What’s in a name?

The New Neo Posted on by

Iceland finally lets a girl use her own name.

The amount of cultural control in these countries is very very foreign to us:

A 15-year-old Icelandic girl has been granted the right to legally use the name given to her by her mother, despite the opposition of authorities and Iceland’s strict law on names.

Reykjavik District Court ruled Thursday that the name “Blaer” can be used. It means “light breeze.”

The decision overturns an earlier rejection by Icelandic authorities who declared it was not a proper feminine name. Until now, Blaer Bjarkardottir had been identified simply as “Girl” in communications with officials…

Like a handful of other countries, including Germany and Denmark, Iceland has official rules about what a baby can be named. Names are supposed to fit Icelandic grammar and pronunciation rules ”” choices like Carolina and Christa are not allowed because the letter “c” is not part of Iceland’s alphabet.

We don’t protect our own culture in these ways. In many European countries, their national identity comes from such things as language, dress, food—and apparently, names. Ours comes from an idea—the idea of liberty combined with equality of opportunity.

At least, it used to. And we used to require English, too. No more.

Do we in the US have rules about naming babies? Hardly any, compared to many countries (see also this).

Miscellany: unemployment up…

The New Neo Posted on by

…but that’s actually good, according to Alan B. Krueger, the White House Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers.

Or something like that.

And then there’s the news that, under Obamacare, the “bronze” plan for a family would cost about $20K in 2016. And the penalty for not buying it would be $2,400.

Not a surprise. Looking at these figures, it seems to me that people who don’t already have high medical expenses would of course choose to pay the penalty and wait till they get sick to get insurance, when insurers can’t refuse to cover them, and that the whole thing is part of the plan to drive private insurers out and go to single payer.

Hate to be the bearer of more sad tidings, but Scott Brown isn’t going to be running in Massachusetts to fill Kerry’s seat:

“I was not at all certain that a third Senate campaign in less than four years, and the prospect of returning to a Congress even more partisan than the one I left, was really the best way for me to continue in public service at this time,” Brown said in a statement. “And I know it’s not the only way for me to advance the ideals and causes that matter most to me.”

Sounds like he got bored with the Senate. That’s really bad news, but the Republican Party has been getting almost nothing but bad news lately. Thinking about Brown, it occurs to me that his original impetus to run was to block the health care reform bill, and he must be feeling pretty discouraged about the changes of doing anything like that anymore. That’s no excuse for giving up, although it’s understandable.

Let’s see, what else? I haven’t yet covered Hagel’s abominable performance (once again, no surprise whatsoever) in his recent Senate appearance, but if you’ve been keeping up you will have noted that even some Democrats may be wondering just how very stupid this guy is, and how obvious that fact is, and how it might make them look to continue to support him.

And yet I am most definitely with Chris Cillizza when he says that Hagel will be confirmed. And that is because, as I’ve written before, Hagel is exactly and precisely what Obama wants.

Obama does not want smart people serving him, and he does not want knowledgeable people, either. He wants (a) people who agree with him on policy, and Hagel’s shockingly stupid and destructive policy preferences are quite in line with Obama’s own; and (b) people who will do his bidding as a good lackey should, and that’s Hagel, too.

What’s more, Obama doesn’t care much about how stupid Hagel looks here. Obama is not running for office. He know the Democrats in Congress will rubber stamp whatever he wants. He knows the Republicans have been neutered (or have neutered themselves; same difference). And he knows that not many Americans are paying close attention to Hagel’s answers in the hearings. So, in the immortal words of Hillary Clinton, what difference does it make if Hagel’s answers were a disgrace?

Quintessential New Yorker…

The New Neo Posted on by

…and former NY Mayor Ed Koch is dead of heart failure at 88.

He was mayor from ’78 to ’89. The adjectives that quickly come to my mind—and probably to everybody’s mind—when thinking of him are colorful, flamboyant, outspoken. He was a special kind of character that New York City seems to specialize in.

The following is just about what you’d expect of Koch, isn’t it?:

Koch was born in the Bronx on Dec. 12, 1924, the second of three children of Polish immigrants Louis and Joyce Koch. During the Depression the family lived in Newark, NJ.

The future mayor worked his way through school, checking hats, working behind a delicatessen counter and selling shoes. He attended City College and served as a combat infantryman in Europe during World War II, earning his sergeant stripes.

I hadn’t known this, either:

While mayor, he wrote three books including the best-seller “Mayor,” ”Politics” and “His Eminence and Hizzoner,” written with Cardinal John O’Connor. He wrote seven other nonfiction books, four mystery novels and three children’s books after leaving office.

Politics? Well, of course, he was a liberal. That almost goes without saying, and there’s not much I can say about that except I came to disagree with him (strongly). His terms, especially in the latter years, were beset by some problems, and New Yorkers finally (as he himself noted) got tired of him.

But this is the kind of New Yorker he was:

At age 83, Koch paid $20,000 for a burial plot at Trinity Church Cemetery, at the time the only graveyard in Manhattan that still had space.

“I don’t want to leave Manhattan, even when I’m gone,” Koch told The Associated Press. “This is my home. The thought of having to go to New Jersey was so distressing to me.”

And this was the kind of Jew he was, and what kind of American:

Not long after buying the plot, he had his tombstone inscribed and installed. The marker features the last words of slain Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl: “My father is Jewish, my mother is Jewish, I am Jewish.”

It also includes a Jewish prayer and the epitaph he wrote after his stroke:

“He was fiercely proud of his Jewish faith. He fiercely defended the City of New York, and he fiercely loved its people. Above all, he loved his country, the United States of America, in whose armed forces he served in World War II.”

RIP.

Listen…

The New Neo Posted on by

…to Michael Savage right now, if you have access to the show. I didn’t realize it would be airing tonight, but I was interviewed and I’ll be talking on the show for a few minutes more.

[ADDENDUM: I’ve had several requests for me to post the show, or an excerpt from it, here. I have no access to archives of the show, but I did manage to grab a recording of some of my portion. If I can figure out how to do it (since I’m such a technical non-whiz), I’ll try to post it on the blog within a couple of days.

As I wrote in the comments section of this post, and for those who are a little surprised at the venue, it was just a straight interview on two topics. The first was the Seidman piece in the NY Times about trashing the Constitution. The second was the political change experience, both mine and others. Just the facts, ma’am, just the facts.]

RIP Patty Andrews

The New Neo Posted on by

The last of the Andrews sisters has died at the age of 94:

As Patty remarked in 1971: “There were just three girls in the family. LaVerne had a very low voice. Maxene’s was kind of high, and I was between. It was like God had given us voices to fit our parts.”

And here they are:

And here’s what one of my favorite choreographers, Paul Taylor, has done with some of their music. It’s just a tiny excerpt from a much longer work, and I couldn’t find a video of his own company performing it (these are Miami City Ballet dancers). But still, it’s a pretty good rendition:

The war between the conservatives and the GOP

The New Neo Posted on by

There was a pretty lengthy discussion on this thread recently about whether a significant number of conservatives refused to vote for Romney in 2012, and if so why.

That’s is an issue that always arouses strong feelings, and rightly so. The GOP has repeatedly disappointed conservatives, and even some more moderate Republicans, too. I’ve never been especially enamored of the party either, even as I’ve voted in recent years for its nominees. And let me say at the outset that no one (including, of course, me) knows the answer to the question posed in that first sentence.

Commenter “rickl” wrote:

I have no patience for anybody who blames conservatives for Romney’s loss. There were far more who knew he was a bad candidate but held their noses and voted for him anyway than those who stayed home.

Well, of course there were more who voted for him than stayed home. Many, many, many more.

In fact, Romney got a million more votes than John McCain did in 2008, and Obama got about three and a half million less than he (Obama) had in 2008. But Obama still got enough votes to win in 2012. So although I am convinced—from my own personal experience in talking to people, and from reading tons of comments at blogs on the right—that a substantial number of conservatives did stay home or voted third party that day (and in 2008), I have no idea whether that number would have been enough to put Romney over the top if those people had voted for him instead.

So I’m not blaming those stay-at-home conservatives for Romney’s loss. His loss was the result of a coming-together of a very large number of elements, including flaws in the candidate himself, but mainly changes in media, education, and entertainment that have been going on for many decades. But I am fairly certain that those stay-at-homes existed, and might have ended up making a difference, although we will probably never know.

Commenter “rickl” continued:

But 2012 was the last chance for the Republican Party, and they blew it. There are too many voters who are sick and tired of voting for the lesser of two evils, and simply won’t do it any more. I predict that they will lose the House in 2014. It may even be a landslide. The so-called “base” is melting away. More and more people are seeing that there is no reason to vote for the Institutional Republican Party, as they are part of the problem.

“Rickl” is certainly tapping into a sentiment seen commonly on the right side of the blogosphere, but that’s a rather specialized group. Again, I have no idea how large that group is, or how large it will become in the next couple of years. Recent disappointing and frustrating actions (or inactions) by the Republicans in Congress suggest that the group is growing larger.

But back to what happened during the 2012 campaign. I also believe that some talk radio hosts and bloggers who beat the “Romney’s a no-good RINO” drum during the primaries helped to convince a number of those people that Romney was an unprincipled guy who was lying about his conservatism, a party stooge who was doing the bidding of a nefarious “GOP establishment” or “GOP elite” intent on screwing conservatives once again, as they had in 2008. But this only tapped into a pre-existing and longstanding rift between conservatives and the Republican old guard.

After the flame of anger against flip-flopping-Romneycare-framing-RINO-extraordinaire Mitt Romney had been duly fanned during the primaries, it’s true that those talk show hosts and bloggers came on board and supported Romney—as did the vast majority of conservatives. Most did the familiar old “hold your nose and vote for him” routine, which isn’t easy—but is what politics often requires, choosing the lesser of two evils in the voters’ eyes.

But a certain percentage will resist and dig in and say, “No! I’m not going to be the tool of the Republican Establishment any more.”

“Rickl” expresses these feelings quite well, and they’re not hard to understand. To a lesser extent, I actually share those feelings. But in my entire life of observing politics—which I’ve done “from both sides now”—I can honestly say that there have been precious few candidates of whom I’ve thought really highly. Very very few, no matter which side I was on. And yet I’ve voted every year for the person I see as lesser of two evils (or the less imperfect of two imperfects). And I don’t think I’ll ever stop doing it as long as I’m able to toddle to the voting booth or fill out an absentee ballot.

People are flawed, politicians perhaps most of all. It takes a very special type of personality to even want to be a politician; I would never do it, nor would most of you. It’s a dirty, nasty, rotten business, full of compromise and temptations to corruption and overweening power and with constant threats from people wishing to destroy you, waiting for you to slip up at any moment, and willing and eager to distort your record and lie about you and about your family.

Our system is the worst possible one except for all the others that have ever been tried, and if you take your ball and go home it’s bound to get even worse.

Good luck with that third party, too. It’s a nice dream, but I just don’t see it attracting enough people. If conservatives desert the Republican Party, it is more likely (IMHO) that two smaller parties will form, conservative and Republican, and the Democratic Party will have an even longer reign in power.

I know, I know, you’ve heard it all before, and you don’t believe it. Or maybe you just don’t care any more, the system seems so bad to you already. Fine; I don’t really expect to convince you. But one thing I will say is that I represent absolutely no one but myself; I’m certainly not a member of any Republican establishment. I’m not even a Republican, which is pretty funny if you think about it. I’m merely a person who observes, and what I observe is the latest manifestation of the old saying:

REPUBLICANSTHIRST

Remember the France2 libel trial?

The New Neo Posted on by

Long-time readers may remember that in the fall of 2006 I went to France and wrote a great deal about the libel trial involving Philippe Karsenty, France2, Charles Enderlin, and the Muhammed al Durah video.

The archives are here, if you care to review them. Suffice to say that for me it was a sobering immersion into French libel law and the inordinate respect it holds for the august, eminent, honorable, highly-respected, lying-through-their-teeth members of the press in that country.

The intrepid Richard Landes writes about some recent developments in the continuing legal battles here. I see that what I called “looking-glass world” back then may still be in operation, although we don’t know yet; in very French fashion, the verdict won’t be rendered until April.

Landes also has an excellent take-down of Hillary Clinton’s “what difference does it make?” response, full of his usual clarity.

Still on top: the Lab

The New Neo Posted on by

The Lab is still the most popular dog breed in America, and has been for the last twenty-two years.

I dunno. I like Labs, don’t get me wrong (who wouldn’t like Labs?). Sweet, loyal, good with kids. But they’re sort of big lugs, aren’t they? And they shed up a storm.

But this is an awfully cute picture:

kingLab

Who’s gaining on the Lab? Why, the bulldog, of course.

The bulldog? I’d noticed that, actually—or at least, I’d noticed more of them around. Usually being walked by sleek young women.

But a bulldog is not my cup of tea. It’s not the ugly factor that bothers me, it’s the drool. Hate that drool:

As much as we love our dogs, they all have little quirks and habits that seem to annoy or bother us. With the British Bulldog, it’s their never ending drooling. It’s true that many dogs drool, but the bulldog seems to have it a little worse than most dogs. Many owners of bulldogs would like to know first of all why they have this problem and secondly, if there is anything they can do to help the problem.

The reason why British Bulldogs drool is because of the size of their face and all the loose skin that hangs on their face. The more loose hanging flesh they have, the more they drool. There really isn’t enough “sturdy” flesh to hold the drool inside their mouth. Anytime the bulldog has anything to drink, they are going to drool and there really isn’t any way to prevent that. Many owners will dry the dog’s mouth after they drool to lessen the chance of them getting a pimply rash, which is common with Bulldogs.

I know that love is love, but really.

I had a cockerpoo (actually, a cockerpeekapoo). Great dog. He had his problems too, in the grooming department. But he didn’t shed and he didn’t drool. He was friendly to all and not even barky, despite the fact that he was about a 20-pounder.

Pay attention to Bookworm and get sticky

The New Neo Posted on by

Bookworm has an important post.

There’s been a lot of advice-giving ever since the 2012 election, in an attempt to address the conservative problem. And make no mistake about it, conservatives have a problem—or rather, many problems.

Much of this advice is good, especially the need to focus on infiltrating and/or retaking the media, education, and the entertainment industries, all of which are almost entirely dominated by the left and have been for quite some time. That’s a long, hard haul, unfortunately, although it is of the utmost importance. But Bookworm’s suggestions are more immediate and less arduous, and they have the advantage of possibly reaping some rewards in something a mite faster than geologic time.

Read the whole thing. But here are a few excerpts:

In a way, the internet has made things even worse for conservatives. While it’s increased information dissemination, it’s also increased information ghettoization. We don’t talk to our neighbors about politics anymore. Instead, we go to a like-minded blog and enjoy the feeling that we’re not alone. But by doing so, we delude ourselves into believing that there are more like-minded people out there than a walk in the community and a talk in the park would reveal. Facebook is more of a marketplace of ideas than the blogosphere, and I can tell you that my liberal friends used it aggressively for political networking, while my conservative friends did not ”” it part, because conservatives didn’t have any “sticky” messages to disseminate.

The Stickiness Factor? That’s what it sounds like: it’s a message that doesn’t just amuse or intrigue people for a mere minute. Instead, it sticks with them and, even more importantly, makes them act. During the Bush years, the Dems came up with a great one: No War for Oil. The fact that this slogan had little relationship to the facts, or that a ginormous number of people stuck it on the back of their gas-guzzling SUVs was irrelevant. Those four words convinced too many Americans that the Republicans were fighting wars on behalf of Standard Oil…

And finally, there’s the Power of Context, which at its simplest level means that a message has to capture the zeitgeist. People have to be primed and ready to receive the message. In 2012, Americans, fed on decades of anti-capitalist education and entertainment, were more than ready to believe that Romney was a dog-abusing, woman-hating, religious nut who wanted to enslave poor people and blacks. Thirty years ago, people would have laughed at this message. Last year, there were too many people who thought it made a good deal of sense.

There’s more, much more, difficult to summarize.

Conservatives really are not good at this sort of thing. They don’t even tend to think in these terms. Conservatives, as a group, don’t tend to be all that creative; the left is. Conservatives don’t like to compromise their integrity in order to gravitate towards what they see as simple solutions; they like to explaaaain things (I’m guilty of this sort of thing myself) in a rational manner. Heaven forbid they should be thought of as rabble-rousers! (And, unfortunately, the only conservative rabble-rousers on the right lean to the somewhat paleolithic in thought, a la Todd Akin, et.al). The left couldn’t care less what they do as long as it works.

That’s Obama’s great gift to the left. He’s shown them (as if they needed reminding) what works. Not for nothing was he an Alinsky instructor, and he’s gone national with it.

The right must have some creative minds. There are indeed a few writers (David Mamet and Roger Simon, for starters). The right must have at least a couple of people in advertising. But generally, conservatives don’t tend to think outside the box. That was Andrew Breitbart’s great gift: he was a wild man, with a mission. Where are his heirs?

When I really think about it, the only present-day consevative politician (or ex politician?) who has some of these abilities is, interestingly enough, Sarah Palin. She was good at sound bites, for example, and the telling phrase. But otherwise her style was easily, and quite successfully, mocked and reviled, and she made some unfortunate decisions that have reduced her effectiveness lately. But the left immediately recognized her charisma and her potential. They did her that compliment—and that’s why it was so important for them to take her down.

Why only three?

The New Neo Posted on by

Only three Republican senators managed to muster up the guts to vote against John Kerry’s nomination: Ted Cruz and John Cornyn of Texas, and Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma. That was it. Should have been significantly more, despite the fact that the parties seem to be fusing into a solid whole. Still, only three?

There was never a moment’s doubt that Kerry would be confirmed. But how would it have hurt some of the other senators from strongly Republican states to have voted against him? If you’re going to prostitute yourself, why sell yourself for a penny?

This is taking collegiality a little far.

Why is NBC faking it? Because it works!

The New Neo Posted on by

Goebbels would be proud.

And no, I’m not calling our liberal/left press Nazis. But they have become brazen and shameless in their lies, particularly of the edited video/photo/audio variety. As John Nolte points out (hat tip: Ed Driscoll), this is the fifth time in the last couple of years that NBC or MSNBC has been caught purposely and deceptively editing some sort of documentary evidence in order to further the liberal and/or leftist agenda.

Remember that we’re not talking about simple mistakes here. We’re not even talking about things that could be argued to have been mistakes, nor even negligence. No, these are deliberate falsifications designed to mislead, by a news organization whose entire raison d’éªtre is, supposedly (accent on that “supposedly”), to bring us the truth.

So why, in this digital and internet day and age, when it’s so much easier than it used to be to expose this sort of thing as a lie, is it still done? Because—silly billy—it works, that’s why.

You might ask how it works, if we know it’s a lie. Doesn’t knowing that discredit the source? I think that most of the people who would be inclined to pay attention and come to that conclusion have already done so, and the rest either don’t follow it, or see it and don’t care (cynicism? boredom? lack of values?), or justify it as the usual serving of “a higher truth.” In other words, the ends justify the means, and the ends are the usual noble ones of the left, so the means are the usual nefarious ones. Isn’t it funny how that tends to work out?

As Churchill so famously said, “A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.” Indeed. Hear hear, as they say in Britain. That is something our MSM has deeply and truly learned.

The proof is that this latest deceptive videotape—you know, the one about the gun-loving hecklers being so mean to the bereaved Newtown father—has gotten more than halfway around the internet, and still has a very active life there. You have only to look at articles such as this and this and this to learn how many of the original articles with the original assertions and the original (fake) video are still out there, even now. And how slow the disclaimers are coming, complete with excuses and explanations and accusations that justify the point of the original fake (see this, for example, as well as this).

Expect more of this sort of thing. A lot more.