Violent DC car chase

The New Neo Posted on by

It’s hard to know what to make of the incident yesterday in Washington DC in which a dental hygienist from Stamford Connecticut, with her one-year-old toddler in the back of her car, seems to have had some sort of meltdown/breakdown/panic and ended up provoking her own shooting death.

There was nothing in Miriam Carey’s background that would have led up to this—until about a year ago, that is, when (her mother reports) Carey had a baby and suffered from a postpartum depression serious enough to have hospitalized her for a while. Usually, though, when women with postpartum depression become violent, it is directed solely towards themselves and/or their children. Then again, Carey’s behavior yesterday could have been a possible case of what’s known as “suicide by cop.”

Another hint might be here:

Carey’s former boss, Dr. Brian Evans, told The News that she “fell down some stairs and she had a pretty significant head injury” toward the end of the nearly two years she worked for him.

And still another hint is here:

The woman who led authorities on a chase from the White House to the Capitol before she was killed by police may have thought that President Barack Obama was stalking her, law enforcement sources told NBC News.

That lends itself to some bleak humor—isn’t Obama stalking us all? But this really seems to be a tragic incident all around, but mostly for Carey and her family.

[NOTE: And before you blame the mental health establishment, remember that whatever the treatment is, it can’t always be effective. That said, there is some statistical evidence that anti-depressants can increase the incidence of violence, but we don’t even known whether Carey was on antidepressants. And even if she were we don’t know whether they were a factor in her particular case.]

Harry Reid won’t go broke underestimating the American public

The New Neo Posted on by

Quote from Reid yesterday in answer to a question from CNN’s Dana Bash:

What right did [the House of Representatives] have to pick and choose what part of government is going to be funded? It’s obvious what’s going on here. You talk about reckless and irresponsible. Wow. What this is all about is Obamacare. They are obsessed. I don’t know what other word I can use. They’re obsessed with this Obamacare thing. It’s working now and it will continue to work and people will love it more than they do now by far. So they have no right to pick and choose.

You might be tempted to give Reid the simple and obvious answer: look this up. It’s the sort of thing every kid used to have to learn in civics class (I’m not sure what children learn now, or if they even have civics class any more). First there’s Article I, section 7, clause 1: “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.” It’s followed by Section 7 Clause 9: “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law…”

So Congress was given what is commonly known as the power of the purse, and at the Constitutional Convention it was decided that the House of Representatives should hold more of that power than the Senate because the House “was more immediately the representatives of the people, and it was a maxim that the people ought to hold the purse-strings.”

Aside from this balancing of fiscal power somewhat in favor of House over Senate, another goal was to make sure the executive did not spend money without congressional authorization. The framers had had experience with kings spending money without being directly answerable to the people, and they didn’t like it.

But I strongly suspect that Reid doesn’t really need to be informed of any of this. For one thing, he has a law degree, and that usually indicates at least a glancing familiarity with the Constitution. In addition, he’s been a member of both Senate and House in his career, and he knows the procedures of both bodies.

But Harry Reid is well aware of something else: the fact that more and more voters are ignorant of the way our government is set up, and why it was designed that way. So he knows he can get away with these ignorant-sounding remarks. Or perhaps he is aware that some of the public knows how the government is set up and doesn’t care or would even like that system changed; some think it’s archaic and gets in the way of what they want Reid and company to do (see this or this).

Reid is aware of still another thing: that he and Obama and the Democrats have much of the MSM in their pockets. That’s one of the reasons he was so outraged when Bash asked him some tough questions yesterday; she was breaking the protective rules to which he’s grown accustomed. So he served notice on her; after calling the Republican House “reckless and irresponsible,” he tarred Bash with the same brush, saying “To have someone of your intelligence to suggest such a thing means you’re as irresponsible and reckless.”

That’ll teach her to be so impudent.

These remarks of Reid’s are the hallmarks of an elected official and a party whose arrogance has swollen to unconscionable and dangerous proportions.

Guess who

The New Neo Posted on by

Who do you think this beauty is?

(a) Vivien Leigh in a costume drama
(b) a model from the 50s
(c) ?

faw1

No, it’s not Vivien Leigh in a costume drama:

LeighHamilton

Nor a model from the 50s:

Avedon

It’s Princess Fawzia of Egypt, who became the first wife of Mohammad Reza Pahlevi, the last Shah of Iran. She was divorced from the Shah in 1945 after only six years of marriage, and died in Alexandria, Egypt, in July of 2013.

The shutdown shuffle: the press, the public, and the president

The New Neo Posted on by

The MSM is full of articles about the shutdown and how it will affect the country and the reputation of both parties. The whole thing is being treated mostly as a political game in which one side will win—and that side is generally expected to be the administration and the Democrats.

I don’t pretend to know how this will ultimately go. In this I suppose I differ from most politicians and pundits, who do just that: pretend to know. Their pretending has a purpose, which is to not just analyze and reflect but to influence, to create a public perception that will become a reality.

They do it because propaganda works. And Democrats are much better at it than Republicans, for a number of reasons, first and foremost that the press is almost entirely composed of Democrats, and secondly because Democrat appeals (the poor starving children!!) lend themselves far more readily to propaganda than Republican ones do.

When I look at stories such as this one and this, it’s crystal clear to me that the Obama administration is creating a crisis where none exists, in order to blame Republicans. Charles C. W. Cooke describes the game plan well in his article in National Review:

America, we are told, is in the grim midst of an unrivaled constitutional crisis that is being perpetrated in anger by “racist,” “bomb-throwing” “anarchists” whose “endgame” and ultimate fantasy is the shutting down of government ”” not, of course, because the co-equal branches of the American polity cannot come to a budget agreement, but because a vocal “extreme” minority, that has magically managed to transmute itself into a majority of the House and 46 percent of the Senate, does not believe in having a government at all.

It is transparently absurd, and yet it’s a “narrative” that might win out, because it’s been screamed so loudly and so often, and most people are not only not paying attention, but most people really are strongly influenced by what they read in the MSM whether they admit it or not or are even aware of it or not.

There are glimmers of hope; as I said, I don’t really know how this will play out. I like to think that people have enough sense to see through this and are paying enough attention and reading through the lines enough to perceive that it is the Democrats who will not negotiate and are forcing the shutdown and then exaggerating its effects. In this respect it’s been interesting to see that the British papers sometimes seem to have more sense than American ones. For example, there’s this in the Telegraph from Nile Gardiner (who admittedly is a conservative):

Cursing political opponents will do Obama no good and smacks of arrogance and desperation from a White House that has lost its grip on reality. The legacy of President Obama will be the relentless rise of big government and a large expansion of government dependency, the strangling of economic freedom, a huge increase in the national debt, and the implementation of hated health care reforms that carry with them a $1.85 trillion price tag. The Obama presidency will also be remembered for its bitter partisanship, and its relentless vilification of political opponents, emanating from an administration that would rather engage with a terrorist sponsoring regime in the Middle East than talk to elected US lawmakers three miles down the road.

Would that Gardiner were right, but I wonder whether Obama doesn’t in fact have an excellent grip on reality: the reality of how well his propaganda works, that is. Sp far it seems to have been working well enough to do the trick.

[RELATED: A good article by Fred Barnes.]

[ADDENDUM: Da Tech Guy is guardedly hopeful, as is Spengler.]

Either/or: Ronan Farrow’s father

The New Neo Posted on by

In more celebrity news, we have the revelation by Mia Farrow that her 25-year-old son Ronan (and whom I’ve written before at some length; he’s a very accomplished, intelligent, and handsome fellow) may not have been sired by Woody Allen, but instead might “possibly” be the biological offspring of Frank Sinatra, to whom she’d been married at eighteen and who she refers to as the love of her life.

Sinatra, Allen: they’re both megastars, but there the resemblance ends. Mom Mia (Momma Mia?) seems to have had what you might call a big tent approach to choosing sexual and marital partners: Sinatra in her youth, when he was about 50; Andre Previn a bit later on; and then Allen, to whom she never was married and did not live with, but to whom she was closely connected for twelve years.

Her son Ronan long ago decided to have nothing to do with the person he thought was his father, Allen. Ronan’s reasons were clearly stated:

He’s my father married to my sister. That makes me his son and his brother-in-law. That is such a moral transgression. I cannot see him. I cannot have a relationship with my father and be morally consistent”¦ I lived with all these adopted children, so they are my family. To say Soon-Yi was not my sister is an insult to all adopted children.

And Ronan seems to have a sense of humor; in reaction to Farrow’s news, he tweeted, “Listen, we’re all *possibly* Frank Sinatra’s son.”

In my earlier post on Ronan I had remarked on his lack of physical resemblance to Allen, as well as their different moral compasses. Now it occurs to me for the first time, looking at the photos, that although Ronan looks a great deal like his mother, I can see a resemblance to Sinatra that I certainly never noticed before. Take a look:

ronan3

Ronan2

Greater Talent Network 30th Anniversary Party

RIP Tom Clancy

The New Neo Posted on by

Today we have the sad news that best-selling blockbuster author Tom Clancy has died of undisclosed causes at the age of 66.

I must admit I never read any of his books; it’s just not my style of reading matter. But I do know he was highly regarded by people I respect, and also that (unlike so many authors) he was politically conservative. I would imagine he has a lot of fans among readers of this blog, too.

Sixty-six seems very young to me. RIP.

Obama says “come, let us reason together”

The New Neo Posted on by

Just kidding.

Actually, he predictably demagogues the government shutdown:

President Barack Obama on Tuesday defiantly declared that “this Republican shutdown” risks hurting the fragile economy and pressed the House GOP to abandon its “ideological crusade” against Obamacare.

“This Republican shutdown did not have to happen,” Obama said in the Rose Garden, surrounded by a dozen Americans who stand to benefit from his landmark health care overhaul.

“They’ve shut down the government over an ideological crusade to deny affordable health insurance to millions of Americans,” he charged. “This, more than anything else, seems to be what the Republican Party stands for these days. I know it’s strange that one party would make keeping people uninsured the centerpiece of their agenda, but that apparently is what it is.”

What a disgustingly divisive Alinskyite excuse for a leader he is. To this country’s shame, it has worked for him so far.

The Muslim war on Christians escalates

The New Neo Posted on by

And even Robert Fisk notices:

The Diab family can never return to Maaloula [Syria]. Not since the Christians of this beautiful and sacred town saw their Muslim neighbours leading the armed Nusrah Islamists to their homes. Georgios remembers how he peered over his balcony and saw Mohamed Diab and Ossama Diab and Yasser Diab and Hossam Diab and Khaled Turkik Qutaiman ”“ all from Maaloula ”“ walking in the street with men whom he said were dressed in Afghan-Pakistani clothes. “One of them had a Kalashnikov rifle in one hand and a sword in the other,” he says, shaking his head in disbelief.

Twenty years ago, identical tragedies destroyed the villages of Bosnia. Now they are being re-enacted in Syria. “We knew our Muslim neighbours all our lives,” Georgios says. He is a Catholic. “Yes, we knew the Diab family were quite radical, but we thought they would never betray us. We ate with them. We are one people.

“A few of the Diab family had left months ago and we guessed they were with the Nusra. But their wives and children were still here. We looked after them. Then, two days before the Nusra attacked, the families suddenly left the town. We didn’t know why. And then our neighbours led our enemies in among us.”

It is a story being repeated all too often over much of the Muslim world of the Middle East and Africa. As Robert Spencer writes (and it was his article that led me to the one by Fisk), “the call to jihad can override all existing loyalties.”

For those of you unfamiliar with Robert Fisk, see this. Fisk has long been an apologist for Muslim violence (even when perpetrated against himself), and so it’s especially puzzling—and potentially interesting—that in his article about Maaloula he seems to have recently abandoned that stance.

I wonder why. Not because I’m so very interested in Robert Fisk, but because I wonder whether this is a real change, and symptomatic of a dawning realization among more people than Fisk himself. Could it be that Muslim violence against Christians has reached a sort of critical mass, where more and more people are unable to deny its spread and the one-sided nature of its provocation?

Okay, here’s the latest game my computer is playing with me

The New Neo Posted on by

All of a sudden, apropos of nothing, my Google page shows the word “Yahoo” (very light gray) in the search bar. When I type in something and start a search, instead of using Google it defaults to Yahoo.

It’s the search-engine equivalent of the invasion of the body snatchers. I’ve looked at the Yahoo support forum, and other people seem to have the same problem, but I can’t make head or tail of the suggestions. Anyone have an easy fix for this [she asks naively and hopefully]?

UPDATE: I may have asked naively and hopefully, but the easy fix was offered by “Ann,” and it worked like a charm. It literally took just a second or two and voilé ! Problem gone.

If anyone has a similar problem of a search engine being hijacked, here’s where to go.

Spambot of the day

The New Neo Posted on by

Enthusiastic bot, excited about comments section, asks a good question [emphasis mine]:

I can imagine this is actually a lot cheaper than therapy or medication for some persons. Can we include pics of our cats? How about recipes for vegan cupcakes? There is really a chance I might have interesting things to write about. What is the statistical probability that the reader will care? Fantastic idea! You are all wonderful. Please advise.

Mmmmm—vegan cupcakes.

Not.

Suppose they gave a government shutdown…

The New Neo Posted on by

…and nobody noticed?

Oh I know, I know; the Democrats and the MSM will milk it for all it’s worth as the fault of the evil Republicans, and as a dreadful dreadful thing. But if it happens (as it seems to be doing right now), and if its effects are not especially felt by the average person, doesn’t that dilute the threat? What if the specter of a government shutdown is actually more ominous than the thing itself (at least, than a partial, temporary shutdown)?

Andrew Stiles lists the effects and the non-effects:

Active-duty troops will still be paid.

Several hundred thousand non-essential federal employees will go on furlough. National parks will be closed. But Congress can pass a bill to reimburse furloughed employees for missed pay (they did this in the 90s).

Welfare and food stamps, Social Security payments, unemployment benefits: no change.

And irony of irony, Obamacare implementation is unaffected.

Now, this doesn’t mean that some people—especially those with vacations already planned to national parks—won’t be miffed. And it also doesn’t mean that most people are paying enough attention to know what will be affected, and so they can easily be swayed by media hype. But I like to think that people actually will notice what’s what (I can dream, can’t I?).

Note the photo for the featured article about the shutdown featured on the main Yahoo page. Hype much?:

weepingshutdown

Oh, and Harry Reid continues the calm rhetoric Democrats are known for: “We will not go to conference with a gun to our head.”

Lots of fear has been raised on the Republican side by the results of a Quinnipiac poll that says Americans “hate the Republican approach of closing the government in an effort to repeal” Obamacare, 77 to 22. That’s pretty overwhelming, isn’t it?

Let’s take a look at the poll itself, rather than mere reports about it. We find some interesting things. For example, there’s this question:

“Do you think President Obama is doing too much, too little, or about the right amount to compromise with Republican leaders in Congress on important issues?” The answers were: too much 11%, too little 50%, about right 32%. When the same question was asked about how Republican leaders were doing, the answers were 11%, 68%, and 15% respectively. So both sides are being blamed for lack of compromise, although the Republicans are being blamed somewhat more.

Another question on the same general subject: “Who’s responsible for Washington gridlock, Democrats, Republicans, or both equally?” Answers: 10%, 28%, 58%. So, “both equally” wins by a mile.

As for the big shutdown question—well, this was the way the actual question was worded:

“Do you support or oppose Congress shutting down major activities of the federal government as a way to stop the health care law from being put into place?” The answers, as previously reported: 77% oppose, 22% support. In the question, however, the shutdown was defined as affecting major activities; this is not what’s happening, by most people’s definition of “major.” And there was no mention of political parties in that particular question. More people blame Republicans for this than Democrats, as we know, but by way smaller margins than 77% to 22%.

Dare we hope that many people actually have figured out that Democrat intransigence is part of this too?