History and immunity

The New Neo Posted on by

America has been so fortunate, and in many ways so outside of history’s darker corridors, that we have forgotten what we should have known, and neglected to teach it to our children. It’s like a population (think Native Americans before the coming of Europeans) that’s not been exposed to certain illnesses and is therefore less able to defend against them.

Too many of us—and especially our younger people—don’t know what to look for and guard against. We’re not sensitive enough to the signs, and our children are especially naive. We have not learned history not just because we don’t teach much of it, but because in recent years we haven’t thought we needed to, and we haven’t lived it in the way that eastern Europeans have, for example.

That “we” isn’t all of us. But it’s quite a large chunk. Meanwhile, the left has taken over a great deal of the teaching of history in this country, and most people who might have objected were either unaware it was happening, ignorant of the importance of the effects, or somehow powerless (or felt powerless) to stop it. So now we have a population that cannot recognize demagoguery when they see it, doesn’t understand how tyranny can take over in subtle steps that aren’t always recognizable, and is unaware of what the Founders had to say on the matter and why they built certain structures into the system to prevent it.

It’s not just the left’s doing; the left merely takes advantage of certain truths about human nature that ensure that people will always be susceptible to its siren song. That’s why education about the past is so important.

I’ve mentioned before (and sometimes I might write a longer post on this) that the thing that gave me pause, and kept me from being a leftist back in the late 60s when I entered college and leftism was so rampant, was a course I took with the seemingly innocuous title of “Russian Intellectual History.” I signed up for it because I liked Russian novels and Russian lit. And yes, we did read a number of novels in the course, as well as other Russian writers mostly of the 19th century (Herzen and Bakunin, for example). That course unexpectedly turned out to be what was probably the most formative one of my life.

It was there I learned—without anyone ever telling me directly—that in the 60s we were reliving those long-past Russian years in an altered, Americanized form. No, my generation was not unique; that was clear. No, we were not inventing something that had never been tried, going down some wonderful path that had never been trod. We were going somewhere that in the past had led to nothing good.

I could see it for myself; all I had to do was read, and think. If we don’t learn history we are indeed condemned to repeat it. And even if we do learn it, we may be condemned to repeat it anyway.

Here’s what David Horowitz (leftist turned conservative) had to say on the matter in his book A Point in Time. He uses the example of Dostoevsky, one of the great Russian authors who was a leftist in his youth and underwent a political change experience:

Despite Dostoevsky’s efforts to warn others, despite the fact that he [became] a national figure regarded as a prophet, the nihilistic idea that had captured his youth and nearly destroyed him became an inspiration for the next generation to lay waste his country and make it a desert:

“Even in 1846 Belinsky had initiated me [Dostoevsky] into the whole truth of this coming “reborn world” and into the whole sanctity of the future communist society. All these convictions of the immorality of the very foundations (Christian ones) of contemporary society and of the immorality of religion and the family; of the immorality of the right to private property; of the elimination of nationalities in the name of universal brotherhood of people and of contempt for one’s fatherland as something that only showed universal development and so forth—all these things were influences we were unable to resist and which, in fact, captured our hearts and minds in the name of something very noble.”

Nihilism in the name of something noble. And so it continues to this day, more than a hundred and fifty years later.

Yahoo has become Kafkaesque

The New Neo Posted on by

Or maybe it always was.

Although I’ve had a Yahoo email account for years, the worst thing they ever did before to me was a forced-choice change to a new format I didn’t like. And even then, they walked it back, sort of like Coke Classic—they allowed users to choose to return to what they called Yahoo Classic.

Now they’re forcing the same choice again, and this time they seem to mean business. Will there be another reprieve and a third act for Yahoo Classic? Don’t think so, but we’ll see. I forget when Yahoo says that the final transition is going to be complete and Yahoo Classic will be no more, but it’s pretty soon, and in the meantime they keep “helpfully” asking me to switch almost every time I sign in.

And don’t tell me to go to Gmail. I already wrote about the problems there, and at the moment I still prefer to take my chances with Yahoo.

But worse, the autofill feature of Yahoo email suddenly stopped working on my computer the other day when they redesigned the sign-in page, although autofill works for me at every other site, and autofill is enabled for Yahoo. I don’t like to keep myself signed in all the time because I have more than one Yahoo account (personal vs. blog, for example) and so that autofill feature was a very handy thing to have when switching back and forth.

But just try to contact Yahoo about it. Ha! I know, I know, Yahoo is no different in this respect from any of the big computer powerhouse companies these days; “customer care” is not just a joke, it’s an ironic joke. “Help” pages take all day to navigate, and you can’t find the answer to your question there anyway, ever.

Emailing Yahoo about it is an exercise in Kafkaesque futility, an endless merry-go-round where I get one of about five standard emails that rotate around and make the same 5 suggestions over and over and over. Two of those suggestions involve calling two different phone numbers. On calling the first, one gets a message (after the old “Yahoo” sing-song yodel, which becomes surprisingly irritating under the circumstances) that says that, due to heavy volume, they cannot answer calls. At the second, it merely says “You have reached a number that is no longer being supported.”

So on and on we go. I no longer expect an actual answer. Now, I’m just interested in the process—it’s the journey, not the destination, right? And yes, I’m aware that the “people” answering me are not people at all, despite their cutesy little names (each email is signed with the first name of a different person such as “Ashley” or “Eric,” to give it that oh-so-personal touch).

Now it’s come down to wondering how the program will respond to different challenges I set up for it, such as my most recent missive:

You keep sending me messages you have already sent me, over and over. I have tried ALL your suggestions and they do not address the problem. Rather than just keep repeating yourself, I need to talk to someone on the phone. You have given me two phone numbers that do not work because no one answers the phone. I need a number that works and where someone answers the phone and talks to me.

You can say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not really expecting a solution to the problem. Maybe when I almost inevitably switch to the new format, which they will force me to do some day, the problem will go away (and the new problems will show their annoying faces). And don’t tell me to switch temporarily and see what happens; I already did switch one of my accounts. I hate the new format (and autofill doesn’t work with it, either), and there’s no way to switch back.

I know that in the larger scheme of things these problems are so small as to be almost non-existent. But there’s that steady drip, drip, drip of small annoyances that one has to shrug off as one goes forward into this brave, brave new world. Back when we first started using computers, I don’t think there was anything like autofill, and we did just fine, although you used to be able to have a quick meal while waiting for a site to load. But now we’ve become accustomed to all the bells and whistles, speed and convenience and the fact that our computers remember just about everything we do and anticipate our every need.

Hmmm. It’s not hard to see a problem with that, either, when the government knows those things too.

What’s up…

The New Neo Posted on by

…with the Zimmerman trial?

The State seems to have suffered the most destructive of its own witnesses to date in calling John Good to the stand.Good was composed, coherent, and direct through his extensive testimony, the entirety of which was entirely consistent with the defense’s theory of lawful self-defense.

Indeed, as has become the pattern in this trial, the longer the State’s witness was in the stand, the more damage he did to the State’s theory of the case.

It seems as though with most of the witnesses the prosecution has been calling, they’d do better to have called none at all, so damaging has their testimony been to the prosecution’s own case.

The only conclusion to come to is that they have no case. They have no better witnesses and no better evidence. And yet they feel they must go ahead with the trial because of political reasons.

An even more chilling thought is that they will succeed, and that perhaps they even already know they will succeed. Maybe they think the jury will feel the risk of not finding Zimmerman guilty would simply be too high because there will be riots in the streets. Maybe the prosecution knows it therefore can just phone it in. Or maybe those who stand to gain from this case feel it’s a win-win situation for them either way: either Zimmerman is convicted, or he is acquitted and race riots will ensue, and it’s all good.

It is difficult to get cynical enough these days, because events keep racing ahead.

To those who still think Snowden is a hero

The New Neo Posted on by

I already wrote one post about this today, but it turns out I have more to say.

There are a few people in the comments section here, there, and everywhere who still think Edward Snowden is a hero. I cannot state in strong enough terms that I think they are about as wrong as a person can be.

Virtually everyone who thinks that Snowden is a hero is glad he exposed the NSA domestic data-gathering efforts. To them I say that he didn’t really expose much of anything. Very little of his information was new; you just weren’t paying attention to the efforts of previous NSA whistleblowers. Read this if you want to get up to speed on what they revealed prior to Snowden. He’s getting the attention because he focused the attention on himself in dramatic fashion by his flight.

But if that had been all he had done, I most assuredly would not be writing these posts calling him a spy and saying that his actions have endangered US security, although it’s possible that in talking about the data-collection programs Snowden all these earlier NSA whistleblowers (I don’t call Snowden a whistleblower; I call him a leaker, and that’s actually the kindest thing I call him) have indeed endangered national security somewhat. But as a tradeoff, they exposed something we really do all need to know about, a program that was and is ripe for being abused by the government.

But Snowden by no means stopped at that. He took a great deal more information with him when he left his job at Booz, a job he only took in order to get information to leak. Not only has he sought and received shelter in and/or communicated with countries that are enemies of the US and enemies of liberty, but he has given them sensitive intelligence information that almost certainly will endanger our security and the liberty he supposedly loves so much, both here and elsewhere.

There is simply no reason for him having done that that could rationally be described as laudable. Those of you who still consider him heroic are only looking at a tiny part of what he’s done: the data-mining, phone- and email-records part of it. But that is the proverbial tip of a very large and unseen—almost certainly extraordinarily dangerous—iceberg that Snowden has unleashed.

This is why theft of classified information is a crime, and why Snowden is both a spy and a traitor

The New Neo Posted on by

Strong words, no? But I stand by them.

First, read this Vanity Fair article. I hadn’t yet read it when I wrote the first draft of this post, but it only solidifies just about everything I was already going to say.

Note, also, (although this is hardly the most important thing in the bigger picture) that Snowden recently gave an interview in which he admitted something I had surmised long ago from looking at his job timeline, which is that he got the job with Booz for the express purpose of stealing the NSA records, and for that reason only.

And I suggest you read the Vanity Fair piece by Kurt Eichenwald in its entirety.

In addition, as noted in an early post of mine on the subject, the information Glenn Greenwald published in the Guardian represented only a tiny fraction of the information Snowden actually stole. And even Greenwald himself admitted that the stuff he didn’t publish was far more sensitive than what he did, and could severely damage American security if revealed (I don’t have time to find the exact link for this right now, but I will look for it later when I have more time).

I don’t really want to leave that sort of decision (about what to make public about our intelligence operations) up to Greenwald or any other journalist, or to Snowden himself. Would you? And no, I do not trust them more than I trust the government. Not that I trust the government all that much, but I trust it much more than I trust those two. And Eichenwald’s article makes it quite clear that Snowden’s judgment on this was lousy at best—and actively hostile to US interests and security at worst. To be clear, I’m not talking about the surveillance program involving citizens of the US, I’m talking about other things Snowden revealed to our enemies.

But even if Snowden had not talked to the Chicoms and others, it hardly mattered. Because it is unlikely that the Chinese and the Russians and others would have been able to keep their hands off of everything that is on Snowden’s laptops, whether he or Greenwald liked it or not, or intended to show it to them or not.

Snowden and Greenwald are boys playing a dangerously adult game, one that could impact all of us negatively. Those who have defended Snowden from the start because they like the fact that he exposed the NSA phone logs (which, as far as I can see, we already pretty much knew about from previous whistleblowers who showed more judgment and discretion by going to Congress for their revelations) are ignoring the enormous dangers his other actions represent.

Snowden claimed, for example, to have the names of US intelligence agents around the world. Did he also reveal those to the Russians and the Chinese, whether intentionally or not? That could destroy our intelligence operations, not to mention risking the lives of those agents.

And I blame not only Snowden and his immature, grandiose, arrogant assumption that he could control what he unleashed, but the evidently lax security at the facility where he worked. A bunch of dangerous incompetents, all.

We are all creepy ass crackers now…

The New Neo Posted on by

…and proud of it.

Yes, of course, someone had to write this piece after Zimmerman witness Rachel Jeantel testified that Trayvon Martin had referred to Zimmerman as a “creepy ass cracker.” And Tommy Christopher of Mediate has obliged, reminding us that in some parts of Florida the word “cracker” has some history as a source of pride.

Well, I knew that, having been to Florida and learned it from a guide at some historic place or other. And no doubt Rachel Jeantel and Trayvon Martin meant it just that way. And we also all know that the phrase “creepy ass” just adds a couple of affectionate modifiers, because in certain parts of Florida the words “creepy” and “ass” are terms worn with pride, as well.

Or something like that. And yes, I’m being sarcastic here. Even Christopher, in the very last paragraph of his absurd article, suggests that it is “possible…perhaps even likely” that Jeantel and/or Martin meant the phrase pejoratively. Perhaps?

There is no way on earth that a similar article would have been written about the n-word if a white person had used it to describe a black person. But why does none of this surprise me?

Star witness for the Zimmerman prosecution…

The New Neo Posted on by

…impeaches herself.

Egad. Talk about Perry Mason moments:

A teenage friend of Trayvon Martin was forced to admit today in the George Zimmerman murder trial that she did not write a letter that was sent to Martin’s mother describing what she allegedly heard on a phone call with Martin moments before he was shot.

In a painfully embarassing moment, Rachel Jeantel was asked to read the letter out loud in court.

“Are you able to read that at all?” defense attorney Don West asked.

Jeantel, head bowed, eyes averted whispered into the court microphone, “Some but not all. I don’t read cursive.”

It sent a hush through the packed courtroom.

Note that the above article appeared at ABC News, not exactly likely to be favoring Zimmerman. It must have been quite a moment.

Much much more here.

[Hat tip: Ace.]

[ADDENDUM: And this sounds like a Zen koan: what is the sound of wet grass?]

UPDATE 2:25 PM: According to some links at Legal Insurrection (see tweets about the trial, here), Jeantel said she had a friend write the letter for her.

So unless she specifically had said she had written the letter, her testimony would not be considered perjury. But I don’t know (and haven’t seen anything that indicates) what she or the prosecution had previously said about the provenance of the letter and who actually wrote it. I haven’t been watching the trial.

However, if you read the articles at the links, you’ll see that there are many many difficulties with Jeantel’s testimony that come together to create a picture of an audio witness to the crime (she was not there, but instead heard things over the phone) who did not come forward until asked to, has described things she could not possibly have been privy to, and seems to have always had Martin’s family present when being interviewed by the police. And now we have the letter that someone else wrote, and that we can assume she claims she dictated—but that perhaps the prosecution (or Jeantel herself) never before indicated was dictated?

By all reports, Jeantel’s demeanor (particularly yesterday) has been rude and verbally combative as well. It appears safe to say the jury is most likely unimpressed so far by her veracity.

There’s much, much more at the links, including the fact that she testified that Martin said to her that he was being followed by a “creepy ass cracker:

[ADDENDUM II: Glenn Reynolds has some interesting observations about the political underpinnings of the trial.]

[ADDENDUM III: Here’s a description of Jeantel’s testimony from yesterday. Astounding.

Ed Driscoll adds more today, here.]

Four years: in memory of FredHJr

The New Neo Posted on by

[BUMPED UP]

This post probably won’t mean much to newcomers to this blog. But I bet most of the oldtimers remember, and still acutely miss FredHJr, one of the most memorable and prolific commenters here.

It hardly seems possible that four years have passed since his tragic and untimely death on June 26, 2009. The loss to this community has been a great one; we could sorely use a large dose of his wit and wisdom.

The loss his family feels is far greater, and I am thinking of them this week and hoping they have found comfort in the memory of his love and faith.

And now I will reprise some words I wrote when I first heard of Fred’s death:

Even though none of us actually met Fred in the real world, most of the regulars here knew FredHjr as I knew him””a brilliant mind containing knowledge of unusual depth and breadth, and demonstrating a rare ability to articulate his thoughts with precision, grace, and logic; a staunch patriot and passionate defender of liberty who never pulled his punches; a “changer” who had been a Marxist in his youth and held a vast storehouse of expertise on how the Left thinks and operates; a seeker of truth with an almost inexhaustible interest in the world around him; and a man of strong religious faith and great and abiding love for his family.

The news of his extremely untimely and tragic death comes as a great shock. It’s also a reminder that people here can become an important part of our lives; we feel as though we know them, even though our knowledge of them is only of the virtual sort. But minds meeting minds is a very powerful thing nonetheless.

Here is Fred’s obituary.

As I did last year, I think it might be interesting to look back at some of Fred’s comments and post some appropriately prescient ones here. Good ones are not hard to find; it really doesn’t take very long, because the quality of his insight was so high.

On March 7, 2008, very early in the Obama campaign, Fred wrote:

But, maybe the under-40 crowd in this country needs a hard lesson in the unreality of socialism. I’m convinced an Obama presidency would be beset with crises and failure. Perhaps even worse than Carter’s. My generation needed to learn from the Jimmy Carter experience in order to appreciate Ronald Reagan and our country. Let’s hope that the kiddies who may put this pair in office can learn from failure and mistake. The even deeper question: are they capable of disillusionment?

Here’s one from about a month later, April 2, 2008:

Barack Obama exhibits two very ugly qualities that we must never allow to be close to the office of POTUS: cowardice and dishonesty. I would at least have some respect for him if he had the courage to proclaim exactly what he stands for and identify with the policy planks of Euro-Socialism. He has no respect for us. Even if I were a Leftist, I would lose respect for him because of his deceitfulness.

And here’s one of Fred’s comments from June 11, 2009, about nine months before HCR was signed into law (and only about two weeks before he died):

I get the sense that government run health care is going to happen. There just are not enough votes to defeat it. That’s the bottom line. And the people who are ramming this through do not care how this is going to impact providers or patients. Their goal is to dismantle capitalism, one brick at a time, and for them to become the new nomenklatura in a social democratic state.

RIP, FredHJr.

[NOTE: I send links to these memorial threads to Fred’s widow.]

And in another court decision…

The New Neo Posted on by

…the French Court of Appeals has ruled against Philippe Karsenty in the al Dura case, in a decision that can be rightly called “outrageous”:

French media analyst Philippe Karsenty was found guilty Wednesday by a French court of defamation for accusing a state television network of falsely depicting the death of a young Palestinian boy in a firefight between Palestinian gunmen and Israeli soldiers, the Times of Israel reports.

The footage of the boy, Mohammed al-Dura, was aired by the France 2 network. The start of the Second Intifada in which over 1000 Israelis were killed, was largely attributed to the video, which was circulated throughout the world.

A Paris court fined Karsenty 7,000 euros claiming that he falsely accused the network’s Jerusalem bureau chief, Charles Enderlin, of fabricating parts of the segment.

In an interview with The Algemeiner Karsenty expressed his disappointment. “I think it is a dark day for French democracy and I think it is a dark day for the truth,” he said.

French-Jewish artist and activist Ron Agam told The Algemeiner that the whole case was a set up.

“Karsenty never had a chance here. The television station is a government outfit and the unions are anti-Israeli. This entire judgement is not about justice, but about defending the indefensible,” he said.

The evidence that Enderlin and France2 ignored their own footage and lied about it is overwhelming. But that hasn’t mattered.

I’ve been following this case for many years as it drags through the French court system with its libel laws, which are very different from ours (I refer you to these posts).

Justice has not been served here, to say the least. This verdict is shocking in the sense of dreadful, but it is not shocking in the sense of surprising, because the French courts are dedicated to protecting the reputation of the renowned and esteemed and honored journalist Charles Enderlin as well as the government-supported France2. It has an interest in hiding the fact that Enderlin and France2 colluded in and orchestrated a piece of misleading propaganda that led to enormous anti-Semitism and retaliatory hatred and murder around the world. It would have taken a great deal of moral courage and an interest in justice—two things the French court lacks—to have found for Karsenty.