Mitt the adult

The New Neo Posted on by

I thought this observation by “Trimegistus” (who sometimes comments here too) at Ace’s gets it just about right:

You know what else I like about Mitt? He’s a goddamned adult. He’s about the only goddamned adult in politics right now. Obama’s a perpetual grad student, Newt is the president of the high-school Young Republicans circa 1986, Santorum is an earnest Notre Dame freshman, and Big Ron’s the world’s oldest high school redneck stoner.

Mitt is an actual grownup with a functional family, he’s had a real job and did it well, he’s not running for President to get revenge on anybody or boost an inflated ego. He’s doing it to fix the goddamned country.

Super Tuesday

The New Neo Posted on by

Today’s the day that voters in ten states go to the polls with a total of 419 Republican delegates up for grabs in Georgia, Ohio, Alaska, Oklahoma, Idaho, Tennessee, North Dakota, Idaho, Virginia, and Vermont.

That’s only half the number that were at stake in 2008’s Super Tuesday. But it’s still quite a few. They’re allocated proportionately now rather than winner-take-all, and polling shows that the most closely contested states are Ohio and Tennessee.

The accepted wisdom is that Santorum probably must win both to remain viable. Gingrich almost certainly will win Georgia, but it’s hard to see how that could change things for him unless Tennessee comes along for the ride, and even then it’s hard to see a path for him to become the eventual nominee. Paul—well, he’ll win some delegates and perhaps even a caucus state like North Dakota, but he’s still not going to be the nominee nor will he drop out.

The more interesting question is when and if Gingrich will withdraw; I predict it won’t be soon. And what will the turnout be?

[ADDENDUM: Drew M at Ace’s has a lot of good suggestions for changes in the primary rules. Don’t sit on a hot stove till they get implemented, though.]

And yet another changer: Daniel Knauf

The New Neo Posted on by

I love love love to read changers’ stories about their political conversions. They’re all a little bit alike and yet different. I get the urge to write to them and say “Hey, visit my blog; you’ll find a lot there that speaks to what you’re going through!”

But alas; quite a few (like for instance the latest person to “come out,” Daniel Knauf) seem to lack publicly available email addresses. Anybody have any idea how to reach him?

Knauf is a particular subset of political changer that’s surprisingly common: the Hollywood variety. And, Hollywood being what it is, he was also a silent changer till very very recently, when sorrow at Andrew Breitbart’s death and the nastiness of the left’s reaction to it caused him to burst his mental chains and say his piece.

Knauf’s original political turning point was also a very common one: 9/11. But I’ll let him describe what happened to him:

I remember watching the collapse of the first tower and feeling–literally feeling the breath just leave my lungs, my chest filling with a terrible, ghastly void; a sense of distant screams in a windswept wasteland and loss loss loss oh my God all those people all those people they murdered all those thousands of people…

Like every American, I was approached [the next day] by a number of colleagues who wished to vent and commiserate.

But unlike every American, my coworkers expressed little or no anger toward the terrorists who had committed this atrocity. Rather, they directed their vitriol towards American Imperialism, American foreign policy, American arrogance, American warmongering, American racism and, most of all, our American President, the evil, unfathomably stupid, idiot-Christian, bumbling Texan oaf, George W. Bush.

It’s hard to underestimate the profound shock this sort of thing can engender in a person who’d previously been oblivious to some of the worst excesses of the left. If Knauf was anything like me, he really hadn’t previously talked politics to most of his friends, and therefore didn’t even know their views in many cases. It just hadn’t come up, or if it had, he hadn’t paid much attention; it was just so much background blah-blah-blah.

But the drama of 9/11 made talking about these things impossible to avoid, and the emotion focused the attention quite sharply, and the resultant disclosures were enough to make a lot of people’s worlds turn upside down. I know whereof I speak.

Knauf’s reaction was not so unusual either, especially for those who earn their livelihood in professions where being on the right is a no-no and can lead to loss of income or fear of such:

And what did I say?

Nothing.

Not a damn thing.

I was just shocked silent. I couldn’t believe what I was hearing…

Over the ensuing years, I continued to remain silent whenever confronted by the toxic, batshit-crazy, knee-jerk, anti-intellectual, when-in-doubt-blame-America Leftism that pervades Hollywood. I saw what happened to others if they spoke up or disagreed with the party line. I actually witnessed one writer, who foolishly expressed his support for the war in Iraq, set-upon and viciously berated by no less than six crew-members for almost 20 minutes straight.

That night, he found his car had been keyed in our secure lot.

Hmm… must’ve been a random vandal.

Incidentally, though he had a storied career, an amazing list of credits and is one of the most versatile, talented writer-producers I know, the jobs gradually dried up for him and now he can’t, as they say, get arrested in this town.

So now Knauf’s cat is finally out of the bag. I bet it’s a relief. It will be interesting to see what happens to him.

Limbaugh’s apology—once more, with feeling

The New Neo Posted on by

Rush Limbaugh apologized again to Sandra Fluke yesterday, and this time he sounded sincere, although he managed to get in a well-deserved (see this, for example) dig at the left in the process:

“I descended to [the left’s] level when I used those two words to describe Sandra Fluke,” Limbaugh said. “I’ve always tried to maintain a very high degree of integrity and independence on this program. Nevertheless, those two words were inappropriate. They were uncalled for. They distracted from the point that I was actually trying to make, and I again sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for using those two words to describe her. I do not think she is either of those two words. I did not think last week that she is either of those two words.”

He added: “It was way beneath me, and way beneath you. I was wrong. I genuinely apologize.”

Limbaugh claimed he was not forced into issuing an apology to Fluke, despite calls from prominent conservatives””including House Speaker John Boehner and GOP candidates Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum””to do so, as advertisers of his show fled in droves.

“The apology was sincere and heartfelt … pure, simple, heartfelt,” he said. “All the theories, all the experts are wrong.”

I thought the original two words Limbaugh’s referring to (prostitute, slut) were inappropriate, too. Not because they’re un-PC, but because they didn’t even make sense as a joke. As I wrote here, in my previous one-and-only post on the subject (and the present post will probably be my last):

But when last I checked, prostitutes were paid by their clients to have sex, not by the general public to use contraception. What’s more, birth control pills have no connection with frequency of sex, because they must be taken regularly and are not act-dependent, whereas act-dependent condoms and diaphragms/cream cost the same whether the sexual acts are with one partner many times or different partners many times (the latter being the definition of “slut”).

So, what do you think? Is Limbaugh honestly sincere [*see note] on this? Or was his hand forced by either his lawyers or his advertisers, or both?

The whole incident has made me reflect on the Limbaugh phenomenon, something I usually ignore. I freely admit I’m not a listener, which makes me not an expert on what it is that makes him so appealing to so many. In the past, when I’ve tuned in now and then, I’ve usually tuned out in just a few minutes, partly because I’m not an auditory learner (I much prefer to read), and partly because I find his style doesn’t suit me and the content doesn’t say much to me. I don’t find him funny, and the few times I have listened to him at any length I’ve quite regularly found some of his comments offensive (unfortunately I can’t quote which ones, because I never thought to take notes and I haven’t heard his show in ages).

But that’s just me. I’m well aware that others—many many many others—may and do differ. My impression is that they find him both hugely entertaining and tremendously informative, which so far has been a winning combination for him and a tremendous threat to the supremacy of the MSM and its prevailing message. For that, members of the latter institution have probably long been aching to take him out in some way, and now they almost certainly see their golden opportunity.

I think that’s the deepest source of Rush’s apology, and the genesis of his sincerity: he recognizes that he may have given his enemies the rope with which to hang him, because his remarks were just stupid and over-the-top enough to give their attacks credibility. He’s kicking himself for that.

*NOTE: Honestly Sincere—

Movie snacks: they’re too much

The New Neo Posted on by

Movie popcorn, candy, and soft drinks have gotten ridiculously expensive. The theaters consider their patrons to comprise a captive audience slave to its munchie cravings, much like the passengers in an airport waiting for a plane are forced to pay the higher prices at the food stores there.

But isn’t the solution to this weighty problem not a lawsuit, but instead to refrain from buying those in-theater snacks? And to bring your own if you feel you just gotta eat at the movies?

I would have thought so. But I don’t go to the movies much anyway—I prefer the Netflix-type arrangements—and when I do I actually don’t buy the food anyway. They’re “too much” in more than just price, they’re enormous and getting larger all the time.

So I wasn’t aware till I read the article that many movie theaters actually ban the importation of food by its patrons, so that people have to resort to smuggling it in if they want to beat the high prices. Maybe that’s why women’s bags have gotten so large lately, too; they have to be, in order to store the contraband.

It’s that time again, again

The New Neo Posted on by

[NOTE: Bumped up. I’ll do this for a few more days this go-round.]

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 to use the “donate” button on the right sidebar beside the photo of the hat, and give whatever you see fit.

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.

Obama’s second term: fill in the blanks

The New Neo Posted on by

If re-elected, what would Obama do?

The left thinks he’ll finally be able to fulfill their dreams. The right thinks the same: that Obama, freed of the need to be re-elected, will make a hard turn to the left whether the populace wants or expects him to or not. Whether he would succeed in such an endeavor if he tried it would depend at least in part on how many members of the new Congress would co-operate with him, and/or how far he’d be willing to go in bypassing Congress and doing it by executive order.

As for me, I make no firm predictions but one: Obama’s campaign promises will remain quite vague and general right up until Election Day, the better to keep people guessing. That blank slate thing seems to work for him.

Old friends: how terribly strange to be seventy

The New Neo Posted on by

Simon and Garfunkel have had their share of ups and downs.

They met as 6th graders at PS 164 in Queens (oh, those ever-so-creatively-named New York City public schools! I went to one of them myself.) They teamed up as Tom and Jerry in 1957 (no, not these guys), became mega-famous in the mid-60s, broke up in 1970, but have performed together off and on in the decades since.

Here they are close to the beginning, practically babies. They seem a little subdued, don’t they? And so does the audience:

The following video was mislabeled “2011,” but it’s really a concert in New York’s Madison Square Garden in 2009. Older, and wiser? The purity of the Garfunkel voice is somewhat diminished, but what’s lost in clarity may be made up for in extra layers of meaning. And the audience seems a good deal more into it:

Well, the leaves that are green turn to brown, and Paul Simon turned 70 last October, Art Garfunkel a couple of weeks later.

Here they are around the age of forty, imagining what it might be like to be seventy. How terribly strange:

And here they are again, with little left to the imagination anymore (this was in 2009, so they were both probably 68 years old):

Memory brushes the same years,
Silently sharing the same fears.

Time it was, oh what a time it was, it was,
A time of innocence, a time of confidences.
Long ago, it must be…I have a photograph.
Preserve your memories, they’re all that’s left you.

Thanks to YouTube, we’ve got a lot more than memories.

(Hat tip: commenter “davisbr.”)

[ADDENDUM: For those of you not inclined to follow the link above on the words “leaves that are green turn to brown,” I couldn’t resist posting that video here as well:

I was twenty-one years when I wrote this song,
I’m twenty-two now, but I won’t be for long.
Time hurries on…]

Leaving the circle and entering the circle

The New Neo Posted on by

Ace writes about his own process of political conversion:

If you’ve always been conservative, then you can tell me a great many things about doctrine and such, but one place I will always have more experience than you is in terms of conversion and persuasion.

Because I went through a conversion myself. I was persuaded myself. I have only anecdotal experience; but I do have that anecdotal experience.

Anyone who’s always been Solid Red doesn’t have that experience.

So you can tell me you know more about conservative doctrine (this concession is easily made– I am not a deep thinker on conservative doctrine at all) but unless you’ve actually changed your stripes, you cannot tell me what arguments work on persuading someone to move from liberal-ish to moderate to conservative/moderate to finally conservative.

And I will tell you this: The giddy thing about a conversion is the liberation from complete and utter bullshit — accreted dogma, groupthink, it is so because we have said it is so.

Anyone who moves from liberal to conservative will always describe it as liberating epiphany, of breathing free air.

So please listen to me, if on nothing else at all, when I tell you that this dopey attempt to pound people into accepting the groupthink by appeals to solidarity and appeals to authority (authority which is not universally conceded, even on the right) is a loser.

Only a few people who are truly unhinged find they can no longer live under one set of dogmas and then fly to embrace, passionately, a whole ‘nother set of dogmas…

For most people, they convert when they want to escape a set of dogmas and then live under fewer dogmas, or even none at all.

They do not wish to jump willy-nilly and embrace a whole new set of dogmas.

Please read the whole thing.

Ace is expressing a thought I share: I didn’t jump off the liberal bandwagon to jump onto a conservative one. I try to think for myself as much as possible, and sometimes it leads me in directions that are quite different from the conservative position. I often try not to even read others’ opinions before I write on a topic, to remove their possible influence on me.

Some people don’t like what I have to say, such as my support of Romney in this election. That’s fine. I don’t really care, as long as you disagree civilly.

Limbaugh and the “slut” remark

The New Neo Posted on by

You may notice I haven’t yet written anything about Rush Limbaugh’s comments about Sandra Fluke’s sex life and the issue of compensation to pay for contraception, and the furor they’ve caused.

Why? Because I don’t write much about Rush Limbaugh, ever. Why not? Well, he’s a talk show host, and I rarely listen to talk shows; I don’t much like them. But it is my firm belief that Limbaugh—like most such hosts—is first and foremost an entertainer who’s in the business to make money. Duh! As such, he likes to say controversial things that stir people up and increase his traffic. This is no different.

Rush said, “Well, what would you call someone who wants us to pay for her to have sex? What would you call that woman? You’d call ’em a slut, a prostitute or whatever.” But when last I checked, prostitutes were paid by their clients to have sex, not by the general public to use contraception. What’s more, birth control pills have no connection with frequency of sex, because they must be taken regularly and are not act-dependent, whereas act-dependent condoms and diaphragms/cream cost the same whether the sexual acts are with one partner many times or different partners many times (the latter being the definition of “slut”).

This time, Limbaugh certainly got the attention he craves, and then some. But he doesn’t speak for me, nor for all conservatives—any more than Keith Olbermann speaks for all liberals.

But now every candidate has to weigh in on the hugely important subject of what Limbaugh said and what it means and all the rest. And the MSM gets to opine on what a big doodoo-head Rush Limbaugh is.