It continues to amaze and demoralize us how many so-called "progressives" are gushing over Ron Paul because he talks a good anti-war game. A case in point is Philip Weiss of the popular anti-Zionist blog Mondoweiss. Weiss starts out by acknowledging the loads of ugly racist garbage that Paul printed in his newsletter over the years—usually under his own by-line. But he still writes:

In the fifth YouTube edition of the Moorish Orthodox Radio Crusade, World War 4 Report editor Bill Weinberg interviews Andrew Kliman of the Marxist-Humanist Initiative, author (most recently) of The Failure of Capitalist Production: Underlying Causes of the Great Recession, who argues for Marx's law of the Long-Term Falling Rate of Profit, and analyzes both the potentials and limitations of the Occupy Wall Street movement.

From now through the first week of January, World War 4 Report will be on semi-hiatus, with a low level of activity, while editor and chief blogger Bill Weinberg takes a well-earned stay-at-home vacation and sees to some personal matters. If you appreciate our daily offerings, please take this opportunity to support our year-end fund drive, so we can hit the ground running when we get back, with refocused energies—and hopefully having reached our goal of $5,000. Thanks for reading, and for your support.

We don't share the right-wing "libertarian" politics of Reason magazine, and we generally don't like atrocity pornography. But in a stroke of grim genius on Dec. 22, Reason juxtaposes photos of two disfigured survivors from the Af-Pak theater. The first you probably haven't seen before: a girl named only as Shakira, who was one year old in 2009 when her village in Pakistan's Swat Valley was targeted for a drone strike. Two other infants were killed in the attack; she survived, her face burned almost to the skull. A Pakistani emigre in Houston has managed to fly her there for special surgery, but a CNN account tells us: "She will never look fully normal." Can you guess what comes next...?

North Korea's leadership is moving efficiently to portray Kim Jong-un, chosen heir of his late father, as the country's unchallenged ruler, with state TV repeatedly broadcasting images of senior military leaders pledging fealty to the son. The military is on alert amid a choreographed spectacle of thousands of mourners filling the cold streets of Pyongyang. The border with China—North Korea's only real link to the outside world—has been sealed. While the order for the military alert was officially issued by Kim Jong-un, it is expected that the top generals will actually rule as a sort of regency in the transition period. (Kim Jong-il himself, selected as Kim Il-sung's successor in the 1970s, did not officially assume power until three years after the death of his father in 1994. Kim Jong-il's leadership saw the most difficult times in North Korea since the Korean War, with a great famine known in the North as the "arduous march" claiming perhaps 2 million lives in the mid-1990s.) Some observers point to Kim Jong-un's uncle Jang Song-thaek as a "technocrat" who will wield real power in the transition—and perhaps seek to open the country. Inevitably drawing a comparison to Deng Xiaoping, it is pointed out he was purged in 2004 only to be restored to the ruling elite 18 months later—and to become the key figure in the de facto caretaker government after Kim Jong-il first suffered a serious stroke in August 2008. (NYT, NYT, WSJ, Dec. 21; National Post, Dec. 20; Korea Policy Institute, Dec. 19)

Even as villagers at Wukan in China's Guangdong province announced an agreement to negotiate with authorities and began dismantling their barricades after a 10-day stand-off on Dec. 20, clashes were reported between security forces and thousands of protesting residents at Haimen, an industrial city about 100 kilometers up the coast in Shantou prefecture. The protests were sparked by plans to build a coal-burning power plant in an area where numerous factories have already polluted local waters and harmed the fishing economy. Protesters reportedly surrounded a government building and blocked an expressway before police used tear-gas and batons to clear them. Online accounts of the incident said hundreds were savagely beaten, and that two people were killed. Authorities denied any deaths in the incident. (FT, Reuters, McClatchy, Dec. 21; AGI, Dec. 20)

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay on Dec. 19 condemned the brutal crackdown on protesters by military and security forces in Cairo. Since Friday the 16th, the suppression of demonstrations has led to 11 deaths and more than 500 injuries. This is the second time since November that Pillay has condemned the use of excessive violence in Egypt. In November she issued a statement denouncing the deaths of 30 protesters at the hands of security and military forces. She expressed particularly strong concern over what seems to be a deliberate targeting of peaceful women protesters.

The Reuters account on the latest highly specious "terrorism" conviction—of US citizen Tarek Mehanna—predictably leads with a sentence that portrays providential federal action against an imminent threat: "A jury on Tuesday found a Massachusetts man guilty of conspiring to support al Qaeda by translating Arabic messages and traveling to Yemen for terrorism training." You have to read several paragraphs in to find out that things weren't nearly so dire. Prosecutors "said he traveled to Yemen in 2004 to seek terrorism training, but never received it, and had planned to travel to Iraq to fight US troops." Emphasis added. Did you catch that? He never actually received any terrorism training. And that translation of "Arabic messages"—secret documents containing orders to launch an attack? Nope. Prosecutors "said he translated videos and texts from Arabic to English and distributed them online to further al Qaeda's cause." In other words, propaganda videos. Is this what constitutes "providing and conspiring to provide material support to terrorists" these days? And can anyone explain to us why this does not violate the First Amendment?