Malala speaks.

I wondered what she had to say and looked it up:

 

We watch in complete shock as Taliban takes control of Afghanistan. I am deeply worried about women, minorities and human rights advocates. Global, regional and local powers must call for an immediate ceasefire, provide urgent humanitarian aid and protect refugees and civilians.

— Malala (@Malala) August 15, 2021

That's her first post since July 27th. Just before she managed that, on August 13th, OpIndia published "Nobel laureate Malala Yousafzai, who was shot by the Taliban, turns a blind eye as the terror group steps up atrocities in Afghanistan/Malala has refused to even acknowledge the fact that the Taliban is relentlessly chipping away at the democratically elected Afghan government and establishing their supremacy in the strife-torn country." 

Nobel Laureate Malala Yousafzai, who is otherwise pretty vocal in voicing her opposition to the Taliban, is conspicuously silent on the escalating offensive by the terror outfit in Afghanistan. There is not even a whimper, let alone a cry of protest by the Nobel Laureate who fashions herself as some sort of teenage activist and had become the face of crusade against the Taliban.

Well, she's 24 now, not a teenager.

"[Chelsea] Clinton strives for relatability, offering stories about her grandmothers and her early life in Arkansas. They are all, unfortunately, dull."

"We open with a glimpse of young Chelsea reading the newspaper at home in Little Rock 'as I ate my morning Cheerios,' before discussing world events with her parents, which she did 'around the dinner table every night and intensely after church on Sunday over lunch.' As she grows up and moves on to trips to India and other global crisis spots with her mother, somehow the stories don’t get much more exciting. On the evidence we get here, she is a kind of humanitarian Tracy Flick, but there is no comeuppance or sudden twist of fortune on the horizon. As bighearted as she is, hers is not the kind of voice that makes for a riveting children’s book. Young readers crave emotional directness, and they appreciate a little buildup and suspense. As a glimpse at the children’s best-seller lists makes clear, they respond best to stories of people in extreme situations, people who face major problems, struggle and triumph, like 'I Am Malala,' a book that shares many of Clinton’s empowering goals. Chelsea Clinton, however, is not Malala (who also had an experienced co-author), and would have been wise to step back a little from the flow of the book."

From a NYT review of Chelsea Clinton's new book, which is (irritatingly) titled "It's Your World: Get Informed, Get Inspired & Get Going!"

There's no "look inside" view at the above-linked Amazon page, so I can't form even a superficial opinion about whether it's like Hillary's first book, "It Takes a Village/And Other Lessons Children Teach Us." Why is it, after all these years, that a woman going into politics enters through the door marked "Children"?

Hillary's book purported to teach adults lessons that came from children. The lessons came from her, but the title told us she got them from children. Chelsea's book is aimed at children, getting them quickly up to speed with lessons from adults. Children should naturally resist that kind of instruction, but that won't stop adults from buying the book... if they want their kids politicized early and they have confidence in the Clinton brand. I hope there aren't too many adults like that. Not ones with kids anyway.

"We thought it must be the children playing some game. But then we saw a lot of firearms with them."

"As soon as the firing started, we ran to our classrooms. They were entering every class and they were killing the children... Then I saw children falling down who were crying and screaming. I also fell down. I learned later that I have got a bullet... All the children had bullet wounds. All the children were bleeding...."

ADDED: "The Taliban has killed dozens of children at a Peshawar school in a revenge mission for Pakistani schoolgirl activist Malala Yousafzai being awarded the 2014 Nobel Peace Prize."

AND: "They burnt a teacher in front of the students in a classroom.... They literally set the teacher on fire with gasoline and made the kids watch."

"She is a normal, useless type of a girl. Nothing in her is special at all. She’s selling what the West will buy."

Not everyone loves the new Nobel laureate.

Malala Yousafzai wins the Nobel Peace Prize.

Along with (the less famous) Kailash Satyarthi.

"The Nobel Committee regards it as an important point for a Hindu and a Muslim, an Indian and a Pakistani, to join in a common struggle for education and against extremism."

Yousafzai is the youngest-ever recipient of the prize. She's 17.

"I am so proud to wear the uniform because it proves I am a student..."

"... and that I am living my life and learning."

"Time honors Sandra Fluke as 'Person of the Year' finalist."

That's the Breitbart headline for an item that begins "Just when you think Time magazine can’t make any more of a mockery of itself...." But there are 40 individuals on Time's "Who Should Be TIME's Person of the Year 2012?" which gives readers a chance to vote. Included on this list are many minor newsworthy figures and many whose contributions were not clearly positive. Bashar Assad and Kim Jong Un are on the list — "honored." Nice by not really world-changing figures like gymnast Gabrielle Douglas are included.  The click-through gallery is in alphabetical order, and the first picture that hits you is a conservative old white guy, Sheldon Adelson. Now, he's not presented in a positive light:

In the post-Citizens United era, Sheldon Adelson became the public face of what critics cast as a plutocrat class trying to buy U.S. elections. But it's not clear how much the conservative casino magnate got for his money — other than a heap of bad press.

Time's perspective is obviously liberal, but within that perspective, it's quite a concession to say that Citizens United hasn't been a horror show.

Anyway, Time made an effort to amass an interesting list of people who made the news for different reasons or who represent different cultural and demographic sectors. There's E.L. James and Jay-Z and Psy. Did they "influence the news" (Time's stated standard)? The real problem here is that it seems that Barack Obama is the necessary choice for 2012, and that's simply too boring.

And in fact, he is not winning in the readers poll. The readers have decisively chosen Malala Yousafzai. She has the least negative votes ("no way") and is coming in 3d on positive votes ("definitely"). Ahead of her on the positive list are Mohamed Morsy and — I guess the vote-for-the-worst crowd is out in force — Kim Jong Un. Malala Yousafzai is the face in the gallery that makes your heart zing. I clicked through the whole thing without feeling like hitting a definitely/no way button until I got to her. I still didn't vote, of course. (My female heart is well-defended against the outreached arms of commercial media.)

Sandra Fluke's no votes far exceed yes votes —  24,809/9,356  — but I would guess that outrage from the Breitbart crowd will now skew the vote. I don't know which way, but for Time, traffic is traffic and it will experience a nice boost from the inclusion of Fluke. The "Person of the Year" event — and this post gets my "annual nonsense" tag — is a nice commercial gambit for Time. So:

Who made a mockery of itself?
	Time
	Breitbart.com
	Both
	Neither
pollcode.com free polls

"We targeted her because she would speak against the Taliban while sitting with shameless strangers and idealised the biggest enemy of Islam, Barack Obama."

"We did not attack her for raising voice for education. We targeted her for opposing mujahideen and their war... Sharia says that even a child can be killed if he is propagating against Islam."