This obsession with what other people choose to wear is a lot like that other obsession with what people choose not to wear. To argue that women wearing veils are 'forced' to do so by an oppressive religion is as simplistic as saying that women in short skirts are forced by male lust to show some leg. In either case, 'choice' is a combination of personal comfort and social expectations. Britain's recent inclination to go the French way is a particularly disheartening revelation, not of some commendable sympathy for Muslim women but of the revival of a Thatcherite desire to put minorities in their place. Meanwhile, this link adds some welcome complexity to the issue: http://www.telegraphindia.com/1061012/asp/opinion/story_6857141.asp

Having to choose between bubbly and edgy women is like having to choose between U2 and REM. There's a time for Rachel Ray, just as there's one for Maureen Dowd.

A baggage handler or TSA agent could put snakes into a bag. If they were Muslim, I mean.

Obviously, the guy was a closet Muslim, cleverly disguised in US Army fatigues. And jujitsu patches! Closet Asian.

Good stuff by GK as always, except for the apparent endorsement of racial profiling of people who don't look like Midwestern soybean farmers or their wives.

But what would you do if the Muslims at the party tried to convert you, or behead you, or force you to pay the jizya? You might be forced to defend yourself by boring them to death with your "fact" or your "argument." I presume you've practiced on those co-workers of yours... I bet they wish they were in Guantanamo instead!

Please don't bait him. He'll actually rise to it, and he's tiresome enough already. This is not the only thread he's tried to hijack. By the way, if you do have him over to your house, invite some Muslims too, and then discreetly leave the room.

The Raed Jarrar case is especially troubling because it makes so little sense. Not only did the security people assume that Jarrar was dangerous because of his shirt, they also assumed that making him remove the shirt would do away with the danger. When he finally agreed to change the shirt, they let him board the aircraft. In other words, the shirt was not considered a sign of some hidden threat; it was considered dangerous in and of itself.

The only possible logic here is that the security Einsteins wanted to reassure other passengers on the flight. In that case, those other passengers were effectively given veto power over what kind of shirt a co-traveler might wear, regardless of whether that person is actually dangerous. There needs to be a simple rule that once a passenger has cleared security, and is not being disorderly by reasonable standards, then that person gets to fly. If other passengers have a problem with his shirt, or language, or skin color, then THEY can wait for the next flight or take a bus. If airlines or the TSA made that clear, then much of this nonsense would cease.