Attempted Terrorist Attack on Northwest Flight 253

Early this afternoon, I saw something online about how someone tried to set off a firecracker on an airliner. Thinking this was a prank, I went upstairs to read and then fell asleep. Now it turns out the story is a major Christmas day terrorist threat, and is likely to cause a new round of leftist denialism and handwringing. Thers, at Whiskey Fire, dismissing the episode as mere "tiny bombs," suggests this is great news for conservatives, who'll "wet their pants in an ecstasy of hysterical screeching." But late news reports indicate a threat of potentially catastrophic proportions. From the New York Times, "Terror Attempt Seen as Man Tries to Ignite Device on Jet."

A Nigerian man tried to ignite an explosive device aboard a trans-Atlantic Northwest Airlines flight as the plane prepared to land in Detroit on Friday, in an incident the United States believes was “an attempted act of terrorism,” according to a White House official who declined to be identified.

The device, described by officials as a mixture of powder and liquid, failed to fully detonate. Passengers on the plane described a series of pops that sounded like firecrackers.

Federal officials said the man wanted to bring the plane down.“This was the real deal,” said Representative Peter T. King of New York, the ranking Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee, who was briefed on the incident and said something had gone wrong with the explosive device, which he described as somewhat sophisticated. “This could have been devastating,” Mr. King said.

It turns out that the suspect is alleged to have ties to al Qaeda, and was previously listed on U.S. government databases. See, The Hill, "King: Airline bombing suspect had 'significant terrorist connections'." Also, at USA Today, "Al-Qaeda Linked to Failed Detroit Plane Attack."

The Los Angeles Times reports how the suspect attempted to detonate the device:

The suspect smuggled a powder aboard the plane in a container taped to his leg, the official said. Covering himself with a blanket to hide his actions, he used a syringe to inject a liquid into the powder, and a fire resulted from the combustible mix, according to the official, who did not identify the materials.

One key takeaway from the event is that the "threat of attack on an aircraft remains viable" (although I had discounted threats to airliners in my previous analysis of "Global Challenges in 2010"). And Larry Johnson looks at the vulnerability of current airport security screening procedures:

Ed Morrissey over at Hot Air commented on the incident noting, “He may just be a nut who smuggled fireworks on the plane, but still, that leaves the question of how he managed to do that.”

Well Ed, here’s how:

Let’s start with the fact that there is no screening system or requirement in place at international airports that will detect explosives. If the preliminary reports that the Nigerian brought firecrackers on the plane that’s not surprising at all. Fireworks normally do not contain any metal and will pass undetected through any of the walk thru metal detectors used throughout the world. Here we are 8 years after the 9-11 attacks and we still employ security detection systems incapable of detecting explosives.

Then there is the laughable TSA restrictions on liquids you can bring on board a plane. Here’s the TSA policy:

Make Your Trip Better Using 3-1-1

3-1-1 for carry-ons = 3.4 ounce (100ml) bottle or less (by volume) ; 1 quart-sized, clear, plastic, zip-top bag; 1 bag per passenger placed in screening bin. One-quart bag per person limits the total liquid volume each traveler can bring. 3.4 ounce (100ml) container size is a security measure.

Consolidate bottles into one bag and X-ray separately to speed screening.

Be prepared. Each time TSA searches a carry-on it slows down the line. Practicing 3-1-1 will ensure a faster and easier checkpoint experience.

3-1-1 is for short trips. If in doubt, put your liquids in checked luggage.

Declare larger liquids ....

Truth is you can get at least one pound and two ounces worth of liquids into a quart bag. So try this scenario on for size. Two terrorists traveling together pack their clear plastic quart bags with six 3 ounce bottles. That is 18 ounces each. Let’s also assume they put a binary liquid explosive in the bottles, such as PLX. And they have a small amount of TATP to use as a booster charge.

Under this scenario two terrorists working together can bring more than 1 kilo worth of high explosives onto a plane undetected. There is no required system in place that will detect the explosives in their TSA approved “clear plastic quart bags.” So Ed, you should not be surprised with the firecrackers. We still do not have a security technology in place at all airports that can prevent such a threat.

Eight years ago Richard Reid, an Al Qaeda operative, boarded a plane in London wearing shoes packed with TATP. He’s lucky he did not blow himself up just walking to the plane because the explosive is so volatile. He tried to light his shoes but, because he had pissed on his laces, they were too damp to light. His fellow passengers beat the crap out of him and prevented a terrorist incident.

So here we are 8 years later and we still have done nothing to prevent the threat from an explosive. I fully acknowledge that it is a threat we rarely see. But that excuse will not fly if a terrorist group decides to run the risk of blowing airplanes out of the air. Let’s face it, we never learn.

On that cheery note, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

More at Memeorandum.

The Obamas Non-Christmas

ABC News reports on the president's family trip to Hawaii, "Obamas Begin Hawaiian Holiday, an Annual Tradition." The Obamas will not exchange gifts, although perhaps due to the earlier outcry, Malia and Sasha will receive presents after all. (See, "Obama's "Non-Religious" White House Christmas and No Christmas Gifts for his Kids.") Plus, presidential Christmas mass is out. Lynn Sweet has the story, "The Obamas Hawaii Christmas: Will it Include Church?" With Christian church services under the bus, the Astute Blogger notes that "Barack Hussein Obama is as Christian as is convenient to be." The president wouldn't miss a trip to the gym, however, the narcissist that he is. (See, "For the Obamas, Christmas Starts at the Gym.") And don't forget the communist Christmas tree ornament controversy. (See, "Obama's Tree Festooned with Evil.") Given that disaster, the theme of president's weekly address is no coincidence. See, HotAir Pundit, "Obama Weekly Address Makes a Point To Talk About the Ornaments on the White House Christmas Tree."

And previously, Obama left out any mention of God Our Lord in his Christmas cards this year. See, "Obama Christmas Card: No Mention of Christmas, Obama vs. Bush Christmas Card Side By Side."

None of this should be surprising. Mark Schmitt, commenting yesterday on the Senate passage of the ObamaCare monstrosity, remarked:

I've always argued that Obama viewed his central domestic mission as changing the culture and practice of American politics. The passage of health reform is a revelation of just how desperately that change is needed and how difficult it will be to achieve.

Well, maybe not so difficult, if the wholesale rejection of American Christmas traditions are any indication.

RELATED: "Obama Will 'Recharge' on Hawaii Vacation" (via Memeorandum).

Bernie Sanders to Fund $10 Billion in Community Health Centers

Folks should really think about this press release, from Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, "$10 Billion More for Community Health Centers will Revolutionize Care." It notes that:

A $10 billion investment in community health centers, expected to go to $14 billion when Congress completes work on health care reform legislation, was included in a final series of changes to the Senate bill unveiled today.

The provision, which would provide primary care for 25 million more Americans, was requested by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

The program is distasteful as a matter of pork barreling, but it points to something that I've shown at this blog: Achieving universal health coverage is entirely feasible through state-level intitatives. State-federal grant programs are used routinely to fund everything from community development to education. And so it is with health care. In September, I investigated the left's outrage at the swine flu death of a college student in Ohio. As I showed at the time, Ohio has acheived virtually universal health coverage through an aggressive system of community health networks. No one is to be denied treatment under network policy, and Ohio launched the "Health Care Coverage Reform Initiative" which pledged to provide 100 percent coverage to Ohioans by 2011. Whatever the merits of the programs, the case demonstrates that universal health availability is entirely possible without the creation of new federal programs.

So, it's especially important to note that Senator Sanders is perfectly willing to cut loose the ObamaCare "public option" in exchange for earmarked healthcare for the states. Why? Why would a declared socialist forego the expansion of the federal Leviathan in exchange for a few billion dollars for the states? It's obvious -- especially from the language of the press release, which hails "the revolution" in primary health care -- that citizens could be fully and competently served at the state and local level. That's how federalism works. It's always better to seek local solutions to policy questions, and especially in this case when the U.S. is on the verge of destroying the last protections for private health provision in the nation.

The example also provides a window into the communist mindset of the most hardline leftists. At Firedoglake, Brian Sonenstein has announced the threat of a primary challenge against Senator Sanders. Think about that. Leftists want to out the socialist Bernie Sanders! Previously it was Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut who was within the FDL crosshairs. Now we're talking about a self-proclaimed Marxist who's being targeted by Hamsher's Henchmen. Even Nate Silver's taking issue. He notes:

There have ... been people who have been arguing the bill in what I believe to be bad faith ... I mean in particular two or three of the writers at the blog FireDogLake. I don't exactly know what's going on over there; as a group, they're whip-smart, and they also reflect a diversity of voices, some of which I have had a problem with and others of which I haven't. But some of the initiatives they've launched over the past week, particularly teaming with Grover Norquist to pursue a conspiracy theory about Rahm Emanuel, threatening to primary Bernie Sanders, and attacking Joe Lieberman's wife, are a little bizarre and not reflective, in my view, of a website that is in the frame of mind right now to have a fact-based debate about the merits of the health care bill.

Actually, I don't think FDL is in "the frame of mind" to have a fact-based debate on healthcare. Jane Hamsher's been in the news for appearing on Fox News in an attempt to create a bipartisan consensus in opposition to the bill. But no one on either side wants to cooperate. Hamsher wants a federlized state socialist health bureaucracy. The only difference between Hamsher and her fellow travellers, like those at Daily Kos, is patience. She wants the Stalinist solution now. Kos is looking in terms of the five-year plans.

Either way, with Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders selling out the public option for the local health clinic option, it's perfectly clear that the ObamaCare legislation to totally unnecessary, and that the hordes at FDL are pushing the most extreme leftist program imaginable. This is a debate over the scope and speed of the socialist takeover. Witnessin this debate -- this internecine battle among socialists -- is perhaps the most informative element of all the recent wrangling over passage of the bill.

UPDATE: The post is revised.

Susanna Maiolo, Deranged Attacker, Knocks Down Pope Benedict in Major Security Breach for Vatican

Gateway Pundit has additional videos, "82 Year-Old Pope Benedict Attacked, Knocked Down at Midnight Mass (Video)." Reading the report, the news suggests the attacker was "unstable." The Fox News report says that the woman was "Susanna Maiolo, 25, a Swiss-Italian national with psychiatric problems." And that Maiolo was "taken to a clinic for necessary treatment." She should be taken to jail pending trail. Be sure to read the ABC report, "Pope Delivers Christmas Message Despite Fall: Susanna Maiolo Knocked Pope Benedict to the Ground in a Serious Security Breach ..." (More at Memeorandum.)

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Kristin Chenoweth: 'Do You Hear What I Hear?'

From Christmas Eve last year: The beautiful Kristin Chenoweth singing, "Do You Hear What I Hear?" Merry Christmas everyone!

Last Minute Shopping

I went out for a bit to get a couple of things. Here's the parking lot shuffle outside the Target store at the Irvine Markeplace. I picked up a couple of CDs and a gift card:

I cruised down to South Coast Plaza after that. Actually less hectic there. Warm weather today too, probably high 70s in Costa Mesa/Santa Ana. And Sorry if that's not too "Christmas-y." If folks want a White Christmas around here, theyll need to head for the high elevations. Or, perhaps folks prefer having "four seasons." See, "Withering Storms Batter the Nation as Travelers Face Delays, Deadly Conditions" ...

I parked next to this hot Chevy Camaro:

South Coast Plaza's the location for Orange County's haute couture. Lots of designer stores, like Zegna:

And Versace:

I was heading over to Nordstrom's:

Didn't actually see anything I wanted (for my wife, that is). So, I took some pics of Santa's House. Families are waiting to have their pictures taken:

I took the escalator down to get a better shot. This is the back side of Santa's House:

Santa, with one of his elves, waiting for the next family:

Okay, my wife texted. She needs to go out too. I'm heading back out to the car, but first a shot of the Brooks Brothers store:

And Guess:

And Ralph Lauren:

And Carolina Herrera:

See also, American Digest, "Something Wonderful: Last Minute Shopping":

One of the abiding delusions of the male mind is the belief it is actually possible to put off critical Christmas shopping until late on the 23rd of December. I am the apostle of this delusion. I take comfort in this false belief every year. No amount of actual experience ever shakes my conviction that it is not only possible to shop like this but economically prudent too. And every year this faith is tested and found wanting. Whatever I may save in last minute markdowns I pay for in this evening's glowing and gut-wrenching angst.

ObamaCare Now Goes to Conference: Public Option Remains Stumbling Block to Compromise

My sense is there's little doubt that the Democrats will get their disastrous ObamaCare monstrosity passed. Legislative chokepoints remain, of course. The bill could die in conference committee, and apparently there's some buzz on this exact possibility. From Patricia Murphy, "Senate Passes Sweeping Health Care Reform, but Trouble Lies Ahead"

President Obama told PBS' Jim Lehrer on Wednesday he is "very satisfied" with the Senate bill, and predicted a smooth road ahead as the House and Senate meet to work out their differences. "You know, what's interesting is, the House version and the Senate version are almost identical." Obama said he would be directly involved in the conference process, but declined to list specific provisions that would be deal breakers for him.

Other potential negotiators were not so optimistic. In the days leading up to the vote, moderate Democratic senators warned their House colleagues that any changes to the Senate bill on abortion, taxes, or the public option could jeopardize health reform altogether.

Plus, from Anna Mulrine, "Senate Passes Healthcare Reform But Negotiations With House Will Be Tough":

Senators took to the floor to pass healthcare reform legislation today, marking the first time the body has conducted business on Christmas Eve since 1963 (before that, it was 1895). But even as the votes tallied along the expected party lines, with the final count 60 to 39, it was clear that hard work remains. Democrats are steeling themselves for the contentious process of melding the Senate and House versions of the bill, with liberal lawmakers warning that they are ready to bargain hard and push back in the wake of a process that left many feeling steamrolled by their more conservative colleagues.

The conventional wisdom has been that whatever healthcare bill was given the nod by the Senate, where only one defector would sink the legislation, would form the basis for conference committee negotiations with House Democrats. But there is a growing sense that "this is going to be a lot more difficult than people realize," says Mike Lux, a Democratic political strategist. True, when Howard Dean, the former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, blasted his party for bowing to conservative and centrist Democrat demands and urged Senate lawmakers to "kill" their bill rather than push through legislation without a public option, few seemed fazed ....

But the public option remains a point of contention—and there are others, including rules regarding federal funding for abortion and the "Cadillac tax" on premium health plans. The crux of the complaints coming from liberals is that though the president supported the public option and a number of other reform measures, he did not fight for them ...

Plus, at CNN, "Next Step: Turn Two Health Care Bills Into One."

And Ann Althouse on the left's unhappiness, "The Senate finally passes the health care bill — and the question is, for people who wanted the bill to pass: How good or bad are they supposed to feel?"

Video Credit: Stop the ACLU, "New Ad: Lefty Group Calls Obama a Liar."

Also Blogging:

* Allahpundit, "Michelle: ObamaCare is the tipping point in the Dems’ culture of corruption."

* The Astute Bloggers, "OBAMACARE: TURD SOUP."

* Cold Fury, "America's Last Stand."

* Ed Morrissey, "Senate passes Reid bill, 60-39."

* Pirate's Cove, "Health Travesty Passes, Fish Wrap Blames The Right For Partisanship."

* Pundit & Pundette, "Act in haste, regret at leisure."

* Right Wing Nut House, "THE WORST PIECE OF LEGISLATION IN MY LIFETIME."

* William Jacobson, "I'm out of breath from explaining, hundreds of times, why this is a monstrous lie. But it is on its way towards passage with the help of the mainstream media, mini-media pundits, and blogspheric sycophants."

Plus, Peter Wehner, "The Culture of Corruption" (via Memeorandum).

Obama: 'Health Care Most Important Legislation Since Social Security Act'

Okay. Right.

At ABC News, "Obama: Health Care Bill Would Be Most Important Legislation Since Social Security Act" (via):

President Obama praised the Senate's 60-39 passage of the $871 billion health care overhaul bill despite the fact that not a single Republican voted in favor following 24 consecutive days of often bitter debate and deep partisanship.

"This will be the most important piece of social legislation since the Social Security Act passed in the 1930's and the most important reform of our health care system since Medicare passed in the 1960's," said Obama, before leaving for his Christmas vacation in Hawaii, which he delayed until Senate passed the health care bill.

The president also hailed the legislation as the "largest deficit-reduction plan in over a decade," and added that he looks forward to working with both chambers of Congress "over the coming weeks" to bring a final bill to his desk.

All 58 Democrats and two independents voted for the health care bill, as expected, without any Republican support. Sen. Jim Bunning of Kentucky, who is retiring at the end of his term, was the lone Republican who did not vote.

In a celebratory press conference, jubilant Democratic leaders invoked the memory of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, whose wife Vicki watched the vote from the Senate gallery.

"This is a victory for the American people," Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said. "This morning's vote brings us one step closer to making Ted Kennedy's dream a reality."

Well, Dems better enjoy the partisan good times while they last. A reckoning is coming. See, "Voters Are Unhappy With the Economy, and Don't Think Obama Has Helped."

And about that deficit reduction, see Weasel Zippers, "Senate Approves Raising Debt Ceiling Limit To $12.39 Trillion."

Dan Riehl's fed up with the lies, "This is getting surreal. He either deserves to be called a liar straight out, or a clueless dilettante who really doesn't understand how dangerous he is."

Photo Credit: Moonbattery, "Recession, Depression, Recovery."

Anwar al-Awlaki Reported Killed in Yemen Airstrike

From Jake Tapper, "Sources: Air Strike in Yemen May Have Killed Imam Who Inspired Fort Hood Shooter, Two Top Al Qaeda Officials":

Sources tell ABC News that an air raid in Yemen this morning may have killed two top al Qaeda officials as well as an imam believed to have inspired the alleged Fort Hood shooter.

Those believed to have been present at the target in the eastern province Shabwa included the leader of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, Nasser al-Wahayshi, his No. 2, Saeed al-Shehri, and Anwar al-Awlaki, who was quoted telling Al Jazeera Web that Maj. Nidal Hasan, asked him "about killing U.S. soldiers and officers. His question was is it legitimate" under Islamic law.

Awlaki said the query was a year before the Fort Hood shooting, making him "astonished. Where was American intelligence that claimed once that it can read any car plate number anywhere in the world?"

The sources would not get into whether the air raid was conducted by US or Yemeni forces.

US officials are still seeking confirmation that the raid definitively killed the three men.

Earlier this year, al-Wahayshi, a Yemeni, called for shariah law for Yemen. "The time for the rule of Islam has come so that you could bask in the justice and tolerance it brings," he said. He described the president of Yemen, Ali Abdullah Saleh, who has cooperated with the US in fighting al Qaeda, as "an infidel and an agent ... and today he is using all forms of oppression with the pretext of preserving unity."

Last month al-Wahayshi called for attacks on Western airports and trains. Writing in an e-magazine Sada al-Malahem, al-Wahayshi told supporters, "You do not need to exert great effort or spend a lot of money to make 10 grams of explosives, more or less. Do not spend a long time searching for materials as they already exist in your mother's kitchen. Make them (bombs) in the shape of a bomb you hurl, or detonate through a timer or a remote detonator or a martyrdom-seeker belt or any electrical appliance."

More at the link.

Thomas Joscelyn, at the Weekly Standard, provides analysis:

When Aulaqi’s ties to Major Nidal Malik Hassan first surfaced in the aftermath of the Fort Hood shooting, the FBI was quick to pooh-pooh them. The Bureau claimed that Hassan’s numerous emails back and forth with Aulaqi were consistent with Hassan’s research. (Maj. Hassan was reportedly researching the psychological effects of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan.)

This was transparently false. There is no legitimate reason for a Major in the U.S. Army to contact a leading al Qaeda cleric with ties to the September 11 hijackers (Aulaqi assisted at least two of them en route to their day of terror as a “spiritual advisor”). Aulaqi does not have anything legitimate to say about the psychological effects of combat on U.S. troops other than, as a leading al Qaeda ideologue, he is all for them. Also, we’ve come to learn that Hassan said something to the effect that he couldn’t wait to join Aulaqi in the afterlife.

Got that? Major Hassan -– who professed his admiration of suicide bombings and offered a theological justification for them in a June 2007 presentation at Walter Reed Hospital -– told a top jihadist ideologue, who preaches the virtues of suicide bombings, that he couldn’t wait to be reunited in the next life.

Meanwhile, the FBI concluded: “Nothing to see here, move along.”

This latest reported airstrike, whether it killed Aulaqi or not, further demonstrates the underlying absurdity of the FBI’s “analysis” of Hassan’s ties to Aulaqi.

Anwar al Aulaqi has played a prominent role in al Qaeda’s war against the West and America – so much so that his home was an appropriate military target. And if that strike killed any of the al Qaeda leaders who were reportedly meeting there, then it was a successful one in terms of depleting the terror network’s ranks.The dichotomy could not be any plainer: The U.S. military, which bungled its own evaluation of Major Hassan, is at war with al Qaeda and its allies. For years, the FBI couldn’t put together a prosecutable case against one of America’s more effective enemies. For those who believe terrorists can be defeated primarily, or even exclusively, by our law enforcement agencies and in the courts, the story of the FBI's investigations into Anwar al Aulaqi is a striking rebuttal.

But reports are conflicting. See ChattahBox, "Rumors Of Anwar al-Awlaki’s Death May Be False, CBS Says."

Also blogging:

* Allahpundit, "Bonus: Yemen strike may have also killed Gitmo alumnus."

* Ed Morrissey, "Breaking: Jihadi recruiter Awlaki killed in Yemen raids."

* Michelle Malkin, "Report: Fort Hood jihadist spiritual advisor allegedly killed in Yemen raid."

* Jawa Report, "Air Strike in Yemen Targets Al Qaeda Meeting at Home of Anwar Awlaki, Update: Associates of Cole Bomber al Quso."

* Outside the Beltway, "Fort Hood-Linked Imam Killed in Yemen Strike."

Image and Video Credits: The News Bizarre.

Montazeri Memorial Sparks New Wave of Iran Protests

I've got a couple of U.S. news reports on the latest wave of unrest in Iran. See the Washington Post, "Iran Warns That it Will Deal 'Fiercely' With Protesters," and, "Iran Beats Mourners, Signaling Harder Line":

Iranian security forces clashed with mourners in the city of Isfahan on Wednesday, according to opposition Web sites, signaling a possible hardening by Tehran in its response to protests following the death of a dissident cleric.

Security forces beat back crowds with batons in Isfahan, about 200 miles southeast of Tehran, after mourners gathered at a central mosque for a memorial service for Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri, opposition sites and news agencies reported. Mr. Montazeri, an architect of the Islamic Republic, fell out with the conservative clerical establishment in the late 1980s and had been a critic of the government ever since.

During the six months of protests that followed contested presidential elections in June, he became a spiritual guide for the opposition movement. News of his death over the weekend sent mourners to the holy city of Qom, where he had lived. Protesters turned the memorial into antigovernment demonstrations.

Plus, more video at Enduring America, "Latest Iran Video: The Isfahan and Mashhad Protests (23 December)." And, an opposition blog, "A Brave woman Tears Khamenei’s Picture (Taken to Hotel)."

Plus, at Babylon & Beyond, "IRAN: Video of Dissident Cleric's Funeral Ceremony."

Protest at Claire 'Joker' McCaskill's Office

I told you our friends in St. Louis have the best tea party operation in the county. From Dana Loesch, "Protesters Gather for a Second Time Outside Claire McCaskill’s Office" (Via Memeorandum):

A hundred or so protesters gathered outside of Sen. Claire McCaskill’s University City office during their lunch hours for the second time in two weeks to protest McCaskill’s continual lack of representation.

The overwhelming majority of Missouri (and national) voters oppose Harry Reid’s senate fauxcare bill, yet McCaskill is eager to play the part of the rubber stamp and help pass it in the senate – and even complains about having to do so on Christmas. This is what she wanted!

That's Jim Hoft above, of Gateway Pundit. See "Michelle Malkin & Mark Steyn Report on the National Joker Outbreak (Video)":

The Tim Robbins-Susan Sarandon Split - Er, Kinda Like the Sino-Soviet Split?

Breaking: "Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins Call it Quits After 23 Years":

Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins, the lovebirds-turned-Hollywood power couple who met while filming 1988's "Bull Durham," separated over the summer after 23 years together and have called it quits. Today it was made official.

Publicist Teal Cannady confirmed the split and said no further comments are forthcoming.

Sarandon, 63, and Robbins, 51, have two sons together -- Jack, 20, and Miles, 17. Sarandon has a daughter, actress Eva Amurri, from a previous relationship.

Though they were together for more than two decades ...

... the couple never married, attracting attention for that, for the difference in their ages and for their liberal political activism. As a couple, they supported John Edwards' presidential candidacy but then shifted support to Barack Obama -- though you probably won't find Susan playing Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton any time soon.

Also, "Reaction to the Tim Robbins-Susan Sarandon Split."

Kinda like the Sino–Soviet split.

Interesting side note: Sarandon's daughter Eva Amurri starred in the recent Rock the Vote ad calling on young people to withhold sex from opponents of Obamunism. Ms. Amurri dropped the f-bomb throughout.

That's some great Hollywood family values, eh?

While You Were Sleeping...

Opinionnation Man, an old blog buddy and frequent reader here, laid out an interesting argument against conservative bloggers at his post, "The Emergence of Right-Wing Lunacy":

I haven’t been following the political blogoshpere in some time. But when I made the rounds this week I was happy to find a divide between the right-wingers. I’m happy, but, not surprised ....

I noticed the role reversal immediately between the Left-Wing lunatics and the Crazy-Righties. I realized that the conservative backing of heavyweight blogs was a defense from the insanity of the left-wing minority. Because, the entire growth of political blogging came throughout the Bush Administration. And so I knew that once a democrat was in office, the rational arguments against left-wing propaganda would change into the same insane hate-fueled attacks that is the mainstay of liberal blogs.

That is one of the reasons I stopped blogging. I saw the way self-proclaimed rational thinkers attacked the character and patriotism of John McCain. And I made it clear then, that I did not want to be associated with the conservative blogoshpere. And I’m supportive of LGF and his effort to point out how bad the right-wing has become since President Obama took office.

Interesting, I wonder if Opinionnation Man is now posting over at Democratic Underground, "Sounds like someone has seen the light?":

Few bloggers have had quite as controversial a career as Little Green Football’s Charles Johnson. Johnson began blogging in earnest back in 2001 after the attacks on the twin towers, and continues putting out content at a furious pace nearly a decade later.

But the main reason I can’t march along with the right wing blogosphere any more, not to put too fine a point on it, is that most of them have succumbed to Obama Derangement Syndrome. One “nontroversy” after another, followed by the outrage of the day, followed by conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory, all delivered in breathless, angry prose that’s just wearying and depressing to read.

http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2009/11/the-evolution....

Actually, sometimes conservatives are over the top. That said, I too was one of John McCain's biggest supporters in 2008 -- probably the first major blog to come out for The Maverick, and early. But McCain's patriotism's been wearing thin for a while. And now the former GOP presidential nominee is working to get more Dems to declare themselves RINO. See, "Huh: John McCain Once Again Stabbing GOP in Back Helping Sway Another Democrat to Defect." (And how's that Parker Griffith thing working out?)

No offense, but if my good friend Opinionnation Man's cool with that, I'm sure old C.J.'s glad to have another liberal join his "castigate-the-right" crusade. Or, maybe it's just time to wake up and smell the coffee.

More Hypocrisy from 'Hammering' Jane Hamsher

Hey, I'm pleased folks are ripping into "Hammering" Jane Hamsher. As I've said all along, she's the most despised hypocrite on the netroots left (and that's saying a lot). Everybody hates her, conservatives and radicals.

Tommy Christopher has a sweet post highlighting even more of Hammering Hamsher's rank hypocrisy, pointing to this MSNBC segment from last summer, when Hamsher appeared across from Jillian Bandes:

This is the real problem with Hamsher’s Fox appearance. She’s dishonestly using the PHrMA deal as a smokescreen to whatever her real objection is. When Jillian Bandes pointed out this deal with the devil, Hamsher had nothing to say about it.

Nobody likes the PHrMA deal (except pharmaceutical companies), but most supporters of reform have been willing to hold their noses and accept it as the price of getting a good bill. To wave it around at this late date is disingenuous at best (as is much of her opposition to the bill). Hamsher was throwing red meat to Fox’s audience instead of focusing on her real problem with the bill.

I don’t know what that is for sure, but I suspect it has something to do with this statement, from the Fox & Friends appearance:

“If you’ve got insurance right now through your employer that you like, this bill taxes the benefits, middle class benefits, and actually causes it to be worse, to cut back on benefits, and to be more expensive copays, that’s how they bend the cost curve is by making sure that you use less services.”

This is all true, and an excellent point, but neither Hamsher nor Doocy bothers to ask the question that David Shuster asked in that clip from July: What about the tens of millions of people who have no insurance, good or otherwise?

Jane Hamsher loves to remind people that she survived cancer (three times), even calling it “offensive” for someone to argue with her because of it. What she seems to have forgotten is that, for all the trouble she had with her insurance company, she had insurance. She’s urging people to kill a bill that will cover tens of millions of people who don’t have insurance now (rather than urging a strong push to improve the bill in conference), while she is living proof that having insurance can be the difference between life and death. Now, that’s offensive.

I hate when people do this, but since Jane opened the door, I have to say this. My dad dropped dead of a heart attack at age 58, without health insurance. If he had had health insurance, he’d probably still be alive today. Does that make me right about health care reform? No. This thing should be argued on the merits. I think most people would agree that we need an America in which both Jane and my dad get to survive.

RTWT. Hat Tip: The Rheotorican.

Plus, Robert Stacy McCain at the American Spectator, "Second Thoughts for Jane Hamsher?"

Christmas Trains

I'll be on the road for a day-trip today. Be back tonight, since my wife's working and I'd like us to be together on Christmas Eve. I'm heading out to my mom's house in Yucca Valley. She's got something of a family reunion cooked up, with my uncle and all his kids and grandkids, etc. My sister'll be there with her family as well. In any case, I thought I'd leave a few shots from our holiday choo-choo train we set up a couple of nights ago. The train's actually moving in the pictures here. Notice the second shot down, with Batman and the Joker in battle mode on the tail end of the caboose. My youngest boy's been having a good time playing with the train. We actually bought it when my first son as about a year-old, and we've set it up each Christmas since. The smokestack puffs little balls of smoke and the bell rings "ding-ding" pretty loud.

Have a wonderful day and finish your shopping. I'll be back online late tonight or early Thursday. Merry Christmas! My good friend Jan has a picture posted of her Christmas tree as well, so check that out: "Sending Peace..."

Illinois Prison Plan Foes Fear Area Would Be Terror Target

From the Los Angeles Times, "Officials seek to reassure Illinois residents on Guantanamo prison transfer":

At a public hearing on Obama's plan to convert a state facility in Thomson, Ill., to a federal prison housing detainees, opponents say the area would become a target for terrorists.

Facing anxious citizens afraid of becoming terrorist targets, federal officials confirmed Tuesday that some of the most notorious Guantanamo detainees could be sent to Illinois if the Obama administration buys a state prison.

The proposed federal prison in Thomson would be the site for military tribunals for five alleged plotters in the 2000 bombing of the U.S. destroyer Cole, said Alan Liotta, the Defense Department's principal director for detainee policy, at a public hearing on the plan.

The prison could also house some of the alleged Sept. 11 plotters, perhaps including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, if they are convicted in an upcoming federal trial in New York City, officials said.

Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn, a Democrat, plans to sell the underused Thomson Correctional Center to house up to 100 Guantanamo detainees and other maximum-security inmates. Thomson, about 150 miles west of Chicago along the Mississippi River, now houses about 200 minimum-security inmates, far below its capacity.

The state Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability, which conducted the six-hour hearing, could not torpedo the federal prison plan even if it wanted to. Its recommendation on whether to sell the site would merely be advisory. The panel said it would not vote on the proposal before Jan. 14.

Quinn, who was en route to Germany, did not attend.

Surrounding communities welcome the proposal, as do many state officials, because of the estimated 3,000 jobs it could create.

But that brought no comfort to opponents, who called the plan too risky.

"Terrorists would want to hit us to make a point, here in the Midwest, in the American heartland," Amanda Norms told the Associated Press. "Is a little economic gain worth the risk?"

She was among dozens of demonstrators who massed outside in the cold.

See also, the New York Times, "Plan to Move Guantánamo Detainees Faces a New Delay." (Via Memeorandum.)

Do You Support the 'National Strike' Scheduled for January 20?

William Jacobson makes the case against the National Strike scheduled for January 20, 2010, "Drop the “National Strike”":

Even if millions of people participated, there still would be hundreds of millions of people who did not participate for reasons having nothing to do with whether they supported the philosophy behind the boycott. The impact would be barely noticeable, and the movement would be derided as empty.

That is the difference between a protest and a boycott. A national protest involving a million people is a big deal and huge success. A national strike involving a million people is an abysmal failure. Choose your political weapon carefully.

Want to do something productive around the time of the State of the Union address? Start organizing against Democrats who vote in favor of Obamacare. All politics is local, and we need to start now to vote the bums out.

More here.

Arguments in favor here and here.

William makes a good argument, although I can see why folks might favor a national strike against the administration: Folks are tired of getting the fist:

See also, "Merry Fist-mas Media Matters… No, We’re Not Finished Yet."

Schwarzenegger Seeks $8 Billion Federal Bailout

Ed Morrissey's got a long analysis, "Schwarzenegger wants $8 billion federal bailout." Jammie too.

The story is here, "Schwarzenegger to seek federal help for California budget." (Via Memeorandum.)

But perhaps we won't need so much money, especially if the medical marijuana initiative passes. Some say pot's legal already. The state might as well make some money off it, you know? Damn the state's infrastructure and educating the youth of tomorrow. Everyone can just get stoned and forget about the imminent collapse of the formerly great state of California.

Tony Judt's America

Tony Judt hates this country. Or more specifically, he hates the uniqueness of this country, and he wants to turn the U.S. into a European welfare state based on the socialist model.

And note something too. I have little doubt Judt would leverage his own personal illness to enthusiastically pimp the socialist model to guilt-ridden Americans and leftists equally addled by anti-Americanism. He gave a lecture at NYU on October 19th. He was able to deliver the talk despite the recent onset of a debilitating paralysis stemming from Lou Gehrig's disease. The blogger Mondoweiss is practically weeping over Judt's lecture, postulating the professor as some benighted soothsayer of our socialist future. Mondoweiss says there was "real grief in seeing a great man so reduced by an illness that he has approached with a stiff upper lip."

Oh, God. Seriously, I hope Judt's not suffering. But boy are his views odious, and clueless to boot. The lecture's published at the New York Review of books. See, "What Is Living and What Is Dead in Social Democracy?" It's boilerplate radicalism, offering an updating version of the longstanding problematique on the left, "Why is there no socialism in America?" The discussion drones on typically, extolling the European welfare states and denouncing the "inequality" in America. But about half way down we get to this part:

Consider the 1996 "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act" (a more Orwellian title would be hard to conceive), the Clinton-era legislation that sought to gut welfare provision here in the US. The terms of this act should put us in mind of another act, passed in England nearly two centuries ago: the New Poor Law of 1834. The provisions of the New Poor Law are familiar to us, thanks to Charles Dickens's depiction of its workings in Oliver Twist. When Noah Claypole famously sneers at little Oliver, calling him "Work'us" ("Workhouse"), he is implying, for 1838, precisely what we convey today when we speak disparagingly of "welfare queens."

The New Poor Law was an outrage, forcing the indigent and the unemployed to choose between work at any wage, however low, and the humiliation of the workhouse. Here and in most other forms of nineteenth-century public assistance (still thought of and described as "charity"), the level of aid and support was calibrated so as to be less appealing than the worst available alternative. This system drew on classical economic theories that denied the very possibility of unemployment in an efficient market: if wages fell low enough and there was no attractive alternative to work, everyone would find a job.

For the next 150 years, reformers strove to replace such demeaning practices. In due course, the New Poor Law and its foreign analogues were succeeded by the public provision of assistance as a matter of right. Workless citizens were no longer deemed any the less deserving for that; they were not penalized for their condition nor were implicit aspersions cast upon their good standing as members of society. More than anything else, the welfare states of the mid-twentieth century established the profound impropriety of defining civic status as a function of economic participation.

In the contemporary United States, at a time of growing unemployment, a jobless man or woman is not a full member of the community. In order to receive even the exiguous welfare payments available, they must first have sought and, where applicable, accepted employment at whatever wage is on offer, however low the pay and distasteful the work. Only then are they entitled to the consideration and assistance of their fellow citizens.

Why do so few of us condemn such "reforms"—enacted under a Democratic president? Why are we so unmoved by the stigma attaching to their victims? Far from questioning this reversion to the practices of early industrial capitalism, we have adapted all too well and in consensual silence—in revealing contrast to an earlier generation.

What's infuriating first is Judt's complete disdain for and repudiation of work, that is, actual wage labor. It's practicallly a proposal for an unlimited dole. But more important is the total cluelessness, Judt's complete ignorance to the soulless wasteland that is the life of public assistance. Folks should just recall my earlier discussion of "Precious." That world of welfare, the face of the underclass in the years immediately prior to the passage of the Clinton administration's welfare reform, is what Judt extols.

Judt's paralyzed from the neck down. I pray he's not in pain, but I can't say a good word about his ideology, which would paralyze the country just as bad.

What's So Good About Twitter?

I'm actually a little bored with Facebook. I like it and all (especially meeting new people), but the program doesn't seem to work that well half the time. I'm by no means attached to it (unlike the blog), although I got a kick out of the New York Times' piece yesterday, "To Deal With Obsession, Some Defriend Facebook." In fact, I've been thinking about devoting more time to Twitter. Perhaps I can build up a larger following over there? Maybe that'll be more fun? I've been skeptical. David Harsanyi made a pretty good case against Twitter in his recent essay, "C'mon, Admit It. Twitter is Useless." But everything's going more and more hyper-tech these days, and Twitter is also a wireless phone app in addition to microblogging. Some folks online just love it. Anyway, I'm lagging at Twitter, much less facebook. But Ace of Spades HQ had this link up, on making better use of Twitter, so I thought I'd pass it along to readers. If you're tweeting, don't forget to tweet my blog posts. That's my next promotional effort. More Twitter exposure. I'll get hip with this stuff one of these days!

CPAC and the John Birch Society

I just finished Ryan Mauro's essay, "CPAC: Consciously Providing Ammo to Critics." It's a repudiation of the John Birch Society's sponsorship of the 2010 meeting of the Conservative Political Action Committee, scheduled for February. This is the first I've heard of the JBS sponsorship. I'm from Orange County, and the group has long-standing ties to the area, a historic conservative stronghold. Mauro argues the CPAC's turning itself into a laughing stock, and he concludes:

CPAC has made a major PR mistake in forming this alliance with JBS. It won’t be long until the media puts all those taking part on the defensive, forcing the organizers to spend precious time explaining this move. From now on, when I hear the acronym “CPAC,” I won’t think “Conservative Political Action Conference.” I’ll think “Consciously Providing Ammo to Critics.”

The thing is, the only time people hear of the John Birch Society is when folks are dissing the right. I don't even think about JBS when going about my business everyday. The group is essentially meaningless to me, except as a historical footnote. Its anticommunism was considered over the top (especially the claim the Eisenhower was commie), but leftists say the same thing about the right-wing today, when conservatives defend aggressive anti-terrorism policies (think John Yoo). Indeed, if Rachel Maddow's going after the John Birch Society, along with Charles Johnson, I'm all the more inclined to give JBS the benefit of the doubt (and for proof of the point, check Gawker's piece, "The '60s Are Back! Birchers Sponsor Conservative Conference"). As it is, the administration's declared all tea partiers as right-wing terrorists. Leftists don't disaggregate conservatives -- right-wingers are "racist teabaggers" out to kill the next abortion doctor, Compared to that, I can handle a little overreaction to hyper-globalization on the right (what some call "one-worldism"). That's less worrisome than the demonic ideological terrorism of today's radical left. The Democrats in Washington, the liberal press, leftist talking heads, and radical bloggers are way more of a threat to society that a has-been conservative lobbying group trying to make a comeback:

See also, William Buckley, "Goldwater, the John Birch Society, and Me."

Libertarians and Drug Legalization

My good friend Mary Grabar has a great piece at Pajamas Media today, "Libertarians Need to Rethink Support for Drug Legalization":

A truly sad story about a 23-year-old Panama City man dying while being subdued by Bay County sheriff’s deputies has reawakened the debate about the legalization of marijuana. On December 11, 2009, Andrew Grande choked on a plastic bag full of marijuana as police attempted to arrest him on a violence charge. A video shows police valiantly trying to save his life once it became apparent that he was having difficulty breathing.

Two talk show hosts in Panama City have been discussing the case in the early morning hours — and revealing a divide on the right. Burnie Thompson of WYOO, the libertarian, has called Grande “a casualty of the war on drugs” and contended that because marijuana is illegal, Grande felt “compelled” to swallow a bag of it to avoid punishment.

Nonsense, says Doc Washburn on station WFLF. He invited former Congressman Ernest Istook from the Heritage Foundation and Tina Trent, who blogs on crime, to speak about the dangers of marijuana to the user and to society. Trent indicated that Grande had faced probably only a misdemeanor charge; she pointed to studies showing that the illegal drug trade flourishes despite the legality of marijuana in certain states and other countries. And legalizing marijuana will remove the freedom employers now have to test for the judgment-impairing drug.

The position on the legalization of marijuana provides the point of departure from the traditional libertarianism of Barry Goldwater. In abandoning the duty to enforce social order, today’s libertarians have made a devil’s pact with the pro-drug forces of George Soros and company.

My libertarian friends like to say, “I’m a libertarian, not a libertine.” But though many of the advocates of libertarianism lead socially conservative lives, their agendas promote libertinism — especially when it comes to legalizing drugs. They forget that the moral order they have inherited is put at even further risk as laws change to allow more destructive behavior.

Case in point is the sad story of Andrew Grande, whose secret life as an amateur gay porn star is not being told in the media.

To the libertarian, such a profession would also not present a problem, as prostitution does not. But the two — drug use and the self-debasement of prostitution and pornography — go hand in hand. Ask any strip club dancer how easy it is to get up on stage stone cold sober. Ask anyone who has been under the influence about the stupid things he did. Indeed, Grande probably started young, when he was impressionable. And recent reporting has shown that our “safe schools czar,” Kevin Jennings, was head of an organization that used the schools to promote homosexual sex between boys and men. Certainly the ability to engage in such destructive behavior is enhanced by the use of drugs ....

**********

To give sanction to a drug that robs the individual of reason and conviction is to give up on our way of life. It is another surrender to the counter-culture. It sends a dangerous message to young people. A recent study shows that the creeping sanction through legalization of “medical” marijuana in certain states is giving young teenagers a sense of safety about marijuana use.

Marijuana killed Andrew Grande, not only in the literal sense, but in the sense that it abetted his descent into a very sad, counter-cultural lifestyle. Its legalization is supported by the same forces that promote Kevin Jennings, one-world government, Gaia worship, and legalized prostitution. All these elements work against the traditional libertarian values of initiative, freedom, and honor. Libertarians need to rethink their position on drug legalization.

The entire essay is at the link.

The closest I've come to making Mary's argument is in, "The Ashley Biden Cocaine Scandal." But see also, "I Don't Smoke Pot, and I Don't Like It."

Now, compare Mary's piece to that at Silent Running (the author makes specious arguments, and essentially ad hominem attacks, rather than rebut Mary's substantive argument on culture). Via Memeorandum. Much better is David Swindle's rebuttal, "Pro-Drug War Conservatives Need to Rethink, er, REMEMBER the Role of Government." I'm still with Mary though.

Jane Hamsher, Netroots' Most Despised Hypocrite, Called Out Again!

Okay, following up from yesterday's post. Recall, "Beyond Purity: Brutal Backlash Against 'Hammering' Jane Hamsher, Netroots' Most Despised Hypocrite."

Well it turns out the Daily Kos diarists are after "Hammering" Jane Hamsher again. Apparently the FDL communist went on Fox & Friends this morning to discuss her opposition to the Senate's healthcare bill. Here's the video:

Hamsher's been knee-deep in hypocrisy through all of this, and the Kos poster provides some evidence.

... here is Jane Hamsher's own opinion of Democrats who go on Fox News.

Fox is not a news outlet, it’s an openly partisan opinion factory and the Democrats should not be legitimizing them (and allowing them to recruit Democratic viewers to propagandize to) by doing this.

No surprise, but Hammering Hamsher doesn't address the hypocrisy at her post.

William Jacobson has more, "Biggest Defection of The Day (That You Never Heard About)."

Parker Griffith, a Blame America Democrat, to Face Conservative Primary Challenge

Okay, here's an update to my previous post, "Will Alabama Democrat Parker Griffith Be RINO?'

It turns out the basic point is not lost on voters in the district. Griffith will face a challenge in the GOP primary, accoding to Politico, "Griffith Getting Primaried" (via Memeorandum):

Alabama Rep. Parker Griffith may be switching parties to improve his reelection prospects, but he'll be facing a competitive Republican primary against a GOP elected official already in the race.

Madison County Commissioner Mo Brooks will be remaining in the race, according to his campaign manager Bruce Tucker, who called Griffith’s party switch “a desperate political move.”

“We’ve known for a long time that Parker Griffith’s principles are either for sale to the highest bidder or can change depending on how the poll results are looking,” Tucker said.

Plus, conservative Les Phillip will stay in the race as well. And here's the ad the RNCC ran against Griffith last year:

Griffith is known for this statement from his 2008 campaign:

I think America's greatest enemy is America and its materialism. And I think that we have nothing to fear from radical Islam. We have nothing to fear from any other religion if we are strong on our own beliefs. I don't fear radical Islam.

He claims his remarks were taken out of context, but there's plenty of context right there to know that his party switch is meaningless. Vote him out in the primary.

ADDED: Linked at Ace of Spades HQ, "Rep. Griffith: Hey, I Just Noticed the Party I've Belonged To My Whole Life Is Sort of Liberal 'n Stuff." Also, at Republican Redefined, "Freshman Dem Parker Griffith Defects to the Right. Do We Want Him?"

Will Alabama Democrat Parker Griffith Be RINO?

This post is updated, here: "Parker Griffith, a Blame America Democrat, to Face Conservative Primary Challenge."

**********

Everyone's getting all excited about Alabama Representative Parker Griffith. A first-term Democrat, Griffith has announced he's switching parties. Griffith serves Alabama's 5th congressional, and by changing parties he'll "become the first Republican to hold the historically Democratic, Huntsville-based district."

But what matters is the voting, naturally. A 5th district voter e-mailed Michelle Malkin with this warning:

Michelle,

Parker Griffith DOES NOT passionately oppose government health care takeover. He voted for SCHIP, and you should have seen his campaign commercials – every one of them spoke of health care for all! He only changed his tune once the backlash for his vote for Pelosi as Speaker and the huge turn in local public opinion against government health care set in. You should have seen us at the April 15th Tea Party in Huntsville.

I live in Huntsville. I voted for Wayne Parker, a conservative Republican. I was sad to see that a Republican has never been elected to represent our congressional district. Griffith changing his party does not necessarily mean that it is a win for conservatives. He is a chameleon and afraid of losing his seat in ‘10 to true conservatives. Give Mo Brooks or Les Philip a ring – two leading conservatives who will challenge him in the next election.

I agree this is a blow to the Democrats, but whether or not it will be a true win for conservatives remains to be seen. We deserve someone who is solidly conservative (not just when to polls tell them to be) – and honest!

Your humble admirer and loyal reader,

Rebecca H.

No matter. Griffith obviously feels extremely vulnerable serving in the party of tyranny (Obama-Reid-Pelosicrats). I doubt he'll be the only congressional Democrat to change sides. But conservatives want the real thing, not RINOs. Griffith's going to have to demonstrate some bona fides in 2010, or a party switch won't preempt a primary challenge from a true limited government candidate.