"Off with their breasts!"

Continuing on the police action in Iran trying to force all women into BMOs, the BBC reports that the the crackdown includes young men, too:

Young men are being cautioned for wearing short sleeved shirts or for their hairstyles.

The women continue to be relentlessly harrassed.

And now comes the really misogynistic and truly bizarre part,

One shopkeeper selling evening dresses told us the moral police had ordered him to saw off the breasts of his mannequins because they were too revealing.

He said he wasn’t the only shop to receive this strange instruction.

The shopkeeper “sawed off the breasts of the mannequins on his window display and covered them with sticky tape”, at the insistence of the police, and the BBC has a video.

Makes one wonder what the Sanity Squad would say, doesn’t it?

Here are more photos on the fashion crackdown.

Meanwhile, over at Gateway PunditBanned In Iran… A Helpful Guide For Prisoners of the Regime

Cross-posted at MNM and DNN
Update: 1001 Nights

Update, Sunday 29 April Welcome, readers from The Corner. I agree 100% with Michael Ledeen

Yes, they really are crazy. And sick. And they’re after us. Somebody tell the secretary of state, please.

While you are here, you might want to listen to my podcasts. Please visit often.

Update, Monday 30 April: Welcome, Michelle Malkin readers. Please visit often. Michelle correctly points out,

Activists say that while world attention has focused on the West’s standoff with Iran over its nuclear program, the abuses of women’s rights have intensified, using fear of a U.S. attack as a pretext.



The writing on the wall

Today Tony Blankley asks, Is There Writing on the Wall? (emphasis added)

It would appear that the great divide in both public opinion and between politicians is not Republican-Democrat, liberal-conservative, pro or anti-Bush, or even pro or anti-war (or, in Europe: pro-or anti-American). Rather, the great divide is between those, such as me, who believe that the rise of radical Islam poses an existential threat to Western Civilization; and those who believe it is a nuisance, if, episodically, a very dangerous nuisance.

Blankley concludes,

Thus, while others and I will continue to make our case in public, it seems probably inevitable that the correctness or incorrectness of our views will only become persuasive to the multitude when history teaches its cruel, unavoidable lessons. It was ever thus, which is why history is strewed with broken nations and civilizations that couldn’t read the writing on the wall. Of course, it is also strewed with sad hulks of false predictors of doom.

Dr. Sanity has been exploring these issues at her blog. In today’s post, Symptom or adaptation? she asks

Now ask yourself, is the ubiquitous, almost casual, antisemitism of the Islamic world a healthy, adaptive response to some injustices perpetrated by Jews that muslims have to deal with in the real world; or is it a projection that is symptomatic of some serious psychopathology within the muslim culture?


In the Muslim mind, where there is no cause and effect, everything occurs at the whim of Allah. Such a world risks becoming a frightening place filled with seemingly unpredictable events and when bad things happen it is because Allah wanted them to happen. A tsunami is then evidence that Allah is displeased with his people…unless, you can find a suitable entity, an almost God, who caused the grief. After the Indonesian tsunami, rumors and conspiracy theories were rampant int he Muslim world that the Israelis (and sometimes the Americans) had caused the tsunami. No longer was Allah angry at his people; now there was an explanation that allowed the Muslim world to avoid looking int he mirror and asking the obvious question: When the Arab world is awash with oil money, how is it that they could not spare a tiny amount for their co-religionists and build a tsunami warning system? (Actually, they would have had to buy a tsunami waring system, a related issue.) If Israel and/or America had caused the tsunami, such a warning system was not only unnecessary but foolhardy. Instead of looking inward, fro one’s own shortcomings that have facilitated or caused disasters, one can look outward, focus one’s wrath on the feared and hated demi-God, and please Allah at the same time. No longer is a disaster a sign of Allah’s displeasure, but an opportunity to gain even more of his approval by attacking his enemies.

In a similar vein, the home grow[n] despair of failed societies, which in other nations has been redirected and used to build modern societies around the world, has no internal outlet; it must be directed outward so that the societies of the Muslim world can pretend to stay unchanged and unquestioned.

This week Sigmund, Carl and Alfred has a series of most interesting posts on the subject which you must read in their entirety since abridging will do them no justice. But one particular sentence stood out in yesterday’s post,

In any event, in the Arab world, any expression of western ideas, ideologies or beliefs are deemed ‘satanic.’ The choice of imagery and words are no accident.

Last week SC&A posted on Crime and terror, which brought to mind the Dem’s former policy of treating “terrorism as a nuisance”, as if it were a criminal matter. One of Siggy’s commenters linked to The Myth of the Invincible Terrorist (emphasis added)

Relativists do not understand the depths of their error when they pronounce that “terrorism is just a word for violence we don’t like,” or “terrorism is a Westerners’ epithet.” Terrorists are living, breathing men and women using vile but calculated means to make political gains, and it is vital that politicians and academics and police chiefs continue pointing that out. Terror is ugly, making terrorists morally ugly; this ugliness is weakness in the struggle for public opinion. More must be made of that, in the service of truth and of counterterrorism. Another lesson flows from the facts above: Groups and their leaders may well be vulnerable to psychological operations. As circumstances allow, counterterrorism can play up rivals around the leaders, or create fissures between working partners, or throw doubt over loyalties of old comrades.

So, as Tony Blankley stated, there are those who see an existential threat from a group of terrorists who have demonized all that is good in our lives and culture and are willing to drag us all to hell. And there are those who just want to ignore that threat and believe it’s such a simple nuisance that, in their grab for power, they are taking ownership of a defeat in Iraq.

They are, indeed fighting on the wrong side of the psychological war. Each of their words, each of their actions, is and will continue to be repeated by our enemies, and will embolden them and motivate them to do more evil.

Note to Harry: “Your words are killing us” now, and will continue to kill us.

And those are no “sad hulks of false predictors of doom”.


(Note: The writing on the wall refers to Daniel 5 in the Old Testament.)



Sunday blogging: Stupid women of romantic comedy

AMC is playing right now An Unmarried Woman, a movie that drove me crazy when I first saw it in a cinema in the late 1970s and still drives me crazy today.

Granted, I’ve been a fan of Alan Bates ever since I first saw him naked in Women In Love, back when I was young and impressionable. Here he is in Women In Love talking about figs:

In An Unmarried Woman Alan Bates (who in real life was the most beautiful man on earth – trust me on this) played the sexiest most tender man on earth and he was madly in love with Erica. Lucky Erica, would you say? But the premise of An Unmarried Woman is that Erica’s going to be independent no matter what, so she drops him.


Give Erica 5 long years of independence, bad dates, and living with too many cats and she’d have had time to regret her stupid decision. By which time he would have found someone who appreciated him for who he was.

Or as Judy Benjamin put it,

“Did you happen to see that movie An Unmarried Woman?
Well, I didn’t get it… I mean, I would’ve been Mrs. Alan Bates so fast that guy wouldn’t have known what hit him!”

Anyway, Dr. Sanity has the Carnival,


Of prawns and pawns

Yesterday around noon I was meeting a friend while trying to navigate the very noisy lobby of the Museum of Modern Art, which was packed to the gills with a very wet crowd of loud people on Easter Break who had ventured in the cold rain. The place felt like an airport the day before Thanksgiving, only with no departures, just arrivals.

My friend and I finally found each other and since the MoMA was mobbed with the crowd we decided to have lunch across the street at Gattopardo. We rushed out of the noisy MoMA across the noisy and rainy cold street, walked into the restaurant and were warmly greeted into a sanctuary of elegant quiet and excellent food.

I had a most excellent plate of prawns that must have come from Paradise. They were that good.

To make a long story short, I had a wonderful afternoon and was totally unaware of anything in the news until evening, when I was reading this post from Siggy (who’s as fond of Bond as I am of Bryn). Siggy said,

Mahmoud Ahmadenijad’s ‘pardon’ and release of those 15 British sailors and marines is no more a gesture of Iran’s inherent ‘goodness’ than were Adolph Hitler’s displays of affection for his dog – and it is important that we understand that.

Until then I had not heard that Mahmoud Ahmadenijad had been saying that he had pardoned the hostages.

Shortly after, the BBC newscast showed Tony Blair talking about “how much he respects the Iranians”.

I couldn’t believe my ears.

Yes, the hostages were not yet out of Iran, but for Blair to stoop down to praising a culture of shame with his respect was beyond belief. The same culture of shame who for two weeks publically paraded and humiliated IN COMPLETE DISREGARD OF GENEVA CONVENTIONS PROTOCOL fifteen members of the British forces.

Make no mistake, the hostages were political prisoners and as such were humiliated. For an explanation of this point, listen to the Sanity Squad, and listen to what Siggy had to say about the videos of the hostages.

By expressing his respect, Tony Blair, who apparently got gelded along the way, became a pawn.

Margaret Thatcher would have “pardoned” Ahmadenijad’s grubby little butt into the ground from the get-go.

But we live in different times.

While we stand on the shoulders of giants like Thatcher and Reagan and are able to feast on prawns while we still can, undoubtedly because of the sacrifice of people like the hostages, the Democrats have ended the war on terror by banishing the term, because the

Democratic leadership doesn’t like the phrase.

(h/t Alcibiades).

Mind you, I don’t like the term either, and would definitely prefer to call it the war on Caliphate Islam. But that won’t suit the Democrat mindset, whose delicate sensibilites has them doing anti-terror drills against Christians (during Lent, no less), just a few miles away from here. Because of course we don’t want to upset Muslims

The real story is that it has become acceptable to discriminate against Christians with bigoted characterizations that portray them as gun wielding psycho killers. Such bigotry is a common occurrence in film, on TV and the internet, in schools and in city halls across America. Newspapers cover such stories with zest and a certain sense of shoulder shrugging normalcy.

Instead of the war on terror, we now have ‘The War That Must Not Be Named’.

That way we can digest our prawns with ease. While my friend and I found temporary shelter from the daily grind at a lovely restaurant, the Dems are seeking permanent shelter from reality through a linguistic trick. This has become part and parcel of their grab for power.

The Dem’s grab for power at any price includes having Nancy playing pretend at being Secretary of State, making new friends with our enemies, lying about our friends, and veiling herself with an Hermes scarf,

The Reform Party of Syria, which is not playing pretend because it can not afford to, explains what’s really behind the veil:

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was seen roaming the streets of Damascus flaunting a Hijab. The Hijab worn by women across the Muslim world has come to symbolize either one of three things: 1) a symbol that men control women by forcing piety, or 2) a return to religiosity because of oppressive rulers, or 3) a fashion statement. If you ask any expert on the Middle East, you would get any one of three answers. The ones who usually claim it is a fashion statement are the political rulers who usually oppress people in general. A Hijab is NOT a confirmation of the rights of women in the Middle East but rather a symbol of their suppression.

At least Siggy was able to look at the bright side,

she could have been photograped wearing a Palestinian keffiyah.

Because a pawn is a pawn is a pawn no matter how expensive a scarf she wears.

Special thanks to Maria and Larwyn.
Update: Pratfall in Damascus
(Note To those who asked, my friend’s a vegetarian – she had the spinach)
Technorati tags Nancy Pelosi