Islam's Gender Equality: Al Qaeda, Palestinian Female Suicide Bombers

Two reports: Phyllis Chesler, "Al Qaeda Tells Women to Be Suicide Bombers":

I was just about to shut my computer down when I realized that there are two pieces of breaking news that I have to share with you.

First, according to NBC and ABC journalist Mark Schone, “Zawahiri’s Wife Releases Statement, Tells Women They Can Be Suicide Bombers.”

What’s this? The twisted triumph of feminism, Islamist-style? Why is Zawahiri allowing one of his four (or more) wives to take such an active public role?

Omaima Hassan first tells women that their primary role is that of bearing and breeding a jihadic fighter’s sons. She counsels women to support jihad by keeping the warrior’s secrets and his home, and by wearing hijab. She also disapproves of women going out without a male escort or guide. But then, in an unconfirmed report, she goes further. According to Schone:

“Hassan also suggests that women can become suicide bombers, which she refers to as ‘martyrdom missions.’”

This is certainly different from what her husband said in 2008, in a “two-hour recorded interview posted on a web site.” Zawahiri, who is believed to be in Pakistan, insisted “that Al Qaeda did not have women members, and that the role of women in jihad was limited to taking care of the children of fighters and maintaining their homes.”

One conclusion: Watch out for suicide bombers wearing burqas.

I'll say.

See this second report, a video from Islamization Watch, "Sheik Tells Children the Story of Palestinian Female Suicide Bomber Wafa Idris":

Global Challenges in 2010

Earlier this month, Foreign Policy released its first-annual list of the 100 top global thinkers. Personally, I don't care for these lists all that much (although it's interesting that Foreign Policy's #1 thinker, Ben Bernanke, is also Time's Man of the Year).

What's more interesting is what these thinkers say. And we have that in a follow-up survey, "The Wisdom of the Smart Crowd."

The printer version is here, for easy scrolling. The panelists named President Barack Obama "a 7 out of 10 for his performance," but "when asked what, exactly, had been his intellectual contribution to foreign policy, our thinkers were hard-pressed to name a specific idea, instead collectively applauding qualities like his "openness" and "multipolar worldview" (and even, explicitly, the fact that he isn't George W. Bush)."

No surprise there. Leftists are overrepresented at the panel:

Chris Anderson, Karen Armstrong, John Arquilla, Jacques Attali, George Ayittey, Nick Bostrom, Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, Willem Buiter, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Jamais Cascio, Nicholas Christakis, Bill Clinton, Paul Collier, Jared Diamond, Esther Duflo, Esther Dyson, William Easterly, Mohamed El-Erian, Paul Farmer, Salam Fayyad, Niall Ferguson, Thomas Friedman, Francis Fukuyama, Helene Gayle, Ashraf Ghani, David Grossman, Richard Haass, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Hu Shuli, Valerie Hudson, Anwar Ibrahim, Michael Ignatieff, Robert Kagan, David Kilcullen, Henry Kissinger, Enrique Krauze, Ray Kurzweil, Clare Lockhart, Amory Lovins, C. Raja Mohan, Andrew Mwenda, Jacqueline Novogratz, Emily Oster, Rajendra Pachauri, Minxin Pei, David Petraeus, Tariq Ramadan, Ahmed Rashid, Hans Rosling, Amartya Sen, Robert Shiller, Peter W. Singer, Anne-Marie Slaughter, Abdolkarim Soroush, Joseph Stiglitz, Rizal Sukma, Richard Thaler, Mario Vargas Llosa, Robert Wright, Xu Zhiyong, Fareed Zakaria, Zhou Xiachuan, Robert Zoellick.

Still, I don't disagree with the panel's picks for the hot issues facing the world in 2010:

A majority (59 percent) think the worst of the global recession is over, that the war in Afghanistan/Pakistan is the world's most dangerous (79 percent), that China is the inevitable next global power (71 percent), and prefer the BlackBerry (54 percent) over the much ballyhooed iPhone.

And, checking the article, there's a bunch of cool graphics. I like this one, on the "biggest game-changer," which to me is a proxy for security challenges:

I don't think the world will experience another 9/11-style catastrophe. I do think we'll have more Mumbais, sadly, and they'll be launched in the developed states (and thus keep an eye on the implications from that 21 percent for AfPak). Because top thinkers want to repudiate the Bush legacy of facing down terrorists in their own backyard, we'll be seeing the terrorists bringing it to us. Thus, my prediction for the worst "unknown" challenge for the year: My bet is that terrorists will successfully launch coordinated, simultaneous multiple attacks on the scale of the 2004 Madrid train bombings. This could include attacks in a number of countries at one time, in Europe, Britain, and the United States. All the evidence is there to indicate that global jihad is just as mobilized to destroy the West under President Obama as it was under President Bush. The difference is that this administration apologizes for American efforts to meet those threats head on. That kind of weakness -- like President Clinton's in Somalia -- invites danger. The terrorists know they can escalate while Washington diplomats go globe-trotting to sooth the outbreaks of anti-Americanism. Palestinian-style hijacking and aviation terrorism, like 9/11, is out. Heightened security precludes a high probabability of catastrophic attacks in that area. But train stations are more vulnerable, and security experts have long suggested that not only is difficult to prevent every potential attack, it's frankly not cost effect for national economies -- that is, devoting more and more resources to prevent every conceivable contingency would be a victory for the terrorist -- they'd have a victory in further altering the lifestyles and norms of the Western democracies.

I hope I'm wrong about this. I don't want more people to die. A lot of the other predictions at Foreign Policy are simply facets of everyday life in the world. We'll face China and other rising nations. I would add, though, that I expect a phenomenal boom in the American economy sometime soon, although that might not be until 2011 and beyond -- we'll have another period like the late-1990s, when former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright described the U.S. as the "indispensible nation."

Added: From Bruce Hall, in the comments:

The nightmare scenario is a EMP explosion from an Iranian missile launched from either an ocean freighter or a not-so-friendly country in South America... followed by on-site terrorist attacks in various large cities.

This is not so far-fetched.

Why is Brazil Reviving its Space Program?

Brazil is developing a new national security strategy to protect its natural resources, among the world's most abundant. It's rekindling its space satellite program, as well as military aviation. The answer to the question above is simple: Brazil is responding to the natural pressures and constraints of the international system. It's acting as an aspiring great power in an increasingly multipolar world of international competition. American preponderance in the current realm is lasting, but states can't guess wrong about changes in the global balance. So, Brazil's hedging its bets -- and acting on the basis of self-help -- no matter the timeline.

From the Los Angeles Times, "Resource-rich Brazil puts up its guard":

Brazil's planned reentry into the satellite business next year is more than an effort to join an exclusive club and become a global player. It's part of a far-reaching defense plan to ward off potential plunderers of its immense natural resources, officials say.

"In the coming era of scarcity, we're going to have to defend what we've got with our claws, our feet and our weapons," said a consultant to the Defense Ministry who requested anonymity because he was not authorized to speak. "The challenges could come from neighbors, they could come from the U.S., they could come from China -- all allies now, but potential competitors in the future."

Brazil has a lot to protect.

Over the last two years, it has made one of the world's largest oil discoveries off its Atlantic coast, a find that could propel it into the first rank of oil exporters by 2015. The nation also boasts enormous deposits of gold, uranium and iron ore and is the world's largest exporter of chicken, soy, sugar and beef.

The value of these resources has skyrocketed along with demand from China, India and other emerging economies.

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and his advisors believe that the resources increasingly will be coveted by foreign powers as "global availability" of commodities is reduced by population growth, global warming and over-exploitation, said Thomaz Guedes da Costa, a professor at National Defense University in Washington.

So Brazil is doing more than counting its blessings: It has begun to take measures to expand and modernize its defenses as part of a strategic plan to dissuade foreign usurpers from making a play for its natural riches.

In an interview here in Brazil's capital, Defense Ministry spokesman Jose Ramos Filho said the military buildup was "defensive, not offensive," and was meant as a deterrent against nations that in coming decades may lust after Brazil's resources, even water. Better surveillance, weapons and the means to deploy them will make potential enemies think twice about an attack, he said.

Restarting Brazil's unmanned space program, which has been on hold since a launchpad disaster killed 21 people in 2003, is an integral part of the plan. A new generation of satellites is planned to help Brazil monitor its agriculture, forests, mineral resources -- and territory.

This month, Lula said on a state visit to Ukraine that he hoped to launch a Brazilian satellite aboard a Ukrainian rocket by the end of his term next December. By 2012, Brazil plans to be launching satellites aboard its own rockets, said Himilcon Carvalho, policy director of the Brazilian Space Agency.

Brazil and Ukraine are forming a joint venture to offer launch services at Alcantara in northern Brazil, the site of the 2003 disaster.

Although Brazil has five communication and imaging satellites in space, all were launched by the Chinese or private U.S. launchers, and Brazil wants more control, Carvalho said.

"We want to forecast crops and monitor our coastlines, but also know our territory and gather data from it," Carvalho said. "Defense is a byproduct. The military is very fond of surveillance and wants to know what's going on over land and sea."

A space program and modern weapons are a status marker: the price of membership to the first rank of nations, those that are rule makers, not rule takers, said Guedes da Costa of National Defense University.

"Brazil wants to be a player in world trade, the environment, and have a seat on the U.N. Security Council. For the leadership, that translates into military purchases if you are going to participate at that level," he said.

Robert P. George: Conservative-Christian Big Thinker

I first came across the commentary of Robert P. George during last year's campaign (see, "Obama and His Pro-Life Apologists").

I immediately realized that George was the most important current writers on moral values in the country. I haven't read too much of George since, but it turns out that the New York Times has a big article on him at the magazine, "The Conservative-Christian Big Thinker":

On a September afternoon, about 60 prominent Christians assembled in the library of the Metropolitan Club on the east side of Central Park. It was a gathering of unusual diversity and power. Many in attendance were conservative evangelicals like the born-again Watergate felon Chuck Colson, who helped initiate the meeting. Metropolitan Jonah, the primate of the Orthodox Church in America, was there as well. And so were more than half a dozen of this country’s most influential Roman Catholic bishops, including Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York, Archbishop John Myers of Newark and Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia.

At the center of the event was Robert P. George, a Princeton University professor of jurisprudence and a Roman Catholic who is this country’s most influential conservative Christian thinker. Dressed in his usual uniform of three-piece suit, New College, Oxford cuff links and rimless glasses­, George convened the meeting with a note of thanks and a reminder of its purpose. Alarmed at the liberal takeover of Washington and an apparent leadership vacuum among the Christian right, the group had come together to warn the country’s secular powers that the culture wars had not ended. As a starting point, George had drafted a 4,700-word manifesto that promised resistance to the point of civil disobedience against any legislation that might implicate their churches or charities in abortion, embryo-destructive research or same-sex marriage.

Two months later, at a Washington press conference to present the group’s “Manhattan Declaration,” George stepped aside to let Cardinal Rigali sum up just what made the statement, and much of George’s work, distinctive. These principles did not belong to the Christian faith alone, the cardinal declared; they rested on a foundation of universal reason. “They are principles that can be known and honored by men and women of good will even apart from divine revelation,” Rigali said. “They are principles of right reason and natural law.”

Even marriage between a man and a woman, Rigali continued, was grounded not just in religion and tradition but in logic. “The true great goods of marriage — the unitive and the procreative goods — are inextricably bound together such that the complementarity of husband and wife is of the very essence of marital communion,” the cardinal continued, ascending into philosophical abstractions surely lost on most in the room. “Sexual relations outside the marital bond are contrary not only to the will of God but to the good of man. Indeed, they are contrary to the will of God precisely because they are against the good of man.”

George looked on with arms crossed and lips sealed. But he was obviously pleased. To anyone who knew George’s work, the cardinal’s words sounded very much as if George had written them, and when I asked him about it later, he acknowledged providing assistance. Rigali’s remarks were a summation of the distinctive moral philosophy that is the foundation of George’s power.

God, I love that!

Lots more at the link, via Memeorandum.

George is photographed with President George W. Bush, here.

You've Got the Music in You...

Well, I'd prefer to leave something a little lighter up top overnight. So, please enjoy the New Radicals, "You Get What You Give":

I like the studio version, and the wrap-up lyrics near the end:

Health insurance rip off lying
FDA big bankers buying
Fake computer crashes dining
Cloning while they're multiplying
Fashion shoots with Beck and Hanson
Courtney Love, and Marilyn Manson
You're all fakes
Run to your mansions
Come around, we'll kick your ass in!

Yeah, corporate hacks piss me off sometimes too, although the alternative is waaayyy worse!

Blog Wars

No doubt a few readers weren't so thrilled with my recent series on the E.D. Kain intimidation campaign. I admit: It was got pretty nasty, and wasn't all that fun. But I said what I needed to say, and E.D. Kain's spineless trickery's been noted, and his vicious designs against "American Power" have been crushed.

That said, I think by now folks realize that it's hard out there, that these attack bloggers mean business. Sometimes battles start out for seeming infractions, but when administrative superiors are brought in -- through malicious threats to material livelihood -- folks can understand how there's no backing down.

In any case, looking around the blogosphere, I'd be remiss if I didn't share some of the other -- much bigger -- blog wars that've been roiling the web at precisely the same time. Get a load of this:

Frey thinks he can hold this shit over my head forever.

That only works if I care. Anything that comes from you, Frey, will resonate only among the coterie of slurpers you keep penned up over at your place — and then whatever new readers you can suck in with your bullshit champion of righteousness act. The sycophantic cesspool dwellers who knuckledrag their way through my pseudo-intellectual claptrap are too busy worshipping me to pay it any mind.

And me, I READILY ADMIT TO THREATENING TO BEAT CERTAIN PEOPLE’S ASSES. And you know what? I’d still do it to most of them if we ever met up. So?

I also called you anti-semitic, though it was clear to the people here I was just pushing your buttons and trying to get you to see how fucking easy it is to turn something you didn’t mean into a “reasonable” interpretation — a lesson born out today when Mr Chaos (among others) found the adjectives you used to describe me suggestive of the kind of anti-Jew code words familiar to those with even a scant working knowledge of western lit.

So go ahead and post that, too. All your screen caps and your files and your links. Go for it. Because I don’t care.

Hopefully you won’t care when what goes around comes around.

The "Frey" in question is Patrick Frey, aka Patterico, who recently joined the witch hunt against Robert Stacy McCain. The quote above is Jeff Goldstein's. He got picked up by James Wolcott at Vanity Fair, who ridicules the Protein Wisdom blogger as a Macho Macho Man."

Then, at Protein Wisdom's Pub, in a later installment, we have, "I don’t know if Patrick Frey is an anti-semite, but he’s quite clearly an asshole."

Frey, meanwhile, has a new post up tonight, "Robert Stacy McCain’s Suggested Bumper Sticker About Whipping Slaves: Just a Joke."

And that's not all. King Charles is up to his sleuthing again, "White Supremacist Blogger Robert Stacy McCain's Neo-Nazi Pal Convicted":

The Lizard Freak links to Barrett Brown's post, "My Offer to R.S. McCain Regarding His Inclusion in My Upcoming Book." And there we find this passage:

Though I have consistently linked directly to all of McCain’s various responses to the increasingly irritating and repetitive articles that I keep writing about him in hopes that some party or another within the conservative media will be forced to acknowledge the embarrassing fact of McCain’s background, McCain just as consistently refuses to provide his own readers with any real information about what it is that he and I have been discussing via e-mail and blog posts over the past couple of months, and in fact usually refrains from either linking to my posts when discussing them or even properly conveying what exactly those posts say. He has addressed several shaky claims that were made against him by someone else years ago and provided what now appears to be an extraordinarily disingenuous explanation of how he came to be connected to neo-Nazi leader Bill White, whom we are to believe was not a virulent racist just a year or two before becoming some well-known and highly-active white nationalist organizer. McCain has not managed to address how it is that he came to be writing for the white nationalist publication American Renaissance under an assumed name under which he also linked to White’s neo-Nazi website Overthrow; nor why it is that he had the fellow who runs the conservative website Free Republic delete all of his posts and comments a few years ago; nor why he spent so much time and energy in defending the institution of southern slavery; nor why it is that he is so obsessed with birth rates among whites as compared to non-whites and in fact defends teen pregnancy except in such cases as he is openly worrying about teen pregnancies among blacks and Hispanics; nor why he thinks the Confederacy to be so incredibly wonderful that he simply must be a member of such an organization as the League of the South, a radical anti-federal outfit which also has some bad qualities, such as its obvious keenness on a more theocratic sort of constitution.

Meanwhile, a small handful of conservative bloggers have deigned to acknowledge some of the evidence that has been laid out so far and sort-of-kind-of-maybe provided for the possibility that perhaps there is perhaps maybe something to all of this, maybe. The most prominent to have done so thus far is Patterico, who has rightfully acknowledged that at least one of the quotes to which McCain has not denied ownership is “indefensible.”

Yeah. Indefensible. And Patrick claims he's not out to smear Robert Stacy McCain, nor is he "walking anything back." He's "just a guy with a web site, giving his opinions." Well, if so, he's certainly aligning pretty tightly with the rest of these smear-merchants. I know R.S. McCain's addressed the bulk of these charges at his blog -- and I'm not in the habit of following along all that closely. I laid out my best defense of Robert at my recent post, "Take It From Me, An Interracial Man in an Interracial Marriage, Robert Stacy McCain is No Racist!" That was pretty comprehensive and heartfelt. Robert can defend himself, in any case. Only he can reveal what's in his heart, and he's going to have a long chore of it, if this campaign of hatred by LGF, Patterico, and God knows who else endures. No doubt E.D. Kain will be piling on once again for good measure. Oh, the sickness of it all. But, never give in. It's dirty and despicable, but turn your back for a second and the target will be drawn. It's for keeps, so don't be playing loose on defense.

And with that, I'll just reiterate what I noted above: That if some were turned off by my recent blog war (albeit, one sided, yes, for the cowardice in my antagonist), then perhaps the blogosphere's a little too rough-and-tumble. It goes on out here, pretty nasty. And in the larger scheme, simply put, a number of bloggers, some large, some previously large (LGF), and others not so large or well-known, are out to destroy "The Other McCain." As far as I can tell, the motives are not particularly personal. It's all about furthering the ideological attacks on conservatives as "fringe racists," and since Robert actually traveled the fringe previously, he's the target du jour.

But Robert Stacy McCain's not going down. In fact, he seems to be chugging right along.

Erin Andrews Video: 'I hope He Never Sees the Light of Day'

Erin Andrews mini-interview at LAX, "Andrews on Stalker - Throw Away the Key!":

Seeing. Feeling. 'Precious'

I saw 'Precious' today. I don't want to give the story away, because I hope all of my readers take time to see this film. This is the kind of social commentary that's needed, even though the movie's set in 1987. Here's a portion from the Los Angeles Times' review, from Betsy Sharkey:

In a no-child-left-behind world, Precious was lost long before she could be left. No self-esteem to speak of, she tries for invisibility. At school it's easier, no one is really interested. At home, she's got a soul-destroying nightmare of a mother who has made Precious her project. Played to fearless and godless perfection by Mo'Nique, Mary spends her days in front of the TV while hurling a steady stream of invective -- along with the occasional frying pan -- in her daughter's direction.

Hope should not exist in all that despair, but Precious turns out to be an odds-defying storm that batters the emotions, shakes the soul and still manages to put a silver lining on the blackest of clouds in ways you might not have thought possible.

When the school counselor discovers Precious is pregnant, the story begins its painful descent into the world of America's underclass. There is no safety net for Precious -- her family, social services and the educational system have all failed her.

You better RTWT to get the full details, but I can say this movie tugged at me personally. (I can say ...) Precious is raped and it's graphic at the film. But it's the film's pain that comes closest to where I'm coming from. My father was abusive in the way Precious' mom is abusive. It's an inexplicable soul-grind of a life, and if you feel trapped, it's either those flights of fantasy that save you (Precious daydreams to take her away) or it's thoughts of an early demise by one's own hand. My dad beat me with a belt when I was a small child (for small things, like not finishing my chores). But it was when I was grown that he nearly beat me down, berating me for my inadequacies, for not being the "man" he was, and for being my mother's favorite (and hence the cause of my parents' divorce). But what really tugged at me was the pigs feet. Yep, Precious cooks. In fact, when she starts at the alternative school her teacher goes around the room asking for introductions, and each girl is asked to say something positive about themselves. "What do you do well?", the teacher asks Precious. She shakes her head, nothing. Then pressed, she says, "I can cook." And boy can she. And that's the thing. Boy could my dad cook. Dinner time was like heaven around that house (my dad's), and when I see Precious cooking up that soul food it takes me back to family's heritage. That's a black thing that I no longer have. I never could cook that well (and I prefer hamhocks to pig's feet anyway). But I suspect there's something special about abuse in the black family. (There's always abuse, but culture matters, and I think inner-city black poverty is distinctive.) We weren't poor growing up in my house, but my dad was basically orphaned at 12 years-old. He bore that pain his entire life, ultimately taking it out on me - the only male child - and driving my mother away in divorce after about 20 years of marriage.

But there's something else. It's the poverty, which I've never experienced. Precious' mom is a welfare queen. She's dishonest and milking the system. And when you watch the film's conclusion you'll be devastated, practically assaulted by the fact that such truly demonic indifference to the welfare of a child is possible.

If folks have thought about my writing, and my interests, a lot of the things I write about and rehash are things that have intrigued me all my life, things that I've needed to explain. Never growing up in the inner city itself, but being raised with cultural blackness, is something that's forever a shaper of identity. But I suppose my dad had assets the truly poor and disadvantaged have never had (he was educated at NYU), and so I've had benefits that don't often end up making it downtown. If more Americans really understood what was happening, if they had a clue to these pathologies, then perhaps we'd spend more time focusing on what works (education and networks of private support, not welfare). If folks remember my report on 'The Providence Effect,' you'll know what I'm saying. We've got to do something in this country. As bad as Precious had it, she's gonna make it out. But see the film to know exactly what I'm saying.

*******

ADDENDUM: Since I noted my abusive dad, I should probably indicate that if you've seen 'Affliction', well, that's my story without the poverty and pig's feet. I'm lucky I didn't kill my old man.

Rock the Vote on ObamaCare

At Yid With Lid, "DISGUSTING!!!: Rock the Vote & Hollywood Make Ad Promoting Teens Withholding Sex as Way to Sell Obamacare":

Look, I am no prude, but it seems to me that if we are going to teach our young adults to exercise their obligations as a citizen, we should be doing it in a more Adult-like way. Certainly using curse words and suggesting teens withhold sex (which they shouldn't be having anyway) is not the way to do it.

Even more important is the question whether it is responsible for a group such as Rock The Vote, to be promoting teenage sex. Because if they say don't have sex with people who are against Obamacare, they are also saying its cool to have sex with people who do.

Not surprisingly the one of the Directors of Rock The vote, is SEIU President Stern. Who maybe is just trying to increase his union rolls with teenage pregnancies.

Just a sign of the times, I'd say. And hopefully, parents will show this to their kids, asking: "Is this how you speak and act at school?" And if the teens say no, parents should respond: "Welcome to the conservative movement."

But see Hot Air, "Rock the Vote tries out new strategy for ObamaCare." And Atlas Shrugs, "Rock the Vote: Ads Urge Youth to Trade Sex for Votes"

The morally bankrupt, leftist propaganda machine is urging young people to withhold the nooky for Obama. Is it any wonder the youth of America are vanquished?

I am serious. This is the left's legacy - the low state of the world imposed upon moral men by zombies. We gave away that which we hold most dear, our children. I can't believe I share a country with these low lives.

(Via Memeorandum.)

The Shellie Ross Twitter Controversy

This is some weird and deeply troubling pattern: It was just yesterday that I wrote about the death of Bengals wide-receiver Chris Henry, and the genuinely evil Twitter posts falsely reporting his death (it was Biodome10).

Now it turns out that Shellie Ross, whose 2 year-old son drowned on Monday, was tweeting at the time of the accident and sent a message just 19 minutes before her son's death: "Please pray like never before, my 2 yr old fell in the pool."

Now Ms. Ross is taking a lot of heat, and blame, for bad mothering, and even culpability in the boy's death. At USA Today, "Mom's tweet as son was dying stirs debate":

Ross' decision to broadcast that message Monday night to more than 5,300 people who follow her posts on Twitter has unleashed torrents of support and derision. Social networking experts and friends said Ross was right to reach out for help, while critics questioned whether her son would be alive if she spent less time online.

"Could this child's death have been averted had the mom not been on Twitter all day?" asked Madison McGraw, a personal security guard and writer who blogs at madisonmcgraw.com. "This woman spent all of her time on Twitter. It was unbelievable," said McGraw, who lives outside of Philadelphia and doesn't know Ross.
Ross, 37, is also a blogger — blog4mom.com — and a prolific poster on Twitter. She has two other sons, ages 18 and 11, and her husband is an Air Force sergeant.

She tweeted throughout Monday. At 5:22 p.m., she posted a message about the fog that rolled in as she worked in her chicken coop.

The emergency call to police came at 5:23 p.m., from Ross' 11-year-old son Kris, said Joe Martin, Brevard County homicide investigator. Ross and her son found Bryson at the bottom of the pool. While Kris was on the phone, Ross performed CPR on Bryson, Martin said.

Bryson was taken to Cape Canaveral Hospital where he was pronounced dead at 6 p.m. Ross was notified at 6:31 p.m., Martin said. At 6:12 p.m. she posted to Twitter, asking for prayers.

Checking the Madison McGraw blog brings up, "Shellie Ross Continues to Twitter After Death of Son."

ABC News reports that Shellie Ross was tweeting about the fog rolling in and her chickens going back to the coop while 911 was called by her middle son @ 5:23 to report that his 2 year old brother was floating in the pool. Ambulance arrives at 5:38 to find child in cardiac arrest. At 6:12 pm Shellie tweeted and asked for prayers for her son. She had been tweeting from 8:37 in the morning, right on thru while her son fell into the pool, and continued to tweet even after his death - which I find ironic because maybe if she wasn't tweeting, her son might still be alive.

Shellie Ross's tweets on 12/14 during the hour her son died leading up to her Byrson Ross's death are as follows ...

Check the post for the tweets, and then:

After this tragedy, Shellie Ross has spoken and continued to Tweet, calling people assholes, hoping they rot in hell...but not once has she said, "I take full responsibility and I wish I could take that day back. I feel horrible and am so, so, sorry."

But then again, even if she did say that, I guess actions speak louder than words. And her actions leading up to and after her son's death speak volumes. She was twittering while her child died and she continues to Twitter, telling people to "Go Get Bent" and "Fuc* Tards."

If your child died because you were twittering, wouldn't that be the LAST place on earth you'd want to return to? If this was such a terrible time and you wanted people to 'leave you alone' why wouldn't you at least make your Twitter stream private?
I have no doubt it's only days before Ms. Ross appears for interviews and of course, people are already setting up donations.

I wish we could start a donation in Bryson Ross's name to sue his mother for negligence.

Why aren't people asking more questions about this? Do people not care about children and their safety at all? Who is looking out for children?

The ABC News story is here, "Mom Shellie Ross' Tweet About Son's Death Sparks Debate Over Use of Twitter During Tragedy: Mommy Bloggers Defend Ross' Tweet, Saying Online Community Is a Support System."

Ms. Ross has now protected her tweets. She's got a blog post up, however: "Please allow us to grieve the loss of our child."

I'm just going to say a prayer for all involved. All of this crazy Twitter stuff is unreal.

NO WAIT!!

Conor Friedersdorf blogged on this, at the Daily Dish no less, saying it's no big deal:

Isn't this just the latest example of people becoming insanely judgmental about a fellow citizen merely because she conceives of technology differently? It is unimaginable to me that people would react this way if Ms. Ross shouted over the back fence in the middle of the crisis to ask all in earshot to pray, and five hours later, still in shock, mechanically composed a letter to friends lamenting her loss.

But doing what amounts to the same thing on Twitter? It provokes vitriol that I find every bit as inexplicable as I do the Tweeting of a child's death. In this moment of utmost gravity, you're criticizing her approach to social media? "This woman is a perfect example of where humanity is heading as it becomes more enslaved by technology," one commenter said. In fact, the callousness strangers direct via Internet at a grieving mother is a far more dire harbinger of where we're headed.

Hmm. I wonder if he'd be saying the same thing if that was Trig Palin floating in the water? Somehow I doubt it.

'Precious'

I'm heading out to see "Precious" in a few minutes. A review is here, "'Precious' cuts deep." As always, I'll say a few words about the film tonight. I'm also planning a lengthy essay or two on education, as well as a guest post from a student of mine this semester. Always great stuff coming down the pipeline!

Readers: Do me a favor and post some of these entries to Twitter. Spread the word, for some real analysis on what's going down. Thanks.

Back later, yo!

Obama in Copenhagen: President Spins Climate Hysteria as Convention Fizzles to Close (VIDEO)

True to form, President Obama, in Copenhagen and paralyzed by fear of alienating key constituencies, pleases no one -- not developing countries nor the left's global warming shakedown industry. See especially, Ed Morrissey, "Breaking: India, China walk out of Copenhagen." Plus, "Copenhagen dead as India, China, Brazil walk out,", and "India, China, Brazil Briefly Walk Out of Climate Summit."

And, on the speech, from the Wall Street Journal, "Obama’ Copenhagen Speech: Some Reactions":

For all the expectations that President Barack Obama’s appearance at the Copenhagen climate conference could part the waters and break the deadlock, his 8-minute speech thrilled nobody.

Granted, he met beforehand with a score of world leaders, and a dozen more at lunch—not to mention an hour-long one-on-one with the Chinese premier in between—but his speech left plenty of frustration inside Copenhagen’s Bella Center and without.

Here’s a smattering of reactions to the speech ...

Check the links at the post.

I like the title from the Guardian, "Barack Obama's speech disappoints and fuels frustration at Copenhagen." Not cited at WSJ is Mother Jones, "Obama's Copenhagen Speech: The Collapse of a Deal?"

And this piece from WSJ has an analysis, "Obama, Wen Meet as Clock Ticks."

President Barack Obama said "time is running out" to salvage a deal to curb emissions of heat-trapping gases at a global summit here, as he and China's Premier Wen Jiabao "made progress" in a private meeting.

But President Obama warned that the U.S. is prepared to walk away from the talks empty handed, rather than accept a "hollow victory" in which developing nations refuse to allow their own emissions controls to be monitored.

"These discussions have taken place for two decades, and we have very little to show for it other than an increase and an acceleration in the climate-change phenomenon," Mr. Obama said, in his appearance on the final day of a United Nations climate summit.

The White House later said that Mr. Obama and Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao met for 55 minutes in a room at the Bella Center, and "made progress" in discussions toward a climate accord. The meeting ended at 1:35 p.m. Copenhagen time, the White House said.

A White House official said the discussion was constructive and that the two leaders asked negotiators to meet with each other, and with other countries, to see if an agreement could be reached. "They took a step forward and made progress," the White House official said. He said that the hope is to reach an agreement today.

Also, at the New York Times, "Obama Presses China on Rules for Monitoring Emissions Cuts."

I've listened the speech. Check the opening segments, around 1:00 minute. Obama says:

This is not fiction, it is science. Unchecked, climate change will pose unacceptable risks to our security, our economies, and our planet. This much we know.

Of course, we actually don't know. The entire premise of global warming has been shattered by scandal, and piling on top of the hoax have been the anti-American diatribes from leaders around the world.

The best bet for the U.S. is to defeat global warmingn legislation at home and eject the Democrats from office at the polls in 2010. China and India are going to look out for themselves, and the rest of the developing world is looking to cash in on the global warming shakedown. It's all one monumental disgrace.

RELATED: Fell the pain at the Guardian, "Copenhagen heading for meltdown as stalemate continues over emission cuts."

Added: Protein Wisdom, "Mr. Thin-Skin."

Socialist Revolt on Health Care Stings White House

I'll tell you. One of the things that bugs me about current political discourse is the super-extended half-life of the word "liberal." American leftists aren't "liberals." And I'm not even talking about "classical liberal" ideology, which is essenally the natural rights "Lockean" liberalism of limited government constitutionalism. I just mean left-liberals as those who have long been associated with the left of the political spectrum. Normally, we'd think supporters of the Democratic Party. The usage of "liberal" and "conservative" is so institutionalized in American politics that of course we won't see changes any time soon. But those of the Democratic Party-left today are not liberals in any sense, if we take the party back to its post-WWII Truman-Kennedy roots. The point is not new, but it needs to be restated amid this long healthcare debate we're having.

I'm looking at the New York Times' piece this morning, with the headline, "Liberal Revolt on Health Care Stings White House." (Via Memeorandum.) Again, what liberals? We've got radical leftists, communists, socialists ... shoot, we'd probably find a couple anarcho-syndicalists if we rummaged through the inner recesses of the White House a bit.

Anyway, it's this whole healthcare debate that's driving everyone to teh stupid, even the Times. Sure, they get some of the particulars right, for example, in identifying Senator Bernie Sanders (below at the video) as a "self-avowed democratic socialist," but why stop there? For some reason, with the exeption of Sanders, the remainder of the "Democratic left" that's revolting against the administration, is described as liberal.

All one has to do is just troll around the netroots blogosphere enough to hear folks talking way more radically than Senator Sanders.

Note this e-mail from one of "Hammering" Jane Hamsher's readers at Firedoglake:

As Dave Johnson writes (via email):

Most other countries provide health care as a right – a core function of government. But here privateers have seized it for themselves for profit. So to maintain this, to keep taxes low for the rich and keep the profits privatized we are ordered to buy it from companies instead of having it provided as a government service. This is the battle between democracy and corporatization.

Notice that? "Privateers" and that battle between "democracy and corporatization"? This tension is also on display at Booman Tribune, "One Reason Why Democracies Fail."

Nothing in democratic theory requires economic equality. Indeed, Robert Dahl, who is perhaps the most widely cited contemporary political scientist on the foundations of democratic societies, omits socialist conceptions of equality as a key criterion for a democraty society. (See, Robert A. Dahl, Democracy and Its Critics , and especially, On Democracy). This is not to say that political power in unaffected by the distribution of economic resources. It is to argue that the solution offered by radical leftists -- state socialization of the economy -- has nothing to do with increasing democratic participation. And in fact, taken to its extreme, we'd see the opposite effect: The increasing concentration of power, first in the revolutionary vanguard, and then in the communist state itself, where bureaucratic apparatchiks would concentrate power and economic resources in their hands.
This will happen if folks the "Hammering Jance" and Senator Bernie Sanders get their way. And that's why conservatives oppose the monstrosity of "democratic" healthcare reform.

Don't You Know That You Are a Shooting Star...

It's Paul Rogers' birthday today, so here's a cool overnight rock video from just this summer. The clip was taken by a fan at the Hard Rock Live in Hollywood, June 17, 2009 -- exactly six months ago. Rogers is 60 years-old today. He looks great. Enjoy Bad Company, "Shooting Star":

More lovely sounds at my good friend Anton's place, "Sunday Music – Lost Highway" (Hank Williams). Also, lots of miscellaneous goodies at Blazing Cat Fur and Theo Spark's.

Sometime either tomorrow or over the weekend I'll be writing about my experience of reaching 1 million visitors to this blog. Nothing special. I'll have a few words about where I've been on this blog and where I hope to go. Thanks dear readers.

Well, There's Nothing to Lose and There's Nothing to Prove...

A super-grainy live clip of Billy Idol and Generation X. The sound is good though:

I love the history of this song. The Wikipedia entry nails it pretty good here:

"Dancing with Myself" is a song by the band Generation X released in 1981, from their album Kiss Me Deadly. It was one of their first true hit singles. At the time of its release, the band shortened their name to simply "Gen X." Also of note, the band contained only Billy Idol and Tony James from the original line-up. Idol went on to have great success with the single when he released a more pop friendly version (absent of the driving guitar and bass in the Gen X version) on his first solo release, Don't Stop.

Some have speculated that the song is about masturbation, but Idol himself said during his VH1 Storytellers appearance that the song was inspired by Tony James and Billy Idol witnessing patrons watch themselves dance in the space enhancing mirrors which covered the walls of a Japanese night club during the band's 1979 Japanese Tour.

Actually, I bought Kiss Me Deadly right when it came out. It was a British import and the "Gen X" thing was just getting going. Billy Idol was glam-punk, and everybody thought he was cool -- obvously, since "Dancing With Myself," along with "White Wedding," made him a huge star over the next couple of years.

I loved the album. Steve Jones of the Sex Pistols played guitar on a number of tracks. The production was Phil Spector-ish, with lots of overlaid sounds and booming kinds of bass and vocals. It wasn't a tinny kind of trash-punk, but a supremely polished outing.

Personally, the whole masterbation debate came around later. I was just 20 years-old at the time (and naive). Thinking about it now, it's pretty obvious with Idol's ejaculatory screams at the song's conclusion.

I saw Billy Idol, with Tony James on guitar, twice, at the Roxy Theatre on Sunset Boulevard in Hollywood - 1981 or so ... seems like ages ago, but great times.

Black Death: The Coming Influenza Pandemic

I've been meaning to write something on the swine flu scare, but the news cycle's been WAY busy with other stories, and that's not to mention (threats to) my day job.

In any case, the kids' doctor's office called the other to notify us that our swine flu shots had come in. We asked about this a couple of months back, when folks were in a panic about getting vaccinations, and shots weren't available. Both my boys received nasal vaccinations for the flu, but now that the doctor's called, my wife and I are thinking twice. It's always seemed like a bit of government hysteria to me, especially with this administration. Besides, it's almost Christmas now, and the urgency has been winding down.

So, despite reports of overreaction to the threat, federal officials are calling for universal vaccinations "to prevent another wave of illnesses after the holidays." See the Wall Street Journal, "U.S. Health Officials Urge H1N1 Shots for All Groups."

I wrote previously, "Swine Flu Hysteria: Perfect Timing for Democrats' National Health Emergency."

But folks should really spend a some time with Robin Cook's spectacular essay at Foreign Policy, "Plague: A New Thriller of the Coming Pandemic." Here's an excerpt:

BeforeI reveal the infectious agent of this putative coming plague, I would like to refer the reader to my 17th book, Contagion, published in 1995. A cautionary tale about the hazards of bioterrorism, the story involves a microbiology technician who is bent on starting an epidemic but who has to learn on the job, so to speak, about the critical importance of both virulence and transmissibility. He starts with Y. pestis, but his intended plague quickly fizzles with only a few victims because the necessary perpetrators of the scourge, rats and their disease-transmitting fleas, are not available. Undeterred, he finally comes to recognize that for a really scary epidemic to occur, it needs three things: the availability of a self-sustaining reservoir (usually an animal as an asymptomatic carrier), easy human-to-human transmissibility, and impressive virulence. By the end of the book he finds his agent: the influenza A subspecies H1N1 that caused the 1918-1919 Spanish flu, which he obtains from digging up in Alaska the frozen corpse of a victim of that dreadful pandemic.

Influenza A is perfect not only for my villain in Contagion but also as the infectious agent in Plague. It has a normal reservoir in the guts of birds, spreads via aerosols (the easiest and most efficient method of disease transmission), and can be amazingly virulent. By some estimates, as many people died from the Spanish flu as from the Black Death. Contemporary anecdotes of the Spanish flu describe asymptomatic people boarding the subway in Brooklyn and being dead by Manhattan. Such a death is hardly the torture of bubonic plague, but singularly impressive for its rapidity nonetheless. With today's medical knowledge, such an event would be explained as a "cytokine storm," in which the stricken individual's immune system reacts against the invading virus with such ferocity and such inflammation in the victim's lungs that death results from drowning in one's own secretions..

I personally developed great respect for influenza as a 17-year-old when I contracted the avian H2N2 subspecies during the 1957 Asian flu pandemic -- along with most everyone else at my high school. I suffered through an unpleasant illness that forever gave me a keen appreciation of the benign-sounding term "general malaise." My respect for influenza was further reinforced by the 1968 Hong Kong flu pandemic, caused by H3N2. At the time, I was a surgical resident, confronting seriously ill patients in the intensive care unit struggling to breathe. So when a new and highly virulent subspecies of influenza, designated avian H5N1 flu, appeared in Southeast Asia in 2006 and quickly began to spread globally, I felt compelled to do something for myself and my family. Despite this new subspecies's low human-to-human transmissibility, I stocked my isolated ski cottage with Tamiflu, antibiotics, ibuprofen, and N95 face masks. In the back of my mind was Isaac Newton's flight to the countryside from plague-infested London in 1665.

All this begs the question: Could an influenza pandemic as bad as the one that struck in 1918 occur again? In our current state of world complacency and unpreparedness, I'd have to say absolutely yes, which is why my supplies are still in my ski cottage.

In fact, such an outbreak could be worse than the Spanish flu, even with the antiviral drugs we now have, the antibiotics that are today available for secondary infections, and the modern equipment in our intensive care units. For though medical science has learned a lot about viruses in general and influenza in particular since the World War I era, there is a long way to go. What we do know is that viruses are highly evolutionarily developed, quintessential parasites. To reproduce, they end up stealthily slipping inside and then hijacking the biomolecular machinery of other life forms, such as bacteria or mammalian cells, as they don't have this machinery themselves. The problem, of course, is that the invaded entity is often killed in the process; for us humans, an attack from the influenza virus means that the cells lining our respiratory tract begin to die, as it is these cells that are selectively chosen. The flu is primarily a respiratory disease.

The fact that viruses such as influenza do their dirty work within cells is what makes treating them so much more difficult than treating bacterial diseases such as bubonic plague, which, in contrast, does most of its dirty work outside cells. In some respects the situation is akin to the difficulties of dealing with cancer in that killing infected cells can put normal cells in jeopardy, too. Modern medicine does have some antivirals in its armamentarium, but the highly evolved, wily viruses are quick to mount resistance. What it comes down to is that the best way to deal with influenza is to prevent it.

Don't miss the whole thing.

Abandoning Senate Norms, Al Franken Shuts Down Joe Lieberman: John McCain Responds, 'First Time I’ve Ever Seen a Member Denied...'

From Mediaite, "Senate Drama: Al Franken Shuts Down Joe Lieberman, Angers John McCain":

Today, Senator Joe Lieberman asked for an additional minute for the floor, but was denied by Senator Al Franken. This appeared to infuriate Senator John McCain. High drama indeed!

Actually, it's a fun bit of drama, according to TalkingPointsMemo (via Memeorandum).

The Minneapolis Star Tribune has the transcript:

Lieberman: “I wonder if I could ask unanimous consent for just an additional moment.”

Franken: “Um. In my capacity as a Senator from Minnesota, I object.

Lieberman: “Really. OK. I don’t take it personally. I will ask unanimous consent that the remainder of my remarks be included in the record as if read.”

Franken: “Without objection. The Senator from Arizona.”

McCain: "Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Rhode Island be recognized for 10 minutes followed by the Senator from Michigan, the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services committee who will be speaking on the bill and that I be recognized to follow them.”

Unidentified: "I assume that that’s for 10 minutes each.”

Franken: "Is that for 10 minutes each?

McCain: "Yea. I do. But I just saw – I‘ve been around here 20-some years, first time I’ve ever seen a member denied an extra minute or two to finish his remarks. And I must say that I don’t know what’s happening here in this body, but I think it’s wrong. And so it’s fine with me that it be 10 minutes but I’ll tell you I’ve never seen a member denied an extra minute or so as the chair just did."

Levin: "… I think that the same thing did occur earlier this afternoon for reasons which have to do with trying to get this bill going, but any --"

McCain: "I just haven’t seen it before myself, and I don’t like it. And I think it harms the comedy of the senate not to allow one of our members at least a minute. I’m sure that time is urgent here but I doubt if it would be that urgent."

Leftists are getting a thrill up their legs, naturally.

Have to say there's something that just feels right about hearing people call Sen. Franken -- Mr. President. But even better is watching him essentially tell HoJo to STFU.

And here:

Senator McCain, you don't know what's going on here? It's called your buddy is a dick and everybody's tired of pretending he's not. That's what's going on here.

Of course it was McCain who got up to defend Joe! I bet he even took him out for a milk shake afterwards so that he could cry about it.

Also, at Hot Air, "Video: Franken refuses to give Lieberman extra time for ObamaCare speech":

Nutroots porn from the Senate floor as Stuart Smalley silences the left’s hate object. If it were anyone else, this could be dismissed as simple Grayson-style pandering to liberals, but given Franken’s “issues,” his pique here might well be from the heart. It’ll be fun watching lefties simultaneously argue (a) that this has nothing to do with Lieberman and simply reflects the urgency of keeping things moving in the Senate and (b) that Franken totally pwn3d Traitor Joe, and isn’t it nice to see a liberal who’s willing to fight fight fight the corporate phonies who blah blah blah.

Biodome10 on Twitter Falsely Reports Death of Chris Henry: Bengals Star Succumbs to Injuries 12 Hours Later

I'm not surprised. I've long considered the Internet a 21st-century Wild West. But this is the most bizarre and genuinely evil story I've seen in some time -- and that's saying a lot, considering my investigations into the secular demonology of the radical left.

Cincinnati Bengals wide-receiver Chris Henry passed away this morning from injuries sustained after a fall from on open pickup truck yesterday. The Charlotte Observer reports, "Cincinnati Bengals wide receiver Chris Henry dies after Charlotte accident." And also, at CNN, "Bengals coach: Henry 'beacon of hope' before death."

Cincinnati Bengals football player Chris Henry died after he fell from the bed of a moving pickup truck during a fight with his fiancée, police said Thursday.

"Chris Henry died as a result of his injuries sustained during this incident," a Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police news release said. "Department detectives continue to work diligently on this active investigation."

Henry died at 6:36 a.m. ET Thursday, the statement said.

Shortly before noon Wednesday, Henry's fiancée tried to drive off during a "domestic situation," only to have Henry jump into the bed of the truck, police said.

"The domestic situation continued between the operator and Mr. Henry," according to a police statement. Henry "came out of the back of the vehicle" about half a mile from the house, it said.

Henry was a native of Belle Chasse, Louisiana, according to the Bengals' Web site. He and his fiancée, Loleini Tonga, had planned to be married in March, the team said. Henry leaves three children -- two sons and a daughter, the team said.

But there's a really disturbing twist here. Last night, a Twitter user named Biodome10 falsely reported that Henry had died, and the story was retweeted widely around the Internet, and apparently even the Huffington Post reported the information. See, "The tragedy of Chris Henry and the disaster on Twitter." There's a screencap of the tweet at the link, which reads:

Just spoke to Dr. Allenberg, the head of the ICU at Piedmont Regional Medical Center, he confirmed Chris Henry has passed away and ...

The initial tweet is still available on Twitter, as well as this update:

See also, "How a Fake Twitter Death Report Tragically Came True" (which has more screencaps).

I'm not linking to Biodome10. I checked one of the other tweets. It reads, "Ive received numerous requests for my source regarding Chris Henry's passing. I just finished my article on the DMN blog," and then sends readers to a gay porn blog post. There's another that I haven't clicked. It reads, "Footage of the accident. DO NOT CLICK IF YOU GET UPSET EASILY.Very gruesome." That's followed by a tinyURL link to who knows where?

You'd think Twitter would take the page down. There's no First Amendment protections for falsehoods like this, and I imagine the family could seek legal damages.

Like I said. Nothing surprises me any more. As we've seen just this week with the campaign of intimidation against me by E.D. Kain, there are few taboos left any more.

I'm praying for the family of Chris Henry. And I'm praying for my readers at American Power. Please be careful out there.

Majority of Americans Don't See Global Warming as Crisis

Fox News has the report, "Majority of Americans Don't See Global Warming as Crisis":

While a majority of Americans believe global warming is happening, far fewer see it as a crisis.

A Fox News poll released Wednesday finds that a 63 percent majority of Americans say they believe in global warming, down from 69 percent earlier this year, and from a high of 82 percent in 2007.

Just over half of Americans (51 percent) believe in "man-made" global warming, that is, believe it is caused by human behavior (33 percent), or by both people and climate patterns (18 percent).

Less than a third (29 percent) believe global warming is caused naturally (11 percent climate patterns and 18 percent both human behavior and climate patterns).

Click here to see the poll.

Among groups, women (58 percent) are somewhat more likely than men (50 percent), and young people under age 30 (59 percent) are more likely than seniors 65 and over (50 percent), to believe in man-made global warming. Democrats (78 percent) are more than twice as likely as Republicans (32 percent) and significantly more likely than independents (54 percent) to believe it exists.

More at the link.

Meanwhile, this is a kicker: "Blizzard Dumps Snow on Copenhagen as Leaders Battle Warming."

RELATED: Hall of Record, "Oh, My! Canada - Record Cold Temperatures."

No I Won't Back Down...

In my in-box, from a regular reader, "Fight on Don ... you have support and I pass your blog onto others if they want to stay informed of political events."

And from Tom Petty, "I Won't Back Down":

Well I know what's right
I got just one life
In a world that keeps on pushin' me around
But I'll stand my ground
And I won't back down.

Hey, I won't back down
Hey, baby. There ain't no easy way out.
Hey, I will stand my ground
And I won't back down.

And recall Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers' awesome performance at Super Bowl 2008 ... the video's here (embedding disabled). A lot of happy fans in the crowd there, and that's what I love about music!

'Down With Imperial Dictatorships'!

There's not much to add, really. If folks want to understand the current political alignments in world politics, and thus domestic politics as well (since leftist radicalism is grounded in international solidarity), just pay attention to Hugo Chavez's rant at Copenhagen ... well, what you can make of it. Or, from Andrew Bolt, "Putting our economy in the hands of Chavez fans":

These maniacs in Copenhagen are voting on your future:

President Chavez brought the house down.

When he said the process in Copenhagen was “not democratic, it is not inclusive, but isn’t that the reality of our world, the world is really and imperial dictatorship…down with imperial dictatorships” he got a rousing round of applause.

When he said there was a “silent and terrible ghost in the room” and that ghost was called capitalism, the applause was deafening.

But then he wound up to his grand conclusion – 20 minutes after his 5 minute speaking time was supposed to have ended and after quoting everyone from Karl Marx to Jesus Christ - “our revolution seeks to help all people…socialism, the other ghost that is probably wandering around this room, that’s the way to save the planet, capitalism is the road to hell....let’s fight against capitalism and make it obey us.” He won a standing ovation.

UPDATE

And at the end of this first clip, Chavez rouses the rabble with more anti-Americanism, too:

I don’t think Obama is here yet. He got the Nobel Peace Prize almost the same day as he sent 30,000 soldiers to kill innocent people in Afghanistan.

Bolt links to the Australian, "Penny Wong jeered, Hugo Chavez cheered." More at Memeorandum.

Every Little Thing She Does is Magic...

I always like this video for its energy of happiness. Plus, it's a little more upbeat than Black Flag. Enjoy The Police, "Every Little Thing She Does is Magic..."