↓
 

The New Neo

A blog about political change, among other things

  • Home
  • Bio
  • Email
Home » Page 1230 << 1 2 … 1,228 1,229 1,230 1,231 1,232 … 1,890 1,891 >>

Post navigation

← Previous Post
Next Post→

Brandeis caves

The New Neo Posted on April 9, 2014 by neoApril 10, 2014

[UPDATE: Hirsi Ali comes back with a ringing statement, worth reading in full. An excerpt:

I wish to dissociate myself from the university’s statement, which implies that I was in any way consulted about this decision. On the contrary, I was completely shocked when President Frederick Lawrence called me””just a few hours before issuing a public statement””to say that such a decision had been made.

When Brandeis approached me with the offer of an honorary degree, I accepted partly because of the institution’s distinguished history; it was founded in 1948, in the wake of World War II and the Holocaust, as a co-educational, nonsectarian university at a time when many American universities still imposed rigid admission quotas on Jewish students. I assumed that Brandeis intended to honor me for my work as a defender of the rights of women against abuses that are often religious in origin. For over a decade, I have spoken out against such practices as female genital mutilation, so-called ‘honor killings,’ and applications of Sharia Law that justify such forms of domestic abuse as wife beating or child beating. Part of my work has been to question the role of Islam in legitimizing such abhorrent practices. So I was not surprised when my usual critics, notably the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), protested against my being honored in this way.

What did surprise me was the behavior of Brandeis…

Not content with a public disavowal, Brandeis has invited me “to join us on campus in the future to engage in a dialogue about these important issues.” Sadly, in words and deeds, the university has already spoken its piece. I have no wish to “engage” in such one-sided dialogue. I can only wish the Class of 2014 the best of luck””and hope that they will go forth to be better advocates for free expression and free thought than their alma mater.

Indeed. Ali is right to call Brandeis not only on their decision, but on the misleading manner in which they described it, subtly implying that she might have been part of the process which led to it. She also is correct to point out the sanctimonious self-serving PC hypocrisy of that “engage in a dialogue” bit.]

The fact that Brandeis has bowed to pressure and canceled its plans to award Hirsi Ali an honorary degree at commencement is no surprise. It is merely a continuation of a decades-long trend in academia towards placating the left and cowardice.

It’s an interesting incident, though, because it highlights the fact that, in a choice between protecting women’s rights and protecting Islam—two causes beloved of the left—the latter apparently trumps the former in importance. Ali is a champion of women’s rights, and that’s one of the reasons she is so against Islam: because of its attitude towards women. She should know; she was brought up as a devout Muslim, born in Somalia and raised in Kenya, and subjected to genital mutilation surgery at the age of 5:

By the time she reached her teens, Saudi-funded religious education was becoming more influential among Muslims in other countries, and a charismatic religious teacher who had been trained under this aegis joined Hirsi Ali’s school. She inspired the teenaged Ayaan, as well as some fellow students, to adopt the more rigorous Saudi Arabian interpretations of Islam, as opposed to the more relaxed versions then current in Somalia and Kenya. Hirsi Ali had been impressed by the Qur’an before she could even read, and had lived “by the Book, for the Book” throughout her childhood.

She sympathised with the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood, and wore a hijab together with her school uniform, which was unusual at the time but gradually became more common. She agreed with the fatwa against British writer Salman Rushdie that was declared in reaction to the publication of his controversial novel The Satanic Verses.

There is no question whatsoever that Ali is a brave person. Not so the administrators of Brandeis, who in their official statement can’t even bring themselves to be specific about what it was that gave so much offense that they felt the need to disinvite Ali:

That said, we cannot overlook certain of her past statements that are inconsistent with Brandeis University’s core values. For all concerned, we regret that we were not aware of these statements earlier.

This is not only cowardly, it’s almost certainly disingenuous as well. No one familiar with Ali’s life and work could fail to notice that she has been very, very critical of Islam. The specific statements hardly matter; it’s the whole of her attitude that should have been the tipoff. Here, however, is the supposedly offending statement, uttered in the context of a Reason interview from 2007:

Once [Islam is] defeated, it can mutate into something peaceful. It’s very difficult to even talk about peace now. They’re not interested in peace. I think that we are at war with Islam. And there’s no middle ground in wars.”

Here’s Reason’s take on the Brandeis action, and here’s the original interview. Her attitude towards Islam and “moderate” Muslims can be found here:

There is no moderate Islam. There are Muslims who are passive, who don’t all follow the rules of Islam, but there’s really only one Islam, defined as submission to the will of God. There’s nothing moderate about it.

This sort of thing has been defined as “hate speech” by the anti-Ali forces, who wrote in a petition to the administration:

How can an Administration of a University that prides itself on social justice and acceptance of all make a decision that targets and disrespects it’s own students? This is hurtful to the Muslim students and the Brandeis community who stand for social justice.

Note the buzzwords “social justice,” the lack of attention to whether Ali’s statements might have been true or not, and the emphasis on how it hurt the feelings of some students. This is the way it goes at the universities these days. Note also that the petition was signed by 85 of 350 faculty members, a surprising small number to me considering the percentage of faculty who could be assumed to be on the left and dedicated to PC thought. But it was enough to convince the administration the university would be better off jettisoning its plans.

I would like to see a backlash against Brandeis mounted on the part of its donors and alums for this craven official act (as opposed to private beliefs) of the university administrators. But I won’t sit on a hot stove till that happens.

[ADDENDUM: If you want to (respectfully—in other words, skip the expletives) share your opinion with Fred Lawrence, president of Brandeis, his email address is lawrence@brandeis.edu.]

Posted in Academia, People of interest, Religion | 57 Replies

Knives are making a comeback

The New Neo Posted on April 9, 2014 by neoApril 9, 2014

Some things never go out of style:

A 16-year-old boy “was flashing two knives around” when he injured 19 students and a school police officer who eventually subdued him with the help of an assistant principal at a high school near Pittsburgh on Wednesday, a police chief said…

Officials said a 17-year-old boy and 14-year-old boy were in critical condition, a 17-year-old boy and a 16-year-old boy were in serious condition, and a 17-year-old boy and two 17-year-old girls were in fair condition.

Five patients had been discharged, including three 15-year-old boys, a 16-year-old girl and an adult…

The chief said someone, possibly a student, pulled a fire alarm after seeing some of the victims being stabbed. Although that created chaos, he said, it also resulted in students running out of the school to safety faster than they might have otherwise.

So this could have been much worse but for the quick thinking of the fire-alarm-puller.

When you have a disarmed population, as in a school (or for that matter, today’s army bases), you have an opportunity for someone to flout the rules with a weapon and do a great deal of damage. Knives can be very good for the purpose, although it’s more difficult to do quite as much damage with them as with guns because knives necessitate getting closer to the victims. However, where there’s a will, there’s a way.

Schools represent a knotty problem. I don’t think it makes sense to allow students to arm themselves. But having a completely disarmed school is not solution, either. Right after the Sandy Hook massacre there was a lot of discussion—including on this blog—in favor of the possibility of arming a few well-trained teachers and/or administrators. Increasing the security detail at schools would probably be too expensive for most school systems. But leaving the students and teachers defenseless is not a good idea, either.

The unidentified student who pulled the fire alarm was being creative. I’m also wondering why, with a knife-wielding assailant, a bunch of students didn’t jump him in unison to try to stop him. But perhaps they did, and he managed to slash at them and wound them.

[UPDATE: Some heroic tales emerge:

An assistant principal and several students were hailed as heroes today for their quick thinking during a stabbing spree inside a Murrysville, Pa., high school.

Thomas Seefeld, the Murrysville police chief, said at a news conference that an assistant principal at Franklin Regional High School tackled the 16-year-old suspect, who is now in police custody.

The assistant principal has been identified as Sam King…

A student, Nate Scimio, pulled the alarm during the attack in order to alert students to leave.

“He knew what was happening… and he wanted the people to get out,” Alyssa Finch, a senior at the school, told ABC News.

Scimio suffered two cuts to his arm in the process.

Seefeld said pulling the alarm was a smart move…

Finch told ABC News she also heard that yet another student helped subdue the assailant.]

Posted in Education, Violence | 36 Replies

Remind me…

The New Neo Posted on April 8, 2014 by neoApril 8, 2014

…never, never, never to appear at a function wearing the same dress as Kate Middleton.

Never.

kateplus

Posted in Fashion and beauty | 32 Replies

Fun with statistics: women’s wages

The New Neo Posted on April 8, 2014 by neoApril 8, 2014

I’ve heard for years, perhaps even decades, that the oft-quoted statistic about women’s wages being so much lower than men’s as a result of wage discrimination is a myth, an artifact of other factors than discrimination. So this sort of article should be a big ho-hum to most people:

The supposed pay gap appears when marriage and children enter the picture. Child care takes mothers out of the labor market, so when they return they have less work experience than similarly-aged males. Many working mothers seek jobs that provide greater flexibility, such as telecommuting or flexible hours. Not all jobs can be flexible, and all other things being equal, those which are will pay less than those that do not.

Education also matters. Even within groups with the same educational attainment, women often choose fields of study, such as sociology, liberal arts or psychology, that pay less in the labor market. Men are more likely to major in finance, accounting or engineering. And as the American Association of University Women reports, men are four times more likely to bargain over salaries once they enter the job market.

Risk is another factor. Nearly all the most dangerous occupations, such as loggers or iron workers, are majority male and 92% of work-related deaths in 2012 were to men…

While the BLS reports that full-time female workers earned 81% of full-time males, that is very different than saying that women earned 81% of what men earned for doing the same jobs, while working the same hours, with the same level of risk, with the same educational background and the same years of continuous, uninterrupted work experience, and assuming no gender differences in family roles like child care. In a more comprehensive study that controlled for most of these relevant variables simultaneously””such as that from economists June and Dave O’Neill for the American Enterprise Institute in 2012””nearly all of the 23% raw gender pay gap…can be attributed to factors other than discrimination. The O’Neills conclude that, “labor market discrimination is unlikely to account for more than 5% but may not be present at all.”

But I would imagine that if you were to poll most people, they might be aware of the “wage gap” but unaware of what accounts for almost all of it. That’s what makes it so easy for politicians to use misleading statistics for political purposes.

And the reason we’re talking about this at all today is that, not only is it “Equal Pay Day” but, sure enough, Obama and the Democrats are planning for the “women make 77 cents to the male dollar” issue to be an important part of their 2014 campaign message.

Posted in Finance and economics, Men and women; marriage and divorce and sex, Politics | 19 Replies

Remember those Medicare Advantage cuts?

The New Neo Posted on April 8, 2014 by neoApril 8, 2014

Do you recall that part of the path to the passage of Obamacare involved some manipulation in order to get the proper CBO scoring? There were a lot of aspects to that, including the delay of many of the bill’s provisions until 2014. One way in which costs were kept low enough was the future reduction of federal payments to insurance companies in the Medicare Advantage program.

Well, as with so many of the unpopular but seemingly necessary parts of Obamacare, those cuts have been suspended—at least till after the 2014 election. How very convenient:

Under cuts planned by the administration, insurers offering the plans were to see their federal payments reduced by 1.9 percent, which likely would have necessitated cuts for customers.

Instead, the administration said the federal payments to insurers will increase next year by .40 percent.

The healthcare law included $200 billion in cuts to Medicare Advantage over 10 years, in part to pay for ObamaCare.

The Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) on Monday said changes in the healthcare market meant it did not need to make those cuts to Medicare Advantage this year.

It cited an increase in healthy beneficiaries under Medicare, which it said has lowered projected costs for that program…

The announcement comes after insurers spent millions on a public relations blitz seeking to head off the cuts, and after dozens of Democrats joined Republicans in calling on the administration to keep MA rates flat to avoid cutting benefits for seniors.

So, let’s see: the cuts were necessary to pass Obamacare. But they are poison at the ballot box, so there’s been pressure (from both sides, and insurance companies too) to call them off. Suddenly, as an explanation for their suspension, we find that old people have gotten healthier. Forgive me for being skeptical.

Republicans face a dilemma on this and myriad other issues connected with Obamacare. If they let all the terrible consequences of the original bill play out, it gives the Democrats ammunition for saying that Republicans want people to suffer. On the other hand, if Republicans block certain aspects of the bill that would make people feel pain (such as reductions in Medicare Advantage reimbursement), they increase their “compassionate” creds but they also improve the acceptability of Obamacare to the public, which is likely to end up blunting their own cause. Meanwhile, for most people, forgotten (if it was ever even known in the first place) is the hypocrisy and deception of the Democrats in perpetrating the original CBO scoring game, replaced by relief that Medicare Advantage will remain more or less the same for now.

So, what have we learned? We’re given a blueprint for how to manipulate future bills under consideration by Congress in order to get a good score from the CBO. Just put all sorts of cost-saving devices in there in order to pass muster, and then just cancel them afterward by executive order or other non-legislative approaches. As for the cost of Obamacare, we’ll worry about that later, after November 2014.

You can fool a lot of the people a lot of the time.

Posted in Health care reform | 8 Replies

Jeb Bush: the candidate without a constituency

The New Neo Posted on April 8, 2014 by neoApril 8, 2014

I’ve heard for years about the Republican “establishment” pushing this candidate or that candidate on the rank and file. Most of the time it’s seemed untrue to me.

But it seems absolutely on target with the current talk of Jeb Bush for 2016. He has no natural constituency. There is nothing special—or especially appealing—about him as a candidate. His name, IMHO, is a liability rather than an asset, both with Republicans and with Democrats.

So who would be voting for Bush in a primary? Darned if I know.

[NOTE: In choosing a category for this post, I thought about including him in “people of interest.” But the opposite is the point: he’s a person without interest.]

Posted in Politics | 44 Replies

Stop the presses: rate of uninsured lowest since late 2008

The New Neo Posted on April 7, 2014 by neoApril 7, 2014

If this hadn’t happened, now that would have been a shock. After all, if you give Medicaid to a whole new group of people, offer subsidies to a huge number of other lower-income people, and stick everyone else with penalties for not getting insurance, it could be expected that the rate of those without health insurance would go down.

And I don’t recall (although I could be missing something) that anyone on the right was suggesting that the total rate of the medically uninsured would fail to go down as a result of Obamacare. The real questions were and are (a) how much of a dent it would actually make in the uninsured (a figure that was probably somewhat elusive to begin with); (b) at what cost, both in money and disruption; (c) what quality of insurance would be the result; (d) what the effect on our health care system would be over time; and (e) the effect on our liberty.

But anyway, here are the stats are from Gallup. Unfortunately, I can’t find a link to the actual study, and I always prefer to look at the more complete picture, but let’s look at the chart from the summary version:

healthinsurancedrop

The first question I have is why the chart only begins in 2008. I did a search for a chart of earlier stats and kept getting that same chart that appears above. I’m beginning to think that Gallup may only have begun asking the question in 2008, but I just don’t know. At any rate, as you can see, in early 2008 the uninsured rate was even lower than it is now. What happened in late 2008 to make the rate rise? It’s pretty easy to guess: the financial downturn, which I am fairly certain had a chilling effect on the number of Americans with health insurance.

I also can’t get figures on the margin of error in the Gallup poll, but the drop here (at least in some sub-groups) may be within it. I happen to think that the overall drop is real, however. It makes perfect sense that the rate would drop, for all the reasons I wrote in that first paragraph, and I would be stunned if it did not.

Gallup also points out that by far the greatest drops occurred in the following categories: people with incomes under $36,000, and blacks. That is completely understandable and expected, as well, because it’s logical to assume that it reflects both the Medicaid expansion and the effect of subsidies (although it’s interesting that—as I’ve read in other sources—there was not a similar drop in the percentage of uninsured among Hispanics).

Here’s the chart:

breakdownuninsuredrate

Unfortunately, the chart only compares the last quarter of 2013 to the first quarter of 2014; I would have liked to have seen it go further back in time for a fuller picture.

How much of the drop involves the Medicaid expansion? How much the fact that the unemployment rate (at least, in the flawed way it’s measured) also dropped between the last quarter of 2013 and the first quarter of 2014? How many of the newly-covered people will continue to be covered a few months from now, and how many will end up defaulting on their payments?

And what are the answers to my questions in paragraph one?

Posted in Health care reform | 15 Replies

Meanwhile…

The New Neo Posted on April 7, 2014 by neoApril 7, 2014

…Saturday was voting day in Afghanistan:

The strong turnout came despite threats from the Taliban to disrupt the vote and punish all involved in the first democratic transfer of presidential power in the country’s turbulent history.

Lest you think the threats were hyperbole:

Afghan Interior Minister Mohammad Umer Daudzai told reporters that 20 people were killed in violence across the country Saturday, as insurgents tried to disturb the voting processes. Seven military personnel, nine police and four civilians were killed.

Forty-three people were also wounded in attacks targeting mostly voting centers, the minister said, adding that most wounded people were civilians

Meanwhile, Afghan security forces killed more than 80 insurgents across the country and foiled several attacks against voting centers, Daudzai said…

Nearly 1,000 polling sites were closed because of security concerns; another 6,423 were open.

Makes you appreciate our (so far) peaceful voting days, doesn’t it?

Whatever happens, Karzai is out. The Afghan constitution bans him from seeking another term at this point. And if no candidate gets more than 50% of the vote, a run-off will be held.

Posted in Afghanistan, Liberty | 8 Replies

RIP Mickey Rooney

The New Neo Posted on April 7, 2014 by neoApril 7, 2014

Actor Mickey Rooney has died at 93.

In my mind, I picture him as an irrepressible young man; that’s the age he was when he gained his greatest fame. As a child, I watched the Andy Hardy movies on my black-and-white TV. Whenever it rained at summer camp they’d show seemingly endless films, a great many of which featured Rooney with horses. I wasn’t all that interested in the horses, but I loved Rooney’s energy and cocky attitude.

That energy took him through a long long life—not to mention eight wives, including the beauteous Ava Gardner.

I could put up any number of clips here, but for some reason this one comes to mind first, made when Rooney was about fifteen. “Goodnight unto you all!”:

But perhaps his greatest joy was performing with Judy Garland. Now that we’ve said good-night, let’s say “good morning”:

RIP.

Posted in Movies | 18 Replies

Andrew Sullivan asks: what’s the difference between Hillary and Eich, since they both once opposed gay marriage??

The New Neo Posted on April 6, 2014 by neoApril 6, 2014

Here’s Sullivan[emphasis mine]:

Hillary Clinton only declared her support for marriage equality in 2013. Before that, she opposed it. In 2000, she said that marriage “has a historic, religious and moral context that goes back to the beginning of time. And I think a marriage has always been between a man and a woman.” Was she then a bigot? On what conceivable grounds can the Democratic party support a candidate who until only a year ago was, according to the latest orthodoxy, the equivalent of a segregationist, and whose [husband’s] administration enacted more anti-gay laws and measures than any in American history?

There are several grounds. The first is that a gay marriage heretic can be saved by recantation. Here’s the definition:

To formally abandon a belief or a particular statement of belief, generally under order from an ecclesiastical authority…to enforce an orthodoxy. If ordered to recant by such an ecclesiastical authority, one who refused to recant is anathematized or excommunicated.

Hillary Clinton (and President Obama) have recanted, which saves them and also turns them into poster children for the evolution of correct liberal thinking. It doesn’t matter whether their present feelings are their true ones—and actually were their true feelings all along, with their previous anti-gay-marriage stances the false ones—or not. What matters is their public declarations.

That is exactly what Eich stubbornly refused to do, and he paid for it.

As evidence that Eich’s recantation may always have been the goal, I offer this:

I guess this counts as some kind of “victory,” but it doesn’t feel like it. We never expected this to get as big as it has and we never expected that Brendan wouldn’t make a simple statement. I met with Brendan and asked him to just apologize for the discrimination under the law that we faced. He can still keep his personal beliefs, but I wanted him to recognize that we faced real issues with immigration and say that he never intended to cause people problems.

It’s heartbreaking to us that he was unwilling to say even that.

We absolutely don’t believe that everyone who voted yes on Prop 8 is evil. In fact, we’re sure that most of them just didn’t understand the impact the law would have. That’s why so many people have changed their mind in 4 short years ”“ because they saw the impact and pain that the law caused to friends and family members.

People think we were upset about his past vote. Instead we were more upset with his current and continued unwillingness to discuss the issue with empathy. Seriously, we assumed that he would reconsider his thoughts on the impact of the law (not his personal beliefs), issue an apology, and then he’d go on to be a great CEO.

The fact it ever went this far is really disturbing to us.

If that’s not enough to convince you, there’s also this sort of thing:

…[T]he ringleaders [were] men such as Owen Thomas, a tech gossip columnist and amateur tyrant who was so vexed by Eich’s employment that he saw fit to issue what can only be described as a catechism. Among the commandments that Thomas etched onto his website were: “Stop saying that this was merely a private matter that won’t affect your work as Mozilla’s CEO”; “Say that whatever chain of logic led you to conclude that your personal views required you to support Proposition 8 was flawed, erroneous, incorrect”; “Say that you support the rights of people to enter into same-sex marriages everywhere”; and “Make a donation equal in amount to the money you gave to Proposition 8 and candidates who supported it to the Human Rights Campaign or another organization that fights for the civil rights of LGBT people.” Elsewhere, a Credoaction petition accrued 75,000 signatures behind the demand that “CEO Brendan Eich should make an unequivocal statement of support for marriage equality. If he cannot, he should resign. And if he will not, the board should fire him immediately.”

The recantation was most important, and Eich failed to deliver. So he had to go. Let that serve as a warning to others.

I don’t think that Hillary Clinton would be quite so eagerly supported today had she not recanted. I also don’t think that act was the least bit difficult for her, since I don’t think her original anti-gay-marriage stance was sincere in the first place. But even without a recantation she still would have been supported, because her pluses (much like Obama’s in 2008) trump her negatives for the left, and the left feels no need to be consistent in its principles. As a liberal/left woman, she is a member of a protected group, and the left also knows that she can be counted on to do the left’s bidding, for the most part, once her presidency is secured.

[Hat tip: Instapundit.]

Posted in Men and women; marriage and divorce and sex, Politics | 74 Replies

Before Brendon Eich, they came for the Mormons

The New Neo Posted on April 5, 2014 by neoApril 5, 2014

Read it.

Posted in Liberty, Men and women; marriage and divorce and sex, Religion | 18 Replies

Mozilla: in the Silicon Valley bubble

The New Neo Posted on April 5, 2014 by neoApril 5, 2014

The folks at Mozilla may yet live to regret their decision in cooperating with the forcing out of Brendan Eich. Apparently the internet giant has been getting a lot of negative reaction to its jettisoning of Eich for his 2008 contribution in support of California’s Proposition 8.

I have no idea whether this will end up hurting Mozilla, but I doubt very much that Mozilla anticipated even the possibility. The folks at Mozilla travel in a world in which PC thought dominates, and if you don’t believe me, take Nate Silver’s word for it (and after the 2012 election, I’m inclined to take Nate Silver’s word for just about anything):

I checked the records for some of the largest technology companies in Silicon Valley: specifically those that were in the Fortune 500 as of 2008. The list includes Hewlett-Packard, Intel, Cisco Systems, Apple, Google, Sun Microsystems, eBay, Oracle, Yahoo, Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) and Symantec. I limited the search to donors who listed California as their location.

In total between these 11 companies, 83 percent of employee donations were in opposition to Proposition 8. So Eich was in a 17 percent minority relative to the top companies in Silicon Valley…

At Intel, 60 percent of employee donations were in support of Proposition 8. By contrast, at Apple, 94 percent of employee donations were made in opposition to Proposition 8. The opposition was even higher at Google, where 96 percent of employee donations were against it, including $100,000 from co-founder Sergey Brin.

There isn’t much data on Mozilla…But it’s likely that employee sentiment at Mozilla is much like that at Google. The organizations share a lot in common…

The point is that many of these companies are staffed by people so heavily in support of gay marriage, and are immersed in an environment that is also so strongly supportive, that they probably have forgotten that the entire country is not quite like that—and that even a significant number of people who are in favor of gay marriage may not be in favor of forcing someone who’s against it to resign. Mozilla’s business, however, is not limited to Silicon Valley or even California, a fact those in charge who helped to force Eich out may sometimes forget. It’s even possible that Mozilla may be hoist on its own petard, and experience unforeseen economic consequences for its actions.

[ADDENDUM: And by the way, there’s a world of difference between boycotting a company for its company policies and company actions—in this case, facilitating Eich’s “resignation”—and threatening a boycott to force a company to get rid of a CEO or any employee for his/her private, personal, non-company and non-performance-related political beliefs. A world of difference, although both are legal.]

Posted in Liberals and conservatives; left and right, Men and women; marriage and divorce and sex | 34 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

  • AesopFan on Open thread 6/9/2026
  • Molly Brown on On the LA vote-counting process that is giving LA two leftist Democrats to choose from for mayor
  • AesopFan on Open thread 6/9/2026
  • AesopFan on On the LA vote-counting process that is giving LA two leftist Democrats to choose from for mayor
  • Selfy on Karmelo Anthony is found guilty of murder

Recent Posts

  • News roundup
  • Karmelo Anthony is found guilty of murder
  • You may have noticed …
  • Open thread 6/9/2026
  • Still having that intermittent “too many requests” error message

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 (584)
  • 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 (1,024)
  • 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 (333)
  • History (707)
  • Immigration (433)
  • Iran (446)
  • Iraq (225)
  • IRS scandal (71)
  • Israel/Palestine (807)
  • Jews (429)
  • Language and grammar (361)
  • Latin America (204)
  • Law (2,932)
  • 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 (916)
  • Middle East (382)
  • Military (322)
  • Movies (348)
  • Music (528)
  • Nature (257)
  • Neocons (32)
  • New England (178)
  • Obama (1,737)
  • Pacifism (16)
  • Painting, sculpture, photography (129)
  • Palin (93)
  • Paris and France2 trial (25)
  • People of interest (1,026)
  • Poetry (256)
  • Political changers (176)
  • Politics (2,780)
  • Pop culture (395)
  • Press (1,627)
  • Race and racism (867)
  • Religion (423)
  • Romney (164)
  • Ryan (16)
  • Science (629)
  • Terrorism and terrorists (967)
  • Theater and TV (265)
  • Therapy (69)
  • Trump (1,613)
  • Uncategorized (4,442)
  • Vietnam (109)
  • Violence (1,423)
  • War and Peace (1,003)

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
↑