The New Neo

Did they manage to “burn it down”?

Posted on May 4, 2016 by neoMay 4, 2016

For quite a few years now I’ve been hearing the slogan “burn it down” from a lot of people on the right side of the blogosphere. So one thing I didn’t have to learn from Trump’s candidacy is that there are a lot of angry people out there, and that in particular, they are angry at the GOP.

I’ve argued and discussed why and how and whether I think all their anger is justified or not and how much I share of it and what I think the solution might be. A lot of the “burn it down” folks (although not all) became Donald Trump supporters this year, in part because he fit their definition of a handy incendiary device.

So here we sit tonight, among the still-smoldering ashes. The nominee of the Grand Old Party will almost certainly be Donald Trump. What John Kasich is going to do I no longer either know or care, although he’s nominally still in the race.

The party failed to stop this when they could, or at least the candidates failed to stop it by not dropping out in a more timely fashion. That’s what I thought at the time, and I still think it’s likely to have been true, although now we’ll never know. But I also ask: would that have stopped it at all? Or had the anger been too great for too many years, so great that nothing would have stopped this once Donald Trump tossed his hat in the ring? Certainly nothing Trump himself did during this long primary season made a dent in it. As he said, he could have shot someone on Fifth Avenue and it wouldn’t have mattered, and I believe him. This morning Trump lodged a charge against Ted Cruz’s father that should have stopped almost every GOP voter in Indiana from voting for Trump, but they didn’t even break stride about it.

So maybe it was baked in the cake that the electorate was going to do this, or something of the sort. Trump just provided the perfect opportunity. And I don’t think the GOP establishment has the strength or the will to regroup this year. They certainly didn’t seem to be willing to do it in order to support Ted Cruz; only a random few (Lindsay Graham, of all people) were the least bit interested. They must either think they can work quite well with Donald Trump, thank you very much, or they are afraid of his revenge on them if they cross him. Maybe both.

This year, small government conservatives discovered they are much more of a minority than they ever thought they were. They learned that their old dream of nominating and electing someone who could clearly articulate the conservative cause is more of a pipe dream fantasy. They discovered that a lot of people who call themselves “conservative” on those surveys have their own idiosyncratic definitions of the word. And they may wish they were back in the Big Tent of yesterday, the one that got blown down and ripped apart and can no longer give them the shelter and nourish the illusion that they are very strong in number and influence.

This could change. I’m not suggesting that anyone give up. Commenter “Eric’s” suggestion of activism—particularly on college campuses, where the rot is well advanced—is important. There’s grass roots politics, too. It’s important to keep as many GOP seats in Congress as possible, as well, although how to do that with a Trump candidacy will be quite the challenge. But politics is a long haul, and we can’t see the future and should not imagine that we can.

Back in October of 2012 I made a prediction I’ve had a chance to revisit many times since. I wish I hadn’t been correct, but so far I was (that doesn’t mean that I can see the future, either). To refresh your memory:

One thing I believe is that, if Romney loses this election, the right will start tearing itself apart in anger…I already see some evidence of it in articles and comments from the right that accuse Romney of not wanting to win, of not going on the attack enough (as though that would elude the negative media spin), of not doing whatever it might be that the brilliant armchair strategists would be doing if they were running for president, an election they of course would win by dint of their brilliant strategy. If Romney loses, the RINO theme will rise again undiminished, and the hatred of the “Republican establishment.”

My opinion of what’s going on is quite different: if the American people re-elect Obama despite his failures, lies, betrayals, immaturity, gaffes, arrogance, destructive foreign policy, demonstrated leftism, small-mindedness, lack of leadership, executive power-grabs, fiscal irresponsibility, and a host of other negatives I may have forgotten to list but which have been operating for the last four years, then it will prove that the American people have fundamentally changed in the direction they want this country to take, and it will require some major upheaval to reverse that trend.

I don’t think a man like Donald Trump could have won the nomination just a few short years ago. But this evening has been building and building and building for many years. One hint is in that first paragraph: people were mad at Romney for being too “nice” and not going on the attack enough. Well, that problem has been remedied, hasn’t it?

Tonight the “burn it down” folks got what they wanted. And I believe that tonight the Democrats and Hillary Clinton got exactly what they wanted. So a lot of people are celebrating tonight. I’m not one of them.

At the Met Gala

Posted on May 3, 2016 by neoMay 3, 2016

[NOTE: I consider it personally therapeutic to indulge in frivolous posts about fashion. Today’s a good day for it, don’t you think? So come along with me to the Met Gala. You’ll be so glad you did.]

The idea at this function is to shock and stun, but I would have thought it also would be to wear something at least a mite flattering, too. But perhaps not.

So let’s begin the viewing.

It’s not only In Flanders Fields that the poppies grow. They’ve sprung up out of nowhere on this dress, where they clash with and dominate every other part of it. Of course, minus the poppies, it would just be a sweet retro prom-ish thing with what used to be known as spaghetti straps (haven’t seen them in ages):

Now for a change of pace. From soft and flowery to hard, angular, and metallic. Somewhere in there is a human body, but this would be excellent camo if you needed to hide in the metal scrap pile at the dump. At least she looks like she’s enjoying herself:

This was definitely one of the prettier ones, but there’s something schizophrenic about it, with the heavy metallic bodice and gauzy romantic bottom. I suppose the contrast is the point, but she looks so stiff and uncomfortable, standing at sharp attention and with hair severely slicked-back and bright red lips, that the whole is much less than the sum of its disparate parts:

I am a waif. I am a child who’s not a child. I am very thin, and proud of it. These boots are not made for walking. I’ve got zippers and I’ve got pockets and they do what zippers and pockets do:

Here at last is someone I actually know something about. It’s Misty Copeland, the American ballet dancer I wrote about in this post. Her unusually chesty (for a ballerina) body is done no favors at all by this schlumpy dress in an unflattering color. Why, Misty? Why? You’re a beautiful woman:

Then again, there’s always the barely-bare back and the butt brooch:

The same bareback look, but with some old-fashioned Hollywood 50s-type (or maybe it’s 30s-type) glam:

Lost her way, wandered in from Vegas. As for the person behind her—well, we’ve all had our share of unfortunate photos:

This person’s shoulder wandered in from Vegas, her belt from one of the kiosks at the mall that sell sparkly Asian-made hair ornaments and pins, and her collar from—from—well, I’m not sure where it wandered in from, but something vaguely native American. I would say the dress is a recycled bridesmaid’s dress except that it’s white. And what is that at the dress’s bottom, on the right side of the photo. Is it a fallen tail? Some shaggy slippers? Not…not…a tribble?:

In a moment we’ll get to the only other person I know of in the bunch, actress Sarah Jessica Parker. Oh Sarah, Sarah, Sarah, Jessica, Jessica, Jessica, Parker, Parker, Parker, what were you thinking? Was it Scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz?:

Steven Tyler? Pirate Johnny Depp? Or some strange amalgam of them all?:

Ah, but a little bit of Googling solves the mystery. It’s “Hamilton,” the Broadway musical about Alexander Hamilton. And that black thingee hanging in back of her is not a sword, as I had speculated, but one of two ribbons that hangs down the back. The back of the jacket, by the way, is non-existent, as you can see if you scroll down at the link I just gave and watch the short Instagram video.

It was inevitable: Trump suggests we need to look into whether Ted Cruz’s father had something to do with Lee Harvey Oswald

Posted on May 3, 2016 by neoMay 3, 2016

I have a theory here. The idea is that Trump has been pushing the envelope, testing his supporters to see how far he can go. Whether he believes the lies he tells, or whether he just thinks they will and considers it useful for his purposes if they do, he is gauging the depth of their own susceptibility to any preposterous thing he says and how little anyone else can do to stop it, as well as what excuses his supporters who don’t believe what he says this time will make in order to excuse his behavior.

For years I have duly noted how many Americans still believe in Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories after they have been thoroughly and irrefutably debunked. Even making a statement like the one I just made almost guarantees that people will comment on their own belief in said theories, and a nearly-endless series of arguments will ensue. Been there, done that, and if you want to take a look go to some of these threads. What’s more, I’ve been perturbed by the popularity of shows like this, the anti-vaccine movement (of which Trump is a member, by the way), and any number of pieces of evidence of the re-ascendance of the demon-haunted worldview.

Some people are concerned at the popularity of reality TV, but I save much more of my angst for the popularity of lies, particularly defamatory lies.

Which brings us to Donald Trump. I thought I was done writing about Trump today until tonight’s returns came in, but he keeps coming up with things that pull me back in. The latest is this:

Trump repeated unsubstantiated claims that [Ted Cruz’s father] Rafael Cruz had ties to Lee Harvey Oswald, President John F. Kennedy’s assassin, while attacking Cruz’s campaign Tuesday morning.

“His father was with Lee Harvey Oswald prior to Oswald’s being ”” you know, shot. I mean, the whole thing is ridiculous,” Trump said during a Fox News phone interview. “What is this, right prior to his being shot, and nobody even brings it up. They don’t even talk about that. That was reported, and nobody talks about it.”

“I mean, what was he doing? What was he doing with Lee Harvey Oswald shortly before the death, before the shooting?” Trump continued. “It’s horrible.”…

Trump’s latest off-the-wall accusation parrots a recent National Inquirer [sic: it’s “Enquirer”] claim that it had “photo evidence” showing the elder Cruz alongside Oswald.

The “evidence” apparently relates to this incident (that’s from a comment at The Federalist; I haven’t researched it and therefore can’t vouch for it, but take a look). There is no reason to believe that Cruz’s father was anywhere near Oswald, but of course you already knew that.

One of my favorite responses from a Trump supporter at LI is this one:

Besides the picture of the two together, Rafael fled to Canada in 1964 shortly after the Kennedy assassination. Why? If that wasn’t him in picture with Lee Harvey Oswald?

That’s the sort of “argument” Trump is counting on from many of his loyal fans.

It is unconscionable that a man like Donald Trump is poised to win the GOP nomination. But that’s where we stand.

As for the charge itself, note what Trump is actually saying. Is he suggesting Rafael Cruz was a confederate of Oswald’s, trying to help him assassinate Kennedy? Maybe, but he doesn’t say that, and interestingly enough he talks about the killing of Oswald rather than the killing of Kennedy. It’s particularly odd since the photo of Oswald in question was not taken right before Oswald’s murder. I think that Trump is purposely keeping his exact accusation a bit vague in order to try to imply whatever conspiracy theory the listener prefers to think is true: that Rafael helped kill Kennedy or (and I think this is the one Trump is pushing a bit harder) that Rafael helped kill Oswald (perhaps working for the CIA or LBJ in the government-run assassination coverup of their own complicity in Kennedy’s murder, according to assassination conspiracists?).

Trump is giving them whatever they want. Whether he believes it or not (fool) or is cynically using it (knave) or both (fool and knave) isn’t really the issue, although I find it an interesting question. The issue is that Trump is a man who will stoop just as low as he can in order to destroy people. Who will attack and smear family members of opponents in the most vile ways. Who will pander to the worst, the very worst, in human nature. He’ll act as a “leader” all right—leading people straight into the festering cesspool of the Big Lie.

The frying pan versus the fire

Posted on May 3, 2016 by neoMay 3, 2016

Today is Indiana primary day.

I think Trump will win, and this would mean that Trump would almost certainly become the GOP nominee. The word “sobering” doesn’t even begin to describe how that prospect appears. Actually, it fills me with dread,

I can imagine that Cruz will win Indiana instead of Trump. But I think it highly unlikely, although that’s a tough thing to have to admit and even tougher to accept. I can imagine that Trump’s candidacy at the Republican convention would be successfully challenged, even if Trump gets to the requisite 1273 votes. But I don’t think that process would end in victory for the non-Trump candidate, because of the resultant defection of the Trump contingent.

I can imagine Trump as the GOP nominee and the eventual formation of a third party in reaction to that event, but I see that party as too small to count for a whole lot. I can imagine a run this year by an independent candidate who is actually a leading Republican running outside the party, but I don’t see how that person would win because of the aforementioned splitting of the vote.

I believe a Trump candidacy will end in a Trump defeat and a Hillary Clinton presidency. I believe that very strongly, and I’ve explained in previous posts why I see it that way. But I can certainly imagine that I’m wrong, and that the Alinksyite Trump will manage to beat the Alinskyite Clinton. I just think it’s highly unlikely.

Lastly and with the greatest of difficulty I can even imagine a President Trump who surprises me by having some sort of personality-ectomy and becoming a man of character and principle, as well as sound judgment and consistent conservativism. I would say that “stranger things have happened,” but actually I don’t think that stranger things than that have happened.

So the prospect of a Trump vs. Clinton election is one I have trouble wrapping my mind around even now. I still can’t decide which would be the frying pan, and which the fire. Or maybe it’s fire and ice.

Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I’ve tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.

Allan Bloom: on undermining the American vision

Posted on May 2, 2016 by neoMay 2, 2016

I’ve written in praise of Allan Bloom’s book The Closing of the American Mind several times before, but here I go again.

It was published in 1987, which is now very close to 30 years ago. And yet its relevance has only grown in the intervening years. Here’s an example that resonates today:

Contrary to much contemporary wisdom, the United States has one of the longest uninterrupted political traditions of any nation in the world. What is more, that tradition is unambiguous; its meaning is articulated in simple, rational speech that is immediately comprehensible and powerfully persuasive to all normal human beings. America tells one story: the unbroken, ineluctable progress of freedom and equality. From its first settlers and its political foundings on, there has been no dispute that freedom and equality are the essence of justice for us. No one serious or notable has stood outside this consensus…All significant political disputes have been about the meaning of freedom and equality, not about their rightness. Nowhere else is there a tradition or a culture whose message is so distinct and unequivocal—certainly not in France, Italy, Germany, or even England…Belonging to one of these peoples may be expained as a sentiment, an attachment to one’s own, akin to the attachment to father and mother, but Frenchness, Englishness, Germaness remain, nonetheless, ineffable. Everybody can, however, articulate what Americanness is…

But the unity, grandeur and attendant folklore of the founding heritage was attacked from so many directions in the last half-century that it gradually disappeared from daily life and from textbooks. It all began to seem like Washington and the cherry tree—not the sort of thing to teach children seriously. What is influential in the higher intellectual circles always ends up in the schools. The leading ideas of the Declaration began to be understood as eighteenth-century myths or ideologies. Historicism, in Carl Becker’s version (The Declaration of Independence: A Study in the History of Political Ideas, 1922) both cast doubt on the truth of the natural rights teaching and optimistically promised that it would provide a substitute. Similarly Dewey’s pragmatism—the method of science as the method of democracy, individual growth without limits, especially natural limits—saw the past as radically imperfect and regarded our history as irrelevant or as a hindrance to rational analysis of our present. Then there was Marxist debunking of the Charles Beard variety, trying to demonstrate that there was no public spirit, only private concern for property, in the Founding Fathers, thus weakening our convictions of the truth or superiority of American principles and our heroes (An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution, 1913). Then the Southern historians and writers avenged the victory of the antislavery Union by providing low motives for the North (incorporating European critiques of commerce and technology) and idealizing the South’s way of life. Finally, in curious harmony with the Southerners, the radicals in the civil rights movement succeeded in promoting a popular conviction that the Founding was, and the American principles are, racist…

Students now arrive at the university ignorant and cynical about our political heritage, lacking the wherewithal to be either inspired by it or seriously critical of it.

Every sentence of Bloom’s usually contains more food for thought than most entire books do. The Closing of the American Mind is so dense with thought that the reader has to pause frequently to mull it over and digest it, as one would a particularly rich meal. And not only do I agree with most of it, but it’s expressed in prose so clear and yet so lively, so succinct and yet deeply erudite, so detailed and yet broadly linking widely disparate thoughts and knowledge, that my admiration for the author (who continued in his lifetime to identify as a liberal, by the way) is enormous. Bloom was a man who was not only unique in his thoughts, but courageously unafraid to speak and write them regardless of where it might lead him and who might disapprove.

If you read the above passage of Bloom’s and think about our political position at the moment, I think you will realize that Obama was no anomaly, no outsider come to undermine America, but the culmination (so far, anyway) of at least a century of hard work. The ground was prepared long ago, and what Bloom wrote in 1987 could be considered a sort of prophetic vision of things to come, but not one of the extra-sensory variety.

[NOTE: Everyone who reads this blog at all regularly knows what I think of Donald Trump. But I do know that one of his main appeals—and probably the only thing about him that I think is both appealing and sincere—is the fact that he ascribes to the traditional vision of America described by Bloom, the one that so many people (including me) are angry at having seen undermined for so long.

By the way, when Bloom speaks of “equality” he’s not referring to the leftist idea of equality of outcome, but to the more traditional American idea of equality of opportunity.]

Trump the Alinskyite

Posted on May 2, 2016 by neoMay 2, 2016

I thought of this the other day when contemplating Trump’s “play fair,” “don’t rig the process to deny me” tactic. I realized this was a case of Trump following Alinsky Rule 4 through and through: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”

And then it occurred to me that there are a lot of Alinsky’s rules that Trump follows. In fact, when you refresh your memory on those rules, it’s hard to escape the conviction that Trump’s an advanced practitioner of Alinskyite methods. Let’s take a look:

1. “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources ”“ money and people…
2. “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone.
3. “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty.
4. “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.
5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
6. “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones.
7. “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news.
8. “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new.
9. “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist.
10. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.” It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign.
11. “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog.
12. “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem.
13. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

The only rules Trump doesn’t seem to care much for are numbers 2, 9, and 12. But he makes up for that with his devotion to the others. Every single one of the remaining rules has been hammered home by Trump to a degree that’s as great or even greater than they’ve been by Obama, who once taught courses in Alinsky’s methods. I’m not sure whether Trump is a natural at this or whether he’s done a study of it, but it’s dramatic how often and how effectively he follows the rules.

People argue about whether Trump is more of the left or of the right. He’s an unusual mix of the two. But whatever your opinion on that question, he certainly is using Alinskyite methods in the service of what it is he’s selling.

Wouldn’t it be interesting…

Posted on May 2, 2016 by neoMay 2, 2016

…if we had two contested conventions this year?

Of course, that could be “interesting” as in the Chinese curse “may you live in interesting times.”

Apple stickers

Posted on April 30, 2016 by neoApril 30, 2016

You know those little stickers on the apples? I love them. Whoever invented them was a genius, and I thank him/her profusely.

I like sampling different kinds of apples: one from column A, one from column B, and on and on. I used to get them home and, despite my best efforts to keep them straight, they’d get mixed up. If I liked a particular type, or disliked a particularly type, I would often get confused as to which was which, and that led to more and more sampling next time.

No more—due to the handy dandy apple sticker. But until now, I never noticed the stickers had so much extra information on them:

And here are answers to all the questions about fruit stickers that I never thought to ask.

By the way, the jazz apple is the winner and still champion. It’s been over for years now and we’re still as much in love as ever.

The Congressional GOP and the Obamacare repeal: failing to get the word out

Posted on April 30, 2016 by neoMay 2, 2016

[NOTE: Yeah, it’s long.

So long that I cued it up to continue on another page rather than the home page. But I hope you’ll find your patience rewarded; some of the things I uncovered here surprised me.]

Yesterday we got into a discussion of the fact that a lot of people—even people who follow politics closely—seem unaware that in January of 2016 the Republican Congress repealed Obamacare, sent the repeal bill to Obama’s desk, and Obama vetoed it. So the question becomes: how did this piece of news get ignored, leaving so many people to claim that the GOP never did anything to keep its promise to repeal it?

Some people would point out that the repeal was no biggee because the only real deal would have been withholding funding and an ensuing shutdown and anything less was meaningless. That ignores the political realities of shutdowns (described previously here, for example, and in this comment. I particularly suggest you read the comment, which is a nice summary of the situation).

People also may forget that for a while there was a lot of hope that Obamacare would be undone without the need of a risky and contentious shutdown, because there were several very serious legal challenges before SCOTUS that were playing out. Those challenges ultimately failed, but I can recall a time when hopes were very high on the right—including the public—that the lawsuits themselves would be the death of Obamacare.

But whatever the alternatives, my point is about ignorance of the fact that Congress ever repealed Obamacare, not mere disagreement with whether that repeal was effective. Of course the bill that Congress finally passed in 2016 (using the mechanism of reconciliation in order to accomplish it) was going to be vetoed by Obama. But Congress passed it anyway to show that they were serious, and in response to demands from conservative voters that they keep the pressure on Obama and force him to veto it. So why did the word that this occurred never quite get out to very many people—why do we so often hear callers on conservative talk shows, and see commenters on blogs on the right and even conservative pundits assert that the GOP Congress never repealed Obamacare?

In yesterday’s thread commenter “J.J.” advanced some reasons:

Why didn’t Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell go on all the Sunday talk shows and make sure everyone who watches those shows knew that the repeal had passed both houses and sent to Obama who vetoed it immediately? Why didn’t Republican or conservative pundits write editorials in newspapers and on blogs talking about the repeal bill, why it was passed and what the Rs proposed to replace it with? IMO, it’s because the GOP doesn’t recognize the value of seizing the narrative and keeping it in front of their supporters. Also, because many of the beltway pundits pooh pooh’d the effort as being a waste of time. The Congress Critters don’t want to look like fools to the beltway elite. It would also have been good if Limbaugh and other conservative pundits had not advanced the narrative that the Republicans, with majorities in both houses of Congress, could easily block Obama’s agenda. I heard that from Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin and others. I knew it was not going to happen because we still didn’t have enough Senators to override vetoes. The problem has been one of simple math and a determined Harry Reid.

So, what about J.J.’s theories? Is that what happened? Continue reading →

Indiana polls are all over the map

Posted on April 30, 2016 by neoApril 30, 2016

Well, they’re actually in Indiana. But you know what I mean.

Look at the three most recent ones: Trump +2, Trump +9, Trump +5, Cruz +16. Now, that’s a formidable spread. I throw up my hands at trying to make sense of it. The +2 is meaningless, within the margin of error, as is the +5 (the poll’s margin of error is not listed for the subsample of GOP voters, but for the entire sample it’s 4.6, and the smaller subsample should have an even higher margin of error). That last poll result—+16 for Cruz—is a huge outlier, but I’ve read some analyses that say it’s by a more reputable pollster than several of the others.

On the other hand, almost all of the recent polls have shown Trump ahead, and averages often matter. Although sometimes they don’t.

Clear as mud.

Indiana is an extremely important winner-take-all primary state that’s voting next Tuesday. I’d be a fool to make any predictions.

Anti-Trump riots

Posted on April 30, 2016 by neoApril 30, 2016

This sort of behavior is contemptible, reprehensible, and expected:

Hundreds of demonstrators filled the street outside the Orange County amphitheater where Donald Trump held a rally Thursday night, stomping on cars, hurling rocks at motorists and forcefully declaring their opposition to the Republican presidential candidate.

Traffic came to a halt as a boisterous crowd walked in the roadway, some waving American and Mexican flags. Protesters smashed a window on at least one police cruiser, punctured the tires of a police sport utility vehicle, and at one point tried to flip a police car.

One Costa Mesa police officer was struck in the head by a rock thrown by a protestor, authorities said. The officer wasn’t injured because he was protected from by his riot helmet.

About five police cars were damaged in total, police said, adding that some will require thousands of dollars’ worth of repairs.

The “protestors” (many shouldn’t be called protestors; they’re really rioters) seem to include quite a few young Hispanic people waving Mexican flags. Fortunately no one was hurt, but seventeen people were arrested for “unlawful assembly.”

A lot of people say that this just fuels the Trump candidacy. It’s certainly possible—what doesn’t?—but I’m not sure. I do know that it’s a sign of the tremendous hostility that’s been increasing and shows no signs of letting up, and even if Trump were not the nominee something similar would probably be directed at whoever was.

[NOTE: Then of course there’s this.]

I ♥ Richard Thompson

Posted on April 29, 2016 by neoApril 29, 2016

I’ve said it before and I’ll probably say it again—I love this guy. Been to about ten concerts, which is ten more than I’ve gone to for almost every other singer, even ones I like.

You can get a taste of both his talent and his humor in this video. Lyricist, musician, performer, and just the right age: