Kathleen Kane, Pennsylvania AG (Dem), convicted

The New Neo Posted on by

This is quite a story, one I hadn’t followed till now. It’s complicated, but here’s the basic outline:

Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen G. Kane was convicted Monday of perjury, obstruction, and other crimes, after squandering her once-bright political future on an illegal vendetta against an enemy…

Montgomery County District Attorney Kevin R. Steele persuaded jurors that Kane orchestrated the illegal leak of secret grand jury documents to plant a June 2014 story critical of her nemesis, former state prosecutor Frank Fina. Kane then lied about her actions under oath, the jury found…

Kane sought revenge against Fina because she believed he was the source for a March 2014 Inquirer story reporting that she secretly shut down an undercover sting operation that recorded Philadelphia officials accepting cash from a lobbyist. Fina, for many years the head of corruption cases for the Attorney General’s Office, launched the sting before Kane took office.

Michelle Henry, who joined Steele in presenting the prosecution case, painted Kane as heedless of the law as she carried out her crimes.

“She knew it was wrong, she knew it was against the law, and she didn’t care,” Henry told the jury. “She did it for revenge. And after that happened, she covered it up with lies.”

Not a pretty story.

The really really stupid party

The New Neo Posted on by

People on the right have had a long-standing joke about the GOP, which is to call it the Stupid Party.

But hey, it was a joke, fellas. We didn’t think you really were all that stupid. In fact, a lot of people alternated between thinking of GOP leaders (variously and un-affectionately called the GOPe or the Establishment) as stupid, and thinking of them as brilliant but ill-intentioned puppetmasters.

This election cycle it’s been difficult if not impossible to escape the notion that the joke about stupidity was no joke at all, but the absolute truth, and that it was the the evil puppetmaster thing that was the joke. As I see it, this GOP group would be hard-pressed to operate a single finger puppet.

Now, those of you of a more conspiracy-theory-minded bent will no doubt say that what has happened this year was all part of the GOP plot, all part of the GOP plan. And of course, certain elements of it were (although I see no reason to believe the conspiratorial notion that the GOP wants to lose; they are politicians and want to win, if only for the sake of power). For example, I believe that one of the reasons the GOP failed to fight Trump forcefully enough was its fear of nominating the man who turned up as the #2 people’s choice, Ted Cruz. For a while there, they supported Trump as the lesser of two evils (maybe most of them still do), the one they thought they could control. And maybe some of them also really believed Trump would later perform some fancy pivot to a more presidential persona; but if so, that only solidifies their status (in my eyes, anyway) as members of the Stupid Party par excellence.

If they really wanted Jeb at the beginning (and I think they did), that would make sense. But that desire was pretty stupid, too, because anyone should have seen even earlier that Jeb was going nowhere. After Jeb failed, they didn’t really consolidate behind anyone—which would have meant convincing or successfully pressuring the others to drop out, which never happened. If I’d been one of the GOP movers and shakers, I would have applied every ounce of pressure I could to get that to happen, to make the race into a head-to-head race by some Republican against Trump. If they failed to try that, then I think they were stupid. And if they tried it and failed, then they were incompetent as puppet-masters rather than all-powerful.

I see their greatest stupidity, though, as not having realized how dangerous Donald Trump would be to them. But they didn’t seem to see or understand it. He’s not a conservative, but he’s not even a Republican, and he seems to be running against them as much or perhaps even more than against Democrats. He will not listen to their advice, and there was never any indication that he would. He will hurt their chances for election to the House and Senate. If he loses, he will excoriate and blame them. Hitching their wagon to him in 2016 was one of the stupidest things they could have done, a case of throwing away their best chance to win the presidency since 2004 and probably even prior to that.

What should they have done if they were either less stupid or more of the puppetmasters that so many people think they are—besides what I’ve already mentioned, that is, the forcing out of many other candidates? One thing would have been to have changed the convention rules, fixed on an alternative candidate, and pushed that person at the convention. They weren’t ever going to do that, though, for fear of alienating Trump’s already-alienated supporters, and because they couldn’t seem to unify behind anyone. So there was really very little impetus for that.

I believe that the GOP has been loaded with wishful thinking and denial this year. It became clear some time in the summer of 2015 that Trump might very well get the nomination if the field didn’t narrow down, and it became crystal clear by March that there was grave danger of that happening, but they seemed in denial about that. It was always clear that he could harm the rest of the party’s candidates, but they seemed in denial about that, too. And it was clear that he was doing poorly against Clinton in the polls and that there was an excellent chance he would lose, but for the repetition they were in denial about that.

Or maybe they knew, but felt powerless to stop the Trump train or to derail it. Either way, same effect.

Well, maybe they shouldn’t have let Trump declare himself to be a Republican candidate in the first place. Maybe they should have said no, run third-party if you must. Clearly, though, they preferred having him inside the tent pissing out rather than outside pissing in. What they didn’t seem to realize was that he’d be inside the tent pissing in.

Heartwarming and astounding story

The New Neo Posted on by

In a recent thread on gymnastics, commenter “CV” recommended watching this astounding video. I can’t seem to figure out how to find the embed code, so you’ll have to go there in order to watch it. It’s well worth the trip.

The story is related to gymnastics, but it’s not primarily about gymnastics at all. It’s about something that sounds corny—the human spirit—but it’s well worth the 15 minutes of your time it will take to watch it. It’s one of those tales of adoption and lost and found biological relatives. It also demonstrates how important the home environment is and how important heredity is.

Here’s another shorter feature on the same story, and it’s possible to embed this one. But please watch the first one first:

\

Milwaukee is the latest in the Black Lives Matter destructiveness

The New Neo Posted on by

In a pattern that’s become all too familiar around the nation, the death of a black man at the hands of a police officer has sparked riots. This time it’s in Milwaukee.

Here’s a lengthy article on the subject in the local Milwaukee paper, the Journal Sentinel. The article manages to impart a great deal of information and offer a great many quotes without ever mentioning two salient facts: that the man who was shot was black, and that the police officer who shot him was also black.

The first fact is very strongly implied by the Journal Sentinel article’s content. But the second fact could not possibly be deduced from anything in that article.

And here we have a ghastly quote from the sister of the deceased man (his name was Sylville Smith and hers is Kimberly Neal), a quote that was apparently truncated by CNN but appears in a more complete version in a video:

CNN did its best to attribute a peaceful element to the protests on Monday morning by featuring one of Smith’s sisters calling for peace. “Don’t bring that violence here,” said Kimberly Neal, one of Smith’s sisters.

Despite CNN’s selective editing, Neal was not calling for peace ”” she was calling for peace in black neighborhoods and requesting that rioters instead target the white community for violence. “Burning down sh*t ain’t going to help nothing,” she continued. “Y’all burning down sh*t we need in our community. Take that sh*t to the suburbs. Burn that sh*t down. We need our weave.”

On the other hand, Smith’s father offered a rambling speech in which he alternately blamed lack of gun control (he seems to be against the Second Amendment) and some vague and powerful “they,” but he also blamed himself and the poor example he set for his son:

I had to blame myself for a lot of things too because your hero is your dad and I played a very big part in my family’s role model for them. Being on the street, doing things of the street life: Entertaining, drug dealing and pimping and they’re looking at their dad like ‘he’s doing all these things.’ I got out of jail two months ago, but I’ve been going back and forth in jail and they see those things so I’d like to apologize to my kids because this is the role model they look up to. When they see the wrong role model, this is what you get.

Can’t argue with that part.

Here’s more background as to why the officer stopped Smith and why Smith was shot:

The incident started Saturday afternoon when two officers stopped two people who were in a car in the north side, according to the Milwaukee Police Department.

“I was advised it was a suspicious stop. This vehicle was behaving in a suspicious manner. It’s a rental car as it turns out. We’ve not ascertained its status as to whether or not it was lawfully rented or stolen,” Milwaukee Police Chief Ed Flynn said Sunday afternoon.

Shortly after, both car occupants fled on foot as officers pursued them, police said.

During the chase, an officer shot one of the two — 23-year-old Sylville Smith, who was armed with a handgun, according to authorities.

“He (officer) ordered that individual to drop his gun, the individual did not drop his gun,” Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett said. “He had the gun with him and the officer fired several times.”

Smith at the scene. It’s unclear whether the second occupant of the car is in police custody.

Smith was shot twice — in the arm and chest, the mayor said. His handgun was stolen during a burglary in Waukesha in March, according to police.

Family members told FOX6 News Smith leaves behind a son and daughter.

“The victim of that burglary reported 500 rounds of ammunition were also stolen with the handgun,” police said in a statement.

The officer was wearing a body camera at the time. There were 23 rounds in Smith’s gun. Smith had a history of dismissed charges against him for a number of offenses, as well as a guilty plea to a misdemeanor charge of carrying a concealed weapon.

None of these facts seem to matter to the rioters.

I’m going on record with my Trump predictions

The New Neo Posted on by

I’m a person who doesn’t make many predictions, but with Trump I’ve made quite a few. And here I go again.

To summarize to date: From some time in the summer of 2015 I took Trump seriously as a candidate who could win the nomination, but I’ve never thought he had a decent chance of winning it all. For a while after the RNC I thought his possibilities were a little better although never good, but since then they’ve sunk.

I have based my estimation of his character not on media reports but on a combination of factors I have observed, in particular his own words in Twitter and debates and interviews, both within the last year and going back for many many years. I have also studied the polls, and although I’m skeptical about going along with this poll or that one, I have noticed for many years (not just with Trump) that in the aggregate, over time, polls usually (not always) are good predictors of elections.

I think Trump has been a smart and successful guy at a number of things, chief among them making money, building large real estate projects, promoting himself, getting a succession of beautiful women to either sleep with or marry him, being involved in the raising of responsible and capable children, and getting people to vote for him in the primaries this year. However, I think that, with his GOP nomination, he has reached a limit to how far those things will be taking him in the political arena, and that limit is the 2016 general election.

So my first prediction is that, barring some catastrophic revelation about Hillary Clinton (more catastrophic than those that have gone before, that is, which is saying something), he will lose. And I think his loss will be formidable and massive.

I don’t know to what extent he will drag down the other Republican candidates with him. I think it will happen somewhat, however. How long this depression of GOP fortunes will last I do not know, but it is entirely possible that we will see a Democratic or liberal/leftist dominance in politics for the foreseeable future or even permanently.

I believe that those who supported him will blame others for the loss. They will blame, first and foremost, other Republicans who did not support Trump. It will be a “stab in the back” scenario of major proportions, and will further split any opposition to Democratic hegemony. They will also ignore the fact that even had most Republicans voted for Trump (whether or not he did a thing to earn their votes), he could not win without some Democrats and many Independents, as well, and present polls do not indicate he’s won the requisite number of those people over.

I am undecided about when and how there might be a recovery from all of this on the right, but I certainly hope there is. But I believe that Limbaugh and all the others who treated Trump as though he was a brilliant tactician and the winning formula for the general will not suffer at all; their legions of admirers will follow their lead in blaming whoever the leaders blame.

Will the GOP survive? I don’t know, although I think it will. The rage against them will not abate, however, on the part of those on the right (and particularly the alt-right) who already hate them and want them destroyed, and believe that they themselves will be able to cobble together a new and more successful party in their own image. I think they are sadly mistaken about the desirability and the viability of that party, from what I’ve seen of them this election cycle (and in 2008 and 2012, for that matter, because I had already noticed them back then).

Reince Priebus is going bye-bye, and not a moment too soon. If Carly Fiorina replaces him, as she is rumored to want to do, that would be just fine with me. But RNC chairperson is going to be one of the most difficult jobs in the world, post-2016.

Maybe I’m wrong about some or all of this. It’s happened before, me being wrong. What I’d really really really like to be wrong about is the nature and future of Donald Trump. If in fact he’s the only thing standing in Hillary’s way, I hope he can stop her and I hope he’s a far far better man and makes a far far better president than I believe he is or would be.

For those of you who don’t know what rhythmic gymnastics is…

The New Neo Posted on by

…here’s an introduction.

In yesterday’s thread on this year’s American artistic gymnastics team, I described their powerful “cannonball” bodies and “ferocious will.” In the comments, “Ed Polacko” mentioned a contrast with the balletic quality of rhythmic gymnasts, and I decided to spotlight this little-known sport.

You may not think it’s much of a sport, because it seems to be a combination of dance and circus tricks. But if the Olympics considers it a sport, that’s fine with me. These ectopmorphic, elastic, stretched-out ladies have a ferocious will of their own, clothed in lightness and beauty. They are really magical—and believe me, formidable strength is also required in addition to their obvious flexibility and split-second timing.

Here’s an introduction to the different types of apparatus used in the sport: rope, hoop, ball, clubs, ribbon and freehand.

[ADDENDUM: Coverage of the vents in rhythmic gymnastics will be Friday and Saturday, the 19th and 20th of August.]

Slow loading

The New Neo Posted on by

I’ve had a number of complaints that the blog is loading more slowly than usual, although it’s still loading. I’m working to find and fix the source of the problem, and I ask everyone who’s experiencing it to please bear with me for a while.

I’ve noticed that for me, the blog is slowing down only sporadically. Most of the time it seems fine, but now and again it’s slow. I’ve noticed that it seems to bear some relationship to how much spam has accumulated, and how recently I’ve cleared out the spam file. I’ve been trying to do that more often lately, and it seems to help. But I’m not sure that’s the source.

This phenomenon has occurred once or twice before, and each time it has cleared up pretty much of itself. I don’t think it’s an attack of any sort, but I don’t know for sure. If you could keep me posted on any changes, I’d appreciate it. My hope is that in the next couple of days it clears up as it’s done in the past.

My apologies.

The American women’s gymnasts, 2016

The New Neo Posted on by

I’ve pretty much turned away from watching international sports, but the Olympics sometimes draw me in.

This year it happened again, beginning with the women gymnasts. As gymnastic tumbling has grown ever more difficult and demanding, the sport has changed from the dominance of the balletic style I so loved—and which drew me to watching it for many years—to a cutesy, herky-jerky, sharp and almost-awkward style that comes to major and explosive life in the extraordinarily complex tumbling passes. The style is not my preference, but I decided to watch this year and am in awe of the physical accomplishment and the sheer ferocious will of its practitioners, particularly the Americans.

I well remember when American women gymnasts were so relatively poor at the sport that they were never in contention, and it was all about the Russian women. Then the Rumanians. Then the Chinese. But now it’s the Americans.

This is due in no small measure to the once-Rumanian, now-American coaches, the Karolyis. Some of the history:

Those comparisons are apt, but even among the great teams the Americans stand out. Since 1976, no country has won five consecutive team titles at major international competitions. The margin of victory is the biggest since at least 1972.

It’s a byproduct of a system that has seen the United States dominate since 2011. They’ve won all five world or Olympic titles since then…

It means building consistency of routines that allows the Americans to be confident when they get to this stage.

“It’s just that auto pilot or push the button and go,” said Karolyi. “Basically, they’re just so much automatic.”…

…While Karolyi has led the Americans to unprecedented success, the past five years have been dominant by even her standards.

Of the 88 world championship or Olympic medals they have since 2001, 34 have come since the United States’ run of dominance started in 2011.

The American female gymnasts all have the same relatively-hipless build I remarked on here, a shape both initially selected for and then further honed by the demands and practice of the sport.

That phrase I used earlier—“ferocious will”—kept coming to me as I watched. I think all world-class athletes must have it, and the higher they rank the more of it they seem to have. But in these girls (yeah, I know, “women,” but they sure look like girls because they are so small, plus most of them seem to have exhibited the same ferocity back when they really were young girls) that ferocious will is expressed in the extraordinary nature of what they manage to do with their small, cannonball-like bodies.

The best of them all is acknowledged to be Simone Biles. At 19 and 4’8″, every inch of Biles is packed with power:

Here’s a photo of the winning American team with their coach, who is about to retire:

teamandcoach

You can see what I mean about the bodies. Also, the demographics of the sport have obviously changed. In terms of minorities, the five members of the team include two black women, one Hispanic, and one Jew. Everybody seems awfully friendly with each other, too. There’s a ton of seemingly heartfelt team spirit and hugging in women’s gymnastics.

Here they are, biting their medals:

medalbiting

A little blast from the past, this is the great Russian gymnast Tourischeva in 1976, doing a winning routine that is balletic but features the sort of tumbling that might be seen from a 7-year old these days. I loved her at the time, and still love her style:

Note also that there’s a live pianist.

So, here’s my Trump question du jour

The New Neo Posted on by

If he’s such a good manager, why is his campaign in the general faltering and seemingly disorganized?

And no, it’s not just media hype. I’ve noticed it, and polls reflect it. In this case I’m not just talking about some of the more controversial things he’s said recently that have turned off voters in the middle who might have been considering voting for him but are now joining the vast ranks of the Trump-scared. I’m talking about things like his recent pursuit of the blue states of Connecticut and Maine, and his refusal to buy ads even though he’s got the money:

Less than 100 days before the general election, Donald Trump has still not spent a dime on television advertising, even as Hillary Clinton floods the airwaves with tens of millions of dollars in ad spending.

According to an analysis by NBC News, the Democratic presidential nominee’s campaign has spent $52 million on television ads, many of which have been concentrated in the battleground states that will be critical in determining the outcome of the election.

The Trump campaign, by comparison, has spent zero dollars.

Even the third-party candidates have spent more than Trump has.

It’s not for lack of money ”” the Trump campaign raised $80 million in July and finished the month with $37 million on hand.

A report in National Journal released Monday found that the campaign has requested ad rates in 17 states, taking the first step in what could be an expanded presence on the airwaves.

What’s he waiting for? November?

I’ve never subscribed to the conspiracy theory that Trump is merely a stalking horse for Hillary. But I have to say that—although I still don’t believe it—those who do think so are not nuts, because if Trump were just a placeholder for Hillary, this is exactly the sort of thing he’d do, while simultaneously attacking Republicans, making controversial statements that turn off many voters in the middle, and offering only sporadic criticisms of Hillary to cover his tracks.

No, I don’t think that’s his motive. But I do think (as I’ve said before) that he doesn’t care all that much if he loses, because his fame has only grown and the number of his minions swelled as a result of his run. What care he if Hillary wins? He’s praised her and donated to her many times in the past. And what care he if Republicans down-ticket falter? It’s not really his party, and if it’s yours—well, you can cry if you want to.

Then there’s his suggestion that there’s no way he can lose Pennsylvania unless the opposition cheats. Actually, it’s not a suggestion; he says he “means it 100%”:

“The only way we can lose, in my opinion ”” I really mean this, Pennsylvania is if cheating goes on and we have to call up law enforcement and we have to have the sheriffs and the police chiefs and everyone watching because if we get cheated out of this election, if we get cheated out of a win in Pennsylvania, which is such a vital state especially when I know what is happening here,” he said. “She can’t beat what’s happening here. The only way they can beat it in my opinion, and I mean this 100 percent, if in certain sections of the state they cheat.”

Trump is down 9% in Pennsylvania polls right now. So no, it’s just a fact that there are many ways he can lose in Pennsylvania without anyone cheating. That has nothing to do with whether or not cheating does in fact go on there, and will in fact go on there. It’s certainly possible. But he is setting up his followers for non-acceptance of his loss, and accusations of questioning the validity of the 2016 election if it doesn’t anoint Trump.

This is pernicious stuff, dangerous stuff, and he’s been playing with this sort of fire right along.

I can hear his supporters now: Trump is the Master Persuader, these tactics are all brilliant, you’ll see! My answer is that the general is not the primary, and I saw an indication he could win the primaries but see none for the general (barring some strange and unanticipated meltdown of Clinton’s campaign).

Trump supporters will also say: but there is cheating!! If say hey, if there is, then prevent it or prove it. But if a candidate is down 9% in the polls, cheating isn’t necessary to defeat him, and acknowledge both that fact and the fact that this is nasty, sore-loser-in-advance rabble-rousing. Either Trump is so far gone in his narcissism that he really believes that he cannot lose (“she can’t beat what’s happening here”) or he is cynically manipulating his followers to the detriment of the country. Or both.

Does the world need another “Ben-Hur”?

The New Neo Posted on by

I dunno. But it’s got one.

I saw the 1959 movie in a movie theater in Manhattan when it first came out. The place was so packed that we had to sit very very close up, which turned out to be a big mistake for a young and impressionable child, because the movie was scary. The Roman galley. The chariot race. The lepers. The crucifixion. I was traumatized by it; sitting up so close to an absolutely enormous screen, I felt almost as though I’d been catapulted into the action.

Not long after the book was written (1880), it was dramatized as a play (1899). Since then, it’s been made into several movies: a short in 1907, a silent film in 1925, the Charlton Heston version I saw in 1959, an animated one with Heston’s voice in 2003, and now this new one.

I don’t plan to see it. But if you do, my advice is not to sit in the first row.

Taxes: ironic, isn’t it…

The New Neo Posted on by

…that Hillary’s release of her tax returns makes her look like an honest and transparent candidate when compared to the extreme reluctance of opponent Donald Trump to release his.

Now, you could say that she’s neither honest nor transparent, and if you were to say that you would be correct.

You could say that the issue of tax returns is a minor one compared to the far larger issues on which Hillary Clinton has been secretive and dishonest, and if you were to say that you would be correct.

You could say anything you want about it. But campaigns deal with that thing cynically called “optics,” and the optics on this are terrible.

It also is a problem that is what Rumsfeld would have called a “known known.” That is, way back during the primary season we learned that Trump was extremely unlikely to be releasing his tax returns if he became the nominee, and that Hillary Clinton would be releasing hers, and that it would make her look better than Trump in several respects.

You could say that nobody cares about this stuff, but if you were to say that you’d be incorrect. I don’t know how many people care or how much they care, and if all else was well with Trump this particular detail wouldn’t matter all that much. But all else is not well with Trump—in fact, at the moment little is well with Trump—and this is an easy-peasy way for Hillary Clinton to drive a “narrative” (another word of which I’m not fond except in the sarcastic sense) of her own relative honesty.

Which leaves us with the question of why? Why does Trump continue to refuse to release his returns, or at least some of them? It makes it look as though he has a great deal to hide, either because he pays so little income tax, or because his income is actually much lower than he’s always claimed, or because his charitable contributions are minuscule for someone of his wealth, or because of some combination of those things. My theory has long been that it’s about the size of his income (Trump is rather obsessed with size), because that goes to the heart of the narrative (there’s that word again!) that he’s been driving for his entire life.

I actually don’t think Trump cares all that much whether he wins the presidency, although I do think he’d much prefer it to losing. But he’ll survive if he loses, because he will be even more famous than before and have millions and millions of adoring new cultish fans who will happily blame others for his defeat. But if we learn through his release of tax returns that his wealth (although considerable) is significantly less than he’s always claimed—now, that could hurt him much more.

[NOTE: And just about no one believes Trump’s audit excuse: see this and this.]