Harry Reid offers still more evidence…

The New Neo Posted on by

…that he’s a lowlife bottom feeder.

But of course, you already knew that.

And Datechguy asks, “Can we stop calling the Washington Post a ‘newspaper’ now, and officially declare it a propaganda organ?”

Answer: yes.

Here’s some of what Reid said—stuff that the WaPo felt we really, really, really needed to know:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) claimed Tuesday in an interview that Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney refuses to release additional tax returns because he didn’t pay taxes for 10 years.

The interview, published Tuesday by The Huffington Post, includes several swipes by the Senate leader at the GOP candidate.

“His poor father must be so embarrassed about his son,” Reid said in reference to George Romney’s decision to turn over 12 years of tax returns when he ran for president in 1968.

Reid suggested that Romney’s decision to withhold tax information would bar him from ever earning Senate confirmation to a Cabinet post. Then, Reid recalled a phone call his office received about a month ago from “a person who had invested with Bain Capital,” according to The Huffington Post.

Reid said the person told him: “Harry, he didn’t pay any taxes for 10 years.”

“He didn’t pay taxes for 10 years! Now, do I know that that’s true? Well, I’m not certain,” Reid told HuffPo. “But obviously he can’t release those tax returns. How would it look?”

Neither Reid nor his aides would identify the alleged investor, HuffPo reported.

Reid’s accusation is so low (especially the part about Romney’s father) that I don’t even see many pundits on the left standing by it. But hey, Reid doesn’t care. They’re not his audience. His audience is those voters who can’t think it through, not writers like Dan Primak, or their readers:

One of two things has happened: (1) Reid is simply making the whole thing up, in order to pressure Romney into releasing tax returns for years prior to 2010, or (2) Reid’s investor pal lied, and the Senator didn’t bother to conduct even a mild vetting before sharing the accusation with reporters. Either way, shame on gossipy gentleman from Nevada.

Let me make this crystal clear: Investors in private equity funds do not receive, nor are they entitled to request, personal tax returns for fund managers. Not just at Bain Capital, but everywhere. For example, ask the person managing your 401(k) for their personal tax returns. See how far you get.

What makes this particular claim even sillier, of course, is that Romney hasn’t even been managing Bain funds for the past 10 years (no matter when you believe he left the firm). He’s been a silent investor like Harvard and MIT. Think the guy managing private equity for Harvard can get the personal tax returns of the guy managing private equity for MIT? Yes, that’s another rhetorical question.

And just to close the circle, it also isn’t possible that Reid’s source was someone within Bain because partner tax returns are not prepared or reviewed in the firm’s offices. Instead, that’s done at PricewaterhouseCoopers. So no “maybe someone found it on a fax machine” theories. It’s also possible that someone else at Bain didn’t pay taxes for 10 years, but that wouldn’t necessarily mean that Romney did or didn’t (he does have other financial interests).

A Reid spokesman defended his boss to me on the phone, only saying that I’d have to talk to Reid’s original source. But of course he wouldn’t provide the source, or even ask Reid if there had been a follow-up like “How the hell would you know that?”

Whatever the truth about Romney’s tax history, we know that Reid’s “source” is full of it.

I think Reid is either lying and the source doesn’t exist, or there is a source but he knows full well the information is a crock. His remarks were strategic, designed to (1) re-focus attention on Romney’s tax returns; (2) make Romney angry; and (3) increase the pressure for the tax returns’ release, which would then afford Democrats the opportunity to pick through them with a fine-tooth comb. It’s a win-win situation for them, because even if the returns are exemplary, they will underline how much money Romney has. And if they have any irregularities at all (which almost all returns are bound to have), that will be grist for the mill, too.

Reid may be an execrable person, but he’s not a political dummy.

The press is at war…

The New Neo Posted on by

…with Romney.

Of course; we expected that. But the nature of the coverage of Romney’s trip abroad—with the press acting, in the words of Powerline’s John Hinderaker, as though Romney had “committed one blunder after another” when in fact the trip has been mostly “triumphant”—underscores the reality that these days the supposedly objective press is out to get any serious Republican candidate, and out to protect any serious Democratic one (read: John Edwards), but most especially Barack Obama.

That’s been true for quite some time. But it’s glaringly obvious in the excessively “gotcha” coverage of Romney’s trip (I would include Newsweek’s “wimp” story, but Newsweek ceased being a serious periodical quite some time ago). There’s no attempt to hide the agenda anymore; it’s full-bore Pravda mode.

If you look at the top headlines at Memeorandum, the story du jour of idiot Romney and his gang of stupidheads abroad makes it look to the casual reader as though they’d insulted the Polish press corps and told them to shove it and to “kiss my ass.” A good example would be this CNN story with the headline, “Romney aide loses cool, curses at press in Poland.”

Many readers just scan the headlines, and the press knows that. But the story was actually that the aide shouted this at the American press, who were hounding Romney (while on a visit to the Polish Tomb of the Unknown Soldier) with questions about the poor perpetually-outraged Palestinians and how offended they were by Romney’s remarks in Israel. You have to read deeply into the story to even realize that it was the American press and not the Polish, and that they were playing the usual “gotcha” game, and that the Romney aide, Rick Gorka, quickly called the reporters to apologize.

As for Romney, he doesn’t appear to be innocent about the press’s agenda toward him (unlike John McCain, who had once been their darling and whom I don’t think ever quite realized that the rules of the game had changed once he became the nominee). I see no indication that Romney expects fairness from them or anything resembling it.

The most important question at this point is how savvy the American people are about the whole business. I’m hoping that the answer is “very.” After all, Iowahawk notes, “”If there’s anything the American public won’t abide, it’s someone who insults screaming reporters and Palestinians.”

Here’s the video:

Show some respect? Dream on.

[NOTE: Speaking of Pravda—it’s not doing all that well, even now. The English-language version appears to be a cross between a poorly-written Guardian and the British tabloids (see this, this, and this, just to take three stories almost at random).]

[ADDENDUM: When I actually watched the video, it struck me that the screechy, shrill questions of the reporters were so gratingly annoying that someone brilliant could even make the clip into an effective ad for the Romney campaign. Ace has a more creative idea:

“>

A rhythm-and-drums techno sort of track, with the questions by the reporter looped in the mix. Like make the found dialogue part of the rhythm. Or the melody. Or whatnot. I don’t do music.

Maybe finish and end with a brief snippet of Romney’ speech, because he, presumably, sounds like an adult, and the contrast would be humorous.]

Spambot of the day

The New Neo Posted on by

A bot emits an anguished cry for help:

I don’t routinely interrupt wonderful conversations like this with my own personal issues, but I in dire need of help from anyone who is happy to lend me a hand. I’m thinking about employing [a certain lawn care business whose URL is given] and I was wondering if anyone here has employed them previously. I am hunting for both the bad and good areas of their business. Please get back to me as quickly as possible for this is critical. Thank you.

Romney’s foreign travels/travails: telling the truth

The New Neo Posted on by

So, does the highlighted statement [emphasis mine] disqualify Romney for the presidency?:

So far the roughest moment on the Republican presidential candidate’s road trip came after he said that some things about the Olympics were “disconcerting.” That angered Brits, including the mayor of London.

“You know, I was referring to press reports before I even got to London that suggested that the organizing committee was having some challenges,” said Romney.

“I was there for two days,” he added. “The games were carried out without a hitch. So, as far as I’m able to tell, despite the challenges as any organizing committee faces, they were able to organize games that have been so far so good, picture perfect.”

“I tend to tell people what I actually believe,” said Romney when asked if he would want to change his words if he could go back and answer the questions again.

And now of course, since Romney is in Israel, a country more predisposed to like him, the left is all over some remarks he made in a fundraiser there that are “RACIST!!” and have outraged the perpetually-outraged Palestinians:

“As you come here and you see the GDP per capita, for instance, in Israel which is about $21,000, and compare that with the GDP per capita just across the areas managed by the Palestinian Authority, which is more like $10,000 per capita, you notice such a dramatically stark difference in economic vitality,” the Republican presidential candidate told about 40 wealthy donors who ate breakfast at the luxurious King David Hotel.

Romney said some economic histories have theorized that “culture makes all the difference.”

“And as I come here and I look out over this city and consider the accomplishments of the people of this nation, I recognize the power of at least culture and a few other things,” Romney said, citing an innovative business climate, the Jewish history of thriving in difficult circumstances and the “hand of providence.” He said similar disparity exists between neighboring countries, like Mexico and the United States.

Palestinian reaction was swift and pointed.

“It is a racist statement and this man doesn’t realize that the Palestinian economy cannot reach its potential because there is an Israeli occupation,” said Saeb Erekat, a senior aide to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

Yes, of course; it’s all the Israelis’ fault. Everybody knows how well the Arab/Muslim inhabitants of Palestine (they didn’t call themselves Palestinians at the time) were doing before* the increase in Jewish emigration to the area beginning in the latter part of the 19th century and continuing on into the 20th. Everyone knows about the thriving Arab economies in lands that are not “occupied” by Jews, and that even if it weren’t for their oil they’d still be the economic miracle stories of the world. And of course everybody knows that the Palestinians are coveted residents of the various Arab countries that have vied for their presence for many decades because of their economic prowess in whatever country they happen to enter. Jordan and Lebanon in particular have been happy to welcome the Palestinians, whom they consider quite an asset, and those countries have been eager to have even more of them back, but so far the Palestinians have cruelly refused to listen to their blandishments.

And have you noticed how “culture” has now become synonymous with “race,” so that speaking negatively of a culture—even if what is said is true (or perhaps especially if what is said is true)—becomes defined as racist, as though whatever a culture might be is embedded in the genes of its people?

Now I understand that diplomacy requires that a leader not always say what he/she really thinks, or even close to it. But at this point, diplomacy has been an utter failure with the Palestinians, who tend to look on any concessions as evidence of a weakness that can be exploited. But despite this history, and despite the fact that the other Arab/Muslim countries of the Middle East hate, fear, and use them, the Palestinians remain the darlings of the left in the west, which believes their tender sensibilities must always be assuaged.

Here’s some context for Romney’s remarks:

As he has at home, Romney in Jerusalem cited a book titled, “Guns, Germs and Steel,” that suggests the physical characteristics of the land account for the differences in the success of the people that live there.

“And you look at Israel and you say you have a hard time suggesting that all of the natural resources on the land could account for all the accomplishment of the people here,” Romney said, before citing another book, “The Wealth and Poverty of Nations,” by former Harvard professor David Landes.

This book, Romney said in Jerusalem, concludes that “if you could learn anything from the economic history of the world it’s this: Culture makes all the difference. Culture makes all the difference.”

The economic disparity between the Israelis and the Palestinians is actually much greater than Romney stated. Israel had a per capita gross domestic product of about $31,000 in 2011, while the West Bank and Gaza had a per capita GDP of just over $1,500, according to the World Bank.

Romney, seated next to billionaire casino owner Sheldon Adelson at the head of the table, told donors that he had read books and relied on his own business experience to understand why the difference in economic disparity between countries is so great.

But shhh, these things cannot be mentioned. Nor can we whisper of incidents such as this one. It would spoil the narrative:

Some 200 dunams of greenhouse space in the Gaza Strip were ransacked recently by dozens of armed Palestinians and residents of Khan Yunis.

International donors had purchased the greenhouses from evacuated Gush Katif settlers for the benefit of the Palestinians.

According to Palestinian and international sources involved in running the greenhouses, the armed robbers belonged to two militias, the Assistance Committees and the Popular Army, affiliated with former Palestinian ruling party Fatah. These militias had been hired by the Palestinian Authority to guard both the ruins of the former settlements and the greenhouses, which were all under cultivation. But instead of guarding the greenhouses, the guards decided to rob them.

In general, the Palestinians and their camp-followers have been very happy with President Obama’s attitude towards the region, and there is no question that, even had Romney mouthed a few more platitudes in Israel to placate them, it would not have made a particle of difference.

[NOTE: *See this for more information about the earlier history of the region regarding economics and culture. Here’s an excerpt:

The Report of the 1937 Palestine Royal Commission quotes what it believed to be a truthful and unbiased description of the Maritime Plain as it existed in 1913:

“The road leading from Gaza to the north was only a summer track suitable for transport by camels and carts”¦no orange groves, orchards or vineyards were to be seen until one reached [the Jewish village of] Yabna [Yavne]”¦.Houses were all of mud. No windows were anywhere to be seen”¦.The ploughs used were of wood”¦.The yields were very poor”¦.The sanitary conditions in the village were horrible. Schools did not exist”¦.The western part, towards the sea, was almost a desert. . . . The villages in this area were few and thinly populated. Many ruins of villages were scattered over the area, as owing to the prevalence of malaria, many villages were deserted by their inhabitants.”(Cmd. 5479 p. 233)

The Report also drew on contemporary descriptions of the economic situation in Palestine, written in the 1830s and supplied to the Commission by Lewis French, the British Director of Development:

“We found it inhabited by fellahin who lived in mud hovels and suffered severely from the prevalent malaria”¦. Large areas”¦were uncultivated”¦ The fellahin, if not themselves cattle thieves, were always ready to harbour these and other criminals. The individual plots”¦changed hands annually. There was little public security, and the fellahin’s lot was an alternation of pillage and blackmail by their neighbours, the Bedouin.” (Cmd. 5479 pp. 259-260)]

[ADDENDUM: Paul Mirengoff of Powerline says that offending Palestinians is step in the right direction:

Palestinian leaders may not be able to handle the truth, but that shouldn’t deter our leaders from expressing it. For too long, they have been deterred, and that includes Republican leaders.]

I thought you might appreciate…

The New Neo Posted on by

…a break from politics today. I know I do.

Then again, maybe not. So here’s a thread for discussing whatever you want—including politics, if that’s what you so desire.

As for me, I’m off to enjoy myself, and to contemplate the fact that summer is almost half over.

Oops! What I meant to say was there’s at least half a summer left.

[NOTE: At the risk of being accused of negativity—in the above image, doesn’t it seem as though the glass is actually less than half full, because of the angle of the sides of the glass? Isn’t the volume of the empty portion slightly greater than that of the full one?

Of course, it depends how full you want to fill it…]

Time, you old gipsy man

The New Neo Posted on by

Five guys at the lake decide to recreate a photograph of themselves over and over, showing the passage of time [hat tip: Althouse].

Take a look and note that, just as I wrote here, age doesn’t really catch up with most people till they hit that late-40s wall—and it doesn’t catch up with all of them even then:

I’ve noticed in my own life and among my friends, as well as for public figures, that visible aging doesn’t progress in smooth linear fashion. It advances in fits and starts and discrete bumps.

One year I look around at my friends at the Christmas party and everybody looks pretty darn good. The next year I wonder who all these old folk are. In their thirties and forties the aging process seems so slow and gentle as to be almost stagnant; most people seem to go on and on looking almost like they did in their twenties.

There’s a group who hit the aging wall in their mid-to-late forties, going almost overnight from young to oldish. They’re the canaries in the mine. Another bunch “turn” quite suddenly in their late fifties, with the early sixties a time of particular peril for many.

I think you’ll agree that for the five brave men* who took these photos, there’s a bigger leap between the second-to-last photo (taken in 2007, when they were all around 44), and the last one (taken in 2012, when they were all close to 50) than in the previous five-year gaps. I’ll reproduce just the very first one (1982) and then those last two for comparison:

Ah, but just you wait, guys. It’s the next 10 or 15 that will tell the tale.

The poets tell the tale, too. There’s Andrew Marvell in “To His Coy Mistress“:

But at my back I always hear
Time’s winged chariot hurrying near;
And yonder all before us lie
Deserts of vast eternity…

This one is from a response by Archibald Macleish called “You, Andrew Marvell,” that always gives me the chills:

And here face down beneath the sun
And here upon earth’s noonward height
To feel the always coming on
The always rising of the night:

To feel creep up the curving east
The earthy chill of dusk and slow
Upon those under lands the vast
And ever climbing shadow grow…

(The elipsis is especially apropos, and the poem even ends with one…)

For a lighter and once-quite-popular version of the idea, a poem I was familiar with in my youth:

Time, you old gipsy man,
Will you not stay,
Put up your caravan
Just for one day?

All things I’ll give you
Will you be my guest,
Bells for your jennet
Of silver the best,
Goldsmiths shall beat you
A great golden ring,
Peacocks shall bow to you,
Little boys sing.
Oh, and sweet girls will
Festoon you with may,
Time, you old gipsy,
Why hasten away?…

And still another, by Tennyson:

Tears, idle tears, I know not what they mean,
Tears from the depth of some divine despair
Rise in the heart, and gather to the eyes,
In looking on the happy Autumn-fields,
And thinking of the days that are no more…

[*Although the men may be brave, they’re not brave enough to keep taking their shirts off, are they?]

A different kind of diet

The New Neo Posted on by

And speaking of diets (which we were)…

If you’re an elite endurance athlete, you’ve got to pack in those calories—up to 6,000 a day—if you don’t want to start dropping too much weight while you’re training.

That may sound like heaven, but it can get to be quite a chore, because it takes an awful lot of food to reach that total. So unless you want to be grazing continually, like a cow, your diet had better consist of calorie-dense food.

Most opt for a fair amount of junk:

“You can only eat so much oatmeal and tofu,” says Dr. Joyner. And the calories don’t add up. A bowl of oatmeal gives you just 150 calories, while a cup of tofu only boasts 175. But processed junk foods ”” candy bars, cookies, Pop-Tarts ”” provide more energy-replenishing calories per gram. Even when restricting their diet to pizza and ice cream, some athletes still shed weight.

Here’s how to do it without eating a lot of junk. It’s exhausting just contemplating that list.

To most of you: don’t try this at home. Or away from home, for that matter.

You want context?

The New Neo Posted on by

We’ll give you context, on the Romney quote about Britain being a “tiny little island that makes stuff nobody wants.”

But, as Althouse rightly points out in her contextualizing post:

But you know the rule in journalism: Taking things out of context is okay when you do it to hurt conservatives.

Blatantly lying about blatant lies

The New Neo Posted on by

[Hat tip: Drew M. at Ace’s.]

Jonathan Chait offers a couple of howlers in his piece at NY Magazine, beginning with the beginning:

Mitt Romney’s plan of blatantly lying about President Obama’s “you didn’t build that” speech is clearly drawing blood.

A blatant lie on Chait’s part about the topic of blatant lies.

To review once again: the meaning of “that” in Obama’s phrase “you didn’t build that” was ambiguous. Romney’s original take—that Obama meant “your successful business”—is the obvious one, not a lie. It’s the Democrat defense that requires the listener to struggle to give it the preferred meaning of “roads and bridges” (including the fact that the word “that” is singular and would not ordinarily be applied to the “roads and bridges” the Democrats claim it does). And of course, as so many (including Romney) have correctly said, whether the quote meant businesses or whether it meant roads and bridges, the context is mostly a repetition of the idea that successful business owners are not primarily responsible for their own success.

Chait and Obama and others on the left know how damaging that fact is. But they are hoping that their own lies will convince the people who are too lazy to look up the full context that it is Romney who’s lying.

But Chait doesn’t stop there. He says the reason the charge against Obama is working is that he was speaking in black dialect at the time, and of course his opponents are capitalizing on racism.

No, that’s not a joke. Here it is:

The key thing is that Obama is angry, and he’s talking not in his normal voice but in a “black dialect.” This strikes at the core of Obama’s entire political identity: a soft-spoken, reasonable African-American with a Kansas accent. From the moment he stepped onto the national stage, Obama’s deepest political fear was being seen as a “traditional” black politician, one who was demanding redistribution from white America on behalf of his fellow African-Americans.

To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

By the way—not that it matters—I don’t think Chait is using the word “dialect” correctly (even if his premise were correct, which it is not). He is speaking of affect, not dialect. Be that as it may, the only possible racism I see here is Chait’s own.