where are the Muslim voices coming out in chorus against mid-flight, *man-made*, pyrotechnics? Or, against the murder of 14 soldiers in Texas? (crickets).

All we got to hear was the "now don't go blaming all of us" immediate defensive reaction. There was no allegiance or commiseration of their fellow infidel brethren. There was silence and then hurt feelings about our justifiable outrage to our new, and ever present reality --- THE WANT TO BLOW OUR SHIT UP.

If I was a betting gal and someone asked me who this woman would be more willing to die for...America or Allah....?

Amy is completely justified in this post. The truth is, if we could count on our govt agencies to do these background checks, and to work with reality instead of living in PC-land (e.g. Fort Hood) then I don't believe we would find the sight of this woman standing there so menacing. But we don't trust them, because they aren't doing everything the can to protect us -- THAT IS our reality.

"Man-made disasters" -- Absurd!

kishke: Given that most terrrorists are Muslims

And all terrorists are people. Following your logic, we should just be afraid of everyone. Including ourselves, since some terrorists blow up themselves in the process.

And all terrorists are people.

Well, most of them are not just random people, but a particular kind of people; namely, Muslims, so, happily, we don't need to be afraid of everyone. And since they're the ones who blow themselves up too, there's no need to be afraid of ourselves. But it's sweet, your pretense that terrorists are just folks - we're all the same underneath, right?

My daddy told me something about trying to teach a pig to sing, what was that again?.........

Kishke-

We are the world;

We are the children.

We are the ones who make a brighter day...

Great news! They got Adam Gadahn, the California-born kid, now 31, who converted to Islam and joined Al Qaeda:

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2010/03/american_al_qaeda_sp.php

kishke: And since they're the ones who blow themselves up too

Joseph Stack.

Yes, Joseph Stack took a page from the Muslim playbook. Doesn't change the fact that it's almost always Muslims who blow themselves up in a crowd.

I've just finished I See Rude People on the suggestion to read it from Satoshi Kanazawa's blog The Scientific Fundamentalist. I love it! Bravo! It's currently on lend to a friend who will undoubtedly lend it to a friend and so on and so on. Evolutionary psychology with humor - awesome!

kishke: And since they're [Muslims] the ones who blow themselves up too, there's no need to be afraid of ourselves.

kishke: Doesn't change the fact that it's almost always Muslims who blow themselves up in a crowd.

Emphasis added.

Feebie:
Not so much because I believe she is some radical who will blow herself up, but if asked by one who was going to - Like if she wouldn't mind looking the other way -- for the good of Allah? For the good of Jihad?
- - - - - - - - - - -
Consider that the scarf was not mandatory in most Islamic countries 50 or 100 years ago. It represents a rising trend of fundamentalism.

And these fundamentalists talk explicitly of cultural conquest.

This woman may be living in the West, but wearing this scarf is an act of cultural rejection.

So: what does she do when a "brother" makes her an offer she can't refuse?

We've seen teenage girls murdered on American and European soil by Muslim parents who have brought their twisted practice of "honor killings" to the West.

So what does this guard do?

Patrick: I began the comment with: Well, most of them are not just random people,. Emphasis added.

I assumed the one disclaimer would be enough for most pedants, but evidently not. So yes, Patrick, it's mostly Muslims who blow themselves up in crowds, which means it's mostly Muslims we need to worry about on airplanes.

Ben-David: So: what does she do when a "brother" makes her an offer she can't refuse?

Because we know that each and every hijab-wearing female in the Middle East supports terrorist acts against the U.S....

Ah, the joys of living life in mortal terror!

Amy, that is great news about Gadahn. What's the punishment for wartime traitors?

Because we know that each and every hijab-wearing female in the Middle East supports terrorist acts against the U.S....

No, but we know that lots of them do, and that there's a much greater possibility that a hijab-wearing Muslim supports terrorism than does a non-Muslim, and that even if she doesn't, she probably has relatives who do, and those relatives might pressure her somehow to look the other way at a crucial moment. That's not living in mortal terror; it's applying common sense.

every hijab-wearing female in the Middle East

Of course, this woman is not in the Middle East; she's in Detroit. What's the matter, Patrick, your inner pedant taking a coffee break?

The scarf is a symbol of the meaning of Islam.
Submission.
I for one will NEVER submit to this nonsense that they espouse

I'll bet the same folks who are ignoring the obvious conflict of interests now will be calling for the heads of those in charge later, if something happens.

MarkD: I'll bet the same folks who are ignoring the obvious conflict of interests now will be calling for the heads of those in charge later, if something happens.

Tell you what. I'll let you guys worry about the Muslim threat. Personally, I'd rather just live my life than live it finding terrorists under every bush. But you guys seem to enjoy constant fear. Must be the adrenaline rush or something.

And when your fear-driven terrorist search has made the world better for us all, my tears of profound gratitude to you all with sure flow like a spring.

there's a much greater possibility that a hijab-wearing Muslim supports terrorism than does a non-Muslim,

The reason we were so shocked when terrorists didn't just hijack planes but flew them into buildings was that we, in the west, could not imagine people who would kill themselves for Allah.

Somebody just tweeted this: "@amyalkon 's stupid inference Not all Muslims are terrorists but most trrrsts are Muslim.Therefr this one might be one!"

As mbruce and others put it above, the headscarf is a sign of SUBMISSION -- to Islam. This woman is advertising that she submits to a religion that commands its followers to convert/kill others who do not believe in Allah. For me, this makes her not a great candidate to guard against Allah-believers who would follow that commandment.

Of course, we can't know her beliefs -- nor can somebody who's interviewing her for a job know if she's committing what Muslims call taqqiya, a form of permitted lying to advance Islam, about where she stands on the Quranic commands to violence against non-Muslims.

I should have put a question mark after "The Fox Guarding The Henhouse" - and I'll do that now. My aim in posting this isn't to be mean to Muslims but to wake us all up as to what we're actually dealing with vis a vis the realities of what actual islam promotes.

nor can somebody who's interviewing her for a job know if she's ... lying ... about where she stands on the Quranic commands to violence against non-Muslims.

You're assuming they actually ask such questions at these interviews. It's a wildly optimistic assumption.

Amy reminds me of my bible thumping grandmother. Back in the day, my mother wasn't allowed to play with the Chinese kids down the block because those "evil chinks were trying to take over the world".

The fear of Muslims here is irrational. You are still more likely to be raped and beaten by someone you know that a victim of an Islamic terrorist attack.

Now - onto the supression of women. I HATE ALL RELIGIONS for their current and previous treatment of women. I do not isolate just Muslims. There are sects of christianity that stil condone beating women, keeping them pregnant and quiet in the kitchen while only serving their men. Even certain realms of Judaism consider women so digusting that they cannot touch a man who is not their husband, lest she defile him. So - just because she's not wearing a headscarf doesn't mean she is free.

"Islam" means "submission [to God]." The word "hijab" means "curtain" or "covering." While it usually refers to the scarf worn by women, the term also refers to Muslim styles of dress in general, for men and women.

If you accept the use of the scarf as a sign of submission, you'd make the same argument for traditional garments worn in other religions, such as Orthodox Judaism, or those worn by Catholic nuns and monks, the clergy in general. Hell, isn't all clothing a form of submission to a particular culture? Not for me! I'm ripping off my clothes and walking outside right now...which I'm sure my physician who is treating me for pneumonia is bound to appreciate...to say nothing of the police.

The Goddess writes: I should have put a question mark after "The Fox Guarding The Henhouse" - and I'll do that now. My aim in posting this isn't to be mean to Muslims but to wake us all up as to what we're actually dealing with vis a vis the realities of what actual islam promotes.

That's a much better idea, Amy. Thanks. I'm all in favor of profiling (which is not in keeping with our Western culture) and the most stringent litmus tests we need to keep our airports secure. I simply object to "guilty until proven innocent." I accept the idea that there is a faction among Islam that wants us dead whose adherents are willing to die if it brings us down as well, I'm simply against an automatic assumption just because we happen to see a woman in a scarf.

Amy reminds me of my bible thumping grandmother. Back in the day, my mother wasn't allowed to play with the Chinese kids down the block because those "evil chinks were trying to take over the world".

There's a big difference in her thinking and mine.

We all want to do as well as we can, become as wealthy as we can, be as happy as we can, and Asians, in general, in this country seem to strive very hard and excel, and I think that's great, even though I'm not Asian nor very versed in Asian culture.

My problem comes with those who would kill others and replace Western freedoms with religiously based totalitarianism.

In short, it's a death thing.

"My problem comes with those who would kill others and replace Western freedoms with religiously based totalitarianism."

Ya - my grandmother felt the same way. Except take away the "religiously based"...

My problem with this discussion is that my decidedly-less-than-worthy opponents have to resort to weasel words to make their points.

When I wrote, "Because we know that each and every hijab-wearing female in the Middle East supports terrorist acts against the U.S.," the reply was, "No, but we know that lots of them do..." Lots? Lots? How many is lots? What percentage of the population does this?

Obviously, my opponent does not know.

Nor does he truly know this: "there's a much greater possibility that a hijab-wearing Muslim supports terrorism than does a non-Muslim..."

Much greater? How much greater?

Weasel words. Always good to rely on when you don't actually know something.

Some time ago, Amy made her first post about British Airways policy of assuming all men are child molesters, and removing men when seated next to women.

I shared this with my (then) boss at the time, and he actually supported this. "It's a good rule!" he insisted. When I countered with the idea that it assumes guilt, he asked me, "Do you know how many man child molesters there are?"

Sensing somebody was getting in over his head, I decided to challenge him. "No," I said. "How many?"

He only barely missed a beat when he countered with, "Plenty!"

In other words, he doesn't know. We could be talking about .01% of the population; 1 in a 10000, and for this, we assume the whole male population are child molesters.

That's right, I don't have statistics. I don't need them, b/c over the years I have read numerous articles reporting on surveys taken in the Middle East, in which large portions of the population supported terrorist actions. I saw the videos of them dancing in the streets on 9/11. I have seen posters issued by Islamic groups praising the 9/11 attacks. I feel no obligation to trot about gathering articles and statistics for your edification. You don't like it? You want statistics? Go find them yourself.

As for my statement that there's a much greater possibility that a hijab-wearing Muslim supports terrorism than does a non-Muslim, that's true on its face. How much greater is the possibility? I have no idea, nor do I care.

I wonder, though. How do you justify your stance supporting profiling, which of course means profiling of Muslims, who (as you know perfectly well) are the ones most likely to perpetrate terrorist attacks. How can you support profiling if you don't know precisely - down to the last decimal point, scientifically demonstrated - just how likely that is?

Actually, profiling means profiling anyone who has reason to make us suspicious. One doesn't need to be Muslim to be a fanatic or have membership in seditious organizations.

And that's not just at airports, either. It's anywhere we feel we should.

We already profile in this country, anyway. If you go to a courthouse, your scanned for metal and your ID is checked against a database of wanted criminals.

So, you saw some Muslims celebrating the destruction of the World Trade Center. How many Muslims were celebrating? How many did you see? 20? 50? Then you know 20 or 50 Muslims, against billions, were celebrating the destruction of the World Trade Center, and that's all you know.

I know of people in this country who celebrated the destruction of the World Trade Center, who aren't even Muslims. The members of the Westboro Baptist Church. Should I now start being afraid of Baptists?

No, I do not find them myself. When you make a statement, the onus of proof is on you. Not my job to find out what your ambiguous terms mean. It's your job to not be ambiguous. 50,000 people are certainly lots. Against the population of billions, the percentage is infinitesimal.

I'd like to know if my chances of running into a Muslim terrorist are greater or smaller than my chances of being struck by lightning. I don't know, and neither do you. Nonetheless, you seem to think that a female security guard at the airport who happens to wear a scarf is likely a terrorist, an accomplice, or at least someone who can be counted upon to look the other way while terrorists attack.

If I'm going to be afraid of something, I'd like to know whether I'm more likely to die of a bee sting than whatever it is I'm supposed to be afraid of.

"I'd like to know if my chances of running into a Muslim terrorist are greater or smaller than my chances of being struck by lightning."

Would this be before or after DHS's ridiculous policies allow for a nuke to be detonated in a large metropolitan area?

It's not THEM so much as it is the policies of political correctness by the people who's job it is to protect us.

This is not the first time our nation has been the target of another culture's wrath. But it is the first time (in my lifetime) we have seen our nation's leaders ask us to turn a suicidal blind eye to the reality that is screaming in our faces.

Their whitewashing of reality will be our demise. Just look at the UK.

Amy's snapshot depicts this insanity brilliantly.

"Again, my question is, why aren't all of you upset by a woman in a headscarf, and all that's behind it?"

I'm writing from Pennsylvania. Mennonite and Amish women wear head scarves, too. I distinguish between women who are forced to live in submission, and women who choose to.

I assume the photo I linked to was taken in Iran, and that the woman in the photograph wore the hijab because she would face dire consequences if she did not wear it.

I contrast this to the situation of the woman in the U.S., holding a position of authority and wearing the hijab on the job. I don't know why she's wearing it; I don't know what that cultural affiliation means to her.

I have one neighbor who is Muslim and wears a hijab - she is a red-haired, blue-eyed, white Muslim woman in a historically Irish Catholic neighborhood. She was neighborly and generous to me and to my Jewish, butch, same-sex partner. So was my law school colleague, an ebulliently joyful woman who wore - I want to call it a burqa, but she did not cover her face. She was elected to an office with the American Bar Association's law school division.

Back to the woman wearing the hijab while working airport security. Who better to profile Muslims than a Muslim? There are speech patterns - cadences, word choices, gestures, eye-contact choices - that are learned and are reverted to in times of stress. We could always tell when mom was really, really pissed because her hometown accent came out. To this day, I can hear that accent in other people's speech even if they haven't lived there in 50 years (there are a lot of old people in our part of PA). If that hijab leads people to feel a little more comfortable around her, let their guard down, confide in someone who appears to be sympathetic... win.

As for the photo of the woman working security in a hijab - I see her, and it evokes memories of my summers as a lifeguard. She's resting her weight on her right leg, balancing with her left, she has her torso jutted forward and she's resting her arms on her abdominal muscles. She has the stance of someone who spends a lot of time standing.

Here's who I'm worried about:

When I worked for an abortion-rights group and rented office space from an abortion clinic, I worried about the likes of Eric Rudolph, who was believed to be hiding in the woods of western Pennsylvania at the time. I went to work every day, walking through throngs of protesters on Saturdays and men in business suits paying penance by fingering rosaries outside the clinic door on weekdays. The thing for me to do about that? Go to work.

Pennsylvania has no shortage of hate groups, no shortage of crazy people who are violent, no shortage of women who hand over their power.

The US military has service men who are white supremacists members with group affiliation tattoos. That worries me, but I don't know what to do about that.

Blood-thirsting fundamentalists - what do I do about that?

We already profile in this country, anyway. If you go to a courthouse, your [sic] scanned for metal and your ID is checked against a database of wanted criminals.

That's not a very good example. Scanning everyone who enters the court house is not really profiling. If you only scanned blacks or Asians or people with a limp or who have red hair or who are wearing plaid or who you think are wearing black underwear, THAT would be profiling.

Legitimate profiling is based upon characteristics exhibited by the people who commit certain crimes (i.e., detaining men wearing bulky coats in the marketplace in the middle of the summer or questioning airline passengers who book a one-way flight, pay cash and bring no luggage).

Less than legitimate profiling is based upon characteristics that may or may not be correlated with the criminal behavior in question but that have no actual causal relationship with criminality (i.e., stopping black men who are driving luxury cars because "they must have stolen them").

Likewise stopping black men driving a dark-colored Mercedes in the vicinity of a crime in which a witness says the perpetrator was a black man in a dark-colored Mercedes is not profiling.

you seem to think that a female security guard at the airport who happens to wear a scarf is likely a terrorist, an accomplice, or at least someone who can be counted upon to look the other way while terrorists attack.

Not "likely." Just more likely than others.

the onus of proof is on you.

Not at all. This is what I believe. It's based on what I have read and seen, and I am perfectly comfortable putting it out there. You can choose to accept it or not, as you wish. I owe you no proof. Your demand for exact numbers is just a way of burying your head in the sand and pretending no threat exists.

Actually, profiling means profiling anyone who has reason to make us suspicious.

Right. But if put into practice in US airports today, it would mostly mean profiling Muslims (as you of course know quite well). So again, tell me, precisely what percentage of Muslims in the US are a potential threat, and how can you justify profling if you can't produce that number?

Seems like it might not be Gadahn they captured.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/07/world/main6275953.shtml

I had this wacky thought of what a Muslim-run flight security checkpoint would look like and came up with this.
Muslim man(MM): Allah Akbar brother
Muslim Security(MS): Salaam Aleikum to you and your wives and camels.
(searches, finds a bomb)
Aha! Looks like someone's been a naughty boy!
MM: Hah! You got me, you guys are good!
MS: None greater than Allah brother, you sneaky zealot, trying to get to paradise on my plane!
MM: Can't blame an Arab for trying!
MS: Yes, yes, the infidel must die but not on this flight! No dusky doe-eyed virgins for you tonight!
MM: I'm really bummed, my wives are killing me, always "Mohammed, take out the trash! Mohammed, why don't you call more? Mohammed, look what your camel did to my rug!" I tell you, it's enough to drive a man to drink!
MS: Allah forbid.
MM: Of course, of course, . . . still, are you sure I can't go through? I've had a really rough Ramadan and could use a nice eternal rest.
MS: I'm sure, I'd lose this job and my own wives would never let me hear the end of it . . . say, who makes your bombs?
MM: Crazy Omar, he has the best prices! Why, you want his number?
MS: . . . . no, I'm not that desperate, yet.
MM: Alahu Akbar
MS: Salaam, anyway.

Amy, thanks for having the guts to make such a stand (though the "?" would have been best right from the beginning). I suggest a blue dot over the face too. Otherwise, and again, thanks for bringing the discussion to the surface while taking the heat. Many people in the west simply don't want to open their eyes to the ugly truth you help expose. If you would have said this before 9/11, you would probably have many more detractors. Let's hope you don't have to gain more supporters by way of a worse 9/11 happening. A worse 9/11 that likely is being planned right now by followers of Islam with the resources to possibly pull it off.

kishke: This is what I believe. It's based on what I have read and seen, and I am perfectly comfortable putting it out there. You can choose to accept it or not, as you wish. I owe you no proof. Your demand for exact numbers is just a way of burying your head in the sand and pretending no threat exists.

Show me where I said no threat exists.

You can't because I didn't.

And when you were called on your reliance on weasel words, you told me to find the statistics myself. That is the fallacy known as "shifting the burden of proof." The burden of proof is always on someone making a statement.

You claimed "lots" of Muslim women support terrorist attacks and would happily turn a blind eye while they're brothers in Allah perpetrate some terrorist act against this country. Now you candidly admit you don't know how many "lots" are.

That's a cop-out and irresponsible fear-mongering.

Just like the example I gave of the cretin who supported British Airways' policy of relocating lone male travelers away from children, regardless of their seating arrangements. Because he just "knew" that there are "plenty" of male child molesters in the world.

But I guess weasel words are okay in this case, because it's not you that's being discriminated against. And even better, it's against a population you happen to hate. Just think long and hard the next time it's assumed you're a child molester by virtue of your gender (assuming you're male). Or that it's assumed that you're more likely to the be an abusive spouse.

BLUE DOT? For a public employee working in public? She has the right not to be photographed?

Look, she chooses to wear that scarf; she deliberately signals her allegiances with it. She WANTS people to know what her beliefs are.

And if she doesn't, she has other problems.

> As for the rest of the details
> of their sub-sects, frankly, I
> don't give a damn.

Kishke, you're a person of handsome impulse, even if your blog name is gender-indeterminate. There are a lot of momentary practical reasons why we might be expected to know the differences between all these faiths... But in the final analysis, I think there's no reason to care TOO much. Same with Christians and Jews and Scientologists and Moonies. 'Pardon me, but is this detailed discussion of your faith really necessary, or are you boring me the same way I bore people at cocktail parties with chatter about archtop guitars and Formula One?'

BD: You might get away with this -

> It represents a rising trend
> of fundamentalism.

But I'm not sure it's true. There's a trend, but I'm not sure it's rising. Nobody knows what the baseline for crazyshit fundamentalism is supposed to be.

This fundamentalism appears today because primitives are able to make their way into modern realms using borrowed culture. A lot of the blessings from Western progress can be projected, if only for a time, into societies that could never have refined them on their own, and to no respectable effect. At this hour, the most powerful expression of aeronautic achievement from Muslim thought is the attacks of 9/11, and the planes were stolen: Those people were obviously humanity's hillbillies, expressing resentment towards the fancy-pants cityfolk. But it was a typically human small-mindedness. It's not so much that they're on the march, they just happen to be able to exploit historically profound discontinuities. After their destructiveness, they have no second act.

And this is going a little too far:

> wearing this scarf is an
> act of cultural rejection

Dude, a tramp stamp is an act of cultural rejection. Tats and piercings are how younger women "culturally reject" me (dammit).... But it's hardly the end of the world. We shouldn't demand conformity in terms that broad.

(And what's YOUR favorite term for a broad?)

>>>BLUE DOT? For a public employee working in public? She has the right not to be photographed?

The "blue dot" suggestion was not based on legality. My suggestion was based on what I consider the fairest of play. The picture was used as a representation of a contradiction. I felt that point could be entirely made without showing her face.

The Goddess writes: I have some idea, at least about Canadian Muslims. There was a poll there I've blogged about before, where only 12 percent of Canadian Muslims were okay with blowing up Parliament and murdering the Prime Minister in the name of Allah. Only 12 percent, right? That's approximately 84,000 people.

Thank you, Amy. I now have an idea of how concerned I would be if I were a Canadian citizen. That's two out of seventeen. (I would have said one out of eight-point-five, but I've never seen half a Muslim.) Sounds like a reason to be concerned to me.

Plus you have to consider that some of the subjects taking this poll probably aren't going to admit their inclinations to a poll.

And I doubt American Muslims will be that much different.

See, kishke? That wasn't so hard, was it?

"There was a poll there I've blogged about before, where only 12 percent of Canadian Muslims were okay with blowing up Parliament and murdering the Prime Minister in the name of Allah"

Tell me more about this poll. Polls can be made to say anything you want and I don't just automatically trust what they are used for (they are EXCELLENT for propaganda).

I also just spoke to a Canadian muslim about the whole thing. His response...he laughed and said "you have to stop talking to Americans". Which...I found both ironic and hilarious.

Maybe a middle eastern woman will be better at behavioral profiling of men from that region, by being more famliar with their mannerisms and behavior.

Of course, the idiots running security don't believe in behavioral profiling, they believe making you jump through hoops searching for contraband is security. As you have said before, we look for bombs, while the Israelis look for terrorists.

You don't know that she's a Muslim. There's a woman in my mother's church who converted from Islam as an adult, but still covers her hair. It's her choice, based on years of habit, and a desire to be, well, modest. She says that she wears her apparently gorgeous hair down when she and her husband are home together, but she covers it for work and just about any time she leaves the home.

I also don't buy the idea that a poll, collected by phone or something similar, can really tell you how 12% of Canadian Muslims feel.

Besides, the real terrorists work hard to assimilate. Maj. Hasan was the exception in that he went on a crazy-ass tear using his position to teach radical Islam when he should've been teaching Army psychology. The hijackers, while they were living in the US, dressed like everyone else and went to strip clubs.

Besides, the real terrorists work hard to assimilate.

This is something that bears repeating over and over again. Because the Muslims who pose the threat are the ones who are NOT going to broadcast that they ARE a threat!

PS - HB2U, Amy, and many more!

And even better, it's against a population you happen to hate.

I don't hate anyone. I just want them to leave us alone and not try to kill us. Live and let live is my motto. Right now the Muslims have given me reason to believe they're not interested in live and let live. So I'd like steps taken to keep them from doing damage. Like profiling. Like heavily vetting the Muslim woman you're hiring at the TSA. Etc.

See, kishke? That wasn't so hard, was it?

No, it wasn't. Because Amy did the work, not me. She's welcome to supply you with any other stats you demand, but I'm not going to.

Now you candidly admit you don't know how many "lots" are. That's a cop-out and irresponsible fear-mongering.

No, it's candid, as you so kindly put it. I'm sorry if I made you afraid, but I believe there's something to be afraid of. What's irresponsible is pretending there's nothing to fear b/c I don't have exact numbers.

And I'm still waiting for you to explain why it's okay to profile Muslims w/o those exact numbers.

Kishke, you're a person of handsome impulse,

Thanks.

even if your blog name is gender-indeterminate.

I'm a guy.

"Read the stuff from the Quran above."
I have, I've read all the stuff about strike their necks and everything else. And yes, in the nads of a literalist, it's a dangerous tome. I simply don't believe that the violence-based jihadist is in the majority, or even close. If they were, we would all be dead.

"The Quran is to be taken literally"
So is the Bible, for the fundamentalist followers of it. Christian fundamentalists are at their worst simple people with heads filled with cork and potpourri, and at their worst, terrorists.

"A great many Muslims have never read the Quran"
That right there might be key. There's lots of Christians/Catholics who've never read the bible either, they just cherry-pick the best bits of the faith and call themselves catholic/Christian. I'll lay odds there's a lot of Muslim converts who've not read through the whole book and believe in the simplified, non-violent tenets of the faith. And the more of those join, the easier it will be for the faith to change and evolve. I really doubt that after X years in the faith, they get trotted into a room and get told the REAL low-down on their holy mission.

"Islam, properly practiced, orders the conversion or murder of others."
Again, the key phrase there is "properly practiced". It's up to the followers (with the guidance of their imams) what "proper" is. I know lots of muslims, worked with them, and all have said that "jihad" can easily be interpreted as convincing the Infidel with explanatory pamphlets.

Again, the Bible has some very distinct explanation on how to spread the word, and in the history of the HRC, some absolute horrors have been undertaken in His name. The curch, the religion, and the interpretation of same have all eveolved over time, guided mainly by the demands of its followers as more and more of them found their voice. The role of women, gays, etc have all been increased in many Christian faiths (the HRC remains trailing the pack in those, but whadjagoonnado) and here in this country, the number of Muslims who are killing non-Muslims is hearteningly low. And I simply don't think that it's just for the lack of trying.

"What I want to know is why more of you aren't upset by Islam -- do you just not know what it's really about?"

Define "upset". Disagree with? I do. There's lots of stuff in old-school interpretation of the Muslim faith that I wouldn't touch with a four-foot Ellison. "Afraid of"? Not at all. No more than I am afraid of Christianity of Judaism. I'm brick-shitting scared of the lifetime-indictrinated madmen who think they're gonna go to heaven and get a harem for killing a bunch of people on a bus. But that's an unbalanced individual, or a person manipulated by a savvy group with a political purpose, or a mix of both. It's not the religion itself.

I'm far more afriad of being sued by Scientologists is I speak out against them than I am of a Muslim striking my neck if I say I'd like a ham sandwich.

As a religion, they should live and be well. Show me a group planning to do violence against the West, shut 'em down and make 'em disappear. They are simply and clearly not the same thing. The latter may/will take on the trappings of the former to give itself weight in its surroundings, but it's still a wolf under the fleece.

"There's a whole Muslims blow up planes for Allah industry now, and it's spawned the TSA"

No, the FEAR of Muslims blowing up planes for Allah spawned the TSA.

Like so many people, they've done something once or twice, and have been coasting ever since.

Yes, it's a good idea to be cautious and vigilant. It's NEVER a good idea to paint a whole group of people with one brush.

" I don't care what unfounded beliefs you have unless your particular belief system commands you to forcibly impose them (or death) on the rest of us."

THEY don't. SOME do. And the ratio simply isn't high enough to warrant some of the stuff people are proposing.

>"The Quran is to be taken literally"
>So is the Bible, for the fundamentalist followers

The Quran is the basis of a state sponsored, protected, uncriticizable ideology, just like the works of Lenin, Stalin, Mao..etc.

>"A great many Muslims have never read the Quran"
>That right there might be key. There's lots of >Christians/Catholics who've never read the bible

Islam is a state sponsored ideology. There is no separation of mosque and state.

>"Islam, properly practiced, orders the conversion >or murder of others."
>Again, the key phrase there is "properly >practiced". It's up to the followers (with the >guidance of their imams) what "proper" is. I know >lots of muslims, worked with them, and all have >said that "jihad" can easily be interpreted as >convincing the Infidel with explanatory >pamphlets.

If a state sponsored ideology is based on jihad, what do you get?

>Again, the Bible has some very distinct >explanation on how to spread the word, and in the

Which is why there is a separation of church and state, and the Bible may be used as a reference, but not as a state sponsored protected uncontradictable ideology.

The solution? Take way the Quran as a state sponsored ideology, and replace it with live and let live.

PS.

Yes, it took the historical South 100 years to move away from a state sponsored ideology to the civil rights movement, and the live and let live today.

> the fairest of play.

It ain't play. Amy's concerns seem to be very real.

> The picture was used as a
> representation of a
> contradiction.

Says who? Did the photographer/blogger tell us that? Do you get to decide what Amy's purposes were? If she were only interested in it for the color composition, would the dot have been more or less necessary? Why are you trying to make this photo into such a desiccated artifact? Isn't the point that there's a human personality under that scarf the quintessence of the the topic?

IIRC, the "blue dot" first appeared in public consciousness during the CNN coverage of the William Kennedy Smith trial in 1991. The network used it to cover a rape accuser's face during her testimony against him. Thoughtful viewers wondered why, if protecting her identity was essential, her voice and testimony were being broadcast at all (especially as the dot changed colors and wiggled, eventually making her face plainly visible.) The entire effect was made comical when, after Smith's exoneration, his accuser made the rounds of popular media undisguised, proudly (if unconvincingly) continuing her charges on venues like CNN's Larry King.

The Blue Dot isn't some gallant mechanism of civility and decorum. Like almost all information-suppressing mechanisms, it's purposes and history are weak and sullied. It's like I said above, civilization isn't an enterprise which can or should be vetted by some public relations agency to make sure nobody ever has feelings about anything. Amongst their other faults, these manipulations are always plainly obvious (eg, "patent inference").

> I felt that point could be entirely made without
> showing her face.

Could that woman's point have be made without wearing a scarf?

> You don't know that she's
> a Muslim.

Swarthy-skinned, bescarf'd, in Detroit? I'd bet ten grand. A hunnert, if you were a dick about it.

> It's NEVER a good idea to paint
> a whole group of people with one
> brush.

It is when they share distinctive qualities, which, y'know, make them into a group. Most especially systems of belief. I don't think you understand this clearly, and your language is confusing you. (And your capital letters are nutty; schoolmarm-scolding and inane.)

Grrr.

OK, the 'skinned' after swarthy was redundant. And I shoulda added something about her youth, where western fashion is more about tats and piercings. That girl is not a Catholic, and she's not a Scientologist.

She's also WORKING. Outside the home, and I don't see her brother father or husband hanging around. So, I'd say that even though her hair, like that of many modest, devout women of other faiths, is covered, she's probably not that freaking radical.

Again, the hijackers shaved their faces to blend in. They wore clothes from the Gap. They made sure to play the part untill they pulled out boxcutters and started shouting to Allah. There is no reason to put this woman's face on the internet and imply that she can't do her job.

If she was so radical that she would aid a terrorist, she either wouldn't be working in full view of men not her husband, or she would take great pains to fit in.

"Jewish women, Christian women, atheist women, are not going around in headscarves."

Atheist women aren't, but quite a few Jewish and Christian women are - particularly if they want to enter holy sites. Should we excoriate Judaism and Christianity as well?

>>Maybe a middle eastern woman will be better at behavioral profiling of men from that region, by being more familiar with their mannerisms and behavior.

That was my first reaction too, plutosdad.
(And as JennyHAC pointed out - a woman also obviously working outside the home - and in a job requiring a helluva lot of close contact with the public).

If she was so radical that she would aid a terrorist, she either wouldn't be working in full view of men not her husband

Under the doctrine of taqqiya, that would be permitted. View the videos Amy posted a day or two ago detailing Muslim tactics of societal infiltration practiced in Great Britain.

Also, even a person who is herself not radicalized might be subject to pressure from someone who is, as was mentioned above.

> she's probably not that freaking radical.

Well, no, but...

> There is no reason to put this woman's
> face on the internet

Of course there is. Of course there is. And there's no great reason not to, either. She's taking taxpayer money for working with the public in a profoundly public setting on behalf of their safety. And did you note those baby blue rubber gloves? Her work will be intrusive.

Y'know, some folks are so worried about "accidentally" giving offense that they're ready to paralyze everyone else's conversations. Like the guy earlier, talking as if to children: "It's NEVER a good idea to paint a whole group...."

Let's count the different ways that that's weird:

1. The condescension. The schoolmarm thing. The tone, as if talking to children, who need things said in small, loud words. Even if you think this guy is correct about this matter, how could you explain that he thinks this is how adult strangers should be persuaded in a setting like this?

2. The out-of-the-blue-ness. Golly, after the ten commandments and several millenia of human progress in law and morality and all that, there's a sudden new injunction from the back of the room, one we might not have anticipated! We must NEVER paint a whole group blah blah blah....

3. You are that afraid of conflict. You (apparently) think culture clashes are always just misunderstandings, a failure to see others with the proper spirit of camraderie and patience. This is not so. Bad times are coming, with fights and bitterness, and it's not our fault. Your fear of accidental, unnecessary clashes delays and cripples execution of the inevitable chores which virtuous people seek to have completed before their grandchildren arrive.

3a. The whole 'we can't judge' thing. Carolla and Pinsky had a radio show for teenagers where they had a whole long spiel about this. Night after night, year after year, troubled children would phone in and describe the wreckage of their lives from the misconduct of their parents (and then themselves). Rather than weep, the hosts had this same punch line, spoken mockingly in the forgiving, simplistic timbre of commercial culture: We cannot judge. These are just 'cultural' differences. We don't know everything that was going on at the time: We haven't walked a mile in their shoes. (Even if alcoholic parents had knife fights in front the children for ten years...) It became a wonderful but monstrous running joke: It is impossible to judge....!

Well, I like to judge. What judgment comes to mind for you when you read the phrase "Islam and aviation"?

> and imply that she can't
> do her job.

New list!

1. NO one can do her job. Her job is horseshit. This has been a topic here for several years. Read schneier dot com. There's no "job" for her to do, it's just a twisted, macabre piece of taxpayer-art / performance-art. (We need a name for this phenomenon. Obama's just purchased another twelve trillion dollars' worth.)

Surely you don't mean to imply that she, as a TSA functionary, should be excused from whatever review we choose to give to her on account of her faith, do you?

2. Are you getting the big irony here? That the wearing of scarves is an expression of modesty which most Americans regard as intolerably sexist and servile; and that in your eagerness to help her be the meek little creature her tradition wants her to be, you're doubling down on the implicit disdain?

3. The fact that she might not be eager to perform the kind of protective functions which naive passengers might trust her to perform may in fact be a part of a charm for her supervisors, who really just want her paycheck on their budgets, anyway. They don't want someone who digs into passengers and their belongings too aggressively.

> Maybe a middle eastern woman
> will be better at behavioral
> profiling of men from that
> region, by being more familiar
> with their mannerisms and behavior

Will such a woman be in the habit of dispassionately challenging men on those behaviors? Give me a pissy, freckled farmer's daughter from Kansas: She'll know what to do if Achmed's new clothes from the Gap don't fit him quite right.

I happen to be muslim. I can't read through all of the idiocy here.

Idolaters refers to pagans, not Christians and Jews. Those who worship something other than God and usually, quite literally, kneel and pray to a statue/idol made of their chosen deity.

Islam often teaches its followers to have respect for other people "of the book" (meaning believers in the Word from God prior to the Quran). A muslim man is allowed to marry a Christian or Jewish woman. So, you know, this inference that we're directed to kill all Christians and Jews is patently false.

Much of what gets labeled as Islam's terrible treatment of women is a hold over from Arabic culture and NOT based on the teachings of the Quran. But how could I expect anyone here to differentiate between the two, when everyone here thinks all those swarthy Arabs are muslims looking to kills ya.

> Much of what gets labeled as Islam's terrible treatment
> of women is a hold over from Arabic culture and NOT
> based on the teachings of the Quran. But how could I
> expect anyone here to differentiate between the two

First, the problem with the terrible treatment is not the "labeling". Second, if the boundaries of the faith are so darned clear, why should we have to study the Quran? Third, is it not being used for foul purposes by bad people, and is your problem not therefore sort of intramural? Fourthly, I "happen to be" pagan. As a contented disbeliever, I wonder who you think your comment appeals to.

Patrick, why the fuck do you post here? Does disagreeing with everybody give you some bizarre pleasure? You seem to be a completely miserable individual and love trying to spread the misery around. Why don't you just off yourself already

So, you know, this inference that we're directed to kill all Christians and Jews is patently false.

Well, then, how do you explain the following:

HADITH Sahih Bukhari [4:52:176] Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar:
Allah's Apostle said, "You (i.e. Muslims) will fight with the Jews till some of them will hide behind stones. The stones will (betray them) saying, 'O 'Abdullah (i.e. slave of Allah)! There is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.' "

HADITH Sahih Bukhari [4:52:177] Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."

>>Give me a pissy, freckled farmer's daughter from Kansas: She'll know what to do if Achmed's new clothes from the Gap don't fit him quite right.

And if freckle-face gets pissy with you, Crid - say for trying to take a banned pocket knife on board, what then?

Will you start screaming she's just like a Nazi, like the last time you had bother with airport gate security?

(Though I'm glad to see you had second thoughts about using "swarthy-skinned" to describe the young woman in Amy's pic. It made me wince too.)

Meanwhile, Muslims use machetes to hack 500 Christians to death.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/nigeriaunrest;_ylt=AqN58y23n8L7ZVJxVhiP11uwRLJ_;_ylu=X3oDMTMzcTB0bHIwBGFzc2V0A2FmcC8yMDEwMDMwOC9uaWdlcmlhdW5yZXN0BGNjb2RlA21vc3Rwb3B1bGFyBGNwb3MDMQRwb3MDMQRzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3JpZXMEc2xrA21hY2hldGVhdHRhYw--

> And if freckle-face gets pissy
> with you, Crid - say for trying
> to take a banned pocket knife on
> board, what then?

See my comment linked earlier. "Pissy" is exactly the problem we're having with these people at this point. You didn't get back to me on how feel about Islam & aviation... Do you think Americans should want to put up with piss from women in submissive Islamic costume?

> It made me wince too.

To picture you thusly gladdens the heart, but let's be clear: I regret the redundancy of "skinned" after "swarthy", which was a high-schooler's error. I think the color of her skin is a piece of information about what her beliefs might be.

Wince, Jody! Wince!

Some people go absolutely apeshit when skin color is mentioned in any context. Perhaps you are one of those people, yourself incapable of distinguishing relevant information from necessary information when composing judgments, and you think the risks of registering such factoids are too great. In your twitchy little nightmares, folks with brown skin might be suddenly be at risk for violence from terrorist-fearing American hoards.... Not from normal, stable, nightmare-suffering thinkers such as yourself —you know your own heart is pure, because you can't sleep at night– but y'know, from the little people who watch Charleton Heston movies. That risk is too great!

So dammit, you're going rhetorically nuclear! People shouldn't even be allowed to take notice of skin color... And dammit, people sure ought not be allowed to talk about it! Wince!

This is part of the "It is impossible to judge" thing. Or am I reading to much into your wincing cluck? What other information about this particular individual will you demand we ignore? Should we ignore that scarfs aren't fashionable items among women her age? Are we forbidden to consider that the picture was taken in Detroit, as Dearborn is said to have the largest concentration of Arabs outside the Middle East? Are you joining the Blue Dot Brigade, or is photography flatly forbidden?

Or are you going to just shuck right down to the cob, and tell us we're not allowed to reflect on the irony, even the irony, of having Muslims working airport security in America in 2010?

> Will you start screaming she's just like a
> Nazi, like the last time you had bother
> with airport gate security?

Why not? Would it not be true? Would she not equally deserve it? Apparently you do think this woman's (entirely imaginary) status as an American At Risk For Judgment should shelter her from all attention. Behind hajib's veil or within your twitching embrace, she'll be invisible one way or the other.

Meanwhile...

Another cute one (5 years old). We can hope, as we do with all immigrants, that the irony of coming to the United States to pursue life under the same burdens as the older, lesser, forsaken culture will be too great to bear.

But we should probably turn up the pandering garishness in our popular media a little bit, just to be sure.

HBTY, Amy, if it's not too late. You don't look it.

Here's a survey of American Muslims. A gift to you, Patrick. I hope someone checked to be sure that the young woman in this photo is not of the 26% of Muslims under 30 who support suicide bombings "to defend Islam."

http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=26676

Vinnie: You said: THEY don't. SOME do. And the ratio simply isn't high enough to warrant some of the stuff people are proposing.

Is 26% of American Muslims under 30 a high enough ratio? (See above link.) If not, how high would be high enough?

I know where you are coming from. In October I finished a 29 year reserve/active Navy career with my last deployment being to Afghanistan. I just don't say anything anymore. One thing I have learned is that unless it happens to you or someone close to you people will just not give a damn. The surrealness of returning to a country so disconnected to reality after a year in a combat zone is something that, unless you have experienced it you have not a clue. I was an Intelligence Specialist and I know about these people. My personal opinion concerning Muslims is guilty untill proven innocent. I wish I could work up some outrage but it is really too much effort right now.

> In October I finished a 29 year reserve/active
> Navy career with my last deployment
> being to Afghanistan

Props, Mr. Cook. I wish more were made of this. It's got to be one of the great untold stories in American life.... This distance of stateside life from her global military presence

(For teh record, I disagree with "guilty until proven innocent," I just wish people felt some personal commitment and investment in these wars we're fighting)

My personal opinion concerning Muslims is guilty untill proven innocent.

I'm interested in that statement. Can you share, in a generously-sized nutshell, what it is based on?

>>Why not? Would it not be true? Would she not equally deserve it?

Crid,
No, the swarthy woman certainly wouldn't "equally deserve" it.

That "Nazi...cunt..." rant of yours in January about being ticked off for trying to take your pocket knife on a plane after your Vegas weekend was tosh. (Affected tosh, too).

("Fuck the way this multi-chinned cunt (Ok, multi-chinned female TSA agent) calls out to queue members (lost in their annoyance) with the cloying tones of a kindergarten teacher.

Fuck them for carrying themselves as if this was all some burden for which they shouldn't be held accountable; as if we'd agree that a working stiff has to do what he's told, no matter how odious the assignment.... That was the excuse offered by the monsters who released the Zyklon-B gas at Auschwitz, for fuck's sake. You are never, ever excused by saying "I'm just doing my job." Ever. FUCKING EVER....")

What exactly is your point? That my dislike for those people flows without respect to their faiths, gender, skin tones and fashion choices? Was there every any doubt?

> No, the swarthy woman certainly wouldn't
> "equally deserve" it.

And –again, Jody– I'm all, like, why not? You've said it twice, but not yet outright: You think no one can say nasty things about Muslims, right? Or Scarved-Americans? Or the dark-toned? Or the young? Or Detroiters?

Or what?

The tosh (?) seems to have sunk deeply into your soul. (Is tosh like toffee? Is it like pudding or biscuits or butties? It's sounds like a British snack. An affected one.)

Kishke

It is the experience of my military career. My knowledge of their theology and other sources of information that I cannot divulge due to signing a lifetime non disclosure statement when I recieved my clearances and compartment read ins.

Richard: Thanks for sharing your perspective. Based as it is on extensive experience, it is valuable.

kishke: Here's a survey of American Muslims. A gift to you, Patrick. I hope someone checked to be sure that the young woman in this photo is not of the 26% of Muslims under 30 who support suicide bombings "to defend Islam."

Well, assuming that she is under thirty, the odds are still pretty good that she's not of the "Suicide Bombings are Justified" mindset.

ron: Patrick, why the fuck do you post here? Does disagreeing with everybody give you some bizarre pleasure? You seem to be a completely miserable individual and love trying to spread the misery around. Why don't you just off yourself already

I would have, but since I'm making you miserable, I've suddenly found new purpose!

kishke: I don't hate anyone.

But you do. You're willing to demonize the entire population of them for what the fanatical sect does. You don't even care to know what percentage of the population you're talking about when you're finally dragged, kicking and screaming the whole way, to the point where an unqualified statement about Muslims (meaning ALL Muslims) becomes "some." You're quite willing to turn the entire world against all of them based on the actions and allegiances of some.

You don't care in the least that what you're doing is dangerous and irresponsible rumor-mongering. Perhaps one day karma will put you on the receiving end of that kind of treatment, so you can know just how repulsive your behavior is.

If I hated any particular type of person, I'd do exactly what you're doing. I'd hold the entire population responsible for what a few of them do, and I wouldn't bother myself with knowing which particular segments of that population were responsible, or what the percentages are. And I'd try to turn the rest of the world against them.

Kishke, I hate all Arabs because you told me to.

Or all Muslims.

Whatever.

Bastard. This is what you wanted to have happen, isn't it, Kish? Well I hope you're satisfied.... HATER!

Some men use their power for goodness and enchantment... But you used yours to demonize with evil!

Don't talk to me anymore.

Crid: (For teh record, I disagree with "guilty until proven innocent," I just wish people felt some personal commitment and investment in these wars we're fighting)

So enlist, stupid.

Now, don't go and demonize all of us for what the fanatical Kish does. We need to remember that Kish is a small percentage of the population of commenters here, and when someone is dragged kicking and screaming the whole way to whatever, unqualified words to commenters (meaning ALL commenters) becomes "Kish". Meaning Kishke. You shouldn't turn the whole world against all of us based on the comments and allegiances of Kishke.

Kishke, and Kishke alone, is doing dangerous and irresponsible rumor-mongering.

Kishke's "repulsive"!

He hates "particular types" of commenters. But I'm just saying you shouldn't hold the entire population of Amy's commenters responsible. He's trying to turn the rest of the world against us.

Because he's like that. Kishke is. He is so evil, and so successful in his manipulations. And when the Karma comes down.....

>>It ain't play. Amy's concerns seem to be very real.

Ahhh, I see. "Fair play" is a phrase that only refers to the less than real? Got it!

>>>Says who? Did the photographer/blogger tell us that? Do you get to decide what Amy's purposes were? If she were only interested in it for the color composition, would the dot have been more or less necessary? Why are you trying to make this photo into such a desiccated artifact? Isn't the point that there's a human personality under that scarf the quintessence of the the topic?

To me the picture represented a contradiction (a contradiction very worthy of pointing out). If you interpret the picture not as that contradiction, enjoy whatever interpretation you choose to make. I suppose it could also be an ad for persianwifefinder.com.

>>>>IIRC, the "blue dot" first appeared in public consciousness during the CNN coverage of the William Kennedy Smith trial in 1991. The network used it to cover a rape accuser's face during her testimony against him. Thoughtful viewers wondered why, if protecting her identity was essential, her voice and testimony were being broadcast at all (especially as the dot changed colors and wiggled, eventually making her face plainly visible.) The entire effect was made comical when, after Smith's exoneration, his accuser made the rounds of popular media undisguised, proudly (if unconvincingly) continuing her charges on venues like CNN's Larry King.
The Blue Dot isn't some gallant mechanism of civility and decorum. Like almost all information-suppressing mechanisms, it's purposes and history are weak and sullied. It's like I said above, civilization isn't an enterprise which can or should be vetted by some public relations agency to make sure nobody ever has feelings about anything. Amongst their other faults, these manipulations are always plainly obvious (eg, "patent inference").

Don't like the blue dot? How about pixelation? A Photoshop superimposed Goalie's mask with a crescent moon and star on it?
I sometimes have a pie in the sky view of the world. A place where decorum doesn't necessarily equal information suppression. This individual's identity did not need to be known for the point to be entirely made.....or I should say 'to me' the point could still be entirely made.

This isn't about being gallant. It isn't about some ad agency's idea of what will achieve the highest number of agreeable viewers. It is about fairness (a.k.a. "fair play").....

>>>Could that woman's point have be made without wearing a scarf?

Maybe she could have been wearing a burqa? Or how about a plain TSA uniform but carrying a scimitar? Since that is not the case I would still prefer shielding an individual's identity, an individual we know little about, from a discussion like this.....a discussion I am in favor of.

Apparently, Crid is feeling neglected. I had no idea how jealous he gets when I have heated discussions with someone other than him. Is it possible to be flattered and creeped-out at the same time?

>>And –again, Jody– I'm all, like, why not?

Because comparing an official to "the monsters who released the Zyklon-B gas at Auschwitz" just because you had your inflated sense of dignity fleetingly hurt at a Vegas airport is ludicrous hyperbole?

Because it mocks the genuine victims of the Nazis, and those who sacrificed everything to stop them?

Because of all the exasperating hand luggage rules pursued with special vigor since 9/11, the one banning pocket knives is the best known & understood even by little kids?

And because men who resort to the insult "cunt" when faced with any female who dares to displease them have a problem that has nothing to do with the ostensible cause of their fury!

If I hated any particular type of person, I'd do exactly what you're doing. I'd hold the entire population responsible for what a few of them do,

This has nothing to do with holding people responsible for what others do. It has to do with making certain that people who might very well support suicide bombings to defend Islam should not be in position to act on their ideas. It's like profiling. Which you support. (Although you have not yet managed to explain why you feel it's justified.)

From (one of) the article(s) Crid linked to: DETROIT - A group of Muslim-American scholars has issued a religious ruling that calls upon the faithful to not go through body scanners because the scholars say the machines violate Islamic rules on nudity.

Good! Now the faithful don't have to fly! Because they can't have it both ways - they can't say, "well, we can fly, we just can't go through the scanners." They should NOT be exempt. They don't go through the scanners, they don't get to fly. PERIOD. They can take trains or cars or buses or freakin' walk to get where they have to go. Sounds good to me. In fact, let's get that enacted right away!

o.O

kishke: This has nothing to do with holding people responsible for what others do. It has to do with making certain that people who might very well support suicide bombings to defend Islam should not be in position to act on their ideas.

And yet, you don't seem to care about finding anything about the nature of the suicide bombers. "Muslim" (which is about 1.3 billion people, making it the second largest religion in the world).

Do you never ask questions to narrow down your search, or are you just going to live in abject terror of over 1/5 of the world's population?

Do these lunatics not come from a particular sect in Islam? Perhaps a particular educational/socio-economic background?

You seem to be content with classifying them as "Muslim" and not the least bit concerned about how irresponsible that is. Not only is it grossly unfair to the Muslims in this world, it also makes your life a little more difficult. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the U.S., and probably the world. Are you just going to run around in circles screaming like a loon every time you see a Muslim?

Do you even know any Muslims?

>>They don't go through the scanners, they don't get to fly. PERIOD.

Flynne,
Common sense has prevailed so far in the UK on this one.
Don't want to be scanned before you fly? Then make other travel arrangements.

From the UK Mail (March 3):

"Two Muslim women have become the first passengers to refuse to subject themselves to controversial 'naked' full body airport scans, it emerged today.

The pair - who security officials insist were selected at random - opted to miss their flight to Pakistan and forfeit tickets worth £400 each rather than be screened.

One of the women refused to go through the full-body scanner at Manchester Airport on religious grounds while her companion also declined for 'medical reasons'.

The women were travelling together to Islamabad when they were selected to pass through the controversial security screen after checking-in at Terminal Two at the airport.

An estimated 15,000 people have already passed through the scanners, with the pair the first passengers to refuse a scan...Councillor Afzal Khan, who was Manchester's first Asian lord mayor, said the vast majority of Muslims believed that any privacy concerns should be outweighed by ensuring they are safe when flying.

He said: 'Hundreds of Muslim passengers have gone through without a problem. While I appreciate people's concerns for privacy, these steps are necessary for our safety and security.' "

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1255104/Muslim-women-barred-flight-refusing-naked-body-scan.html#ixzz0hgzvWo0Z

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1255104/Muslim-women-barred-flight-refusing-naked-body-scan.html#ixzz0hgydgSE6

Patrick

The only sect they do not come from is Sufi which is the smallest one of the major three.

They don't come from a particular class. They are poor, middle class and rich.

You are intentionally trying to not see.

Why don't you tell us what your research on Islam tells you about the potential threat?

or are you just going to live in abject terror of over 1/5 of the world's population?

I'm not in abject terror; just concerned. For good reason. And my immediate concern extends only to American Muslims; the rest are pretty much not my problem.

it also makes your life a little more difficult.

It makes all our lives more difficult. Whenever we fly, for example.

Well, assuming that she is under thirty, the odds are still pretty good that she's not of the "Suicide Bombings are Justified" mindset.

Really? You're cool with one out of four supporting suicide bombing? Well, I'm not. (And that assumes the rest answered honestly about their views. I wouldn't bet on it. The percentage may be higher.)

Are you just going to run around in circles screaming like a loon every time you see a Muslim?

No. Only if he's pointing a gun at me. Or an airplane.

You are intentionally trying to not see.

Exactly right.

Richard Cook: You are intentionally trying to not see.

No. You're trying intentionally to justify bigotry. It has no justification. None. Deal.

It's bigotry when it's your job to determine whether someone is carrying concealed explosives onto a plane? How so? I don't care if someone is purple with pink polka-dots and prays to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, if that someone has concealed explosives on his person and is trying to get on a goddamned plane, I want to know about it, and I want that sucker kept off the plane. Savvy?

That was not describing how you see the threat Patrick.

You're trying intentionally to justify bigotry.

So profiling, which you support, is bigotry?

Richard Cook: That was not describing how you see the threat Patrick.

Nor am I going to. I'm not bound to answer your questions. Particularly since I see such an exercise as pointless. You are determined to maintain your anti-Muslim bias, and it is pointless to even attempt to disabuse an anti-anything of their beliefs.

kishke: Really? You're cool with one out of four supporting suicide bombing?

Bait and switch? I said I was okay with her. I said nothing about one out of four. I don't those odds apply to her since I assume airport security did a thorough background check on her, and that she's safe. Regardless of what the odds are, I think it's a very safe bet that she's not dangerous.

Of course, some idiot might point to Hasan as if that proves...what? Our system of background checks isn't perfect? I knew that already.

Against one Hasan, there are 15,000 Muslims currently in the military, saying nothing about how many are in the other branches of the service, and those that have finished their enlistments without feeling the need to support terrorist attacks.

I could get just as upset about Kenny Junior French, the white guy who felt the need to shoot up Luigi's Restaurant in Fayetteville, North Carolina while yelling about Clinton letting "faggots" in the military. Is this now an indictment against the military's ability to do successful background checks to weed out the lunatics like French? Should I be afraid of white people in the Army now?

I'm more concerned that the military didn't seem act on the warning signs that they were given of Hasan's impending explosion.

> "Fair play" is a phrase that
> only refers to the less than
> real?

Terms of gamesmanship are not appropriate. Amy didn't walk into that airport, reviewing the teams and tools designed to affirm her safety, under any concord of privacy or discretion. She thinks this could be a problem. Even if she's wrong (and she's not: it certainly could be a problem), this isn't a board game.

> To me the picture represented a
> contradiction

What was contradicted?

> Don't like the blue dot? How
> about pixelation?

Obtuse or sincere? Why are you afraid to let the photograph speak for itself? You've identified no falsehood in it; it tells a truth. You very badly want a world where personalities don't matter:

> This individual's identity did
> not need to be known for the
> point to be entirely made.....

Identities make the world happen. She brought that "identity" to work that day, and made a point of sharing it with people. If you're troubled by the imagery, you should forbid the woman to dress in that style, and leave Amy's right to expression unmolested. Meanwhile, there's no harm done, right?

> A place where decorum doesn't
> necessarily equal information
> suppression.

SOMETHING'S being suppressed, and not by Iphone photographers in airports, but rather their critics.

What paradise are you chasing here? Will you pretend someone's troubling beliefs don't exist when you don't pay attention to them? Will you insist that others do the same?

Maybe not:

> or I should say 'to me' the
> point could still be
> entirely made.

This is about third time someone's pulled this in the last three weeks. (Y'know, "to me", everything that's wrong with the world came from Hillary Clinton, and the 1971 Dodge Dart is the finest automobile ever built.)

If that's truly, truly how you view the world, –if morality and judgments are so personal, 'to you'– then why are you sharing them in a forum of persuasion? Turn off the computer. Pull the blinds. Sit quietly with clasped hands. But don't chastise others for taking pictures of public employees in public airports.

> Maybe she could have been
> wearing a burqa? Or how about a
> plain TSA uniform but carrying a
> scimitar?

So until Hasan actually opens fire on the backs of pregnant women, you'd prefer not to discuss this?

> I would still prefer shielding
> an individual's identity, an
> individual we know little about

...We know what she most wanted us to know...

> from a discussion like this.....
> a discussion I am in favor of.

Doesn't follow. The picture fuels the discussion. You're into it or you're not. Your pixelation and your blue dots are censorship, Pilgrim.

So okay, from now on, the Blue Dot Brigade is not permitted to complain about internet privacy or government review of personal communications. You want management of topics to be finely-grained? You got it. No tears if it doesn't work out for you.

> Because comparing an official "the monsters
> who released the Zyklon-B gas at Auschwitz"
> just because you had your inflated sense of
> dignity fleetingly hurt at a Vegas airport is
> ludicrous hyperbole?

My sense of dignity is not inflated; our hurt as travelers is continuing, not fleeting; and it might have been ludicrous or hyperbole, but certainly not both. For years you've been quibbling about word choices without discussing the underlying themes: By what excuse do these people offend us? Who signed off on this shit, or on any of the nightmares from these people? Did you, Jody?

> men who resort to the insult "cunt" when faced
> with any female who dares to displease

Aw c'mon, not just ANY displeasing female... Only a few selected doorknobs... Priggish, self-righteous gals who spit and gripe and never justify their own malfeasance and gabble. (Nor am I patient with similarly dunce-y men, though you don't offended on the their behalf.)

No, my irritation is fantastically well-calibrated, having earned kudos and citations from East Coast schools of philosophy (+ Chicago), European institutes of theology, and even colleges of warfare (where proportionate response is essential). Smart people agree, Jody...

I'm the best.

> Common sense has prevailed
> so far

You heard it here first.

> I'm not bound to answer your
> questions.

Kishke, you don't understand how persuasion works! He doesn't have to answer your points! You're just demonizing, anyway! You're turning the world against us! You have that power, and you're not afraid to use it!

Crid: Kishke, you don't understand how persuasion works! He doesn't have to answer your points! You're just demonizing, anyway! You're turning the world against us! You have that power, and you're not afraid to use it!

Crid! Please try to understand: I am discussing something with someone else right now. Not all my heated exchanges are reserved for you. I'm sure I will get back to you someday, but not today. There is no need for all this jealousy.

(Good gosh. You closet fags are so fucking needy.)

We all agree, Patrick — Kishke is the problem.

I do, and I am not.

And let me take this opportunity to pose the question to Patrick again, which for all his blather and accusations of bigotry, he has not seen fit to answer: Why is it okay to profile Muslims without knowing, to the last decimal point, the precise percentage of Muslims that might pose a threat?

And have you noticed that the answers we do receive are, to use one of Patrick's favored descriptions, a bit, well ... weaselly. For example:

I said I was okay with her. I said nothing about one out of four. I don't those odds apply to her since I assume airport security did a thorough background check on her, and that she's safe. Regardless of what the odds are, I think it's a very safe bet that she's not dangerous.

As if we hadn't been discussing the wider question of whether Muslims in general should be singled out for scrutiny.

Kishke, you'll be dragged, kicking and screaming! Just you wait!

kishke, weasel words are words that allows the speaker to pretend he's saying something, while in fact, he is saying nothing. "Lots," "plenty," "many," "some," "a lot," etc.

If you see me using weasel words, please point them out to me. Unlike you, I will do my best to clarify my meaning.

I don't believe my answers are being weaselly at all. I have answered questions and I have not answered questions. Do you see any answers of mine that purport to say something, but rely on ambiguous terms? Please share them with me, and I shall try to correct them.

Regarding the question you keep on asking, just to save you time, I'm not going to answer it. Nor will I tell you why I won't answer it. Nor will I even tell why I won't tell you why I won't answer it.

You know, sort of like your commitment to use weasel words and your refusal to clarify them.

Don't be "bound to answer questions"!

Unlike you, I will do my best to clarify my meaning.

Hey, I sure did clarify my meaning! Thus:

"This is what I believe. It's based on what I have read and seen, and I am perfectly comfortable putting it out there. You can choose to accept it or not, as you wish. I owe you no proof. Your demand for exact numbers is just a way of burying your head in the sand and pretending no threat exists."

You yourself described it as a candid admission that I don't know how many "lots" are.

kishke, weasel words are words that

I said nothing about weasel words. I said you gave a weaselly response, and I said why.

Regarding the question you keep on asking, just to save you time, I'm not going to answer it. Nor will I tell you why I won't answer it.

You don't need to tell me. I know why.

It really doesn't matter what the percentage is. As long as there is an official, state protected ideology which promotes inequality and which can be interpreted in any way possible, since it can be twisted to fit any current view, instead of a secular ideology which does not promote inequality, but promotes rule of law and protection of minorities, there will be more problems with people who adhere to that ideology, than with the general population. And what do you get when the general population adheres to a state sponsored ideology that promotes inequality?

kishke: You don't need to tell me. I know why.

Really??? Then, to quote Ian McKellen in "X-Men," "Why do you ask questions to which you already know the answers?"

Why do you ask questions to which you already know the answers?

Patrick, please. I said I know why you won't tell me. I didn't say I know why you think profiling Muslims is okay.

>>Identities make the world happen. She brought that "identity" to work that day, and made a point of sharing it with people.

And her "swarthy" skin, Crid.

Don't forget she brought her "swarthy" identity to work that day too, and made a point of sharing it with people!

And her youth, and her Detroit residence...

Why are you so desperate to think the worst of, impugn, and ultimately filter the perceptions of others? Do you want to think the planet would be berries & cream if people would only pay attention to the things you wanted them to, describing them in words from your list?

BTW— Do you suppose she's Muslim? Just curious. Or do you only do wordplay?

>>BTW— Do you suppose she's Muslim? Just curious. Or do you only do wordplay?

Sure, I'd suppose that. Based on her appearance - yes, that would strike me as a reasonable supposition, Crid.

So it's just wordplay, then? Cool. Cause "swarthy" is a cussword, right?. That's all. M'kay, got it. Just a matter of definitions. You're upset by unremarkable language.

Well, I like totally grok you now. For a sec, it felt like the Shepard thing, when we were expected to ignore loud & bright phenomena because... well, because you told us to.

>>M'kay, got it. Just a matter of definitions. You're upset by unremarkable language.

Guess I must be remarkably sheltered, Crid.

I just don't meet that many swarthy, Nazi cunts!

Me neither. In Vegas, the TSA cunts were white. Also, some of them were older and some were male. Almost all were overweight. (Religious beliefs were indeterminate... But they weren't doing much for safe travel, either.)

And:

> the exasperating hand luggage rules pursued
> with special vigor since 9/11, the one banning
> pocket knives is the best known & understood
> even by little kids?

In what way is the exasperation at foolishness diminished in having it known and understood by children?

Why do Europeans so often seem eager to comply?

>>In what way is the exasperation at foolishness diminished in having it known and understood by children?

Because smart parents who travel by plane a great deal with their smart children, Crid, spell out the easy-peasy carry-on rules in advance.

That way they can avoid any exasperating tantrums at the gate because, say, someone's precious little pen knife got confiscated!

Or we could just encourage the cunts & simpering fuckwits to go fuck themselves. Speaking of knives, how come you'll never take the point?

>>Or we could just encourage the cunts & simpering fuckwits to go fuck themselves. Speaking of knives, how come you'll never take the point?

I'm outta here.

Crid: Or we could just encourage the cunts & simpering fuckwits to go fuck themselves. Speaking of knives, how come you'll never take the point?

Or you could get your head out of your ass for the first time in your life (if the thought of breathing fresh air isn't too daunting for you), and realize that the fuckwit was you, for 1) bringing a pocket knife to an airport (Do you even watch the news? Or don't you get good reception in the remote crag you undoubtedly call home?); and 2) comparing those who have been complying with policies amounting to nothing more than a minor inconvenience to you -- policies that any moron (with apparently one exception) knows are in place -- to members of a regime whose very name is synonymous with cruelty the likes of which the world (thankfully) very rarely sees; pure evil.

Poor baby. Such an indignity you suffered. Truly comparable to that of a Nazi death camp victim. You should come and speak at my college. I'm sure my Sociology class would be positively spellbound by your horrifying tale.

Acquire a thicker skin, Nancy-boy. You were inconvenienced. Grow the hell up and accept responsibility for your own stupidity.

Now that kishke and I have buried our discussion, I'm afraid that you're going to have to find another distraction to get the justifiably irritated-with-you Jody off your self-righteous, thoughtless ass. You could try admitting you're wrong. That might placate her, but... What am I saying? Crid would rather gouge his own eyes out with a rusty spoon than admit he did something over-the-top uncalled for.

(Watch out, Jody. Here comes a long diatribe from the mistress of same, delivered in his excessively tedious and flowerified fashion.)

Don't be bitter.

Jody, this has been the pattern here for years. A topic is under discussion. I'll say something about it in the clearest possible words. In a breezy, indefensibly haughty tone, you'll take issue with some minor terms, as if the comment were therefore dismissed. I'll neatly disassemble your objection, return us to the matter under discussion (or at least the one raised in my own comment to which you object), and invite you to offer your thinking. BUT YOU WON'T. Here are some things you wouldn't respond to in this thread:

Will such a woman be in the habit of dispassionately challenging men on those behaviors?

You didn't get back to me on how feel about Islam & aviation...

What other information about this particular individual will you demand we ignore? Should we ignore that scarfs aren't fashionable items among women her age? Are we forbidden to consider that the picture was taken in Detroit, as Dearborn is said to have the largest concentration of Arabs outside the Middle East? Are you joining the Blue Dot Brigade, or is photography flatly forbidden?

Or are you going to just shuck right down to the cob, and tell us we're not allowed to reflect on the irony, even the irony, of having Muslims working airport security in America in 2010?

Who signed off on this shit, or on any of the nightmares from these people? Did you, Jody?

Why are you so desperate to think the worst of, impugn, and ultimately filter the perceptions of others? Do you want to think the planet would be berries & cream if people would only pay attention to the things you wanted them to, describing them in words from your list?

Why do Europeans so often seem eager to comply?

And now, you've made it a point to tell us that you're out of here. You didn't just leave, you've taken the time to tell us that you're leaving, that your blinking, airy, condescending attention will bless this topic no more.

So I'm to beg you to stay? What will we be missing?

Crid, the only thing that's been going on for years is your hyperdefensiveness that goes into overdrive every time someone calls you on the carpet for making a jackass of yourself.

Understand, I don't think you're more prone to making an ass of yourself than anyone else. In fact, I'd be willing to consider the possibility that there's a mathematical formula behind it: x numbers of words = y number of instances to become an asshole.

The way I see it, people respond in one of four ways when confronted with their jackassness.

1) The martyr: this is to tender a grandiose and excessive apology. In doing so, you now have the grandeur of handsome behavior when you, poor thing, have succumbed to the occasional lapses in judgment that flesh is heir to.

2) The efficient approach: this is the sincerest form. It is to acknowledge the mistake, fix it, then get over it and get on with it. Amy did this when she applied the question mark to the title of this thread. No huge production number. She conceded that she might have made a mistake and corrected it.

3) Slither away. Don't acknowledge the mistake, just slink away quietly and pretend it never happened.

4) Pump up the volume. This is your approach. When you make a jackass of yourself and are called on it, you simply bray all the louder. You know perfectly well that your comparison was insulting and way over the line. But your inner monologue is positively screaming against acknowledging your mistake. It's an irredeemable loss of face that your ego will not let you endure. So, you keep right on committing the offense, in fact, you escalate it, hoping you will simply wear down your detractors.

By the way, I'm impressed. Your excessive use of vulgarity and sexist ugly terms was effective, oh, mouth of compost. You successfully routed Jody from the field. Congratulations. You are spared, once again, having to apologize, the indignity you cannot endure.

I wouldn't suggest using that strategy too often, though. Offend enough people and you may find yourself with very little reason to stay on this blog.

And you know already I'm not bitter. In fact, I'm feeling strangely sorry for you. I yank your chain sometimes, because I know now you're monumentally insecure and have easily the most fragile ego on this board. The ugliness you just resorted to in order to avoid admitting what an offensive thing you did is a case in point. I've known about your tender psyche since you dissed me over the death of my next-door neighbor's son, Louis Niedemeyer, who was killed by sniper fire in Iraq while exiting a HMMW-V.

Congratulations, by the way. I don't think even I could disgust as many people as you did over that incident. The closest you came to apologizing was sending me a private email offering to send flowers to Louis's funeral. (I'm sure his parents appreciated it. They don't know you, but I doubbt you were the only anonymous donor.)

I understand where this is going to go, Mark. You will not admit you did something pretty goddamned disgusting. No matter how many times it's been pointed out to you, you'll pretend not to understand, keep right on repeating the offense, and if that doesn't make the morally conscious of this board leave you alone, you can always let loose with a stream of vulgarity, or sexist terms, or ageist terms, or racist terms, or whatever you need to do to save the tender ego from having to apologize.

Have a good day, sweetheart.

This means too much to you. They're blog comments... Don't read them.

Crid: This means too much to you. They're blog comments... Don't read them.

Oh, I know. Aren't I just awful?

Crid: Will such a woman be in the habit of dispassionately challenging men on those behaviors?

I briefly gave my opinion on that general point much earlier in the thread (quoted in full below):

>>[plutosdad] Maybe a middle eastern woman will be better at behavioral profiling of men from that region, by being more familiar with their mannerisms and behavior.

That was my first reaction too, plutosdad.
(And as JennyHAC pointed out - a woman also obviously working outside the home - and in a job requiring a helluva lot of close contact with the public).

Posted by: Jody Tresidder at March 8, 2010 1:01 PM

Crid: What other information about this particular individual will you demand we ignore? Should we ignore that scarfs aren't fashionable items among women her age?

I came in on this over your "swarthy-skinned" description. As you know very well.

And I didn't demand that we ignore her appearance. I agreed I had made a supposition based on it (quoted below):

Sure, I'd suppose that [she is Muslim]. Based on her appearance - yes, that would strike me as a reasonable supposition, Crid.

Posted by: Jody Tresidder at March 9, 2010 4:05 PM

Crid: Why are you so desperate to think the worst of, impugn, and ultimately filter the perceptions of others? Do you want to think the planet would be berries & cream if people would only pay attention to the things you wanted them to, describing them in words from your list?

And when did YOU stop beating your ex-wife, Crid?

These are your standard word salad rhetorical questions.

I could reply " Oh, I don't!" and "But I didn't say that at all!" or "huh?".

But how daft would that be?

Keep on going down the list. (Don't worry about the earlier topics just yet, I have them all on disk and we can get to them later.)
_________

"Scarves," not scarfs. Sorry. Again, women outside of the airliner galley haven't worn them a long time.

Crid: Why do Europeans so often seem eager to comply?

When you asked this the first time, I saw your link was to a famous picture of a collaborator getting her head shaved.

I thought getting into a lively discussion of France under the occupation was a bit of a derail for this thread.

And, frankly, I'm not sure you'd be an entirely sound source of informed opinion for such a discussion. Due to your repeated insistence that airport ladies who confiscate pen knives are like the Nazis.

Crid: (Don't worry about the earlier topics just yet, I have them all on disk and we can get to them later.)

And he has the nerve to say that this blog means too much to me.

Crid: And now, you've made it a point to tell us that you're out of here. You didn't just leave, you've taken the time to tell us that you're leaving, that your blinking, airy, condescending attention will bless this topic no more.

Patrick said all I should have said on this.

Furthermore, I linked my comment about leaving the thread with the specific quote of yours that made it seem a waste of time to stay (full quote below)

>>[You wrote]Or we could just encourage the cunts & simpering fuckwits to go fuck themselves. Speaking of knives, how come you'll never take the point?

I'm outta here.

Posted by: Jody Tresidder at March 10, 2010 4:38 AM

> I'm not sure you'd be an entirely sound source
> of informed opinion

So sharing your best just isn't worthwhile: It's beneath you. The rancor, the ignorance, the tosh on the telly and the lorries in the pudding.... Why are you here?

Oh.. No fair peeking, OK?

Also I try not to 'comment-and-run' at Amy's.
And I use "outta here" not as some asshole flounce -but, generally, after long exchanges (like this one) when YOUR responses have become bursts of rudeness with rhetorical flourishes tacked on.

Crid: (Don't worry about the earlier topics just yet, I have them all on disk and we can get to them later.)

Patrick: And he has the nerve to say that this blog means too much to me.

Patrick,
Yup, I've had that one a few times too!
Just visualize Crid as the Keeper of the Crypt.

Jody: Patrick said all I should have said on this.

One does one's humble best, darlin'. Glad to be of service to you, Jody. Just keep in mind what Crid truly is: neurotically insecure with an extremely delicate ego that would surely crumble to dust if he ever admitted he said something wrong or crossed the line.

I mean, my God, he saves the entire blog on disc. I'm seeing Jack Nicholson in "As Good As It Gets."

Also, Crid?

This habit you're acquiring of quoting comments only after your own distorting editing is unhelpful.

I am not being precious about this. Here's an excellent example of how you distort.

I wrote: "I'm not sure you'd be an entirely sound source of informed opinion for such a discussion. Due to your repeated insistence that airport ladies who confiscate pen knives are like the Nazis."

And you quote me: "I'm not sure you'd be an entirely sound source of informed opinion"

Then you respond only to the partial quote as if that's all I wrote. Thus your arch and amazed response:

"So sharing your best just isn't worthwhile: It's beneath you. The rancor, the ignorance, the tosh on the telly and the lorries in the pudding.... Why are you here?"

This isn't cricket.

So Jody, we just ought to be clear about this... Your complaint is mostly with the comment from months ago, as if read freshly from a disk. You don't have any deep complaint with the matters discussed in this thread, right? It was all a toshly misunderstanding?

No.

And yet here we are. (And we don't play cricket here in the United States.) I use your exact words to show that your statements haven't been distorted or edited, as your example demonstrates: Your meaning was undiminished. The technique invites –nay, encourages– readers to scroll up and (re)consider the entire context. I don't know how to make this more obvious.

Apparently that thing from Vegas offends you mightily. You think quoting it demonstrates something compellingly intolerable: But I can't imagine what. I've not disavowed it. I said it, and have linked it in this thread at least twice. (Thrice!) And after the next trip through the airport, I'll probably say it again.

(If any blog comment reader [and there can't be more than 5 at this point] would like a personally-addressed recitation of the January comment, you can send me an email, and I'll repeat it to you directly. If you want to provide a SASE, I'll give you the relevant passages longhand. Got that? I meant that comment. M'kay? If you want a CD-quality digital audio transcription in my own squeaking, cheddar-&-cab-diminished phonation, this can be provided for minimal consideration.)

(By the way, I eventually got my Swiss Army knife back... It cost like 11 bucks, and it took like three weeks. But I got it... Glad to have it... Still pissed at the TSA peeps, for that and for the rest of the inconvenience. So thanks for your attention to that whole calamity: Apocalypse averted. Whew! Close! I feel better for having shared my feelings, though.)

So it's not about Vegas. Is it about the word "swarthy"? I meant that too, again as noted above. Hard to imagine anyone taking terrible offense, no more than I could take from an offhand "chalky" or "blanched" (or in keeping with my cardio-vascular middle age, "pink").

So, like, whaddya want? If your intention is shame, you'll not be permitted to merely cluck and turn away: You'll have to follow through and say what the shameful part was.
_____________

BTW: Jody, do you think the TSA theatrics, whether enacted by Muslims or anyone else, are worthwhile? Are you really, truly cool with children being taught that this is how it's done?

This is something I like to discuss with people. Please respond in local (US) idioms. For the practice.

>>And yet here we are.

No, here YOU are, Crid.

I've made my comments. I even went back and answered you all over again. Enough already.
Feel free to read the thread - properly this time - in your own sweet time.

Outta here!

Jody: No, here YOU are, Crid.

I've made my comments. I even went back and answered you all over again. Enough already. Feel free to read the thread - properly this time - in your own sweet time.

Hey, Jody, do you like South Park? There's an episode I think you'd particularly enjoy, called "The Breast Cancer Show Ever.

A notably meaningful speech from Principal Victoria occurs after the third commercial:

Cancer is...pure evil. It is a fat, little lump that needs to be...destroyed. When there is a cancer, you have to fight it. You can't reason with cancer. You can't wish it away. Cancer doesn't play by the rules, so neither can you. And you can't listen to what anybody else tells you. You have to be willing to give up everything, because the cancer will take everything. Do you understand?

When you have cancer, you fight, because it doesn't matter if you beat it or not. You refuse to let that fat, little lump make you feel powerless.

You might enjoy watching the episode, as it's only a half an hour long, and I think the context of Principal Victoria's speech will prove somehow fitting.

It's important that you continue to watch television.

@Kevin Huxford

Kevin, as a Muslim that claims that Islam does not teach conversion or death for all non-Muslims and sees a distinction between Sharia law and Islam, do you condemn those actions as evil sins before all of us here? Are you willing to say that those actions are a violation of your faith and would cause those (mostly) men to burn in hell?

If not, you are just giving lip service to appear like the 'good assimilated Muslim'. The next time I see an elementary school girl covered from head to toe, showing only her eyes, I will think of you.

-Julie

Saved as a favorite, I love your website!