Toulouse killer dead after police standoff

The New Neo Posted on by

As soon as I heard about the police standoff involving the Toulouse killer Mohammed Merah, I suspected it would end more or less like this: with his death, either in a firefight or by his own hand. I thought it more likely to be the latter, but it turned out to be the former, with Merah emerging from the building, guns blazing, after police had stormed it.

His death destroys whatever chance police would have had to learn more facts from the horse’s mouth, as it were. But it also has the benefit of denying Merah the propaganda platform of a trial. My guess is that authorities have already learned quite a bit from his computer, and perhaps his brother, anyway. And although Merah claimed to be al Qaeda trained and might have indeed have some affiliation with various terror groups, it also seems as though the murders he committed were a case of improvisation on his part.

Earlier, Merah had told about his motives [emphasis mine]:

He made a series of disclosures, officials said, claiming the killings of three paratroopers last week and an attack on a Jewish school that left a rabbi and three children dead, and saying he had planned more killings to avenge the killings of Palestinian children and to protest French intervention abroad and the banning of the full Islamic veil in France.

Got any idea whom one of those “Palestinian children” might be? I would wager a lot of money that it was Mohammad al Durah, whose death (or possible death; see this) in 2000 was falsely exploited by French TV to give the impression he was killed by Israelis when he was not, and whose image became a rallying cry for avenging Muslims all over the world. Merah, who was raised in France but was the son of Algerian immigrants, would have been close to 12 years old at the time. A very impressionable age, and the same age as al Durah.

The Times article about Merah’s death and crimes goes on to quote various Muslims in France as saying that they condemn his acts, and that they worry that this incident will increase the anger and fear against them as a group. I would guess that’s true. I wonder whether it was also one of Merah’s aims, unconscious or not. His first three victims—before he killed the rabbi and three children at a religious school—were French paratroopers of Arab Muslim origin.

The Times article quotes French Interior Minister Guéant as saying that the murders of these three military men were not related to their ethnic backgrounds. Oh, really? Why not? Merah’s other murders certainly were, and my best guess is that Merah choose the paratroopers because they were of similar background to him but collaborators with the hated enemy, France and the West. So there’s no reason to believe he wouldn’t have considered any backlash against cooperative Muslims in France to be a feature of his crimes, and not a bug.

Real…

The New Neo Posted on by

or fake?

This is why it’s probably fake.

More about the controversy here. And here’s a history of humankind’s attempts to build an ornithopter, which is what this purported invention would be called: a man-powered flying machine that is not a glider, but involves wing-flapping for propulsion.

Rescue 911

The New Neo Posted on by

After I re-made the acquaintance of the show “Rescue 911” via YouTube and posted this episode, I thought I’d go back and post some others from time to time.

I’m not sure why I loved that show so much back in the late 80s and 90s, but I did. I got a lot of mockery for singing its praises, but I thought (and still think) it was one of the very finest, if not the finest, re-enactment shows on TV. The editors are to be commended; I don’t know how they managed it, but for the most part the acting was wonderful, all the more surprising because the show often featured the original protagonists rather than professionals. It seemed to provide them with a sort of psychodrama experience. And the staging of the accidents was remarkably realistic.

The rescue stories they chose to tell were universally terrifying and inspiring, with a few funny ones thrown in for comic relief. I almost invariably ended up crying. These tales really were a testament to the human spirit. See if you don’t agree:

The case of Sugar v. Corn Syrup

The New Neo Posted on by

It’s a real lawsuit, not a fake one, and hearings begin in Los Angeles today. Sugar is suing high-fructose corn syrup for falsely claiming an equivalence to the time-honored sweetener that we all know and love:

In a lawsuit that goes before a Los Angeles federal judge Wednesday, sugar producers accuse their corn industry rivals of false advertising in a campaign that casts the liquid sweetener as “nutritionally the same as table sugar” and claims “your body can’t tell the difference.”

Sugar forces argue that high fructose corn syrup is far less healthy than their product and are demanding that the ads run by the Corn Refiners Assn. be halted and that the corn association pay unspecified monetary damages.

The corn industry promoters “characterize high fructose corn syrup as a natural product. It is not ”” it is man-made,” said Adam Fox, an attorney for the sugar industry plaintiffs, led by Western Sugar Corp. “Yet they are advertising it as identical to sugar cane and sugar beets.”

I’d like to sue not just high-fructose corn syrup but corn syrup in general, for making sweet foods less tasty. Whether or not my entire body can tell the difference, my mouth certainly can. In my youth, sugar was the dominant sweetener in commercially-made foods, but over the years corn syrup of all kinds has become ubiquitous for a number of good reasons (none of them, however, relating to improved taste):

First, it is cheaper than sugar because of huge corn subsidies and sugar tariffs. Second, the liquid syrup lends itself to ready transportation in those enormous storage vats within 18-wheelers, similar to how gasoline is hauled. Third, fructose is incredibly sweet and does not crystallize or turn grainy when cold, as sugar can do. Fourth, because HFCS is very soluble and retains moisture, it makes for softer and moister processed baked goods. Fifth, it acts as a preservative that extends the shelf life of processed foods and helps to prevent freezer burn.

As for the health issues, I think concentrated sugars in general are probably something best shied away from, except in very small amounts. But I also have deep respect for how difficult that is to do, because let’s face it—for most of us, concentrated sugars are incredibly difficult to resist. And that’s not because we’re greedy, or weak, or bad; it’s because our biology led us to seek out sweet things in the wild. Our bodies just never encountered a Mounds bar in the jungle or on the savanna.

Romney wins Illinois primary

The New Neo Posted on by

It’s not a surprise at all, but Mitt Romney has won in Illinois. With 61% of precincts reporting, he’s got about 48% of the vote to Santorum’s 34%, Paul’s 9%, and Gingrich’s unimpressive 8%.

For some reason (maybe because Romney has led consistently in the polls by a substantial margin?) the Illinois race hasn’t drawn all that much interest compared to a lot of others. But you can talk about it here, if you care to—or anything else you want.

How to get along with the opposite sex

The New Neo Posted on by

Women, pay attention.

And men, listen up.

It’s all pretty tongue-in-cheek, but there are a few kernels of wisdom there. And we all need all the help we can get.

This made me laugh (and it’s certainly not describing me; oh no, couldn’t possibly be!):

If you ask a woman a question, don’t interrupt her response by saying, as you impatiently tap your fingertips on the nearest table, “Get to the point.” The point you don’t get is that our intricate narratives ”” interlaced as they are with our multi-layered interpretations, embroidered with the richness of our subtle observations, and enhanced by our exquisite cascades of details that might well have entirely escaped your notice, and without which your understanding of life would be the poorer ”” are what an answer is to us. As Walter Cronkite used to say, “And that’s the way it is.”

I keep reading stupid things like…

The New Neo Posted on by

…”in 1994 Romney ran to the left of Kennedy.”

This sort of statement has been made by commenter after commenter in all manner of blogs and MSM articles lately. I’ve never seen a single scrap of evidence offered to back it up, just the bold statement as though it’s a self-evident truth.

But it’s nonsensical. If the posters said instead that in 1994 Romney ran to the left of where he’s at today, or to the left of where they’d like him to be, then I’d have no quarrel with them on that score. But to the left of Ted Kennedy? An absurdity.

If Romney had run to the left of Kennedy, why (just to take one teeny example) did Romney say, in his speech to the 1994 state Republican convention, that he’d attack the “failed big brother liberalism” of the 32 years Kennedy had been in office (from the book The Real Romney)?

Please show me those clips from Romney’s debate with Kennedy that show him running “to the left” of Kennedy. I can show you tons of them where he’s running to the right of him.

Like this one, which I’ve offered before.

Another stupid thing I keep reading is that the GOP field is especially weak this year. Now, I’m not happy with the field either, and I’ve said so before. I think all the candidates are deeply flawed. But I’ve never said that this year is so much weaker than most years. I happen to think that most politicians are deeply flawed, and that it’s the rare year when we have some really really fine choices (and I believed that when I was a Democrat, too, so at least I’m an equal-opportunity cynic).

But I vote, always. And not for a third-party candidate, either; I consider that throwing away my vote, and besides, I’ve never been too keen on those guys, either. Ross Perot, anyone?

I can back up my statement that this year’s candidates are not especially weak by reiterating what I wrote in this post of about a month ago, in which I listed the main Republican presidential contenders in each primary year going back a bit:

2008: McCain, Romney, Huckabee
2004: Bush was the incumbent
2000: Bush, McCain, Alan Keyes (originally running but early dropouts were the likes of Gary Bauer, Steve Forbes, Orrin Hatch, Lamar Alexander, Elizabeth Dole, John Kasich, and Dan Quayle).
1996: Bob Dole, Pat Buchanan, Steve Forbes
1992: incumbent George H.W. Bush was primaried by Pat Buchanan
1988: VP George H.W. Bush (one of the few VPs running in recent years), Bob Dole, Pat Robertson
1984: no challenge to incumbent Reagan
1980: Reagan, George H.W. Bush, John Anderson (an interesting primary in which Reagan was hugely popular and his nomination a foregone conclusion, based on his showing in 1976 when he primaried incumbent Gerald Ford and did well).

Except for the years when there was an incumbent, or when Reagan was running, not an especially strong or inspiring bunch of choices, were they? And it’s easy to forget how many people ridiculed Reagan at first, too.

Coupled with this “especially weak field” business is the idea that someone else would have been a much stronger candidate this year. I happen to share that perception; I think Ryan or Rubio or Christie or a couple of others would have been preferable. But you know what? That may just be a case of grass being greener on the other side, or the road not taken.

I can just hear the attacks now if they’d entered the fray (and this is only what we know about so far; no doubt there would have been a mad scramble to dig up dirt on all of them, and/or to use truncated quotes to make it seem as though they were saying something they weren’t): Ryan and Rubio? Too young. Ryan too geeky and uncharismatic, and a House member to boot. No executive experience. Rubio’s a newbie. Just who does he think he is? He’s hardly gotten his feet wet on the national level, and here he’s running for president?

And don’t get me started on Christie. RINO extraordinaire. Too fat; wouldn’t there be health issues? Another inexperienced newbie. Too hotheaded.

No, perhaps there’s a reason these guys aren’t running this year: they have good judgment, and they know they’re not seasoned enough yet. So let’s all just deal with what we’ve got, and stop complaining so much.

[NOTE: I’ve also had the thought lately that at least a few of the most vocal Romney-haters on some comment boards may be liberal trolls, sent to rile up the Republican masses and depress turnout (see many commenters here, for example).]

Thank you!

The New Neo Posted on by

Well, this season’s pledge drive is over at neo-neocon (although donations are accepted at any time!), and I want to give a huge and heartfelt thank-you to everyone who donated. You really can’t imagine how grateful and touched I am by your generosity, which helps keep this blog going.

The Supremes and the individual mandate at the federal level

The New Neo Posted on by

Adam J. White does a good job of explaining why the Obamacare individual mandate at the federal level is really and literally “unprecedented.” It’s a long article, but well worth reading if you want to understand the legal issues facing the Supreme Court when it hears National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius.

They’re large; really, really large. At issue isn’t just Obamacare, either—it’s the slow and insidious expansion of the federal government’s power under the Commerce Clause which has been going on for much of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries:

Neither the federal government nor the numerous lower courts, the states conclude, “have identified a single other federal law throughout our Nation’s entire history that simply compels individuals to enter into commerce.” That dearth of precedents is all the more instructive, they argue, because “Congress surely has not lacked incentives to exercise such a ”˜highly attractive power.’”‰” In two centuries, Congress never lacked the creativity to fashion indirect ways to achieve its preferred ends”‹”””‹think of the perennial threat to withhold highway funds as a way to cajole the states into forcing drivers to wear seatbelts”‹”””‹but it never claimed for itself the power to achieve its economic aims through direct commands to the citizenry at large.

But the Commerce Clause, as important as it is, is only the beginning. There’s also this:

And even if the individual mandate does not fit squarely within the Commerce Clause, the government further argues, that mandate fits within the powers granted by the Necessary and Proper Clause”‹”””‹that is, the Constitution’s ancillary provision authorizing Congress to “make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution” Congress’s other enumerated powers…

The states challenging Obamacare respond with several arguments that the mandate is neither “necessary” nor “proper.” Ultimately the most powerful of these is the slippery slope: The government’s argument offers no legal limits to prevent the imposition of similar mandates in other markets displaying similar characteristics. Lacking any “limiting principle,” the government’s theory of the power to mandate the purchase of health insurance “obliterates any meaningful boundaries on Congress’ limited and enumerated powers,” a theory that “cannot be squared with the Constitution.”

Then there’s the tax question:

If the Supreme Court finds that the individual mandate is justified under neither the Commerce Clause nor the Necessary and Proper Clause, then the government has one remaining defense: its constitutional power to “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises.”

White goes on to explain several reasons why it’s not a tax—and the reason isn’t just because Obama and the Democrats said it wasn’t one when they passed it, and are now claiming for the sake of the lawsuit that it is.

But even if the Court decides in favor of the plaintiffs and strikes the mandate down, there’s the question of remedy:

Should only the individual mandate be struck down, or should the Court strike down Obama-care in its entirety? To borrow the technical term, is the individual mandate “severable” from the rest of Obama-care?

The lower courts that ruled variously on these issues were hampered by the fact that the case truly was “unprecedented.” Now the Supreme Court, which can set precedent for the rest, will need to do so. This not only has the potential to be one of the biggest cases in recent memory; it also points out one of the reasons this coming election is so important: whoever becomes the next president will probably get to appoint a number of new Supreme Court Justices, who will serve for life.

[NOTE: Note, also, the emphasis on the federal nature of the individual mandate in the case of Obamacare. It is this federal nature that makes the challenge powerful. There are no such prohibitions on states, although you may indeed find an individual mandate at the state level to be undesirable, and would like to see it struck down. But, as I’ve said many times before, the individual mandate at the state level used to be considered a conservatively-approved approach to health care insurance, and a way to keep insurance both affordable and in the hands of private insurers as an alternative to a public option. Obamacare has caused many conservatives who previously supported and recommended state mandates to reconsider them and view them more negatively, post-Obamacare. But legally there is a huge difference, which can be seen in the NFIB v. Sebelius case pending.]

The myth of the heavy-ish Marilyn Monroe

The New Neo Posted on by

The time has come to debunk once and for all the myth that Marilyn Monroe was fat, or even somewhat heavy. I’m not the first one to have tried (see this, for example). And yet the notion persists that she was fairly hefty for most of her film career. She was not.

I think there’s a rather simple reason why this idea has spread. But first, here’s exhibit A, a clip of Monroe in “Gentlemen Prefer Blondes” (1953). Let me know if you think the woman pictured here is anything but fairly slender. Curvy, yes indeed. Well-endowed, most assuredly. But heavy? Not a bit:

Now, flash forward to “Some Like It Hot,” probably Monroe’s most well- known film, seen by the greatest number of people. It was made in 1958, five years after “Gentlemen Prefer Blondes,” and released in 1959. Here we strike pay dirt; Monroe really was a bit heavy in that film. Here’s the scoop on why Monroe carried some extra poundage in that movie when she played the role of Sugar:

Marilyn Monroe was pregnant during the filming, as a result she looked considerably heavier. She had no known children and several miscarriages in her life. Due to her pregnancy, most of the publicity still photos were posed for by both Sandra Warner (who had an uncredited role as one of the band members) and Monroe’s frequent stand-in Evelyn Moriarty with Monroe’s head superimposed later.

I’ve read elsewhere (can’t find the link right now) that Monroe was at least four months pregnant when filming “Some Like it Hot.” From personal experience I can tell you that for most women there’s significant weight gain by that time. But although Monroe’s weight fluctuated somewhat at other times (perhaps also due to pregnancies followed by miscarriages?), if you look at almost all of her other films or stills, you will see a slim-but-curvy woman who would not be the least bit out of place among the stars of today, although she never veers into the too-skinny near-anorexia of some of them.

Although Monroe was voluptuous, anyone who says Monroe wore a size 16 is just plain wrong, or using a completely different sort of sizing than exists in the US today. Monroe had a 22-inch waist. ‘Nuff said.

[NOTE: If you’re interested (and I bet more than one or two of you are) you can click on this photo gallery of Marilyn, published to celebrate what would have been Monroe’s 85th birthday last June. Yes, you read that right: if Monroe were alive today she’d be 85 years old.]

[ADDENDUM: I see that the first video here has been removed from YouTube. There’s another there, but it can’t be embedded, so here is the link to it.]