↓
 

The New Neo

A blog about political change, among other things

  • Home
  • Bio
  • Email
Home » Page 1427 << 1 2 … 1,425 1,426 1,427 1,428 1,429 … 1,880 1,881 >>

Post navigation

← Previous Post
Next Post→

John Podhoretz: Romney’s not the conservative’s conservative…

The New Neo Posted on March 1, 2012 by neoJune 7, 2012

…but he’s the conservative-enough’s conservative-enough.

And the latter are more numerous than the former.

Posted in Election 2012, Romney | 9 Replies

It seems as though…

The New Neo Posted on March 1, 2012 by neoMarch 1, 2012

…if you wanted to commit identity theft, this wouldn’t be your best bet.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Reply

RIP Davy Jones

The New Neo Posted on March 1, 2012 by neoMarch 13, 2021

Davy Jones of the Monkees has died at the age of 66.

Of course I remember Jones and the Monkees and their Bieber-foreshadowing cuteness, and although I wasn’t much of a fan I did like “I’m a Believer.”

Did I say I wasn’t much of a fan? Not of the Monkees. But I was a huge Davy Jones fan before there even were any Monkees, because I was a Broadway baby who’d been taken to see the show “Oliver,” and was blown away by how great Jones was as the Artful Dodger, a role he originated in London and took to Broadway. He stole the show with just the right combination of gruffness, roughness, softness, and charm.

YouTube’s got only one blurry clip of him doing the Dodger, on the Ed Sullivan Show. It captures at least a tiny bit of his flair in the role:

Posted in Music, Theater and TV | 3 Replies

It’s that time again

The New Neo Posted on February 29, 2012 by neoFebruary 29, 2012

[NOTE: Bumped up from yesterday.]

passhat.jpg

Yes, it’s hard to believe, isn’t it? Time passes so quickly when we’re enjoying ourselves.

But yes, it’s been a while since I asked you to donate to a semi-worthy cause: this blog. And so I’m going to ask you again.

Every single donation— large or small—adds up, and helps me a great deal in continuing the blog. If each reader gave even a few dollars, it would be a glorious thing. But whether you decide to donate or not, please keep visiting and keep commenting. Comments are a very big part of what makes this blog work.

I thank you all in advance. I’ll probably repeat this notice every now and then, the equivalent of jiggling that cup/hat. But I’ll be discreet about it. And it’s a lot better than those fund-raising drives they have on NPR, isn’t it? No interruption of the scheduled programming.

Posted in Blogging and bloggers | 20 Replies

I guess it won’t be Snowe-ing in Maine this year

The New Neo Posted on February 29, 2012 by neoMarch 1, 2012

Olympia Snowe gave Maine’s GOP a nasty start when she announced she is withdrawing from the 2012 Senate race.

“Race” is a misnomer, really. Right up to the moment she withdrew she was set to win in an easy walk, despite being primaried by two very weak challengers, one of whom had already left the party a week ago to run as an Independent. So why did she pull out? And why now?

First, let’s see what Snowe herself said in explanation:

In a statement issued by her campaign, Snowe said that both she and her husband, former Gov. John R. McKernan, are in good health and she is certain she would have won re-election.

One of a dwindling group of GOP Senate moderates, Snowe said she no longer wanted to serve in an increasingly partisan and polarized Senate.

“As I have long said, what motivates me is producing results for those who have entrusted me to be their voice and their champion,” Snowe said in a statement. “I do find it frustrating, however, that an atmosphere of polarization and ”˜my way or the highway’ ideologies has become pervasive in campaigns and in our governing institutions.”

My first thought was that she might be ill. But Snowe has finessed that already by saying she and her husband are in good health. So although I have little doubt that Snowe isn’t at all happy with the current climate in Congress—both the low regard the public seems to hold for its members in general, and the increasing disfavor with which her brand of moderate (read: RINO) Republicanism has come to be seen within her own party—I think there must be more to it than she’s admitting.

A lot more, because successful politicians just don’t do that sort of thing. Not for reasons like that, anyway; not in the middle of a successful campaign, and not 15 days before the new candidate would have to file a petition with 3000 certified signatures on it.

One can’t help but suspect that Ms. Snowe’s motive has something to do with anger and something to do with revenge and goes a bit like this: “You think I’m a RINO and don’t appreciate me much? Well, get a load of my replacement. Miss me yet?”

Whatever Snowe’s true motives, Maine Republicans will have to hustle if they want to get a candidate on the ballot who’s more viable than Scott D’Amboise, the current Tea Party guy who has little chance of winning a Senate seat:

There are several possible Republican contenders for the seat including Senate President Kevin L. Raye, former gubernatorial candidate Steve Abbott, Secretary of State Charles E. Summers Jr., Peter Cianchette, the former ambassador to Costa Rica and State Treasurer Bruce Poliquin…

With two weeks to go, there is still time for these established names to call on their own organizations to get the signatures they need to be on the ballot…

Meanwhile, Maine Democrats already in the primary may be replaced by stronger candidates, too, now that they have a real chance of winning.

Those who don’t like RINOs will probably say to Snowe buh-bye, don’t let the door hit you on the way out. But if the GOP wants to gain a Senate majority, this makes it that much harder. On the other hand, if by some chance a new Republican contender can be found who manages to win the seat, my guess is that whoever it is, he/she will be considerably less of a RINO than Snowe.

But boy, Snowe must be really angry at the Republican Party.

[ADDENDUM: Could this have had something to do with Snowe’s abrupt announcement?]

Posted in Election 2012 | 63 Replies

Thoughts on Romney’s wins in Arizona and Michigan

The New Neo Posted on February 29, 2012 by neoJune 7, 2012

(1) A lot of the spin depends on perception and expectation.

Arizona was expected to go to Romney with the outcome never really in doubt, and though he won strongly there, it will be dismissed for the most part as a Mormon thing. But it’s really not; Mormons account for only about 10% of the Republican electorate, and his margin of victory was quite a bit more that that yesterday.

Before Santorum’s surge, Romney was also expected to win in Michigan. But then Santorum came around in the stretch and took the lead, and it seemed as though he would pull it out, which would have been a major upset. Romney won by about 3 percentage points, which would have looked bad just a couple of weeks ago. But after the scare Romney got recently, it looks pretty good, and puts him back in the front runner position again.

(2) Romney’s Michigan victory margin may have actually been bigger among Republicans than it looks because according to exit polls there were a fair number of Democrats coming out to vote for Santorum.

(3) Things have shifted back and forth awfully fast in this particular primary season.

(4) Since Newt did so badly, should Santorum ask him to drop out, the same request Gingrich made to Santorum after Florida?

(5) Will there be a next non-Romney, and if so, whom will it be?

(6) And what’s up with this “winning ugly” business? I’ve seen the term in two articles featured on memeorandum, this and this. I always thought that term (from sports) meant an unusually close race, marked either by weird officiating, or a lot of unforced errors or fouls on the part of the winner, or some or all of the above. Is there something especially close about a 41-38 victory in a primary with four candidates? Did Romney do anything particularly unusual at all in Michigan? Would it not be more accurate to say that Santorum “lost ugly” there (the robocalls, etc.), if you’re going to use the term at all?

Posted in Election 2012, Romney | 13 Replies

Primaries today

The New Neo Posted on February 28, 2012 by neoFebruary 28, 2012

Today Arizona and Michigan hold their primaries. The Arizona one has gotten so little press that it’s hard to remember it’s happening, but the lack of attention is probably because the consensus is that Romney will win there, and if so his win will be written off as reflective of the Mormon presence, which amounts to about 10% of Republican Arizona voters.

But Michigan—ah, Michigan’s a different story. This close event has been super-hyped already, and the results are bound to be spun so much it will be dizzying. I’ve already written what I think about the “Romney is the favorite son and must win” echo chamber. I also am astounded at the fact that Michigan is a completely open primary in which Democrats are free to cross over and join in the fun.

In fact, there’s a Democratic effort to encourage people to do just that:

Michigan Democratic strategist Joe DiSano has taken it upon himself to become a leading mischief maker.

DiSano says he targeted nearly 50,000 Democratic voters in Michigan through email and a robo call to their homes, asking them to go to the polls Tuesday to vote for Rick Santorum in attempt to hurt Romney.

“Democrats can get in there and cause havoc for Romney all the way to the Republican convention,” DiSano told CNN…

DiSano says over the last 7 days or so that he has been working on this, he has gotten some 12,000 commitments from Democratic voters to go to the polls and vote for Santorum.

And it’s not just Democrats who are encouraging Democrats to vote for Santorum, it’s the Santorum campaign, too.

And meanwhile, polls everywhere show Obama’s stock rising. His natural advantage as an incumbent has combined with some improvement in the economic news and the unpleasant spectacle of Republicans trashing each other to give him an advantage—for now, anyway—in the polls.

[ADDENDUM: I can’t understand open primaries. I think they’re a bad idea for either party, and I’d like to see them eliminated. They’re just an opportunity for mischief; why should opponents be given the chance to choose their antagonists? It makes no sense to me.

In fact, I take it a step further: I think even Independents shouldn’t be able to vote in primaries. If people removed that possibility, it would certainly reduce the number of Independents and increase party enrollment, wouldn’t it? Not that that’s my goal.

And of course, people could still switch their affiliations if done somewhat ahead of time, so it would still be possible to play a few games with the primaries. But it wouldn’t be as easy. The potential problem with crossover only tends to become really bad, though, when one side has a hotly contested race and the other doesn’t.

Like, for instance, this year.]

Posted in Election 2012 | 41 Replies

James Lipton is…

The New Neo Posted on February 28, 2012 by neoFebruary 28, 2012

…an obnoxious guy whose “Inside the Actors Studio” interviews I can’t abide. But there’s one thing about him you’ve got to admire.

How old to you think he is? Fifties? Sixties? Seventy at the absolute latest?

No. Lipton is 85. And that is one of the most astounding facts I’ve heard in a long time.

Another fountain of youth is Pauley Perrette, the girl with the pigtails on NCIS.

I shouldn’t say “girl,” though. She’s 42, very close to 43:

[NOTE: Both facts were brought to my attention by the helpful folks here.]

Posted in Theater and TV | 7 Replies

Religion and public office: Santorum’s nausea

The New Neo Posted on February 27, 2012 by neoFebruary 27, 2012

Rick Santorum certainly doesn’t mind saying controversial things. The latest to hit the MSM are these statements, which seem wrong on several levels:

In remarks last year at the College of Saint Mary Magdalen in Warner, N.H., Santorum had told the crowd of J.F.K.’s famous 1960 address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, “Earlier in my political career, I had the opportunity to read the speech, and I almost threw up. You should read the speech.”…

On Sunday, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos asked Santorum whether he stood by his statement last year…

Santorum defended his remarks, telling Stephanopoulos that “the first line, first substantive line in the speech, says, ”˜I believe in America where the separation of church and state is absolute.’”

“I don’t believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute,” Santorum said. “The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country.”…

“Kennedy for the first time articulated the vision saying, ”˜No, faith is not allowed in the public square. I will keep it separate.’ Go on and read the speech. ”˜I will have nothing to do with faith. I won’t consult with people of faith.’ It was an absolutist doctrine that was abhorrent at the time of 1960.”

Later in the interview, Stephanopoulos asked Santorum, “You think you wanted to throw up?”

“Well, yes, absolutely,” Santorum replied. “To say that people of faith have no role in the public square? You bet that makes you throw up. What kind of country do we live that says only people of non-faith can come into the public square and make their case? That makes me throw up.”

So Santorum not only said it, but he repeated it.

What’s wrong with Santorum’s statement? The “throw-up” part is not only “unpresidential” in tone—making Santorum sound too emotionally fragile and reactive (imagine, for example, if a woman had said it)—but more importantly, Santorum is misstating Kennedy’s position.

I happen to have already read Kennedy’s speech, and I even wrote about it in 2007 at some length. Nowhere in the speech does Kennedy say or even indicate that “people of faith have no role in the public square.” In fact, he says that he himself is a man of faith:

But I do not intend to apologize for these views to my critics of either Catholic or Protestant faith, nor do I intend to disavow either my views or my church in order to win this election.”

“My church”—it’s pretty explicit, isn’t it?

What Kennedy was saying is something different. He stated that no Church officials would dictate to him how to make decisions. But he never said that his conscience (a word he uses a great deal in the speech, and which has a traditional meaning in Catholicism) is completely devoid of religious sentiment and feeling, or uninformed by his religion in any way.

It’s Santorum’s statement that might make a lot of voters “almost throw up,” especially when he says [emphasis mine]: “The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country.” If he had replaced the words “the church” with “religion” (or “religious people”) and there would be no problem, except that then he would have been in basic agreement with Kennedy and he wouldn’t have been making the statement in the first place.

[NOTE: But aren’t all Catholics bound by what the Pope says? That’s not only an extraordinarily complex subject, but one outside of my field of expertise. But I refer readers to this:

The doctrine of Papal Infallibility does not mean the Pope is always right in all his personal teachings. Catholics are quite aware that, despite his great learning, the Pope is very much a human being and therefore liable to commit human error. On some subjects, like sports and manufacturing, his judgment is liable to be very faulty. The doctrine simply means that the Pope is divinely protected from error when, acting in his official capacity as chief shepherd of the Catholic fold, he promulgates a decision which is binding on the conscience of all Catholics throughout the world. In other words, his infallibility is limited to his specialty–the Faith of Jesus Christ.

In order for the Pope to be infallible on a particular statement, however, four conditions must apply: 1) he must be speaking ex cathedra . . . that is, “from the Chair” of Peter, or in other words, officially, as head of the entire Church; 2) the decision must be for the whole Church; 3) it must be on a matter of faith or morals; 4) the Pope must have the intention of making a final decision on a teaching of faith or morals, so that it is to be held by all the faithful. It must be interpretive, not originative; the Pope has no authority to originate new doctrine. He is not the author of revelation–only its guardian and expounder. He has no power to distort a single word of Scripture, or change one iota of divine tradition. His infallibility is limited strictly to the province of doctrinal interpretation, and it is used quite rarely. It is used in order to clarify, to “define,” some point of the ancient Christian tradition. It is the infallibility of which Christ spoke when He said to Peter, the first Pope: “I will give (o thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven.” (Matt. 16:19). Certainly Christ would not have admonished His followers to “hear the church” (Matt. 18:17) without somehow making certain that what they heard was the truth–without somehow making the teaching magisterium of His Church infallible.]

Posted in Uncategorized | 103 Replies

Those stupid Oscars

The New Neo Posted on February 27, 2012 by neoMarch 5, 2018

I won’t talk about last night’s Oscar awards here. We’ve already done that, to the dismay of some.

This post is about Oscars of yore. The other day at PJ, Chris Queen listed the Oscars’ 10 biggest blunders, and I agree with some of the choices.

For instance, I found Queen’s mistake #1, “Forrest Gump,” to be a dreadful film, so boring I walked out after a half hour or so, and I thought Sally Field preposterously young as Gump’s mother. And I agree that Queen’s #2, “Life is Beautiful” was pretty dreadful too, in a completely different way.

But I take issue with #5, Queen’s criticism of Al Pacino’s award for “Scent of a Woman.” Sure, it wasn’t Al Pacino’s finest hour. That may have been “The Godfather,” “Serpico,” or my personal Pacino favorites: “Dog Day Afternoon” and “Panic in Needle Park.”

But just because “Scent of a Woman” isn’t the very best Pacino ever doesn’t mean it’s not awfully good, and quite deserving of the honor. Yes, the movie’s got a schmaltzy plot, and Pacino comes perilously close to hammy in the role. But I think he always stops short of it. The film is really a somewhat unorthodox buddy movie, an acting tour de force between Pacino and another brilliant actor, Chris O’Donnell, whose understated performance makes the perfect foil for Pacino’s over-the-top one. Take a look at this especially dramatic scene (for those who haven’t seen the movie, Pacino’s character is blind):

And then there’s Queen’s #10, Whoopi Goldberg’s Supporting Actress Oscar for the movie “Ghost.” He thinks it “curious” that she won. I think it’s appropriate, because even though I’m not a great Whoopi fan ordinarily, I think she was absolutely brilliant in that role. I could post almost any scene of hers in that film as an example of her comic flair, but many of them are hard to find on YouTube, so I’ll post this one. It’s where Whoopi’s character finds out to her shock that she’s not just a flim-flam con artist, but has the medium’s true “gift,” because she can hear the ghost of Swayze’s character talking to her:

Looking back on former Oscar years, there’s little question in my mind what the best crop of all time was: in 1939, when “Gone With the Wind” won, its worthy competitors were “Dark Victory,” “Goodbye, Mr. Chips,” “Love Affair,” “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,” Ninotchka,” “Of Mice and Men,” “Stagecoach,” “The Wizard of Oz,” and “Wuthering Heights.”

Wow.

Not only that, but the following films were also released in 1939 (a year widely acknowledged as probably the greatest in the history of film), among others:

The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes
Babes in Arms
Beau Geste
Drums Along the Mohawk
Golden Boy
Gunga Din
The Hunchback of Notre Dame
Intermezzo
The Story of Irene and Vernon Castle
The Three Muskateers
The Women
Young Mr. Lincoln

Not too shabby, eh?

Posted in Me, myself, and I, Movies | 14 Replies

Parents and homework

The New Neo Posted on February 27, 2012 by neoOctober 14, 2014

[NOTE: Every now and then I re-post a previous essay that you might have missed first time around. This is one of them (slightly edited).]

When I was a child, we were given a fair amount of homework. And although this was in what were then called “gifted” and/or “honors” classes, I wasn’t in some private school, nor even a public school in a ritzy suburb. I attended public schools from kindergarten through high school in a relatively blue collar area of New York, and from about fifth grade on I recall having between three and four hours of take-home assignments a night.

My parents, like most parents of the day, were remarkably unconcerned about this fact. Of course, they were part of a culture in which schools were generally considered to know best, when it took some great and mammoth offense for teachers’ or principals’ judgments to be questioned. I don’t even remember my parents having the habit of asking me whether I’d been assigned homework on any particular night, or whether I’d finished it, either. I suppose they figured they’d know soon enough that there was something wrong if my grades began to slip. Otherwise, my homework was primarily my own work and my own business.

Except, that is, for a particular assignment I had in sixth grade, given by a teacher we’ll call Mrs. McGuire, who had a legendary and well-earned reputation for mental cruelty. The class was doing a topic on that perennial favorite (of teachers, anyway): inventors. Each of us would have to research a famous one, write a report about him (yeah, they were all men), and deliver it to the class.

Mrs. McGuire was not a believer in choice. She selected the inventor for each student, announcing the assignments as she read off our names. Some lucky stiffs got Edison or Samuel F.B. Morse, or even old Cyrus McCormick or Eli Whitney. This meant they could write their reports by looking up the information in that trusty Mother of All References (the only one any of us could easily obtain in those days), the home encyclopedia. If students were feeling really ambitious they could, of course, supplement the encyclopedia’s pedestrian offerings with a library book or two, and take home an A or a B without much further trouble.

But when she came to my assignment, Mrs. McGuire read out the arcane name “Nicolas Francois Appert.” Nowadays, in this glorious era of instantaneous Googling and Wikipedia (of which I’ve just availed myself), one can look him up fairly easily. Even so, the information is sparse (see also this); hardly the stuff of the fifteen-to-twenty-minute oral presentation we were all supposed to deliver back then.

But in sixth grade all I could find in the encyclopedia was one terse sentence, declaring Appert to be a Frenchman who’d invented an early method of preserving food, for which he’d been awarded a prize by Napoleon. A trip to the local library revealed not a word more. And so, in a state of upset, I told my mother, and enlisted her help.

My mother was convinced that Mrs. McGuire had given me this assignment in order to humiliate me, knowing that it would be impossible to fulfill. This didn’t activate my mother to complain to the school. She knew that several generations of parents had already done so about Mrs. McGuire’s many excesses—most of them far worse than this one, by the way—to no avail. But my mother was determined to show Mrs. McGuire a thing or two.

So that Saturday we went on an expedition to the 42nd St. branch of the NY Public Library, as impressive a building then as now, perhaps even more so in my eyes.

The journey was long, and I’d never been inside before. I recall that, when we entered the gargantuan research room (“a majestic 78 feet [23.8 m] wide by 297 feet [90.5 m] long, with 52 feet [15.8 m] high ceilings—lined with thousands of reference books on open shelves along the floor level and along the balcony; lit by massive windows and grand chandeliers; furnished with sturdy wood tables, comfortable chairs, and brass lamps”)…

nyclibrary.jpg

…my mother was told children were not allowed. But when she explained to the astonished librarian what my homework assignment was, I was given special permission to stay (I believe even the librarian had a few choice words to say about Mrs. McGuire).

The enormous card catalog yielded only one book on the subject. One should have been enough, but unfortunately, this one was in French, and it was by, not about, Nicolas Appert. My guess is that it was the volume described by Wikipedia as having been entitled “L’Art de conserver les substances animales et végétales” (or “The Art of Preserving Animal and Vegetable Substances for Many Years”)—an easy enough guess, since this seems to have been Appert’s only work.

We waited for the book to be delivered from the closed stacks, where its sleep had probably been undisturbed since the library’s opening in 1911. An ancient, slim volume, it turned out it held a mother lode (pun intended) of information, relatively speaking: its introduction (also in French) contained two or three pages describing Appert’s life, times, and mostly his invention.

Of course, we were not allowed to take the fragile (and decidedly rare) book home, but I sat at one of the tables and watched in awe as my mother read and translated the introduction, using whatever she remembered of her high school French, taking quick and dextrous notes (she knew shorthand, too) on a large yellow pad.

And that was it. I returned home with our prize, wrote a report, and delivered it. The kids in my class yawned (another inventor; who cares?), but Mrs. McGuire received my offering with a rather strange look on her face. I don’t know whether it was surprise, disappointment, or perhaps some combination of the two, but I didn’t much care.

What I experienced was mostly relief. My mother, however, owned up to a sense of triumph.

And the message of the whole strange episode? That you shouldn’t abandon a difficult but not impossible task, although sometimes help was needed to tackle it. That my mother could be a hero. That high school French and shorthand (neither of which I ever was to learn) might actually pay off, albeit in a somewhat strange set of circumstances. That the New York Public Library was a vast storehouse of knowledge, its mysterious underground bowels containing wondrous things.

And, I suppose, that research could be a sort of treasure hunt, an exciting adventure to uncover snippets of information heretofore unknown. Come to think of it, that latter lesson is probably responsible for some of my fascination with blogging.

And now, as I’ve completed the research (mercifully, all online) for this post, I discover that Appert’s story is still relatively hard to come by. As this source points out:

Nicholas Appert’s invention was tremendous; however, there is very little documentation on his personal and spiritual life. In this case, the invention appears to be more important than the inventor.

Tell me about it.

Posted in Best of neo-neocon, Education, Me, myself, and I | 15 Replies

Anybody want to talk about…

The New Neo Posted on February 26, 2012 by neoFebruary 26, 2012

…the Oscars?

Be my guest.

I watch them off and on, mostly for the fashions and hairdos.

And the politics. Love the politics.

And also, in order to have some posts in the category “pop culture.”

Posted in Movies, Pop culture | 26 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

  • YoungHegelian on Open thread 5/6/2026
  • neo on Open thread 5/6/2026
  • Richard Cook on Lenient plea deal for man responsible for the death of Paul Kessler during an anti-Israel demonstration
  • Don on Indiana RINOs go down in primaries
  • Don on Indiana RINOs go down in primaries

Recent Posts

  • Indiana RINOs go down in primaries
  • Today’s worthless news on Iran
  • Lenient plea deal for man responsible for the death of Paul Kessler during an anti-Israel demonstration
  • Open thread 5/6/2026
  • News roundup

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 (25)
  • Election 2028 (5)
  • Evil (127)
  • Fashion and beauty (323)
  • Finance and economics (1,016)
  • Food (316)
  • Friendship (47)
  • Gardening (18)
  • General information about neo (4)
  • Getting philosophical: life, love, the universe (728)
  • 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 (798)
  • 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 (346)
  • 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 (418)
  • Romney (164)
  • Ryan (16)
  • Science (625)
  • Terrorism and terrorists (967)
  • Theater and TV (264)
  • Therapy (69)
  • Trump (1,601)
  • Uncategorized (4,393)
  • 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
↑