Greg Tinti has video of Pelosi from her interview on 60 Minutes this evening. Lesley Stahl, surprisingly, asked Pelosi some good questions and at one point during the video Pelosi says that if she becomes House Speaker, Bush will not be impeached.
I referenced the story about the prediction from Barron’s magazine that the GOP would hold on to Congress early this morning, and at that time the link was subscription only. I asked for and rec’d the link in email today as Barron’s has moved their story from behind the subscription wall for everyone – subscribers and non alike – to read. Here it is.
Well, the Cats suffered a disappointing loss today to the Bungles, er Bangles – I mean, Bengals 17-14, so it’s been a pretty depressing sports day. We play Dallas next week at home in a late game, so hopefully we’ll make up for today’s loss with a win over big mouth Terrell Owens and company (are you listening, Mwalimu? Bring it! )
Jules Crittenden has a good write-up today on the efforts of the US military to step up monitoring of military blogs, otherwise known as milblogs, in an effort to check for possible violations of operational security.
While I can understand the need for the military to do this, I hope they don’t lean too hard on milbloggers to the point they no longer feel they can milblog with any degree of freedom – milblogs are one of the primary sources we have for the good news that takes place in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we need them.
What does he blame having to donate more of his own money to his campaign on? An alleged Lieberman “slush fund.” Via the Hartford Courant:
Ned Lamont donated another $2 million to his Senate campaign Saturday – and questioned huge cash expenditures reported by the campaign of Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman.
The latest donation by Lamont, a wealthy businessman, brings his personal investment in the campaign to $12.7 million.
The Lamont campaign questioned $387,000 in cash disbursements by Lieberman’s campaign shortly before the Democratic primary won by Lamont on Aug. 8.
“It appears Lieberman [is] effectively circumventing federal campaign finance laws by not disclosing to the public exactly who received all of this money. Ned Lamont, on the other hand, has listed just $500 in petty cash and has strictly adhered to FEC rules,” the Lamont campaign said in a statement Saturday night.
At least 10 payments labeled “petty cash” for “volunteers” are listed in Lieberman’s campaign finance report, which was made public last week by the Federal Election Commission. The largest payment of $135,000 was made Aug. 4. Other cash payments in the days before the primary included $75,000 on Aug. 7 and $87,500 on Aug. 2.
Tammy Sun, a spokeswoman for the Lieberman campaign, said the money was used for payments to young field workers hired in the closing weeks of the primary. She said they were paid $50, $75 or $100 a day.
“To help combat an alarmingly large and suspicious slush fund in Senator Lieberman’s latest campaign finance report, Democratic Senate nominee Ned Lamont today contributed an additional $2 million to his upstart campaign against the three-term incumbent,” the campaign announced.
This is the Lamont campaign’s way of ignoring the fact that he doesn’t have the financial support out there that the Nutroots wish like hell he did against a respected and well-liked Senator like Joe Lieberman. Lamont is blaming Joe Lieberman’s “slush fund” for the fact that the support he needs simply isn’t there.
Patterico thinks Calame, whose admission is published here, should resign.
While I can understand the sentiment behind Patterico’s call, it’s going to take a lot more changes at the NYT besides a potential Calame resignation to get them to straighten up their acts. Most noteably, they need to revisit their policies that suggest it’s ok to reveal sensitive information in a time of war to the public. The NYT simply does not know how to balance the public’s “right to know” with the government’s obligation to protect the American people.
Just got done reading this opinion piece written by Islamic convert Yvonne Ridley, a British journalist who was captured by the Taliban shortly after the 9-11 attacks after sneaking into Afghanistan in an attempt to write a story on the oppressive nature of the Taliban. They let her go after ten days once she promised to read the Koran and study Islam.
True to her word, she did just that – and enjoyed what she read and studied so much that she actually converted to Islam.
Here’s Ridley discussing her conversion:
Once I finished reading the article – titled “How I Came to Love the Veil”, I felt as though Ridley wrote it under duress. She didn’t, of course, but some of the things she said are some of the same things a woman would say if she was in the captivity of radical Islamists. You’ll know what I mean when you get the opportunity to examine what she wrote in full. So much of what she wrote stood out, but I think this excerpt did more so than the rest:
Back home in London, I kept my word about studying Islam — and was amazed by what I discovered. I’d been expecting Koran chapters on how to beat your wife and oppress your daughters; instead, I found passages promoting the liberation of women. Two-and-a-half years after my capture, I converted to Islam, provoking a mixture of astonishment, disappointment and encouragement among friends and relatives.
Now, it is with disgust and dismay that I watch here in Britain as former foreign secretary Jack Straw describes the Muslim nikab — a face veil that reveals only the eyes — as an unwelcome barrier to integration, with Prime Minister Tony Blair, writer Salman Rushdie and even Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi leaping to his defense.
Having been on both sides of the veil, I can tell you that most Western male politicians and journalists who lament the oppression of women in the Islamic world have no idea what they are talking about. They go on about veils, child brides, female circumcision, honor killings and forced marriages, and they wrongly blame Islam for all this — their arrogance surpassed only by their ignorance.
These cultural issues and customs have nothing to do with Islam. A careful reading of the Koran shows that just about everything that Western feminists fought for in the 1970s was available to Muslim women 1,400 years ago. Women in Islam are considered equal to men in spirituality, education and worth, and a woman’s gift for childbirth and child-rearing is regarded as a positive attribute.
Unfortunately for Ridley, on the same day the Washington Post chose to publish her fantasy piece on Islam, they also published a piece grounded in harsh reality written by a Muslim woman by the name of Asra Q. Nomani, who as a Muslim woman would know far more about Islamic practices than a recent western convert. In a piece titled “Clothes Aren’t the Issue”, Nomani writes:
MORGANTOWN, W.Va. When dealing with a “disobedient wife,” a Muslim man has a number of options. First, he should remind her of “the importance of following the instructions of the husband in Islam.” If that doesn’t work, he can “leave the wife’s bed.” Finally, he may “beat” her, though it must be without “hurting, breaking a bone, leaving blue or black marks on the body and avoiding hitting the face, at any cost.”
Such appalling recommendations, drawn from the book “Woman in the Shade of Islam” by Saudi scholar Abdul Rahman al-Sheha, are inspired by as authoritative a source as any Muslim could hope to find: a literal reading of the 34th verse of the fourth chapter of the Koran, An-Nisa , or Women. “[A]nd (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them,” reads one widely accepted translation.
The notion of using physical punishment as a “disciplinary action,” as Sheha suggests, especially for “controlling or mastering women” or others who “enjoy being beaten,” is common throughout the Muslim world. Indeed, I first encountered Sheha’s work at my Morgantown mosque, where a Muslim student group handed it out to male worshipers after Friday prayers one day a few years ago.
Verse 4:34 retains a strong following, even among many who say that women must be treated as equals under Islam. Indeed, Muslim scholars and leaders have long been doing what I call “the 4:34 dance” — they reject outright violence against women but accept a level of aggression that fits contemporary definitions of domestic violence.
Although Islamic historians agree that the prophet Muhammad never hit a woman, it is also clear that Muslim communities face a domestic violence problem. A 2003 study of 216 Pakistani women found that 97 percent had experienced such abuse; almost half of them reported being victims of nonconsensual sex. Earlier this year, the state-run General Union of Syrian Women released a report showing that one in four married Syrian women is the victim of domestic violence.
Much of the problem is the 4:34 dance, which encourages this violence while producing interpretations that range from comical to shocking. A Muslim man in upstate New York, for instance, told his wife that the Koran allowed him to beat her with a “wet noodle.” The host of a Saudi TV show displayed a pool cue as a disciplinary tool.
Modern debates over 4:34 inevitably hark back to a still widely used 1930 translation of the Koran by British Muslim Marmaduke Pickthall, who determined the verse to mean that, as a last resort, men can “scourge” their wives. A 1934 translation of the Koran, by Indian Muslim scholar A. Yusuf Ali, inserted a parenthetical qualifier: Men could “Beat them (lightly).”
I don’t know what Ridley’s smoking, but I suspect it’s the some of the same stuff her fellow Respect party member George ‘I count the Husseins among my closest buddies’ Galloway is. Nomani destroyed her argument without even knowing it.
Charles Johnson is outraged that the Washington Post printed Ridley’s piece, and has called on his readers to contact the WaPo to express their displeasure. While I don’t have an issue with the WaPo’s publishing of Ridley’s writings – because I think it’s important to know how delusional deniers of the brutality of radical Islam really are – I do have an issue with the fact that they didn’t inform their readers of who Ridley was beyond a ‘political editor of Islam TV’. Johnson notes:
Yvonne Ridley is a member of George Galloway’s RESPECT party, and has written numerous essays defending Islamic terrorism. She described those murdered in last year’s terrorist attacks in Jordan as “collaborators.” She wrote, “I think I’d rather put up with a brother like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi any day than have a traitor or sell-out for a father, son or grandfather.” She described Shamil Basaev, the mastermind of the massacre of Russian school children at Beslan, as “a Shaheed” or martyr. She was fired by Al Jazeera because she was too extreme even for them.
She’s also urged Muslims in east London to stop cooperating with police who are trying to track and stop terrorists, citing “Islamophobic” attitudes on the part of London police.
Contact the Washington Post and ask them why they neglected to share this information with their readers.
With polls showing the Dems poised to take control of Congress, one magazine – Barron’s – is predicting that the R’s will hold on to their control in Washington. But just barely. Drudge has a snippet of the subscription-only content from the Barron’s site. If any of you have a subscription to Barron’s magazine, please email me or post a synopsis of the article in the comments section of this post. Would love to read more about this. Ok, on to what Drudge quoted:
JUBILANT DEMOCRATS SHOULD RECONSIDER their order for confetti and noisemakers, BARRON’s claims in their next edition. The Democrats, as widely reported, are expecting GOP-weary voters to flock to the polls in two weeks and hand them control of the House for the first time in 12 years — and perhaps the Senate, as well. Even some Republicans privately confess that they are anticipating the election-day equivalent of Little Big Horn. Pardon our hubris, but we just don’t see it.
Our analysis — based on a race-by-race examination of campaign-finance data — suggests that the GOP will hang on to both chambers, at least nominally. We expect the Republican majority in the House to fall by eight seats, to 224 of the chamber’s 435. At the very worst, our analysis suggests, the party’s loss could be as large as 14 seats, leaving a one-seat majority. But that is still a far cry from the 20-seat loss some are predicting. In the Senate, with 100 seats, we see the GOP winding up with 52, down three.
Sounds WAY overly optimistic – but we’ll see.
On a related note:
—- Fred Barnes writes in this week’s Weekly Standard on the importance of conservatives voting next month rather than staying home to ‘teach the GOP a lesson.’
—- Newsweek notes a new poll that supposedly shows that teh GOP is losing its Evangelical base.
—- The Hartford Courant doesn’t sound too happy about the fact that Senator Joe Lieberman is getting a lot of money from the GOP.
—- The NYT reports that Democrats are daring to believe they will win next month.
—- Nancy Pelosi likes the sound of “Madam Speaker” – read more about this from yesterday’s Pelosi puff piece in the LATimes. The WaPo joins in on the Pelosi puffery here.