↓
 

The New Neo

A blog about political change, among other things

  • Home
  • Bio
  • Email
Home » Page 1430 << 1 2 … 1,428 1,429 1,430 1,431 1,432 … 1,880 1,881 >>

Post navigation

← Previous Post
Next Post→

Jennifer’s abs

The New Neo Posted on February 15, 2012 by neoFebruary 15, 2012

This must-read (not!) article, putting down the recurrent Jennifer Aniston pregnancy rumors, refers to the 43-year-old actress’s “amazing rock-hard abs.” And lest you think this focus on Aniston’s abs is unusual, here’s another article that does the same.

Here’s the photo that seems to have prompted all this ab-worship (it’s in GQ, and has some other eccentricities that seem to have gone unremarked, although I assume the plot of the new movie being promoted would reveal just why Aniston is leading co-star Paul Rudd around on a makeshift leash):

Hey, I’m not impressed. Forty-three is practically childhood, especially in a woman who hasn’t given birth, and who can devote hours a day to maintaining those abs because it is her livelihood.

What’s more, I’m a lot older than 43, and I’ve got rock-hard abs too. You’ll have to take my word for it, though, because I’m not posting a photo on this blog. I’m not posting that photo for 2 very good reasons: modesty, and the fact that my rock-hard abs are a bit, shall we say, under wraps. They’re in there all right, somewhere; I just know they are. But I would have to lose about twenty pounds for them to be visible.

A woman can actually have very strong stomach muscles, but if there’s even a bit of fat on top of them—something most women naturally possess, young or old, whether they’re strong or not, unless they’re very very thin—then you won’t see those abs no matter how rock-hard they are. I’ve got nothing against Aniston’s abs, but there’s nothing special about them except for the fact that her fat percentage is so low that they’re right out there for all the world to see and admire.

I also remember a time when we weren’t quite so ab-centric as a society. For example, this was thought to be a very lovely abdomen indeed:

Bardot, Cannes, 1953, before she became a blond. She’s certainly very slender—at least as slender as Aniston, if not more—but the abs are still under a tiny bit of cover.

[ADDENDUM: And I call BS on this sort of article, so ubiquitous that, serendipitously, that one appeared on Yahoo’s main email page today. The only way to get rid of belly fat and have a flat middle is to lose a ton of weight, have a ton of liposuction, or to have genes that mean it’s not deposited there in the first place. And the latter only works when you’re pretty young; even the leanest-bellied among us have a tendency to get at least a small paunch when older, unless literally starving.]

Posted in Fashion and beauty, Movies | 37 Replies

Beauty…

The New Neo Posted on February 15, 2012 by neoFebruary 15, 2012

…is in the eye of the beholder—and the AKC standards.

Malachy the Pekingese is best in show, Westminster, 2012:

Posted in Uncategorized | 21 Replies

Turnout and the primaries

The New Neo Posted on February 14, 2012 by neoFebruary 14, 2012

I’m one of those people who takes voting very seriously, so much so that I think I’ve voted in every general election and midterm as well. The only ones I’ve ever skipped are the off-years with just the very local candidates who are mostly running unopposed, or who are shoe-ins. I also have voted regularly in primaries or caucuses, at least when I’ve lived in states where they’re held.

And all of this was true even before I became so political. My attitude has been that voting is a great and solemn privilege, one people have died to protect, and that if you don’t vote you don’t get to complain about the results.

And it was complaining that I mostly engaged in, because in my voting life only three presidents I’d voted for got elected. This is not necessarily a record of which I’m inordinately proud, but we’re talking about Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush’s second term. But that’s not to say that any of the members of this particular triumvirate were my first choices as their party’s nominee, or that I unequivocally supported them. I’ve never been all that happy with my choices by the time the general election rolls around, but I vote.

The times I’ve voted in primaries, or imagined what my vote would be in primaries, the choices were often a bit better, mostly because there were more people involved at the start. But a lot of the time they haven’t been so great.

This year is no different, except that the election seems more important and the choices seem a bit worse. But they’ve often (although not always) been fairly bad:

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).

So in quite a few of those years the slates weren’t much better than today. I don’t know what the turnouts were back then, but this year turnout is down even from 2008, despite the extreme importance of this election.

The apathy of the voters in the Republican primaries has surprised me. There’s been an awful lot of shouting in the comments sections of blogs, but when it comes to actual voting, we haven’t gotten all that much.

I know, I know: people are dissatisfied with the slate. I am, too. But as I’ve tried to say here, that’s really no excuse for not voting.

The low turnout has the effect of skewing the election results more to the fringes and/or the extremes. In primaries if only the most fanatical and dedicated tend to come out, then the eventual nominee will reflect that. And though you may think it’s a good thing if that happens—if your favored candidate wins, for example—it can be a very bad thing for the general.

It’s my impression that this year a lot of voters are making choices out of petulance and/or pique. That’s not usually a process that leads to good decisions. Perhaps it’s inevitable right now, when three years of Obama combine with an uninspiring slate of candidates and lingering anger at McCain/2008 to make an electorate that is unusually dispirited and sullen.

But that’s no way to win elections. And winning this election remains very important to most on the right. Perhaps, once this seemingly-endless primary season is over, people will unite behind the eventual nominee. I have my doubts, after all the bitterness, but one can hope—because so far, the person who seems to have gained the most from this primary season has been President Obama.

Posted in Election 2012, History, Me, myself, and I, Politics | 37 Replies

On Valentine’s Day, let’s talk about Groundhog Day—again

The New Neo Posted on February 14, 2012 by neoFebruary 14, 2012

In recent discussions of the film “Groundhog Day” on this blog, I’ve noticed a couple of people questioning why the Bill Murray character would find Andie McDowell’s Rita deserving of all those years of his devotion and energy. For example, “…[W]hat, exactly, made the lovely but, let’s face it, vapid Rita worthy of Phil’s centuries of effort?”

My answer is that he discovered love. Yes, Rita was beautiful, and a good human being with many excellent qualities. But of course she was imperfect, and over the years (centuries? millennia?) Phil no doubt had learned just about all of her flaws. Still, it didn’t matter to him because it wasn’t about Rita, exactly—it was about the fact that, somewhere along the long path of his transformation to wisdom, he finally understood that every person in town, including the ones he couldn’t tolerate at the beginning, was worthy of his attention—and of something one might call “love,” in its broadest sense.

And somewhere along the line to that knowledge, Phil’s efforts in “Groundhog Day” stopped being about getting into Rita’s pants or even getting her to love him, although that certainly took up a larger percentage of his time (and the movie’s length) than some of his other pursuits. But he probably spent at least as much time learning to play the piano (a form of love, too), or to carve ice sculptures, or to become skilled at some of the more mindless and meaningless tricks he mastered, or learning details about the life of almost everyone in town.

Was the old derelict, whose life Phil tried to save over and over and over, “worth it” either? Such questions no longer mattered to him, because the gesture and the effort were worth it, and every life was worth something to him.

Rita, of course, had always been physically attractive to Phil. But as the film (and time) wore on—and on—she became the object not just of eros, but of agape as well. By the end of the movie, I think that Phil had come to appreciate the idea of the theme and variations versus the symphony, which I wrote about here:

And, although walking repeatedly in the same place is very different from traveling around the world and walking in a new place every day, is it really so very much less varied? It depends on the eye and mind of the beholder; the expansive imagination can find variety in small differences, and the stunted one can find boredom in vast changes.

And I submit that love is like that, too. Some people spend a lifetime with one love, one spouse; plumbing the depths of that single human being and what it means to be in an intimate relationship with him/her. Others go from relationship to relationship, never alighting with one person for very long, craving the variety.

It would seem on the face of it that the second type of person has the more exciting time in love. But it ain’t necessarily so. Either of these experiences can be boring or fascinating, depending on what we bring to it: the first experience is a universe in depth, and the second a universe in breadth. But both can contain multitudes.

Towards the end of the film (SPOILER ALERT, if there’s anyone on earth who hasn’t seen the movie yet), right before Phil is liberated from the seemingly endless loop of the repeating day, he makes it clear that he has given up the pursuit of Rita entirely, and immersed himself in his love for her instead. Is this what finally frees him?

Posted in Getting philosophical: life, love, the universe, Movies | 48 Replies

Spambot of the day

The New Neo Posted on February 13, 2012 by neoFebruary 13, 2012

Deep thoughts bot:

As far as me being a member here, I wasn’t aware that I was a member for any days, actually…But we’re certainly all members in the world of ideas.

Posted in Blogging and bloggers | 3 Replies

Getting to know Santorum

The New Neo Posted on February 13, 2012 by neoFebruary 13, 2012

Rick Santorum’s surge doesn’t puzzle me. It’s his turn at being the non-Romney frontrunner. By saying that I don’t mean to put him down, but it’s hard to avoid the pattern that’s been emerging: Romney is the supposed “annointed one” by the “Republican establishment,” with each other candidate taking his (or her; remember Bachmann?) turn in the limelight as his foil, only to be replaced after a while by the next in line.

One of them may end up having staying power, because Romney doesn’t seem to be catching on. Or, Romney will manage to remain as the last man standing. None of this bodes well for November of 2012. But it also remains true that a lot more will be happening before then that we cannot foresee, and which is bound to affect the outcome.

But back to Santorum. I prefer him to Gingrich, but Santorum’s own problem in the general is obvious: he is an extreme social conservative. Santorum actually has said things that indicate he does want to get into your bedroom: for example, it’s hard to see how this sort of thing would be well-received by most American voters.

Santorum tries to make it clear in the following interview that his anti-contraception stand is a personal choice, and that he would not try to impose it on the country. But he goes on and on at such length about how contraception is bad for people (not just himself) that it’s difficult to believe views like this wouldn’t alarm most listeners:

There are other problems with Santorum that I described in this post. But if I’m looking at him and evaluating him as an ABO candidate (which I am), it’s the extremity of his social conservatism that really raises the alarm for his chances of winning a general election against Obama. He’s provided the opposition with a field day of sound bites to be used against him.

Posted in Election 2012, Men and women; marriage and divorce and sex | 40 Replies

Addiction and choice

The New Neo Posted on February 13, 2012 by neoFebruary 26, 2025

Commenter “uncleFred” writes about addiction:

“There for the grace of God”¦”

Not so much. Drug abuse is not like getting hit by a meteor, or struck by lightening, it is a choice. Go to an AA meeting. Sit for a couple of hours and listen. Talk with someone who has been sober or clean a while. (AA meetings these days have as many drug addicts as alcoholics because of the high percentage of dual addiction).

The ones who recover, literally to a man or woman, all tell you the same thing. There came a day when they DECIDED to quit, and then they found help to do so. They’ll admit that it was a choice to start, a choice to keep abusing their drug of choice, and it was a choice to stop. Most of them can’t even tell you why they decided to quit or what was different on that day from the day before. The most common answer is “I just got done”.

On the radio someone said that “Whitney lost her battle with ”˜her demons”, as if some evil force reached out and seized control of her life. I bear her no ill will and think her ending is sad, but the tragedy here is that the story that is front and center and larger than life is one spun by a PC media and not focused on the truth of addiction.

UncleFred is correct that it is a choice—unless, of course, someone held Whitney (or any other addict) down and force-fed (or injected) her with drugs in order to get her accustomed to the habit. We can safely assume that didn’t happen to her, and rarely if ever happens in general. So yes, it is most definitely a choice every single step of the way from first use to continuing use to sobriety.

But by far the best choice to make is not to start.

That is because, once the hook is in, the difficulty of choosing to stop—and sticking with that choice, day after day for a lifetime, which is what it takes—requires enormous strength and constant self-control. I am referring to the physical cravings as well as the psychological ones, especially for physically addictive drugs in the initial stages of rehab. In the end, though, the psychological “demons” are the ones that are hardest for most addicted people; after all, life ordinarily presents a host of stresses and problems, and the addict must learn to weather those without the tried-and-true method that has long cushioned the blows.

Not everyone becomes addicted. I’m not so sure that those who do are weaker than others, but they often have an extra physical vulnerability to their drug of choice: for example, alcohol. I have a number of friends who are alcoholics, and I’ve been impressed by how these seemingly strong people can go weak in its presence, and what a powerful pull it exerts for them. For me, on the other hand, it has no pull at all. I don’t even like it, so it takes no strength of character for me to resist it because there’s really nothing to resist.

But for those who become alcoholics or addicts after their initial exposure to the substances and their decision to invite them into their lives, it is at least in some ways as though an evil force comes and takes control of them, and they must battle it with every ounce of their beings. Such people often state that, right from their first ingestion of the substance, they love what it does to them and for them.

And there’s another issue in addiction: over time, drugs and alcohol do not leave people exactly as they found them. They often change the person under their influence, so that making those good choices while still using (and the decision to quit must occur while a person is still using) can be very hard because of those changes. The person is no longer quite in his/ right mind, or at least not in his pre-drug/alcohol mind, but it is necessary to start recovery while in that altered state (unless there’s a forced deprivation of the substance, such as can occur in prison, for example).

Unlike Odysseus, a person in the real world can’t be tied to the mast to resist the siren song:

For some people, that call can be so strong that, in the end, it’s all they hear and all they care about.

[ADDENDUM: There is evidence that, at least for some people, the very first drug experience changes them physiologically, especially if it’s crack . See this:

Crack is inhaled and rapidly absorbed through the lungs, into the blood, and carried swiftly to the brain. The chances of overdosing and poisoning leading to coma, convulsions, and death are greatly increased. Crack’s rapid rush – 5 to 7 minutes of intense pleasure – quickly subsides, leading to depression that needs to be relieved by more crack. This cycle enhances the chances of addiction and dependency. Because of the brief high, users are constantly thinking about, and devising ways to get more crack. Psychologically, the drug reduces concentration, ambition, drive, and increases confusion and irritability, wreaking havoc on users’ professional and personal lives. Habitual use may lead to cocaine psychosis causing, paranoia, hallucinations, and a condition known as formication, in which insects or snakes are perceived to be crawling under the skin…

Once an individual has tried crack, they may be unable to predict or control the extent to which they will continue to use. Crack is probably the most addictive substance that has been devised so far. Crack addicts must have more and more crack to sustain their high and avoid the intense “crash” or depression that follows their binges. They become physically and psychologically dependent on crack, which is often a result of only few doses of the drug taken within a few days. This dependence can lead to addiction.

All to often, the process of crack addiction goes something like this: The “soon to be addict” takes their first hit. Upon inhalation of this powerful drug, the users body instantly begins the addiction process. The individual’s mental and emotional being is soon to follow, but for now just their body suffers from the initial stages of crack addiction. After the first few times using the drug, their mind slowly starts the addiction process. This grows stronger and stronger until, mentally, the addict believes that they cannot live without the drug. They now are entangled in a full fledged crack addiction. Shortly after this occurs, crack takes complete control over their emotions.

Once the individual’s emotions have been overridden by cocaine, they no longer feel normal without being intoxicated. When this occurs they feel the need to use more crack just to feel normal. In order to get high they have to take an immense amount of the drug. Their crack addiction has infiltrated all areas of their life. They can no longer function physically, emotionally, or mentally without crack. This cycle of addiction continues until the individual either quits using or dies…

The use of crack alters the processes of the brain by causing a change in the way neurons in the brain communicate. Nerve cells, called neurons, communicate with each other by supplying the brain with chemicals called neurotransmitters. These neurotransmitters allow information in the form of electrical impulses to be passed through the body. This process works by neurotransmitters attaching themselves to certain areas in the brain. One of the neurotransmitters affected by crack is called dopamine. Dopamine is released by neurons in the part of the brain that controls feelings of pleasure and well-being. This area is in the limbic system of the brain. Normally, once dopamine has transferred to a nerve cell’s receptors and caused a reaction in a cell, it is transferred back to the neuron that released it.

Crack cocaine causes damage to this system and blocks the process of transfer. Dopamine then builds up in the gap synapse between neurons. As a result, for crack cocaine users, dopamine keeps affecting a nerve cell after it should have stopped. That’s why someone who uses crack cocaine feels an extra sense of euphoria and pleasure. Although crack cocaine may bring on intense feelings of pleasure while it is being used, crack cocaine can damage the ability to feel pleasure in the long run. Research suggests that long-term crack cocaine use may reduce the amount of dopamine or the number of dopamine receptors in the brain. When this happens, nerve cells must have crack cocaine to communicate properly. Without crack cocaine, the brain can’t send enough dopamine to the receptors to create a feeling of pleasure.

I challenge anyone to read that site and not be almost overwhelmed by how difficult the task of quitting a drug like that must be.]

Posted in Health | 27 Replies

Sad

The New Neo Posted on February 11, 2012 by neoFebruary 11, 2012

Whitney Houston, dead at 48.

I had no idea she was that young, which tells you how her life had been ravaged by drugs and who knows what else. Once a beautiful woman with a beautiful voice, she reportedly got clean a couple of years ago and it may even be true that she remained so. No doubt they will do testing to determine the cause of death.

RIP.

Posted in Music | 59 Replies

Three ancient tales of unwed pregnancies

The New Neo Posted on February 11, 2012 by neoApril 8, 2023

[NOTE: Every now and then I may repost something from the past that might seem relevant or interesting. Here’s something I originally wrote in 2008.]

I grew up in an era in which abortion was both difficult to obtain and physically dangerous. Today’s commonplace alternative of raising the child as an unwed single mother was socially unacceptable in the extreme. Effective birth control was nowhere near as easy to find as it is now, either. But the lure of sex was just as great (last time I checked, that hasn’t changed).

My enormous public New York high school had a mostly working class demographic. But the two girls in my acquaintance who became visibly pregnant were from the “better” families. Although it sounds like the script of a movie, one was the captain of the cheerleading squad and one the head of the baton twirlers.

They were not my friends, and so I was not taken into their confidence about their lives. But by strange coincidence, my gym locker was directly across a tiny aisle from that of the first girl (whom I’ll call “Sally”) during our sophomore year, and similarly from that of the second (whom I’ll call “Linda”) when we were both juniors.

In those days we were required to go to gym class every day, and to suit up in hideous little one-piece blue cotton outfits with bloomer shorts. Nobody, but nobody, looked good in those things. But at least the boys never saw us, since gym class was strictly segregated by sex.

Sophomore year I noticed the formerly svelte and very attractive Sally gaining weight. I thought little about it—she had started out so thin that the weight gain still didn’t make her fat. But she also began to keep her gym suit unbelted.

Huge mohair sweaters were in style that year, and so for a while I thought little of it as I saw her changing back into her regular clothes after gym class. But her normally happy face grew sadder and sadder every day, and her native vivaciousness was replaced by a subdued demeanor.

Then one day she simply disappeared. The rumor—correct, it turns out—was that she’d been sent to one of those “homes” to have her baby and give it away. She returned a few months later with her body looking exactly as it had before any of this had happened. But there was a different aura about her, an expression in her eyes that told of dark adult experiences we didn’t share.

Junior year, when I started to observe across the way that Linda was fastening her sheath skirt with a safety pin under her sweater because the button could no longer reach the buttonhole, I was wiser. As the small safety pin was replaced by larger and larger ones, I watched and wondered what Linda would do.

Her disappearance, when it came, was briefer than Sally’s. The rumor (also true) was that her parents were raising the baby. She and her boyfriend continued to date right through college, although birth control presumably came into the picture because they managed to avoid another pregnancy. When they graduated from the university they married and reclaimed their now five-year-old child, and then went on to have several more—and to stay married, when last I heard.

Marilyn was a friend of mine during my junior year of college. Perhaps “friend” is too strong a word; she was one of three girls I shared an apartment with for a single semester. Marilyn was neither popular nor especially attractive, and her affect was what I would now call depressed. But I didn’t bother to give a name to it then.

When Marilyn began to have stomach problems—throwing up several times a day, and feeling nauseated much of the rest of the time—I didn’t suspect pregnancy at first. She was the sort of person who ordinarily was very open about all her troubles, of which she had many, and she never mentioned it as a possibility. She didn’t have a boyfriend and hadn’t been on a date in months, which also seemed to preclude a baby. And she kept asking me questions about nausea: what sort of illness might cause the kind of symptoms she was feeling? I hadn’t a clue.

This went on for a week or two before she told us: she was pregnant, after all. In those days there were no kits to be had in the drugstore or the Walmart (there was no Walmart). But there were doctors to whom one could go, and that’s what Marilyn had done.

If she had been depressed before, she was in anguish now. She couldn’t sleep and she didn’t eat. Her main activity—aside from throwing up, which occupied the bulk of her time—was crying. Her face seemed permanently puffy, her eyes a sickly pink, and so swollen they were almost shut.

The mystery of who the father might be was cleared up when she told us, with great shame, that she’d been visiting a friend at another college a month or so earlier and had gotten drunk one night and had sex with a guy she barely knew. She wasn’t even sure how to reach him, but in any event she had no intention of doing so.

What Marilyn did intend to do was to have an abortion. But nobody knew where to go to obtain one.

Marilyn’s best friend Helen, the girl with whom she shared a bedroom in our two-bedroom-four-girl apartment, asked around. Her boyfriend knew a friend who knew a friend who knew a friend who knew…and thus it was set up. Eight hundred dollars cash was the price, a large sum in those days. The address was in the inner city. The date was next week.

Marilyn didn’t have that kind of money. And her parents were the kind she couldn’t confide in, or so she thought. So people gave a little bit, and asked around for contributions. Somehow the sum was raised, and when the day came Helen went with her in the morning to the assignation.

They returned that evening. Marilyn was still crying nonstop. I’ve forgotten most of the details of the story they told, but it was harrowing. The “office” had been no office at all, just a dirty room in a foul part of town, with a lookout with a gun standing guard in the next room. The “doctor” was probably not a medical man, and he had little to say. There was no anesthetic. It had been terribly painful. At least they had the decency, and the knowledge, to tell her to take her temperature regularly for a week or two and to go immediately for medical help if she developed a fever.

Marilyn spent the next two weeks in the apartment with a thermometer in her mouth. She removed it only to eat and sleep, and to look at it at intervals to see the reading. Her crying began to taper off, as did the bleeding (the nausea was now gone), and slowly things went back to business as usual.

Marilyn had always looked sad. But now there was an extra depth of sorrow in her eyes, although her relief was palpable. I kept in touch with her for only a few years after that, and her life wasn’t going too well. But Marilyn had always had troubles, and I’m not so sure it would have gone a whole lot better even without the pregnancy and abortion.

As time went on abortion became legal. Still, I was always profoundly happy that I managed to avoid an unwanted pregnancy and the attendant terrible decisions that I never wanted to face. But I learned that many of my friends and acquaintances did confront them—a third to a half seem to have had unwanted pregnancies (often through contraceptive failure, particularly IUDs)—and chose to abort. Some of them seemed to breeze through the experience with little anguish, while others feel deeply guilty to this day.

The variety is almost endless, the decisions tough. The possibility of unwanted pregnancy is something every actively heterosexual woman must face, except those who know they are infertile (and they face other sorrows). All of these women did the best they could in difficult circumstances. I leave judgment to others; I prefer to have compassion for them all.

Posted in Uncategorized | 28 Replies

MP3 or CD?

The New Neo Posted on February 11, 2012 by neoFebruary 11, 2012

I still buy CDs.

But then, I’m a Leonard Cohen fan, and apparently that’s the sort of archaic thing we folks do.

If I’m just buying a single song, though, I usually pay my 99 cents (or $1.29, because inflation has hit the iTunes store) and bypass the hard copy. But any more than a few songs and it’s the CD for me—often a used one, because they can be cheaper.

Why do I do this (besides the fact that I’m a technological dinosaur)? I figure it gives me more versatility. I can hear a CD on a player, my computer, or in the car—plus I can put the entire thing on my iPod and have it do whatever iPods do.

What’s the downside? I haven’t figured out any. The only possible difficulty is storage, and CDs are so small that I really can’t consider it much of a problem, especially since I was raised on records, which are considerably bulkier.

Not just bulkier, but more fragile. They were so very easily scratched, especially when the owner had the listening habit I did—which was to play a favorite song and then change the record. This required a special skill that has probably gone the way of so many techniques from the olden days, such as cutting ice from ponds and storing it before the days of the freezer. I had laboriously learned how to deftly pick up the playing arm so that it made a clean break with the record, and then change to another selection swiftly, letting the arm down silently and ever-so-gently in just the right place.

I don’t need to do that any more; CDs and MP3 players make it so easy to select a track. But I still prefer (or think I prefer) the sound of records. To me they have a warmer, richer, fuller timbre. Digital technology has always seemed slightly metallic and tinny to me, despite (or maybe because of) its clarity, although I’ve made a complete transition to it.

And you?

Posted in Me, myself, and I, Music | 30 Replies

Is Santorum a conservative?

The New Neo Posted on February 11, 2012 by neoFebruary 11, 2012

Socially, yes. Otherwise, not quite as much of one as you might think.

Somewhat like Romney, Santorum has the problem of coming from a somewhat liberal state (although nowhere near as liberal as Massachusetts) where he had to please his constituents. Unlike Romney, Santorum’s a career politician, with no executive or private sector experience to speak of.

This commenter makes an interesting point with which I agree:

How many more months are we going to keep pretending that the argument worth having is who is or is not conservative?
There are only two questions remaining, and those have been the ONLY questions remaining for months now:
1.Who of a bad lot has the best chance of beating Barack Obama?
2. Who of a bad lot will govern the MOST conservatively?

If you think that almost any of these guys is a shoe-in to beat Obama, then it’s the answer to question #2 that will determine the candidate you support. If you think unseating Obama will be difficult and the race hard, then the answer to question #1 will be the one that is most helpful when you decide for whom to vote in the primaries.

And if you, like some people who comment around the blogosphere, think that the eventual Republican nominee isn’t conservative enough (whomever he might be), and that there’s really little difference between him and Obama, then by all means stay home on Election Day. But when Obama wins and goes on to claim more executive power, leads the country in an ever-leftward direction through extra-legislative means, vetoes the more conservative bills of a (possibly) Republican Congress, continues a foreign policy destructive of our relations with allies and weak on some of our enemies, and appoints some very young (in other words, with long tenures probably ahead of them) and very liberal Supreme Court justices and federal judges, then you can look in the mirror and congratulate yourself for having had a hand in causing that to come about.

Posted in Election 2012 | 26 Replies

Child-rearing in the 21st century

The New Neo Posted on February 10, 2012 by neoFebruary 10, 2012

What hath progress wrought?

Free to be you and me.

I’m old enough to remember the rigid boundaries that these movements were supposed to be correcting, and I’m glad the worst of them have been removed. But it’s been an awfully slippery slope, hasn’t it?

Posted in Education, Men and women; marriage and divorce and sex | 31 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

  • 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
  • Richard Cook on Indiana RINOs go down in primaries
  • Irishotter49 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
↑