Going to…

The New Neo Posted on by

…a funeral today, so posting will be light.

I’ve been thinking about the passage of time lately. I went to a wedding this past Saturday and there was my own childhood friend taking up her role as the mother of the bride. Although her own wedding long ago still seems vivid to me, it sure doesn’t seem recent.

A wedding is a happy occasion, and the one this past weekend was especially joyful because the bride and groom appeared starry-eyed in love, and both families ecstatically happy at the entire state of affairs. Yeah, I know the gloomy statistics, but this one made a believer out of me.

But then there’s today’s funeral. As I grow older, time seems to accelerate in alarming fashion, and funerals will become more frequent. This past July I wrote this about the man whose funeral it is:

Last week I visited two elderly relatives who’ve recently moved to an assisted living facility not too far from me. They’re in their mid-eighties, and although they’ve been married for more than 50 years they live in separate wings of the place, because his problems are physical and she has Alzheimer’s.

These are people who were long known for their lively, upbeat personalities, always fun to be around. He’s still gamely trying to be cheery, despite some pain and enormous fatigue, plus his concern about what’s going on with his wife, but it’s a challenge he doesn’t always meet. He’s the one with the full awareness, after all, which is mainly a blessing but has its drawbacks when things are bleak.

But his wife has no such problems. Her mental state hasn’t deteriorated too much yet. She’s still, as they say, “well oriented”””at least in space, if not in time. She’s aware that he lives in a different building, but she thinks it’s a temporary thing, a sort of hospital, and that they’ll soon be reunited for good. He visits her a couple of times a week, and her ordinarily cheerful personality seems intact so far.

I don’t know whether his wife will be able to understand that he has died. I don’t know what they’ll tell her, and I don’t know what information she’ll be able to retain. Such are the complications of a life so long that the mind wears out before the body—or, in her husband’s case, the body before the mind.

Strangely enough, I’ve written about this same situation before, when I attended the memorial service for a friend’s father who’d died and left behind a wife with Alzheimer’s. Here’s how it was handled then:

But one person was mysteriously missing [from the service]: his wife. They’d met at the age of thirteen and been married for sixty-six long and happy years. I looked around the room but could not find her. Then during the service, the minister explained that no, his wife would not be attending.

I’d known that she was in the middle stages of Alzheimer’s disease. But I also knew that she’d been told about her husband’s death, and since they’d still been living together in an assisted living apartment, surely she felt his absence, whether she could recall it or understand it. But the minister noted that experts in Alzheimer’s had suggested that her attendance at a service such as this would be a pointless cruelty: she would only be saddened by it and yet would not remember it. It would reopen the wound of her husband’s death freshly from moment to moment, to no purpose. And so it had been recommended she stay away, and come down only for the reception and luncheon, which would seem to her a sort of party.

And a sort of party it was, actually. When a 90-year-old dies after a rich full life, that life can mostly be celebrated, although of course there’s grieving, as well.

I ended that post with a quote from Ecclesiastes. It seemed appropriate then, and it seems appropriate now. That’s the thing about Ecclesiastes; it’s always appropriate:

To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:

A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted.

A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;

A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance”¦

Kiss and tell with Ginger White

The New Neo Posted on by

I wasn’t going to write anymore about this. After all, Cain’s out of the race, so what’s the point?

But this Daily Beast interview with Ginger White seduced me (as it were) into reading more, and then writing more. It’s a cautionary tale of—well, of something, or perhaps many things, although I’m not entirely sure what they all are.

Mostly it’s the fact that a person can spout off to the press these days (the Daily Beast is operated by Tina Brown and owned by Newsweek) and say virtually anything without proof, and it will all be printed as long as it’s about a person the MSM wishes to eliminate. One would think that Cain had been destroyed enough already, but apparently the Beast desires to humiliate him still further by publishing White’s criticism of his wife’s self-denial, White’s speculation that he had many mistresses besides her, and, in perhaps the unkindest cut of all, White’s lack of sexual interest in Cain (she alleges she thought about grocery lists during sex).

White, of course, offers no more proof of their affair than she did in the first place, nor is she asked to. And once again—as so many MSM outlets have done—the Beast trots out the old “dozens of communications between her and Cain, including pre-dawn text messages” routine. Somehow no one’s ever managed to find out how many of them were from Cain, and no one ever seems to care.

I’m not naive about the press. I’ve spent a great deal of time on this blog criticizing the MSM and its purposely shoddy and deceptive reporting. So I should not be surprised by all of this, or by the tendency of many in the public to swallow it whole. But somehow these facts never lose their ability to surprise me, at least somewhat.

I don’t see how people can read passages like the following and trust White’s story. Does she not indict herself here far more than she does Cain?:

I remember a time when I was looking for a job, and I became separated from my first husband, John, and somebody said, ”˜All you have to do is get in front of the owner of this company, and he will give you a job, because you’re pretty. And he did. The owner offered me a job, and by the end of the day, he asked me out and said, ”˜I can help you with some extra money.’ So that’s what happened, for probably six months or so. I wasn’t the only one he was ”˜helping.’ And then I started getting promoted on my own, and shortly after that, I said, I want a change. When I first started seeing Herman Cain, I lived in Louisville, but within a year I got a job offer here in Atlanta. I told Herman and said, ”˜I may need help getting there””will you help me?’ And he said yes.”

For White, getting men to supplement her income that way “started becoming a game,” she said. “It was easy for me to get help like that. It makes you a bit cold. You have to be just as clever as they are, just as cold as they are, just as calculating as they are””and sometimes beat them at their own game. But I don’t want to be depicted as a woman who sleeps with men for money. I am not that woman. There have been a lot of men who sensed vulnerability and dangled a carrot, but I am not a bad person. I am a loving mother who has always wanted to make her own way and give her kids the best. I never wanted to take a handout, and I’ve said no more times than I said yes. I’ve said no more times than you can write down.”

Wow. Just wow. Again, I’m not so naive as to think this sort of thing doesn’t happen; I know it does. But I guess it still surprises me that White would say this freely about herself and not realize how terrible she sounds, and that at the same time her testimony (and her personal history) doesn’t seem to impeach her in the eyes of much of the public.

There’s more, much much more. But I’ll stop now. Suffice to say that the portrait White’s own words paints of her is so untrustworthy, so sordid, so deeply despicable that whether or not Cain had an affair with her, he showed terrible judgment in merely being friends with her.

Cain drops out

The New Neo Posted on by

In an announcement that can come as no surprise, Herman Cain drops out of the presidential race.

Does this mean the charges against him are true? Maybe. Maybe not. It’s certainly no admission of guilt on his part.

I certainly hope they’re true at this point, because if not, this sets a terrible precedent for forcing someone out of the running.

Forgiving Newt

The New Neo Posted on by

Why is it that so many people seem to care less about Newt Gingrich’s serial infidelities than those (alleged or real) of other politicians?

Is it because it’s old news?

Is it because no one can imagine having sex with Newt, so it’s hard to believe he cheated on his wives even though we know it’s true?

Or is it because—in an archaic phrase—he made honest women of his paramours by marrying them (at least, the ones of which we are aware)?

Stop me if I’ve told you this one before

The New Neo Posted on by

Today’s a slow news day so far. Herman Cain promises to say something later about whether he’s going to drop out of the race. Newt Gingrich is still Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney is still Mitt Romney. Fancy that.

So I went to my drafts file to come up with an idea for a post to expand on and publish, and found one that interested me. It was about famous the Anne Frank quote “I still believe people are good at heart,” and how the truncated version with which most people are familiar is far more optimistic than the full quote.

I began to research the subject and was halfway through writing the post when I came to a source that was number six on the Google list. Hmmm, I thought; that certainly looks vaguely familiar. Yes indeed, folks, I had already written and published a post on that very subject almost exactly two years ago and had no recollection of doing so.

That’s blogging for you. The output required is so relentless that at this point—although it’s hard for even me to believe—I’ve got 5,224 published posts and over 200 unpublished drafts or ideas for posts. Although it’s disconcerting, I suppose it’s not all that surprising that I might forget quite a few of them.

Spambot of the day

The New Neo Posted on by

What’s this bot got against Guy?

Guy Pierce looks like he’s finally gained 50 lbs.

Now, I must admit that although I thought I’d never heard of “Guy Pierce,” this caused me to look him up. So I guess the bot got at least part of what it wanted—although it’s always difficult to know the true motivation of bots. Bot waters run deep.

From my research I discovered that Pierce is actually Guy Pearce, an Australian actor known for his ripped torso. And I’d seen him in the film “Memento,” an intriguingly-themed although ultimately disappointing flick:

I think the bot’s a liar as well as spell-challenged, because I can’t find any gossipy pieces about how much weight Pearce has gained.

Next thing you know the bot will say it had an affair with Herman Cain.

Buy Amazon!

The New Neo Posted on by

December is here, and that means the gift-giving pressure increases.

And so does my urging you to use neo-neocon as your friendly Amazon portal. Got to any of the widgets on the right sidebar (or links to Amazon in the body of my posts) to click through and order, and you’ll be giving me a teeny (or even not so teeny, depending on how much you buy from Amazon) donation to brighten my holidays as well.

I should post more suggestions for actual products, but I keep forgetting. That’s the kind of salesperson I am! But I think this newish offering by Stephen King sounds interesting. It’s a time travel book where the main character goes back to try to prevent the Kennedy assassination (review here).

I don’t read much King as a rule, and I haven’t read that one. But on the few occasions when I have read him I’ve found that he’s a good writer, not just a good read. And I don’t just say that because he’s a New Englander!

Also, I’m glad that King didn’t succumb to the popular assassination conspiracy theories. In King’s book Oswald acted alone, which shows King’s great good sense, at least in that regard. However, be forewarned: the book is extremely long, and some Amazon reviewers mention that King pushes a bit of left-wing politics in it, although some disagree on that.

Here are some other special deals from Amazon, if you don’t happen to like King.

Unemployment figures “unexpectedly” lower

The New Neo Posted on by

Down to a whopping 8.6.

Of course, this may mean that more people have dropped out of the search:

“You’d like to see the unemployment rate coming down when people are coming into the job market, not disappearing,” James Glassman, senior economist at JP Morgan Chase & Co. in New York, said in a radio interview on “Bloomberg Surveillance” with Tom Keene.

More analysis of the figures here, here, and here.

Romney vs. Gingrich

The New Neo Posted on by

They seem to be the frontrunners right now. I agree with Charles Krauthammer that they may be the ones to ultimately duke it out for the nomination, and I very much agree with Krauthammer when he writes this:

My own view is that Republicans would have been better served by the candidacies of Mitch Daniels, Paul Ryan or Chris Christie. Unfortunately, none is running. You play the hand you’re dealt. This is a weak Republican field with two significantly flawed front-runners contesting an immensely important election. If Obama wins, he will take the country to a place from which it will not be able to return (which is precisely his own objective for a second term).

Every conservative has thus to ask himself two questions: Who is more likely to prevent that second term? And who, if elected, is less likely to unpleasantly surprise?

But therein lies the rub. Who is that person, Newt or Mitt?

Krauthammer doesn’t directly answer the question (although it sounds like he leans to Romney), but he knows how to pose the dilemma:

Two ideologically problematic finalists: One is a man of center-right temperament who has of late adopted a conservative agenda. The other is a man more conservative by nature but possessed of an unbounded need for grand display that has already led him to unconservative places even he is at a loss to explain, and that as president would leave him in constant search of the out-of-box experience…

Newt is not likable, but Romney isn’t especially likable either, for completely different reasons. They both have flipflopped on issues, but (as Krauthammer points out) Gingrich is seen as having advanced a true conservative agenda years ago, whereas Romney is seen as “ideologically unreliable.”

Our own commenter “kolnai” has some observations of his own on the subject:

1) At this point in time, I’d put Romney’s chances against Obama at about 45%, and I’d put Newt’s about 40%.

2) We have (re-)learned from the Cain fiasco that voters can tolerate the devil they know, as opposed to finding out that an apparent saint has devilish qualities right now.

Romney has no skeletons, but his comportment and his sarcasm-laced insecurity are highly off-putting, and most people haven’t experienced that yet (the feeling of “not liking” him).

Gingrich has many skeletons that make him a known devil (people already know the feeling of “not liking” Newt), but if he continues to act mature and positive, sticking to policy and vision, he can activate the American urge to forgive the fallen ”“ for we do love ourselves some redemption narratives. And I think Newt is skilled enough to manage the building of such a narrative.

Which is to say, the negatives of Romney will tend to be fresh but the negatives of Gingrich will tend to be old news. People will thus be comparing Romney’s flaws and virtues “in real time,” as it were, while they’ll be comparing Gringrich’s past failings with his present virtues. It’s a trust question in both cases, but the modality of it is different for the two of them. (This is an aggregate statement of course ”“ many people will be learning about Newt for the first time, but everyone will be learning about Romney for the first time.)

3) Therefore, it is a risk to nominate either Romney or Gingrich (whereas the Romney pumpers don’t think it is risky to nominate Romney AT ALL ”“ they act like his victory was every bit as foretold as the birth of Christ). Both could fall apart given the “gut” dynamics of the American center. Both, I believe, are more likely to lose than to win. So my question has simply been, Who has more of what I’d like? Newt does, because at least he is willing to articulate a vision.

As for me, well, I don’t like either of them. I think I dislike Newt somewhat more, but that may be a remnant of my having been a Democrat during his heyday in the 90s. When I try to imagine the reaction of the bulk of independent voters to either candidate, I agree with kolnai that Romney will pull more of them. But do I think he can win? I just don’t know. I know that’s not a very satisfying answer, but it’s the truth. I continue to think that Obama will be a stronger candidate that many people believe.