The Fetterman standard of decorum

The New Neo Posted on by

You’ve probably read the brouhaha about the relaxation of dress codes for senators in order to accommodate Fetterman. If you’re not, and you need to get up to speed, see this. An excerpt:

There has been some outrage after Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) relaxed the dress code for the Senate floor to accommodate the homeless fashion styles of Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.).

Since the aptly dubbed “Fetterman Rule” came to be, several Republicans in Congress have been justifiably critical of undermining tradition and decorum because one senator can’t be bothered to dress appropriately. …

“Of course, I’ve heard about it,” Fetterman replied. “I’ve heard that some people are upset about that, and the right have been, like, losing their mind. You know, they’re just like, ‘Oh my God, you know, dogs and cats are living together,’ and you know, like I said, aren’t there more important things we should be talking about rather than if I dress like a slob?”

Earth to Fetterman: yes there are, and you know what? People are talking about those things, too. Most of them don’t revolve around you – although the ones that do revolve around you are hardly limited to your mode of dress, which is merely a symbol of a host of other more important things that are wrong with you.

And yet that word “decorum” is an interesting one and a meaningful one as well. It is the outward manifestation of an attitude of respect: “dignified propriety of behavior, speech, dress, etc.” What is someone saying by abiding by it, and what is a person who rejects it saying? How we present ourselves to the world is a message about both us and our attitudes to others, and I keep coming back to that word “respect.” In this, Fetterman is emblematic of our degraded times.

I wonder if anyone has ever asked Fetterman why he dresses as he does; so far I haven’t been able to find it, but I assume such as interview exists. However, I imagine that the reason is that even before he was a senator it was his trademark. You might say it’s his brand. What does he mean for it to signify? That he’s cool, that he’s different, that he doesn’t put on airs? This article on the subject of Fetterman doesn’t explain, except to say that he “hates” suits and that his casual attire is a sign of his recovery from depression (never heard that before of anyone; usually it’s the other way around).

I’m with DeSantis on this:

The US Senate just eliminated its dress code because you got this guy from Pennsylvania [Fetterman] – who’s got a lot of problems … he wears, like, sweatshirts and hoodies and shorts … We need to be lifting up our standards in this country, not dumbing down.

Good luck with that.

Hunter Biden says how dare the IRS investigate me!

The New Neo Posted on by

You almost got to admire Hunter Biden for being such a good demonstration of the old Jewish joke about the definition of chutzpah – the guy who murders his parents and says the court should be lenient with him because he’s an orphan.

No, Hunter didn’t murder Joe. But he does have the chutzpah to sue the IRS:

Hunter Biden’s attorneys filed a lawsuit against the IRS on Monday, alleging that agents have “targeted and sought to embarrass” the president’s son.

Biden’s Monday morning filing cites two major examples in IRS agents Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler, two whistleblowers who claimed the IRS mishandled aspects of its investigation into Biden.

Biden’s lawsuit seeks for the court to declare that the IRS “willfully, knowingly, and/or by gross negligence, unlawfully disclosed Mr. Biden’s confidential tax information.”

It’s enough to make you root for the IRS.

More:

Shapley’s legal team responded to Biden’s lawsuit in a statement Monday morning, dismissing the move as a stalling tactic.

“This suit against the IRS is just another frivolous smear by Biden family attorneys trying to turn people’s attention away from Hunter Biden’s own legal problems and intimidate any current and future whistleblower,” Shapley’s attorneys wrote. “The federal judge in Delaware who oversaw the aborted plea deal shot down similar claims against the whistleblowers after they exposed the secret backroom deal between Hunter Biden and the Department of Justice. Neither IRS SSA Gary Shapley nor his attorneys have ever released any confidential taxpayer information except through whistleblower disclosures authorized by statute.

It’s also difficult to understand how Hunter Biden could be embarrassed at this point. He seems to act with no sense of shame, as far as I can see.

Jonathan Turley on Jack Smith’s attempt to impose a gag order on Trump

The New Neo Posted on by

Turley writes:

Smith told District Judge Tanya Chutkan in Washington, D.C., that Trump could “present a serious and substantial danger of prejudicing” his 2020 federal election interference case.

Smith compared Trump’s comments on the trial to the “disinformation” spread by Trump after the 2020 election — the subject of the indictment.

The motion states that Trump’s “recent extrajudicial statements are intended to undermine public confidence in an institution — the judicial system — and to undermine confidence in and intimidate individuals — the Court, the jury pool, witnesses, and prosecutors.”

I have long criticized Trump’s inflammatory comments over these cases, but Smith’s solution veers dangerously into core political speech in the middle of a presidential election.

How many people are confident in the Court, the jury pool, and prosecutors in this DC case? I suppose it depends on what the meaning of “confident” is. Democrats are probably quite confident that Trump will be found guilty no matter how weak the evidence in the objective sense, or how convoluted the legal theories employed to charge him. And Republicans are probably quite “confident” of the pro-left bias of those institutions.

Another thing: it’s the trial itself that involves a blatant attempt to “prejudice” the 2024 election – against Trump. That is also glaringly obvious.

Turley says:

Ironically, Smith’s move will likely be seen as reinforcing Trump’s claim of intentional election interference by the Biden Administration.

Ya think?

You may recall that Turley is not a Trump fan at all, but he tends to be one of those people who tries to apply the same standards to both sides. Quaint.

It is also rather quaint that Turley follows up that statement about the perception of intentional election interference by the Biden administration with this:

I do not view it that way, but I do believe Smith is showing his signature lack of restraint in high-profile cases, a tendency that led to the unanimous overturning of his conviction of former Virginia Republican Gov. Robert McDonnell.

If Turley doesn’t view this lawfare as intentional election interference, then what is Smith’s “lack of restraint” about? It seems to mostly or only be directed at GOP targets – does this not arouse Turley’s suspicions?

More:

More importantly, this is no typical case.

Smith has pushed for a trial before the election and the court inexplicably shoehorned the trial into a crowded calendar just before the Super Tuesday election.

Doesn’t seem all that “inexplicable,” if you imagine that it’s deliberate election interference.

On election fraud and mail-in ballots

The New Neo Posted on by

Here are the allegations:

Bridgeport Mayor Joe Ganim just won the Democratic primary, effectively securing his seventh term as mayor of the largest city in Connecticut. However, his Democratic opponent — John Gomes, a city employee fired by Ganim earlier this year — isn’t conceding. He claims Ganim stole the election by tampering with mail-in ballots, and he’s released video he claims proves that’s what happened. …

It turns out Gomes had good reason to question the validity of the ballots, and this wasn’t some outrageous attempt to delegitimize the election. Ganim also won the 2019 primary election with a come-from-behind victory that resulted from counting absentee ballots. Media accounts surrounding that election reported the absentee ballots in that election were “rife with irregularities.”

On Aug. 30, almost four full years later, Connecticut’s State Elections Enforcement Commission recommended criminal charges for three people connected to Ganim’s campaign relating to their suspected mishandling of absentee ballots in the 2019 election. …

Now John Gomes has released video that he says shows city employee Wanda Geter-Pataky, who is affiliated with the Ganim campaign, stuffing ballots into drop boxes. “State statute says absentee ballots can be returned only by the ballot applicant, their family members, police officers, local election officials or someone who is directly caring for someone who receives an absentee ballot because they are ill or physically disabled,” according to the Mirror.

More at the link.

It seems intuitively obvious that mail-in ballots and drop boxes are a recipe for trouble. Prior to 2020, that used to be a universally accepted concern. Now the MSM and the Democrats want us to believe that such things are always highly secure – that is, unless the battle is Democrat to Democrat in Bridgeport.

Or unless the Republican wins, as in 2016.

Red flags galore for Hunter Biden’s transactions, and then what?

The New Neo Posted on by

Commenter “Richard Aubrey” asks a good question:

I was in the life insurance business up until about 2016. For the last ten years or thereabouts, several companies with which I had contracts wanted me to take a quick class on spotting money laundering and reporting it. Had to retake annually. And I wasn’t a banker or financial advisor or tax accountant or any of that sort of thing.

Among other things, transfers between companies with no noticeable business advantage were suspect. Ignoring early withdrawal penalties…. Transactions of $10k or more were automatically flagged…for somebody to look at. Various other items were to be looked for or reported. Point is, lots of people with Duty To Report almost certainly saw Biden money going past. Did they raise a red flag? Then what?

And here’s the answer:

From 2015 until present, several federal agencies were alerted to suspicious activity and potential criminal activities by Hunter Biden, President Joe Biden’s son. Each time, the allegations did not result in any consequences for the first son.

The pattern – over eight years and three separate presidential administrations – has some in Congress now seeing a protection racket. …

“Well, there’s two things we’re investigating; the Biden crime, and the Biden crime cover-up. And the cover-up continues to grow and expand,” he added during an interview with the Just the News, No Noise television show. “..This cover-up has been going on for a long time.”

That’s what happened: nothing. Why nothing happened is the question. The allegations and alerts are well-documented. Here is one:

Morgan Stanley crafted a bank compliance presentation in the spring of 2015 after becoming aware of the suspicious activities surrounding Rosemont Seneca. Morgan Stanley sought to flag suspicious activity in a scheme that involved fraudulent Native American tribal bonds. The transaction structure described by Morgan Stanley contained numerous entities and individuals with ties to Hunter Biden, including Devon Archer, Rosemont Seneca, and Burnham Financial Group. …

Morgan Stanley eventually referred the matter to the SEC, which opened a probe with the FBI and IRS that led to the arrest and conviction of Archer and other Hunter Biden associates for securities fraud. But Hunter Biden – though he was subpoenaed – was hardly mentioned in the case and never charged.

More at the link. Also this from a year ago, a quote from a letter to “the Biden Administration and several banks and financial institutions” written by James Comer. The records in question were ultimately provided, after delays:

“Troubling reports have recently surfaced that numerous international business transactions tied to Hunter and James Biden, the President’s brother, were flagged to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) through Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs). At the same time, the Biden Administration is restricting Congress’ access to SARs. This reversal of longstanding policy raises serious questions about the motives behind the change, including whether it is intended to protect Hunter Biden,” wrote Ranking Member Comer to Secretary Yellen. “More than 150 international business transactions tied to Hunter or James Biden were flagged by U.S. banks in SARs filed with the U.S. Department of the Treasury. The sheer number of flagged transactions in this case is highly unusual and may be indicative of serious criminal activity or a national security threat. We are particularly concerned where those transactions may involve business with firms or entities, including those with direct ties to foreign governments, hostile to the United States’ interests.”

Apparently the impeachment inquiry will involve the possible crimes and the possible coverups.

Have you ever known a person who claims to have never had an upset stomach?

The New Neo Posted on by

I know such a person.

In a conversation with a friend the other day I was gobsmacked to hear her claim to have never had a stomach ache or a digestive upset of any kind. She’s in her 70s, by the way, and not the least bit cognitively challenged. So I figure she’s telling the truth.

Is this even possible? Have you ever heard of such a thing?

It reminds me of people who claim they’ve never had a headache or never had a cold, and it doesn’t seem to just be braggadocio. It seems to me that they inhabit a different body universe.

Can we trust The Daily Mail on this?:

Respiratory diseases expert Professor Ron Eccles, who heads the Common Cold Centre at Cardiff University, is convinced that genetics are the reason some people never catch the cold virus.

He says: ‘We are each born with a unique immune system, akin to a fingerprint. Those who don’t suffer colds are probably infected with the virus, but their immune system kills it so they don’t develop symptoms.’

I suppose.

Do you detect a note of envy here?

I also have a relative who had three children and never had a labor pain. But she’s had plenty of stomach aches. The Daily Mail also has something to say about the painless labor phenomenon. There are some people who generally don’t feel pain:

The mother of two, now 72, has never had a headache. She didn’t realise she had broken her arm for three days, only discovered she’d suffered an enormous flesh-tearing burn hours after spilling boiling coffee on herself and happily continued her walks in the Scottish mountains on an arthritic hip bone that had all but disintegrated. ‘I regularly burn and cut myself badly and I don’t know I’m doing it,’ she says.

That’s not the case with my relative, who has normal pain perceptions, but just not in labor. I can’t explain it. Nor did it have anything to do with using the Lamaze method. I did all those exercises prior to childbirth, and as far as I can tell they did zilch to help with labor pain.

But I bet you don’t want to hear my labor story. All I’ll say about it now is my claim to labor fame is that my baby was born en caul:

When a baby is born “en caul,” it means they emerge from the womb still encased (at least partially) in the amniotic sac that helped sustain them for the last nine months. These births are exceedingly rare because the fluid-filled amniotic sac usually ruptures at some point during labor.

They are also known as “mermaid” births, and are estimated to occur in about one in 80,000 births. And this isn’t the same as being born in a caul, just the membrane – as David Copperfield claimed for himself – but we’re talking the entire kit-and-caboodle including all the fluid.

Ken Paxton acquitted in Texas Senate

The New Neo Posted on by

I haven’t written much about the impeachment of Ken Paxton, the Republican attorney general of Texas. Today was the vote in the Texas Senate, and he’s been acquitted of charges of bribery, corruption, and being unfit for office.

The Texas legislature is controlled by the GOP, and yet in the House the vote to impeach Paxton was overwhelming. In the Senate, which requires 2/3 to convict, it wasn’t close. What’s going on? It’s not that easy to tell, but from reading a bunch of newspaper articles (not especially informative) and a ton of blog posts and comments, the gist of the rumors goes like this: the impeachment was an attempt by Bush forces in Texas and the Republican Speaker of the Texas House to take Paxton – a far more conservative, Trump-supporting guy – down.

Here’s a little recent history about Paxton and the speaker:

On May 19, 2023, Phelan struggled to speak while executing his duties as speaker of the Texas House. Fellow Republican and attorney general Ken Paxton called upon Phelan to resign due to “apparent debilitating intoxication”. Phelan “negatively impacted the legislative process and constitutes a failure to live up to his duty to the public” according to the statement. Phelan’s office characterized Paxton’s statement as “a last-ditch effort to save face” given the timing – that same day, a Republican-led House committee came public with an investigation into Paxton that had been ongoing since March of that year. That investigation led to the House formally impeaching Paxton on May 27 by a vote of 121–23.

I know very little about inner Texas politics or the Texas GOP, except that I assume there is a split between the anti-Trump Bush forces and the pro-Trump conservatives. The scuttlebutt also is that the House members voted quite quickly for the impeachment, fearing retaliation from Phelan if they didn’t vote that way. I have no idea whether this is true, but if anyone knows more about Texas politics than I – and that might be many of you – feel free to opine in the comments.

The amazing astounding Thomas Sowell has come out with a new book at 93

The New Neo Posted on by

[Hat tip: commenter “T J.”]

When I first discovered the writing of Thomas Sowell, about a year into what ultimately became my political change, I experienced a tremendous sense of admiration and relief. Admiration because his writing was so clear and so intelligent, and relief because it made more sense than anything political I’d ever read.

I’ve watched many Sowell interviews over the years, and the guy is similarly clear and intelligent when speaking. He’s also afraid of no one and is never intimidated. I imagine he’s made plenty of enemies over the years, but I doubt any of them can outwit him. I’ve read his autobiography, too, and his life story is as interesting as one might think.

No one lasts forever, and Sowell has reached the venerable age of 93. But guess what? He’s come out with a new book, Social Justice Fallacies. I haven’t read it but I think I can recommend it without reservation.

And here he is at 93, being interviewed about it. I’ve only watched a couple of minutes, but he looks and sounds fantastic:

NOTE: Although Sowell’s been on the right for a long long time, he’s actually a political changer himself, having been a Marxist in his early years.