Leonardo DiCaprio May Convert to Judaism in Bid to Marry Bar Refaeli

Had it been Natalie Portman --- a Jewish neoconservative --- I'd be thrilled. But Bar Refaeli? She's a leftist who avoided national service in the Israeli army. That said, I can't say it's not a tempting opportunity. At London's Daily Mail:

Actor Leonardo DiCaprio is thinking of converting to Judaism in what friends say is ‘the clearest sign yet’ he will marry girlfriend Bar Refaeli.

DiCaprio, 36 – a non-practising Catholic – has made several secret visits to Israel where Bar, his girlfriend of five years, comes from.

‘Leo’s sudden intense interest in Israel, its culture and religion is the clearest sign yet that he intends to marry Bar,’ said a source.
‘He has been staying with her in a hotel in Tel Aviv for a few days at a time recently so that he can avoid the photographers outside her apartment in a nearby suburb.

‘Now he is looking into converting for her.’

DiCaprio and Refaeli met in 2005 at a Las Vegas party held for rock group U2.

He had just split from his girlfriend of six years, Brazilian supermodel Gisele Bundchen.

Like Refaeli, she was a model for the lingerie firm Victoria’s Secret.

Rumours have been rife for months that DiCaprio has secretly proposed to Refaeli.

Certainly he has been keen to spend time with her and her family in Israel whenever he can.
The source added: ‘Leo stays in the royal suite of the five-star Dan Hotel on the beach of Tel Aviv when he’s with Bar.

It is a very romantic and private hideaway for them and an easy commute to Jerusalem.

WikiLeaks Reveals Millions of Dollars Flowing to Extremists Worldwide: President Obama 'Less Critical' of Terror Financing Than Predecessor — UPDATED

The hits keep coming, especially for progressives. And it's not the end game WikiLeaks' neo-communist champions were looking for. According to the New York Times, State Department cables reveal high-level concern over the flow of money to terrorist organizations worldwide, with funding going though some of our most important allies in the Persian Gulf and larger Middle East. And especially interesting is how the cables reveal that President Obama has been less concerned about cracking down on terror financing than was President George W. Bush. The news comes on the heels of the Ahmed Ghailani verdict last month. From civilian trials for enemy combatants to footsie financing for global jihad, the Obama administration continues to weaken U.S. national security and put more and more American lives at risk.

See, "Cables Suggest Mideast Resists U.S. on Cutting Terrorists’ Cash" (via Memeorandum):

WASHINGTON — Nine years after the United States vowed to shut down the money pipeline that finances terrorism, senior Obama administration officials say they believe that many millions of dollars are flowing largely unimpeded to extremist groups worldwide, and they have grown frustrated by frequent resistance from allies in the Middle East, according to secret diplomatic dispatches.

The government cables, sent by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and senior State Department officials, catalog a long list of methods that American officials suspect terrorist financiers are using, from a brazen armed bank robbery in Yemen last year to kidnappings for ransom, drug proceeds in Afghanistan and annual religious pilgrimages to Mecca, where millions of riyals or other forms of currency change hands.

While American officials in their public statements have been relatively upbeat about their progress in disrupting terrorist financing, the internal State Department cables, obtained by WikiLeaks and made available to several news organizations, offer a more pessimistic account, with blunt assessments of the threats to the United States from money flowing to militants affiliated with Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Hamas, Lashkar-e-Taiba and other groups.

A classified memo sent by Mrs. Clinton last December made it clear that residents of Saudi Arabia and its neighbors, all allies of the United States, are the chief financial supporters of many extremist activities. “It has been an ongoing challenge to persuade Saudi officials to treat terrorist financing emanating from Saudi Arabia as a strategic priority,” the cable said, concluding that “donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide.”

The dispatch and others offered similarly grim views about the United Arab Emirates (“a strategic gap” that terrorists can exploit), Qatar (“the worst in the region” on counterterrorism) and Kuwait (“a key transit point”). The cable stressed the need to “generate the political will necessary” to block money to terrorist networks — groups that she said were “threatening stability in Pakistan and Afghanistan and targeting coalition soldiers.”

While President George W. Bush frequently vowed to cut off financing for militants and pledged to make financiers as culpable as terrorists who carried out plots, President Obama has been far less vocal on the issue publicly as he has sought to adopt a more conciliatory tone with Arab nations. But his administration has used many of the same covert diplomatic, intelligence and law enforcement tools as his predecessor and set up a special task force in the summer of 2009 to deal with the growing problem.

While federal officials can point to some successes — prosecutions, seizures of money and tightened money-laundering regulations in foreign countries — the results have often been frustrating, the cables show. As the United States has pushed for more aggressive crackdowns on suspected supporters of terrorism, foreign leaders have pushed back. In private meetings, they have accused American officials of heavy-handedness and of presenting thin evidence of wrongdoing by Arab charities or individuals, according to numerous State Department cables.

Were it not for bureaucratic momentum, the Obama administration would be much less vigilant against the terror finance network than it is. And of course, the same president who campaigned on global conciliation and talkin' sweet to terrorists, who offered heartfelt apologies around the world through 2009, and whose administration refused to fight a "War on Terror" in favor of managing "Overseas Contingency Operations," is again overwhelmed in the battle against global jihad. Recall that Obama told the Washington Post's Bob Woodward that the U.S. would be able to absorb another 3,000 dead in new terror attack on the scale of the 9/11 catastrophe. Hey, perhaps all our enemies need is a little more money. This is the administration's "new approach to terrorism."

Meanwhile, the conciliatory soft-on-terror parade continues with folks like Professor Daniel Drezner suggesting perhaps "Al Qaeda is no longer in the first tier of national security threats?" Drezner draws on Peter Bergen, "Bin Laden’s Lonely Crusade." Of course, it's not really about Bin Laden any more, but the global network of follow-on organizations who clearly have support in capitals across the Persian Gulf. But hey, let's defer to the experts. We need to talk to our enemies, and give them cash.

*****

UPDATE: A reader suggests by e-mail that the Times article, especially the last paragraph of the passage quoted above, contradicts my thesis at the post. So to reiterate: I'm stressing the president's disposition toward appeasement and public conciliation. Certainly State Department operatives, as is clear at the Times, have pressed Persian Gulf nations for greater cooperation, but the executive sets the tone, and I've thoroughly documented here the administration's shift to a softer, law enforcement fight against jihad. And further, others have seen administration failures in the WikiLeaks dump. Perhaps it's realpolitik, but the administration has failed to more effectively push against terror financing regimes, and this is to a notable extent apparent during the last two years. See, "WikiLeaks - Saudi Arabia: Their Oil is Thicker Than Our Blood":

In January 2010, the Saudi government refused to assist the U.S. request for information in a terror financing case involving a major Saudi bank. The Riyadh based Al Rajhi Bank, the largest Islamic bank in the Gulf Cooperation Council, and the third largest commercial bank in Saudi Arabia, refused to comply with a subpoena issued in the terror financing trial of Dr. Peter Seda, a U.S. operative of the Saudi based, U.S. designated, and allegedly defunct charity al Haramain Foundation. The evidence provided by the prosecution showed the Saudi al Rajhi Bank transferred $151,000 to the Chechen mujahedeen. Still, The Saudis who in 2007 ratified the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, refused to cooperate.

The May 31, 2010 edition of The Sunday Times revealed that the Afghan financial intelligence unit, FinTraca, reported that since 2006, at least $1.5 billion from Saudi Arabia were smuggled into Afghanistan, headed most probably to the Taliban. The money entered Afghanistan through Pakistani tribal area, especially through North Waziristan, known as “al-Qaeda’s heartland.” One wonders how much of this money was used to buy weapons that killed 1,268 American soldiers and maimed thousands more in Afghanistan.

Also in May 2010, leaked Saudi intelligence document showing continued Saudi governmental support for al Qaeda in the form of cash and weapons, were published by Buratha News Service, an independent news source in Iraq.

On November 15, 2010, the GAO released its 2009 report on Saudi efforts to stop terror financing. It concluded that the “U.S. and Saudi officials report progress on countering terrorism and its financing within Saudi Arabia, but noted challenges, particularly in preventing alleged funding for terrorism and violent extremism outside of Saudi Arabia. (Emphasis added). Moreover, there are no restrictions on foreign branches of Saudi-based charities from funding terrorist groups. In addition, cash in large quantities to fund terrorism, is being smuggled out of the country via couriers.

Despite all the evidence of the danger posed by the Wahhabist message, the U.S. has continued its preferential treatment of the Kingdom, while Saudi funds continue flowing to Sunni radical groups, foreign charities, mosques, Islamic centers, and academic institutions.

It is time the U.S. took serious measures to protect Americans at home and abroad from the ill effects of Saudi funding to spread global Wahhabi radicalizations.

What's the Point? Weight Watchers Rolls Out New Food Management System

This might come as a surprise to JBW --- who loves to dis me with fat jokes and weightist slurs --- but I joined my wife in a Weight Watchers diet regimen back in 1998. I had recently bulked up to about 210 pounds. I'd been doing heavy weight training (body building) and I wanted to get lean. I was cross-training with cycling and running as well as working out at the gym. My wife mostly walked, and she'd had success with weight watchers in the past. The system previously focused on portion control, but around the time my wife rejoined they'd switched over to a point system. And it was pretty rigorous --- and easy to follow if one stayed focused. We both lost weight. I remember being hungry sometimes. Vegetables were freebies (no points). But it was long stretch between lunch and dinner sometimes, and then we'd have these tiny little meals and I'd say, "That's it"? And my wife would say, "I get an ice cream bar because I saved up the points"? To which I'd say, "drats!"

Anyway, I gotta tell my wife about this: Weight Watchers has revamped the system. See NYT, "Weight Watchers Upends Its Points System":

Their world had been rocked, and the questions came fast and furious: A 31-year-old teacher from Midtown Manhattan who had barely touched a banana in six years wanted to know if she could really consume them with impunity. A small-business owner from TriBeCa wondered whether she was being nudged to part with that second (or third) glass of wine. And a woman with silky brown hair, on her way out the door after a Weight Watchers meeting in the basement of a Park Avenue South office building, had a particularly urgent need.

“I just have one question,” the woman said. “How much is a potato latke? I need to know for tonight.”

They and others had been searching for answers and grappling with their implications since Sunday, when Weight Watchers began unveiling its first major overhaul to its cultlike points system, prompting the 750,000 members who attend weekly meetings across the United States — and some one million online adherents — to rethink how they shop, cook and eat.

The new plan, company officials say, is based on scientific findings about how the body processes different foods. The biggest change: All fruits and most vegetables are point-free (or free of PointsPlus, as the new program is called). Processed foods, meanwhile, generally have higher point values, which roughly translates to: should be eaten less.

“If I lived in the Caribbean, maybe I’d be able to make goal,” said Susan J. Slotkis, 64, an interior designer at the Park Avenue South meeting on Wednesday. “The pineapple is great; all the fruits are fresh; you’re never tempted to drink juice.” In the new system, oranges are free, but eight ounces of orange juice cost three points.

When Weight Watchers introduced its points plan to Americans in 1997, it captivated a generation of women, propelling the company into a $1.4 billion empire. Weight Watchers points became a cultural touchstone: Restaurants like Applebee’s distributed special Weight Watchers menus; food companies like Healthy Choice listed points on their soup cans; and members bought Weight Watchers cookbooks, scales and points calculators. Members pay $12 to $15 a week to attend one of 20,000 weigh-ins and pep talks across the nation, or $65 to use the company’s Internet-monitoring program for three months.

Under the old points plan, all participants were given daily and weekly allowances of points, based on their particular bodies, and each food, from apples to pepperoni pizzas, was given a point value, based primarily on the number of calories it contained, with slight adjustments for fat (bad) and fiber (good).

“You could be holding an apple in one hand, which was two points, and you could be holding a 100-calorie snack pack of Oreos in the other hand, which was also two points,” David Kirchhoff, the president and chief executive of Weight Watchers International, said in a telephone interview.

Now, all of that has been upended. The new system allots points based on a complex formula that considers each item’s mix of protein, fiber, carbohydrates and fat. Making it more confusing, most people are now given more total allowed points — a kind of new math that requires recalculation of what had been ingrained.

WikiLeaks Reveals China's Fear of the Web

I've been meaning to post this piece at Foreign Affairs, "The Digital Disruption," by Google's Eric Schmidt and Jared Cohen. What's interesting is that the authors hit most of the key themes of the digital revolution in world politics, but with WikiLeaks topping the charts this last week, something was missing, and I held off on posting it. Now though we've got the clearest indication of how China views web technology in the New York Times' report, "Cables Discuss Vast Hacking by a China That Fears the Web." (At Memeorandum and Techmeme.) The Times indicates the members of China's Politiburo Standing Committee (almost as high as one goes in the Chinese party government) directed hacking operations against Google's servers in the United States. This seems almost unreal from the perspective of power politics and traditional concerns over geographic spheres of influence and market shares in key industrial sectors. But this is the information age and Chinese officials don't like what they're finding. Schmidt and Cohen put some of this in perspective in their Foreign Affairs article:

Realists describe international relations as anarchic and dominated by self-interested states. Although there is little doubt about the dominant role states will and should play in the world, there is a great deal of debate about exactly how dominant they will be going forward. In these pages in 2008, Richard Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, described a "nonpolar world" that is "dominated not by one or two or even several states but rather by dozens of actors possessing and exercising various kinds of power." In the interconnected estate, a virtual space that is constrained by different national laws but not national boundaries, there can be no equivalent to the Treaty of Westphalia -- the 1648 agreement that ended the Thirty Years' War and established the modern system of nation-states. Instead, governments, individuals, nongovernmental organizations, and private companies will balance one another's interests.

Not all governments will manage the turbulence left in the wake of declining state authority in the same way. Much remains uncertain, of course, but it seems clear that free-market and democratic governments will be the best suited to manage and cope with this maelstrom. The greatest danger to the Internet among these countries -- perhaps best defined as the members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development -- will be the overregulation of the technology sector, which has thus far thrived on entrepreneurial investment and open networks.

Perhaps no country has more carefully considered the implications of allowing its citizens access to connection technologies than China. The regime's goals are clear: to control access to content on the Internet and to use technology to build its political and economic power. Beijing has arrested online activists and used the country's thriving online bulletin boards to spread its propaganda. All of this is part of a strategy to ensure that the technology revolution extends, rather than destroys, the one-party state and its value system. Around the world, the Chinese model of Internet control has been copied by nations such as Vietnam and actively promoted in Asian and African countries where China is investing heavily in natural resources. And Beijing has moved to co-opt international institutions, such as the International Telecommunications Union, in order to gain global credibility and rally allies behind its efforts to control its citizens' communication.

But thanks to the work of activists and nongovernmental organizations operating inside and outside China, Beijing has learned that its attempts to establish total control of the Internet will not always work. The regime has recently been caught off-guard by the use of cell phones, blogs, and uploaded videos to encourage labor protests and report on industrial accidents, environmental problems, and incidents of corruption. The July 2009 demonstrations by ethnic Uighurs in Xinjiang drew international media attention even after Beijing completely shut down all Internet connections in the region; Uighur activists used social networks and so-called microblogs to spread news among targeted audiences abroad, including the Uighur diaspora. These kinds of cat-and-mouse games will no doubt continue, but in the short run there is doubt that Beijing's attempts to control access to information will largely succeed.

Etnies Skate Park of Lake Forest

I took my youngest son to Etnies Skatepark today. It was his very first time at a skatepark. He's been playing Tony Hawk games on Wii --- and while that's not new, he's also been watching Zeke and Luther on Disney XD. So the combination's implanted skateboarding in the brain. Thus I thought I'd take him out to see how he could do. And not bad for his first time. He took a little spill down one of the smaller bowls. You can see the park's layout at the top clip. There's a $5.00 sign-up fee and parent's sign a liability waiver, and that's it. After that it's free. I signed up too, but I need to buy some gear. I haven't done any serious skateboarding in years. But I'm gonna go for it again. You're only young once. At the second clip below is Ryan Sheckler, who's featured in some of the Wii Tony Hawk games my kid plays. And at bottom is Christian Hosoi and Eddie Reatigui, dudes I used to skate with back in the day:

Barrett Brown Cross-Posts Lame Response to R.S. McCain at Sick and Evil Little Green Footballs

There's little advantage for me in posting on Barrett Brown's cross-posting of a hit piece against Robert Stacy McCain to Little Green Footballs. That's because while Barrett is likely to respond, I'm not sure if he can link to my blog from Little Green Footballs (since Charles Johnson often refuses links to enemies). And it's definitely no linkage at Ordinary Gentlemen, which is home to sleaze-blogger E.D. Kain. It's okay actually, since I often refuse to throw links to those who're unworthy --- the lying dirtbag RepRacist3 comes to mind. But in this case the stakes are fairly high. Barrett Brown has threatened Robert Stacy McCain with a libel suit. I sometimes communicate with Barrett Brown, and of course I'm a long-time blog buddy to Robert, so I thought I'd just throw out a few thoughts for the heck of it. Maybe there's some utility in this as an excursion in the blogospheric politics of flame wars.

I do link to Ordinary Gentlemen, as folks will recall. It's hilarious when E.D. Kain checks out my blog while analyzing his stats. E.D.'s ashamed to this day of once being the proprietor of a boldly neoconservative webzine known as NeoConstant. He got tired of it just as the ideological winds were shifting toward the Democrats in 2008. Long-time readers will recall that in response to my series of essays on E.D.'s craven ideological and moral machinations, he launched a campaign of workplace harassment at my college. I had bestowed upon him the "Conor Friedersdorf Wannabe Award for Faux-Conservative Punditry!", and no doubt that didn't sit too well. (See, "Sleaze-Blogger E.D. Kain Reaches Pinnacle of 'Conservative' Blogosphere! Simultaneously Linked by Andrew Sullivan and Charles Johnson!") And while I often hear folks still refer to E.D. as a libertarian-minded conservative, the truth is he's a dyed-in-the-wool progressive. He finally gave up the ghost at Balloon Juice a few months back, "Why I am Not a Conservative." E.D.'s obviously on a search for acceptance --- by someone, anyone, no matter how deeply immoral and without possibility of redemption. It's pretty bad.

And that's why E.D. refuses to link me at Ordinary Gentlemen. I've hammered him mercilessly. The truth hurts, seriously. And ignoring me is his way of admitting he's a tool of the even cheapest sleazeballs higher up the blogging chain, like RAWMUSLGLUTES and husky über narcissist Charles Johnson.

Anyway, I'm perplexed that Barrett Brown has decided to go all out with the cross-post to Little Green Footballs, linked here and here. (And the Confederate illustration appears only at LGF, although Ordinary Gentlemen is not above those kinds of base smears.) Barrett's post is the basis for his accusation of libel against Robert. And folks can read the latter's original post here: "Narcissism, Isolation and Trolls." And Robert's response to the libel threat is here: "Nothing Says ‘Merry Christmas’ ..." All of this entails a lot of reading, and frankly I don't really see where Barrett's case for libel can be found. Robert's a judicious blogger, and having made a living as an established journalist I'd expect he knows how to avoid litigation. But here's a quote in any case, for a flavor:

Brown pretends to disprove my skeptical remarks about his characterization of Vanity Fair reporter Michael Hastings as his “colleague.” What I wrote was that, in using this term in his YouTube video lecture to National Review editor Rich Lowry, Brown was “expressing a collegiality that probably exists mainly in Brown’s mind.”

The jury will please note the word “probably” in that sentence. Of course I could not know the extent of Brown’s acquaintance with Hastings, despite Brown’s having written sundry things about that relationship, for we have already established that by his own admission Brown perpetrates falsehoods on the Internet. (See defense Exhibit B.)

Given Brown’s confessed use of online deception (his phony “alter-ego,” etc.), his mere assertion as to any particular state of affairs — e.g., an alleged professional relationship with Michael Hastings — proves nothing, as an admitted liar has no credibility. Therefore, skepticism toward such an assertion by Brown was entirely warranted. And what does Brown say of his relationship with Hastings?

We talked on the phone several times and exchanged some number of e-mails . . .

Brown does not say, “We’re best buds,” or “We hung out and had beers together.” No, it’s e-mails and phone calls. By that standard, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I’ve got a whole crapload of “colleagues,” including several members of Congress. But you’ll notice that, so far as we can tell from Exhibit A, Brown and Hastings have never met in person, thus sustaining my assertion, in the blog post that the plaintiff claims is libelous, that “while Brown and Hastings were both True/Slant contributors, it wasn’t like they were hanging out around the office coffee machine, swapping stories.”

My credibility once more vindicated, I next call to your attention this statement by Brown:

. . . the rest can be confirmed by Andrew Sullivan, with whom I discussed the events after he linked to my piece.

Andrew Sullivan. Andrew Sullivan? Does the plaintiff really wish to bring to this honorable court’s attention his professional collaboration with Andrew Sullivan? Your honor, the defense would like to introduce at this time Exhibit C, showing that this same Andrew Sullivan has a criminal record for possession of illegal drugs. We also introduce Exhibit D, a blog post from Ace of Spades HQ, containing certain relevant information about Suliivan’s other behaviors, although there is perhaps no need to discuss this information at this time.

So far, then, we have established that Barrett Brown is a confessed drunkard, by his own admission “arrogant and narcissistic,” a deceptive Internet “troll” who is friends with others who engage in similar deceptive activity online, and an associate of a criminal drug abuser, Andrew Sullivan.

Given all this, your honor, it is the belief of the defense that Barrett Brown is a person of such infamous ill-repute that any negative comments made about him on the Internet could not possibly be considered defamatory.

I'm now going back over Barrett's response, and I see that he's quick to engage in race-baiting allegations against Robert and the latter's ties to the Sons of Confederate Veterans, ad nauseum. And Barrett has a book coming out on all of this as well, with an entire chapter devoted to McCain, Hot, Fat, and Clouded: The Amazing and Amusing Failures of America's Chattering Class. (In recalling this I'm understanding why Robert has something to be pissed about.)

And for a flashback, here's Barrett Brown attacking me as dishonest earlier this year. I later updated a post he criticized (don't remember which one), so I guess this is mostly of entertainment value at this point, if that. Related: "Barrett Brown Doesn't Read Well."

Footnote: For the origins of the "sick and evil" reference to LGF, see "Ace of Spades Smacks Charles Johnson in a Post Every New* Blogger Should Read."

Tensions in Orange County Jewish Community Erupt

From Reut Cohen, at Pajamas Media.

I don't really see a brief passage worth quoting, so folks'll have to RTWT. I can say though that an allegedly "pro-Israel" Jewish student group is really no friend of Israel if it believes it can promote "interfaith understanding" with the likes of the International Solidarity Movement. And that's what's going on at base, along with the controversies and reactions to developments by the wider community.

RELATED: I just plugged "International Solidarity Movement Mavi Marmara" into Google, which gives you an indication of what I'm taking about.

Plus, at FrontPage Magazine, "Solidarity With Terror" (on the ISM). And, "Jews for Jihad? Hillel does interfaith with the Hamas linked Muslim Student Association" (on Hillel). But see, "Rutgers Hillel: Rutgers University Organization Funding Illegal Gaza Flotilla."

No time for more research. UC Irvine Hillel needs to think through these relationships, and thus I'm on the side of the wider O.C. Jewish community here.

Army Chaplain Makes Ultimate Sacrifice for God and Country

At LAT:

Reporting from Colorado Springs, Colo. — When Christy Goetz's husband, Dale, told her at the outset of the war in Iraq that he wanted to join the Army to become a chaplain, she rebelled.

"I told him: 'You're not going over there and getting killed,' " Christy Goetz recalled. "I mean, he's my honey. I love him. I don't want anything to happen to him."

Dale Goetz, a Baptist minister, signed up anyway in January 2004. Before long he was Chaplain Goetz, ministering to troops in Iraq later that year and the next. He volunteered for a second combat tour last summer, in Afghanistan.

"I prayed on it and realized that this is what God wants him to do," Christy Goetz recalled. "Who am I to stand in God's way?"

She knew what every chaplain's wife knows: They may carry holy books instead of rifles, but they're still soldiers, and they still tread in harm's way.

On Aug. 30, a chaplain and another soldier knocked on the door of the tan split-level Dale and Christy bought here last year — the first house they had ever owned.

Capt. Dale Goetz was dead at 43, the first chaplain killed in combat since the Vietnam War.

He was on a trip that day to conduct services and counsel soldiers at several remote combat outposts in Kandahar province when a roadside bomb struck his vehicle. Goetz and four other soldiers were killed.

His soldiers say the chaplain died doing what he loved — talking to them, praying with them, helping counsel them through long days and nights of fear and dread. He had been carrying CDs for them to record personal messages to their families.

"He was committed to his soldiers — that was his gift," said Pastor Jason Parker of High Country Baptist Church in Colorado Springs, which Goetz and his family officially joined the day he left for Afghanistan.

RTWT.

I read this piece all the way through and was amazed at the absence of left-wing antiwar propaganda. I good piece of reporting. My prayers are for Christy Goetz, who's heckuva good woman.

WikiLeaks Cables Reveal Unease Over Mexican Drug War

At LAT:

In contrast to their upbeat public assessments, U.S. officials expressed frustration with a "risk averse" Mexican army and rivalries among security agencies that have hampered the Mexican government's war against drug cartels, according to secret U.S. diplomatic cables disclosed Thursday.

The cables quoted Mexican officials expressing fear that the government was losing control of parts of its national territory and that time was "running out" to rein in drug violence.

The cables gave a much starker view of the pitfalls and obstacles facing Mexican President Felipe Calderon, a departure from the public statements of unwavering support that have come out of Washington for most of the 4-year-old war, which has claimed more than 30,000 lives.

Two cables from U.S. Embassy officials in Mexico, one dated January of this year and the other October 2009, praise Calderon for persisting in his campaign to tackle "head on" the powerful cartels that traffic most of the cocaine, heroin and marijuana that reaches the U.S.

But the Mexican president's struggles with "an unwieldy and uncoordinated interagency" law enforcement effort have created the perception that he is failing, the cable dated Jan. 29 said. His inability to halt the violence or contain the rising death toll has become a principal political liability as his public ratings have declined, it said.

The U.S. assessment said Calderon's tools are limited: "Mexican security institutions are often locked in a zero-sum competition in which one agency's success is viewed as another's failure, information is closely guarded, and joint operations are all but unheard of," said the January cable, which is signed by the No. 2 official in the U.S. Embassy in Mexico, John D. Feeley, a veteran diplomat with extensive experience in Latin America.

"Official corruption is widespread, leading to a compartmentalized siege mentality among 'clean' law enforcement leaders and their lieutenants," he said. "Prosecution rates for organized crime-related offenses are dismal; 2% of those detained are brought" to trial.

Tom Flanagan, Former Aide to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Calls for Assassination of Julian Assange

At London's Telegraph, "Julian Assange should be assassinated, Canadian official claims." And the response, at the National Post, "WikiLeaks' Assange lashes out against former Harper aide," and from the Toronto Sun, "WikiLeaks fugitive wants ex-Harper aide charged."

And at the Montreal Gazette, "WikiLeaks fights to stay online as founder’s arrest looms."

Previously at New York Times, "U.S. Diplomats Fretted About Canadians Carrying a ‘Chip on Their Shoulder’," and The Lede, "Latest Updates on Leak of U.S. Cables, Day 6."

The Political Economy of NC-17 Ratings

At LAT, "Two Films, Two Sex Scenes, Two Different Ratings":

One new movie generating Oscar buzz shows a woman engaged in a steamy sex act with another woman in a scene that lasts just over a minute without any nudity. Another new movie also piquing the attention of Academy Awards voters shows a man performing an identical act on a woman in a scene that lasts just over a minute without any nudity.

Filmgoers who watch both movies, especially those oral sex scenes, would be hard-pressed to describe how one is more explicit than the other.

Yet the first movie, "Black Swan," a supernatural drama from Fox Searchlight that opened this weekend, was given an R rating by the Motion Picture Assn. of America, which means it can play in nearly all theaters across the country. The second film, "Blue Valentine," which opens Dec. 31, was given a dreaded NC-17 because of what the Weinstein Co. studio says is that scene.

An NC-17 rating means anyone younger than 17 cannot see the movie in theaters — even if they are accompanied by an adult. Many theater chains have a policy of not exhibiting NC-17 films, and some media outlets refuse to carry ads for NC-17 movies. That means the box office receipts and cultural impact of an NC-17 film are likely to be much more limited than an R-rated movie. No NC-17 rated film has ever won a major prize at the Oscars.

The "Blue Valentine" rating is the latest in a string of controversial decisions by the MPAA and its Classification and Ratings Administration board that have raised the anger of filmmakers and moviegoers. Critics of the system say that the raters take a much harsher line on sex, language and drug use than they do on violence and that the panel's standards are murky and inconsistent.

"I don't have an answer for why that movie ["Black Swan"] would be OK and ours wouldn't," said "Blue Valentine" director Derek Cianfrance, who called the NC-17 rating "a form of censorship." "There's not an ounce of skin, and it's not gratuitous in any way. I'm confused and baffled."

XM25 Supergun Goes to U.S. Troops in Afghanistan

At The Australian, via Jawa Report, where there's additional video:

Unpacking Progressive Trolling

Robert Stacy McCain, at "Narcissism, Isolation and Trolls":

What does this dynamic [of social isolation] mean to the progressive troll? In his virtual world, he feels the need to “represent” as a loyal member of the online tribe. So when a hostile target comes into view – e.g., the self-proclaimed neocon Donald Douglas — there is a competition among the trolls to make the most vicious attack possible. Through these attacks, the troll who excels others in obxnoxious thereby enhances both his self-esteem and his status within the virtual community.

A narcissistic quest for admiration — if only self-admiration — is therefore deeply implicated in the behavior of trolls. Their comments are neither informative nor entertaining, because that is not their purpose. They are engaged in destructive activity and expect to be admired for it by others who share their opinion that the target is worthy of destruction.

Their relevant peer-group (whose admiration they seek) are not people they actually know in real-life, but rather their fellow members of the ideologically organized virtual community. And this sort of behavior is not limited to blog trolls.

RTWT.

Robert's representative troll is c u n d gulag at Mahablog, and by implication Repsac3, who was also trolling the thread there.

And as "this behavior is not limited to blog trolls," Robert's further example is our old antagonist Barret Brown, who's now blogging at Ordinary Gentlemen. Barret responds to Robert: "R.S. McCain accuses me of being a violent militant." (Folks will recall that Ordinary Gentlemen is the blog home of uber weasel E.D. Kain, who, like Repsac3's nihilist horde, mounted a campaign of workplace intimidation against me. Barrett's an okay guy, but E.D. Kain's a spineless freak-nozzle loser who also fits into Robert's theory of narcissistic progressive hatred. Perhaps I'll develop that out a bit more later ...)

Added: From Robert, "Nothing Says ‘Merry Christmas’ ... quite like the threat of a libel action ..."

Progressives Tell Obama to Get With the Program

Hey, the progressive creeps got their man, so it's all schadenfreude with icing on top as far as I'm concerned. See Hammering Jane Hamsher (via Memeorandum):

Lucy Pinder Holiday Rule 5

She was featured previously for a topless Christmas, so who's to argue?

R.S. McCain's lagging on the Rule 5 Sunday entries, although he's been trolling for some Natalie Portman hits: "Prediction: ‘The Black Swan’ Will Break Record for DVD Sales of Ballet Movies." And I'm not planning another epic Rule 5 roundup any time soon, since the return to labor isn't all that great. A few blog buddies do the reciprocal thingy --- Bob Belvedere, Mind-Numbed Robot, Pirate's Cove, Washington Rebel, and Yankee Phil, so far --- but not too many others.

Drop me a comment in the box below if I've forgotten your links. Rule 5 and Google bombs keep the traffic pretty decent around here. RealClearPolitics hasn't been linking lately, and links from Glenn Reynolds are unpredictable. More Lucy Pinder here, although NSFW.

'I'm equating Bloggingheads.tv and its visitors with liberalism'

Right.

Anyone with half a brain would have known, but not the despicable stalking asshat RepRacist3.

But Althouse explains:

I'm equating Bloggingheads.tv and its visitors with liberalism. The GWAR video, which shows the graphic depiction of torturing and killing a woman, is presented by the website for its readers amusement. My point, which I make extremely concisely at the link, but will make verbosely here, is that liberals often put party politics ahead of feminist values, and when they do, I like to point it out. If the female victim were not Sarah Palin, the feminist issue would be obvious.

They're not "liberals," as I always say, but radical progressive manchildren. Besides, finding buttwipe bjkeefe in the comments at the Gwar Bloggingheads was a dead giveaway.

And of course I was extremely concise at my post on Gwar, not only indicating that we should be fair but adding a video of Gwar beheading Barack Obama. But despicable dumbshit RepRacist3 makes a lame gotcha attempt anyway, mumbling stupidly about "you're a fool if you in any way agree with her ..."

So much for RepRacist3's close reading skills. Stupid asshole.

Britney Spears Slams Tabloid Allegations

Jeez, I'm getting behind on my celebrity reporting, and it's Britney no less!

At Us Weekly, "Britney Spears Slams Star Report: 'Kiss My Ass!'"

See all the latest at WeSmirch.

WikiLeaks' Dishonesty and Hypocrisy

The latest WikiLeaks dump could be breaking a record for provoking debate. I've said a lot already. But I'm thinking back to how badly the MFM and progressive manchild bloggers got beat on the Apache video last April. Jawa Report was doing yeoman's work, for example, "For The Idiots Who Still Say There Was no RPG -- UPDATED: Wiki Leak as Left Wing Propaganda."

Liars and hypocrites. And lots more in the news. For example, at The Guardian's reader-response interview, Julian Assange refused to answer this question:

Julian.

I am a former British diplomat. In the course of my former duties I helped to coordinate multilateral action against a brutal regime in the Balkans, impose sanctions on a renegade state threatening ethnic cleansing, and negotiate a debt relief programme for an impoverished nation. None of this would have been possible without the security and secrecy of diplomatic correspondence, and the protection of that correspondence from publication under the laws of the UK and many other liberal and democratic states. An embassy which cannot securely offer advice or pass messages back to London is an embassy which cannot operate. Diplomacy cannot operate without discretion and theprotection of sources. This applies to the UK and the UN as much as the US.

In publishing this massive volume of correspondence, Wikileaks is not highlighting specific cases of wrongdoing but undermining the entire process of diplomacy. If you can publish US cables then you can publish UK telegrams and UN emails.

My question to you is: why should we not hold you personally responsible when next an international crisis goes unresolved because diplomats cannot function.

Julian ASS-ange

More later ...

PREVIOUSLY: "Progressive Manchildren and WikiLeaks."

Democrat Robert Menendez Likens Working With GOP to Negotiating With 'Terrorists'

At ABC News, "Dem Senator: Negotiating with Republicans "Almost" like Negotiating with 'Terrorists'," and The Blog Prof, "Video of Robert Menendez (D-NJ) on negotiating tax rates with GOP : "It’s almost like the question of do you negotiate with terrorists”."

GOP Rolls Out Strategy of Confrontation

At LAT, "GOP Resolve Dominates the Agenda in Congress":

Republicans rolled out a confrontational, no-compromise strategy this week that may carry long-term risks, but has put them in position to dominate the lame-duck session of Congress and marginalize President Obama's agenda.

Among congressional Republicans, confidence levels are so high that they are barreling over what might be considered standard political traps. As they fight to preserve tax cuts for the wealthiest taxpayers, for instance, they are prepared to let unemployment insurance benefits run out for 2 million jobless Americans unless offsetting spending cuts can be found.

Republican Senate leaders on Wednesday threatened to derail a bill that had previously received bipartisan backing — a food-safety measure — on the grounds that nothing should move until a deal on tax cuts is reached.

The White House and congressional Democrats have been largely reduced to symbolic responses, such as House passage Thursday of an extension of middle-class tax cuts. Republicans in the Senate have vowed to block it because it did not include an extension for the wealthy.

The Democratic bill was greeted scornfully by Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R- Ohio), who described the exercise as "chicken crap."

Yeah. And progressive heads exploded at that.

More later.

Meanwhile follow developments at Memeorandum and The Other McCain.