The ubiquitous blue jean

The New Neo Posted on by

Commenter Promethea recently wrote of women’s fashion:

Thank goodness for blue jeans. If the right size, they look good on almost everybody.

Almost everybody? I agree that some women look absolutely fantastic in blue jeans, especially if young and fit. And models who look good in anything look really, really, really good in blue jeans.

But I think most women look bad in them, or at best mediocre.

Yes, I know I’ll get flak for saying that. It’s almost un-American, isn’t it? But I’ll stand my ground.

And blue jeans are bor-ing. Everybody wears them almost all the time, like Mao jackets in China during the Cultural Revolution. I am heartily sick of them. What’s more, they’re not especially comfortable, either, especially tight ones. Everybody says they are, but I don’t see it.

Take a look at the photos here on how to choose the correct pair of jeans. The complexity of the decisions involved re pocket placement, pants leg width and shape, darkness of wash, stitching, feathering vs. fading, and more, sound so daunting that it’s no surprise that so many people just wear their favorite old jeans till they disintegrate.

Although I studied all the photos at that site and read which jeans are supposed to be undeniably superior to the other jeans on the same women in the side-by-side pictures, most of the time the difference was not all that apparent to me.

Here’s a single example. Which pair of jeans do you think is supposed to be best? Well, I know you know, because the caption above the photos tell you—but seriously, do you think the pair on the right is so very much more flattering than the pair on the left? I think vice versa:

And that’s a person who looks relatively good in both jeans, although she’s certainly no fashion model. Here is a more typical sight; and believe me, I’m not trying to make fun of these women. They’re more or less normal-looking, and would look a lot better in the right pants:

In case you wonder—yes, I’ve got some jeans. They’re dark, and wide-legged, and they look pretty much like this, only without the contrasting stitching:

In other words, they look pretty much like slacks. And that’s why I like them.

It’s a race between the Clintons and Obama…

The New Neo Posted on by

…to see who can throw who under the bus first, according to Ed Klein.

According to me as well, even though I have no insider info. It’s been rather obvious that Obama has been planning to blame Hillary, as SoS, for the disaster in Benghazi. It’s just as obvious that she and her husband would try to protect themselves.

I say you lie down with dogs you get up with fleas. I also assume the truth is even more Byzantine than described in the article.

The motive

The New Neo Posted on by

Commenter “effess” asks:

Is it possible that the Obama-Biden campaign wanted Biden to behave this way during the debate? If so, why? Was Biden trying to win the clown vote?

My answer is: sort of.

I believe the campaign wanted Biden to be aggressive, and to mock Ryan as a liar. After all, the charge “liar” was almost the entire thrust of Biden’s strange antics. Furthermore, “liar” accusations have been a huge part of the Obama campaign against Ryan from the moment his candidacy was declared, and particularly since his speech at the Republican Convention. Much of the MSM has been complicit, so much so that till now if you asked most low-information voters what they think of Ryan they just might have said “liar.”

Biden was also appealing to the base, which is hostile and juvenile. He certainly accomplished his goal in that. What the Obama campaign may not have counted on is how Joe’s behavior would play to the middle. Obama also probably did not expect Joe to overplay his role in such strange and offputting fashion.

In case you haven’t seen it yet…

The New Neo Posted on by

…watch this ad. It’s devastating, capturing the disturbing (and disturbed) nature of Joe Biden’s odd behavior during last night’s debate:

Biden made me think of the Joker:

…[I]nterpretations and incarnations of the Joker have taken two forms. The original and currently dominant image is of a highly intelligent psychopath with a warped, sadistic sense of humor. The other interpretation of the character, popular in the late 1940s through 1960s comic books as well as the 1960s television series, is that of an eccentric but harmless prankster.

Biden’s laughter is derisive laughter, in keeping with the Obama campaign theme of contempt for the opposition. There is no actual humor in his guffawing, and his grin looks forced, as though he’s made a decision to laugh as a technique, perhaps to goad Ryan to anger. Most pundits agree the behavior was a way to rev up the base. But what does it say about the Democratic base if this is the sort of thing that gets its members’ juices flowing?

But it’s Clint Eastwood who’s come out way ahead in both these debates. His “empty chair” metaphor for Obama seemed amazingly prescient. And listen to what he said at the Republican Convention about Joe Biden:

“Kind of a grin with a body behind it.” Is Eastwood clairvoyant?

Post-debate thoughts

The New Neo Posted on by

I didn’t watch much of the fray tonight (my usual debate-phobia). But from what I did see, I found Biden’s behavior not just disrespectful and undignified, but bizarre. He did everything but pound a shoe on a table. I’m trying to think of any major American politician—president, vice president, speaker, Democrat or Republican—who’s ever exhibited anything akin to Biden’s inappropriate affect, his derisive laughter when the opponent is speaking, or just his all-around strangeness.

Biden was like the drunken blowhard you meet at a bar, the guy everybody is entertained by for a just little bit (especially if they’ve been drinking, too) and then it’s more than enough. Laughing and telling stories, talking too much, and then saying the drinks are on him and by the way he can lick everybody in the place.

Does anyone want this man to be a heartbeat away from the presidency? Seriously, folks, I think that even were I a Democrat, I’d be frightened of Biden coming to any kind of power.

It says a lot about Obama that he chose him. It says a lot about Obama that he kept him. Obama likes to be surrounded by people who are mediocre and loyal to him. They won’t show him up, and they’ll do his dirty work as bidden. Biden is the epitome of this; he’s exactly and precisely what Obama wants in a VP.

I become more and more convinced that this election will be a test of the American people and their judgment. We will either pass it or fail it.

[ADDENDUM: Biden wasn’t just un-presidential. He was un-vice-presidential.]

[ADDENDUM: Bookworm has much the same thing to say:

Joe was the bloviating, obnoxious drunk at the bar who had grabbed Ryan by his lapel and wouldn’t let go. You could practically see Ryan’s hair melt from the noxious odors wafting out from behind Joe’s peculiarly whitened dentures.

I do not know that I have ever before seen such a loathsome spectacle at the national level. ]

Getting ready…

The New Neo Posted on by

…for tonight’s VP debate?

I think the media will declare Biden the winner, “unexpectedly.”

Good old Joe. In 2008 he just made stuff up, and it was perfectly fine with the MSM, because he was debating the nefarious Sarah Palin, who actually didn’t make stuff up.

Lemann on Romney: Transaction Man

The New Neo Posted on by

There’s a curious piece on Mitt Romney in The New Yorker, by Nicholas Lemann, dean of the Columbia School of Journalism.

It’s called “Transaction Man,” and the first half of it (approximately) is just about what you’d expect, although with a milder tone than the more fire-breathing writers on the left employ. The usual bases are covered: the bane of Bain, the 47% remark, Romney’s atypically privileged youth, the otherness of Mormons, and his abysmal failure to fire up crowds (the article was written before the debate). But then it abruptly veers into other territory, and that’s when it becomes quite different from anything else I’ve ever read about Romney.

Lemann decided to interview the candidate (this occurs on page 7 of the 11-page article), and most of the rest of the piece merely reports what Romney said in response. Lemann explains:

Because Romney’s answers to the standard political questions are usually scripted and unrevealing, I asked him about business. Why had General Motors, the economic titan of his youth, fallen so low?

It turned out to be an inspired decision on Lemann’s part. Romney is off and running—as Lemann writes:

Romney clearly loved talking about this, and he was showing how he thinks about running things, including the federal government.

The answers are not only interesting and highly intelligent, they’re intelligent in an unusual way, especially for a politician (this is probably because Romney is not primarily a politician). The contrast between Obama and Romney could not be more stark; I would describe it as insubstantial abstraction coupled with emotional appeals versus solution-focused pragmatism grounded in concrete experience.

I also got the impression that Lemann himself had trouble reconciling his own liberalism with his actual experience of Romney when he talked to him one on one. I would go so far as to say he liked and respected him, and was even impressed by him. I’m putting words into Lemann’s mouth, though; he doesn’t really say that, he just backs off from saying much of anything, except that Romney has trouble conveying his ideas to large crowds as effectively as in this more personal venue.

I’ll excerpt a little of what Romney said, just to give you an idea of its flavor:

[Romney] led into a discussion of politics by talking about the strategic myopia of many business executives. “They agree to actions which are good on a short-term basis but may be more hazardous long term. And so, for instance, if you’re the chief executive officer of General Motors back in the nineteen-seventies and a contract comes forward which has onerous legacy costs, why, you know that those costs are not going to be borne on your term, because it’s going to be done for future retirees. And so you might agree to something that is harmful to the company long term but, by the way, beneficial short term, because who wants to take a strike, to prevent a provision that’s going to hurt ten years or twenty years down the road?

“This is particularly true, by the way, in politics,” he went on, “where politicians regularly agree to huge contracts with back-end-loaded benefits, and the day of reckoning finally comes, but they’re long gone.” He allowed a hint of sarcasm to creep into his voice. “While they were there, everything was great. But look at the contracts they entered into!”

I asked whether it was possible to run the vast, diffuse American government the way you would run a business. “The private sector is less forgiving,” he said. “If you make serious mistakes in the private sector, you’ll lose your job, or, if you’re in a position of responsibility, you might lose other people’s jobs. In politics, politicians make mistakes all the time and blame their opposition, or borrow more money, or raise taxes to pay for their mistake. In the business world, the ability to speak fast and convincingly is of very little value. I remember the first time I met Jack Welch. I expected him to be a super-salesman. Instead, he spoke quietly, somewhat haltingly, but brilliantly. Stuff matters a lot more than fluff in the private sector.”

Red the whole thing—or at least read from page seven till the end. You’ll get a much better idea than you had before of the type of mind Romney has.

Why did Obama lie so blatantly about Benghazi?

The New Neo Posted on by

I noticed today that Ann Althouse asks a series of questions about why Obama decided to put out such a blatant, easily debunked, lie about Benghazi. Her queries are similar to those I was planning to ask in a post today. So I needn’t bother to ask them myself; I’ll just link to her, and offer my answers.

First, her questions in a nutshell:

Quite aside from the wrongness of lying, generally and specifically, in this case, and quite aside from the motivation to lie ”” I’m going to presume, without more, it was campaign politics ”” why did Obama think he could get away with this lie long enough, and why was he not daunted by the risk entailed in going on and on, doubling down on the lie, and even lying in a U.N. speech? How did he have the nerve to co-opt our U.N. ambassador, Susan Rice, and subvert her credibility and honor? How did he get this millstone around the neck of Hillary Clinton, who has such a strong interest in her independent career and who knows a thing or two about the devastation of getting caught lying?…

It wasn’t respectful at all to promote this caricature of Muslims as people who look at a stupid video and lose their minds, take to the streets, and work themselves up into a murderous rage. The video story could only work as a cover for the truth if it could be leveraged on an offensive stereotype of Muslims. It is the story about the response to the video ”” far more the video itself ”” that has “a deeply cynical purpose, to denigrate a great religion”! Why didn’t Obama care that he was insulting Muslims in this weird charade about caring for Muslims?

Answers?

Obama thought he could get away with the lie because he always has. There was no reason for him to think the media would hold his feet to the fire on this particular issue; why would he? Unless I’m forgetting something, for the most part (if you exclude Jake Tapper and the media on the right, which hardly counts in the scheme of things), when have they ever done so?

So it was in a sense a no-brainer for him, because to have admitted the truth would have been to admit that his approach to the Middle East Islamists/terrorists is wrong.

As for the co-option of Rice and Clinton, Hillary lost all credibility with me as Secretary of State long ago—probably from the moment she took on the job, which is clearly above her pay grade. Among Obama’s very first foreign policy acts was his stance on Honduras, which remains one of his worst (although the press basically ignored it or covered for him). If that didn’t cause her resignation or protest, she has no integrity left. She has become a wholly-owned subsidiary of Obama, as has her husband. Whatever they may be plotting behind the scenes, that is the case at the moment.

Rice is more of an unknown. Perhaps she was misled; perhaps not. Perhaps she was being a good diplomat and saying what the administration told her to.

As for Obama’s view on Muslims, he has been very consistent in parroting the PC party line, which is that no insult to Islam is allowed, and it is to be expected that they will riot as a result. The entire approach of the left to the behavior of what used to be called “the Muslim street” is that their acts of rage are justified, and if that position infantilizes them then so be it. It’s a very small price to pay, one the left probably doesn’t even recognize as an issue. Remember the PC Commandments, from 2005? If you don’t, here’s a refresher:

1. America is uniquely evil.
2. America is never justified in defending itself.
3. Illiterate people from poor societies are superior to Americans.
4. The Earth would be better off without human beings.
5. Making a profit is always immoral.
6. Differences between individuals or groups are unfair.
7. For Designated Victim Groups, strong feelings excuse all behavior.
8. Policies informed by Judé¦o-Christian principles are inherently suspect.
9. Conservatives are hypocrites; liberals are sincere.
10. There are no acts of God; there are only acts of Government.
11) We defend the right to free speech for ourselves, but anyone else whose speech hurts our feelings must be censored.
12) In any conflict between a third-world nation and a first-world nation, the third-world nation is always right.
13) Tyranny in third-world countries is not our concern unless the US (or Israel) can be blamed in some way.
14) All criticism or disagreement with any policy of a third-world nation, culture, or person is, by definition, racism.

I have some questions of my own to add: has Obama finally gotten into significant trouble for this? How deeply has it penetrated the public consciousness, and will it matter? I keep thinking his polls should be in the 20s right about now. But although they’ve moved downward, it’s been a small shift considering the magnitude of his offenses. How many people are even following the story? Will that number increase as time goes on, or will the media minimize and excuse?

In other words, will Obama’s gamble pay off?

It’s all how you look at it

The New Neo Posted on by

I noticed that Fox News is offering some live coverage of the Benghazi hearings.

CNN? So far, crickets chirping (at least when I’ve looked).

I know it goes without saying—but if George Bush had presided over a similar incident, even the networks would be covering the hearings live.

More on the hearings here.