Hijab, Mijab, Everybody’s Jab
By Mitch Berg
Years ago, my first good technical writing job was for a company that was contracting with Nabisco to produce computer-based training for a “bag in a box” line in Portland, Oregon.
The OSHA regulations for people on those lines were pretty strict; no jewelry; hair nets (and beard next, if you had enough beard); no loose clothing that could get caught in things.
And things, there were. Chain pulleys for the bucket conveyor that hauled the Cheez Nips and Wheat Thins from the conveyor belt (that hauled them from the bakery) to the scales, which had dozens of flipping, clanking lids and doors opening and closing every second, pouring product into bags; the pawls and arms and rotating cams of the machine that stuck the bags into the boxes; the pulleys and steel rods that shoved the boxes into packing crates for shipment.
(Oddly, there was no rule against grabbing a snack from the bucket conveyor).
While the plant followed all the usual rules and regs, I could see where wearing loose, flow-y clothing could cause a problem, opening Nabisco up to a world of liability (and the hapless worker to a lifetime without a finger, arm or head).
So I hear these stories…:
A group of Muslim workers allege they were fired by a New Brighton tortilla factory for refusing to wear uniforms that they say were immodest by Islamic standards.
Six Somali women claim they were ordered by a manager to wear pants and shirts to work instead of their traditional Islamic clothing of loose-fitting skirts and scarves, according to the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a civil liberties group that is representing the women.
The women have filed a religious discrimination complaint with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
“For these women, wearing tight-fitting pants is like being naked,” said Valerie Shirley, a spokeswoman for the Minnesota chapter of CAIR. “It’s simply not an option.”
…and wonder – with no desire to be ethnically insensitive, mind you – “perhaps, ladies, there are fields you just shouldn’t seek jobs in? Jobs like oil-rig worker and Alaska crab fisherman and, perhaps, working in a food plant with (presumably) lots of equipment that long ago pushed the OSHA to ban, like, long flowing clothing in the workplace?”
May 28th, 2008 at 9:11 am
Without looking to be culturally insensitive…
Sure – outside of the fact that given any opportunity, you about never fail to piss and moan about anything Muslim, about never fail to create hyperbole regarding the religion or cultural mores that stem from it whenever ANY story comes up.
Contrastingly, I wonder where your handwringing is about the Mormon polygamist sect – the on-going, ceaseless condemnaiton of abuse of under-age girls by much older men?
So while your comments are frankly dead on regarding not seeking such jobs – though of course someone could reasonably say they are entitled to seek whatever jobs they are qualified for (goodness) – the claim of a lack of ethnically based slant is hollow- you seek to draw out attention to every jot and tittle, every little miscue or misstep, that you perceive, as part of an overarching desire to show how ‘dangerous’ Islam is to your willing, ready, and guilible readership.
May 28th, 2008 at 9:21 am
Good Lord, Peev. How did you manage to omit Iraq from your “handwringing” about Mitch’s “pissing and moaning hyperbole”? How does a brain so obviously disengaged manage to produce so many complete sentences?
May 28th, 2008 at 10:00 am
Yeah, Mitch! How come, in a post about Muslim garb, you’re not also condemning Mormon polygamy and under-age girl abuse?! Huh?! Huh?!
Peev, to quote Adrian Cronauer, “You’re in more dire need of a blowjob than any white man in history.”
May 28th, 2008 at 10:08 am
So you are in favor of OSHA setting and enforcing workplace safety rules? What are you going to do when the Muslims report a danger from say unsafe wiring or muscle-skeletal injuries from repetitive motions?
May 28th, 2008 at 10:14 am
Are you against safe working environments, Rick? Pray-tell – what peer-reviewed research can you site that says Muslims are at a lower risk against work-place injuries than non-Muslims?
May 28th, 2008 at 10:25 am
Justplain, your question is fair, but here’s a counter, since the wingnut brigade dismisses peer reviewed research on Global Climate Change, and embraces research that isn’t peer reviewed, why the change in approach? Also, Rick didn’t suggest Muslims were at a higher OR lower risk, he asked whether you wingnuts would care, and whether anything would be done about it.
BTW, Mitch, what does the little squiggle in arabic on the upper right hand of your blog mean. I honestly don’t know, but am curious.
Also, since some GOP talking heads are saying Obama is likely to appoint Louis Farakhan to his cabinet, and your bud Swifty (as well as you) occassionally refer to Obama as Barack Hussien Obama, why is it again we shouldn’t see you as Muslim-baiting?
May 28th, 2008 at 10:28 am
Kermy,
How does a brain so obviously short on fact so often convince itself that it should insert itself into a discussion it cannot add anything to?
May 28th, 2008 at 10:35 am
[...] The employer has the right to set work conditions in the factory for safety and efficiency. If other employees are required to wear uniforms, then all employees should wear uniforms, especially in areas where injuries or contamination could occur. Employees who do not wish to wear uniforms should find other work. That seems simple enough. And like my radio partner Mitch Berg suggests, I suspect OSHA would have a problem with anyone wearing long, flowing clothing anywhere near conveyor belts and similar machinery. However, here in Minnesota, that lesson still hasn’t sunk in with a small minority of the Somali immigrant population. CAIR, which has its eye out for any kind of nonsense on which to gain national notoriety, promotes this false victimology. Whether it be Target clerks who won’t scan pork products or cab drivers who resist carrying guide dogs and bags with alcohol, that small percentage of Somali immigrants wants the entire community to bend to their rules rather than assimilate into American culture — and they want the courts to enforce their rules as well. [...]
May 28th, 2008 at 10:46 am
How does a brain so obviously short on fact so often convince itself that it should insert itself into a discussion it cannot add anything to?
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
*checks irony again*
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
*wipes away tear*
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
*falls on floor, clutching stomach*
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
*breathes deeply*
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
*catches breath*
Wow. Peev, man, if you didn’t exist, I’d probably have to invent you, just for the sheer hilarity of it. You may be a longwinded idiot with Internet Commenting Disorder, but you’re capable of some unintentionally hilarious self-deprecating one-liners that can really bring down the house. You go, girl!
May 28th, 2008 at 10:55 am
JPA:
“Are you against safe working environments, Rick?”
No, that is why I support a strong fully funded OSHA. Do you? or do you just support them when they do something Muslims don’t like?
“Pray-tell – what peer-reviewed research can you site that says Muslims are at a lower risk against work-place injuries than non-Muslims” None. Why would you waste people’s time with such a dumb question?
May 28th, 2008 at 11:05 am
yoss
You may be a longwinded idiot
every village need an idiot – he’s ours.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:13 am
No, that is why I support a strong fully funded OSHA. Do you? or do you just support them when they do something Muslims don’t like?
Since you’re Mister Questions today, RickDFL, howabout you answer a few completely unbiased questions:
Do you support every rule and regulation OSHA has ever imposed on the employer?
Do you support every rule and regulation that OSHA may impose in the future?
Your questions is like peev’s “since the wingnut brigade dismisses peer reviewed research on Global Climate Change, and embraces research that isn’t peer reviewed, why the change in approach?”
Uh, maybe because truth & peer reviewed papers aren’t the same thing?
You don’t have to believe that everything OSHA has ever done or will do is correct, just as you don’t have to believe that everything that is written in a peer-reviewed academic paper is true. If you do, it’s not thought, it’s reflex.
In any case, RickDFL, you’re just fishing for anti-Muslim bias where Mitch has shown none — zero, zilch, nada.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:13 am
BTW Mitch,
I believe the answer here – and I’ll look to someone who knows employment law to advise – is this.
The answer to this problem ISN’T don’t apply (as you assert) it’s that the employer needs to set a standard that says, ‘These are the conditions for employment, to be qualified, you must wear this uniform, it’s a safety standard.” Thus, if they refuse, they aren’t qualified to apply. It’s a subtle, but important, difference. The point isn’t that they HAVE to accept having their religious rights infringed upon post hire, it’s that they would be falsely applying if they are advised of the condition of employment. All the employer has to do is show that wearing other clothing is a clear safety hazard, regardless of the religious or non-religious source of the clothing.
Sometimes, perhaps, all your little liliputians should take a moment from being so absolutely hell-bent on being jackasses, and think.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:21 am
Terry:
“Do you support every rule and regulation OSHA has ever imposed on the employer?” Don’t know, have not read all of them. I am not currently trying to change any of them.
“Do you support every rule and regulation that OSHA may impose in the future?” That would depend on what rules they impose.
OK – Those were some dumb questions.
“you’re just fishing for anti-Muslim bias”
I really just intrigued to see the SITD crowd standing up for OSHA and the heavy hand of state regulation.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:21 am
Peev,
Sure – outside of the fact that given any opportunity, you about never fail to piss and moan about anything Muslim
Bullshit.
Seriously, Peev. How stupid are you? I go vastly farther out of my way to understand foreign cultures than you do. I have more genuine interest and curiosity about foreign cultures, especially those in the Near and Middle East (due to family connections of which you are as unaware as you are of, well, everything else) than you have ever exhibited. (Having an
lawyer cop law professorArab neighbor doesn’t count).I realize you have no concept of “fact checking”, and since you’re an anonymous commenter you can pretty much say any BS you want, but good Lord, that was dumb.
As was this:
the employer needs to set a standard that says, ‘These are the conditions for employment, to be qualified, you must wear this uniform, it’s a safety standard.”
I’m not sure if you’ve ever dealt with serious OSHA regs; I’ve had to write about them in some considerable detail (which is why I mentioned my Nabisco job); there is a standard. Hejabs, largely, aren’t part of it.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:21 am
Terry,
Do you support every utterance Ronald Reagan ever made? Maybe the one (in 1966 ) where he said that any landlord or property owner who chooses to discriminate against negros is perfectly within their rights to do so?
I pointed out an hypocrisy of the right regarding peer review – bringing it up when convenient, ignoring it when not. Rick never alleged anything about Muslims being more likely to be injured, so the question was foolish to start with.
Whereas, your contention that Mitch has never shown anti-Muslim bias is beyond absurd, it’s entirely wrong, he makes off-hand comments regard Barack Hussien Obama, he says that Muslims – as compared to others – accept and support terrorism, that the religion allows for it (which he insists on spelling Moslem – in a pretty clear protest to their preferred method of use – bully for him on fighting PC, but if you think that’s not an oblique shot at the entire group, well, let’s say you and I don’t see Mitch quite the same). Now I don’t think Mitch specifically looks to show bigotry in his personal life toward anyone. I DO however think that the paucity of any OTHER stories, the concentration on Muslim excesses (as he sees them), while NEVER showing even one story of a Muslim doing good works – yeah Terry, I think that suggests a bias, a politically motivated one to be sure, but a bias. Care to argue against it? I mean, with facts and stuff – not just evidence-less pronouncement.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:23 am
I’m not hell-bent on being a jackass; I just excel at it naturally and see no reason to fight a God-given gift.
Oh, and Peev? Go eat a fart.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:24 am
I really just intrigued to see the SITD crowd standing up for OSHA and the heavy hand of state regulation.
Wrong, as usual, Rick.
I don’t need OSHA to tell me that “long, flowing bits of cloth attached the the neck and head” and “machinery” are a bad match.
You being a good union guy, I realize you have people doing all that kind of thinking for you – including people like me, who wrote the training and policy manuals that the union gave to guys like you so you wouldn’t go and try to, say, take a whiz in the stepdown transfomers – so you might have to just take my word for it.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:27 am
Seriously, Peev. How stupid are you? I go vastly farther out of my way to understand foreign cultures than you do. I have more genuine interest and curiosity about foreign cultures, especially those in the Near and Middle East (due to family connections of which you are as unaware as you are of, well, everything else) than you have ever exhibited. (Having an lawyer cop law professor Arab neighbor doesn’t count).
Mitch, that’s a claim that you cannot support, nor know to be true – I don’t give a damned if in your ‘uninvested, just ribbing’ sort of way you are offended, but you dont’ know the FIRST DAMNED THING about my personal interaction with other cultures.. which by the way, I get prett constant praise from foriegners for my knowledge of their countries, customs and mores… you’ve just made a claim you KNEW from the start you had no proof of. I don’t doubt you know a lot about other cultures, that’s not the point, it’s what you do with it.
And by way, having a family member, wow, that’s so very different than having a neighbor, or friend, who exactly is name dropping now?
Oh Mitch, don’t get your undies in such a little twist, as you so often do, I suspect in fact that on a quiz of world facts we’d both do very well, but suggesting you know more or are more sensitive, well, your conduct doesn’t show it, certainly not here. If you are so concerned, I have a suggestion, stop letting your political will on this blog interfere so much with what you know to be true.
As for writing about OSHA rules, wow, that sure makes you an expert I’m sure – kinda like writing about contracts, working with and for laweyers for ten years or so – huh?
May 28th, 2008 at 11:30 am
And Mitch, you’ve shown such depth of knowledge of the Iraq problem – I mean, for example, lumping the Shiaa in with the Sunnis – over and over and over again, not understanding the first thing about Wahabism (it sure seemed) – yep, you’re an expert alright.
As you say, Bullshit.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:35 am
I really just intrigued to see the SITD crowd standing up for OSHA and the heavy hand of state regulation.
Conservatives aren’t anarchists, RickDFL.
Do you support every rule and regulation OSHA has ever imposed on the employer?” Don’t know, have not read all of them. I am not currently trying to change any of them.
“Do you support every rule and regulation that OSHA may impose in the future?” That would depend on what rules they impose.
We agree one hundred percent!
May 28th, 2008 at 11:40 am
RickDFL said:
“Why would you waste people’s time with such a dumb question?”
and:
“Those were some dumb questions.”
Whenever I think of RickDFL I think of “dumb questions”, but generally not the questions others ask of him. *shrug*
May 28th, 2008 at 11:46 am
Peev–like Nick Coleman–he knows stuff
He’s smart. He’s Internet tough!
So says his brain
Where his ego doth reign
But he’s really a mental cream puff.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:49 am
Any chance that the Peev might stay on topic… and DFL Rick, too? ANY chance?
May 28th, 2008 at 11:52 am
Hey Badda, I will if you will, oh wait, you’re never on topic – you just snipe.
Mitch – back to the topic, do you agree that the employer can deal with this by making the uniform a condition of employment?
All bluster aside – of which there is WAYY too much of (including mine of course) – it would seem then this wouldn’t be an OHSA complaint at all, they’d be refusing to meet an outlined condition of employment. That’s not an OSHA standard – it’s a question of what is a legal employment restriction.
I think it’s legal – how about you?
May 28th, 2008 at 11:59 am
(He complains, but he dutifully moves back on topic… nice job, Peev.)
The company would not want the death of a protected religious and/or racial minority on their hands, Peev. (Stay on topic, compliance officer! Don’t spoil it.)
May 28th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Badda, bite me
, if you posted on topic 1 in 10 times, I’d actually care.
I don’t think what you responded with in any way disagrees with my point. I concur, the company wouldn’t want any injury, and so, by setting a reasonable standard for dress, they are working to avoid it. That’s in part OSHA, but larger, is it a case for religious bias? I think not. They are saying NO dress which is loose, insecure, is permissable, as it’s not safe. A condition of application is that you can meet teh qualification of being willing to wear such a uniform. The question is whether someone (anyone, not just a muslim) could object on religious grounds. I don’t think they could, just as if a Taxi company said, “A condition of employment is that you accept all fares reasonably offered.” If you want to object to carrying alchohol or dogs, well, sorry, but then you can’t have the job because you don’t meet the conditions for employment.
BTW Badda, nothing in my health care compliance role lends itself here, and I don’t conflate my experience on OSHA to being qualified to comment on religious discrimination cases. Just sayin.
May 28th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Just so the rest of you liliputians can get it, I’m on your side – get it. But not for the reasons Mitch used, of which I don’t think he’s correct – it’s not an OSHA problem – except if they don’t dress correctly and get hurt – it’s a bias hiring question – I think the employer can set a standard that’s fair and mitigates any complaint of bias, I think Mitch probably would agree.
BTW Mitch, that would be me, not awash in bias, unlike oh, you. Just sayin. I don’t think these ladies have a reasonable case, I don’t think they should, and I don’t think, if the employer is at all bright, they ever could have. Maybe someone who knows hiring practice law REALLY well – I know it some having had to both hire and fire – could say how setting a uniform standard at hire would cross the discrimination line – but I don’t see it.
May 28th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Good post, Mitch. It’s pretty simple. Mission Foods has an interest in protecting its employees from harm, hence the eminently sensible rules on what workers have to wear, rules that almost certainly conform with OSHA regs. They also have to protect their customers from the potential of food-borne illness, which also plays a role in how their employees are outfitted and the procedures that their employees must use while at work. Those food safety and handling regulations may be federal, state or local; generally it’s all of the above. If Mission Foods fails to follow the rules as they are laid out, or otherwise screw up in either case, they are looking at enormous expenses and potentially ruinous litigation. I can guarantee you that if Mission sold one tainted tortilla and made someone sick, Marler & Clark out of Seattle would be on them immediately.
The women in this case and their representatives are saying that their religious and cultural preferences trump workplace safety concerns and they are also saying that product safety is a secondary consideration to their religious and cultural preferences.
Peev, everything that Mitch wrote in his initial post is true. It’s not Muslim-bashing to point out the obvious. And no one gives a damn about how sensitive you are to people from different cultural backgrounds or how often you are praised by foreigners. It’s not relevant to the case at hand. The problem here is that Mission Foods, if they are forced to comply with the wishes of these women, will be in an untenable situation.
If you were as sensitive to people’s concerns as you say you are, you’d stop defecating all over Mitch’s blog.
May 28th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Peev, everything that Mitch wrote in his initial post is true. It’s not Muslim-bashing to point out the obvious. And no one gives a damn about how sensitive you are to people from different cultural backgrounds or how often you are praised by foreigners. It’s not relevant to the case at hand. The problem here is that Mission Foods, if they are forced to comply with the wishes of these women, will be in an untenable situation.
Mr. D. I didn’t bring up the point of who’s more sensitive than who, Mitch did, so, so far as defecating goes – look to the author. I also didn’t pompously proclaim to be MORE sensitive, or MORE literate, without knowing a tinker’s damn about the person I was making the claim about. – again, defecation is as defecation does.
As for your second paragraph – again – I think that’s a potential loser for the employer (not likely, but potentially), however, making a hiring standard of willingness to accept a uniform, isn’t, it’s non-biased, no matter your religion, this is required to be safe, accept it as a condition of employment or don’t apply.
May 28th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Seriously, Peev. How stupid are you? I go vastly farther out of my way to understand foreign cultures than you do. – Mitch Berg..
To wit, Mr. D.
Berg makes a hilariously pompous claim – completely devoid of proof or fact – about how understanding he is.. that would be MITCH BERG, not peev.. get it.
That said, I DID point out decidedly one-sided his rants are… care to argue that?
May 28th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
BTW, Mitch, what does the little squiggle in arabic on the upper right hand of your blog mean. I honestly don’t know, but am curious
“…phrase in Arabic is “lan astaslem.” It means “I will not surrender/I will not submit.”…”
May 28th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Well Peev, against my better judgment, I’ll repost your response, typos included.
which by the way, I get prett constant praise from foriegners for my knowledge of their countries, customs and mores…
I would also add that you are the guy who posted the crack about A-rabs a few weeks back, so it’s a little difficult to take your claims of cultural sensitivity very seriously. I will say this – you definitely have a heartfelt commitment to solipsism.
May 28th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
So while your comments are frankly dead on regarding not seeking such jobs
So, while Peev is in complete agreement with the original post, he still has to frame it in a derogatory way to insite a flame war. If that ain’t a definition of a post-whore, I don’t know what is.
May 28th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Mitch, at what point are you just going to shrug your shoulders and yeild your blog entirely to Peev? I’d say he’s taken about 70 percent control so far, at least in the comments.
It’s comical, because besides his ability to type and click “Submit Comment,” he doesn’t have the slightest idea what he’s doing. He can’t even create an ital tag. It’s like he’s yelling at a VCR.
May 28th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Peev:
“Badda, bite me… if you posted on topic 1 in 10 times, I’d actually care.”
Actually, I do Peev… in fact, I post on topic more than 10%. You never read it. (Since you ignore me, I’m not surprised you don’t know the truth… however, ignoring information doesn’t seem like a good habit for a compliance officer.)
Peev:
“…outside of the fact that given any opportunity, you [Mitch] about never fail to piss and moan about anything Muslim, about never fail to create hyperbole regarding the religion or cultural mores that stem from it whenever ANY story comes up.”
You claim Mitch is pissing and moaning about a subject in which you agree… that’s interesting.
More Peev:
“I DO however think that the paucity of any OTHER stories, the concentration on Muslim excesses (as he sees them), while NEVER showing even one story of a Muslim doing good works …I think that suggests a bias, a politically motivated one to be sure, but a bias.”
Okay, how about you try to curb your bias (as you claim you always try to do) and see if the little suggestion has any actual basis. Show evidence, Peev.
Shouldn’t be that hard for a compliance officer… although, you’ve never done that in my case. (That fact suggests that you are “all talk and no trousers”.)
May 28th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
justplain, I play in the sandbox offered. It is the nature of every commenter here, with maybe one exception – to insult first, think later. But contrastingly to Berg (et.al.) I actually DO acknowledge the points that are correct.
However, you sidestepped the rest of the sentence in your complaint, the rest of the sentence which would have made your complaint moot, namely, that while I acknowledged the case, I pointed out that it was once again brought up by someone who looks for JUST SUCH situations to show how “muslims are trying to take over” or any other such claptrap as you wingnuts would promulgate.
May 28th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Justplainangry:
“So, while Peev is in complete agreement with the original post, he still has to frame it in a derogatory way to insite a flame war.”
Ding-ding!!!
Circle gets the Square, Mr. J!
May 28th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
BTW Mitch, what does the arabic script on your blog’s upper right-hand corner mean?
May 28th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
missed your reply Justplain.. thank you.
Mitch, why is that phrase up there? Are you telling arabs that you won’t submit, using their script – even though of course they’d almost certainly never come here unless they could read english.
Please tell me it’s not you shaking your fist at them, right? I mean, not at Al Qaeda, but frankly, all muslims, because you don’t qualify it.
Or is it you trying to warn us that the arab people won’t submit, won’t surrender – we need to be ‘ever vigilant’ because ‘freedom isn’t free’ – or other lazyboy patriot claptrap?
Why is it there? Why do you think it needs to be said in arabic? Or is it just you showing your sensitive side for the poor arabs who can’t read english, and so you want to give them a message – namely – F* you, I’ll never submit. Maybe it’s a pep talk for them?
May 28th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
while I acknowledged the case, I pointed out that it was once again brought up by someone who looks for JUST SUCH situations to show how “muslims are trying to take over” or any other such claptrap as you wingnuts would promulgate.
That’s called an ad-hominem attack, peev. Here’s your chance to learn something from Wikipedia:
May 28th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
I pointed out that it was once again brought up by someone who looks for JUST SUCH situations to show how “muslims are trying to take over” or any other such claptrap as you wingnuts would promulgate.
Okay, I’ll engage you, peev. Can you give us examples of any other religious groups that are willing to sue for “religious discrimination” damn any given local country laws (be it UK, France, Germany, USA, Netherlands, etc), more so than the Muslims? Concrete examples – that’s plural, – please.
May 28th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
BAdda, and here I thought you were going to remain on topic with me.. a well, once again your true colors shine through.
If you had a chance to think.. you’d have read my response, that the labor point itself wasn’t point of Mitch’s post, it was to raise ire about muslims..that he was using this as an opportunity, get it. As far as flame-wars go, Mitch incites all that we need, I just add fuel.
May 28th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Dude, that was totally on topic… it just insulted you. Don’t pretend it isn’t on-topic.
Now… where is your evidence, Peev?
Comply… comply… comply!
May 28th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Peev, would you rather it said “astaslem”?
And for the umpteenth time, this is Mitch’s blog – he can do whatever he wants on it, without needing to ask your permission, or spend a second considering whether he will offend you with anything he says or does.
May 28th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Hey Kermy, yell at Justplain, he misspelled incite.
Justplain – thank you for proving the point. This post, this blog, rightwingnuts all over, are attempting to incite racial fear about muslims. Just as they tried to use anti-black bias in (to success) in the south.
As for suing for religious freedom, Justplain, are you aware of the cases of orthodox christians sueing to be allowed to use prayer to heal, rather than taking kids to doctors/hospitals? Of them fighting against any indictment for depraved indifference when their kids die?
Perhaps you’re aware of the sect in Texas (of polygamists) who refuse to identify the birth parents of kids in their charge?
Maybe you’ve heard of Foulin Gong – in China – refusing to cooperate with an oppressive regime?
But, you said moreso, why moreso Justplain? I don’t think these women have a reasonable complaint, but why is it only of merit if it’s MORE than muslims? I don’t know the basis of complaints by Coptic Christians in Egypt, or Iraq, I doubt they complain much out of fear for their lives, but I bet they’d probably complain a LOT if they could.
The point is, and Mr. Sensitiberg would seemingly agree, people are people, regardless of religion. We bitch pretty long and loud about how Christianity is under attack, yet, let’s see, there’s ONE member of Congress who isn’t a Christian, we’ve had, you guessed it, ZERO Presidents who weren’t.
Frankly, the Mormon’s bitched long and loud about persecution in the 1800s, some of it justified probably, some of it not since they saw themselves as modern day manifestations of Jesus – and believed in polygamy – compared to what you see from Muslims in the US – I’d say that Mormons used to complain more – but that’s a hard thing to prove.
May 28th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Dude, that was totally on topic… it just insulted you. Don’t pretend it isn’t on-topic.
No Badda, we were talking about the law and the case.
Justplain, who ever said he couldn’t say what he likes, and outside of taking shots at my family (or jokes) I don’t much care any more what he says. I know I certainly didnt’ say he couldn’t say what he liked, I just said I’d comment and point out that his motivations aren’t about OSHA, or burkhas – but political, to Mitch, everything is politics, however he can use it to distort, he will. That’s his bias – which he openly advocates and embraces. Just ask him.
May 28th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Way off-topic… Peev is not complying.
Aw screw it. Just give him the blog, Mitch.
May 28th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Mr. D provides a nice summary of the case, but fails to point out that Mitch abandoned the ‘OSHA made me do it’ defense. If the company can point to OSHA and other safety rules established by a neutral independent source, then Mr. D is right, this is an open and shut case.
But Mitch is in a dilemma. He does not want to concede OSHA’s workplace safety authority. See his last response to me. So he falls back on the ‘I say it is dangerous’ argument. But if it is just Mitch or the employer asserting such clothes are dangerous, then the court has a much more difficult decision. Maybe the people asserting the danger just want to stick it to the Muslims. So the Court will have to do some fact-finding, depose witnesses, get some safety consultant reports, ect. In short trial, lawyer heaven. This is why trail lawyers love it when the GOP dismantles the regulatory apparatus of government.
Of course, if the women had a union, this could all probably get settled over a cup of coffee during break.
May 28th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
and yes Kerm, I dont’ know how to spell falun gong from memory. Shoot me, you know you want to.
May 28th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Mr. D. I didn’t bring up the point of who’s more sensitive than
Actually, you did. Your line was “you about never fail to piss and moan about anything Muslim”, which is just plain wrong.
Oh, and learn your history, please:
Mormon’s bitched long and loud about persecution in the 1800s, some of it justified probably
They were subjected to pogroms; they were lynched; they were chased out of plenty of places.
Probably.
You started this thread trying to paint me as an anti-Moslem bigot, one of those caricature Republicans who say “AY-rab” (your term) and who exist pretty much only in your head.
You are – I’ll be polite – wrong.
May 28th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
I’ll look to someone who knows employment law to advise
What, another neighbor?
May 28th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Badda,
Giving up so easily – I suppose the fact that I support the employer here makes it hard to get angry – and you sure as HELL can’t argue the point you righties stoke fear about Muslims.
I guess the only debate is what Rick points out – anti-regulation Mitch is falling back on regulation – except, now he isn’t because he doesn’t want to admit OSHA standards might be useful, so he sits in a quandry where his approach allows a religious bias suit through poor rhetoric and even more poor logic. Oh well. Could have been avoided.
I stayed on topic with ya Blatha – you decided to throw yourself into a discussion you weren’t part of (go figure) .
Answer the question as you like – do you think if the employer puts forth a standard that says “All employees doing this work must wear a uniform for safety” and then enforces such a standard, that any bias complaint would succeed? I think it would fail, and OSHA wouldn’t need to be involved at all – other than maybe jsut maybe having to say “Yes, loose fitting clothing around machinery is not acceptable.” (Darn their over-regulating asses).
However Badda, I was ALSO talking to more than just you, as I said, this is about stoking fear, always was.
May 28th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Kermy?
Well, Peevy, to answer your poorly constructed question
How does a brain so obviously short on fact so often convince itself that it should insert itself into a discussion it cannot add anything to?
I feel compelled to explain that my point (lost on you) that your comment was a diversion from the topic of the post.
Now, as to the volume of “fact” provided by myself. I can only review your demonstrated skills of evaluation and parsing and stand vindicated by the constant demonstration on your part of those skills which you have displayed for the community at hand.
Your incessant need to frame every discussion on terms with which you feel comfortable has been remarked on ad nauseum for a long, long time. If I thought you capable of considered, thoughtful dialog, I would consider such engagement. Sadly, it is all too obvious that the only real purpose of your lengthy diatribes is the nourishment of your rather peculiar ego.
If you found this response too complicated, I will simplify it for you:
Go get your shine box.
May 28th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
But Mitch is in a dilemma.
Perhaps, albeit not from anything you’ve brought up.
He does not want to concede OSHA’s workplace safety authority.
Strawman; they ARE the workplace safety authority by law, and precisely for these sorts of things.
There are places where OSHA overreaches, and others where they are incompetent, but really, Rick, that’s not the issue here.
So he falls back on the ‘I say it is dangerous’ argument.
Well, OSHA, the company involved, and (if you’ve worked around food-processing and packaging equipment – as I have) common sense actually pretty much say that, more than just me.
But if it is just Mitch or the employer asserting such clothes are dangerous, then the court has a much more difficult decision.
Actually, it IS OSHA – and, presumably, someone from the trial lawyers’ bar, for whom this sort of case is mannah from heaven.
Maybe the people asserting the danger just want to stick it to the Muslims.
Statement (and a very pejorative one at that) with no evidence whatsoever. Indeed, it’s countered by the fact that the women were hired in the first place – which would be odd behavior from someone who wants to “stick it to Moslems”, don’t you think?
You’re reaching, Rick.
May 28th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Shoot me, you know you want to.
How do you shoot hot air? Waste of a bullet…
May 28th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Remember folks its all Peev all the time – its all about Peev and how badly Mitch treats him.
what a staggering narcissist!
May 28th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Peev:
“Giving up so easily – I suppose the fact that I support the employer here makes it hard to get angry – and you sure as HELL can’t argue the point you righties stoke fear about Muslims. ”
Who is (or was) getting angry, topic-jumper? Stop projecting… it makes you look defensive (again).
What is this other claim you’re making at me now? Are you including me or merely lumping me in? I don’t want to assume, but you often lump me in with your rhetorical doodling and baseless claims.
May 28th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Mitch, I certainly was aware of some of the persecutions faced by Mormons, though I wasn’t aware some were lynched. I was aware, for example, they were chased out of St.Louis, their temples burned. I was making a point that, conversely, they were also a bit ‘whacky” for allowing polygamy, as well as, if memory serves, for saying that Joseph Smith was Jesus Christ reborn.
But let’s use your typical rhetorical style here shall we?
Mr. D. I didn’t bring up the point of who’s more sensitive than
Actually, you did. Your line was “you about never fail to piss and moan about anything Muslim”, which is just plain wrong.
Says you, but my comment didn’t make any reference to who was more sensitive – I made a comment that you hype Muslim hysteria – that has nothing at all to do with sensitivity. Get a clue, you’re just plain wrong.
Oh, and learn your history, please:
Mormon’s bitched long and loud about persecution in the 1800s, some of it justified probably
They were subjected to pogroms; they were lynched; they were chased out of plenty of places.
Probably.
(read above – I was more than passingly aware of their history, and I didn’t need to go read through the internet to post. I visited Salt Lake City and the Temple there last fall, I spent about 3 hours visiting the museums about Mormon history – but again, please, lecture me more about it. Contrastingly Mitch, I also WON’T claim to know more than you on the point – I’ll only claim to know some) So sure, it was justified, not probably.
That said – you go off on this rant.
You started this thread trying to paint me as an anti-Moslem bigot – No Mitch, that’s in your head, what I said, and you need to go read some more, was that you use anti-Muslim stories to stoke anti-muslim bias for your own political ends. I also said I don’t think you personally are biased. Get it. Go read. no, please.
, one of those caricature Republicans
It aint a caricature – big fella- I recently saw a report that said that 60 percent of Americans feel Hussien was involved in 9/11 – I wonder which 60%? I see that Republican (by the way, nice of you to use the party name correctly, care to return the favor and stop using Tic? No? Ok, so then, I see that Licken talking heads on – go figure – talk radio – are alleging Obama will appoint Louis Farakhan to his cabinet – care to tell me again about NOT stoking anti-muslim bias. Even your own liliput member, Justplain, comments that Muslims complain more than any other religious group – yep, sure Mitch, it’s a caricature – or not.
who say “AY-rab” (your term) and who exist pretty much only in your head.
Well, yeah, my head, and about 300 Million other heads too inside the US, and is the reason that Iraq is cited as a “Cause d’ Celeb” by our own NIE – as a recruiting tool , as a vast negative impact to our national reputation among (tada) Arabs – so my head and many others. You guys play the race hate card a lot – you may not BE racists, but you pander to them ceaselessly.
You are – I’ll be polite – wrong.
Often – but not here.
May 28th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Of course, if the women had a union, this could all probably get settled over a cup of coffee during break.
The bullshit you have to spout to be a union man.
My county (Hawaii cty) recently decided to change its policy regarding the cars the union cops drive while on patrol. Until this year the county had them use their own vehicles, and gave them a $599/month ‘vehicle allowance’.
Naturally the cops considered this $599/month as part of their union negotiated compensation and fought the requirement that they drive new county issued cars.
The result? The cops now drive the new county owned cruisers and still receive their $599/month personal vehicle subsidy. Well, sometimes. You see, the law prevents the cops from smoking in the county cars. Since many of the cops smoke, they refuse to use anything but their personal vehicles.
None of this helps the taxpayers of Hawaii County in any way. Just the union flexing its muscle to privilege its members over the people who pay their salaries.
May 28th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Mitch:
Well now that Mitch is defending OSHA, my work here is done.
May 28th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Thank God.
May 28th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
to Mitch, everything is politics, however he can use it to distort, he will. That’s his bias – which he openly advocates and embraces. Just ask him
This is Mitch’s blog and I never saw him advertise it as an Air Scamerica spinoff. I I don’t know if you noticed, but Mitch is very upfront about his biases. So what is your point?
May 28th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
I dunno. While it’s probably the safest thing to assume that a CAIR spokescritter is lying, the one I heard on NPR this morning said that these womens’ jobs consists of packing stuff that’s already fallen off the machinery and into a bin; they deal with a bin, and a table, and don’t — in the course of their work — even go near any of the machinery.
If — and again, we’re talking about CAIR, so let’s remember that that’s an if — that’s the case, it seems to me to be a reasonable accommodation, under the circumstances, to let them wear their hijabs. But I think it’s utterly fair to let the courts tell the employer that, so that when one of these women walks too close to the fast-spinning stuff and the same CAIR lawyer sues the employer for gigabucks, the company is protected.
May 28th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Mitch,
You need to check what I wrote. I didn’t in any way say you were personally biased, that claim is, as you say, wrong. Meaning, your claim I did is wrong. I said you don’t evidence it here, I said you use this blog to stoke anti-muslim fears. I had a lengthier reply, but why bother.
Funny how detatched you are – funny how you can confer upon yourself expertise you don’t know you have – in your uninvested way.
And Mitch, as I visited SLC and the Mormon Temple in October 07, spending about 3 hours going through their various museums, I am aware of the persecution tehy suffered, so ‘probably’ wasn’t (I suppose) a good word – sorry to any Mormons offended – or apparently to Mitch who was offended on their behalf.
That said, I frankly wasn’t aware of Mormons being lynched, I was aware of their temples being burned, of threats and acts of violence – even murders perpetrated against them purely for their religious beliefs. Yet, if you knew that from memory, good for you. Then you also know they claimed Joseph Smith was Jesus reborn, the mesiah returned. They were a little whacky – and that was the point. That said, it of course NEVER justified murder or any other violence.
However, defining my comments as pandering to a caricature, what a load of crap.
Mitch – 40% of the American public still believe that Hussien was involved in 9/11, I wonder how many think Islam supports and accepts terrorism Mitch? The caricature, if it exists, is earned. It’s earned by describing Abu Ghraib as ‘fraternity pranks’, by downplaying a female interogator using a red ink pen on her fingers and telling a muslim captive it’s menstrual flow, by terorrizing them with dogs.. and then having your #1 Rushbo pass it all off as ‘fraternity pranks’, yep, it’s a caricature.. sure.
You pander to hate – you get called on it. I don’t personally believe you are a bigot – or not enough of one to matter – we all have biases, – but I damned sure believe you pander to bigots – care to cite the number of articles you’ve posted identifying GOOD conduct by Muslims locally, or even nationally?
May 28th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Joel, good post.
May 28th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Peev:
“Maybe the people asserting the danger just want to stick it to the Muslims.”
Well, Peev, you are a narcasistic jackass with a deep rooted desire to flame commenters who may or may not lean slightly to the right of Che… and maybe, just maybe you hate those folks and wish they were dead a little more than you wish to be the center of numerous topics.
I pity you.
Maybe.
Maybe.
May 28th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Peev:
“You pander to hate – you get called on it. ”
What hate? Where? Point it out. Comply… comply… comply!
(Effing liar.)
May 28th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Peev:
“Joel, good post. ”
Start worrying, Joel. Peev wouldn’t know a good post if it jumped up and licked him on the ass.
May 28th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
care to cite the number of articles you’ve posted identifying GOOD conduct by Muslims locally, or even nationally?
Care to post when a buddist monk, and not a Muslim, commits a terrorist act? I’ll even run a tally for yea! On a daily basis! But only if you agree to post another comment only when a non-Muslim commits a terrorist act.
May 28th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
[Peev mode]Racist! Racialist! Muslim-hater![/Peev mode]
May 28th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Peev, an officer of compliance,
Faced with logic, shows naught but defiance.
Not quite psychotic,
But clearly neurotic,
His disorder should be studied by science.
May 28th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Hmmm… Peev must be looking up his “evidence”.
May 28th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Mitch,
Want to improve your sensitivity – read JuanCole.com. If there is a more thorough discussion of the day to day on the ground realities in Iraq, I don’t know of it. And Mitch, by reading these kinds of expertly qualified reviews of on the ground stories – I become more aware of the culture and reality of Iraq.
I didn’t label this post under Culture War, by the way, you did.
May 28th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Justplain, you’re making my points for me, I appreciate it.
By the way, go read about the Basque separatists sometime, or the Tamil Tigers or perhaps FARC. I suppose I get to post daily then, since FARC commits various acts every day.
But your focus on muslims is rather bemusing. By the way Justplain, would you characterize our bombing of Tokyo a lawful act, or an act of terrorism? Let me tell you what a conservative Isreali General said to me during the violence in Lebanon in 2006, that our bombing of Tokyo was amongst the biggest warcrimes, we have NO room to talk – his words, friend.. so how do you think the Iraqis look at our collateral damage deaths? One man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist.
May 28th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Ah, another moral relativist post from the somewhat qualified Peev.
Perhaps this distinction might be important, Peev… In the fight against Al-Qaida, who are the terrorists? Describe the terrorists. Is there a common theme among the terrorists?
May 28th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
This quote about Cole just about summarizes Peev’s roots:
“So much of the blogosphere is hackneyed and amateurish that even the gesture towards authority is a huge psychological boost. Cole plays on that, acting as the blogosphere’s Edward Said: ostensibly translating and decoding complex Muslim history into contemporary problems in a way inaccessible to the uninitiated. The problem is that, in an age of politicized Middle East studies, Cole and his colleagues are little more than collections of conspiracy theories layered with self-righteous venom – barely more than Democratic Underground zombies with a rudimentary command of modern Arabic. That their work is considered scholarship undermines the crucially important task of education the American public about the Middle East”
Oh, and Peev, for a compliance officer, you’ve got a lot of convinient acquantances (sp?). I have a lot of friends and relatives in Israel (my great uncle is in that picture Mitch posted for the 60th anniversary), but I don’t know any generals – and yet, you, the disciple of Cole, do. Hmmmmm.
And last thing – you are not my friend, I hardly know you, and from what I can tell, we would not get along…
May 28th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Peevish, you’re argument about the bombing of Tokyo is taken completely out of context. It’s like the old saw about the difference between knocking down an old lady to steal her purse and knocking her down to keep her from stepping in front of a moving bus is only one of context.
The Japanese sought to create an Empire in the Pacific and in south and East Asia. We bombed Tokyo to prevent this.
May 28th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
read JuanCole.com
I read Juan Cole when…:
1) I need a powerful emetic
2) I need to see raw antisemitism running amok
3) I feel like wallowing in bullshit.
Cole is a racist anti-semitic scumbag. I wouldn’t wipe my dog’s ass with his writing.
May 28th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Badda,
I’m making a point that the muslims see US as terrorists, among others, including other muslims. I’m anything but a relativist – actually that’s a description much more applicable to some conservatives I know who call it “Realpolitik’ when they get in bed with Saddam Hussien, for example.
And you know what Badda, I suppose then that Israeli General was a ‘relativist’ too, huh?
Look, define terorrism for me – and I’ll try to define what isn’t. It’s frankly a lot like the definition of pornography. I can’t tell you what it is (so the old saying goes), but I damned sure know it when I see it.
For me, terrorism is the act of attacking civilians for the purpose of causing terror.
With that as a definition – WT Sherman was a terrorist, as was Hap Arnold, as was Gen. Harris – we bombed the Germans and the Japanese to destroy their ability to continue to support the war AND to terrorize them into submission, if you think otherwise, well, let’s just say you’re not correct.
We currently appear to define terrorism as acts by irregular forces (non-uniformed forces) against civilian OR military targets. That’s bullshit – it’s guerilla war, but you righties seem to love moving goalposts. If some resistance fighter in Iraq (and yes, I’d call the Shiaa resistance EXACTLY that) blows up an IED, it’s not terrorism, it’s an attack upon the armed forces of an occupying power (occupying power in their view).
BTW Badda – care to guess what the 114th Sura says? It justifies lesser Jihad in ONLY one case – when Islam is being persecuted – there is NO allowance for attacks on civilians (women and children) anywhere in the Qu’ran, nowhere, none, zip, zero – to mock Mitch – Just as there is no allowance for forced conversion, none, zero. But, I assume that like Mitch, being a culturally sensitive guy, you know that.
Frankly, I view Islam as a form of Judaism adapted to a more violent culture. It preached peace to a nomadic and violent people (the Bedhoins circa 500 a.d.), like Christianity, it’s put to ill use. Using its ills for political gain is callow, no matter who or how. Religious relativism, Badda, isn’t much better than ethical relativism. You seem to happily handwring over islamic excess, but seem blind to your own culture’s own foibles, calling any contrast relativism, when it’s nothing of the sort.
May 28th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Justplain, I met he and his adjutant while staying at a hotel in Winnepeg. They were on a ‘trade’ mission to Canada. When I asked his name, he declined to provide it, citing security reasons. His aide referred to him as ‘General’, I assume his aide knew his rank and business. If you would like to call me a liar, have the balls to do so.
Mitch, Cole is about as much an anti-semite as you are. He’s clearly more learned.
May 28th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Terry, we bombed Tokyo in March 1945, their options to create an empire were long past, we prevented NOTHING by it. I don’t frankly fault the US for doing so, I’m in agreement with the action to be honest, but I’m telling you what one of our ALLIES said, how THEY see our conduct. Mitch claims these things are only in the heads of lefties, he’s dead wrong.
May 28th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
And Mitch, I’ve not once EVER seen Cole say anything anti-semitic, not once, not ever. As opposed to you, who uses terms like ‘Tic’, Cole speaks pretty openly about the affaris on the ground, without resorting to ad hominem attack.
May 28th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
BTW Mitch, I’ve never once seen Cole say the NYT declined to run a story, and he’s never referred to Abu Ghraib as a fraternity prank.
May 28th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Peev:
“You seem to happily handwring over islamic excess, but seem blind to your own culture’s own foibles, calling any contrast relativism, when it’s nothing of the sort.”
Where, Peev… where do I wring my hands over Islamic excesses?
If you’re simply going to call terrorism the killing of civilians for the purpose of terror, you’re implying an intentional component.
You might want to slip back into history and second-guess the US, or you might want to jump over to some other country… we’re not interested in that. We’re interested in Al-Qaida.
Now, answer my questions… or is your skirt billowing over your head too much?
Who are the terrorists? Describe the terrorists. Is there a common theme among the terrorists?
May 28th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Mitch said ‘Tic’… Mitch called a lefty a ‘Tic’!!!
The horror!!! It is akin with anti-Semitism. At least according to Peev.
May 28th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Peev:
“we prevented NOTHING by [bombing Tokyo].”
Someone want to remember this post of Peev’s?
May 28th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Ok Justplain, how about if, using GWB’s rather pathetic logic, we say that since I’m not with you, I’m obviously against you. So, if I’m not your friend, does that make me your enemy?
I use the term in a friendly way, in an effort to keep the tone calm, relaxed, something you neocons desparately need I find. I wont’ call you ‘friend’ any longer, how about bud, pal, or fella, are those out too?
You have frankly no idea if we’d get along, I’m damned civil, far more than Berg is here, though Berg is a good guy away from this blog – or was, I’ve not seen him personally in going on 3 years. Perhaps we wouldn’t though, perhaps you are like a friend of both Mitch’s and mind, who recently said to me that we should kill all the terrorists in Iraq, and if it pisses some other Iraqis off, kill them too, and kill others too, because well, it might buy us 20 year or 50 years or so of peace, and well, the world is screwed so why worry about 50 years from now.
And just so’s ya know, Mitch and I got along just fine. I thought him a good guy, maybe a little spacey, while he thought I was full of it – it is funny that he now thinks I’m spacey, and I think he’s full of it, don’chya think?
May 28th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
No Badda, Tic isn’t akin to anti-semitism, but thanks for twisting what I said – try again, please.
What I ACTUALLY said was that Cole didn’t use such ad hominem rhetoric, things like oh, Tic.
May 28th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Juan Cole? Sheesh, peev. I mean, well, the guy’s a bozo.
Just to pick the example nearest to my thumb, a while back, Deb Schlussel — a nationally syndicated columnist — exposed Ali Jawad as a Hezbollah supporter, and put forward good reasons to believe that he’s worse than that. He had, to its shame, been on McCain’s Michigan campaign’s finance committee. They did the right thing and kicked his terrorist-loving butt to the curb.
Here’s how Cole characterized that today, in Slate: “Not long ago, the John McCain campaign dropped a prominent Arab-American businessman from its Michigan state finance committee because of allegations that the man was an “agent” of Hezbollah. The charges, made by a right-wing blogger, were unsubstantiated…”
Shall we count the errors and omissions in those few words?
May 28th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Ick.
As fun as it is to mock Peev, he’s just become too unhinged and creepily possessive of Mitch’s blog. This thread reads like Peev’s personal “ME” wall.
It’s entertaining to give the dancing monkey a dime, from time to time, but when the monkey crawls up your shirt and starts screaming non-stop for more dimes, it’s time to bring in the tranquilizer.
May 28th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Actually, that’s probably what you wanted to say, Peev… but you said it so badly that it was very difficult to catch that.
Now… comply with my wishes, compliance officer, and answer the questions.
May 28th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
And Badda, Terry said fire bombing Tokyo prevented their creation of an empire, I made the point that by March 1945, Japan was militarily impotent as compared to what they were in 1944 or 1941, i.e. when they WERE in fact trying to establish an empire. Perhaps you’d like to disagree?
Are you purposefully conflating topics, or do you just not follow the thread well enough that you keep making these mistakes?
May 28th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Peev, you simply said that bombing Tokyo prevented nothing. Unlike you, I’m actually going by what you said.
I’ve invited you to substantiate your smears and distortions. I’ve given you a link to my blog. I’ve urged you time and again… but you either fail out of incompetence or inaction.
Thank you for proving me right, again.
May 28th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
If you would like to call me a liar, have the balls to do so.
If the shoe fits…
I am not going to dispute you being in Winnipeg and meeting a “General”. Was that hotel on Portage and Main? In my bachelor days I used to tell girls at the bar I was a diplomat and spoke in tongues. Too bad they were not as gullible as you. (well, okay, some where
)
May 28th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Badda – I think it was said clearly enough.. here, let me give it to you again.
“And Mitch, I’ve not once EVER seen Cole say anything anti-semitic, not once, not ever. As opposed to you, who uses terms like ‘Tic’, Cole speaks pretty openly about the affaris on the ground, without resorting to ad hominem attack”
So Badda, where exactly did I say that the word Tic is akin to anti-semitism? I said Cole DIDN’T make anti-semitic remarks, while Berg can’t help himself but to insult others.
What question do you want me to try to answer.
And by the way, Badda – you all attack me – I reply, you don’t want it about me, stop making it about me. Get it?
Berg hasn’t ONCE, that I can recall in 4 plus years of reading his blog from time to time, EVER posted a comment complimentary of Muslim leadership, Muslim activity. If he’s so danged even-handed, I wonder why not.
This article wasn’t EVER about OSHA or Habibs, it was about pointing out how Muslims aren’t ‘behavin’, which frankly, in this case, they really aren’t – but even if they had been, Mitch would have twisted it, because his unceasing need to twist everything possible, to have EVERYTHING about politics as Lee Atwater advised, is nearly boundless.
May 28th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
The questions, Peev… answer the questions. You’re skirting the issue.
What’s more:
“you all attack me – I reply, you don’t want it about me, stop making it about me. Get it?”
No. I have no idea what you’re talking about. Rephrase it for clarity.
May 28th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
“…Mitch would have twisted it, because his unceasing need to twist everything possible…”
Support the arguement, Peev. Provide support.
May 28th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Peev,
If blogs existed back in the 1930s and 40s, would anti-German bloggers be required to post the positive stories about the Germans?
May 28th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
If you insist on me proving myself, first, why the hell should I, you’re not my friend, remember? I don’t dispute your comments. However, unlike you righties, I don’t hide from my comments, nor do I wilfully lie – at least not very damned often.
I got the business card of the assitant – I’ve even written him an e-mail to which he did not reply, btw. I don’t believe I’ve kept it, but if I recall corretly the guy’s name was Ari Grossman – nah, I that’s close, but not right…sorry.
The hotel was nice, had a very nice lounge on like the 11th or 12th floor. It was windy as hell (which is pretty typical for Winnepeg I hear). I was taking a train to Vancouver, picking it up in Winnepeg, as part of a vacation.
So, no JustPlain, the shoe doesn’t fit, and you owe me an apology, but I’ll not hold my breath. I told you the truth as far as I knew it, and as far as you know, it’s entirely factual. I can’t PROVE the guy was a general, I just have a strong suspicion. He ABSOLUTELY was an Isreali, employed by their government, with an assistant, and refused to give his name, carried himself like a military man, discussed things like a military man, including weapons and technology in general. When I suggested Israel at one time was a surrogate for the US in the Cold War, he became incensed. So, please JustPlain, tell me again about how I’m lying. Please.
May 28th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Berg hasn’t ONCE, that I can recall in 4 plus years of reading his blog from time to time, EVER posted a comment complimentary of Muslim leadership, Muslim activity
An understatement of the century?
Plus, Mitch posted plenty of posts about progress in Iraq – a testament to Iraq’s muslims, both Sunni nd Shia, – but then, it is not progress and is not complimentary unless you say so, right?
Yoss, I think I just spent my last dime.
May 28th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Badda, I answer one thing, then it’s another with you..
I’ve already supported it Badda, go read more –
Let’s see :
Barack HUSSIEN Obama
Rushbo was apparently just fine calling Abu Ghraib a fraternity prank – Berg in the past has defended Limbaugh’s comments on this topic, though to be fair, not that specific comment.
Islam tolerates and supports terorrism
Ok now Badda, care to cite something where Berg stood up for Islam? I mean, other than platitudes.
May 28th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Just, that wasn’t the litmus test, I believe I’ve stated it as leadership and activity locally or nationally, if I have to say it every time I make the point.. well, ok, sorry.
Yes, he’s been complimentary of some muslims in Iraq, of course, it aligns with his political spin on the war, and of course, it took us taking them by the hand to get them their, in Berg’s eyes. He’s also blind as hell to the reality that our invasion caused the need for us to then regain their support.
However, I don’t recall him EVER saying something complimentary of Muslim leadership or activity either locally or nationally. Not once. If he did, then I’ll apologize for saying it, but I’ll not apologize for feeling he is working to incite anti-Muslim bias. It’s a part of the Republican playbook, stoke racial divide to avoid having to talk about the economy, the war, the debt, whatever. I didn’t say HE’s biased, I said he uses it. You are case in point. BTW, Yoss is invisible, if you refer to him, I won’t be reading it. He’s nothing more than chaff, and worth less than the tinfoil strips which make up his physical counterpart.
May 28th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Peev,
If blogs existed back in the 1930s and 40s, would anti-German bloggers be required to post the positive stories about the Germans?
Badda,
If blogs existed in the 2000’s, would anti-Islamic bloggers be required to post positive stories about arabs/muslims? Clearly not.
May 28th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Berg hasn’t ONCE, that I can recall in 4 plus years of reading his blog from time to time, EVER posted a comment complimentary of Muslim leadership, Muslim activity
Then either your memory is faulty, or you make grand sweeping statements based on no knowledge. Or, as you’d put it, YOU’RE A LIAR.
I noted approvingly that overwhelmingly Moslem Mali and Senegal are both relatively liberal democracies, and Moslems who are exposed to intellectual freedom, pluralism and economic liberty – read India, Turkey and parts of the Balkans, as well as Mali and Senegal – aren’t blowing each other up.
Peev, you continually write rhetorical checks you can’t cash.
May 28th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Peev,
Does Mitch need to “stand up” for Islam?
Now, you still haven’t answered the question. You’ve not supported your point. You claim Mitch would have spun this story. That’s a baseless claim. You can’t proove it, Dorkus Maximus.
Jesus Christ, I hope the Anti-Strib folks don’t get you visiting… what, with their “Islam Sucks” series and all!
May 28th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
I answer one thing, then it’s another with you..
Um…yeah.
Heh.
May 28th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Peev:
“If blogs existed in the 2000’s, would anti-Islamic bloggers be required to post positive stories about arabs/muslims? Clearly not.”
Who are the anti-Islamic bloggers? If your claim is correct, why should they be required?
What’s your point? (Aside from skirting the issue.)
May 28th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
And Just, that really wasn’t Berg standing up for Islam when he spoke positively about local tribal leaders, that was Berg talking positively about local tribal leaders. I don’t think ANYTHING he said was complimentary of Islam. However, I will grant it was complimentary of some Muslims, i.e. teh ones that agree with him.
That said, again, he’s not really a bigot, oh a little bit, as his little “No surrender” arabic slogan shows – but not really – and hell, considering 9/11, maybe even justifiably – but the point is he plays you guys for tools, and succeeds. You eat up this trash.
May 28th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
I respond with the observation that context in the use of violence is critical to its understanding and classification. Peev’s context is self-serving, as usual. My observation that the Japanese intended to form an empire in the Pacific and parts of Asia in no way meant that the only permissable violence against the Japanese was to prevent them from fulfilling their goals.
Violence against evil people –and individuals — can be justified for its own sake. This is not beanball.
The war goal of the US in the Pacific theater was unconditional surrender. This goal was declared early and was approved of by popular acclaim.
The left does not understand the proper use of violence; therefore they will doom us to either eternal war or humiliating defeat.
May 28th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Badda, you made a post about anti-German bloggers, what was YOUR poitn, I just threw it back at you.
In fact, your question proved the point I’m making, lack of anything positive, constant negative, is pretty clear indication of pushing bias.
May 28th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
By the way, Peev… try to make comments that include a point of reference. Notice how I do you (and others) the courtesy of at least quoting one statement (usually the point of contention) to help connect my comments with one or more of yours.
Otherwise, no one has a blind idea of what your talking about.
To be fair, even if you did make quotes, we STILL wouldn’t have a clue as to what you are saying.
May 28th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
This article wasn’t EVER about OSHA or Habibs, it was about pointing out how Muslims aren’t ‘behavin’,
Wrong again, ye with the stunted reading comprehension…
The post was about traditional moslem women’s wear in industries involving whirling metal gears and machinery.
It has nothing to do with behavior at all, as usual with any claim you seem to make these days.
The linguistic slur is as appreciated as your little “AY-rabs” jape, for which you still deserve to be excoriated.
May 28th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Hey Badda,
Here’s the spin, which I don’t remember you asking me to support – I remember you asking me to support that Berg presents an anti-muslim bias -
Berg doesn’t support OSHA nearly at any time, he comes out and makes a claim about knowing what it says, and that it’s a potential OSHA violation, all of which, by the way, is probably ok – other than, without being in the room/on the ground, he doesn’t really know whether OSHA is violated… but conveniently, this anti-regulation zealot – is backing (tada) regulation.
That’s called Spin Mr. Badda., it’s convenient to use, and so he did.
May 28th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Peev:
“Badda, you made a post about anti-German bloggers, what was YOUR poitn, I just threw it back at you.
In fact, your question proved the point I’m making, lack of anything positive, constant negative, is pretty clear indication of pushing bias.”
You missed (or avoided) the point. Is there an actual requirement on Mitch’s part to necessarily pat Islam on the collective head?
You claim Mitch has and will in the future (given half the chance, because he’s evil or at least caters to evil readers) twist any incident involving Islam or Muslims. Nonsense, on the face of it, but it was your point… and you fail (utterly) to support it.
You should feel pretty lucky right about now, considering the number of smears you make and repeat.
May 28th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Mitch, you don’t like the heat, cut the crap.
You make all kinds of ‘japes’ all the damned time – if you don’t like them being used on you, well, get over yourself, or as you need to hear so often, ‘relax Francis’.
Perhaps someday one of your Liliputians will be up to the job of excoriating me, but I doubt it. You haven’t ever been, so why should they?
By the way, would you care to quote an anti-semitic comment from Cole? I mean, you made an ugly, vulgar accusation, care to prove it? I mean, i’m applying the same logic to you that Badda asked of me.. so how about it Mitch, care to show where Cole said “dirty Jew” or anything like it? Or shall I defend him using the same thin disguise you do, claiming the article was the point, and not “Culture War” or drumming up racial bias.
May 28th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Here is a comment that is not from Peev.
You know, for variety.
May 28th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Badda,
Always criticising and never admitting to good points is normally seen as reflecting animosity, and certainly stoking bias. I never claimed Mitch HAD to compliment Islam, I said that his lack of doing so, just like the guy who ALWAYS makes mistakes in his favor, is rather obvious evidence of seeking to paint islam in a bad light, and in Mitch’s case, to his (political) advantage.
May 28th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
And Just, that really wasn’t Berg standing up for Islam when he spoke positively about local tribal leaders, that was Berg talking positively about local tribal leaders.
The larger subject is *government* in the Moslem world. You can draw a distinction if you want, but it would be a specious one.
And I find it ironic that someone who can bang out 50 pointless and wrong posts about Scott Johnson’s ability and competence to read a state statute is so comfortable pretending he’s a clairvoyant.
I don’t think ANYTHING he said was complimentary of Islam. However, I will grant it was complimentary of some Muslims, i.e. teh ones that agree with him.
As opposed to the ones that are trying to kill me?
Yeah, isn’t that weird?
That said, again, he’s not really a bigot, oh a little bit, as his little “No surrender” arabic slogan shows – but not really – and hell, considering 9/11, maybe even justifiably
So the anonymous commenter wants to call me a bigot?
Your next post had best be an apology, or you will need to find yourself another obsession. And this time it will stick.
Now.
May 28th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Foot, I’m happy to comment ONCE for every comment from the peanut gallery. Ok Peanut?
May 28th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Peev:
“Berg doesn’t support OSHA nearly at any time, he comes out and makes a claim about knowing what it says, and that it’s a potential OSHA violation…
…but conveniently, this anti-regulation zealot – is backing (tada) regulation.”
I don’t support the seat belt law, but I expect the cops to say something about it when someone gets pulled over.
I don’t support your blathering nonsense, but I sit up and take notice whenever you don’t blather on and on.
What’s more, you don’t need to support OSHA to know that traditional Islamic dress, like a keffiyeh or hijab or even an chardor, might pose a threat to safety near machinery.
Duh.
It just so happens that the bureaucratic busy-bodies in OSHA might very well come to the aid of a business who has trouble with a few Muslim ladies.
That’s not spin, that’s a case of strange bedfellows.
May 28th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Here is another non-peevish comment.
You’re welcome.
May 28th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Peev:
“Always criticising and never admitting to good points is normally seen as reflecting animosity, and certainly stoking bias.”
Pot.
Meet the Kettle.
May 28th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Peev:
You don’t have a job, do you?
May 28th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
By the way, Peev… the phrase isn’t, “relax, Francis” it is:
“Lighten up, Francis”
Get it right you glorious fool.
May 28th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Admin:
I believe that last comment from Peev was not the apology demanded. Please commence bannination.
May 28th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Mitch,
Let’s see, you say my wife has ‘Stockholm syndrome” when I say I’m married 20 plus years, but hey, it’s a joke because you follow it with (oh, i’m kidding).
Ok Mitch, I’ll apologize like you do, IF you took offense that I believe your little arabic slogan is relfective of bigotry, sorry. I don’t mean to offend you that deeply, only a little deeply.
No, actually, I’ll apologize correctly, and IF in an apology is NO apology, maybe you’ll consider that and apologize properly sometime?
Anyway, Mitch, despite it all, you are someone whom I’d help, which is what I’d always do for a friend, that I offended you was my error, it is not mitigated by your words or conduct, and I was wrong, and I’m sorry.
By the way Mitch, I also said, everyone has some biases, including me.
May 28th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Foot, keep your nose, and your foot, out of it. It’s none of your damned business. I dont’ know you, and I sure as hell won’t mind offending you, given your tasteless insertion into that point.
May 28th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Is that supposed to be an apology??? What a douchbag.
May 28th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Peev:
Piss off.
May 28th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Is what, this?
Anyway, Mitch, despite it all, you are someone whom I’d help, which is what I’d always do for a friend, that I offended you was my error, it is not mitigated by your words or conduct, and I was wrong, and I’m sorry.
Let’s say it went a bit further than anything any righty on this blog ever said to me.. including the douchebag who tried to diagnose me, claiming he was a mental health therapist.
My comments were UNQUALIFIED and complete, if that’s not good enough for you Badda, go blow it out your ass. Douchebag. It’s not your business either.
May 28th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Foot – you first you tactless twit.
May 28th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
And foot, i have every bit as much of a job as Badda or Terry or Justplain, but thanks for implying a lack of professionalism, which was probably right in all regards. Mitch claimed he was joking when he implied as much, are you?
May 28th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
I did in fact long ago apologize for the squib joke that was the “stockholm syndrome” bit.
But fine. Fair enough.
As to the “squiggle” (which is in fact a couple of words of Arabic script), it says “I will not submit”. It is no more bigoted in word, deed or spirit than saying “Remember Pearl Harbor” is anti-Japanese. It is a mere statement of personal, spiritual and political fact; the words “Islaam” in Arabic means submission, and the goal of Jihad (”struggle”) is to bring Islam – “Submission” – to the non-Moslem. I’m making my opting-out a matter of record.
There is nothign “bigoted” about it, since it is a statement about me, not about any Moslems, as individuals, a society, a faith or anything else; ergo, not even a hint of bigotry.
No different than saying “I will never join the Catholic Church” or “I will never convert to Judaism” is not remotely anti-Catholic or anti-semitic.
May 28th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
BTW Mitch, we’ve addressed whether I’m anonymous, that’s a false claim. You know who I am, regardless, I’m quite certain Learned Foot isn’t Foot’s name, nor is King Banian, nor is Badda, nor is JustPlain.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Actally, regarding King Banian…
May 28th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Peev could use a Cleveland Steamer.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Peev:
“It’s not your business either. ”
Actually, Douchbag Compliance Officer, yes it is. You’ve done the same thing to me… and failed to support your smears.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
For the record, Yossarian is not my real name.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Although, I sometimes wish Yossarian was my real name.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Mitch, my point was , you don’t need to put it there in arabic, not what the words said, though i did ask you why you put it there in arabic?
I ask because, as memory serves, 4 or 5 of the 9/11 hijackers were Pakistani, they don’t read arabic anymore than you do.
And as for your apology, it had an IF in it, which most people agree really isn’t one, now is it. It doesn’t acknowledge anything, but puts the onus on me. However, it was at least offered, and accepted.
I believe you use anti-Muslim stokings, like Tiza, to generate animosity, and garner votes. You say you’re not doing so, ok, take a couple of tries at promoting the actions of people who really ARE working to avoid inter-religious bias within our borders, prove me wrong, I’ll admit to it, you know damned well I will, but I’ve never seen.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Because, hearing “Hey, Yossarian, you want a beer?” would be really cool.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Here’s another comment to distract from Peev’s numb-nuttish drivel.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
I hope the Anti-Strib folks don’t get you visiting… what, with their “Islam Sucks” series and all!
Allah forbid! We got stuck with Angry Doug. I think that is penance enough.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
No Badda, my comments to Mitch, his offense taken, aren’t your business. Douchebag. By the way, nice way to “lighten up” – that Douchebag comment, that was classy. Really.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
You didn’t hear it from me, but there’s a rumor going around that Peev is missing a testicle.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Honestly, Peev just woke up one day, missing a testicle.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
No hint as to where it could have gone. Just *poof* Testicle. Gone.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Kermit is my real name. Honest!
May 28th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Some people suspect the testicle took off on its own volition, determined to escape its droning and humorless master.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
I think i’ll visit Anti-Strib, but candidly, they’re more deluded (by far) than most of the comments and commentators here. Shouting into a hurricane isn’t really productive. Mitch, to his credit, occassionally admits to things – and at least has the grace to respond, which is from time to time, in fact enormous patience. Whether you little apple-polishers get it, I show a reasonable amount of patience in reply, every time Mitch claims i’m deluded, or about 1000 other things he says about me.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
But, sad to say, no one really knows what happened to Peev’s testicle.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
According to some local lore, if you listen just right on a still, calm day, you can hear Peev’s testicle rolling its way to destinations unknown.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
That’s right Peev… you’re the boss around here. Give Mitch and the rest of us a couple more orders.
God forbid someone should say “I will not surrender/I will not submit.”
Sorry, Peev… I didn’t mean to offend you. Allah forbid.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Kermit, glad to know.. I used to use my initials, but that became less fun when Mitch decided calling people liars was reserved to him.
I’ve been:
Ted
Molly
and now Peevish, in a not-to-subtle jab at Mitch once using my initials to cast an insult at someone else after I’d departed his little blog. I don’t think I’ve ever posted as “anonymous”.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Mitch, my point was , you don’t need to put it there in arabic, not what the words said, though i did ask you why you put it there in arabic?
Quiz question for you: What is the lingua franca of the Moslem world? The language that serves Islam the way Latin used to serve the Catholic Church, the “official” language of the Quran?
I ask because, as memory serves, 4 or 5 of the 9/11 hijackers were Pakistani, they don’t read arabic anymore than you do.
Actually, it is very likely that they read a bit of Arabic, in the same sense that most Catholics understood a few key bits of Latin. Arabic is something that madrasses teach in the same way that Catholics learned Latin. The terrorists were largely led by Arab-speakers.
I believe you use anti-Muslim stokings, like Tiza, to generate animosity, and garner votes.
that is incorrect.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
I like to think Peev’s testicle will one day take up residence in Yuma, Arizona, because the thought of a Yuma testicle is most amusing.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
peevish said:
“cut the crap”
Your output on this thread peevish has been utterly craptastic. You asking others to “cut” anything is like BHO asking others to resist “our money culture”. Laughable.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Badda, I think the only one who barked any orders was you in our little discussion, no wait, I said you should answer my questions… whoa big fella, I wouldn’t want to intrude on your ‘calm’.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Ted
Molly
…Jbaueer, Mikey…
May 28th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
So, be careful out there people, and mind your steps, lest you find Peev’s testicle underfoot.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
“Yuma testicle?”
“Nope, I’m somebody else’s testicle.”
May 28th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Troy,
Probably true. And Troy, thanks for pointing out Obama’s middle name, not that you have any anti Arab bias or anything.
And Mitch, do you seriously think non-english speaking muslims are going to read your blog’s arabic slogan? And mitch, that defense, regarding the pakistanis reading a ‘little latin’ is weak, really, really weak.
I think you put it there to announce your opposition to Islamic radicalism, good for you, but it does point out that you might perhaps maybe be lumping all arabs into a pot. Maybe you dont’ mean to, but you appear to be doing so.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Peev:
“…that was classy. Really.”
Well, you are a classless troll. The shoe fits.
Go and interpret that as getting “angry” if it makes you feel better.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
I don’t recall Mikey, but that might have been one where I was poking fun, as in “Hey Mikey, he likes it – Mikey hates everything”, get it?
And JBauer, come on Mitch, get a sense of humor, you hero-worship Jack Bauer – did you think that Keifer was visiting or something?
One other thing Mitch, I never once denied my identity, I did ask why you were asking, but I was NEVER anonymous, I never lied about it.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Peev,
“I think the only one who barked any orders was you in our little discussion, no wait, I said you should answer my questions… whoa big fella, I wouldn’t want to intrude on your ‘calm’.”
Where did you ask me to answer baseless claims on you? I demanded that you respond to your own claims. That’s all. You, of course, failed (FAILED!) to do so, which makes you a little bit of a…
What is the word?
May 28th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Peev,
You are Ed Salden and I claim my $20.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
I think it’s about time I put that Mohammed bomb turban cartoon back on my blog sidebar, as a tribule to ole’ One Nut Peev.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Badda,
I thnk you started the douchebag thing, but as for trolls, for someone who merely snipes without ever adding anything, and occasssionally making my point for me, well, let’s just say you’re looking up on the evolutionary scale at trolls. mmmkay?
May 28th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Peev, you’ve got a selective memory.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Badda, I answered your question, maybe in all the Yoss tripe you missed it, but I did, and you issued the demands.. not I.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
(And, you are a douchbag.)
May 28th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
This thread promises to go down in history as the defining moment when Peev officially tried to claim this blog as his own, as a replacement for his missing testicle.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Yoss tripe would be great with a side of fries.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Yep, good ole Badda, always showing his maturity and responsibile adult tone. Good on ya’ mate.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
And Mitch, do you seriously think non-english speaking muslims are going to read your blog’s arabic slogan?
Doesn’t much matter!
And mitch, that defense, regarding the pakistanis reading a ‘little latin’ is weak, really, really weak.
It would be, if it were a “Defense”. It’s not. It’s a statement of linguistic fact.
I think you put it there to announce your opposition to Islamic radicalism, good for you, but it does point out that you might perhaps maybe be lumping all arabs into a pot.
Nope.
Maybe you dont’ mean to, but you appear to be doing so.
I really don’t think so, since my blog has gone farther than most (of either side!) to point out the fact that parts of Islam are, in fact, not only moderate but small-”l” liberal and democratic. Seriously – I have never seen a leftyblogger point out the democracies in Mali and Senegal; I doubt that most news reporters even know about them. I doubt, in fact, that you knew anything about either of them.
So if after my six-year record of moderation on the issue I “appear” to be a bigot to you, that might say more about your approach than mine.
Just saying.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Peev:
“Badda, I answered your question, maybe in all the Yoss tripe you missed it, but I did, and you issued the demands.. not I. ”
Where? Got a reference point?
Again, I know I demanded something from you… it was to illustrate that you had NOTHING. Further smears and lies from you.
It was like a rhetorical question… I already knew the answer.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
So Mitch, care to convince me blogs aren’t flameboards? I’m getting a bit fuzzy on that part again.
If you feel my comments that your post was disengeniously tied to political invective and bias mongering were flameboard, sorry, they were not intended to be. Conversely, saying that everything I say is deluded.. well, let’s just say it’s not a constructive reply. I’d even say it’s not ‘normally civil.’
May 28th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Peev:
“Yep, good ole Badda, always showing his maturity and responsibile adult tone. Good on ya’ mate.”
No… it simply shows that I am crass. I’m not surprised you can’t tell the difference. You’re track record isn’t exactly 100%… Baldrick.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
I think i’ll visit Anti-Strib, but candidly, they’re more deluded (by far) than most of the comments and commentators here.
Especially that guy who calls himself “Ed Salden”. That guy is flakier than a psoriasis sufferer. There’s also some guy who calls himself “Il Duce” who actually believes in Capitalism. What a hoot!
Oh, and as I recall “Peevish” was bestowed by the venerable James Lileks (PBUH) who dubbed you Peevish Boy for your incessant ranting with no real focus. So your claim Peevish, in a not-to-subtle jab at Mitch once using my initials to cast an insult at someone else after I’d departed his little blog. is not just patently false, but you didn’t just “depart” Mitch’s “little blog”, you were banned after challenging him to do just that.
You are deliberately misrepresenting the facts, Peebs.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Kermit,
Pass my apologies on to Il Duce and the rest for suggesting Peev trip on over to the Anti-Strib.
Yikes!!!
May 28th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
So Mitch, care to convince me blogs aren’t flameboards?
I’m not sure that I care to “convince” anyone of anything. Things are what they are. Laissez les bontemps roullez.
If you feel my comments that your post was disengeniously tied to political invective and bias mongering were flameboard, sorry, they were not intended to be. Conversely, saying that everything I say is deluded.. well, let’s just say it’s not a constructive reply. I’d even say it’s not ‘normally civil.’
There’s a bit of a continuum with these things. Sort of like the right end of a bell curve. A very high bell.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
All this turmoil, and we probably won’t even make 200?
Wow. That is one tough hill to climb!
May 28th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Badda, I can’t think of anything funnier that Peebs trying his twisted logic out on Brent. Well besides El Douche in that goofy hat, of course.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
I really don’t think so, since my blog has gone farther than most (of either side!) to point out the fact that parts of Islam are, in fact, not only moderate but small-”l” liberal and democratic. Seriously – I have never seen a leftyblogger point out the democracies in Mali and Senegal; I doubt that most news reporters even know about them. I doubt, in fact, that you knew anything about either of them.
Welll, there’s a comment that, once again, is both sheer conjecture and utterly wrong. In fact Mitch, I spoke over the weekend with a (gosh) liberal who worked in Mali until recently, and commented rather at length about the moderate and progressive state of both Mali and Senegal. Actually, I asked her what Dakkar was the capital of (I’d forgotten), and asked what the French colony on West Africa was – again forgotten – which we agreed was Senegal. Mitch, your condescending assumptions of your superior knowledge are pretty offensive – not that I’m offended, but still.
I don’t find your approach moderate – Scott Johnson was made to look the fool on TIZA, you backed him – rather than saying in fact the findings were at best, trivial – in reaction to rather baseless allegations of teaching kids to hate America.
So, your doubts were in error – is there an apology to be expected at your impugning of my knowledge of world facts. You could have also pointed out the moderate governments in Morocco, in Tunisia, in Algeria. You see, I happen to have some idea about those too. I don’t believe my point was that you’ve NEVER said anything complimentary. I believe I’ve said that you haven’t created a post, authored a point, where you complimented local or national muslims. I believe I was pretty clear about it in fact.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
There’s a bit of a continuum with these things. Sort of like the right end of a bell curve. A very high bell.
Mitch, that comment was wontonly insulting, but I guess I’m deluded. Frankly, on balance, I’m at least as logical as you, and I think you know it. For example, I don’t need to qualify apologies, I dont’ claim you were ‘anonymous’, and I don’t claim you don’t know shit, when in fact I have no idea if you do or not.
You wanna start treating me respectfully, I’m game – we’ve been down this road though, it seems like the first time I question your conduct, you insult me. I’m not sure that’s delusional conduct on my part.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Hey Kerm, the blog read “Shall we say Peebish”, was authored by Mitch – not Lileks, he’s got a little more class than that I suspect.. I fear your facts are wrong, unless Lileks started authoring Shot in the Onion.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
And Kerm, tread carefully, while I think you’re a fairly decent guy, I don’t recall you, for a moment, being up to the task. Much like Badda in that regard.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Sorry Peebs. I remember distinctly Lilek’s reference to you as Peevish Boy, but it was most likely on The Bleat. Regardless, the appellation was accurate, as evidenced by your assumption thereof.
See, Peebs, you are Legend!
May 28th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Peev:
“…your condescending assumptions of your superior knowledge are pretty offensive – not that I’m offended, but still.”
Which is it? Pick a side and try to stick with it, Peev.
Holy Hannah, we thought you were deranged when you called yourself (anonymously) PB. We didn’t know when we were well off!!!
May 28th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Well, I hadn’t read it, so clearly, my accounting and attribution of it to Mitch HERE was accurate.
As for Lileks, if that’s how he gets his kicks, insulting people he never met – I guess that says a lot for your favorite authors.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
However, I don’t recall him EVER saying something complimentary of Muslim leadership or activity either locally or nationally. Not once.
Okay, what significantly good things have local or national Muslim leaders done that Mitch should have been aware of and said something nice about? Maybe, “Well, gee, it was pretty darned nice of the folks at CAIR to only qualify as unindicted coconspirators”? or “You know? That Ali Jawad really puts the ‘hez’ in Hezbollah!”
May 28th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Up to the task? Peev, you’ve never shown me to be the extremist you claimed I was… like so many of the claims you level at the readers here.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Badda,
The point, you vomitous mass (sorry, you seem to like movie references) is that what was said, the conduct, was something anyone would have the right to be offended by. However, knowing Mitch, I don’t take it seriously enough to be offended. And Badda, you’re still mature and responsible, and so very very likeable, in a vomitous mass sort of way, but thanks for playing “Badda’s incapable of grasping nuance.”
May 28th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
that comment was wontonly insulting
No, it was a commentary about the quality of comment threads in general, and has no personal aspect to it at all. Criminy.
if that’s how he gets his kicks, insulting people he never met
I think the verb is “describing”. I mean, your persona in this space is nothing if not, well, peevish.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
No Peebs, Lileks “gets his kicks” by being a columnist for the Star Tribune and running Buzz.com for said publication. Your endless rants merely amused him. For good reason.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Oh
My
God!
There IS a Peevish Boy:
http://peevishboy.blogspot.com/
May 28th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Joel,
Ok, let’s try a couple on for size.
First, when 9/11 happened, virtually the ENTIRE american muslim community denounced Bin Laden. American (and other) mullahs have declared Fatwas against Bin Laden since 9/11.
When anti-muslim hate crimes surfaced, muslim clerics preached tolerance and patience, not retaliation.
Is that ok for starters?
How about this, Muslims are pretty well regarded for their generosity toward the poor, especially aid efforts to Somalia, but hardly limited to that. There have also been indictments about abuses – about funds flowing into the hands of criminals or even terrorists, but I’ve never heard anyone claim that the vast majority of those religious charities are doing ANYTHING but good works.
That’s just what I can recall from the top of my head.
Badda – I’m bored with you, I answered your questions – appareantly you can’t remember.. go back to bed little soldier. If you want to actually ADD into a discussion, I’ll talk to you, but you’ve past your expiration date here.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
197, Mitch! We can do it! Together! Let me help: Bush was right to invade Iraq.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
I think the verb is “describing”. I mean, your persona in this space is nothing if not, well, peevish.
Same back at ya
.
It surely is, from time to time, peevish, but Lileks doesn’t know me, and peevish is an insult.
That said, Mitch, you made two claims, first that you know FAR more than me, and are far more understanding of other cultures, second, that you doubted I even knew of the moderate governments in Senegal and Mali. Care to retract those unproven statements? They are your own arrogance speaking.
And Mitch, frankly, saying that I have to be on some bell curve (a high one as I recall) where the VAST majority of comments are deluded, no mithc, thats not observation, that’s insult.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Peev:
“Badda’s incapable of grasping nuance.”
Well, either I can’t grasp nuance, or you can’t deal in nuance very well. I’m going to run on the latter.
Regarding Lileks, does he need to meet you to know you?
May 28th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Kerm, maybe you dont’ get it, but when Mitch made his HIGH Bar comment, I decided to go after it.. I like challenges.
May 28th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Peev:
“Badda – I’m bored with you, I answered your questions…”
I simply asked you to point them out to me… give me a little reference point. You continue to be… uh, “challenging”.
But not in a good way.
May 28th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Look all of you, you throw out insult after insult, and get pissed off when you’re treated the same way. Maybe it’s time you got that you bring in on yourself. You don’t like being mocked or lectured, look in a mirror.
May 28th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Peebs, you were #200! Go out and treat yourself to a Blizzard!
May 28th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Point out what Badda? How Mitch reflected anti-muslim rhetoric, done. how Mitch used spin in the article, done.
Now you want me to sift back through your nonsense and point out your extremism? I think your constant haranguing does that just fine, thank you very much.
That said, you commented about how someone who is anti-German isn’t required to say nice things about Germans… to which I pointed out that you were proving my point about Mitch. My conjecture to you is, you’d not have made the comment about Germans if you weren’t contrastingly, putting all muslims in a boat too. That’s called bias. Ok, are we done now?
May 28th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Then, Peev, you’ve become that which you despise. You have become like us.
The horror.
[Brent]Now go run out in the street and play Hide and Go Fuck Yourself.[/Brent]
May 28th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Peev, Peev, Peev… you were *speculating*. That doesn’t work.
Get it?
May 28th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
How Mitch reflected anti-muslim rhetoric, done. how Mitch used spin in the article, done.
Now you want me to sift back through your nonsense and point out your extremism?
Since you got the “anti-Moslem rhetoric” completely wrong, I think it’s incumbent on you to do exactly that, since your discernment is very much in question.
May 28th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
peevish said:
“anti Arab bias”
Wow! I supposedly have ‘anti Arab bias’ for using the middle initial of the Democrat candidate for POTUS. Pretty lame, peevish.
May 28th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Yeah Kerm, phew, what a ride.. of crap (mine included).
BTW, Mitch, as I recall the capital of Liberia, is Freetown, of Algeria, is Tangier, of Tunisia, Tunis, of Libya, Tripoli A dominant language in Senegal, is French. And the saying in Mali is WAAW, as in West Africa Always Wins. I don’t claim to be an expert, but I’m well read enough that your insults are out of line, whether I personally take offense or not. All of the above is of the top of my head, big fella.
May 28th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
You’re earlier claim, Peev, which you’ve fogotten, is that I was some radical far right extremist.
You’ve made the same claim on a number of folks here. To you, that is an insult. What’s more, you based it on the fact that I tell you you need to “Lighten up, Francis”, apparently.
You’re useless.
…and you’re favorite band sucks.
May 28th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
What’s more, Peev, where exactly has Mitch lumped all Muslims together?
Seems fairly clear that he’s lumping all Muslim women involved in this story with each other.
Look, douchebag, you want us to submit… we’re not going to submit.
May 28th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
As a documented “far right extremist” I think I should object, but then, I wear it as a badge of honor.
May 28th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
All of the above is of the top of my head, big fella.
http://www.foo.is/~baldur/retard-prize.jpg
May 28th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Oh, I simply like to think of myself as fairly conservative… but he throws terms around that he doesn’t really seem to understand. What’s more, if he based it on comments is probably remembering them from any number of other commentors.
I’ve got additional comments at Anti-Strib, Hadleyblog (Our Word), my blog, and a few others… not to mention various postings, and I suspect he has tried to read (using a rough estimate) around about none of them.
I’m perfectly willing to discuss my own personal political beliefs (I do it with my left-leaner friends often… real folks, not like the imaginary people Peev constantly touts). But he’s going to need to step up to the plate and stop acting like the caricature he’s become.
The same caricature he uses to describe us.
May 28th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Peev (and AC, to some extent, although I think he just likes the snark) labors under the belief that we get all our information and “marching orders” from Mitch and his blog, and that we’re incapable of thinking for ourselves. In other words, Peev’s a fucking idiot.
May 28th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
he throws terms around that he doesn’t really seem to understand
You mean like this?
“First, when 9/11 happened, virtually the ENTIRE american muslim community denounced Bin Laden. American (and other) mullahs have declared Fatwas against Bin Laden since 9/11.”
According to this pew study, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10330400
Only a quarter of Muslim-Americans believe that 9/11 was a Bin Laden operation. 15% of American-Muslims believe that suicide bombings are sometimes justified. If 15% of Jewish Americans (whose numbers resemble the number of Muslim-Americans) believed that suicide bombing was sometimes justified we’d admit we had a major problem on our hands.
The first Fatwa against Bin laden was pronounced by the Spanish Islamic Council a year after the Madrid bombings. The Fiqh Council of North America announced a fatwa in July 2005 that condemned terrorism, but it did not mention Al Qaida or Bin Laden by name.
Forget about getting the truth about this from Juan Cole. Cole says that many Muslim Clerics have announced Fatwas against Bin Laden, but when you follow the links these supposed fatwas, they are routine condemnations of terrorism, not fatwas. Fatwa has a specific religious and legal meaning in Islam. It is not the same thing as ‘condemnation’. Cole knows this. He takes us for fools.
Cole is writing for the peev’s of the world.
May 28th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Oh yeah. And peev used the absolute adjective ‘virtually’ to modify the absolute adjective ‘entire’. Adjectives must agree in number & degree with one another.
Peev’s tendency to do things like this are what makes him such a knob. God help him if he tries to think through problems this way.
May 28th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Holy cow…
This tops Good Friday for a Peev meltdown.
May 28th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Someone still needs to check on whether or not Juan Cole said anything slightly anti-Semitic.
It would be priceless to connect someone like that to a guy like Peev who said, “If there is a more thorough discussion of the day to day on the ground realities in Iraq, I don’t know of it.”
(Not forgetting that Peev stated If there is a more “whatever” then he doesn’t know of it, that’s just begging for a limerick.)
May 28th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
How do I get that half-hour of my life back?
Mitch…seriously…just ban the guy.
May 28th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
What was the Good Friday meltdown?
Oh, here’s someone who takes issue with John (Juan) Cole:
http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/000894.html#pictures
May 28th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Cole’s social skills are such that he can’t even get along with his own Bahai community — which is saying a lot.
May 28th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
What was the Good Friday meltdown?
The day I called him an asshat for his threadjacking, and not responding to direct questions.
He didn’t like that one bit, whining about being insulted while tossing far nastier ones himself. But…
That thread ony had 120 comments in it.
May 28th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
So……..anything going on in here today?
May 28th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Nope. It’s been pretty quiet. Peev dropped by a couple times to offer up short, well-considered opinions, that were, as always, on topic and logically thought out. But, other than that. . . pretty quiet.
May 28th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
Pretty quiet indeed. But then angryclown’s girlfriend wrote this article:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/AnnCoulter/2008/05/28/you_cant_appease_everybody
and in it said some stuff like:
“Perhaps in the spirit of compromise, Obama could agree to let Iran push only half of Israel into the sea. That would certainly constitute “change”! Obama could give one of those upbeat speeches of his, saying: As a result of my recent talks with President Ahmadinejad, some see the state of Israel as being half empty. I prefer to see it as half full.”
with which both peevish and angryclown are in total agreement. RickDFL didn’t understand it, but after a couple of dumb questions he’ll probably flip a coin to decide if he’s “agin it” or “fer it”.
May 28th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
Good Lord-286 comments! The only posts worth reading were the limericks. I knew it was bad when the first post out of the gate was peev.
On topic-the women should comply or find a job elsewhere. I am sick of the Muslims, even sick of the word ‘Muslim’. Tired to death of anything to do with them….and don’t care who thinks it’s bigoted. Imagine anyone (but especially a woman) going to a Muslim-majority country and telling them where the bear shat in the woods. But here we must be ’sensitive’….or at least appear to be (liberals).
May 28th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Oops….228 comments. I knew there was an 8 and a 2 in the amount….STILL, though, since they were mostly peev, it SEEMED like more.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
this is post #230, at this point 73 posts are from Peevish. I don’t have the time to read & count how many are responding to his drivel but I’m certain that that number is more than 73.
So out of 230 posts, at least 146 (probably closer to 200) of them are monopolized by one poster.
May 29th, 2008 at 6:42 am
Colleen disclosed: “I am sick of the Muslims, even sick of the word ‘Muslim’. Tired to death of anything to do with them….and don’t care who thinks it’s bigoted.”
AC certainly thinks so. But of course you don’t care, which is why you so often say bigoted things.
May 29th, 2008 at 6:59 am
Yep, unlike you ac…the tolerant Christian-lover that you are. What a laugh.
May 29th, 2008 at 7:47 am
“So out of 230 posts, at least 146 (probably closer to 200) of them are monopolized by one poster.”
So if Mitch isn’t going to ban the greasy little pissant, maybe we all need to start ignoring him. He serves no purpose other thanhearing himself blather.
May 29th, 2008 at 8:35 am
peevish is the undisputed master of “I know you are, but what am I?” “I know YOU are, but what am?” “I know YOOOOOOOU are, but what am I?”
The rest of us grew out of that in 3rd grade.
Simply amazing, and that’s not a compliment.
May 29th, 2008 at 9:37 am
Screw it! Let’s go for 300 y’all!
May 29th, 2008 at 9:57 am
Geez, I was just thinking, “Nearly 300 comments’ worth of mad passionate mudslinging going on here, and no angryclown?”
Then His Clownhood showed up, and the sun rose on America for yet another day.
May 29th, 2008 at 10:06 am
I am sick of Alois vom Lugers, even sick of the words ‘Alois vom Lugers’. Tired to death of anything to do with him….and don’t care who thinks it’s bigoted.
May 29th, 2008 at 10:29 am
Now, clown, you have hurted my feewings.
*sniff*
May 29th, 2008 at 10:40 am
Internet.
Serious business.