↓
 

The New Neo

A blog about political change, among other things

  • Home
  • Bio
  • Email
Home » Page 1060 << 1 2 … 1,058 1,059 1,060 1,061 1,062 … 1,916 1,917 >>

Post navigation

← Previous Post
Next Post→

Slooow loading

The New Neo Posted on March 16, 2016 by neoMarch 16, 2016

I’m trying to work out the glitches that have been making the blog load slowly for the last day or two. I’m curious, though, whether all of you are having problems or just some of you. If you can, let me know (1) if you’re having a problem (2) approximately when it began (3) what the problem consists of.

Please be patient; this may take a couple of days. Hopefully, much shorter than that. Thanks. If the blog goes down completely for a while, I’ll try to post something about it on my old blog neo-neocon.blogspot.com . I hadn’t posted there for years, but it seems to still work. I just posted this post there as a test.

I really hate these technical problems. But I suppose it’s all part and parcel of having a blog.

[ADDENDUM 5:52 PM: It’s been loading much faster for me for about an hour or so. Not up to normal speed, but not bad. Has anyone else experienced some improvement?]

Posted in Blogging and bloggers | 33 Replies

Now what?

The New Neo Posted on March 16, 2016 by neoMarch 16, 2016

[NOTE: By the way, I’m still having slow website issues. I’m working on the problem, and it could be fixed very soon or it may take a couple of days. Thanks for your patience.]

I guess Cruz won the game of chicken, because Rubio finally swerved. Way too late for my tastes, and way too late to have helped Cruz win more delegates yesterday.

I predicted four years ago that if Romney lost, the Republican Party would tear itself apart. That appears to have happened. No matter who is nominated, I don’t see a path to victory for anyone but Hillary Clinton, which is mindboggling because she is one of the weakest and most vulnerable candidates I’ve seen in my lifetime.

Now that Rubio has dropped out, it’s possible that the race will change and Cruz will start winning, but it’s probably too late for it to lead to anything but a contested convention. This is the intent of the party when no one has a majority; it’s not just something invented to stymie Trump. If Trump is the clear leader but lacks a majority of delegates on the first ballot there is nothing to stop Rubio from suggesting his delegates vote for Cruz, which could give Cruz the majority. That’s just one scenario, and although Trump supporters will rage and call it “stealing,” it is clearly the sort of possibility that was envisioned when the rules were set up (and it’s the party that makes the rules for its own nominee).

If Cruz is the leader (less likely, but possible), the same would be true for Trump. That is, if he can get other candidates’ delegates to come over to him, he could get the nomination.

So let’s review. Here are the possibilities as I see them:
(1) Trump gets a majority and is the nominee.
(2) Cruz wins in a contested convention.
(3) Trump wins in a contested convention.

And here are the probable results as I see them:

(1) If Trump is the nominee, Hillary beats Trump. I’ve explained many times why I say that, but the summary version is that Trump’s negatives are too high, and there are too many people who say they would never vote for him. For example, a great many conservatives and Republicans say they would stay home. Plus, there is the possibility of someone else running third party or as an Independent, thus splitting the GOP vote still further.

(2) If Cruz is the nominee, Hillary beats Cruz. I say that despite the fact that I think that Cruz probably has a good chance of beating her in a 2-way race, but I think that if Trump is not the nominee a lot of people will vote for him anyway, or stay home, thus splitting the GOP vote or reducing the GOP vote.

In other words, the Republicans are deeply divided, and a house divided against itself cannot stand. I see the left as the beneficiaries.

Obviously, I could be wrong. I hope I’m wrong. I hope the prospects are better than that. But I have to call them like I see them, and at the moment that’s what I see.

[NOTE: I just saw this report:

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump warned Wednesday that his supporters might riot if the GOP tried to steal the nomination away from him at the Republican National Convention in July…

“I think we’ll win before getting to the convention, but I can tell you, if we didn’t and if we’re 20 votes short or if we’re, you know, 100 short and we’re at 1,100 and somebody else is at 500 or 400, because we’re way ahead of everybody, I don’t think you can say that we don’t get it automatically. I think you would have riots,” Trump said. “I think you would have riots.”

You could call that a warning. You could also call it a threat. Or you could call it an observation; a statement of fact. Maybe all three.]

[ADDENDUM: Ace comments on those same remarks of Trump’s:

If Obama said something like this — if he said, “If my Supreme Court nominee isn’t given an up or down vote, I think we’d have riots; I wouldn’t lead it, but I think bad things would happen; that would disenfranchise my voters” — what would you say about that?

Would you nod along and say “You tell ’em, Obama. You rattle that saber about the mob uprisings you could stir.”

Or would you say: “Why does this shady interloper believe he has the right to threaten me?”

Well, I guess having one standard is a pussy thing now.]

Posted in Election 2016 | 89 Replies

Super Ides of March Tuesday

The New Neo Posted on March 15, 2016 by neoMarch 15, 2016

[UPDATE BELOW]

As you can tell from the title, I’m very very very very nervous.

I fully expect Donald Trump to do very very well. If the polls are correct, there is an excellent chance he gets the two winner-take-all states, Florida and Ohio.

I’ve been extremely frustrated that the race has not yet come down to two people, and I fear that if and when it does (and I don’t think Kasich will drop out unless he loses Ohio) it will be too late for an alternative candidate to win. The Tragedy of the Commons, IMHO.

Trump supporters, of course, are jubilant. There’s a lot of crowing already.

UPDATE 9:40 PM

My server seems to be having problems, but they say they are working on it. I apologize for any slowness or difficulty you might be having in reaching the blog. I’m having the same problem at the moment; it should be resolved in the not-too-distant future. Go to my old blog, neo-neocon.blogspot.com , if the problem lasts longer than another day, but hopefully it will be fixed sooner than that.

In other news (the primaries, of course): I am pleased about Ohio, a winner-take-all state that now does not go to Trump. I am less pleased that it went to Kasich, but I expected he would be Trump’s chief rival there. Florida is exactly as expected: Trump wins and now Rubio (to his credit, although too late IMHO) drops out of the race. It’s ironic that Kasich now remains as the last “establishment” candidate, when I think he was the weakest one of them all (even more so than Jeb Bush). Go figure.

Missouri and North Carolina are close with Trump leading Cruz. But they are not winner-take-all states. Trump still seems to have that approxiamtely-40% ceiling, and with Rubio dropping out—if polls are correct in saying the vast majority of Rubio’s votes would go to Cruz—Cruz might really start winning more of these contests outright. I make no predictions, though; all bets are off this year.

Posted in Election 2016 | 53 Replies

Early Frost and late

The New Neo Posted on March 15, 2016 by neoMay 3, 2022

Here’s a very early poem by Robert Frost: “The Tuft of Flowers.”

And by “very early” I mean very; Frost was probably about 22 when he wrote it (1896 or 1897). You can tell it’s early if you know anything about Frost’s poetry. It doesn’t even sound like him—except when it does. He hadn’t come into his mature voice yet, and about two-thirds of the poem sounds as though it could have been written by any flowery (pun intended) poet, with its “o’er” and its ” ‘wildered” (for “bewildered”) and its dawn, and its happy message of human brotherhood.

Very different from the darker, sparer Frost of later years.

And yet it’s still Frost. You can recognize his voice, with a sudden startle, in lines such as “sheer morning gladness at the brim,” and the final aphorism “Men work together…Whether they work together or apart.'” And you can definitely recognize the hint of darkness in the earlier “And I must be, as he had been – alone.” The poem’s uplifting message goes from the bleak “we are all alone” to “we just think we’re alone; but we’re actually together.”

Contrast this to a later poem (published in 1920 when Frost was in his mid-forties, although some think it was actually composed in 1916) that dwells on the “alone” rather than the “together” part, “An Old Man’s Winter Night.” I cannot read it without a shiver.

The language is Frost as we came to know him: plain in cadence yet complex in thought and image. There is nothing obviously or conventionally “poetic” about it, but it is a masterful, beautiful, haunting, chilling poem. It’s not about flowers and growth; it’s about cold and decline. And yet, and yet right at the end, the poet steps back and says “This, too, is life; this, too, is a man who is only connected to the world of others by the most tenuous of threads—his essential humanity. And yet he is still connected.”

Here they are. The first is a nice poem. The second is a masterpiece.

THE TUFT OF FLOWERS

I went to turn the grass once after one
Who mowed it in the dew before the sun.

The dew was gone that made his blade so keen
Before I came to view the levelled scene.

I looked for him behind an isle of trees;
I listened for his whetstone on the breeze.

But he had gone his way, the grass all mown,
And I must be, as he had been, – alone,

”˜As all must be,’ I said within my heart,
”˜Whether they work together or apart.’

But as I said it, swift there passed me by
On noiseless wing a ‘wildered butterfly,

Seeking with memories grown dim o’er night
Some resting flower of yesterday’s delight.

And once I marked his flight go round and round,
As where some flower lay withering on the ground.

And then he flew as far as eye could see,
And then on tremulous wing came back to me.

I thought of questions that have no reply,
And would have turned to toss the grass to dry;

But he turned first, and led my eye to look
At a tall tuft of flowers beside a brook,

A leaping tongue of bloom the scythe had spared
Beside a reedy brook the scythe had bared.

I left my place to know them by their name,
Finding them butterfly weed when I came.

The mower in the dew had loved them thus,
By leaving them to flourish, not for us,

Nor yet to draw one thought of ours to him.
But from sheer morning gladness at the brim.

The butterfly and I had lit upon,
Nevertheless, a message from the dawn,

That made me hear the wakening birds around,
And hear his long scythe whispering to the ground,

And feel a spirit kindred to my own;
So that henceforth I worked no more alone;

But glad with him, I worked as with his aid,
And weary, sought at noon with him the shade;

And dreaming, as it were, held brotherly speech
With one whose thought I had not hoped to reach.

“‘Men work together,’ I told him from the heart,
‘Whether they work together or apart.’”

AN OLD MAN’S WINTER NIGHT

All out of doors looked darkly in at him
Through the thin frost, almost in separate stars,
That gathers on the pane in empty rooms.
What kept his eyes from giving back the gaze
Was the lamp tilted near them in his hand.
What kept him from remembering what it was
That brought him to that creaking room was age.
He stood with barrels round him – at a loss.
And having scared the cellar under him
In clomping there, he scared it once again
In clomping off; – and scared the outer night,
Which has its sounds, familiar, like the roar
Of trees and crack of branches, common things,
But nothing so like beating on a box.
A light he was to no one but himself
Where now he sat, concerned with he knew what,
A quiet light, and then not even that.
He consigned to the moon, such as she was,
So late-arising, to the broken moon
As better than the sun in any case
For such a charge, his snow upon the roof,
His icicles along the wall to keep;
And slept. The log that shifted with a jolt
Once in the stove, disturbed him and he shifted,
And eased his heavy breathing, but still slept.
One aged man – one man – can’t fill a house,
A farm, a countryside, or if he can,
It’s thus he does it of a winter night.

Posted in Getting philosophical: life, love, the universe, Poetry | 2 Replies

Explaining the research replicability problem

The New Neo Posted on March 15, 2016 by neoMarch 15, 2016

Here.

Posted in Science | 7 Replies

I’m wondering too

The New Neo Posted on March 15, 2016 by neoMarch 15, 2016

The previous election cycle and now this one have caused me to agree with DirtyJobsGuy:

“It makes you wonder how many little tyrants are out there.”

If there’s one thing that’s now clear, it’s that many many people—left and right—don’t mind a strongman or even a tyrant if they think that the strongman or tyrant is on their side. Ends justify means, if the ends are the ends you desire.

Posted in Election 2016 | 10 Replies

I’m not sure…

The New Neo Posted on March 14, 2016 by neoMarch 14, 2016

…whether this will help or hurt Kasich at this point. Toss a coin.

Posted in Election 2016, Romney | 39 Replies

“Get over it” say Trump supporters

The New Neo Posted on March 14, 2016 by neoMarch 14, 2016

I’ve noticed the line over and over from Trump supporters addressing people who aren’t the least bit happy at the prospect of a Trump nomination: “Get over it!”

It seems to summarize the feeling tone of a lot of the Trump activists online: we are the wave of the future, resistance is futile, it’s time to welcome your new insect overlords. That’s not persuasive, but they’re not trying to persuade. They’re trying to overpower and to discourage with a chant of “nah nah nah nah nah.”

Many Trump supporters also write things like, “You forced me to vote for Dole, Bush, McCain, and Romney, because they were the nominees. So now you’d better vote for Trump if he’s the nominee unless you want to be called out for the hypocrite you are.” Leaving aside the fact that it’s not possible to force someone to vote for a particular candidate (short of holding a gun to the person’s head and going into the voting both with him), are there parallels here?

I don’t think so. Trump is not just a candidate with whom people differ on policy items, or think is too conservative or not conservative enough or whatever it was that people didn’t like about the aforementioned Gang of Four, he represents a hostile takeover of the Republican Party. This is no ordinary disagreement between the more moderate and more conservative wings of the party; this a difference more profound.

Here are a few reasons why Trump’s candidacy isn’t business as usual:

(1) Never having held any public office at any level, Trump has no record to look to and no experience in office-holding or governing.
(2) Trump has a history of supporting Democrats and has called himself a liberal on most issues, and if he’s a bona fide political changer he’s certainly never explained his change (unlike, for example, Reagan, who worked for conservative causes for decades after his political change, and then held office for many years at the governor level).
(3) There are multiple character issues with Trump that are well-known and dramatic and go to the heart of whether he has anything like the temperament required to be president.
(4) Trump often shows little grasp of policy issues when speaking, and is inconsistent on a host of subjects, putting out proposals and almost immediately walking them back or modifying them considerably.
(5) Trump has leveled an extremely serious charge against the previous Republican president (Bush lied!!), one that heretofore was only offered by the far left.
(6) Trump has shown a marked tendency towards strongman rule, with him as the strongman.
(7) Trump is not supported by the majority of Republican voters; he has a plurality only, and a lot of his votes seem to come in the primaries from Democrats (who may or may not actually support him in the general).

These are qualitatively different objections than the objections to previous candidates and nominees. In fact, a good argument can be made that someone as far outside a particular party as Trump is would ordinarily run Independent or third-party, and that his Republican candidacy can be likened to a hostile takeover. Whether people who think that way are alarmists is unknown, but what is certainly true is that Trump is a very, very different candidate. That accounts for both the intensity of his support and for the intensity of the opposition to him.

Posted in Election 2016, Trump | 76 Replies

More on the Michelle Fields story

The New Neo Posted on March 14, 2016 by neoMarch 14, 2016

It’s not easy to keep up with this one.

Late last night I added an update to this previous post of mine on the subject. But for further updates, I refer you to this post at Legal Insurrection.

Posted in Press, Trump | 15 Replies

Describing the Trump voter

The New Neo Posted on March 12, 2016 by neoMarch 12, 2016

Here are some observations from commenter “Bob” on the Trump voters he met and talked to while canvassing for Cruz about a week ago. I thought they were worth highlighting:

I canvassed for Cruz, and found it quite illuminating speaking directly with voters one on one. Although it is only anecdotal, in speaking with Trump supporters I would rate the groups in this ascending order: I found very few that would be considered the base (all older, mostly elderly that have voted republican for many years) a slightly higher percentage that I suspected of racism, some leftists, quite a few disaffected democrats, and a plurality that have never voted before (mostly limited education). My impression was that the vast majority were just fed up with the entire situation as it is today, and were extremely tired of hearing how it was all their fault because they were racist white people. In short, Trump definitely tapped into years of built up frustration with the anti PC language, and as a consequence, hardened their attitudes and made them fervent believers in all things Donald. With the supporters of all the other candidates there was at least a cordial exchange of ideas, a willingness for give and take, not one of his could I persuade in any way to even listen to any other viewpoint; their minds were made up, almost like they were victims of Trauma. Those that would speak to me at length would only reiterate the false talking points of Trump in an uninterrupted diatribe, quite a few slammed doors in my face. It was like Breibart’s comments section in the real world. The experience demonstrated quite clearly how a populist demagogue, like Mussolini who Trump reminds me of, could secure a loyal and dedicated following.

The Mussolini reference, by the way, is not to Trump’s policies, but to the devotion of his followers. Bob could just as easily have said Obama, or Huey Long, or any number of politicians who have engendered that sort of devotion.

Bob left out the activists, although I doubt they’d be answering the door to a canvasser and so I’m not sure he would meet any of them. I have a draft for a post on the alt-right, who are the Trump activists par excellence, and I keep promising to publish it but obviously I haven’t finished it yet. Soon.

Discontent is abroad in the land, and politicians who are smart will tap into it if they can. Trump has managed to do that. He’s been flirting with a presidential run for a long long time (that’s another draft of mine). But it’s only this year that he’s caught the wave and is in the process (most likely) or surfing it to the shore of the Republican nomination, whether most Republicans like it or not.

That’s still another draft of mine, by the way (I’m loaded with unfinished drafts; so much to think about): the fact that the majority of Republicans do not like it.

Posted in Trump | 125 Replies

Obama approval at 3-year high

The New Neo Posted on March 12, 2016 by neoMarch 12, 2016

Apparently Obama looks good by comparison.

Sigh.

Posted in Obama | 8 Replies

Free speech and the election: protests force canceling of Trump event in Chicago

The New Neo Posted on March 12, 2016 by neoMarch 14, 2016

What happened to cause the cancelation of the Trump rally at the University of Illinois for security reasons due to protests was a subset of a growing tendency of the left to shut down free speech on several fronts. Note that the canceled event was at a Chicago college; in recent years university students and political hangers-on and organizers from the left have been in the forefront of shutting down college speakers they don’t like by organizing huge and noisy protests. Trump’s rally is definitely an extension of this, although he’s not merely an extension of it; he has his own role.

I see Trump as positioning himself as a lightning rod for the violence and anger abroad in the land. But that’s not really a good metaphor because a lightning rod exists to channel the electrical forces harmlessly into the ground. Trump arouses strong feelings on both sides, and he uses and magnifies the already-existing anger on the part of many Americans, and to say that this is a fact is not to blame him for causing it but to state the obvious. He absolutely has the right to speak, and protesters have the right to protest what he says without shutting his speech down, and no one has the right to be violent except in self-defense.

Violence should be controlled before it ever gets to the point of stopping a speech or of causing a riot. But how? That is the question.

Those of us who were alive in 1968 and old enough to remember the protests near the Democratic Convention in the city of Chicago, as well as the police response to those demonstrations, know what can happen. And that’s by no means the worst that can happen with protests and the attempts to control them. I described the 1968 Convention protests here in some detail, but right now I’ll just summarize and say that the protesters were leftist activists with an agenda to provoke violence from the Chicago police and the police obliged them, and that the venue was not the convention itself but a park near it.

Here it explains how planned, widespread, and varied the demonstrations were, and how the police had expected them and prepared for them. There were also park permits the protesters applied for and in some cases were granted. In addition, there were plans by the protesters to involve the black neighborhoods of Chicago, and even a Ferguson-like incident (the shooting of Dean Johnson, a 17-year-old who had fired a pistol at police and was killed by police in return).

I have little doubt that those who organized the Trump protests were aware of some of the 1968 history, if not all the details. But this time one of their main goals is to shut down speech rather than merely protest it. The dilemma police and security face now with Trump is that these protests are going to happen, and in fact may escalate because of all the publicity around this one and as he comes closer to getting the nomination. A solution must be found and it’s not clear what it should be.

Already further rallies have been postponed because of the threat of similar problems at them. It’s not even clear what sparked the clashes at the Chicago event, because it seems that the bulk of the altercations occurred after the cancelation rather than before it:

Chaos ensued after organizers announced the rally was canceled shortly after 6:30 p.m. at the UIC Pavillion. Police ejected at least a half dozen anti-Trump demonstrators, including one man who snuck on stage and approached the podium…

…the scuffles were brief, and some protesters said the security concerns were overstated…

Anthony Guglielmi, a police department spokesman, said the Trump campaign did not consult the police department before canceling.

“They did not consult us at all,” he said. “The decision was made by the campaign on its own.”

While many dispersed after the rally was canceled, hundreds of people protested outside. They chanted and cheered, as supporters screamed back “Trump! Trump! Trump!”

Sorting this out and trying to get at the truth of what happened is beyond my powers at this point, but my guess is that there were a lot of protesters ready to disrupt the rally, there was not enough police presence nor was the presence effective, the Trump supporters were angered by the situation, it escalated rather than being calmed down, and there will be more of this because it suits everyone’s needs.

That includes Trump, who gets the opportunity to act like the free speech advocate he most definitely has never been. I wrote an article two months ago for American Thinker in which I said:

Remember back when Donald Trump was saying the following about Pam Geller, in response to the ISIS-inspired attack on her free speech get-together in Garland, Texas ”“ the attempt that ended with the perpetrators being shot dead by armed guards?

“The U.S. has enough problems without publicity seekers going out and openly mocking religion in order to provoke attacks and death. BE SMART”

And here are some further quotes from Trump. Note especially the first one:

This has nothing to do with free speech ”“ this is taunting, and all it does is cause trouble.”

“She should be much more responsible because what she’s doing is completely irresponsible!”

“She’s a person that is doing this for her own purpose and she’s doing a terrible thing for our country!“

“”¦if she went after, instead, JESUS, instead of the Muslim, went after JESUS, let’s see how long she’d last! If she went after the African-Americans, and went after the N-WORD, where she was positive on it as opposed to”¦ let’s SEE how long she would last! That would also be freedom of speech! Let’s see if she has the guts to do that. ”¦

All she’s doing, she is a provacateur! All she doing is provoking and taunting people!!”

In response to yesterday’s cancelation and turmoil, the other GOP candidates have said that, although the protesters are fully responsible for what they do, Trump has created a “climate” or “culture” or “environment” that encourages violence. Their statements, if you read them in full, are true as descriptions of the situation, and they were careful to make it clear that Trump can say what he wants and should be free to do so without violence. Contrast that with what Trump said about Geller and there’s no question that Trump is far less of a free speech advocate than the others, but this will not stop the criticism of them.

Trump himself has encouraged violence many times as a response to protesters, upping the ante, but even if Trump backed off on this (which I don’t predict he will do) it would not stop this. The protesters are determined to cause a scene and silence speech they don’t like (and not just with Trump, either), and/or to provoke police or security violence and make martyrs of themselves a la Chicago 1968. It’s a win-win situation for them, and it must be controlled.

Unfortunately, I don’t have a solution except to say that security must increase, it would be best that it be official and visible (police) rather than private or vigilante, and it must be in place in advance in order to prevent confrontations. Perhaps this means better screening of attendees and confining of protests to cordoned areas.

But the left will never give up, that’s for sure. Freedom of speech is one of the great things about America, but it’s a risky proposition and always was. The Founders knew that, but they decided it was well worth the risk. It still is, although it will never be easy.

Posted in Election 2016, Liberty, Trump | 33 Replies

Post navigation

← Previous Post
Next Post→

Your support is appreciated through a one-time or monthly Paypal donation

Please click the link recommended books and search bar for Amazon purchases through neo. I receive a commission from all such purchases.

Archives

Recent Comments

  • Marlene on Some leftists are celebrating the murder of a young woman in New York because she’s a bank executive
  • Selfy on Tucker Carlson is to J. D. Vance as Hasan Piker is to Abdul El-Sayed
  • Philip Sells on Open thread 9/1/2026
  • HC68 on Utopias and dystopias: the twain shall meet
  • HC68 on Tucker Carlson is to J. D. Vance as Hasan Piker is to Abdul El-Sayed

Recent Posts

  • The Strait of Hormuz
  • Some leftists are celebrating the murder of a young woman in New York because she’s a bank executive
  • Tucker Carlson is to J. D. Vance as Hasan Piker is to Abdul El-Sayed
  • Open thread 9/2/2026
  • Update on my ex [plus further updates]

Categories

  • A mind is a difficult thing to change: my change story (17)
  • Academia (328)
  • Afghanistan (98)
  • Amazon orders (6)
  • Arts (8)
  • Baseball and sports (164)
  • Best of neo-neocon (91)
  • Biden (536)
  • Blogging and bloggers (593)
  • Dance (292)
  • Disaster (244)
  • Education (323)
  • Election 2012 (360)
  • Election 2016 (566)
  • Election 2018 (33)
  • Election 2020 (513)
  • Election 2022 (114)
  • Election 2024 (403)
  • Election 2026 (90)
  • Election 2028 (13)
  • Evil (129)
  • Fashion and beauty (324)
  • Finance and economics (1,042)
  • Food (317)
  • Friendship (48)
  • Gardening (18)
  • General information about neo (4)
  • Getting philosophical: life, love, the universe (734)
  • Health (1,160)
  • Health care reform (545)
  • Hillary Clinton (184)
  • Historical figures (337)
  • History (716)
  • Immigration (448)
  • Iran (464)
  • Iraq (227)
  • IRS scandal (71)
  • Israel/Palestine (820)
  • Jews (437)
  • Language and grammar (365)
  • Latin America (212)
  • Law (2,972)
  • Leaving the circle: political apostasy (124)
  • Liberals and conservatives; left and right (1,320)
  • Liberty (1,117)
  • Literary leftists (14)
  • Literature and writing (393)
  • Me, myself, and I (1,496)
  • Men and women; marriage and divorce and sex (929)
  • Middle East (384)
  • Military (324)
  • Movies (353)
  • Music (533)
  • Nature (261)
  • Neocons (32)
  • New England (183)
  • Obama (1,738)
  • Pacifism (16)
  • Painting, sculpture, photography (131)
  • Palin (93)
  • Paris and France2 trial (25)
  • People of interest (1,043)
  • Poetry (258)
  • Political changers (178)
  • Politics (2,793)
  • Pop culture (397)
  • Press (1,634)
  • Race and racism (881)
  • Religion (428)
  • Romney (164)
  • Ryan (16)
  • Science (639)
  • Terrorism and terrorists (971)
  • Theater and TV (266)
  • Therapy (71)
  • Trump (1,630)
  • Uncategorized (4,549)
  • Vietnam (109)
  • Violence (1,443)
  • War and Peace (1,027)

Blogroll

Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
DanielInVenezuela (liberty)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (shrink archives)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor’s Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
Maggie’sFarm (togetherness)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
MichelleObama’sMirror (reflect)
NoPasaran! (bluntFrench)
NormanGeras (archives)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob)
Pamela Geller (Atlas Shrugs)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (exodus)
Powerline (foursight)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RedState (conservative)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org
©2026 - The New Neo - Weaver Xtreme Theme Email
Web Analytics
↑