Proper Method For Beating Your Wife...Explained!

So how many times have you ever wanted to beat your wife, but just didn't know how to go about such a task?  Courtesy of this fine individual from 2010 comes all the proper rules of etiquette that go with the responsibility of disciplining your wife!

Links to the video...and the transcript, in case your eyes want to make sure that your ears were not lying.

Similar....stuff....can be found here as well.

Leash That Woman, Would Ya?

From that bastion of feminist thought that is Saudi Arabia comes news that the kingdom had created a policy where by the movements of the female chattel of that country...that would be all of them...are automatically reported to their male owners.  Anytime a woman crosses the Saudi border, a text is sent to "her man"; whether or not he requests such service.

The couple who alerted al-Sharif was travelling toegether (sic). As they did, the husband received a text message from immigration authorities informing him that his wife had left the international airport in Riyadh.

While details are sketchy, it sounds like the service is not opt-in. Since the husband in the couple above was surprised by the SMS, he didn't have to "sign up" to get the message.

It doesn't seem like the tracking is carried out using a tracking device on the person of the woman, at least. Instead, it seems that the immigration authorities simply text the "guardian male" on record when a woman leaves the country, manually.

In the article, someone sarcastically asks why they just don't install RFID chips in their women and be done with it.

Never give advice to oppressive regimes.  They don't understand sarcasm and just might do as you suggest.

Amazing Canadian Boobies Kept Under Wraps

I am astonished.  Canadian Muslim women have boobies!  Who knew!

Or rather, who doesn't want you to know.

Just give it a read as I couldn't do anything but harm at this point by trying to add anything.

Freedom Of Speech Or Religious Intolerance

From the National Review comes this report about a United Nations initiative to create a framework for limiting any criticism of Islam.

An unprecedented collaboration between the Obama administration and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC, formerly called the Organization of the Islamic Conference) to combat “Islamophobia” may soon result in the delegitimization of freedom of expression as a human right.

...

But thanks to a puzzling U.S. diplomatic initiative that was unveiled in July, Resolution 16/18 is poised to become a springboard for a greatly reinvigorated international effort to criminalize speech against Islam, the very thing it was designed to quash.

Citing a need to “move to implementation” of Resolution 16/18, the Obama administration has inexplicably decided to launch a major international effort against Islamophobia in partnership with the Saudi-based OIC. This is being voluntarily assumed at American expense, outside the U.N. framework, and is not required by the resolution itself.

Will there be any reciprocity?  Will Muslim majority countries stop persecuting those of other faiths?  Will those countries pass laws to protect those that exercise their right to leave Islam, or even convert to another faith, instead of the current practice of prison...or worse?

Will the synagogues that used to exist before the re-creation of Isreal be rebuilt?  Will there the Saudis reform their education curriculum that teaches that polytheists are to be killed, that Christians are enemies, and that Islam should be spread via 'jihad'?

I'm not holding my breath.

This initiative is shaping up to be one-sided. As Akram said, “The Resolution 16/18 was driven more by the kind of discrimination in Europe and the West in general against Muslims.” He added: “I don’t think any country in the Muslim world is deliberately discriminating against minorities.” Ihsanoglu took a similar tack, writing that “the Islamic faith is based on tolerance and acceptance of other religions. It does not condone discrimination of human beings on the basis of caste, creed, color, or faith.”

To be clear, my position is that every person retains the individual right to be criticize every religion that exists, has existed, or ever will exist.  That right greatly supersedes the sensitivities of any religious community.

The UN is no friend of liberty.  It places freedom of speech in second place to the "purposes and principles" of global governance.

(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

News From Muslim Lands

War?  Infidels?  Beating up women for driving cars?

Nope.

This time the news, via the WaPo's Jennifer Rubin, is of a proposal from the King of Morocco that his country adopt a new constitution.  One that would grant far greater authority to elected officeholders, create a judiciary, enshrine rights for women and minorities, and establish the King of Morocco as the guarantor of the right of people of all faiths to worship freely.

On Friday Bashar al-Assad was slaughtering his own people. Iran continued to hold two Americans in prison. Moammar Gaddafi remained in power while the House of Representatives and President Obama bickered about the War Powers Act. And in Morocco a new “landmark” constitution guaranteeing equality for women, empowering an elected parliament and chief executive, and mandating an independent judiciary was rolled out. It’s a measure of just how much the squeaky wheel dominates the media and the U.S. government that there was virtually no U.S. coverage of the historic event, and that as of Sunday night the State Department had not issued a statement.

...

The constitution and the speech explode several myths: diversity isn’t possible in a Muslim country; tribal and ethnic divisions make a nation state problematic if not ungovernable; Islam and the secular rule of law are incompatible; and human rights will inevitably be sacrificed if democratic reforms expand in a Muslim country.

 Why our nation's leaders have not seen fit to recognize this historic proposal is a mystery.

Why Hiding The Truth Hurts

James Taranto makes the the point in a recent "Best of the Web" column that the media does us a grave disservice when they hide facts from the public that do not fit the media's narrative. 

The case in point is the story of the US Marine Corps reservist that was found near Arlington Cemetery with a backpack carrying explosive components.  It doesn't appear that he had a finished device, but he did have a laptop that contained words that were at the least suggestive of his mal-intent.

This particular Marine was born in Ethiopia and apparently is muslim.

The problem with the reporting is that only one media outlet deemed this Marine's faith to be worthy of reporting.  All of the other media sources either didn't know, or didn't think it was relevant.

The media source that revealed his faith?  FoxNews.

Those that didn't?  Everyone else.

The obvious harm is that by withholding certain types of information, the media encourages speculation regarding other crimes where that information is irrelevant.  One example would be the mass shooting in Orlando a while back.  People were speculating that the killer was muslim when in fact the killer was a disgruntled former employee.  His faith had nothing to do with motivating his crimes.

Everything relevant to a crime must be reported.  A black kid beats up a white kid while shouting racist epithets?  Then the race and the epithets had better be reported.  Reverse the races?  The same information needs to be reported.

In failing to do their job, the media harms us all.

Burn That Qu'ran - Iranian Edition

I think I could come to like these guys. 

The biggest difference between these guys and the nutjob in Florida that did the same thing?  The nutjob lives in a free country where free speech is prized more highly than religious sensitivities.  As a result, the likelihood that he will ever pay anything more than a modest "price" for his "offense is quite low.

Conversely, the two guys in the video face a variety of pretty horrific deaths if their identities ever become know.  They are courageous heroes in every sense.

A Flip, A Double Twist, And A Reverse

Today must be "make Dann chuckle" day.

It appears that some artiste has prepared a work of "art" that depicts Jesus fellatiating upon someone.  That of course has certain knickers in a decidedly twisted position.

There were the inevitable question of "why not try that sort of thing with Muhammed?" 

Surprise! Kudos to the artist for his ecumenicalism.

Then things really get going.  Bud Shark...the guy that the original exhibit is about....was advertising prints of the "art" in question on his website.  Until someone pointed out that Muhammed was in the same piece of "art".  Then he scrubbed it from his site.

The work in question was made by one Enrique Chagoya.  Bud Shark just makes the prints.  Enrique is a talentless hack who would have remained unknown but for his propensity at pissing off the right kind of people.

I would certainly be less disturbed by "challenging art" if the first challenge wasn't always the artist's lack of artistic ability and/or vision. 

Molly Norris Is Going Ghost

Molly is disappearing...on her own.

Her newspaper, Seattle Weekly, reports:

[O]n the insistence of top security specialists at the FBI, she is... moving, changing her name, and essentially wiping away her identity... in effect, being put into a witness-protection program—except, as she notes, without the government picking up the tab. It's all because of the appalling fatwa issued against her this summer, following her infamous "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" cartoon.

...

ADDED: There's a big Metafilter thread about it, which I'm reading after writing that. A surprising number of people are blaming Norris for bringing the death threats on herself.

Perhaps that number of people shouldn't be all that surprising to Ann Althouse as Ann did precisely that in her blog post.  The best rejoinder to that sort of thinking comes from the comments.

PEOPLE WHO DON'T DESERVE TO BE OFFENDED?!?!?!

Good god, Ann. Their reaction is exactly what makes them deserving.

UPDATE - We also have this from Jihad Watch.

This is the sort of case that the President of the United States should be talking about. Instead of wringing his hands about the prospect of Muslim rioting over Qur'an-burning, the President should go on television and give a brief lesson about how freedom of speech is a foremost bulwark against tyranny and a cornerstone of any society that respects the dignity of the human being. He should say that the idea that Molly Norris would have to live in hiding because of a cartoon, or series of cartoons, is unconscionable, and tell the Islamic world that neither Muslims nor their prophet are harmed by cartoons depicting him, and that their violent rage over such depictions is the only thing that makes people care to draw him in the first place. He should say that to threaten people with death and to kill people over cartoons of Muhammad is sheer madness, and is a form of violent irrationality that is destructive to free societies -- and as such, it is something that the U.S. will do everything it can to resist.

Were we talking about Christians threatening critics with death, the response from the mainstream media and our government would be far more vocally supportive of the critics.  And properly so!

Where The Problem Is - Saudi Edition

We recently learned that a Saudi diplomat has asked for asylum in the United States.  He is afraid for his life if he returns to Saudi Arabia.

Why?  Good question.

He's gay.

He also has a very close friend....lady.....who is Jewish.

He's committed three of the biggest sins you can commit if you live in the Muslim heartland.  And he believes that the government will try him and kill him if he returns home.

It seems that the Saudi's have learned of his "lapses" and opted to terminate his diplomatic position and have recalled him to Saudi Arabia.

Hopefully, our State Department will look favorably upon his request.

Images of Mohammed

Most folks know of the serial kerfuffles that arose over various publications electing to print images of Islam's Prophet Mohammed.  A guy with the nom de guerre of "Zombie" has developed and maintains an online catalog of images of Mohammed.  Many of those images come from Arab countries.

The one that I like the most is this image of Mohammed that is currently on a wall/doorway in Iran.

Poke around....learn a little something....I found it fascinating.

After you get done with the art, you may as well try the letters.....from Muslims around the world.....to Zombie....telling him in very specific detail how they feel about his compilation.

Curiously, for a group that says it practices tolerance and peace, and as a group that expects tolerance and peace, they sure don't seem very tolerant or peaceful.  At least some of them don't.

The Length Of The Shadow

Source

We Need A Battalion Of Men Like This

Wouldn't want to over do it.

"Men of Cornwall stop your dreaming
Can't you see their spear points gleaming?
See their warriors' pennants streaming
To this battlefield.
Men of Cornwall stand ye steady
It cannot be ever said ye
for the battle were not ready.STAND AND NEVER YIELD!"
- "Men of Harlech"
Sung by Rick Rescorla in the Ia Drang Valley 1965 

and in the stairway of WTC Tower 2 on September 11, 2001

You can learn more about this incredible man who not only survived but thrived through three wars here and here.  9/11/2001 was the day he died.  He died saving lives.  More than 2600 on that day.  He lived his whole life saving people from terrible fates.

James Lileks And A Bit Of Wisdom

Glenn Reynolds has posted a link to something that James Lileks wrote two years after 9/11/2001.  James is a tremendous writer.  I've been reading his stuff for decades. 

He has a couple things spot on...

Two years later I take a certain grim comfort in some people’s disinterest in the war; if you’d told me two years ago that people would be piling on the President and bitching about slow progress in Iraq, I would have known in a second that the nation hadn’t suffered another attack. When the precise location of Madonna’s tongue is big news, you can bet the hospitals aren’t full of smallpox victims. Of course some people are impatient with those who still recall the shock of 9/11; the same people were crowding the message boards of internet sites on the afternoon of the attacks, eager to blame everyone but the hijackers. They hate this nation. In their hearts, they hate humanity. They would rather cheer the perfect devils than come to the aid of a compromised angel. They can talk for hours about how wrong it was to kill babies, busboys, businessmen, receptionists, janitors, fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers - and then they lean towards you, eyes wide, and they say the fatal word:


But.


And then you realize that the eulogy is just a preface. All that concern for the dead is nothing more than the knuckle-cracking of an organist who’s going to play an E minor chord until we all agree we had it coming.

The people who attacked us will not be satisfied with a diminished US presence on the world stage.  They want our beacon of individual liberty extinguished precisely because the premise of an individual being free to reject their distorted, tortured ideology undermines their authority to dictate how people live...or not.

The continued refusal by some to understand this simple truth is a "grim comfort", as James puts it.  If they can remain willfully blind to the objectives of our enemy in this conflict, then we must be doing a pretty fair job of fighting it.

I’ve no doubt that if Seattle or Boston or Manhattan goes up in a bright white flash there will be those who blame it all on Bush. We squandered the world’s good will. We threw away the opportunity to atone, and lashed out.  Really? You want to see lashing out? Imagine Kabul and Mecca and Baghdad and Tehran on 9/14 crowned with mushroom clouds: that’s lashing out. Imagine the President in the National Cathedral castigating Islam instead of sitting next to an Imam who's giving a homily. Mosques burned, oil fields occupied, smart bombs slamming into Syrian palaces. We could have gone full Roman on anyone we wanted, but we didn’t. And we won’t.


Which is why this war will be long.

It will be a long war.  And not unlike the spring of 1942, it isn't exactly clear that we will win.  I have no doubt that we have the brains, the people, and the resources to utterly destroy the intolerant and extremist strain of Islam that is causing so much trouble in the world.

I wonder if we have the will to do so.

Where The Problem Is

Still over there.

A man and a woman who allegedly had an adulterous affair have been stoned and killed in the northern Afghan province of Kunduz.


...


This month the Taliban also reportedly flogged and killed a pregnant widow in western Baghdis province.


“We were also asked to throw stones, the woman was dead but the man was still alive. Some Taliban shot him three times ”


Mohammad Ayub, the governor of Imam Sahib district in Kunduz, told the BBC on Monday: "The Taliban brought them to the local bazaar.


"They stoned them because they were accused of adultery. There was a big crowd of people who watched.''


Two witnesses from Mullah Quli told the BBC that the Taliban asked the villagers to attend the stoning through an announcement on loudspeakers in the mosque.


"There was a big crowd of people," one witness said. "The Taliban made the women wear black clothes and the men were made to stand. The Taliban started throwing stones.
"We were also asked to throw stones. After a while, the Taliban left. The woman was dead but the man was still alive.

A Timely Illustration - Cordoba House

I had suggested earlier that the Islamic center proposed by Cordoba House for a location unreasonably, IMHO, near the World Trade Center site would be misinterpreted by more radical Islamists as a sort of victory.  Over the weekend, the terrorist group Hamas confirmed that my concern was valid.

A leader of the Hamas terror group yesterday jumped into the emotional debate on the plan to construct a mosque near Ground Zero -- insisting Muslims "have to build" it there.


"We have to build everywhere," said Mahmoud al-Zahar, a co-founder of Hamas and the organization's chief on the Gaza Strip.


"In every area we have, [as] Muslim[s], we have to pray, and this mosque is the only site of prayer," he said on "Aaron Klein Investigative Radio" on WABC.

Then I learned that the face of Cordoba House, Feisal Abdul Rauf, had refused to describe Hamas as a terrorist group.

Hamas first came up in the mosque debate earlier this summer when Abdul Rauf refused to describe the group as a terrorist organization -- despite the State Department listing that identifies it as such.


Tom Brown, a chief opponent of the mosque, said: "This is what we've been saying . . . Imam Rauf is a radical Muslim who will not call Hamas a terror group."

Unlike Mr. Brown, I am not certain that Mr. Rauf is an extremist.  I believe he is a moderate in the mode of other Muslim moderates.  He either lacks the spine to actively oppose the terrorism that is being conducted in the name of his religion, or he finds those actions to be perhaps regrettable, but legitimate.

We frequently hear that Islamic Jihadism represents a small fraction of the Muslim world.  We hear that there are many, many more moderate Muslims that do not support Jihadism.

Yet what we see is that larger group of supposedly moderate Muslims that continue to sit on the sidelines and pretend that their religion is not involved in diabolical acts.  Even Fareed Zakaria's recent show illustrated the reluctance of supposed Muslim moderates to voice their opposition to extremism.

Such reluctance suggests to me that one of two things are true.  One is that extremism is a much larger force in Islam than most people are willing to admit.  Extremism that is capable of cowing so many moderates is not an insubstantial movement.

The other, less palatable suggestion is that these supposed moderates more or less approve of terrorist activities as a legitimate course of action.

In any case, if there is a shortage of mosques in New York, then they should build one.....elsewhere.  The current project is too close to the World Trade Center site to permit a mosque to be built there now.

Perhaps later, after Islam has experienced their version of the Reformation, it would be appropriate to build a mosque at the currently proposed site.  Perhaps when a nation's "Islamicity" is no longer a concern.  Perhaps when other religions are tolerated in Muslim societies.

Not now.

And yet.......

Every once in a while you need to listen to the arguments on the other side.  Or perhaps just other opinions.

Mr. Obama struck an appropriate note when he argued that Muslims have the Constitutionally guaranteed right to build places of worship in accordance with the usual local zoning regulations.  He also noted that he wasn't commenting on the wisdom of that particular project being built at that particular place and at this particular time.

Was it smart to select that location at this time for a new mosque?  Hell no.

Is it their absolute right....subject to the usual local zoning laws....absolutely.  You don't spend a serious chunk of your life defending the idea of religious freedom just to toss it aside willy-nilly.

Roger Simon has a piece that I read as sarcastic criticism of those that want Mr. Obama to follow the polls rather than leading the discussion.  I didn't think much of Mr. Clinton because he was such a poll follower.  I did think quite a bit of Mr. GW Bush because he wasn't.  I appreciate Mr. Obama's character because he does try to lead; even though his ideas as to what constitutes "good governance" appear to be predominantly useless garbage, socialistic claptrap, and statist.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has some similar thoughts to share.

Then I thought to myself....self, where are the other mosques/Muslim centers in New York City?  And where exactly is this current project going to be located?

Ahem...to the first issue and *cough*....to the second.

I would certainly not ask for those existing facilities to be torn down and a few are located a similar distance from the WTC site.  Therefore it is hard to see why a new mosque shouldn't be permitted in that area.

I also ran across this background piece on Salon.com that was very informative.  And thus it appears that the folks at Cordoba House never linked their project with 9/11 or the WTC site.  Their critics did.

Anyone who has never been snookered is free to cast the first stone.  You folks that still believe in Social Security need to sit down first.

Howard Kurtz repeats and amplifies on the Salon.com story.  He includes this from Mr. Rauf

'We want to push back against the extremists,' added Imam Feisal, 61.

                                      
Permit me to suggest that Mr. Rauf could "push back" more effectively if he could clearly identify and rebuke Hamas as a terrorist organization.  He might also be more effective if he declined to participate in projects designed to accurate measure the "Islamicity" of a government.  As with other faiths, anything more than a very low measurement is an indication of a problem to be solved.

So where does that leave us.

Does Cordoba House have a right to build a mosque at the proposed location?

Absolutely.  Without qualifiers.

In light of the statements from Cordoba House and the projects financiers indicating that a certain respect for certain sensibilities is required if one wants to build dialog, was this a good location for their project?

Certainly not.  Had they had any respect for the sensibilities of New Yorkers and Americans in general, they would have looked for a different site.  Such respect is apparently unidirectional.

What would I like to see happen?

One of two options.  Either they can find a more suitable location for their project, or they can stop being so "moderate" in their opposition to terrorism and governments based on sharia law.  Being a little less tolerant of the intolerance common among Islamic jihadists would a step in the right direction.  They should fully embrace the difficulties that all religious people have in living in a pluralistic and multi-cultural country.

And work towards a truly pluralistic and multi-cultural world.

And what if I don't get my way?  What if they continue to be tolerant of intolerance and still want to build the mosque in that spot?

So be it.  Freedom of religion is one of the cornerstones of our country.

As is freedom of speech.  And my right to grouse and complain about their project is equally important with their right to build a mosque and worship as they please.

The right to worship as one pleases does not mean that your religion may never be criticized.  Welcome to the free world, folks.

Skepticism Justified

Anyone that has followed the antics of less vitriolic Muslim groups will not be surprised to learn that one such group has been caught whitewashing their website.  A more humourous example occurred in 2005 when CAIR was caught with their rhetorical pants down after having photoshopped hijabs onto several women in a photo that appeared on their site.

In this particular case, the group in question is Cordoba House.  What they tried to expunge is their association with influential Iranians at a conference for the "Shariah Index Project".

As I mentioned here, I am a bit skeptical about Faisal Abdul Rauf and his ideas regarding Islam, shariah, and whether/how those concepts need to be integrated into western cultures.  Specifically, I suspect that Mr. Rauf is the sort of Muslim that supports the idea of government mandated obeisance towards Islam and shariah based laws.  That isn't to suggest that he's the sort to cut off someone's head, or stone a pregnant rape victim for adultery, or chase young girls back into burning buildings rather than risk having them be in public sight while not being covered from head to toe.

Similarly, I don't think Pat Robertson is likely to kill gynecologists that perform abortions with a sniper rifle.  That doesn't mean I want either man having any greater control over our government.

Attempting to whitewash his relationship with dictatorial and terrorist supporting Iranian government apparatchiks suggests that Mr. Rauf is perfectly comfortable with accepting that rather limited Islamic world view as an appropriate 'interpretation' of Islam.  He is apparently uncomfortable about his fellow Americans knowing of his acceptance of the sort of brutality that the Iranian government visits on the Iranian people under the guise of fostering an 'Islamic' state.

What really bothers me is that he had any involvement with the "Shariah Index Project" and measuring Islamicity in the first place.

Imagine a group that was dedicated to measuring the relative 'Christianicity' of various countries.  How loud would the screaming and wailing be if people discovered that Fred Phelps was a participant?  How quickly would we be in demanding that other participants explain their affiliation with such a group?

What Mr. Rauf apparently lacks is a core belief that governments should not impose religion on citizens.  That is not a concept that requires a lot of meetings to codify levels of imposition.  It is a concept that simply requires clear and concise opposition.

Not a whitewash job.

Mosque-ow On The Hudson

I still maintain misgivings about the proposed project that would place a mosque and "Islamic center" a couple blocks of the World Trade Center site.  Originally, I was concerned that the project was really intended to provide a stealth victory for more radical Islamic elements.  Most of that concern was based on a few episodes where the front man for the project, Feisal Abdul Rauf, had made statements in the Arabic press and other non-US venues that suggested that he was less than supportive of a multi-cultural, multi-religious society than his US and English based pronouncements would suggest.

Arab Muslim leaders are known for offering an opinion that is palatable to the west when speaking to western audiences or western media while simultaneously saying something far more dire in the Arabic press or to Arab audiences. 

I am a little less skeptical regarding the project upon reading this item by David Frum that suggests that while Mr. Rauf may be the front man for the project, the real driving force may be the money men that need to raise enough capital to purchase some of the land required for the project.

The mosque developers are three Arab-American businessmen: Sharif and Sammy el-Gamal and Nour Moussa. They have a partner in Feisal Abdul Rauf, the Muslim writer and publicist who does most of the talking. But the money and credit pledged to the project belong to the company owned by Moussa and the el-Gamals, Soho Properties.


Soho Properties has paid some $5 million in cash to buy the Burlington Coat Factory building, a building that yields no income. They are paying rent to hold rights to the Con Ed building, which also yields no income. All of this in the midst of the worst commercial property slump in memory, in an area of New York with a very uncertain economic future. And these are not super-rich guys: Sharif el-Gamal lives in an Upper West Side apartment purchased in 2007 for $1 million.


.....


You can see why the Gamal-Moussa team would be dazzled by the notion that philanthropists in the Persian Gulf might donate $100 million to raise a grand gleaming Islamic center in lower Manhattan. You can tuck a lot of development fees into a $100 million project. And if not a mosque … what else do you do with their two loser properties on Park Place?

Still, the presumption that they could build a mosque so close to the World Trade Center site and purposefully hold the "grand opening" or "dedication" or whatever on September 11th is particularly galling.  Perhaps these gentlemen are simply tone deaf.  While this group may be businessmen focused on making a profit using a moderate religious front man to generate funding, the more radical elements of Islam will perceive the opening of a mosque located near the World Trade Center site on September 11th as a huge victory for their version of Islam.  Their perception will be unaffected by the intentions or actions of the group that has proposed the project.

Of course, this entire episode has spawned a round of imagining tasteless construction projects.  My personal example would be locating a USO office across the street from Peace Park in Hiroshima, Japan.

Greg Gutfeld is supposedly moving forward with a real construction project to be located close to the Cordoba House project that is equally tasteless; a Muslim gay bar complete with alcohol and non-alcohol serving areas [located next to the Cordoba House project].

Naturally that project has spawned yet another round of verbal fireballs being tossed back and forth.  It has also yielded this little bit of wisdom from the folks behind Cordoba House.

You’re free to open whatever you like. If you won’t consider the sensibilities of Muslims, you’re not going to build dialog

And the sensibilities of New Yorkers when it comes to the location of a certain new mosque?

Well the irony certainly is thick these days.  You can almost cut it with a knife.

Pointing Out Where The Problem Is

A woman is beaten, raped, killed, and was dumped near a cemetery by government agents.  Care to guess the part of the world where this took place?  Care to guess why she was killed?

The problem remains...over there.

These Folks Just Do Not 'Get' Living In The West

Perhaps they don't want to.

Afshan Azad, who has appeared in four of the [Harry Potter] films as one of the wizard’s screen girlfriends Padma Patil, hails from a strict Muslim family.


She was allegedly attacked at her parents’ home ­after she had started dating the new lad.


Her dad Abdul, 54, has appeared in court accused of threatening to kill her. The actress’s brother Ashraf, 28, faces the same charge and an allegation that he assaulted her causing actual bodily harm.

Perhaps that is the problem we need to be solving.