↓
 

The New Neo

A blog about political change, among other things

  • Home
  • Bio
  • Email
Home » Page 1088 << 1 2 … 1,086 1,087 1,088 1,089 1,090 … 1,893 1,894 >>

Post navigation

← Previous Post
Next Post→

First post-debate polls

The New Neo Posted on September 17, 2015 by neoSeptember 17, 2015

It seems that a poll of Republicans who watched the debate last night showed Trump and Fiorina even at 22%, Rubio at 15%, Carson at 12%, and Cruz and Bush tied at 6%. That’s not a poll of who won the debate; it’s a poll for preferred candidate to vote for as nominee.

That indicates quite a difference between opinions before and after the debate. I have no idea if it’s representative, but it’s certainly interesting. It shows that preferences are still fluid and shifting, and they probably have quite a bit of shifting to go before it’s all done.

I found another poll somewhere a week or so ago (can’t seem to find it now—I’m doing this quickly—but I found another with similar results here) that showed which candidates are the most popular second choices for Republican voters. That may sound like it doesn’t matter much. But as candidates start dropping out if could matter a lot in terms of where those votes then go.

Trump does not seem to be the preferred second choice for many people; it seems that maybe you either like him or dislike him already. So the theory is that, as the field narrows, others will pick up votes from the departed candidates, and the most popular second choices are Carson, Rubio, and Fiorina, with all three almost even at around 12.4-13.7%. Walker is not too far behind at 9% and Cruz at 8.8%. Only then comes Trump, at 8.2%, and he is only slightly above Bush’s 7.7%.

All these second-choice figures were from before the second debate rather than after. I would imagine that Fiorina and Rubio may have increased their second-choice status because of their performances last night, and I can’t imagine that Trump enhanced his.

[Hat tip: Ace.]

Posted in Election 2016 | 6 Replies

This is why illegal immigration has become such a flash point…

The New Neo Posted on September 17, 2015 by neoSeptember 17, 2015

…and why someone like Trump, who emphasizes it, has gained so much traction with that.

People are angry at stories like this one, in which the illegal immigrant is presented as being a poor, beleaguered person (in this case a mother of young children) whose rights are being taken away:

On September 3, Blanca Borrego of Houston went for a scheduled appointment to see her gynecologist at the Memorial Hermann Northeast Women’s Healthcare clinic. She had two of her children with her.

Instead of seeing her doctor, she was arrested. This is why:

Borrego [is] an undocumented immigrant who overstayed her visa 12 years ago.

A search of Borrego’s possessions turned up a fake Social Security card, resulting in a felony charge for tampering with government documents. Borrego’s bond has been set at $35,000, which her family is unable to afford, and she now faces potential deportation.

But the writer and several organizations want us to feel sorry for her:

In a statement regarding healthcare for unauthorized immigrants issued by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) in March of this year, the organization made explicit their support for a “basic health care package for all women living within the United States without regard to their country of origin or documentation.”

An estimated 11.3 million individuals living in the United States are undocumented, with women comprising 47 percent of this population…

Ana Rodriguez DeFrates of the Texas Latina Advocacy Network said in a statement that the arrest “raises serious questions about patient privacy and human rights of immigrant women in Texas.”…

“The sad fact is that many immigrant women in Texas, and across the country, already forgo needed healthcare, live with lumps in their breasts and daily pain, because clinics are inaccessible or put them at risk for deportation,” she said.

“This is an ongoing human rights crisis, and Blanca Borrego’s arrest shines a light on the struggles of immigrant women, who are routinely denied driver’s licenses, affordable healthcare, and other basic human and civil rights.”

Notice how drivers’ licenses and affordable healthcare (not just plain old healthcare) have become “basic rights” for everyone, even non-citizen lawbreakers.

The article’s commenters are not in agreement with these sentiments, to say the least. Every single comment I read expressed outrage. Of course, I certainly haven’t read them all; there are over 5,000 as I write this. But every single one I read seemed to come from a person who was breathing fire.

This one was informative:

Identity theft is a serious crime and should be punished. The clinic did not report her because of her immigration status. They reported her for showing a fake ID. Another article described what was not right about the fake licence. The state seal was in the wrong place,a hologram was missing and the letters were the wrong color. It wasn’t even a good fake. Give credit to the alert clinic worker who took the time to look closely. With that and the fake SS card she should serve a couple years in prison before being deported.

This was fairly typical:

What about the rights of the person whose SS numbers she’s illegally using? The economic and physical hardship they are enduring with their credit being destroyed and flagged as fraudulent? What about the rights of the thousands involved in accidents with illegals using fake IDs and no insurance? The need of a law abiding citizen who may have to be forced to forgo medical care because they now have to pay for it themselves, and the economic ramifications it has on all our insurance costs? What are the rights of the woman who may have been turned away from this medical office because this women took her place on the patient roll call?

What about the national security ramifications of people walking around with fake government papers, using our resources and having the ability to access secured facilities with ease?

You are a disgrace to journalism with a one sided article somehow ignoring all the people who suffer and will potentially suffer because of those who are breaking the law and committing fraud. This far outweighs the medical needs of those who can find care in their legal homes of origin should they need it.

The article, with its “undocumented” this and “undocumented” that, highlights the rift between the MSM and the people. The MSM and the left has been pushing the narrative that such a woman is a victim (complete with crying children) rather than a perpetrator. But the vast majority of readers aren’t buying it for an instant.

And this is a report of something that’s happening thousands of miles away, in Sweden, to immigrants with a different status. But it’s a related story nevertheless:

The bleary-eyed travelers arriving in Malmo’s glass-and-steel train station agreed on one thing: Sweden was a better place to go than Denmark, which has cut welfare benefits for refugees.

But many said Finland was even better.

“Why Finland? I tell you, because they give us the documents faster,” said Ghanem, a 23-year-old Iraqi, who like many making the journey declined to give his full name. They are worried about being identified by authorities and prevented from going to their preferred destinations. “Sweden, Germany, they will take one year, two years.”

Though the 28-nation European Union has common rules for how to receive asylum-seekers, the benefits provided once they arrive vary widely from one country to the next…

Most are aiming to reach wealthier countries in northern Europe, particularly Germany and Sweden, which stand out for their efforts to offer a generous welcome. However, German authorities say the expectations of people arriving are sometimes unrealistic.

“Germany isn’t just the country of milk and honey, where everything you would want flies into your mouth like a fried pigeon,” German Foreign Ministry spokesman Martin Shaefer said last week.

EU rules require member states to ensure “a dignified standard of living” for asylum-seekers. That includes housing, food, clothing, a daily allowance, and access to public health care, education and the job market while their claim is processed, which can take up to a year or more.

Getting benefits is now a big, big part of illegal immigration and of becoming a refugee (or claiming to be a refugee). A lot of the people engaged in that process are quite savvy about where they choose to go and what they will get after they’re arrived, and make decisions accordingly. They count on people such as Ana Rodriguez DeFrates to smooth the way, and to try to talk the citizens of the host country into seeing these benefits as rights and themselves as racist “nativists” for thinking there’s something wrong with this entire process.

Posted in Immigration, Law | 19 Replies

A few reflections on last night’s debate

The New Neo Posted on September 17, 2015 by neoSeptember 17, 2015

No matter how they try to tweak the format, there are way too many people on that stage. Even if CNN were determined to be fair about air time and the content of the questions (which I don’t believe it is), it would be a daunting and perhaps impossible task to accomplish.

As it was, though, the agenda was pretty clear: continue to make Trump the center of attention, and try to pit the candidates mostly against each other. Both have obvious benefits for the Democrats’ cause.

I remain disappointed in Scott Walker. I had worried that his blandness would be his downfall, and I think he is heading for that denouement.

Just about everyone agreed that Fiorina did well, but I wish she’d shown a little more of her relaxed side. A well-placed smile or two (a feat of which she’s fully capable) would have helped. She usually has a good sense of humor and more warmth. I think she had decided she needed to impress with her seriousness for her first showing, and she accomplished that. I hope she switches it up a bit next time.

I though Rubio was better than last time and Christie better, although both of them have histories for which the unforgiving base will never forgive them.

There is something about Cruz that seems too studied, and a lot of people don’t like that, no matter how brilliant he also seems.

To me, Trump is a caricature of a snake-oil salesman and he embarrasses himself almost continually by repeating the same bragging phrases over and over and saying that someday he’ll actually learn something about the issues, doing his own version of St. Augustine’s “make me chaste, but just not yet.”

As for the Drudge poll, which he is leading by a lot, it can be completely gamed by a determined group, be they Democrats or Republicans. Anyone can vote. Anyone can vote over and over and over as much as that person wants (see “Note” below). The Ron Paul people dominated it last cycle. So any determined and patient group that wants Trump to have won it can engineer it so that he does.

That said, for all I know it accurately reflects the fact that Trump’s supporters think he did wonderfully last night. A great many of them are extremists who ascribe to a cult of personality. What you might say of Obama could be said of Trump: he could dismember a puppy on the stage and they’d only like him better, saying it shows how tough he is.

[NOTE: Last night when I tried to vote at Drudge, it appeared that I could vote over and over, which I had read was the case. Now I see that doesn’t actually happen, so I retract the statement that the same person can vote over and over. However, it still doesn’t make the poll valid, as the Ron Paul victories in 2012 show. A large and determined group can go there and overwhelm the voting, because not that many people actually vote there, and it’s certainly not a representative sample of anything other than people who want to go and vote at a Drudge poll.

As I said, the poll may be meaningless or it may have meaning in terms of what’s really happening with the voters out there. There’s really no way to know. But the sample can easily be skewed, and has been in the past.]

Posted in Election 2016 | 48 Replies

The Republican debates

The New Neo Posted on September 16, 2015 by neoSeptember 16, 2015

The undercard debate has started. I’ll be watching it off and on.

6:30: So far, the moderators are making it all about Trump.

6:38: They’re giving each candidate almost no time at all to answer.

7:48: Having seen most of it, I have to say they brought quite a bit of energy. Perhaps it’s the energy of desperation, but it was energy nevertheless. My summary:

Pataki’s going nowhere. Jindal may have helped himself by staking a position designed to take some of Trump’s support as the anti-GOP-establishment candidate. Lindsay Graham is a one-note candidate: stop ISIS and stop Iran (I suppose that’s two notes, but they harmonize). Santorum was Santorum.

8:20: They’re doing their introductions.

8:24 So far, once again it’s all about Trump. To me it seems that Trump is making an ass of himself, but to his supporters it probably seems like he’s hard-hitting and tough. Perhaps both are true.

Trump insults Rand Paul in a juvenile way, and Paul calls him out on it. Fiorina rises above the fray and talks about trusting the judgement of the American people. Trump also insults Pataki, who isn’t even there.

8:27: Now Trump’s attacking Walker, who is fighting back. Interesting. Again, to me Trump seems both juvenile, narcissistic, and largely destructive. If he really were a Democratic mole, what would he be doing differently?

8:32 I think that Jeb Bush actually landed a punch on Trump, alleging that Trump tried to give him money to get casino gambling in Florida, which he refused to do. I have no idea if this is true, but Trump seemed a bit discomfited.

8:52: Talking about Iran, Huckabee gives an impassioned speech. Talking about Obama’s red line and Syria, both Rubio and Cruz are very forceful in defending their votes “nay” to what Rubio calls Obama’s “pinprick” bombing proposal. This part of the debate seems to have a lot of substance—and again, Trump shows himself to be a lightweight.

9:03: Fiorina gives an impassioned speech about Planned Parenthood. Her intensity is remarkable; really quite fierce. She has somewhat of a Thatcheresque quality here.

9:50: Fiorina about Hillary, “Flying is an activity, not an accomplishment.”

9:54: It really has been clear that CNN wants them to attack each other, and the questions are framed to encourage it. It certainly does make for a debate that’s not a snooze.

9:57: Rubio shows passion. That’s what he didn’t do in the first debate, and I think it’s a good idea for him.

It also occurs to me, not for the first time, that the sheer number of candidates makes it hard for any of them to really stand out. Trump stands out because he’s unique (in my opinion, uniquely awful, and worse than ever in this debate).

10:01: Once again, Trump goes after Rand Paul in a petty, juvenile, cheap shot. Now he goes against Jeb, attacking his brother. Another cheap shot, to which Jeb actually has a decent response: “he kept us safe.”

10:03: It’s really difficult to see the pattern of how the moderators are policing the traffic and give-and-take among and between the candidates. I do notice (and I think it’s an objective observation) that they seem to be stomping on Carly’s time more than on some of the others.

I think the following candidates may have improved their numbers tonight: Rubio, Christie, and Fiorina. I think Trump hurt himself somewhat, although I say that with the caveat that many of his supporters seem to want to excuse anything and everything he might do, so perhaps nothing can hurt his numbers.

Posted in Politics | 66 Replies

House to McConnell: go nuclear!

The New Neo Posted on September 16, 2015 by neoSeptember 16, 2015

The House doesn’t have to contend with cloture or the filibuster, so it’s easier for that chamber to pass legislation by a simple majority. Not so the Senate. The news that the Republican House would like the Republican Senate to jettison its own filibuster/cloture rules in order to join the House in trying to block Obama’s Iran deal is evidence that the usual split in the Republican Party between conservatives and moderates extends to a House/Senate split.

Some of you may say it’s all just “failure theater,” designed to make us think that at least some Republicans want to do as much as they can to stop the deal although they really don’t. Whether this is true or not, “as much as they can” isn’t really so much, because Obama can veto anything they pass and they don’t have the votes to override. That’s what happens when the majority party in both houses in Congress differs from that of the president but doesn’t have enough of a majority to override, and the president isn’t reluctant to use the veto if it comes to it.

I happen to think that there are a significant number of Republicans (I don’t know how many, though), particularly in the House, who mean what they say and are clearly frustrated with their leadership, and that this is evidence of it.

Also, I’ve been saying for quite a while that McConnell should end filibuster/cloture. There is little question in my mind that the Democrats will do it as soon as they have the power to do so and they stand to gain something from it. However, McConnell doesn’t appear to want to do it, although some rather surprising Republican senators are speaking out in favor of it (somewhat in favor, anyway):

Last week, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt that he was “in favor of exploring” a rule change.

McCain hedged his support, however, warning that it “would set a dangerous precedent” and open “charges … of me being a hypocrite.” Yet the seriousness of the Iran deal “argues for us to look at any possible option that we can,” McCain said.

Still, McConnell has no plans to explore the idea.

“He does not support the nuclear option,” spokesman Don Stewart told The Hill in an email.

It’s easy to see why.

As McCain made clear in his radio interview, Republicans excoriated Democrats for changing the rules in 2013, and would open themselves up to charges of hypocrisy if they followed suit. Not to mention the likelihood that someday, Republicans will no longer be in control of the Senate.

“Open themselves up” to charges of hypocrisy? Don’t make me laugh. They are charged with hypocrisy all the time. The Democrats would not hesitate for a moment to open themselves up to such charges, if they had a particular legislative or political goal in mind. As I said, on the day when Republicans are no longer in control of the Senate, Democrats will jettison the rule themselves if they see a need to do so.

That said, I don’t think McConnell’s objection is a fake or theatrical one. This would be a huge, huge, and risky step (it’s not called “nuclear” for nothing), and to what end? To have Obama veto any bill that is passed?

So I don’t pretend that this isn’t a serious dilemma for McConnell. But the stakes in the Iran deal are too high, and the GOP has done too little. Their own supporters are heartily sick of their wishy-washy attitude, and they must do something. It doesn’t have to be this, but it has to be strong.

It would be even better if it were effective. But honestly, with the veto/override problem, I don’t see how that could happen. And by the way, even if the Senate were to vote on the Iran deal as a treaty (a course which I believe is still open to them), that vote could be blocked by the cloture rule and if the rule were done away with and they voted against approving the treaty, Obama would ignore it and the courts would uphold his point of view.

Here’s one of McConnell’s recent statements on the Iran deal vote, in which he proposes an amendment concerning Iran’s recognizing Israel and releasing the four prisoners. It amply demonstrates one of the many many problems with McConnell, his phlegmatic demeanor:

Posted in Iran, Politics | 21 Replies

Why is CNN spending so much of its coverage on Trump?

The New Neo Posted on September 16, 2015 by neoJanuary 27, 2016

How much coverage? This much coverage:

When the GOP candidates assemble on CNN’s stage Wednesday night, they will be appearing on a network that has virtually ignored most of them, while spending vast amounts of time covering the now-frontrunner, businessman Donald Trump.

Back on August 23, CNN’s own senior media correspondent Brian Stelter on CNN’s Reliable Sources acknowledged, “Trump is the media’s addiction. When he speaks, he is given something no other candidate gets. That’s wall-to-wall coverage here on cable news. He sucks up all the oxygen.” Yet, even after that admission, CNN continued to elevate Trump far beyond his GOP peers.

A Media Research Center study finds that, over a two week period, coverage of Donald Trump’s campaign took up nearly 78 percent of all CNN’s prime time GOP campaign coverage ”“ 580 minutes out of a total of 747 minutes. All 16 non-Trump candidates got a combined total of just 167 minutes, much of which was spent comparing them to Trump.

So, why? It’s true that Trump is a fascinating political story. And it’s true that he’s a known celebrity and TV personality with a proven track record. So it’s legit to have quite a bit of coverage. But this seems extremely excessive, and I don’t think it’s an accident. The more attention Trump gets, the less the others get. There is very little question in my mind that CNN would like the GOP to self-destruct or at least lose an election that looks to be increasingly theirs to win if they can only muster up a bona fide candidate, and the powers-that-be at CNN think Trump is destined to lose the national if he is nominated, no matter who his opponent might be.

For the purposes of this post, it doesn’t matter whether they’re right or wrong in their prediction. I tend to think they’re right, but I confess I don’t know and that Trump could surprise me. But I strongly believe that CNN thinks he’d be a loser in the general, and they want him to be the Republican nominee, and they’re doing their best to see that’s exactly what happens because they feel they have some control over the outcome by shaping the news to benefit him right now.

Oh, and they also want their ratings to be as high as possible for tonight, and Trump equals ratings.

[ADDENDUM: Also this.]

Posted in Election 2016, People of interest, Press, Trump | 37 Replies

“Truth”: the press, the movies, and the present-day Minitrue

The New Neo Posted on September 16, 2015 by neoSeptember 16, 2015

The title of this post is taken from George Orwell’s dystopian masterpiece Nineteen Eighty-Four. The book’s genius is in part its nomenclature, and most definitely its insight into the political propaganda process.

Thus, the Ministry of Truth, or “Minitrue” for short:

As with the other Ministries in the novel, the Ministry of Truth is a misnomer and in reality serves the opposite of its purported namesake: it is responsible for any necessary falsification of historical events. In another sense, and in keeping with the concept of doublethink, the ministry is aptly named, in that it creates/manufactures “truth” in the Newspeak sense of the word. The book describes a willful fooling of posterity using doctored historical archives to show a government-approved version of events.

The government in the US does its share of that sort of thing, but under President Obama the practice has reached new heights (or depths, if you want to look at it that way). But the left is not limited to governmental publications. It now has the full cooperation of the press, an institution that is supposed to bring us the truth and can serve to counter government propaganda (well you might bitterly laugh). The left also has the movies, TV and other popular entertainment, and the vast majority of entertainers.

That can serve as an introduction to the latest movie wonder, a film called—oh-so-appropriately—“Truth.” Its subject is the Rathergate scandal of 2004. Here’s the movie’s take on it:

It was the great Henry David Thoreau who once said, “Rather than love, than money, than fame, give me truth.” And it’s the Thoreauian tenets of self-reliance””the pursuit of unvarnished truth and resistance to institutional authority””that motivates many in the journalism profession. If James Vanderbilt’s new film Truth is to be believed, this quest led 60 Minutes producer Mary Mapes and veteran CBS News anchor Dan Rather to air the segment “For the Record,” which questioned then-President George W. Bush’s service in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War. The controversial 60 Minutes piece aired on September 8, 2004, just two months before the presidential election, and ultimately led to the dismissals of Mapes, several other producers, and Rather forced into an early retirement.

Vanderbilt’s film is based on Mapes’s memoir, Truth and Duty: The Press, The President, and The Privilege of Power, so it provides a very sympathetic portrait of Rather (Robert Redford, charming) and his longtime producer Mapes (Cate Blanchett, electric).

Sure, let’s base a movie about one of the most egregious journalistic errors/frameups/hitpieces ever run—which had as its aim the defeat of a president running for re-election—on the memoir of one of its self-serving perpetrators. And let’s call it “Truth.” Why not? After all, the vast majority of the young people we can reach with this revisionist “history” were kids in 2004, when it occurred. They will think that our history is the reality, our truth will become their truth. We will certainly reach far more young people than the real story, the details of which have faded into distant memory for most people, and never were heard of by the generation coming of age.

It’s been done by Hollywood many times before, most notably by Oliver Stone.

More on “Truth”:

…[T]hough the documents themselves may be falsified, both Mapes and Rather view them as more a piece of corroborative evidence, and continue to believe in the general veracity of the story””which isn’t questioned. Nevertheless, CBS brass orders Rather to issue a public apology on-air for the story.

A CBS-appointed panel to review the 60 Minutes segment is depicted in the film as the final insult, a show trial of sorts co-led by Dick Thornburgh, who served as Attorney General under Bush Sr…

Mapes is seen as a victim in all this””both of Burkett’s ruse and of the CBS brass, who throw her directly under the bus. The film’s finest scene sees Blanchett deliver a blistering monologue to the Thornburgh review panel detailing how difficult it would be to and how much inside information would be required to falsify the Killian documents.

So difficult to do what was obviously done. So difficult to be skeptical and properly fact-check such a juicy, ripe, appealing story that verified your own pre-existing prejudices and political positions. And so difficult to let go of the “fake, but accurate” narrative that this movie appears to champion:

After the film’s premiere at the Toronto International Film Festival, Rather choked up discussing Truth in a post-screening Q&A. He called Vanderbilt’s film “very accurate,” and, when asked by an audience member if there’s anything in his career he would have done differently, he replied, “Journalism is not an exact science.”

Well, that’s for sure. Journalism is no more an exact science than are the movies. They have both effectively become organs of Orwell’s Minitrue.

[Hat tip: commenter “Ann”]

[NOTE: For those of you who would like to brush up on Rathergate, please see this for a rather (pun intended) brief look. There’s plenty more, both online and off.]

Posted in History, Literature and writing, Movies, Press | 30 Replies

Tonight: the second debate

The New Neo Posted on September 16, 2015 by neoSeptember 16, 2015

I suppose I’ll bite the bullet and watch tonight’s Republican debate, which looks to have some verbal fireworks and a huge listening audience. I may even live-blog it, if I can stomach it.

Those of you who read this blog a lot may know what I’m referring to—the fact that I tend to hate debates as well as speeches. In fact, I’ve written a post on the subject of my hatred of speeches, and when I looked at it just now, I thought it might be worth a reprise. So, here it is.

A while back, as I listened (or tried to listen) to the President’s State of the Union address, it struck me once again that I’m just not very good at listening to speeches. Unless it’s Winston Churchill, I much prefer to read them.

Even though I was always a good student, I rarely enjoyed classes. In retrospect, I think one big reason was the “sit in your seat and listen while we talk—and talk—and talk” format. In college, I was one of those people who sat at the very back of the room during lectures, swinging my leg restlessly, doodling and smoking.

Ah yes, kids: smoking. We used to be allowed to do that in classrooms. I was never much of a smoker—I really didn’t inhale—but I liked to light up, and to amuse myself by making perfect, long-lasting smoke rings, like the old Camel’s ad in Times Square (mine were much better than his).

The point of all this is that I’m most definitely not what is known as an auditory learner. A speaker has to be riveting—and, preferably, very, very funny—to catch my attention. I’ve been to several authors’ book and/or poetry readings, and despite my best intentions and resolve (and love of books and poetry), I find that I ordinarily drift off within five minutes or less of the moment the author opens his/her mouth, “coming to”—unaware of any lapse in time—only when the applause starts that signifies the reading has ended.

On the other hand, when I’m reading or writing, I concentrate hard. Time tends to pass very quickly, but my mind does not wander. I’ve been known to try to fix a problem with a single line of poetry for what I would estimate to be ten minutes–but then, when I look at my watch, two hours have somehow passed.

In the olden, pre-computer days, when I used to work at a word processor (and before that, an electric typewriter) in a room without a clock, I’ve been known to think it was about midnight and then to hear the birds chirping as a soft light slowly filled the room and I realized it was actually dawn. Now, with computers that have built-in clocks, that’s not going to happen. But I still experience the phenomenon of time passing extraordinarily quickly without my realizing it.

I used to experience the same sort of concentration back in my ballet dancing days. Classes usually involved an hour and a half of intense physical activity. But what isn’t commonly known is that dancing is a mental activity as well, although of an utterly different sort from that involved in writing or in listening to a lecture.

A ballet class consists of a series of graduated exercises that follow a certain strictly determined order, aimed at warming up all the major (and minor) body parts in a way that’s thought to be least likely to lead to injury. The first portion is boring but utterly necessary, the barre. It’s the equivalent of scales for the musician or singer, and it often used to go rather slowly, especially those long intervals of holding the leg up very high and still.

The only thing that got me through the barre was the music. Most of the time we had a live pianist playing classical music (most often Chopin), with the odd Scott Joplin rag thrown in to keep us on our toes (sorry, couldn’t resist). The music transformed the whole exercise into something other than an exercise; it became an art.

Next we took our positions away from the barre for what was known as “center work.” First, a port de bras; mostly arm movements and slowly changing body positions, nothing too difficult. Then, an adagio, or series of slow unfolding movements, ordinarily very very difficult, but lyrical. Then, turns in place. Then some faster movements in place, then small jumps in place. Then bigger jumps in place. And then what was the payoff, the raison d’etre for the whole thing: moving combinations, usually across a diagonal from corner to corner.

Big sweeping jumps that crossed an imaginary stage coupled with linking steps, a series of small ballets that the teacher would choreograph on the spot. Turns that covered space were incorporated into these combinations. Sometimes we’d revolve in a great big circle, faster and faster, until some of us had to stagger out of the group and rest on the sidelines.

The combinations were difficult, and they had to be memorized on the spot, one after the other. The teacher would tell us the steps, then we would “mark” them (do them in a sort of shorthand movement, not full blast). Then the music would start, and off we’d go. And it wasn’t just steps that we had to memorize; it was steps coordinated with arm movements, head movements, body positions, all set down for us in a few moments and then integrated into the body memory and performed full out.

Then, the same thing to the other side. Where the right leg had led before, now it was the left. Where the left arm had been raised during a certain leap, now it was the right. These changes had to be accomplished instantaneously and automatically, almost without thinking.

One of my favorite parts of all was when the teacher would say “reverse the combination.” This was not everyone’s favorite part, to be sure. It was like a tongue twister; the best way to describe it would be that we were required to turn the steps inside out. It was fiendishly difficult; if a jump had featured the back foot leading and ending in front, now the front foot led and ended up in back. If a one-legged turn had been an “inside” turn (that is, turning in the direction of the supporting leg), now it had to be an “outside” turn (turning away from the supporting leg).

We would usually end the big combinations with the largest of leaps on the diagonal, across the room. It was a totally ordered and controlled set of movements; every angle of each part of the body was dictated by tradition. But, within that structure, the utter sense of freedom and expansion—of soaring and flying and oneness with the music—was phenomenal. And, at the end, it was amazing that an hour and a half had passed with my hardly being aware of time at all.

There is nothing like it on earth. I miss it still.

O body swayed to music, O brightening glance
How can we know the dancer from the dance?

To end this piece, I want to describe how a ballet class always ends, with something called a reverence (it’s French, which is the language of ballet). A reverence is a stylized bow, very courtly in nature–which is only fitting, since the origin of ballet lies in court spectacles.

But the reverence that ends a class is very simple. After all the frenetic activity of the minutes before, the students assume their places in the center again. They may be huffing and puffing, they are almost certainly soaked in sweat and exhausted, but all calms down as the music changes to slow and lyrical. To its strains, the students bow in a prescribed manner: first to one corner, then swivel and bow to the other (the corner where the pianist is sitting, ordinarily). Then bow to the center, where the teacher stands, who bows back in return. Each bow is a thank you, and also a grounding.

Sometimes I would experience a feeling of relief as the strains of the reverence music began, relief that a very difficult class was over. Sometimes I’d feel regret, because the class had been so much fun it seemed to end all too soon.

But always, a feeling of gratitude would come to me in synchrony with the body language of the bow. And once in a while, tears would even spring to my eyes at the beautiful coming together of all these things: the movement, the feeling, the music, and the people gathered around me and dedicated to the pursuit of excellence and transcendence in this particular form.

ADDENDUM: When I first wrote that post, I didn’t know how to embed a YouTube video. But now I do, so here’s an example of a reverence at the end of a class, although this one reverses the order of the bows:

Posted in Dance, Me, myself, and I, Politics | 1 Reply

This seems to be a key thought

The New Neo Posted on September 15, 2015 by neoSeptember 15, 2015

From commenter “Eric”:

The “LIV” is a conformist. To marshal the “LIV” to your agenda, set the zeitgeist to your agenda. The “LIV” will conform to it. Engineering the zeitgeist is an activist function.

I would phrase it differently, but I’ve been thinking about that lately.

Most people don’t question what they hear; they take it in. And the vast majority don’t want to think differently from their friends or from what the smart people writing in the newspapers or teaching at the university or writing the novels say. It’s threatening and unpleasant to disagree, and ideas about politics aren’t important enough to them anyway, or at least not interesting enough to them. They aren’t motivated to spend a lot of time and energy on the topic.

Why this changed for me I don’t know, but it started (slowly) after 9/11. After that, I found myself—much to my great surprise, dancing outside the ring.

From Milan Kundera’s The Book of Laughter and Forgetting:

Circle dancing is magic. It speaks to us through the millennia from the depths of human memory. Madame Raphael had cut the picture out of the magazine and would stare at it and dream. She too longed to dance in a ring. All her life she had looked for a group of people she could hold hands with and dance with in a ring. First she looked for them in the Methodist Church (her father was a religious fanatic), then in the Communist Party, then among the Trotskyites, then in the anti-abortion movement (A child has a right to life!), then in the pro-abortion movement (A woman has a right to her body!); she looked for them among the Marxists, the psychoanalysts, and the structuralists; she looked for them in Lenin, Zen Buddhism, Mao Tse-tung, yogis, the nouveau roman, Brechtian theater, the theater of panic; and finally she hoped she could at least become one with her students, which meant she always forced them to think and say exactly what she thought and said, and together they formed a single body and a single soul, a single ring and a single dance.

As I wrote ten years ago:

We all want to dance in a ring, to a certain extent. It’s wonderful to be part of a coherent movement, a whole that makes sense, joined with others working for the same goal and sharing the same beliefs. But there’s a price to pay when something challenges the tenets of that movement. When that happens, there are two kinds of people: those who change their ideas to fit the new facts, even if it means leaving the fold, and those who distort and twist the facts and logic to maintain the circle dance.

“Eric” says we need to change the music of the circle dance, because people won’t give up the strong desire for dancing in a ring. I’d think I’d rather give up circle dancing entirely, because I see circle dancing itself as a lack of critical thinking, and dangerous. But expecting any significant number of people to give it up may be a distant and impossible pipe dream.

Posted in Getting philosophical: life, love, the universe, Liberty, Me, myself, and I | 52 Replies

One of these things is not like the other

The New Neo Posted on September 15, 2015 by neoSeptember 15, 2015

There was a large demonstration in Poland Saturday to protest the possibility that the government will let in many thousands of refugees from Syria—that is, people who claim to be refugees and claim to be from Syria.

There was also a smaller counter-demonstration in support of letting the newcomers in. Here what one participant in that demonstration said:

“I became a refugee when I had to flee Warsaw as the Germans invaded during the war,” 80-year-old Danuta Chomiak told AFP as she marched with the crowd. “I have a duty to be here today.”

There’s that WWII analogy again, as well as the false equivalence between intra-European migration versus inter-continental migration of people whose culture is warring and disparate from the place where they are heading.

I’d like to ask Danuta Chomiak where she went to when she left Warsaw. My guess is that it wasn’t to Syria. Nor was it to Pakistan or Iraq any of the other countries from which the new potential Polish residents originate. My guess is that she went to some Western country.

Now, Poland may have felt very different from wherever it was that Danuta fled to when she became a refugee. Maybe she went to a country that wasn’t so predominantly Catholic as Poland, for example; maybe it was more Protestant. Maybe she had to learn a new language. I’m sure the move was wrenching and difficult. But I’m pretty sure it didn’t remotely compare to the total upheaval she would have felt if somehow she’d ended up in one of those Middle Eastern Muslim countries I mentioned. The cultural and religious divide between her old country and her new would have not only been much wider, the culture and religion of her new country would have in many ways been opposed, and openly so, to the culture and religion of her old.

The modern myth is that all cultures are roughly equal. They are not. For example, all human beings are created equal, but some countries and cultures don’t even pay lip service to such niceties. Nor are they interested in what we might call human rights. Let in enough people from those countries with those beliefs, and fail to require that they adhere to the the culture of the new, and you have a recipe for disaster.

Posted in History, Immigration | 15 Replies

“Frankly, Afghanistan was nothing like that train”

The New Neo Posted on September 15, 2015 by neoSeptember 15, 2015

This is the best interview I’ve seen with the three heroes of the French train terrorist attack. It’s with Megyn Kelly, and it’s the first time I’ve heard the three tell their story in such detail. Their characters really shine, and you can see the depth of their friendship and the way their personalities complement each other: Anthony Sadler, the articulate, calm, thoughtful one; Alek Skarlatos, the affable, smiley, fun-loving good guy; and Spencer Stone, the strong, silent, quick, decisive all-around hero. They also describe in greater detail the role of their British helper, Chris Norman.

These guys are almost endlessly fascinating to me. They are like archetypes of the old-fashioned classic American hero: humble, polite, and strong, coming to the rescue of the Europeans in a pinch. They also remind me a little of the Three Musketeers—not just the mystic number three, but the “all for one and one for all” mentality.

It was their first trip to Europe, and that was to be their exciting adventure. Then unexpectedly they seemed to be facing another adventure, albeit a frightening one: sudden death. Still another adventure quickly took its place: their actions saved their own lives, the life of another man who’d been shot and was bleeding to death before their eyes, and the lives of all the passengers on the train. They managed the disarm and capture the terrorist alive as well.

Their next adventure is fame and honors for a heroism that they all steadfastly deny. But isn’t that what real heroes do?

Posted in People of interest, Terrorism and terrorists, Violence | 8 Replies

The Bergdahl plot thickens

The New Neo Posted on September 15, 2015 by neoSeptember 15, 2015

Just when you thought the Bergdahl story couldn’t get any worse—it does.

Did the White House scuttle, or at the very least ignore, a better Bergdahl prisoner exchange deal and replace it with the one we got, in order to free the five Taliban, which was the real goal?:

Until this past January, Amerine worked at the Pentagon, where he led an Army team ordered to bring home Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl, a mission that was expanded to include several civilian hostages held by Taliban-aligned militants in Pakistan. Bergdahl had been captive for nearly four years by the time Amerine got involved, making him the longest-held prisoner of war since Vietnam and a key to any end-of-war negotiations. In 2013, Amerine lured the Taliban to a series of secret talks that identified a solution, but then hit a wall in Washington’s bureaucratic maze. As he wrangled more with federal agencies in D.C. than with the Quetta Shura in Pakistan, Amerine reached out to Representative Duncan Hunter, a Marine veteran and Republican member of the House Armed Services Committee.

Hunter wrote letters to then”“Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and President Barack Obama pleading that someone cut through the interagency squabbling between the Army, the State Department, the FBI, the intelligence community and the Department of Defense. When Bergdahl was finally released last year in a trade for five Taliban prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Hunter complained that a far better deal brokered by Amerine was ignored. Worse still, six Western civilians, including two Canadians and a newborn child, were left behind, held by terrorist groups protected by the Pakistani government, a pivotal U.S. ally in the global war on terror.

Seems rather conspiracist, doesn’t it? Start with the freeing of the Taliban as the goal, and then work backward?

Well, it’s what I suggested from the start. One day after Bergdahl’s release, I wrote:

Obama has been winding down the Afghan War, and one of his stalled goals in connection with that is negotiations with the Taliban. So it may be that the release of these particular prisoners wasn’t just a reluctant move in order to free Bergdahl, it may be more accurate to say that Bergdahl’s release was negotiated at this point in time in order to free the Taliban Five…

[Hat tip: Richard Fernandez.]

Posted in Military, Terrorism and terrorists | 6 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

  • Barry Meislin on Open thread 6/18/2026
  • Charles R Harris on Trump on the Iran Deal [scroll down for important UPDATE]
  • om on Open thread 6/18/2026
  • om on Trump on the Iran Deal [scroll down for important UPDATE]
  • Barry Meislin on Open thread 6/18/2026

Recent Posts

  • Open thread 6/18/2026
  • Update on tech stuff here
  • Trump on the Iran Deal [scroll down for important UPDATE]
  • In the UK, there has been widespread child sacrifice on the altar of diversity and tolerance
  • Open thread 6/17/2026

Categories

  • A mind is a difficult thing to change: my change story (17)
  • Academia (320)
  • Afghanistan (97)
  • Amazon orders (6)
  • Arts (8)
  • Baseball and sports (162)
  • Best of neo-neocon (91)
  • Biden (536)
  • Blogging and bloggers (586)
  • Dance (288)
  • Disaster (240)
  • Education (321)
  • Election 2012 (360)
  • Election 2016 (565)
  • Election 2018 (32)
  • Election 2020 (511)
  • Election 2022 (114)
  • Election 2024 (403)
  • Election 2026 (49)
  • Election 2028 (9)
  • Evil (129)
  • Fashion and beauty (323)
  • Finance and economics (1,025)
  • Food (316)
  • Friendship (47)
  • Gardening (18)
  • General information about neo (4)
  • Getting philosophical: life, love, the universe (730)
  • Health (1,141)
  • Health care reform (545)
  • Hillary Clinton (184)
  • Historical figures (334)
  • History (707)
  • Immigration (437)
  • Iran (450)
  • Iraq (226)
  • IRS scandal (71)
  • Israel/Palestine (807)
  • Jews (429)
  • Language and grammar (361)
  • Latin America (205)
  • Law (2,937)
  • Leaving the circle: political apostasy (124)
  • Liberals and conservatives; left and right (1,288)
  • Liberty (1,106)
  • Literary leftists (14)
  • Literature and writing (390)
  • Me, myself, and I (1,480)
  • Men and women; marriage and divorce and sex (917)
  • Middle East (382)
  • Military (322)
  • Movies (348)
  • Music (528)
  • Nature (257)
  • Neocons (32)
  • New England (178)
  • Obama (1,737)
  • Pacifism (16)
  • Painting, sculpture, photography (130)
  • Palin (93)
  • Paris and France2 trial (25)
  • People of interest (1,027)
  • Poetry (256)
  • Political changers (176)
  • Politics (2,780)
  • Pop culture (395)
  • Press (1,627)
  • Race and racism (870)
  • Religion (423)
  • Romney (164)
  • Ryan (16)
  • Science (629)
  • Terrorism and terrorists (968)
  • Theater and TV (265)
  • Therapy (69)
  • Trump (1,616)
  • Uncategorized (4,453)
  • Vietnam (109)
  • Violence (1,427)
  • War and Peace (1,008)

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
↑