Mohammad Elmasry, President of the Canadian Islamic Congress (the same group trying to get Mark Steyn censored for "Islamophobia") sets us straight about the Islamist father who strangled his daughter for refusing to wear a head scarf:

"I don't want the public to think that this is really an Islamic issue or an immigrant issue," said Mohamed Elmasry of the Canadian Islamic Congress.

"It is a teenager issue."

Note that even if he were to deflect the blame away from Islam's barbarous ideas about men owning women, he could at least say this is a "psychopath issue," at least fixing the blame on the murderous father.

He doesn't. He says "This is a teenager issue" as if teenagers are the ones we have the problem with, rather than psychopathic thugs. He puts the blame on the strangled child

Right where it so obviously belongs.

Via Five Feet of Fury.

Speaking of Canadian Censorship: Wow.

Posted by: Ace at 06:42 PM | Comments (34)
Post contains 162 words, total size 1 kb.

I haven't had a chance to see the whole thing yet (I think they're replaying it tonight on Iowa Public TV), but there's one thing that I noticed as a lifetime Iowan that makes me think that all the reports of Fred's death have been a little exaggerated.

If you're a Republican in Iowa, you can never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never go wrong by bitchslapping an employee of the Des Moines Register. They're like the NY Times, except that the Register's got a whole section of the classified ads filled with ads for used tractors & combines.

Fred's Last Stand is off on the right foot, now let's see what he does next.

Posted by: Russ from Winterset at 05:32 PM | Comments (25)
Post contains 134 words, total size 1 kb.

As See-Dub says, she just opened the door by sending out a top staffer to talk up Obama's drug use. And suggest that he even sold drugs.

Now why is it precisely that Hillary is the one candidate who, as far as I know, has never been asked about this?

Although, now that I think about it: At the moment I'm right there with the MSM being protective like a father of Hillary.

Go, MSM, Go! Prop that vile woman up! Spin, my little ones -- spin like the wind!

Posted by: Ace at 05:16 PM | Comments (84)
Post contains 112 words, total size 1 kb.

A minor political angle as the new Knight Rider will be a "jaded" Iraqi vet. Pretty minor though. I don't think that Hollywood has ever featured a well-adjusted, happy-to-have-done-his-bit veteran. They're always jaded and "lost."

The Mustang is obviously cooler than the Trans Am, but it doesn't look right. It's a robot car. It's supposed to look cheesy, right?

It's also going to "transform" into three different car types, because someone at the network decided the a car talking with Will Arnett's prissy voice and bickering like a wife with its hunky driver "wasn't quite gay enough."

GOB: Funky Chicken asks who he is. He is the ultimate exemplar of the promise, and peril, of the Ace of Spades Lifestyle:

Posted by: Ace at 04:48 PM | Comments (31)
Post contains 142 words, total size 1 kb.

Yep, the same people voted in favor of a resolution noting Ramadan but draw the line at doing the same for Christmas.

Exit question, Allah-style: Separation of Church and State or separation of Christianity and State?

Posted by: Ace at 04:38 PM | Comments (25)
Post contains 58 words, total size 1 kb.

Look, someone had to make sure she remembered her choreography, didn't they?

This is where I'd link Tim Meadows' Ike Turner impression -- where he repeatedly threatens Kevin Nealon, but then apologizes saying "You know I love you Kevin Nealon" -- but YouTube hates Tim Meadows.

Thanks to Mesablue, with this important update on necrotech.

Well, Here's Something: Ike Turner's Plan For Restoring America's Honor.

Step 1

OK, first things first, America. Stop smacking the bitch. I know sometimes you get caught up in the heat of the moment and you don't know when you've gone too far. Sometimes you just get so mad sometimes. I know you tried to warn Iraq. You told Iraq to stop provoking you. But Iraq wouldn't listen. Iraq was being stubborn and ignorant, and you had to teach Iraq a lesson. Now Iraq's all beaten and bruised and bleeding everywhere, fucking up the good carpet. It's time to chill the fuck out, America. You don't wanna kill Iraq. You just wanna show Iraq how much you love it. It's just sometimes you go a little crazy is all.

Step 2

Give Iraq a Kleenex and tell it to clean itself up. Tell Iraq to hurry, you ain't got all day.

Step 3

Now comes the hard part. You've got to apologize to Iraq, America. Even if you don't really mean it, you've got to swallow your pride and say the words "I'm sorry, baby." Tell Iraq that sometimes America just gets so mad sometimes, and things get out of hand. America doesn't mean to hurt Iraq. America just wants to teach Iraq a lesson, because America loves Iraq so much, baby. America knows what's best for Iraq, and if Iraq would just listen and stop being so stubborn, it could be the best country in the world.

First Rock N Roll Record Eveh? So some claim about Ike Turner's "Rocket 88."

I don't know... it sounds more or less like a full-fledged rock song of that era. I would imagine the first rock record would be, I don't know, not quite rock but almost there. Whereas this just sounds like Chuck Berry or that Blueberry Hill song. So I'm thinking there must be a true progenitor of rock and roll before this that doesn't sound exactly like early 50's rock.

Anyway, enjoy. Be advised: Betty Paige (I think) cheesecake stocking-donning video accompanies the song for no good reason, except the most important reason of all.

Thanks to Amish.

Posted by: Ace at 04:17 PM | Comments (19)
Post contains 420 words, total size 3 kb.

Everyone's dancing on eggshells about this, and I suppose that's proper. Still, if one ventures a perfectly honest opinion, I think one has to say that frequently changing allegations are not generally taken to be a sign of veracity.

In February 2006, Jamie Leigh Jones filed an arbitration complaint, complaining that, for her administrative assistant job with KBR in Iraq, she was placed in an all-male dorm for living arrangements, and a co-worker sexually assaulted her. (KBR says the co-worker claimed the sex was consensual, though Jones claims physical injuries, such as burst breast implants and torn pectoral muscles, that are plainly not consistent with consensual sex. The EEOCÂ’s Letter of Determination credited the allegation of sexual assault.)

Fifteen months later, after extensive discovery in the arbitration, Jones, who lives in Houston, and whose lawyer is based in Houston, and who worked for KBR in Houston, sued KBR and a bunch of other entities (including Halliburton, for whom she never worked, and the United States), in federal court in Beaumont, Texas. The claims were suddenly of much more outrageous conduct: the original allegation of a single he-said/she-said sexual assault was now an allegation of gang rape by several unknown John Doe rapists who worked as firemen (though she did make a claim of multiple rape to the EEOC, though it is unclear when that claim was made); she claims that after she reported the rape, “Halliburton locked her in a container” (the EEOC found that KBR provided immediate medical treatment and safety and shipped her home immediately) and she threw in an allegation that a “sexual favor” she provided a supervisor in Houston was the result of improper “influence.” (But she no longer makes the implausible claim that she was living in an all-male dorm in Iraq.)

Not to mention her claim that all the evidence of the gang-rape was turned over by Army doctors to KBR agents who immediately destroyed the rape kits, and the implication that these Army doctors are, for reasons unfathomable, keeping radio-silent because, I guess, they really want gang-rapists to go free.

Yeah, the disclaimer: It's possible this happened. Her fresh charges (a gang rape, being locked in a container) and her retracted charges (being housed in an all-male dorm) could be explained away.

But what are those explanations? Does anyone inquire to ask, or is asking her too insensitive?

Are we to again say, "Oh yes, women frequently forget all the details of a rape and offer shifting stories for months afterwards" as we did in the Duke case? How about we just risk some insensitivity and demand she credibly explain the evolution of her claims?

I have trouble believing this affair she had with her supervisor was due to his somehow blackmailing her over her sick mother. It sounds like after-the-fact bullshit made up for the benefit of a cuckolded husband... and it especially sounds like that now that I find out this is a fairly recent allegation.

I seem to remember a recent lurid allegation of gang-rape with similar evidentiary problems. Everyone just assumed the complainant must be telling the truth -- including me, quite frankly -- and we all know how that turned out.

Well, we don't all know how that turned out. Amanda Marcotte, Jill From Feminste, etc., are still pretty sure "something happened" there.

Thanks to CJ.

Oh: As the Overlawyered blogger cited by Michelle (and quoted above notes), it's possible that she's honest about the rape, basically, but lying about most everything else.

Why? Well, for the same reason women often lie about the exact circumstances of a rape in a civil lawsuit: Because rapists are piss-poor and judgment proof whereas corporations are rich cash bonanzas... if only a credible claim of negligence on the part of the corporation can be made. And if that means alleging, say, that you frequently warned your employers that its parking lot was unsafe at night and improperly lit and so on and so forth, well, even if it's not quite true, if that's what it takes to make a case that's what it takes to make a case.

There are a lot of civil lawsuits about rape where the rape is never in any doubt whatsoever. The whole fight is over whether or not the employer or corporation or whoever was negligent in preventing the rape. And that's where sometimes the allegations begin to evolve to neatly track with the requirements of a negligence suit.

Posted by: Ace at 03:26 PM | Comments (34)
Post contains 756 words, total size 5 kb.

Bored by that headline? Feel no need to read further?

I don't blame you. It's designed with that purpose specifically in mind.

That's how the Washington Post headlined its buried story on the Islamist father who strangled his daughter for not wearing a head scarf.

[Update - PA]
An interesting reaction and nuance from up north:

...The incident has shocked modern Muslims across Canada. Toronto-based Sonia Ahmed, who runs the Miss World Pakistan and grooms Pakistani-origin girls for Miss Bikini and other pageants, said angrily: "The hijab was never a part of Pakistani dress. It is an Arab imposition. This should be banned all over North America. This killer father will now think that he has done the `right thing', and he can now go to heaven and claim his 70 virgins. Hang him." ...

Posted by: Ace at 02:59 PM | Comments (29)
Post contains 141 words, total size 1 kb.

Clips from the debate at Hot Air.

Um, what is that buffoonish attention whore Alan Keyes doing there with a mic?

I like Fred's "I ain't doin' a show of hands" response. That surly, grouchy thing works for him.

Thompson Wins? A lot of the commentariat seems to think so.

Longer Luntz:

Via Hot Air, which notes the word "Huckabomb" was mentioned. Allah thinks people may finally be starting to get the word on how liberal, bumpkinish, and nasty this jackass is.

Posted by: Ace at 01:09 PM | Comments (49)
Post contains 92 words, total size 2 kb.

Despite the fact that Beauchamp continues to not stand by his own stories, even though he's currently home on a leave. Only his wife seems willing to claim they're true.

Some news: Foer was considering retracting the stories since early November. Of course through that period TNR was silent and allowed its last statement -- claiming the stories were accurate -- to stand.

“Yeah, it’s a bummer, but it’s hard to shed any tears over Frank,” Elspeth Reeve was telling The Observer in a phone interview Friday, the day before her husband, U.S. Army Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp, joined her at her mother’s house in Missouri for his 30-day leave.

...

It was Ms. Reeve, 25, who, while working at TNR as a reporter-researcher, had recommended Mr. Beauchamp—not yet her husband at the time—to the magazine’s editors. Nevertheless, Ms. Reeve said, she wasn’t going to let the fact that Mr. Foer had publicly denounced Mr. Beauchamp’s work spoil her mood on the eve of her reunion with her husband.

“[Scott] survived the war, he’s coming home, we’re newlyweds, it’s Christmas,” she said. “I’m living in a romance novel. It’s kind of hard to be down.”

Ms. Reeve said she was surprised to learn, in early November while visiting her husband in Germany (where he was transferred upon completing his tour of duty in Iraq), that Mr. Foer planned to retract the stories. She said that she and Mr. Beauchamp had not expected Mr. Foer to take any decisive action until Mr. Beauchamp returned to the U.S. this week, at which point they thought it would be much easier for him to speak up in his own defense.

“I think Scott thought Frank was on his side, you know? And that he understood that he was in a really difficult situation and so would be patient until Scott got out of Iraq,” Ms. Reeve said. “I don’t think Scott realized the limits on Frank’s patience.”

Ms. Reeve also argued that Mr. Foer’s retraction, titled “The Fog of War,” had failed to prove that any of Mr. Beauchamp’s stories contained fabrications—all it did, she said, was demonstrate that Mr. Foer was tired of dealing with the scandal.

“When I first heard about this piece,” Ms. Reeve said, “I thought they would have taken all the different things that the soldiers had said about each of the three stories and analyzed them for inconsistencies, and said, ‘Here’s where we think Scott exaggerated’ or ‘Here’s where we think the stories don’t match up and that’s why we can’t stand behind them anymore.’ But instead they were like, ‘Here are all the reasons to support Scott, but this is hard.’ And they just threw up their hands.”

...

According to Jonathan Chait, a senior editor at TNR, the magazine received little cooperation from Mr. Beauchamp throughout the investigation process. “The basis [for the retraction] was just that Scott is maddening,” he said. “He’s just flaky, he’s irresponsible, he doesn’t do things that are in his own obvious interest to do. … Scott was the guy who lives in the group house and is supposed to pay the electric bill and just doesn’t, and the lights get shut off. Frank was the guy who had the lights shut out on him.” Mr. Beauchamp declined to comment for this story.

Marty Peretz, as could be expected, "stands behind" the decision to retract.

Posted by: Ace at 01:05 PM | Comments (21)
Post contains 584 words, total size 4 kb.