Third Brussels airport suspect arrested

The New Neo Posted on by

The other two were apparently suicide bombers and are dead.

The third man has not been publicly identified yet, but he had appeared on surveillance video in a light-colored jacket. Nor has it been announced how he was found, but reports are that he is already in the custody of authorities:

A third bomb, which did not explode, was found in a suitcase at the airport, leading authorities to believe the other bombs were also hidden inside suitcases. The man wearing the light jacket can be seen in the photo with a black suitcase authorities believe contained the bomb they found unexploded.

Police released a bulletin saying they are searching for the man in the light jacket, asking for public assistance in finding him. A senior U.S. official briefed on the case confirms that the IDs of the suspected attackers have been shared with U.S. authorities.

This is a case where the ticking time bomb scenario and dilemma could apply.

[ADDENDUM: Here’s some more information:

More explosive devices reportedly were turned up Tuesday as police raided homes throughout Belgium in a desperate manhunt for a third suspect believed to have survived the morning’s coordinated bombings in Brussels, where at least 34 people were killed.

Belgian federal prosecutors said the search of a home in the Brussels neighborhood of Schaerbeek “led to the discovery of an explosive device containing among other things nails.” Investigators also found chemical products and an ISIS flag…

Authorities were led to the Schaerbeek home by a taxi driver who had picked the three men up there earlier and driven them to the airport, Sky News reported…

Abdeslam [the recently-captured Paris attack terrorist] reportedly stayed in Schaerbeek, the neighborhood where the unexploded bomb and chemicals were reportedly found, for up to three weeks after he fled Paris in November. A more middle-class community than the infamous Muslim enclave of Molenbeek, the western portion of Schaerbeek is home to a large population of Turkish and Morrocan immigrants.

The flurry of law enforcement activity came after a channel on the encrypted messaging app Telegram that is maintained by ISIS described the operation and took credit for the carnage.

So it wasn’t Molenbeek.]

Arizona and Utah are worlds apart

The New Neo Posted on by

Yesterday Arizona went for Trump in its primary, and Utah went for Cruz. But that simple statement doesn’t even begin to express the difference in the outcomes in the two states, which symbolizes the split in the Republican Party.

In Arizona, Trump got about 45% of the vote, still failing to break 50%. This is the pattern that has been established so far even in the states Trump has won. In addition, “other” was a large group in Arizona, getting more votes than Kasich (who did poorly; about 10%). For example, because there is a great deal of early voting in Arizona, Rubio (who dropped out only fairly recently) got quite a few votes and actually beat Kasich. That sort of thing is one of the reasons I have suggested that early voting should not be an option in primaries; it’s absurd.

Utah is a caucus state, and Cruz won resoundingly with Trump doing very very poorly: almost 70% for Cruz and 14% for Trump, who did worse there than Kasich, who received about 17% of the vote. Utah is a conservative state, and the contrast with Arizona could not be greater.

Both states run closed primaries/caucuses. However, “closed” doesn’t always mean that crossovers can’t occur. In fact, it’s actually rather easy; for example, in Arizona, all a person has to do is register 29 days ahead of the primary as a member of the party (in Arizona, the Mar. 22 primary is technically referred to a “presidential preference election”). We have no way of knowing how many Democrats registered as Republicans in Arizona for the sake of voting Trump; maybe a lot, maybe a few. Nor do we know their motives: actual support of Trump that would transfer to a general election, or a desire to muck up the works for the GOP.

We do know that turnout was high in both states. But we also don’t know what that means, except that it indicates voter intensity.

Onward.

Jeb Bush endorses Ted Cruz

The New Neo Posted on by

Now, this certainly seemed unlikely at the start of the campaign season. But this is what it’s come to:

Former candidate Jeb Bush endorsed Ted Cruz for the Republican presidential nomination on Wednesday, saying the U.S. senator from Texas represents the party’s best chance of winning the White House.

In a statement, the former Florida governor called Cruz a consistent, principled conservative who has demonstrated an ability to appeal to voters and win primary contests.

“Washington is broken, and the only way Republicans can hope to win back the White House and put our nation on a better path is to support a nominee who can articulate how conservative policies will help people rise up and reach their full potential,” Bush said.

I believe I can predict what Trump supporters and others who don’t like Cruz will say. Originally, the hype was that Cruz was a mean guy everyone hated, who couldn’t work with anyone and didn’t get support from his fellow-Republicans, and for some he was also too conservative, too radical. Now that people like Bush have endorsed him as the best remaining alternative (and those alternatives include the moderate Kasich, by the way), he will be tarred with the “RINO!” and “He’s just an establishment tool!” brush.

Terrorist attacks in Brussels

The New Neo Posted on by

Multiple bombs went off in the Brussels metro and at the airport, resulting in terrible carnage with at least 28 killed. The attacks may have been revenge for the recent capture of Salah Abdeslam, who was involved in the Paris terrorist attacks.

Brussels has become one of the centers—if not the center—of Islamic terrorism in western Europe. But no one is immune. This is the sort of attack that would seem rather easy to accomplish, because it appears to have occurred prior to the security checkpoints, in an area where overweight luggage is weighed, and near a Starbucks.

The French leader, at least, is calling this a war:

Prime Minister Manuel Valls, speaking after a crisis meeting called by the French president, says “we are at war. We have been subjected for the last few months in Europe to acts of war.”

President Francois Hollande says “terrorists struck Brussels but it was Europe that was targeted ”” and all the world that is concerned.”

Hollande also warned that “this war will be long” so sang froid and lucidity are needed.

But words are cheap, and solutions few. The Belgian Prime Minister called it a “tragic moment.” While it is indeed a tragedy for the victims, I think “act of war” is a much better descriptor. Tragedies don’t necessarily have human agents, although they certainly have human consequences. This event most definitely has human perpetrators who intend to sow chaos and terror throughout the Western world.

Written speeches versus extemporaneous remarks

The New Neo Posted on by

I’ve said many many times that I don’t like speeches, with the exception of Churchill and Lincoln.

I don’t like them because I’m not an auditory learner and tend to mentally drift off during monologues, although I can pay very close attention to dialogues or to plays. I’m not sure what that says about me, but it’s always been the case. Speeches, sermons, lectures, book readings—it really doesn’t matter what it is, I have some difficulty with them all unless the speaker is unusually riveting or funny.

But I have another problem with political speeches that has less to do with my own personal idiosyncrasies and more to do with the medium itself, and it’s that although speeches tell us what message the politician wishes to give that day to that group, almost all politicians have speechwriters, which is the equivalent of a ghostwriter. Although the politician has final approval of the speech, and tells the speechwriter the general message he or she wants to convey, the speech actually tells us little else about the mind and thought process and intelligence of the speaker. It tells us a lot more about the mind of the speechwriter, who is often unknown and uncredited.

Of course, different politicians have different levels of interaction with their speechwriters. Some even suggest phrases and do some very heavy editing, while others give the speechwriter something closer to free rein, at least within the general boundaries of the basic point of the speech. The first type is reflected more in the speech he or she gives; the second type less.

Over time, a politician delivers a series of speeches that at least tell us something about what he or she wishes us to think he or she wants to do in office. But we still don’t know if those things will really be done, or whether the politician will even try. That’s why the phrase “campaign promises” contains a built-in sense of irony.

All of this applies to every politician who does not write his or her own speeches, and it’s one of the reasons I don’t think much of political speeches in general. It’s also one of the rationales underlying the debates—to give us the unscripted thinking of the candidates—although memorized sound bites (which every politician, not just Marco Rubio, employs) can take away from the extemporaneous nature of a debate to some degree.

Now, I don’t like debates either, as I’ve also stated many times. But that’s because I get frustrated at the way they focus on trivialities and sound bites, the length and number of them, the fact that all the candidates aren’t required to answer the same question, and the media’s (usually successful) attempts to get interpersonal conflict going. Debates are useful, however, for letting us know much more about the candidates’ minds and how they work than a speech does, and how they function under pressure. The same can be true of a non-softball interview. The general rule is that extemporaneous speech is far more telling than a prepared speech.

Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, the two GOP front runners and rivals, present an especially sharp contrast in that regard. The first contrast is in tone; brilliant lawyer and champion debater Cruz has a formal quality even when speaking off-the-cuff. Everything seems measured, including his pauses for emphasis. Although to me this speaks of an organized and disciplined mind and a stable emotional makeup, which I think are very good traits in a president, lots of people seem to hate it and to hate him for it. I’m not looking for a buddy (“who would you most like to have a beer with?”) in a president, but some people seem to be.

Donald Trump, with his casual and often fragmented and even incoherent, contradictory, and repetitive style is regarded by some people as fun, charming, non-PC, and a refreshing breath of fresh air. To me, his spontaneous remarks convey disorganization, and his catch-phrases (everything under him will be “great,” he “loves” just about everyone he doesn’t hate, other candidates are “nasty” or “stupid) are the product of someone who is speaking—not to be too-PC myself—empty bullshit or manipulative snark. Yes, I understand he’s signaling this that and the other thing, but to me he comes across as weak rather than strong, emotional rather than logical, inconsistent rather than firm, and bereft of ideas and even understanding of some of his own written (by someone else) policy positions.

But what really puzzles me is how often I see people reacting to a prepared speech by any candidate as though it means much more than the words that come out of a candidate’s own mouth unscripted. To me, that makes no sense.

Obama in Cuba

The New Neo Posted on by

I can’t remember where I read it, but someone said that Obama has improved US relations with two countries during his administration: Iran and Cuba.

That about says it. But here’s more on Obama’s current Cuban visit:

Cuban dissidents have reportedly been forbidden from meeting with President Obama during his trip to Cuba, some apparently placed under house arrest to prevent going to such meetings…

For the Castro government there’s no concern that Obama, in his coming speech to the Cuban people, would demand that they be given freedom, that a democratic government replace the old-style communism of the Castros replicated only in North Korea and China, or that the Cuban people be allowed access to news, Internet, and telephone services that might open Cuba to the kind of speech, thought, and debate that enable freedom. No, there’s no worry about that.

Obama, the first American president to visit Cuba in about ninety years, has chosen a different mission for himself: to teach Latin America the lesson he’s taught the Russians, the Chinese, the Iranians and North Koreans, that the United States will grant major diplomatic, military, and economic concessions without receiving any in return.

It’s not so much Obama’s visit as the lack of conditions he sets for it, or for much of anything else regarding repressive governments.

Here’s what Ted Cruz has to say on the subject.

[NOTE: That first article I linked in this post also mentions one of Obama’s initial foreign policy actions as president, his stance towards Honduras. That is something I wrote about extensively at the the time, and considered an extremely ominous sign. I summarized what it meant here.]

The consent of children

The New Neo Posted on by

Photographer Sally Mann wrote a lengthy article in which she justifies, explains, expounds, and defends some controversial photos she took of her own children. She asserts that, since her children had the final say over every photo and whether it should be published, how could they have been exploited? But Mann ignores an essential element of the equations, which is that, because of their very nature as children, they could not give informed consent.

There is a need to take great care before assuming, in activities where one person has power over another (parent/child, for example), and that the less powerful is able to give consent to something the person with more power wants. It’s especially perilous when the powerful person is in a position in which he/she is supposed to protect the other. The child cannot consent to that which fails to protect that child; the child’s judgement is colored both by the greater influence of the powerful one (the parent) as well as the fact of the child’s age detracting from a child’s ability to make informed decisions in general. Not for nothing is it said that a child has not reached the age of consent; that’s what the term means.

Does Mann not know that? As a person, and as a parent?

That is the reason that even post-pubescent adolescents cannot consent in the legal sense to seemingly consensual sexual relationships with adults, and especially with teachers or clergy or scout leaders or others who have abused their position of power and influence. In addition, even if a child is not one of the parties, differentials of power make it impossible for an adult patient to legally consent to sex with a therapist or a priest and do away with the therapist or priest’s obligation not to exploit that person. The obligation always remains, whatever the patient might say.

Sally Mann did not have sex with her children. But she has been accused of taking sensual photos of her children that border on the sexual. Mann is of the opinion that her photos are not sexual in nature, although the children are often naked. But she is well aware that by putting those images out into the world, she might expose her children to the eyes of pedophiles who could easily think otherwise. What she does not appear to be aware of—even after all this time, at least not from the evidence of the article—is that children cannot possibly give consent to that process.

Mann says that her children have suffered, just as some critics of her work had predicted they would:

One New York Times letter-­writer predicted an outcome for my children that did, in fact, come to pass: a “third eye,” as this writer eloquently put it. By this she meant a shameful self-­consciousness, a feeling of guilt and moral doubt about the pictures. And of the three kids, this most afflicted my youngest, Virginia ”” my carefree, lissome river sprite.

There were also demented letter-writers, including a stalker who seemed obsessed. All of this appears to have come as a surprise to Mann, who comes across as having been both ambitious and naive. She thought she could create a world apart—in the country far from the madding crowd—and she did. But when she recorded images of it and brought it back into the marketplace, how could she have expected to have preserved that innocence?

There used to be a vogue for taking photos of young children, sometimes naked, which were perceived as expressing their innocence and purity. Charles Dodgson (Lewis Carroll) worked in that tradition. These days, with so much sexualization of children, people find it hard to believe that he was not a child molester. But I am convinced that he was not, and that an impulse similar to that of Mann’s drove him.

[NOTE: For more background on Dodgson and the cult of the child, see this.]

GOP convention delegates: bound and unbound

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s an informative article about an issue that’s currently being speculated about—delegates at the RNC and what they are required by the rules to do. How much leeway do they have? It depends on the state, but the basic idea is that they have quite a bit.

That’s a relic of our republican (as opposed to Republican) form of government. Primaries are not some sort of direct, populist way of choosing a nominee, despite rhetoric from some candidates and a popular belief to that effect. Voters elect delegates to the party’s national convention, where the delegates choose the nominee. You may or may not like that—and whether you like it depends on whether you’re a populist or a republican, and it might depend on whether you think it benefits or doesn’t benefit your candidate this year.

As I see the current GOP primary system, it’s a blend of populism and republicanism (or elitism, if you happen to see it that way). I think a blend is a good idea, because the pure version of either system is too extreme. But this neither-fish-nor-fowl system causes problems too (I’ve already suggested my version of primary reform).

And this is pretty much what I think about objections to the possibility of Trump not being the GOP standard-bearer even if he gets a majority (that is, a plurality) of delegate votes. A party has a right to choose its own candidate and make its own rules, and that’s what I had thought long before Trump ever came on the scene. Of course, voters also have the right to reject the party’s choice. This year, if Trump fails to win outright by getting the requisite number of delegates at the party convention, the GOP will have a big decision to make, and a large part of that decision will be ascertaining which party move will alienate the most voters and which the least—because they’re going to alienate a lot no matter what they do.

The bottom line is that the GOP is a political party. Political parties are entities that have grown up in America over the centuries, and they change and shift as conditions change and shift. But they are political entities that exist outside the Constitution, which does not require them. The two-party system has been around for a long time, and I happen to think it’s worked well, but nothing about the two-party system is set in stone.

Political parties make their own rules about how they will function and who they will nominate and why. They stop no one from running for president, but they can stop anyone from running for president under the banner of that party if the party wishes to do so. If the party can make rules and break them, voters can vote or not vote for the nominee of that party as they wish, and other candidates can run for the nomination of third parties or run independently, as they wish.

The GOP has set rules (also prior to Trump’s candidacy, not in reaction to it) that require a certain threshold of votes for electors that then vote for the nominee at a convention, and if Trump or anyone else fails to reach that threshold on the first ballot, most of the electors at GOP conventions are not bound to vote for the candidate they represent even on the first ballot.

If a party wants to say it is bound, absolutely bound, to nominate whoever registers in its primaries and gets a plurality of votes in the primaries, it is perfectly free to do that. Even then one could argue that the voters in the case of the 2016 campaign year so far have voted majority against Trump, but that’s not the issue. The issue is how much the party wants to set itself against the vocal and angry group of Trump voters who insist on his being the nominee. For example we have:

Curly Haugland is an unbound delegate from North Dakota who is one of a select group of 168 Republican National Committee members who will be vital in determining the rules at the convention in July.

Haugland made headlines last week for saying in an interview on CNBC that the sole responsibility for selecting the nominee belongs to the delegates, whether bound or unbound, and that the “media has created the perception that the voters choose the nomination.”

In an interview with The Hill, Haugland said those comments have provoked an avalanche of online bullying and threats directed towards him and his family…

“I’m trying to educate the delegates about this so they know precisely their rights and responsibilities and duties, and I’m defending the rights of party members to choose the nominee, rather than surrendering that responsibility to voters in open primaries where anyone can participate,” Haugland said. “We have the right to defend our party, which is what I’m trying to do, and it’s not very popular in some circles.”

“Not very popular” is probably the understatement of the century.

The animus towards the party was already palpable and enormous prior to this election year, and that will continue no matter what the GOP does. There are plenty who will abandon the GOP nominee if it’s Trump, and there are plenty of Trump supporters who will abandon the GOP nominee if it’s not Trump. In the end, the war in the GOP benefits the eventual Democratic nominee, who in my opinion will be Hillary Clinton. And whoever the eventual GOP nominee is, if he loses the general election, GOP civil war will continue and most likely will become even more bitter.