The Daily Top Five: Jan. 8, 2007

1. Captain Ed points to a real problem in Minneapolis that is not being covered in the mainstream media the way it should. In Minneapolis, Muslim cabdrivers are refusing to provide service to patrons transporting alcohol or using guidedogs saying that it is against their beliefs. The Minneapolis Airports Commission is considering new rules that would suspend or revoke their privileges to pick up passengers at the airport (always a lucrative fare).

Drivers who refuse to accept passengers transporting alcohol or service dogs would have their airport licenses suspended 30 days for the first offense and revoked two years for the second offense, according to a proposed taxi ordinance revision.

"Our expectation is that if you're going to be driving a taxi at the airport, you need to provide service to anybody who wants it," commission spokesman Patrick Hogan said.

and Hogan is exactly right.

But Hassan Mohamud, imam at Al-Taqwa Mosque of St. Paul, and director of the Islamic Law Institute at the Muslim American Society of Minnesota, one of the largest Islamic organizations in the state, said that asking Muslims to transport alcohol "is a violation of their faith" as well as of the spirit of the First Amendment.

This is completely false. Being a cab driver is not a right, but a privilege and to have that privilege you must conform to the laws regarding cabs and taxi service. Captain Ed continues:

This fatwa, issued by the Minnesota chapter of the Muslim Society, exists as an attempt to foist Islam onto Americans who have not chosen it. It will not end with service dogs and alcohol; as Ibrahim notes, it has already gone beyond both. They will eventually refuse service to vast swaths of the traveling public, which will render MSP's cabstands a huge bottleneck for those who must use the airport.

It also goes beyond the airport cabs, as the First Mate discovered on more than one occasion where she used taxis for normal travel when she still used Cory as her guide dog. She had to threaten one cabdriver with a complaint to get him to allow the dog, and on other occasions had to explain the open access laws for service dogs in America.

Why have we heard so few complaints about this attempt to impose Islam on cab customers? Because of oversensitivity to multicultural issues. The MSA and its apologists want us to consider the religious and cultural sensitivities of the cabdrivers, but again, no one forced them to take jobs where they could come in contact with people who have service dogs or bottles of wine. Should a restaurant end its alcohol sales if it hires a Muslim waiter? Should supermarkets ban service dogs if it hires a Muslim cashier? No. It is the responsibility of the immigrant to assimilate into our culture and to obey our laws, not the other way around.

Most immigrants already know this. Most Muslim immigrants, I'd wager, believe it. It's organizations like the Muslim Society of America that insists on silly edicts and their weak-minded followers that cause all of the problem, and it's the failure of Americans to insist on assimilation that perpetuates it.

America needs to be understanding of religious differences, but we should not allow them to dominate our public policy. I am hopeful the MAC will enact the proposed rules and police them vigorously.

2.Betsy Newmark calls attention to this Michael Barone piece where Barone notes that despite all the Democratic antics to the contrary, they will not vote to defund the war, to do so would be political suicide (not that Democrats are any less capable of political suicide as Republicans). But Newmark has this reminder about partisanship gone too far:

People are partisans because they believe in different approaches to problems. If you believe strongly in one policy and think another policy is terrible, you will be vociferous in your arguments and condemnations of the other side's arguments. What I object to is making the jump from disagreeing with someone's views and going from there to saying that your political opponents are evil, despicable people. Disagree, attack their views, point out their hypocrisies, ridicule them. But accept that your conflict is with their views, not their characters unless they have clearly demonstrated a bad character. Holding a different view from yours doesn't necessarily make someone a rotten person.

But unfortunately, partisans on both sides of the aisle see their political opponents in this light and the trend is continuing that way.

3. I have long been a supporter of Wal-Mart in this space, not because I think they are just a great company (they are, despite some faults) or just because I think they do a better job serving the lower economic classes than anyone else, including the goverment (which they do) but because I think that critiques by unions and by the Left are simply hypocritical and wrong. Turns out my gut instinct is being confirmed by professional polling--attacking Wal-Mart is not a politically winning strategy.

4. The Washington Post is reporting that the death toll among Iraqis was nearly 23,000 in 2006. That is indeed a large number, but I have but one question--how many Iraqis died each year under Saddam Hussein (and was he counted in that number)? The violence did ramp up this year, I don't think anyone can credibly argue otherwise. But with Sunnis and Shiites killing each other, there will come a time--at some point, when the killing will end--whether for lack of targets or lack of will--let us hope it is the latter--and soon.

5. Supreme Court and Campaign finance geeks (as well as not a few teachers) will be watching the Davenport case at teh Supreme Court on Wednesday. The Wall Street Journal has a good summary of the case and its implications. Essentially, the Washington State teachers union had been using non-union agency fee payers (who must pay a fee for collective bargaining to the union as a condition of working as a public school teacher) payments for political purposes, in contravention of the law. The case is set for argument on Wednesday.