↓
 

The New Neo

A blog about political change, among other things

  • Home
  • Bio
  • Email
Home » Page 1356 << 1 2 … 1,354 1,355 1,356 1,357 1,358 … 1,881 1,882 >>

Post navigation

← Previous Post
Next Post→

The holidays are coming: order from Amazon through neo-neocon!

The New Neo Posted on December 1, 2012 by neoDecember 1, 2012

[NOTE: I’ll be bumping this up to the top every now and then through the holidays, just as a reminder.]

How’s that for shameless self-promotion?

In the process of writing this post I realized that once again it’s November. It’s almost Thanksgiving. And that means that Christmas, Chanukah, and whatever other holiday might suit your fancy are all coming up sooner than you think.

So I’m encouraging you to feel their hot breaths on your neck and solve all your gift-giving dilemmas by turning to that online colossus, Amazon.

And if you use those widgets on my right sidebar to click through for all your Amazon purchases (now and at any other time of year) you will also be giving a small but still not insignificant gift to neo-neocon (it adds up, folks), and all without spending any extra money. What could be more wonderful?

[NOTE: In case you have ad blocker or something of that sort, and the Amazon widgets don’t show up on your computer, go here.]

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Replies

Updike: the trivial and the profound

The New Neo Posted on December 1, 2012 by neoDecember 2, 2012

I’ve long been a fan of John Updike’s short stories, although his novels—which are probably much more widely read—don’t do all that much for me. He was one of the most prolific writers of the last century, so there’s plenty of both genres from which to pick and choose.

Perhaps I like the short stories better because I prefer short stories to novels in general. I’m not sure why—some sort of reader ADD, perhaps But I think most novels allow the writer to be too self-indulgent, going on and on and often becoming a repetitious or meandering bore—whereas short stories require focus, focus, focus.

Well, I like tapas bars and tasting menus, too.

Right now I’m reading a collection of Updike stories entitled “The Maples Stories,” about a fictional couple called the Maples whom Updike followed for decades from early marriage through disillusionment and conflict to divorce. The Maples are surrogates for Updike and his first wife, who split in the 70s.

Updike’s world is not mine. I don’t live (and never have lived) among brittle, intelligent, hard-drinking suburban couples during the 50s, 60s, and 70s who compulsively engaged in multiple affairs with each other, both casual and non. Or at least, if I did, I was so out of the loop I never realized it.

But Updike’s Maples stories—of which I’d read two or three even before reading this book—have always grabbed me because they seem to express almost perfectly the sturm and drang, the bittersweet regret, and the strong centripetal force that even a failing and miserable marriage can exert on wretched and flawed spouses deciding whether to remain together or go their separate ways.

Updike is not only a master of poetically precise language and description (both of external and internal states), but he is a master of observation. Once an art student, he retained an eye for just about everything. He’s been criticized for focusing on the trivial, the slight, the non-heroic, but I think that misses the point—which is his love of almost everything on earth as a source of wonder.

To Updike, nothing is trivial. Or rather, the celestial is in the details. For, despite his emphasis on the physical minutiae of illicit sex (more often found in the novels than the stories), and the large and small failures and betrayals of the human race (including, quite prominently, those of Updike himself, through surrogates), Updike’s other great theme is religion, as well as the fleeting nature of a single human life.

It was a quiet story entitled “Plumbing” in the Maples book that prompted this essay of mine. The story is about moving from an old house to a new, but that doesn’t even begin to capture what Updike does with his description of the empty old house and the life the family had lived there, beginning with a plumber’s dissertation on the flaws in the pipes in the new home to which the family has moved. I suggest you read the whole thing, but this excerpt may serve to give you just a tiny idea of the splendors hidden there:

The old house, the house we left, a mile away, seems relieved to be rid of our furniture. The rooms where we lived, where we staged our meals and ceremonies and self-dramatizations and where some of us went from infancy to adolescence—rooms and stairways so imbued with our daily motions that their irregularities were bred into our bones and could be traversed in the dark—do not seem to mourn, as I’d imagined they would. The house exults in its sudden size, in the reach of its empty corners. Floorboards long muffled by carpets shine as if freshly varnished. Sun pours unobstructed through the curtainless windows. The house is young again. It, too, had a self, a life, which for a time was eclipsed by our lives; now, before its new owners come to burden it, it is free. Now long moonlight makes the floor creak. When, some mornings, I return, to retrieve a few final oddments—andirons, picture frames—the space of the house greets me with virginal impudence. Opening the front door is like opening the door to the cat who comes in with the morning milk, who mews in passing on his way to the beds still warm with our night’s sleep, his routine so tenuously attached to ours, by a single mew and a shared roof. Nature is tougher than ecologists admit. Our house forgot us in a day.

[NOTE: If you haven’t read Updike on Vietnam, please do.]

Posted in Getting philosophical: life, love, the universe, Literature and writing, Me, myself, and I | 25 Replies

Nile Gardiner is wrong—“Benghazi bungling” is not a “disaster,” although it should be

The New Neo Posted on December 1, 2012 by neoDecember 1, 2012

Or actually, it is a disaster, but not exactly in the way Gardiner meant.

Nile Gardiner is a Washington-based British conservative pundit with foreign policy advisor experience, and in an article in the Telegraph headlined “The White House’s Benghazi bungling is proving a disaster” he writes that the Obama “administration is already struggling with a huge credibility problem on the Benghazi front.” In line with this argument, he points out that White House press secretary Jay Carney said, in response to questioning by Major Garrett:

…that Obama “is not particularly concerned” whether Susan Rice misled the American people in a series of talk show interviews following the killing of US Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other US personnel in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11…Carney’s response, as the president’s official spokesman is extraordinarily dismissive of the concerns of the American people as well as the United States Congress, and is representative of the administration’s shambolic handling of the Benghazi attack…

The lack of clarity from the White House on Benghazi is proving a disaster for the Obama administration, giving every impression that it is lacking in transparency, competence and accountability. During the second presidential election debate, Barack Obama promised to take responsibility for what happened. It is time for him to do so…

These words from Gardiner, which would make perfect sense in an ordinary world (or for any Republican president, or even many Democratic presidents in the past), simply do not apply to Obamaworld. The American people do not seem to be “concerned,” either, not at all. Major Garrett can ask all the questions he wants (and this one was actually pretty good, as you’ll see when you watch the video), but few people except us blogophiles on the right are listening, and Carney and Obama have learned that simply thumbing their noses at the American people is an excellent way to get the people to shrug:

I discovered this myself a few days after the election, when I had dinner with an old friend who is an intelligent, moderate, non-leftist Democrat with some conservative tendencies. This friend just didn’t care about Benghazi or the administration’s handling of it, didn’t know the details and was cynically dismissive of the topic because “all politicians lie.”

Well, they surely do—but not this brazenly, because most politicians at least have the fear of being called to account by the media and then the American people. I thought Mitt Romney should have pressed this much more in the third debate, but I also understood why he did not: it probably would have been perceived as beating a dead horse.

Actually, though, I’m surprised that Garrett asked the query at all. But will most members of the press ever get tired of prostituting themselves in the service of Obama? Is there anything about Benghazi that will finally get to them, including the fact that Carney’s answer insulted their intelligence?

So far I think the answer is a resounding “no,” but I would be exceedingly happy to be proven wrong.

Posted in Middle East, Obama, Press | 60 Replies

So Mr. Whittle,…

The New Neo Posted on December 1, 2012 by neoDecember 1, 2012

…tell us what you really think:

Posted in Election 2012, Liberals and conservatives; left and right | 41 Replies

The majority of Democrats like socialism

The New Neo Posted on November 30, 2012 by neoNovember 30, 2012

I’m getting tired of using the phrase “this is no surprise”—but this is no surprise. According to a new Gallup poll:

…more than half (53%) of Democrats or Democrat-leaners say they have a positive attitude toward socialism.

What is far, far stranger—and really is a surprise—is that 27% of Republicans or Republican-leaners also had a positive attitude toward socialism.

The only explanation I can think of—other than that the world has gone mad—is that a lot of people are unaware of what the terms “Republican” and “socialism” mean.

Come to think of it, that’s not really much of a surprise either.

Note also that among Democrats and Democrat-leaners, “capitalism” just barely nosed out “socialism” in positives, 55% to 53%. And yet “small business,” “free enterprise,” and “entrepreneurs” were hugely popular with both Republicans and Democrats (95%R/94%D, 94%R/88%D, and 91%R/84%D, respectively). Do Democrats not see these things as part and parcel of capitalism?

Here’s the chart. Go figure.

Posted in Finance and economics, Liberals and conservatives; left and right | 121 Replies

And in other news…

The New Neo Posted on November 30, 2012 by neoNovember 30, 2012

…the sun continues to set on American influence abroad. Do we notice?

It is symptomatic of the national condition of the United States that the worst humiliation ever suffered by it as a nation, and by a US president personally, passed almost without comment last week. I refer to the November 20 announcement at a summit meeting in Phnom Penh that 15 Asian nations, comprising half the world’s population, would form a Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership excluding the United States.

President Barack Obama attended the summit to sell a US-based Trans-Pacific Partnership excluding China. He didn’t. The American led-partnership became a party to which no-one came.

I think that “the worst humiliation ever” is hyperbole, but it’s certainly a bad humiliation. It seems that every time Obama personally attends one of these things, the result is rejection.

Posted in Finance and economics, Obama | 25 Replies

Pin the tail on the donkey

The New Neo Posted on November 30, 2012 by neoNovember 30, 2012

Commenter “beverly” suggests a new meme: “Pin the tail on the donkey.” Blame the Democrats.

I like it. Spread it around.

Only problem: without the cooperation of the MSM it’s probably impossible to do.

Paul Mirengoff points out that:

…[Obama’s offer is like that of] Michael Corleone, “My offer is this, nothing. Not even the money for the gaming license, which I would appreciate if you would put up personally.”

Even Times reporter Jonathan Weisman seemed taken aback by the White House’s position. He described the offer as “loaded with Democratic priorities and short on detailed spending cuts.” As far as I can tell, however, there are no detailed spending cuts. Obama did propose some upfront cuts in programs like farm price supports but, according to Weisman, did not specify an amount or any details.

The decision to present this absurdly one-sided proposal comes straight from the Obama playbook. Recall that the president has presented budgets so ridiculous that they could not garner even one Democratic vote in Congress. Republicans then presented detailed budgets that, unlike the president’s, actually address the debt crisis. Obama responding by demagoguing the Republican cuts.

When the NY Times points out (even if subtly) that Obama’s proposal is one-sided and no real proposal at all, you know how one-sided it must be. And as Rick Moran writes:

…[T]his gambit by Obama was not meant to outline the parameters of negotiations. It was initiated to begin the political process of blaming the GOP if talks fail. It is not serious governance. It is a reflection of the fact that the president has no clue how to govern, only how to run for office. This is a ploy one might find during a campaign, not an attempt to reach out seriously to the other side. Hence, there are so many poison pills in this proposal — pills the president knew the GOP would never, ever accept – that one can safely assume the president is perfectly willing to go over the fiscal cliff, confident that the American people, as instructed by his allies in the media, will blame Republicans for the disaster.

The only quarrel I have with that quote is that I’d say the president does know how to govern, by his own definition at least—which is to try to grab as much power as he possibly can. “Reaching out seriously to the other side” would be an unnecessary hindrance to Obama, so he does not do it, and it is not required of him, because the consequences that would occur for a Republican president who tried to do the same (excoriation by the media) do not exist for Obama.

Note that in the comments section of the Moran article, as well as comments on many other blogs, a fair number of conservatives respond by saying they will abandon the Republican Party—thus effectively pinning the tail on the elephant. IMHO that can only help Obama, although they are rightly angry at the Republicans’ propensity to play the role of Charlie Brown to Obama’s Lucy (an anger I share).

But I see Republicans as having no good alternatives here. Their biggest error (and it was a big one) was underestimating Obama’s ruthlessness, and exhibiting insufficient toughness themselves. And this error of perception about Obama is inexplicable, because he showed long ago, before he was elected (probably as early as his very first run for office in 1995), what he was made of.

So this is my question for you: what could the GOP do right now that would satisfy you? Is there anything? And do you really think turning on the Republican Party is the answer? What do you think will happen if significant numbers of conservatives do that?

Posted in Finance and economics, Obama, Politics | 47 Replies

FDR, the movies, presidential reputations, and history

The New Neo Posted on November 29, 2012 by neoNovember 29, 2012

Remember when the movies portrayed presidents as heroes? They left out a lot of the more sordid stuff (like, for example, affairs) because there was no need to focus on that. There was enough about presidents to admire, and it was considered uplifting to ask the nation to admire it.

Take the old biopic about FDR made in 1960, “Sunrise at Campobello. I saw it as a kid in the movie theater and I was very impressed with FDR’s courage in the face of adversity. It’s set during a time before he became president, and in its own way it was a “now it can be told” movie, revealing something about FDR that had been pretty well hidden during his lifetime: the extent of his disability; and his struggle to overcome it, enter politics, and minimize its severity to the world and the American people.

It’s an interesting premise: private courage, but hiding the truth about that in order to appear more heroic and stronger in the public’s eyes.

The movie featured a sanitized version of FDR’s marriage to a suffering yet strong and supportive Eleanor, played by Greer Garson with a false set of buck teeth. Not a hint of marital infidelity here—just “drama, devotion, and courage”:

In the many years since the movie was made, all the dirt has been raked up and evidence of FDR’s affair with Lucy Mercer is common knowledge. But it seems that’s not enough; now the movies have to invent more dirt if there isn’t enough already to satisfy us.

Case in point: a new biopic about FDR starring Bill Murray (Bill Murray???) as a generalized serial philanderer a la Bill Clinton:

On this particular trip, the president decides to wave off the police cruiser tailing him and forges a new path through the fields. He parks the car at the top of a hill overlooking the arresting meadows below, turns the radio up, and procures a smoke. Then he takes [his friend and fifth cousin Margaret] Suckley’s hand and slowly places it on his thigh. She is shocked, but intrigued. The president casually unzips his fly, and Suckley, ever the doting consort, gives him a handjob.

“I knew that we were not only fifth cousins, but very good friends,” she says in voice-over…

“Most of the scenes in the film happened behind closed doors, so I think you have to take every historical film as a version of those events,” said Michell after a screening of [his] film. “I don’t think it’s an irresponsible lurch into the improbable. It’s very probable.”

In the film, despite his seemingly earnest affection toward Suckley, FDR is portrayed as a bit of a philanderer, bedding members of his staff. His rampant infidelity is even pinpointed as the root cause of wife Eleanor’s romantic indifference…

We pretty much know by now that FDR had a least one dalliance that seems to have been a serious long-term love affair, as well as a possible other. But there’s no evidence of casual philandering of this nature, or of an affair with cousin Suckley. But hey, why not gild (or rather, sully) the lily by making the picture even worse than it was, because it could have happened?

Just as Tina Fey’s pretend quote from Sarah Palin about seeing Russia from her house replaced the actual quote from the real Sarah, so Oliver Stone’s movies have been regarded by way too many people as factual documentaries, or close to it. Movies can seem more real than history—especially to those who are ignorant of history, a seemingly growing number of people. In the past movies weren’t really true, either, but at least their makers tried to give us an idea of ourselves that was elevated rather than degraded.

[NOTE: The new film “Lincoln” may be an exception to this rule. I haven’t yet seen so I’m not sure, but my guess is that, if it manages to avoid creative smears about Lincoln, it would be because of his iconic and somewhat protected status due to his role vis a vis slavery. That brings an interesting thought to mind: if a biopic was ever made of the life of Martin Luther King, how would they treat his serial philandering?

Perhaps the answer to the whole thing is that I’ve got it reversed: a president or renowned public figure indiscriminately chasing after women is no longer considered a bug; it’s a feature. How very advanced and European of us!]

Posted in Historical figures, Movies | 28 Replies

Approaching the fiscal cliff without a barrel

The New Neo Posted on November 29, 2012 by neoNovember 29, 2012

There’s lots of talk today about the negotiations about the so-called fiscal cliff.

I’m not sure what Boehner and the other Republicans in Congress really think and whether they’re less naive than they were before about this; they certainly don’t seem strategically sophisticated or aware, now have they shown much of either trait in the past. But I don’t know, because I’m not at all sure there’s a way out of this that works for the Republicans, and perhaps their confusion and weakness is at least in part a reflection of that fact.

I’ve avoided writing about the looming fiscal cliff till now. But I’ve certainly been ruminating about it, with trepidation. The day after the election it suddenly struck me that, although I’d been thinking “well, at least we retained the House,” what power did that really give us? Mostly, perhaps, the power to be blamed, a power that Obama has exercised with more skill by far than any previous president, and more success as well.

One of the very first things I noticed about Obama was his tendency to blame others, and especially Republicans, for almost everything, and to avoid being called weak or buck-passing when doing so. And by “first things I noticed” I mean in June of 2008, before he became president or had even officially been nominated. The occasion was his first major broken promise, the one about campaign financing.

It’s instructive to look at it because of how early this incident was, and how clearly it established what has become a familiar pattern: Obama makes a promise, including a promise to negotiate with Republicans; then breaks it and blames the Republicans for what he’s doing, and the public accepts his version of things:

Yesterday Obama channeled Emily Litella and said “never mind,” taking back his earlier promise to accept public financing for his campaign if his opponent would as well. In November of 2007 he not only made this pledge, but added “I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.” He has not (see description of those negotiations here), and today he stopped even pretending that he would.

Well, so what? Promises, shmomises…

It’s not just that he reneged, either–it’s how he reneged. Who’s to blame, according to Obama? Why, John McCain and the nasty Republicans, that’s who. James Joyner writes that this charge of Obama’s does take “a bit of gall.” I’d say it takes substantially more than a bit, as well as a heavy dose of the whining, blaming, audacity in which the holier-than-thou Obama tends to specialize:

The public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who’ve become masters at gaming this broken system,” Mr. Obama said. “John McCain’s campaign and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs. And we’ve already seen that he’s not going to stop the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups, who will spend millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations.”

It’s worth reading the rest of the post to see how the seeds of so many behaviors of Obama’s were displayed during that one incident. The thing that most struck me back then was how brazen his reversal and blaming was, and that even though he did get a little criticism for it from some on the left, most of his supporters defended him and even those who’d offered some criticism didn’t hold it against him. I saw the entire incident as a testing of the waters by Obama to see how far this tactic would take him and how much he could get away with. The answers were: very far, and a great deal.

Now Obama is flush with power, the Republicans reeling in defeat. If they had lost the House, they’d be powerless, but at least they could not be blamed for their impotence. Now they have the illusion of power in that they have a majority there, but what can they do with it on this issue? It’s not as though Obama really wants to negotiate in good faith; his idea of negotiation is to do it his way. So the Republicans can give in to his demands, or stonewall and make their constituents happy. But if they choose the latter, they will not get any important concessions from Obama, and they will be blamed for—well, for everything bad that happens thereafter. They will have given Obama the rope with which to hang the Republican Party.

Some of you may say “so be it; they’re useless anyway.” And I share some of that feeling. It’s very frustrating to look back at the early years of the Bush administration, when Republicans could have cut back on spending instead of expanding it, and reformed health insurance and by so doing finessed Obamacare, and to know the opportunities were passed up and messed up.

But be very, very careful what you wish for. The demise of the Republican Party is not likely to mean that a wonderful new conservative party—designed to your exact specifications, and composed of strategically adept winners—will rise, cleansed, from its ashes.

Posted in Finance and economics, Liberals and conservatives; left and right, Obama | 34 Replies

Wet cats

The New Neo Posted on November 28, 2012 by neoNovember 28, 2012

You won’t see too many cat videos on this blog (in fact, have you ever seen any?), because I’m not inordinately fond of cats.

Oh, I’ve liked an individual one now and then, but in the main I have no use for them—and so of course they absolutely adore me.

But I didn’t realize that some cats like water (and if, like me, you’re bugged by the musical accompaniment, just mute it):

And man, people sure like that video. Over thirty-two million views! It’s not that funny. So what is it, folks; do people just like cats?

And what’s up with that incredibly annoying red thing in the upper-right-hand corner, in Russian, that I can’t get rid of? Any tips on how to eradicate it?

Posted in Pop culture | 44 Replies

Conservativism’s handicap: it’s complicated

The New Neo Posted on November 28, 2012 by neoNovember 28, 2012

This WSJ piece by William McGurn has a good discussion of something I’ve thought about before: why it’s so hard for conservatives to reach the public and explain their ideas, as compared to liberals.

The dominant media conclusion from this is that the Republican Party is cooked unless it surrenders its principles. I’m not so sure. To the contrary, it strikes me that now is a pretty good time to get back to principles””and to do more to show people who gave President Obama his victory why their dreams and families would be better served by a philosophy of free markets and limited government.

Let’s concede that those who are pushing to expand government have one huge advantage. Their advantage is that their solutions are immediate, direct and easy to explain.

Being correct, however, isn’t the same thing as being persuasive. The conservative is rightly concerned with incentives and the long-term effects of any government program for relief, which are vital concerns for workable policy. The liberal is far less abstract: Here are some food stamps so your children don’t go hungry tonight.

Never mind the long-term costs and consequences of these solutions. Yes, the education loans that supposedly make college “affordable” actually drive its costs up faster than normal inflation. Yes, housing subsidies have saddled people with homes they cannot afford. And, yes, minimum-wage laws price the people who can least afford it out of the job market. The dilemma for those of us who oppose big-government solutions is that the true costs of these “solutions” are seldom clear until it’s too late.

Read the whole thing.

Posted in Liberals and conservatives; left and right | 72 Replies

Astounding news: millionaires are not dummies and will act in their own self-interest

The New Neo Posted on November 28, 2012 by neoNovember 28, 2012

Yes folks, believe it or not, it’s true [emphasis mine]:

In the 2009-10 tax year, more than 16,000 people [in Britain] declared an annual income of more than £1 million to HM Revenue and Customs.

This number fell to just 6,000 after Gordon Brown introduced the new 50p top rate of income tax shortly before the last general election…

It is believed that rich Britons moved abroad or took steps to avoid paying the new levy by reducing their taxable incomes.

George Osborne, the Chancellor, announced in the Budget earlier this year that the 50p top rate will be reduced to 45p from next April.

Since the announcement, the number of people declaring annual incomes of more than £1 million has risen to 10,000.

However, the number of million-pound earners is still far below the level recorded even at the height of the recession and financial crisis.

Last night, Harriet Baldwin, the Conservative MP who uncovered the latest figures, said: “Labour’s ideological tax hike led to a tax cull of millionaires.

Far from raising funds, it actually cost the UK £7 billion in lost tax revenue.

We don’t know what really happened to all those millionaires, or why. But that up-down-up-down pattern is mighty indicative that the tax-raise and tax-cut were partly or even mostly to blame.

And it’s “interesting” that a lot of people don’t seem to get the difference between tax rates and tax revenues, the difference that makes a difference. So, why don’t they get it? One reason is that tax rates are something you can legislate, whereas the tax revenues that result can only be estimated (often wrongly), calculated ex post facto, and any drop can be blamed on some other factor.

What’s more, tax rates are what politicians campaign on. Lately the public seems to like to stick it to the rich, and so liberals who advocate such tactics (such as our very own president) are often elected. What happens later in terms of actual revenues is easier to ignore and/or explain away—and after all, what we are really interested in these days is the show, the narrative, the appearance of things (fairness! reducing income inequality!) rather than the actual long-term results.

[NOTE: And yes, I’m aware of all the brouhaha around the blogosphere lately about the fact that the higher rate is not paid on the millionaires’ entire incomes. I’m not going to get into that issue right now, except to say that there’s disagreement among more expert pundits than I on the subject of how much the tax hikes really affect the rich. Here’s a summary of some of the major points, and also see this.]

Posted in Finance and economics, Politics | 21 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

  • Barry Meislin on Gavin Newsom gave taxpayer money to CAIR
  • FOAF on Lenient plea deal for man responsible for the death of Paul Kessler during an anti-Israel demonstration
  • BJ on Young versus old: the politics of generational envy
  • AesopFan on Today’s worthless news on Iran
  • AesopFan on California dreaming: have the voters had enough of the left for now?

Recent Posts

  • Young versus old: the politics of generational envy
  • Gavin Newsom gave taxpayer money to CAIR
  • California dreaming: have the voters had enough of the left for now?
  • Open thread 5/7/2026
  • Indiana RINOs go down in primaries

Categories

  • A mind is a difficult thing to change: my change story (17)
  • Academia (319)
  • Afghanistan (97)
  • Amazon orders (6)
  • Arts (8)
  • Baseball and sports (162)
  • Best of neo-neocon (90)
  • Biden (536)
  • Blogging and bloggers (583)
  • Dance (287)
  • Disaster (239)
  • Education (320)
  • Election 2012 (360)
  • Election 2016 (565)
  • Election 2018 (32)
  • Election 2020 (511)
  • Election 2022 (114)
  • Election 2024 (403)
  • Election 2026 (26)
  • Election 2028 (5)
  • Evil (127)
  • Fashion and beauty (323)
  • Finance and economics (1,018)
  • Food (316)
  • Friendship (47)
  • Gardening (18)
  • General information about neo (4)
  • Getting philosophical: life, love, the universe (729)
  • Health (1,138)
  • Health care reform (545)
  • Hillary Clinton (184)
  • Historical figures (331)
  • History (700)
  • Immigration (432)
  • Iran (439)
  • Iraq (224)
  • IRS scandal (71)
  • Israel/Palestine (799)
  • Jews (423)
  • Language and grammar (361)
  • Latin America (203)
  • Law (2,914)
  • Leaving the circle: political apostasy (124)
  • Liberals and conservatives; left and right (1,283)
  • Liberty (1,102)
  • Literary leftists (14)
  • Literature and writing (388)
  • Me, myself, and I (1,476)
  • Men and women; marriage and divorce and sex (910)
  • Middle East (381)
  • Military (318)
  • Movies (347)
  • Music (526)
  • Nature (255)
  • Neocons (32)
  • New England (177)
  • Obama (1,736)
  • Pacifism (16)
  • Painting, sculpture, photography (128)
  • Palin (93)
  • Paris and France2 trial (25)
  • People of interest (1,024)
  • Poetry (255)
  • Political changers (176)
  • Politics (2,775)
  • Pop culture (393)
  • Press (1,618)
  • Race and racism (861)
  • Religion (419)
  • Romney (164)
  • Ryan (16)
  • Science (625)
  • Terrorism and terrorists (967)
  • Theater and TV (264)
  • Therapy (69)
  • Trump (1,601)
  • Uncategorized (4,394)
  • Vietnam (109)
  • Violence (1,412)
  • War and Peace (993)

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
↑