↓
 

The New Neo

A blog about political change, among other things

  • Home
  • Bio
  • Email
Home » Page 1486 << 1 2 … 1,484 1,485 1,486 1,487 1,488 … 1,880 1,881 >>

Post navigation

← Previous Post
Next Post→

The left and Obama: is breaking up getting easier to do?

The New Neo Posted on June 17, 2011 by neoJune 17, 2011

I’ve often described the left’s relationship with Obama as akin to romantic love. It’s been evident for quite some time (see this, for example) that the early flush of intense infatuation is over. But a more quiet and realistically cynical love remained.

Now I wonder if that has ended, as well. One indication of that possibility is this editorial in today’s NY Times, which for the first time (at least as best I can recall) breaks quite strongly with one of Obama’s hypocritical policies. The issue is Libya and the War Powers Act. These are pretty strong words for the usually Obama-enabling Times to use:

…Mr. Obama cannot evade his responsibility, under the War Powers Act, to seek Congressional approval to continue the operation. The White House’s argument for not doing so borders on sophistry…No word games can get him off the hook.

The Times goes on to blame the Republicans for partisan maneuvering. But the editors come back at the very end to calling on Obama to comply with the law:

Partisan brinkmanship or not, Mr. Obama doesn’t have a choice. He needs to go to Congress and make his case.

Another sign of discontent is this sort of thing (the article even uses the metaphor of a romantic breakup). Progressives are not very happy with Obama, and they’re saying so. They perceive him as a squishy middle-of-the-road kind of guy. But this is hardly new. The real question is what they’ll do at the polls–stay home, or hold their noses and vote for him?

Posted in Obama, Press | 39 Replies

John Hinderaker asks…

The New Neo Posted on June 17, 2011 by neoJune 17, 2011

…whether Michele Bachmann has been underestimated.

Not just by her enemies, but by her friends.

As for me, I don’t yet have a firm opinion about Bachmann, simply because so far I’m not familiar enough with her. That will emerge over time if she continues to be a candidate. But my initial impression is that those on the left who call her a lunatic or stupid are confusing her with somebody else, or with their own wishful thinking. Unlike their other nemesis (and her supposed doppelganger) Sarah Palin, Bachmann is generally articulate in the more conventional sense; and her academic and professional credentials, although not Ivy League, are more conventionally impressive as well: JD from Oral Roberts University, LLM in tax law (not, one would imagine, an especially easy course of study) from William and Mary Law School, and then a lawyer for the IRS. What a dum-dum!

[NOTE: The above is not meant to imply that Sarah Palin’s lack of graduate degree, law credentials, or “more conventional” articulation means that she is stupid or any of the other things of which she is accused by her enemies. It merely means that, without that veneer, she is easier to make fun of, and it is somewhat more difficult for her to reach and gain the respect of the vast middle of the electorate.]

Posted in Politics | 26 Replies

Freedom: is it any surprise…

The New Neo Posted on June 16, 2011 by neoJune 16, 2011

…that the large and liberal states of New York and California rank low on the scale of individual freedom?

And what do New Hampshire and Indiana have in common? Not only do they rank very high, but they both are islands of individual freedom surrounded by states that rank very low.

New Hampshire seems quite aware of this—after all, its state motto is the famous “Live Free or Die” (I wrote about that here). What’s Indiana’s secret?

Posted in Liberty | 23 Replies

The Gershwins and multiple talents

The New Neo Posted on June 16, 2011 by neoJune 16, 2011

I’ve been doing some research about George Gershwin (this is an especially wonderful biography), and I’ve been surprised to learn that, in addition to his formidable musical talent, Gershwin was a major collector of modern art and a credible painter himself. Here’s a self-portrait:

If you want to see a bunch more of Gershwin’s paintings, go here (the site contains all sorts of warnings against reproduction of the images, so I’m linking to the source rather than reproducing them here). They have two characteristics: they are portraits, and they are very fine. He was not a dabbler.

Sometimes geniuses—and Gershwin was most definitely a musical genius—are successful because they have tunnel vision and are quite obsessed with what they do. But sometimes they are multi-talented; Churchill comes to mind; he was also a skilled painter, with his work consisting primarily of landscapes. Although I greatly admire Churchill, I don’t think much of his paintings, which seem far less distinctive than Gershwin’s.

It is not unusual to be multiply-talented in linked fields—such as, for example, music and mathematics. Music and painting are a more unusual duo, and Gershwin was somewhat unique in reaching such a high level in both. What’s more—and of special interest to me—Gershwin had three siblings, all of whom were highly and often multiply-talented, despite the fact that their parents did not seem especially gifted in the arts at all. Nor did the children receive a lot of training in the arts.

Most people who know anything about the Gershwins are already aware that George’s brother Ira was as wonderful a lyricist as George was a composer. They were musical collaborators and very good friends for most of their lives. But Ira was an excellent painter, too. Here’s a self-portrait:

And if you’d like to see how good those portraits are, here is a photo of the duo George and Ira:

Their baby sister Frances—although far less well-known—sang, composed music, and painted, too. She had quite a life. She was a child performer and dancer, as well as a singer:

Frequently summoned to George’s lair on the fifth floor, she was often the first to sing Gershwin songs that would later be Broadway hits, and when George was in rehearsal for ”Lady Be Good,” brother and sister would try out steps he had learned from the show’s star, Fred Astaire.

Although her husky voice was small by stage standards of the day, George, who loved her interpretations of his sometimes complicated music, particularly the way she kept the rhythm going, made her his personal chanteuse, and the two entertained at countless flapper-era parties in New York and elsewhere.

What’s more, she became a painter and sculptor once she married and moved to Connecticut, and had many exhibits that were well-received. But her performing career wasn’t over, either:

Although painting remained her main artistic outlet, in her later years [Frances] re-emerged as a singer. Her 1975 album, ”Frances Sings for George and Ira,” won wide acclaim, and after a granddaughter suggested she get vocal training, she began a long-deferred professional career, singing Gershwin tunes at the Lambs Club and elsewhere until two years [before she died in 1999].

And what of sibling number four, Arthur? He was a composer too, natch, although his day job was stockbrocker:

He composed the two-act musical A Lady Says Yes (1945) which is set in 1545 and 1945 and takes place in Venice, Washington D.C. and China. It ran on Broadway from Jan 10, 1945 to Mar 25, 1945 at the Broadhurst Theatre and had 87 performances.

His song Invitation to the Blues with lyrics by Doris Fisher, was used in the film Tootsie (1982) and has been recorded by Julie London.

Arthur is the sole Gershwin sibling who doesn’t seem to have painted as well—although it’s hard to say, because there isn’t a whole lot of information about him.

From whence comes this sort of talent and achievement? No doubt, as with just about everything else, it’s some complex combination of nature/nurture. The structure of the brain must be part of it, but we still know very little about how this sort of thing happens. Composers are often child prodigies, or at least show an extraordinary interest in music at an early age. Despite George Gershwin’s relative lack of musical education (he did have about five years of lessons as a teenager, but his training was neither especially rigorous or intense), by all reports he was deeply interested in music at an early age, and markedly skilled at improvisation as well. Music just seemed to flow out of him for most of his short life.

Last October in the WSJ, Terry Treachout attempted to analyze the phenomenon of dual-talents, but I can’t say he shed much light on it. Much of his article had to do with people (such as Nat King Cole, or Benjamin Britten) who were talented in two musical fields; or artists such as Degas, who both painted and sculpted. That’s impressive, but not all that impressive, since it’s obvious that such arenas as singing and piano playing might be linked, although certainly not always (Gershwin, for example, who was by all accounts an extraordinary pianist, had a terrible singing voice—although he’s said to have been a terrific dancer).

Painting and music seem to be widely separated modalities. One is visual, the other auditory. If one stretches for links, however, a few can be found. For example, both painting and piano playing require tremendous manual dexterity and fine motor control, although composing does not. And I suppose all of them have something to do with harmony in the most general sense—although doesn’t most art?

[NOTE: The composer Arnold Schoenberg was also an amateur painter, but to my eye his work was markedly inferior.

The Gershwins had a first cousin, Henry Botkin, who was a fairly successful painter. Botkin gave George Gershwin a few art lessons, and that seems to have been the extent of George’s art education.]

Posted in Music, Painting, sculpture, photography, People of interest | 27 Replies

Weiner: going, going…

The New Neo Posted on June 16, 2011 by neoJune 16, 2011

…going, but not gone.

But soon. Very soon.

Posted in Uncategorized | 16 Replies

The Dalai Lama as straight man…

The New Neo Posted on June 15, 2011 by neoJune 15, 2011

…is funnier than the original joke:

I like this joke better, anyway:

Posted in Uncategorized | 19 Replies

Humans on the planet

The New Neo Posted on June 15, 2011 by neoJune 15, 2011

Erle C. Ellis, associate professor of geography and environmental systems at the University of Maryland, writes that we’re fully in the Anthropocene, a proposed term to describe an era in which the environment has been heavily influenced by humankind:

Earth’s biodiversity, biogeochemistry and evolution are now profoundly reshaped by us – and are therefore in our hands.

Ellis goes on to assure his readers that this is not cause for despair. Although he appears to fully buy into the concept of anthropogenic global warming (“We are warming the atmosphere, melting the ice caps…”), he thinks the cure for the problem is more of the hair of the dog that bit us:

There will be no returning to our comfortable cradle. The global patterns of the Holocene have receded and their return is no longer possible, sustainable or even desirable. It is no longer Mother Nature who will care for us, but us who must care for her…We most certainly can create a better Anthropocene. We have really only just begun, and our knowledge and power have never been greater. We will need to work together with each other and the planet in novel ways. The first step will be in our own minds.

Ellis actually seems to be trying to counsel against the “humans are a cancer on the planet” crowd. In doing so, however, he overestimates the effect of humans, both good and bad. It is by no means clear that any global warming that has occurred has been caused by humans. And it is by no means clear that we understand any of these processes well enough to alter them in the desired ways. The law of unintended consequences is a bitch, especially in complex systems, and the ecology of the earth is nothing if not a complex system.

One of the commenters at the article has this to say:

Our “cradle” NEVER was “comfortable.” That’s why we, you know, CHANGED it. Just what was comfortable about that cradle? Living in the wild all the time? Smallpox epidemics? Yellow fever? Malaria? Black plague? Measles?

Add your own misery to the list.

The author appears to define the Anthropocene as when human ACTION began changing the Earth’s environment. I don’t think this hits what the actual CORE difference is here. After all, the action of cyanobacteria RADICALLY changed Earth’s atmosphere from carbon dioxide at high pressure to oxygen and nitrogen at relatively low pressure. Going by action alone, we could just as easily call the geologic age since the cyanobacteria the Cyanocene.

It is human UNDERSTANDING that is the unique difference.

Agreed. And human understanding of these things is in its infancy.

[NOTE: One very interesting part of Ellis’s article is how early it was that humans began to significantly shape the global environment:

Significant human alteration of the biosphere began more than 15,000 years ago as Palaeolithic tribes evolved social learning, advanced hunting and foraging technologies, and the use of fire, and used them to open up forested landscapes and kill off megafauna.

These Palaeolithic human impacts were significant and extensive, but they were minor compared with the impact of the rise of agriculture more than 8000 years ago. By domesticating plant and animal species and engineering ecosystems to support them, humans introduced a wide range of unambiguously anthropogenic processes into the biosphere.

Human alteration of Earth systems tends to be far more extensive and complex than one would expect based on numbers alone. Even 8000 years ago, with a population of just 10 million or so, humans had already altered as much as a fifth of Earth’s ice-free land, primarily by using fire to clear forest. The reason small populations had such extensive impacts is that early agriculture emphasised labour efficiency. Early farmers did not use the plough, and that meant constantly shifting cultivation to the most fertile areas. As a result, most of the landscape was in some stage of recovery, giving rise to “semi-natural” woodlands. These were among the first anthropogenic biomes, or “anthromes”.]

Posted in Nature, Science | 63 Replies

Victory for Walker: the Wisconsin Supreme Court reinstates the collective bargaining law

The New Neo Posted on June 15, 2011 by neoJune 15, 2011

The Wisconsin Supreme Court was eager to let the lower court know it had grossly overstepped in going against the will of the legislature:

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all orders and judgments of the Dane County Circuit Court in Case No. 2011CV1244 are vacated and declared to be void ab initio…This court has granted the petition for an original action because one of the courts that we are charged with supervising has usurped the legislative power which the Wisconsin Constitution grants exclusively to the legislature…The court does so because whether a court can enjoin a bill is a matter of great public importance and also because it appears necessary to confirm that Goodland remains the law that all courts must follow…Accordingly, because the circuit court did not follow the court’s directive in Goodland, it exceeded its jurisdiction, invaded the legislature’s constitutional powers under Article IV, Section 1 and Section 17 of the Wisconsin Constitution, and erred in enjoining the publication and further implementation of the Act.

“The Act” was the one that limited the unions’ collective bargaining powers.

Although the Supreme Court decision seems to be a close one with a 4-3 vote, it actually was not:

The majority said there was no constitutional violation, and that the courts had no authority to review whether the legislature had followed its own rules.

The dissents issued no opinion on whether there was a constitutional or statutory violation, or frankly whether at all Sumi [the lower court judge] was correct. They just disagreed with the [Wisconsin Supreme] court rushing through it and not taking it on appeal with a full record instead of as an original action.

Posted in Law | 9 Replies

Last night’s Republican debate

The New Neo Posted on June 14, 2011 by neoJune 14, 2011

Anyone who wants to discuss the debate last night can use this thread.

I tried to watch it, I really did. But fifteen minutes was all I could take. I hate debates, and this one seems highly premature.

[ADDENDUM: Ace has an exceedingly interesting take on Romney’s performance.]

Posted in Uncategorized | 18 Replies

Ferri and Bocca, Fonteyn and Nureyev, in the ballet “Romeo and Juliet”

The New Neo Posted on June 14, 2011 by neoJune 14, 2011

Here’s a palate refresher for you.

I complain a lot about how much the art of dance has been sacrificed to the extremes of contemporary ballet technique. And all too often that’s the case.

But here’s a couple I encountered on YouTube—although I never actually saw them perform in person, alas—who are an exception: an extraordinarily developed technique in the service of an extraordinarily developed art.

Note the steps known as renversés that Julio Bocca performs towards the beginning of the segment, particularly some very nice ones at around minute 3:04 and continuing for about 10 seconds after. This sweeping movement perfectly expresses the intense emotion of infatuation, swirling Romeo and practically carrying him away. The same for the impetuous energy of his jumps for the rest of his variation, and especially at around minute 3:40.

And see Alessandra Ferri’s astoundingly hyperextended feet and soaring extensions. This is extreme technique, but she keeps it just under control and uses it in the interests of expressiveness rather than distortion.

At about minute 6:00 there’s a moment, lasting approximately 10 seconds, in which Ferri makes you see Juliet the girl as she turns into Juliet the passionate woman, much to her own surprise (I’ve edited all of the following pieces so that they start with several minutes already elapsed). And it only gets better after that:

I was raised on less flashy stuff that seems a bit archaic now. But it still has its place and its pleasures. The following clip was posted by commenter “Beverly” here. It features much the same choreography with a few modifications, danced in 1966 by the legendary Fonteyn and Nureyev.

I saw their version in person many times, and I always had mixed feelings about it. The illusion did not completely work for me, although I admired parts of it. Fonteyn, although extraordinarily beautiful and with an especially lovely (and non-skeletal) figure, did not look like a girl. She is 47 years old in this clip, and her technique—never ever her strong suit—was fading precipitously. She has almost no extension (that refers to the height to which the non-supporting leg is raised), and her feet are stiff, the arches barely curved.

And yet, and still—there is something in her subtle acting that is luminous, restrained, and moving. Note once again that moment of transformation at about minute 6:00 (there’s an earlier on at 5:30, as well), more quiet than Ferri but transcendent nonetheless.

Nureyev is all drama, and his technique was very good for the time. But he always seemed to me to be mostly about Nureyev, and not about the dance or his partner:

Let’s do some editing and compare those dawning-of-passion moments more closely:

[NOTE: This so-called “balcony scene” cannot possibly occur on the balcony, of course, because there wouldn’t be enough room to dance. So Juliet is forced to descend the stairs.]

Posted in Dance | 3 Replies

Why Clinton got a pass and Weiner hasn’t

The New Neo Posted on June 14, 2011 by neoJune 14, 2011

Michael Medved points out the inconsistency of those on the left who were vociferous in their defense of Clinton and yet are calling for the resignation of Weiner, who has arguably committed a less serious offense.

I suppose that Medved is technically correct. He ends his piece by saying that the discrepancy in reactions “makes no sense on any logical level.” Nevertheless, it’s completely understandable on an emotional level. As Medved points out, it shouldn’t matter that people liked Clinton and don’t like Weiner. But it does matter; we humans are far more inclined to excuse the transgressions of those we like.

But it even makes some sense on a logical level, as well. Clinton was president and Weiner a mere member of the House. That argument could go either way, of course—and Medved argues that the standard of behavior for a president should not be less than for a representative. However, I think the stronger argument is that the bar should be set especially high for the removal of a president (“high crimes and misdeamors”), and Clinton squeaked underneath. Nor was the possibility of his resignation ever all that realistic.

Medved mentions the “ick” factor, and it’s very important. Even though Clinton’s sexual behavior with Lewinsky wasn’t quite conventional (cigars??), having oral-genital sexual contact in the flesh with a person whom one actually knows is something most people can relate to. Weiner’s sending photos of his genitalia to strangers, not so much—especially for those of us over fifteen.

Plus, even though it was well-known that Clinton had a history of philandering, the Lewinsky interlude involved only one person. In contrast, Weiner was dealing with multiple women, and he had never met any of them.

You might argue that the latter point makes his behavior less serious. It was just online stuff, right? I would argue that it makes it more serious for him as an officeholder because the risks became that much higher that at least one of these people would either go public and embarrass him, or use his photos to blackmail him. Both men’s behavior was reckless and showed abominable judgement, but Weiner’s was worse in that regard. At least Clinton knew Monica well enough to feel he could trust her; what was Weiner’s excuse?

[NOTE: And speaking of trust and online escapades, I don’t quite know what to say about the revelation that two—count ’em, two—well-known lesbian bloggers are actually middle-aged men. But I do know that this is pretty funny (you have to read the article to understand):

In the guise of Paula Brooks, Graber corresponded online with Tom MacMaster, thinking he was writing to Amina Arraf. Amina often flirted with Brooks, neither of the men realizing the other was pretending to be a lesbian.]

Posted in Uncategorized | 35 Replies

On coed vs. same-sex dorms

The New Neo Posted on June 13, 2011 by neoJune 13, 2011

Today’s WSJ featured an op-ed by the president of The Catholic University of America, John Garvey, who writes that the school is fed up with the problems of coed dorms, and is about to go back to the old tried-and-true same-sex dorms.

I have to say I was a little surprised to hear that a school called “The Catholic University of America” ever had coed dorms in the first place. But that fact speaks to the pervasiveness of the practice—and perhaps the need to compete with all the other colleges that offer them.

I am enough of a dinosaur to remember, and to have personally experienced, a time when same-sex dorms were the only sort of dorms there were. Not only that, but when I went away to college there were still curfews and very strict rules about male visits to the female dorms. We had to sign out, and be in on weekday nights at 11:00 and weekends at 12:30, and even those hours were recent and hard-fought extensions of the even more restrictive hours of just a couple of years back. And men were only allowed to place their persons in the common rooms on the ground floor, and had to be out of there after curfew.

For those precious and highly-policed visits (only allowed during “parietal hours”), there was the phenomenon known as “dating rooms,” four little enclosures that served the entire dorm of hundreds of girls. I say “enclosures,” but they had no doors; they were almost completely open on one side, so that anyone could look in and see what was transpiring.

And what was that? I don’t remember viewing anything X-rated, but certainly some of what I spied in those rooms (one couldn’t help but sneak a quick peek as one walked by) might have earned an “R.” College kids can get pretty desperate if there are no more private alternatives, and in those days most of us had neither cars nor the wherewithal to rent a motel room (not to mention the fact that many such establishments wouldn’t rent to unmarried young people—how archaic was that?)

Note that I’ve referred to “male visits to the female dorms.” That’s because the reverse trip—a female entering the male sanctum—was almost unheard-of, not necessarily because it was forbidden, but because it was so forbidding. There were no dating rooms. I don’t even recall a common room on the ground floor, the one or two times I glanced in. Just a corridor leading to the bedrooms.

That was the situation I encountered when I entered college. But by the time I left it had changed, and the change was enough to give a person whiplash.

One year we had curfew, parietal hours, and dating rooms. The next year curfew was gone, and boys could be in the girls’ rooms with the door open and their feet on the floor (good luck with that). A year or two later? Co-ed dorms.

By that time I lived in an apartment, and we set our own rules (or, given the times, lack thereof). But I remember thinking that co-ed dorms were a bad idea, even then. Who wants to take away all the romance and mystery that early in the game? Who wants the pressure of always looking good, or always buttoning up lest a stray guy see you in your skivvies?

I recall that the co-ed trend started with alternating floors and then segued into co-ed bathrooms, an especially dumb idea (although perhaps it’s good preparation for the “seat-up-seat-down” battles of marriage). Recently, many colleges have experimented with pilot programs that feature co-ed rooms.

Catholic University is about to buck this trend; I wish it luck. Garvey gives as his reasons studies that indicate that same-sex dorms lead to an increase in sex and in drinking. He also shows, I’m sorry to say, a surprising degree of naivete when he writes:

I would have thought that young women would have a civilizing influence on young men. Yet the causal arrow seems to run the other way. Young women are trying to keep up””and young men are encouraging them…

The last forty years of the sexual revolution has proven the truth of those words: the causal arrow does indeed seem to run the other way. Young women will tend to try—sometimes quite desperately, and often at the risk of their own well-being—to keep up with whatever they think it is that young men want.

Posted in Education, Me, myself, and I, Men and women; marriage and divorce and sex | 33 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

  • physicsguy on Is there still a ceasefire with Iran?
  • Kate on Open thread 5/5/2026
  • Barry Meislin on Open thread 5/5/2026
  • Jimmy on Open thread 5/5/2026
  • Dwaz on Open thread 5/5/2026

Recent Posts

  • Is there still a ceasefire with Iran?
  • Open thread 5/5/2026
  • Small changes in Europe?
  • The parking permit blues
  • Rudy Giuliani is very ill with pneumonia

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 (24)
  • Election 2028 (5)
  • Evil (127)
  • Fashion and beauty (323)
  • Finance and economics (1,015)
  • 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 (438)
  • Iraq (224)
  • IRS scandal (71)
  • Israel/Palestine (797)
  • Jews (423)
  • Language and grammar (361)
  • Latin America (203)
  • Law (2,913)
  • 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 (4,391)
  • Vietnam (109)
  • Violence (1,411)
  • War and Peace (992)

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
↑