North Korea execution

The New Neo Posted on by

The number two man in North Korea, leader Kim Jong Un’s uncle Jang Song Thaek, has been executed, presumably on orders of his ungrateful nephew.

North Korea is a cesspool and somewhat of an information black hole. The charges against Jang were various, and ranged from serious to trivial (or at least what we would think of as trivial; no offense is trivial in North Korea). But the charges are not all that meaningful, although the act is. There’s more:

Jang’s conviction was preceded by the reported executions last month of his two closest confidants. KCNA confirmed one ally’s purge Wednesday, calling Ri Ryong Ha a “flatterer” and stooge who with Jang was building an anti-Kim faction within the party.

The purge of Jang’s accused comrades will continue, state media said.

You bet they will.

Stalin used to do this sort of thing periodically, or perhaps even continually. Out with the old, in with the new—for a while, until it’s their turn to go. It also reminds me of many much earlier rulers such as Henry VIII, whose executions of two of his six wives have fascinated the general public so much (to this very day) that they have somewhat obscured the fact that he also executed quite a few of his advisors, for example Thomas Cromwell and Thomas More.

Not that I’m saying that Jang has much in common with those two, except that his fall illustrates the fact that getting too close to a mega-powerful ruler can ultimately be fatal.

The budget clears the House

The New Neo Posted on by

As expected.

I’m not going to write a lot about it, because I’ve already said my piece.

I will add once again that I don’t think this is the hill to die on at this point. To get what you want, you have to elect enough people to control Congress. That’s the bottom line. How to get there is a different story. But I don’t see how a civil war that ends up giving control to the Democrats can possibly help. I have no patience for rhetoric that condemns the Tea Party, and I have no patience for rhetoric from the Tea Party that refuses to face facts.

[NOTE: Interesting.]

Does anybody know how many people have actually enrolled in Obamacare so far?

The New Neo Posted on by

Looks like the answer is “no.”

Some people have been counted more than once. Others have merely placed a plan in their shopping carts. Others think they’ve enrolled but probably have not. And we have no idea what percentage of the actual enrollees are high-risk patients or older patients rather than the young, healthy enrollees needed to make the plan viable.

Perhaps the government knows and just isn’t telling. Perhaps. But my guess is they don’t know either. They have announced the grand total to be 365,000, but it probably has about as much validity as the old Five-Year Plan reports of the Soviets.

January first isn’t too far away, and what will happen to all the uninsured, including the ones who think they’re insured but aren’t? Obama has asked insurance companies to be gentle with them and give them an extra-special grace period.

I’ve never believed government to be especially efficient at this sort of thing. There’s a saying about it, after all: “good enough for government work.” But this is ludicrous, although that’s probably not the right word because “ludicrous” implies an element of humor, and I can’t find much in this.

The term “Affordable Care Act,” which at one point seemed merely a drier term than the vernacular “Obamacare,” now seems positively Orwellian. “Affordable”? “Care”? Same for “Obamacare”; Obama only appeared to care. Years ago I created the category “health care reform” for all posts having to do with the ACA, Obamacare, whatever you want to call it. Now that category, too, seems Orwellian. Maybe it should read “health care deform” instead.

Obama and Castro: together again

The New Neo Posted on by

Who would have thought a single comma—or lack thereof—would make such a difference?:

Britain’s Sky News posted this bulletin about the Nelson Mandela memorial service at 6:36 p.m. London time Tuesday: “Top stories: World leaders at Mandela tribute, Obama-Castro handshake and same-sex marriage date set.”

The British have a habit of eliminating the final comma in any list of elements separated by commas, the one right before the “and.” I have never liked this usage, which seems precious, pedantic, and needlessly confusing. Why should I write that previous sentence “precious, pedantic and needlessly confusing”? I’m generous (dare I say “liberal”?) with my commas—the more the merrier!

Combine the IRS scandal with the Obamcare mess and you get…

The New Neo Posted on by

…this:

They’re not even hiding it any longer: Citizens who dissent from government policy will be subject to harassment by the government’s law enforcement and para-law-enforcement shock troops.

Here are more details:

By now, the news has spread online, of the IRS notices received on the same November 25th date, by whistleblowers Bill Elliott and by C. Steven Tucker. Elliott has been waging a pitched battle with cancer. Tucker is the insurance agent and healthcare freedom activist who informed him that the canceling of his insurance, wrought by the Obama administration for the sake of pushing citizens into Obamacare, was illegal. Tucker reached out immediately after Elliott appeared on Fox News’ The Kelly File, Nov. 7th and Elliott’s insurance was hastily reinstated…

[Tucker speaking in interview]: Then Treasury Inspector General Williams arrived with an associate. He showed me his business card and his badge and then sat down to begin his inquisition of sorts during which he and his associate took copious notes. To my surprise his questions were not designed to find out why I was sent the letters of demand but more to find out more about me and even more surprisingly my new friend Bill Elliott.

He asked for Bill Elliott’s phone number twice. I did not give him Mr. Elliott’s phone number. He then asked for a timeline of events. He asked ‘How did you first meet Bill? What law did you use to help him get his policy restored? What television program did he appear on?’ etc. He then asked for my full name and my social security number since the IRS letters of demand were sent to my corporation and not to my personal name. And, then at the end of his line of questioning he made sure to tell me that ‘you need to resolve these issues with the IRS, if not, as you may be aware, you may be visited again by other IRS representatives in your home and we do reserve the right to garnish your wages and lien your assets.’ Mr. Sneckenberg and I then wished them a Happy Holiday and showed them both the door.

Oh, it’s way way too long to successfully excerpt, so just read the whole thing. While you’re fuming about what happened to Elliot and Tucker, note this separate but related issue [emphasis mine]:

This [section 2742 of Public Law 104-191 (HIPAA)] is an existing federal law that is still on the books and that is relied upon, expanded upon, and referred to multiple times throughout the 960 pages of the PPACA legislation. This law was codified by Congress and signed by President Clinton in 1997. Since that was signed into law it has been and still is illegal for any health insurer to cancel anyone’s coverage when they are sick. Regardless of what Barack Obama or anyone else says. It has been and still is illegal for any health insurance anywhere in the nation to ‘drop your coverage’ when you get sick. Period. And, when I say period I mean it, unlike Barack Obama.

I have been personally enraged by the oft-repeated claims by Obama and the Democrats that insurance companies regularly dropped sick people from coverage before Obamacare came into being. Although there have been a few isolated such cases, they are against the law and have been for well over a decade, and could always be successfully challenged. And yet Democratic rhetoric is that such cancellations occurred as a matter of course prior to Obamacare and that there was no recourse. This is one of the many and varied lies of Obamacare, too numerous to have dealt with thoroughly on this blog although I have at least fifty unfinished drafts that tackle many of the issues one by one. There is no lack of such matters to write about, that’s for sure.

To these lies we can add the pattern of intimidation of people such as Elliot and Tucker who have gotten in Obama’s way. Obama and the Democrats learned that they got only minimal flak from using the IRS against the Tea Party. They have since learned that publicity about what they’ve done didn’t hurt them, either, and that the MSM and liberals would stand by them. No doubt this has emboldened them (not that they needed any further emboldening) to use the same tactics against those who have the guts to speak out against Obamacare and tell their stories.

It reminds me of a song whose source might surprise you: Phil Ochs. Ochs was a popular protest singer of the 60s, a leftist who held no truck with the right. But hear the words of this old song of his from 1964, and see whether you don’t agree with me:

The South African signer speaks…

The New Neo Posted on by

…and says it was a schizophrenic episode.

I suppose it’s possible, but I call foul. After all, the man—whose name is Thamsanqa Jantjie—managed to hold it together quite nicely in terms of decorum and control for many hours. And he wasn’t just impaired in his signing, as one might expect if such an episode were going on, but he showed no ability to make any recognizable signs whatsoever.

And then there’s this:

[Jantjie] refused to explain details of his qualifications and referred such questions to the company that booked him for the event, a company he called SA Interpreters. Not a lot is known about that company.

AP journalists who visited the address that Jantjie provided for SA Interpreters found a different company there where managers said they knew nothing about the firm.

Hendrietta Bogopane-Zulu said Thursday that government officials have tried to track down the company that contracted Jantjie for the memorial service but that the owners “have vanished into thin air.”

Surprise, surprise.

Evidence that the entire world has jumped the shark

The New Neo Posted on by

The sign language interpreter at Mandela’s service was an imposter.

A solemn imposter. Also—fortunately—a safe one, although no one seems to know who he is or how he got there. He was so close to Obama and other world leaders that he could have touched them, but he did them no harm except to pretend to translate their words into sign language, although deaf people immediately recognized that his signs were meaningless gibberish.

That is so absurd, so unbelievably negligent, that it outdoes any Saturday Night Live skit or Onion article. And speaking of Saturday Night Live, this is what almost immediately came to mind:

[ADDENDUM: From a commenter at Ace’s—“Dan Rather said ‘He was fake but accurate.'”]

An Unreal Dream: the Michael Morton Story

The New Neo Posted on by

I saw this CNN documentary the other night and it was excellent—really moving. It includes an inspiring religious element as well. It’s going to be repeated on CNN on Thursday December 12 and Saturday December 14 at 9PM and 11 PM Eastern Time.

Here’s a trailer:

Yahoo email reminds me of Obamacare

The New Neo Posted on by

Yes, yes, I know Yahoo email is nowhere near as important as Obamacare. But still, the situation is similar enough that I wonder if this sort of thing is a trend.

I’ve railed against Yahoo email’s “new, improved [sic]” version before. I’m not the only one; just Google “I hate Yahoo email” and start clicking. It’s a regular festival of rage. What’s more, Google all you want, but you won’t come up with many people defending it except the executives who designed and pushed it for whatever mysterious and unfathomable reasons of their own.

Here are the similarities to Obamacare, for what its worth:

They didn’t ask us if we wanted it.

It reduces options rather than adding them.

Each attempt to fix it has only made it worse.

People are rageful about it and no one’s listening who’s in a position of power; it appears they will champion it forever.

They have put out BS statements about how great it is and pretend to be responsive as they trash it further.

They do not listen to suggestions.

They lied about it to begin with, telling us this great change was coming.

If we liked our old email, we can’t keep it—although I have to say in Yahoo’s favor that, unlike Obama and the Democrats, they never promised we could keep it. In fact, they explicitly warned us we could not.

Time‘s Person of the Year: Pope Francis

The New Neo Posted on by

Explained—and previously predicted—by Ace.

Lat night when I read Ace’s prediction and his reasons for it, I strongly suspected he had nailed it. And so he had. His point has nothing to do with the present Pope and his actual beliefs and everything to do with Time‘s perception of those beliefs and the political use the editors think they can make of them.

Here’s Ace:

Time’s interest: One part Power to the People agitation, one part multiculti uplift. Sprinkle liberally with a call for Hope and Change…

I predicted this yesterday, including the reasons they’d offer for their choice.

This is not because I am good at prediction; this is because the leftwing media is so very kneejerk and predictable. They claim to be neutral and objective. And yet someone can predict every single one of their news judgements by proceeding from the rule that they will make whichever judgement best serves the Progressive Socialist Transnationalist Cause…

Suppose I’m in a shady casino. I’m playing craps. I’m given a pair of dice by the pit boss, to throw to determine the results of a particularly large bet. I object and say I believe the dice are loaded, and will come up craps. He insists they are fair dice, and could come up with any dice tally.

If my prediction — that the dice will come up craps on anything important — is always correct, that casts a great deal of doubt on crooked house’s claim that the dice are fair, doesn’t it? They claim any score can come up; I claim it will always come up craps when they need it.

If it always comes up craps, then I am right, and they are lying.

If they’re not actually in service of the Progressive Socialist Transnationaist cause, why is it that any moderately-informed observer can predict every single one of their judgements by employing this rule?

Indeed. I have no objection to their pick of Pope Francis, and no objection to the Pope himself. But the MSM has become boring in its predictability and its bias. However, it has not become boring in the amount of influence it still wields. Time may have a low circulation, but it’s just one of many many sources that all position themselves falsely as “objective” and that all combine to strongly affect and even shape the opinions of huge numbers of people.

The budget deal

The New Neo Posted on by

I’m with Kevin A. Hassett on this:

…T]he Ryan-Murray budget deal makes a trade that most Republicans would likely prefer not to make. It balances higher spending in the near term against longer-term reductions that, combined with increases in user fees, will reduce the deficit over ten years. But since promised future reductions can be reversed, Republicans are being asked to trade certain cuts today for uncertain cuts down the road.

Still, many Republicans might rationally choose to do so, for five reasons. First, the deal is microscopic, so small as to amount to economic rounding error. Second, it reduces government pensions by changing an indexing formula, a method that might have a better chance of sticking than more straightforward reductions, making these future cuts more certain than most. And if the new indexing continues forever, then spending will drop in the long run by much more than it will increase over the next two years. Third, if House Republicans pass this, it will reduce uncertainty and help the economy. Fourth (though this weakens the previous point some), the deal appears not to lift the debt limit, so they can play that game again if they want to. Finally, assuming that the debt-limit increase is not going to lead to another showdown next year, this deal allows Republicans to talk about Obamacare all next year.

For Democrats, who might prefer not to talk about Obamacare next year, and who wanted to increase unemployment-insurance benefits, it seems like a weak deal as well. Such is the fruit of bipartisan negotiation.

When I heard there was a budget deal, and that the deal didn’t amount to much, I had two thoughts. The first was, “Most conservatives probably aren’t going to like this; they’ll consider it just another case of weak Congressional Republican gruel and lack of Republican spine.” The second was, “Good. The Republicans weren’t going to win this battle anyway, and this deal will take away the Democrats’ most potent argument against them—the one that hurt them so much earlier this fall, the obstructionist argument—and allow Republicans to focus on the awfulness of Obamacare.”

The way I look at it is this: the best way to combat the Democrats is to win majorities in Congress next year, and to vote for people who are conservative enough to actually stick to their principles in the exceedingly tempting and corrupt atmosphere of Washington DC (no mean feat that, and it’s somewhat unpredictable who will stand firm and who will not). Republicans and/or conservatives can bluster all they want from a minority position, but it’s a weak position nonetheless and the way to get something going is to be in charge, particularly now that the Democrats have used the nuclear option to cement majority rule. I’m not in favor of the nuclear option, but what’s done is done and it cannot be undone, so Republicans should poise themselves to take advantage of it.

Here’s Paul Ryan on the budget deal. He seems very sensible to me (although somehow I strongly suspect that some of you will differ, and strongly):

As a conservative, I deal with the situation as it exists,” Ryan said. “I deal with the way things are, not necessarily the way things I want them to be. I’ve passed three budgets in a row that reflect my priorities and my principles and everything I wanted to accomplish. We’re in divided government. I realize I’m not going to get that. So I’m not going to go a mile in the direction I wanted to go to, but I will take a few steps in the right direction. This agreement takes us in the right direction, from my perspective, for the very reasons I laid out before.”

Repeat after me: the perfect is the enemy of the good, or of the good-enough-for-now.