The model…

The New Neo Posted on by

…is not the territory:

Presently, the best climate models fall many orders of magnitude short of the power and intricacy needed to effectively predict the long-term climate patterns that emerge from the interactions of all these planetary systems. And that’s not a failure of science; it’s just the reality of how tough the problem is.

Predictions are made by building models using the smartest simplifications we have thought of and running them on the most powerful computers ever built. Basically, it’s the best we can do right now.

But there is a major failure of science going on.

The failure is the lack of transparency and honesty about how feeble these models are and how much we should stake on their all-too-fallible forecasts. Thus the same problem continues: climate science has once again botched a prediction that its models were underequipped to make.

That is my main objection to AGW.

Obligatory Oscar fashion post

The New Neo Posted on by

Last night I missed the Oscars entirely. No great loss. But I had to catch up with my favorite part—pretty much my only favorite part—the fashions.

In keeping with the topsy-turvy nature of today’s world, this “best” and “worst” selection seemed utterly arbitrary. Some of the “best” were good and some awful; some of the “worst” were bad and some good.

Fitting, isn’t it?

So here I present just a couple of examples.

Here’s a “worst” that is pretty bad, although by no means the very worst. Heidi, Heidi, what were you thinking? I think she may have been thinking “this is what we wear to a tea party in 2016.” A real tea party, not a political one. If so, she should rethink:

heidiklum

Here’s a “best” that’s lovely, classic and a bit retro, not too exposed but still showing off the body:

jennifergarner

But why was this perfectly acceptable and really rather pleasant gown considered a “worst”? Nothing especially special but flattering and timeless:

tinafey

And while we’re at it, why would this be a “best”? It looks like it’s designed to make a beautiful woman look as bad as possible:

Olivia Wilde

That last one reminds me of this.

Postscript to Saturday’s “Trump tyrant” post

The New Neo Posted on by

Hey, I get busy for a day and don’t get on my computer, and when I return I see there are 158 comments to plow through in the “tyrant” thread. No better proof of the fact that discussions around the blogosphere are more heated than ever these days.

The post used this quote by Donald Trump to indicate that he has, as I said, “tyrannical impulses.” I’ll repeat the quote here, just to remind you what we were talking about:

And one of the things I’m going to do, and this is only going to make it tougher for me, and I’ve never said this before, but one of the things I’m going to do if I win ”” and I hope I do and we’re certainly leading ”” is I’m going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money. We’re going to open up those libel laws. So that when The New York Times writes a hit piece, which is a total disgrace, or when the Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they’re totally protected. You see, with me, they’re not protected because I’m not like other people but I’m not taking money. I’m not taking their money. So we’re going to open up those libel laws folks and we’re going to have people sue you like you never got sued before. We have many things to do. We have many, many things to do.

It occurred to me when I read some of the comments to the post that some people were defending Trump by arguing the merits of the current defamation laws re the press, and saying that they disagreed with those laws. So that’s what prompted this postscript.

The operating case is NY Times vs. Sullivan, which protects news outlets from libel suits for printing falsehoods except in the case of actual malice. Proving malice requires, among other things, knowledge of error and purposeful publishing anyway. That is a very high standard for establishing guilt, and of course NY Times vs. Sullivan could be overruled, and we could have a discussion on the merits of that, and no doubt it would be an interesting discussion.

For example, we could ponder this background to the case:

Before this decision, there were nearly US $300 million in libel actions outstanding against news organizations from the Southern states, and it had caused many publications to exercise great caution when reporting on civil rights, for fear that they might be held accountable for libel.[citation needed] After The New York Times prevailed in this case, news organizations were free to report the widespread disorder and civil rights infringements. The Times maintained that the case against it was brought to intimidate news organizations and prevent them from reporting illegal actions of public employees in the South as they attempted to continue to support segregation.

After Sullivan, the rule was this:

…”the First Amendment protects the publication of all statements, even false ones, about the conduct of public officials except when statements are made with actual malice (with knowledge that they are false or in reckless disregard of their truth or falsity).”

As I said, we certainly could have an argument on the merits about that. For example, if you think that sets too high a bar for defamation and you think the press is now abusing it, how could Sullivan be overruled, and would that be a good thing or a bad thing? Does actual malice need to be proved? If it didn’t need to be proved, couldn’t the law be used to sue for honest errors, in order to silence opposition and freedom of the press? How we would we know if the pendulum had swung too far?

Do you really think I’d devote a post to calling someone a tyrant who merely brought that subject up, and questioned whether Sullivan set the bar for defamation too high? If you think that, you don’t understand where I’m coming from, and where I’ve been coming from for my entire blogging life. If you misunderstand me that deeply, that’s certainly discouraging, to say the least.

I personally have some problem with Sullivan as it stands, and I also have problems with doing away with it, and have never been able to decide if its a net plus or minus on the whole. As I said, that be a worthwhile discussion.

That’s not what that post was about. And it’s not what Trump said—and if it had been, there would be no quarrel whatsoever between Trump and me on the subject.

What Trump actually said was that if elected he himself is (he used the word “I”) somehow going to “open up the libel laws.” In the post, I wrote the following:

I wonder, also, how one “opens up” laws. I’d be awfully curious to hear Trump explain (extemporaneously, without consulting others)””other than to say he’ll do it, and it will be great.

I would like to know whether Trump knows what our current liberal laws are based on, and how they might be changed.

Trump did not refer to Sullivan by name, but one can assume that the case is at least a part (probably a large part) of what he must have meant, and since Trump has sued many times for defamation I can only assume he knows something about the law of defamation. So, how does one “open up” laws as president? He doesn’t discuss how, so he is either just threatening the press so that they don’t criticize him (part of his tyrannical impulse, by the way) or he is planning some sort of strange executive action on it (also what tyrants do) or he is planning to pressure judges to change the law or he is letting us know what he wants to do.

In connection with what might actually be in Trump’s mind, notice that in that post I used the word “impulses” (“point to the fact that he has tyrannical impulses“) and emphasized that word with italics, to indicate that I am speaking of Trump’s wishes and druthers, not necessarily what he could actually accomplish. I would hope that our court system and constitution are strong enough to resist his tyrannical impulses (and “intent,” another word I used in the post). But it is highly possible that they are not. And to say “Hillary is no better” is scant comfort.

We are currently in the primary season. Super Tuesday is tomorrow. If one is choosing a candidate as presidential GOP nominee one would do well not to choose one with stated and demonstrated tyrannical impulses. That was my point, and I think I made it clear. But many people seem to want a strong man to make things all better, and they seem to be trusting Trump to do exactly what they want, no more and no less.

I used to think there were more people in the GOP who were wary of tyranny than there were among the members Democratic Party. There still might be more—a few more. Perhaps. But not nearly as many as I used to think.

Want proof that Trump’s a tyrant? You got it.

The New Neo Posted on by

[BUMPED UP for emphasis.]

I mean that literally.

I’ve written before that Trump’s history with power and government, and much of what he actually advocates with his own mouth, point to the fact that he has tyrannical impulses that are unchecked by any knowledge of and/or respect for much of the Constitution. I’ve written before about his lack of respect for free speech, and his interest in undermining it.

Now we have candidate Trump (soon to be Republican nominee Trump, if his supporters have anything to say about it, which they do) stating that if he’s president he intends to do this [emphasis mine]:

And one of the things I’m going to do, and this is only going to make it tougher for me, and I’ve never said this before, but one of the things I’m going to do if I win — and I hope I do and we’re certainly leading — is I’m going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money. We’re going to open up those libel laws. So that when The New York Times writes a hit piece, which is a total disgrace, or when the Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they’re totally protected. You see, with me, they’re not protected because I’m not like other people but I’m not taking money. I’m not taking their money. So we’re going to open up those libel laws folks and we’re going to have people sue you like you never got sued before. We have many things to do. We have many, many things to do.

Readers of this blog know how very bitterly and often I’ve criticized the MSM, including the two outlets Trump mentioned. But this is very dangerous stuff from Trump—although many of his supporters probably will love it because they hate the MSM and they appear to believe that ends justify means. Or perhaps they’ll justify it in the usual way, that Trump will somehow magically do stuff about immigration that no one else will do and that he’ll fix it and that makes everything else he says okay and we must ignore his embrace of tyranny.

Well, I submit that there are other candidates who will do virtually the same stuff about immigration, or so close to it that their policies will stop the bleeding, and they’ll do it without destroying (or even wanting to destroy) the republic and its liberties in order to accomplish it.

This statement of Trump’s is many things, but one of them is a window into his mind. It’s not a pretty sight, and in fact it’s a dangerous place.

I wonder, also, how one “opens up” laws. I’d be awfully curious to hear Trump explain (extemporaneously, without consulting others)—other than to say he’ll do it, and it will be great.

I would like to know whether Trump knows what our current liberal laws are based on, and how they might be changed.

And I’d like him to tell us what those “many things” are that he’s planning to do if elected, and that he’s “never said before.” I bet they’re really huge, and really great.

[NOTE: Ace has an excellent piece on this, and more. Ace has until now, as he writes in the post, “weakly” supported Trump. But at this point he’s turning in his Trump card because he is convinced that Trump knows nothing and cares less, and that everything out of Trump’s mouth is pandering to what he thinks conservatives like so that they’ll nominate him right before he then turns sharly leftward. Read it.]

[NOTE II: On this Powerline thread, I found some fascinating and telling quotes from Trump supporters about this issue. Here’s one:

Mr. Trump has a good idea. Let the people decide these libel issues, insteads of these smug justices.

Another:

[Powerline] drama queens. We all have been disappointed by the media’s lack of fairness! You are over thinking what he is saying… He is raising an issue and creating attention. LOL!

And this

It doesn’t matter, [Powerline] Boys……..it doesn’t matter.

Let me clue you in to what matters (for the millionth time).

A) Cutting immigration.
B) Re-negotiating trade deals to re-kindle US manufacturing and to de-tangling us out of TPP Globalist deals.

And there’s this “free speech is only for those I agree with” guy:

I must say I agree with Trump. There must be a people’s remedy for willful misrepresenting, omitting (relevant) facts or including irrelevant ones. or editorially omitting stories altogether. Every liberal news outlet these days is presenting suppostion, speculation, and wishful-thinking editorial bias to every story they print. They CANNOT be objective, even though they are losing millions annually. They do NOT pursue truth. Profit is NOT their motive. Liberal political power is. This has been going on unchallenged for 3-4 generations. It has caused millions of Americans to be misled. It it one of the PRIMARY reasons this nation is in the sorry shape it’s in.

Scott, are you saying WE THE PEOPLE must just sit back and taccept this? I could NOT disagree more. I do not believe the first amendment enables vicious slander or some other deliberate malevolent unlawful behavior. That is NOT free speech. It is slander and defamation. A few lawsuits against these miscreants would have a palliative affect on this.

Trump is right. You are wrong.

I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords.]

[NOTE III: I’d also like every single conservative (excuse me: “conservative”) who has endorsed Trump to explain how he or she can square away that endorsement with these statements of Trump’s.]

Dueling Concerto Baroccos

The New Neo Posted on by

In 1941 George Balanchine choreographed the ballet “Concerto Barocco” to Bach’s Concerto in D minor for Two Violins. When I write “choreographed to,” I really mean it, because the dance has virtually no plot except to express the music, with the two soloist dancers acting as the two violins, and the chorus as background. It succeeds on every term—as a visualization of the music, as a puzzle solved in patterns, and as a showcase for the dancers. It must have been revolutionary when it was first performed.

This is a cast from the Balanchine mother ship, New York City Ballet, at a time when Balanchine was still alive and personally supervising just about everything (my estimate for this is mid-1970s, but I’m not certain). Unfortunately, the video has some “creative” camera angles that shift and change too much; I’d much have preferred simple and steady. But it’s still lovely:

However, I’d like you to look at a much older video. Although the ballet was choreographed in 1941, it didn’t receive its NYCB premiere until 1948, and this may have been the original cast. If not the original, it’s not long after; perhaps the early 50s.

For me, this version is incomparable. There is a gentleness and ease, particularly in the second dancer who enters, Tanaquil Le Clerc. She had an usual combination of strength and refinement, a precision of movement that seemed both intentional and completely relaxed at the same time, which makes everyone else seem to be straining in comparison. Note, also, how the two soloists move on the music in a way that synchronizes them far better than in the previous video, where they seem slightly disconnected from each other. These two have a sixth sense that unites them:

It’s grainy, and it’s black-and-white. But there is a delicacy and wit and emphasis that is quite different from today, and to me superior.

[NOTE: Tanaquil Le Clerq developed polio in 1956 while in her mid-twenties, and never walked again. She was married to Balanchine at the time, and he divorced her in 1969.]

Meanwhile, there’s another election: in Iran

The New Neo Posted on by

Iranians are going to the polls on Friday:

The world is watching to see if the reformist camp will gain ground, but expectations aren’t high.

…[T]he nuclear agreement Iran and world powers completed last year…[is unlikely to] produce significant internal change in the Islamic Republic. Indeed, for the foreseeable future, that accord may have the opposite effect.

Here’s why: America may have gotten what it needed with the nuclear accord, but Iran got what it wanted ”” an accord that would consolidate the government’s power, not undermine it…

…Iran got access to billions of dollars in frozen assets, the prospect of billions more in trade deals with Europe and Asia, and the capacity to develop nukes down the road if it wants to. An improved economy co-opts pressure for change in Iran, even though it is the elites, not the broader public, that will be the primary beneficiaries. In all, the nuclear deal has created the perception and reality that Iran has come in from the cold.

None of this favors Iran’s pragmatists and centrists, let alone its reformers. In fact, as Ali Vaez of the International Crisis Group notes, in Iran historically “external loosening” is balanced with “internal stiffening.”

A lot of people who supported Obama’s Iranian deal used the argument that it would foster reform in Iran. I never believed it, but the people I know who did felt that it would happen over a very long period of time, perhaps decades.

Well, if that actually were to happen, it probably would have happened faster without it. Iran so far has resisted reform successfully for over 35 years, and I see no end in sight.

Cruz and Rubio are playing Chicken…

The New Neo Posted on by

…and it’s a bumpy ride:

The game of chicken, also known as the hawk-dove game or snowdrift game, is an influential model of conflict for two players in game theory. The principle of the game is that while each player prefers not to yield to the other, the worst possible outcome occurs when both players do not yield.

The name “chicken” has its origins in a game in which two drivers drive towards each other on a collision course: one must swerve, or both may die in the crash, but if one driver swerves and the other does not, the one who swerved will be called a “chicken,” meaning a coward.

Before most of the other candidates had dropped out there were more players, and I wrote that the GOP race was a variation of the Tragedy of the Commons. Recently “Cornhead” suggested it was actually the Prisoner’s Dilemma.

But I have decided that, although it has elements of these, it’s really closest to Chicken.

It’s becoming more and more clear””and it was already clear””that if Cruz and Rubio stay so evenly matched it will benefit Trump. For a while I thought that a three-way race would allow one of them to dominate, and then the real picture would be clarified. But no.

Now, it’s certainly possible that if it were a two-way race, Trump would continue to win. But at least then the GOP voters’ preference for Trump as candidate would be clear.

If they both can see the game emerging””and they must see it already, because it’s crystal clear””someone could decide to sacrifice himself. Or, the one doing a little worse could be promised something (Cabinet, VP spot, SCOTUS appointment) by the other.

If they are both smart people””and they are””they must find their way out of the dilemma. It’s one of those Solomaic things, too””which one is the true patriot, who will sacrifice himself? If it’s too early to do it now, then a bit later. But soon, soon.

I keep hoping that one will do better than the other and it will become clear who should drop out. At this point I don’t care which one it is. One is a more consistent conservative (Cruz), and the other is (I think) more likely to win an election (Rubio), although I think both are basically conservative, and either could probably win a general against Hillary or Sanders.

More post-debate ruminations

The New Neo Posted on by

I could write a tome—and I already have—on this campaign so far. But I’ll desist, because I still like to have a life and on occasion do things other than write this blog. And I’m sure you folks sometimes do things other than read this blog, or think about this election. Because thinking about this election too much is not good for your health, mental or physical.

Hmm, have I just recommended that you read my blog less, and not more? If so I take it back, instantly!

But yes, I’ve been thinking about this election a lot, and what it means. I’ve said before that I originally thought this year the GOP had a great slate, including many conservatives, and the Democrats the worst probable ticket in a long, long time. Well, first some of the best of the GOP started dropping out, and although some still remained it became clear very early on that there was an excellent chance that Donald Trump would be our nominee. It seems even more likely today, despite his wretched showing last night.

What does this mean? Just as I said that Obama’s election and re-election was not about Barack Obama—it was about America—so is this. It’s not about Trump himself, it’s about what his rise says about what we’re looking for and what we’ve come to accept. I’ve described what’s happened to education, popular entertainment, and a host of other institutions over the years, and I don’t have to repeat any of it now. Suffice to say it’s a reality, and a man who would never have been acceptable to more than a tiny tiny fraction of people even as recently as perhaps ten years ago now appears not only to be acceptable, but a choice. Barack Obama’s presidency was an important part of the preparation, as well.

Now, barring what seems like an unlikely chain of events that could propel either Cruz or Rubio into the nomination (I can think of such events, including a union of the two of some sort, but wouldn’t bet much money at all on it happening), it seems we will be faced with Clinton vs. Trump or Sanders vs. Trump or perhaps Biden vs. Trump. Quite a set of choices.

Choose your poison, because it’s all poison for a once-proud nation.

My only comfort is to start hoping I’m being much too doom-and-gloomy. If Trump is nominated I don’t think he’ll be elected, but that could certainly change and he might win. And if he wins I hope he’s a far better man than I think he is, and a far far better president than I think he would be.

Hope and change, folks, hope and change.

And if America can be Made Great Again, I’d be pleased, because I am a patriot and always have been. But if so, it will have to come from within the American people, from some resilient quality of wisdom I’m just not seeing right now.

I’m going to close with a video I found at Ace’s. It’s of Marco Rubio at a rally today. Now, anyone who reads me regularly know that Rubio has not been my favored candidate. I was a Walker, then Fiorina, then Cruz fan, with Cruz always in the background as my number two even when I supported the others. Now it’s Cruz or Rubio for me. This video struck me because it underscores how tough all the candidates have to be in the psychological sense to keep going at such an energetic level and keep optimistic in the face of bitter disappointment. Here Rubio speaks eloquently of conservatism, and I find it impressive. Then he attacks Trump as he should have been doing right along, and then he comes back to a defense of conservatism, although unfortunately the video gets cut off right about then.

It strikes me, and not for the first time, that the Trump candidacy may represent the death knell of conservatism, probably for a long time in this country, maybe forever. Conservatism has long been a hard sell, swimming against the tide of so many cultural influences and against the gimme-ism inherent in human beings. But I don’t count it out yet.

Christie endorses Trump

The New Neo Posted on by

Dog bites man, and Christie endorses Trump.

I’m surprised that this move would surprise anyone. Since the debate right before New Hampshire, when Rubio was in the ascendance and Christie went after him with both guns blazing, it seemed that if he wasn’t actually Trump’s agent he certainly was acting as though he was.

And it makes perfect sense for Christie. He sees Trump as the winner and wants to be there when the goodies are handed out. Perhaps he was already promised something—AG would be a very good bet. Christie is certainly all about self-interest, having proven that over and over in the past, long before the Trump phenomenon. In fact, come to think of it, did Christie ever train his very formidable attack-dog skills on Trump when Christie was still in the running? I don’t recall it. So maybe Christie was playing defense for Trump for a long time, staying in the race to draw other votes even after his own chances were obviously zero.

Let’s see. Back in 2012, when so many people were clamoring for Christie to run for president because they felt he was the one most likely to be able to beat Obama, he refused. Then his extremely self-serving speech at the GOP convention. Then the famous Obama “hug” that wasn’t really a hug, but that many people think helped Obama seal the deal in 2012 (I don’t think it influenced things very much, but I seemed to be in the minority on that one).
Then the attack on Rubio at that debate, and now the endorsement of Trump with a sly and malicious dig at Rubio as “desperate.”

There are other reasons for Christie to have endorsed Trump. They’re both the sort of brash, big-mouthed New Yorker types with which I’m certainly familiar, having grown up there (a trait that never bothered me, by the way). They’ve known each other for a while and my guess is that they get along personally quite well and understand each other on that level. They are both moderate sort-of-liberal type Republicans (used to be called “RINOs”). Who else would Christie support but Trump? Certainly not Cruz. And he seems to have some sort of personal antipathy for Rubio, or maybe it’s just Christie looking out for Christie, as usual.

A lot of blogs are saying this will have tremendous influence. I don’t see it that way, and that’s true whoever else Christie might have endorsed. I just don’t see a Christie endorsement (or any endorsements, actually) as all that important in terms of actual people’s actual votes. “Oh, I’m going to vote for Candidate X now that Christie likes him” is not really a sentiment I can imagine being all that widespread. But hey, who knows? Maybe a lot of people were just waiting with bated breath for Christie to tell them what to do.

And maybe this is the beginning of the so-called “establishment” hopping on the Trump bandwagon.

Debate 2/25: Well, well, well—that was quite a slugfest

The New Neo Posted on by

[NOTE: I didn’t watch the debate in real time (had a family event) but I watched much of it later, plus a few clips.]

Donald Trump has already said that it doesn’t matter what he does because his fans will still support him even if he stands “in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot[s] somebody.” So the first thing I have to say is that he didn’t shoot anyone last night, and it’s probable that few fans will desert him for his performance. The real question, as always with Trump, is how many more fans can he attract?

But leaving that aside, last night’s debate was very different from its predecessors. Now that the size of the field has shrunk to a manageable number, the individuals to focus on are more clearly than ever the trio of Trump, Rubio, and Cruz. Last night for a change Trump was the target, and the tag team was Rubio and Cruz. Rubio had more emphasis on process and Cruz content, but both of them attacked him on both. Just to refresh your memory:

Content is just what it sounds like: the subject matter about which two people (let’s say, a married couple) are arguing. “Did you do the dishes last night?” Process is everything else””for example, the emotion with which something is said, the type of vocabulary used, tone, repetition, body language, and the unspoken subtext.

Some of the most confusing disputes are the ones where one person begins an argument on the content level and the other person introduces a process rebuttal at some point.

In these debates, process has always dominated Donald Trump’s style to a degree far greater than we’ve ever seen in a politician. In fact, no one even comes close. Some content does manage to come out of his mouth, but even Trump’s content statements are repetitive, generic, and sketchy. His process presentation is also repetitive, consisting almost entirely of insults and bragging, followed by more insults and bragging, and all of it with a pugnacious attitude that his admirers read as tough and strong.

Until last night, Cruz and Rubio had stuck so very doggedly to content that they’ve looked wonky and dull in comparison to the street-fighting Trump. Last night they both put their process gloves on and gave Trump the business, particularly Rubio. But they didn’t neglect content, either, which is quite a feat—to pay conscious and planful attention to both content and process simultaneously. Last evening also highlighted the fact that both men are incredibly smart and quick, as well as knowledgeable about a host of issues on which Donald Trump appears appallingly ignorant.

Cruz was himself last night: brilliant, composed, on target—and to many people (I’m not one of them) somehow personally off-putting. Rubio was not quite the Rubio we’ve come to know. Sometimes in previous debates he has seemed earnest, knowledgeable, and eager, yet young and not especially aggressive, perhaps even a bit weak and naive. Tonight, he was the one who attacked Trump on both content and process, almost relentlessly, sometimes mocking him and sometimes zinging him, but always on the offensive. It was far more effective than any attack on Trump previously, almost as though Rubio was channeling his own previous tormentor, Chris Christie.

For those of us who have long thought Trump needed to be confronted with his own abysmal record and his own tendency to repeat himself and insult everyone in sight, it was gratifying to see. So you’d think I’d be happy, right? Part of me was; but the debate was also painful to watch. Why painful? Because they could have been doing this right along, and haven’t. It has been extremely frustrating all these months to watch Trump sail by while the others attacked each other instead. Now, when it’s almost Super Tuesday, they decide to finally do what they did last night?

I know why they didn’t beforehand; at least I’m pretty sure I know. They each wanted to be the last man standing. They thought Trump’s own behavior would inevitably bury him. At the beginning of the campaign season, who could have predicted that Rubio and Cruz would split the non-Trump vote between them so evenly? At the start, who could have predicted that Trump support would grow into an Obama-like cult? Still, both trends were already crystal clear by several debates ago.

I also watched some of the Fox coverage and commentary afterward. It struck me that I’ve have reached some sort of tipping point where their voices have become like chalk on a blackboard. Last night more than ever it seemed to me that not only were their comments superficial, but their voices had an oddly chipper, happy quality, as though we are all playing an awfully fun game, the lightest and airiest of entertainments.

Can you believe it? Another debate

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s an open thread for tonight’s GOP debate.

I am going out to a family event and will not be liveblogging, but I plan to chime in late this evening. Probably very late.

But in the meantime feel free to discuss the debate and anything else your heart desires.

Roundup

The New Neo Posted on by

So much news; here’s just a small sampler:

Reports are that Sandoval doesn’t want to be a pawn in Obama’s SCOTUS justice nomination game.

Here’s one of the best writers around, Richard Fernandez, on the “interesting” times in which we live.

Why is Obama visting Cuba? I don’t know why anyone would need to ask.

Iran is reacting to its recent monetary windfall (lifting of sanctions) by raising the pay for Palestinian terrorists.

There’s tons of Trump news, too, but I’m trying to not let it dominate. One thing I will mention is that all of a sudden certain facts about Trump (like, for instance, his use of the visa program for foreign workers), are just coming out now in MSM outlets like the NY Times. I’d written about that particular issue last November, here. It’s not as though this stuff was unknown or hard to uncover.