Bari Weiss: an interview, and a definition

The New Neo Posted on by

First, the interview:

Now, the definition, which I found here but which appeared in this piece by Weiss and refers to the leftist philosophy that dominates universities and beyond and is especially rife among the young adults indoctrinated in it:

What I saw was a worldview that replaced basic ideas of good and evil with a new rubric: the powerless (good) and the powerful (bad). It replaced lots of things. Color blindness with race obsession. Ideas with identity. Debate with denunciation. Persuasion with public shaming. The rule of law with the fury of the mob.

People were to be given authority in this new order not in recognition of their gifts, hard work, accomplishments, or contributions to society, but in inverse proportion to the disadvantages their group had suffered, as defined by radical ideologues.

It is indeed a replacement of traditional and/or commonsense approaches with attitudes designed to end Western culture as we know it, and to facilitate the triumph of evil.

Roundup

The New Neo Posted on by

(1) Trump attacks Chip Roy as a RINO because Roy endorsed DeSantis. Typical Trump behavior.

(2) About one hundred and fifty Epstein associates’ names are due to be unsealed. I have a reservation about this: I’ve yet to see a good description of exactly what relation these people had to Epstein. If they are clients who had sex with underage girls, that’s one thing. But if they are just people who worked for him in any capacity, or had dealings with him in any capacity, that concerns me because the innocent will be tarred with the same brush as the guilty.

(3) Could this poll be accurate? It shows that among voters under 29, three-quarters do not approve of Biden’s handling of the Gaza war. I originally figured that’s because they think he’s being too nice to Israel, but they also back Trump 49 to 43 over Biden. And this is true even though a plurality seem to also be blaming Israel and thinking Israel should stop its military actions. Well, I guess the young never were consistent. Come to think of it, that’s also true for the middle-aged and the old.

(4) Leftist faculty (is that redundant?) at the University of Pennsylvania seem to think that anti-Left pressure from donors and the trustees against anti-Semitism at the university constitutes a “hostile takeover.”

(5) Randi Weingarten says school choice “undermines democracy.” The head of the teachers’ union said: “privatizing or voucherizing schools … is about undermining democracy and undermining civil discourse and undermining pluralism because 90% of our kids go to public schools still … They just divide. Divide. Divide. Divide.”

Everyone must be alike, and everyone must be under control of the government, or it’s not “democracy.” Noted.

(6) The best lack all conviction and the worst are full of passionate intensity, and thus many of those who are supposed to be protecting us from violence are intimidated and not doing their jobs.

It’s lebkuchen time again

The New Neo Posted on by

[NOTE: Regulars here may remember that most years I put up a family Christmas recipe. And here it is again.]

This recipe was brought over from Germany sometime in the mid-1800s, and was my favorite of all the wonderful treats cooked by my great-aunt, a baker of rare gifts. She and my great-uncle were not only exceptionally wonderful people, but to my childish and wondering eyes they looked very much like Mr. and Mrs. Santa Claus.

The name of the treat is lebkuchen. But it’s quite a different one from the traditional recipe, which I don’t much care for. This is sweet and dense, can be made ahead, and keeps very well when stored in tins.

Flora’s Lebkuchen:

(preheat the oven to 375 degrees)

1 pound dark brown sugar
4 eggs
2 cups flour
1/2 tsp. baking soda
1/2 tsp. baking powder
1 tsp. cinnamon
1/2 cup chopped walnuts
4 oz. chopped dates
1 cup raisins
1 tsp. orange juice
1 tsp. vanilla extract
1 tsp. almond extract
1 tsp. lemon juice

Sift the dry ingredients together (flour, baking soda, baking powder, cinnamon).

Beat the eggs and brown sugar together with a rotary beater till the mixture forms the ribbon. Add the orange juice, lemon juice, and extracts to it.

Add the dry mixture to it, a little at a time, stirring.

Add the raisins, dates, and walnuts.

Grease and flour two 8 X 8 cake pans [NOTE: In previous years I sometimes said 9 X 9, but 8 X 8 is actually much better and makes for a far moister product.] Put batter in pans and bake for about 25 minutes (or a little less; test the cake with a cake tester at 21 or 22 minutes to see if it’s done yet). You don’t want it to get too dark and dry on the edges, but the middle can’t still be wet when tested.

Meanwhile, make the frosting.

Melt about 6 Tbs. of unsalted butter and add 2 Tbs. hot milk, and 1 Tbs. almond extract. Add enough confectioner’s sugar to make a frosting of spreading consistency (the recipe says “2 cups,” but I’ve always noticed that’s not exactly correct). You can make even more frosting if you like a lot of frosting.

Let cake cool to at least lukewarm, and spread generously with the frosting. Then cut into small pieces and store (or eat!).

Enjoy!

On rising Jew-hatred

The New Neo Posted on by

I keep putting up videos from a group called The Jerusalem Center. I find their interviews some of the best on the subject of the post-10/7 war, and am puzzled that they don’t seem to have more traffic. This particular interview is one of their best.

Colorado “justices”: we had to destroy democracy …

The New Neo Posted on by

… in order to save it.

The quips practically write themselves. But of course it’s not the least bit funny.

That’s the first of a series of tweets from Turley on the subject. The rest go like this:

This ends a string of losses for advocates of this dangerous novel theory. They finally found a court that would embrace what the court admits is a case of “first impression.” My first impression remains that same. The court is dead wrong in my view…

…It is striking that the court relies on Schenck v. U.S., where the Court upheld the denial of core free speech rights of a socialist opposing a war. The opinion of the Colorado Supreme Court is so sweeping that it would allow for tit-for-tat removals of candidates from ballots …

…The opinion is remarkable in how the four justices adopted the most sweeping interpretations to get over each barrier. The result is lack of a limiting principle. I view the opinion as strikingly anti-democratic in what it now allows states to do in blue and red states alike.

If you go to “X” and read some of the replies to Turley’s tweets, you’ll see that there are quite a few that take this form: “I don’t like Trump, but this is wrong.” One actual example: “I don’t want Trump anywhere near the presidency, but this is not the way to do it.” If such tweets are for real – and I tend to think they are – there are many people who don’t support Trump but who understand that this tactic of the left, and this action by the Colorado court, is extremely dangerous and should be opposed by all.

Here’s a roundup of GOP reactions (and also RFK Jr.), mainly outraged. And the Colorado GOP has plans:

The Colorado Republican Party said it would start using a caucus system rather than participating in a primary election if the state supreme court’s decision banning former President Donald Trump from the primary ballot remains in place.

What’s the Democrat game plan here? After all, Colorado has been a blue state in presidential elections for about two decades and I very much doubt Trump has any chance of winning there in the general anyway. Unless the Democrats know something I don’t know about that, what’s the point of this move of the Colorado judiciary? Is it to force SCOTUS to rule on this? That may be seen as a win/win situation. Either SCOTUS rules that Colorado can do this (win) or it rules against the state but Democrats get to continue to trash the Court and to use the supposedly way-too-conservative Court as a campaign issue (win?).

But along the way they risk having moderates – even Trump-hating moderates – turn against them. They seem not to care about that, perhaps because the left (at least in Colorado) feels very secure in its ability to stay in power indefinitely, now that it has the reins.

The left’s rhetoric – which we’ve seen in evidence time and again in recent months and even years – is this: If Trump is re-elected he will destroy democracy and therefore all is permitted in order to stop him. How many people actually believe that? Plenty. Propaganda works.

I suppose it’s time for this clip again, but the problem – as I already indicated – is that the left doesn’t think the “devil” will ever “turn ’round” on them:

Someone is giving Nikki Haley a lot of money

The New Neo Posted on by

I’ve noticed for a while that Haley is being very heavily advertised on YouTube.

And a short while after I wrote the above sentence as a draft for a post, I saw this article that seems to provide the source:

The Koch network-backed super PAC endorsing presidential candidate Nikki Haley is reportedly set to spend $70 million in a bid to get her a “strong showing” in Iowa behind GOP frontrunner Donald Trump.

The large chunk of change indicates that the Charles Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity Action hopes Haley has enough fuel to surge past 2024 rival Ron DeSantis and is not recruiting Trump supporters, Bloomberg reported.

I guess I missed the official announcement a few weeks ago that the Koch group had endorsed Haley as a Trump alternative. But I sure have noticed the result: the ads.

But I still wonder, why Haley? I know the Koch group doesn’t like Trump, and Haley is less conservative than DeSantis, but do they really think she can gain the nomination? The idea that they are positioning her as Trump’s VP candidate doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, either. Perhaps they’re counting on Trump being in prison by November of 2024, and they want her positioned in second place to take over?

Caroline Glick on what’s going on between the Biden administration and Israel

The New Neo Posted on by

Much of this we knew already. I’ve long said that the Biden administration has to walk a tightrope of appearing to support Israel while also placating the large Israel-hating Democrat left flank and chastising Israel and blocking many of its efforts and/or threatening to do so. Glick discusses all that, and adds many depressing details:

And while you’re at it, I recommend this video on NGOs and their help for Hamas and other terrorist groups:

Texas passes border law: will it stand?

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s the gist of the state law:

Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed a bill making Texas the first state in the union to give law enforcement officers the authority to arrest migrants who illegally enter the state. …

Senate Bill 4 from Special Session #4 makes illegal entry into Texas from a foreign country a criminal offense. The law is the latest attempt by the state to crack down on migrants illegally entering the state between ports of entry. By creating the offense of illegal reentry, offenders can be penalized with sentences of up to 20 years in prison. It also provides the mechanism to order an offender to return to the foreign nation from which they entered or attempted to enter this state. The law provides civil immunity and indemnification for local and state government officials, employees, and contractors for lawsuits resulting from enforcing these provisions.

The law is similar to a current federal statute under Title 8 of the United States Code 1325, which makes illegal entry into the United States a misdemeanor offense for a first-time offender and a felony for a second offense. Under the current administration, the federal statute is not pursued to any significant degree.

I’m not sure this law will be allowed to stand. SCOTUS has already ruled on something very similar regarding the state of Arizona, back in 2012. And although the makeup of the Supreme Court was different back then, there’s always the possibility of respect given to precedent. To refresh your memory, here’s a post I wrote about that Arizona decision. An excerpt:

The Court’s decision in Arizona v. US can be summarized as follows: the federal government is boss in immigration law. If the federal government wants to ignore its own federal immigration laws and refuse to enforce them, a state can’t pass its own laws that are more stringent than the federal ones on the books.

And from Scotusblog:

Although federal law already makes it illegal for someone to be in the country without proper authorization, Section 3 of the Arizona statute also makes it a state crime, subject to additional fines and possible imprisonment. The Court held that this provision was preempted and cannot be enforced. The Court held that Congress has left no room for states to regulate in this field, even to implement the federal prohibition.

However, you can see – if you follow that link – that the conservative justices dissented. To me that means that the decision of SCOTUS could go differently this time, if the Texas law were to be challenged by the Biden administration.