So, are you…

The New Neo Posted on by

…going to watch the convention?

I plan to look at some of it. My old problem with auditory learning and political speeches will almost undoubtedly kick in, though:

…[T]he prepared speech has always been an enormous bore to me…Political speeches are the worst of the worst. This is true whether it’s a candidate I like or one I dislike. Unless the orator is Churchill, in a few minutes I’m out. My concentration is stellar for any written matter, and that’s the way I prefer to get my information.

But I’ll try. I’m especially curious this year as to how the Republican candidates will present themselves, and whether it will be enough to counter the inevitable onslaught from the media.

How many people watch these things any more? I’m old enough to remember (at least vaguely) when the original purpose of the conventions—the nomination of the party’s candidate for president—was not a completely foregone conclusion long before the event, and when there was still some wheeling and dealing to be had. Now it’s just a festival of self- and party-promotion, probably far more important for a challenger like Romney than an incumbent like Obama. After all, although we may still argue about Obama’s formative years and disagree about his future plans, the blank screen has been filled in with a three and a half year record of accomplishment or lack thereof.

One of the reasons I like to watch at least part of each convention is to see for myself. Even back when I was much less politically inclined, I wasn’t one to merely trust the reports of others; I always preferred to make my own judgments, if I could bear to watch the proceedings.

But my guess is that a lot of people would rather listen to someone else’s far more entertaining reaction to the conventions or speeches or interviews (Jon Stewart, anyone?) than to put themselves through the boredom and decide for themselves. That’s how Saturday Night Live became the authority on Sarah Palin’s orientation towards Russia. After all, it’s so much more fun to think the doofus actually said she could see Russia from her house than to pay attention to her actual words.*

[* What Palin actually said in an interview was that you can see Russia from land in Alaska; specifically, “an island in Alaska,” not from her house.

Which unsurprisingly turns out to be correct:

In the middle of the Bering Strait are two small, sparsely populated islands: Big Diomede, which sits in Russian territory, and Little Diomede, which is part of the United States. At their closest, these two islands are a little less than two and a half miles apart, which means that, on a clear day, you can definitely see one from the other…Between mid-December and mid-June, when the water between the two islands freezes, an intrepid explorer can just walk from one to the other…You can also see Russia from other points in Alaska.]

[NOTE: Speaking of misconceptions, this article by Michael Ramirez in Investors Business Daily about how the media has ignored Obama’s myriad gaffes in order to focus on slip-ups by Republicans features the true history of the much-maligned Dan Quayle’s “potatoe” gaffe, in case you’re not aware of what was behind that one.]

Still think…

The New Neo Posted on by

…Romney’s not hard-hitting enough? Check this out:

Mitt Romney calls campaign attacks by President Obama and his allies “vituperative” and “vicious” and “absurd” and “sad.” Also: Effective.

“I do think that the president’s campaign of personal vilification and demonization probably draws some people away from me,” Romney says when asked why he’s no better than tied against a vulnerable incumbent…

“There are plenty of weaknesses that I have, and I acknowledge that,” Romney says. “But the attacks that have come have been so misguided, have been so far off target, have been so dishonest, that they surprised me. I thought they might go after me on things that were accurate that I’ve done wrong, instead of absurd things.”…

“Isn’t it sad? Isn’t it sad that the focus of the president’s campaign, having been president for four years, is to try and attack the personality of the person he’s running against as opposed to standing up for his record and his plan for the future? But because his record is so weak and because his plan forward is a continuation of what he’s done in the past, the only thing he can do is attack me.”

By the way, what were those legitimate vulnerabilities on which he had expected attacks?

“Not going to tell you,” he says, chuckling. “Sorry.”

And man, I sure hope this is true:

How will the next 10 weeks be different from what’s gone before?

“It will be more intense,” [Romney] says, “and I will make no mistakes.” Then he laughs.

You know, at the beginning this campaign seemed endless. But all of a sudden it feels like it’s going very fast. I think that, unlike many other candidates, Romney becomes more appealing with more exposure. I hope he doesn’t run out of time for the American people to get to know him instead of the caricature of him that the Obama campaign has tried to paint.

I would say “I’m getting nervous,” but that’s not true. I’ve been nervous from the start, and I remain so.

Body wash or soap?

The New Neo Posted on by

That’s the burning question of the day

And here I hadn’t even known there was a choice. The only place I’d ever encountered body wash was in the locker room of a gym I used to attend years ago. The showers at that place were thoughtfully provided with dispensers of the stuff, which I assumed were there for people who’d simply forgotten to bring their own soap with them.

Dummy me. Little did I know that I was standing on the threshold of a cutting-edge technology that would revolutionize the showering industry.

Good old soap has always been good enough for me. I deal with the potential mushiness factor by keeping my soap elevated on a neat little gizmo like this, a wonderful product you can buy for about 99 cents or less, one of the most fabulous bargains modern life offers:

Soap is effective. Soap is much cheaper than body wash. Soap has always been a product that didn’t seem to need perfecting. Who knew that a host of people would some day find it icky and unsanitary, as some of the commenters on the soap vs. body wash article seem to? It reminds me of that claptrap about needing to sterilize one’s toothbrush to prevent getting sick from it. Not true.

[NOTE: I don’t share my soap with those near and dear. But it turns out that even doing that isn’t really going to harm anyone]

Remember South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford?

The New Neo Posted on by

I guess his affair had some staying power after all, because Sanford and his Argentine girlfriend are now engaged to be married.

I don’t think most people would have bet on that outcome back in the summer of 2009 when Sanford’s bizarre disappearance, strangely inadequate excuses, and rambling press conference revealed his affair, broke up his marriage, and ended his promising political career. A trifecta.

If things had gone differently, Sanford might even have been a candidate for president in 2012. As it is, he’s just a historical footnote, albeit perhaps a happy one at this point—although I wonder whether his ex-wife and four children are equally overjoyed.

Anderson Cooper actually seems annoyed by Wasserman Schultz’s lies

The New Neo Posted on by

Anderson Cooper jumps on the media truth squad, at least for this one exchange. Note that, although something seems to really get his goat about Wasserman Schultz’s misquoting of the LA Times, as well as her refusal to admit she’s misquoting it even when that fact is rubbed in her face—he remains careful not to call her a liar.

He’s treating her with remarkable deference while at the same time haranguing her. It’s an odd combination:

Note also that Wasserman Schultz hardly seems at all perturbed. She could do this sort of thing in her sleep (and probably does). Two and two equals five, after all, if it’s in the service of the Party.

The funniest thing is her line towards the end of the clip, when she says without the slightest awareness of the irony involved, “The main thrust of the information we’re trying to convey is that Mitt Romney is disingenuous…”

The saddest thing is that tons of voters will be taken in by her lies—and that she may even help gain Obama the election. And that Anderson Cooper and most of his MSM colleagues will probably waste no time in getting back to carrying Obama’s water, and nodding when Wasserman Schultz offers whatever outrageous assertion is next on her agenda.

Or maybe the saddest thing is when Wasserman Schultz says, “It doesn’t matter.”

[NOTE: And by the way, Cooper fails to call Wasserman Schultz on her distortion of the Republican platform on abortion in cases of rape (it never even mentions it). Full text of the platform wording on the subject is here.]

I’m not sure why, but…

The New Neo Posted on by

…this passage about Marie Antoinette strikes me as poignant:

She sported towering bouffant hairdos, including the “inoculation pouf,” a forbidding confection that featured a club striking a snake in an olive tree (representing the triumph of science over evil) to celebrate her success in persuading the king to be vaccinated against smallpox.

And that wasn’t all:

Later, while in mourning for her father-in-law, Louis XV, the new queen wore a pouf garnished with a tiny cypress tree rooted by a black tangle of ribbons, as well as a sheaf of wheat and a fruit-filled cornucopia, promising a bountiful new reign. Topping all previous efforts, in 1778 she wore an exact replica of La Belle Poule, a French battleship that had just sunk an English frigate, riding the swelling sea of her hair. “Behold the coiffure of our Queen, whose perfect taste is therein seen,” began one poem of the day.

The whole bit reminds me of something Lady Gaga might do. I searched and, sure enough, Gaga has taken a leaf out of Marie A.’s stylebook, although I don’t think she can compare:

Apparently…

The New Neo Posted on by

…the liberal media can’t take a joke. Some things (birth certificates?) are just too sacred for levity.

At least by Romney. If Obama makes the funny it’s perfectly fine.

And here’s a pretty good explanation of the mentality of the MSM pecking order: it’s high school, plus The Collective Narrative [hat tip: commenter “T.”]

Anders Breivik: sane and sentenced

The New Neo Posted on by

The Norwegian court has found mass murderer and political terrorist Anders Breivik both guilty and sane, and sentenced him to the maximum.

Unfortunately, that’s only 21 years. The good news is that the sentence can be extended if he is found to still be a danger to society after that time.

Seems like a cockamamie system to me. In its race to distance itself from what it sees as vengeful, violent societies such as the US, and because its murder rate is already low, Norway feels it can afford to be kinder and gentler—and to have 21 years as the maximum penalty for the cold-blooded slaughter of 77 people.

These quotes in response to the verdict leapt out at me:

“He [Breivik] is getting what he deserves,” said Alexandra Peltre, 18, whom Breivik shot in the thigh on Utoeya. “This is karma striking back at him. I do not care if he is insane or not, as long as he gets the punishment that he deserves.”…”This is what we hoped for,” said Mette Yvonne Larsen, who represented some of those affected in court.

“This is justice served and they are happy it’s over and will never have to see him again.”

“What he deserves” and “justice served.” I wouldn’t think the paltry punishment fits the crime at all. But the Norwegians generally seem satisfied and they are the ones most affected.

I have already written at some length about the Norwegian system of law and order. Here’s an excerpt:

To us in this country it seems nearly preposterous that a nation could function with a police force and a penal system with so few teeth. But until now, it did not seem so strange to most Norwegians. Their kinder, gentler system of law and order was a pleasant philosophical choice that [has] cost them very little, and of which they [are] quite proud. In a largely homogeneous country, and with a long tradition of an orderly and law-abiding citizenry, things had mostly gone well since the death penalty had been abolished in 1902 for peacetime use and for wartime use in 1979.

This 2010 article about Norwegian prisons is enough to make one weep with envy of the prisoners. Wide-screen TVs in each IKEA-esque room, scenic bucolic settings, guards without guns. As Charles Lane, who calls the system “gentle justice,” writes, “The Norwegian Correctional Service’s Website makes no mention of punishment, but does refer to ”˜services’ to which inmates are ”˜entitled.’”

But note the tiny number of convicts, just 3,300 in a country of about 5 million inhabitants. Lane quotes a prison warden in Norway as saying, “If you treat people badly, they will behave badly. Anyone can be a citizen if we treat them well, respect them, and give them challenges and demands.”

Most Norwegians thus far have had no compelling reason to believe that this was false. Their society has continued to be remarkably peaceful, with an extremely low rate of murder, and despite increasing theft and rape rates during the last few years, both attributed largely to immigrants.

It is as though the modern Norwegian system had evolved in the absence of natural predators, and never really developed defenses against them. No doubt Breivik was familiar with the vulnerabilities of Norway’s police and population, and knew they would be unarmed.

Breivik was also certain that he would not be executed or even given a life sentence, and that he’d be allowed a bully pulpit for his views during the trial. And with this verdict of “sane,” he gets to celebrate that another wish of his has been granted, because “his biggest concern was being declared insane, a fate he said would be ‘worse than death.'”

I happen to think that Breivik was in fact legally sane. But the length of the sentence seems a travesty and an insult to those who died. Although I cannot think of a punishment a civilized society would accept that would fit Breivik’s crime, this one most assuredly does not.

After the fall

The New Neo Posted on by

Remember when I took that awful fall? Now that it’s been nearly a month since then, I thought I’d report of my progress.

Most of the abrasions on my face are healed, with just a couple of red marks that have been getting fainter. There’s a pea-sized bump on my forehead that represents Ground Zero, as it were, of the impact. It’s been getting smaller and smaller, but slowly

My nose seems pretty straight, but it’s still a teeny bit swollen and a little bit numb. They say I cut a cutaneous nerve there, and they predict the feeling should come back within a few months.

My scraped knee is still healing, but that’s been the least of my worries.

I have to wear either a sunhat or sunblock on my face for another month or two. Since I’m somewhat allergic to the cream, I’ve used the directive as an excuse to go out a get a couple of snazzy hats with wide brims. I ordinarily never wear hats, but I’ve gotten a surprising number of compliments on these, although wearing them makes me feel too close for comfort to being one of the Ladies Who Lunch.

So all in all, the prognosis is good, although I’m left with the psychological residue from it all—fear. But I’ve been continuing to do my fast walking outside. But never never NEVER again will it be in the dark. Whatever was I thinking of?

Who loves politics? Not George Bush

The New Neo Posted on by

It comes as absolutely no surprise to learn that former president George W. Bush does not miss politics. In a recent interview he said:

I crawled out of the swamp, and I’m not crawling back in.

In general there are two types of politicans: those who thrive on politics, and those who consider it a necessary evil that doesn’t come especially naturally to them. Bush always struck me as of the latter variety (Romney, likewise, by the way). The first type would include FDR, LBJ, and Bill Clinton as its most prominent exemplars in modern times.

But when Bush characterizes politics as a swamp, he’s not talking about shaking people’s hands. I assume he’s talking about the nastiness and the deception, the wheeling and dealing and the press bias. Politics is a game, and a dirty one at that. Just as some presidents are more comfortable than others when pressing the flesh, some are better at playing the political game, and have no reluctance to do so. Again, Clinton comes to mind—a man who was at ease with both aspects of politics. A good example of a president who was more gifted at the game aspects than the people aspects was Richard Nixon.

And what of Obama? I think he needs politics because it gives him the power he craves. He believes himself to be very good at it, and he’s developed a style and a method of approaching it that so far has worked very well for him. But I never see him loving the contact; he always seems uncomfortable to me. Simply put, Obama is not an gregarious people-person. He puts up with the close interaction involved in politics and campaigning because he knows its necessary, but he’d rather stand on a podium and address a crowd from on high.

As for the lying and the dirty tricks, I think that’s his forte. Another strength (in the political sense) is his remarkable ability to do those things while hiding, disguising, or distracting from them, and simultaneously continuing to seem likable to an awful lot of people.