The case against John Edwards

The New Neo Posted on by

I never could see how anyone could support Edwards for president.

There was always something slick and smarmy about him, although I can’t say I had an inkling of just how slick and smarmy he really was. There was also nothing he offered politically that other candidates didn’t offer, and better. If I’d been a liberal Democrat I would never have voted for him in a primary.

When his private life was revealed as sleazy and dishonest, it seemed like the end of a sordid story. His career as a politician is effectively over. His mistress and the mother of his child has gone on Oprah to talk about their sex life and the videotape that documents one of their encounters.

So when Edwards was indicted by a grand jury for the felony of misusing campaign contributions to keep the mistress out of sight during the 2008 campaign, I didn’t pay much attention. And I probably won’t pay a whole lot of attention as the case goes forth.

But I noticed today that there’s a spate of articles about the weakness of the case against Edwards (see this and this). The consensus seems to be that yes, he’s a scumbag extraordinaire, but that it’s a stretch to define the monies used to deal with Rielle Hunter as campaign contributions. And that, after all, is what he’s accused of in the case, not of being a heel. There’s a difference.

Some details of the case:

Justice Department officials decided that the hundreds of thousands of dollars that two Edwards donors gave to help keep his mistress in hiding were contributions that should have been reported publicly by his campaign fund because they aided his bid for the Democratic White House nomination.

From the article, I gather that two wealthy donors gave Edwards money for the purpose of shutting Hunter up and shuttling her around. The monies may have been specifically targeted for that purpose, rather than as general campaign contributions. Now the prosecutors are claiming that, because they were designed to help Edwards’ presidential bid by protecting his reputation, they should be labeled as campaign donations for the purposes of the law.

That may indeed be too elastic a definition of campaign contributions. However, Edwards’ ex-aide Young has said that one of the donors was unaware of what the money (which was labeled a personal gift to Edwards) was being used for. This may indicate that perhaps it was a campaign contribution after all, just by another name. Another problem with the case is that this donor is now a hundred years old and cannot testify for health reasons, and the other donor is deceased.

How the sort-of-mighty have fallen.

Anti-Semitic drawings and the San Francisco anti-circumcision campaign

The New Neo Posted on by

Zombie illustrates that an anti-Semitic cartoon has been pressed into service in the San Francisco fight to ban circumcision.

It was only a matter of time. And, lest you think this is some sort of fake, the San Francisco Chronicle has reported on it as well, with a statement from the cartoon’s creator, the aptly-named Matthew Hess:

A lot of people have said [the cartoons are anti-Semitic], but we’re not trying to be anti-Semitic. We’re trying to be pro-human rights.

If this isn’t “trying,” I’d hate to see trying:

Actually, I have seen “trying.” Anti-Semitic cartoons have a long history. They were one of the most potent tools of the Nazis, often via a newspaper known as Der Sté¼rmer, published by Julius Stiecher. Stiecher was executed at Nuremberg for his efforts, which included an insidiously evil little book for children called Der Giftpilz (“The Poison Mushroom”).

Here’s a typical sample from Der Sté¼rmer. This illustration appeared in 1935, with the title “Legion of Shame” and this caption [translation]: Ignorant, lured by gold/They stand disgraced in Judah’s fold./Souls poisoned, blood infected/Disaster broods in their wombs:

The book The Poison Mushroom was a pedagogic device for children, to teach them how to recognize Jews and their insidious evil. Examples abound of the book’s illustrative bile; here, for example, is its lovely cover:

And here’s some instruction on how to recognize a Jew (“The Jewish nose is bent. It looks like the number six…”

Wading through this stuff to select illustrations for this post was like tromping through a cesspool (here’s an archive if you’d like to research it yourself). Even now, these images have the power to make the hair on my arms rise in alarm, although they’ve lost their immediate power to kill. Compared to them, it’s true that “Monster Mohel” is tepid stuff. But it disseminates the very same poison.

[ADDENDUM: More Nazi art, this time resembling the Mohel in the Foreskin Man cartoon to a T. See this and this (and note, in the comments section of the latter link, the number of commenters supporting the foreskin ban who state they’re Jewish. I’m almost certain they are trolls/sockpuppets.]

James Arness, RIP

The New Neo Posted on by

Another icon from my youth gone.

I’m not so sure I understood the plots of “Gunsmoke,” but I’m quite sure I enjoyed them, as well as characters Mr. Dillon, Chester, Miss Kitty, and Doc; the saloon, and all those storefronts. I was actually a little bit in love with Arness, or maybe with Matt Dillon (hey, I was a little bit in love with Chester).

But I had no idea at the time that Arness was 6’6″ tall. Nor did I know that Miss Kitty started out in the series as somewhat of a loose woman; all of the following was completely lost on me:

Miss Kitty, who in the radio series clearly engaged in prostitution, began in that role in the television series but transitioned to saloon proprietor in later years. Although early film episodes showed her descending from her second-floor rooms in the saloon with Matt, or showed her or one of her girls leading a cowboy up to those same rooms, these scenes disappeared later on, and viewers were guided to see Miss Kitty just as a kindhearted businesswoman.

Here they are, looking pretty good:

Spambot of the day

The New Neo Posted on by

Can’t exactly disagree with this spambot:

I wouldn’t believe we should be with loincloths made of dingo skin, more so than we’ve been effective at calculate. Whenever we realize it happens to be worthy of establishing, will probably be astonishing.

Palin: history and Paul Revere’s ride

The New Neo Posted on by

Palin commits an Obamaism and mispeaks on history:

[Paul Revere] who warned, uh, the British that they weren’t going to be taking away our arms uh by ringing those bells and making sure as he’s riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be secure and we were going to be free and we were going to be armed.

Nope, not especially articulate. And of course it was the colonists Revere warned. And although Obama has also been both inarticulate and historically inaccurate so many times that it would support a small cottage industry, and the MSM continually covers for him while attacking Palin, that doesn’t make her correct.

But how wrong is she, anyway? One of the main goals of the British regulars was to seize armaments the colonists had stored in Concord. And there were bells:

A few minutes later, they were all startled to hear the heavy crash of an entire volley of musketry from the direction of Lexington’s meeting house and then the Lexington town bell began clanging rapidly! Jonathan Loring, a Lexington resident captured earlier, turned to his captors and shouted “The bell’s a’ ringing! The town’s alarmed, and you’re all dead men!”

What’s more, the colonists were British at that time, and considered themselves to be so (although I don’t claim that’s what Palin was referring to). But there is more historical accuracy in her admittedly disjointed statement than most people are aware of, since most of the facts have been lost to the public in legend, myth, and ignorance.

But hey, it’s so much more fun to trash Palin than to actually try to learn anything, isn’t it?

Love and cynicism

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s a touching column on lasting marital love by Tim Muldoon (hat tip: the Anchoress).

He writes “But no less intense is the feeling of radical security we have built together: the knowledge that through all things we can count on each other, and not feel a need to compete or fear loneliness.”

I’m happy for Muldoon and his wife. But as a person who was in a deeply committed and seemingly secure marriage for a very long time and is now divorced, I’ve got a question: what does a person do when that “radical security” turns out to be an illusion (or perhaps a delusion)? I’ve not only seen it happen in my own life, I’ve observed it way too many times in the lives of others.

Does the power of religion as the foundation for marriage (which is where Muldoon is coming from, as a Catholic theologian) matter? I think it helps, but it certainly doesn’t protect.

And how do we learn to trust anew? Is it merely a matter (as Churchill said in a more general context) of success being the ability to go “from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm?”

Well, that was fun

The New Neo Posted on by

[NOTE: I’m bumping this up so it stays at the top for today.]

Today I had a lovely experience. When I came to the blog I discovered it had been “temporarily suspended.”

That word “temporarily” was all that stood between me and meltdown. It turned out that the problem was very serious although fairly easily remedied. It involved a hacking—but before paranoia reigns, let me just say it was almost undoubtedly not targeted at me or my blog specifically.

Nevertheless, very nerve-wracking while it lasted. I believe all is well now, and should be for an indefinite time.

These are thrills and chills that I can do without, thank you very much.

Unions: some thanks Obama gets

The New Neo Posted on by

Is it really possible that, after all he’s done for them, unions are angry at Obama?

Yes, according to AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka:

…union members are frustrated by “wasted energy” in Washington on issues that he said don’t help workers: “hysteria” about the federal deficit, a White House review of regulations and Obama’s support for free-trade agreements.

I can’t imagine that unions will actually end up supporting Obama’s opponent, so this may be so much hot air. I also can’t imagine they really think they’ll get a viable presidential candidate on either side who will be friendlier to them than the extremely pro-union Obama.

There are other rumblings of trouble for Obama that seem more serious to me, or perhaps that’s just wishful thinking on my part. Nile Gardiner points out in his Telegraph blog that the recent economic news is very bad for Obama, and his polls are sliding once again after a small post-Bin-Laden bump. Even the NY Times warns that no US president has been re-elected with an unemployment rate above 7.2 on election day.

That reminds me once again—although I don’t think I needed reminding—that what happens in an election tends to be a snapshot reflecting recent events, and it’s a long looong way to November 8, 2011.

[ADDENDUM: Lech Walesa isn’t keen on Obama either. But unfortunately, he doesn’t get a vote—except for voting with his feet and declining to meet with the president.]

Tornado in Springfield, MA

The New Neo Posted on by

No part of the US is immune to tornadoes, although the well-known “Tornado Alley” in the midwest has by far the largest number in this country and the world. But New England has some, too, and yesterday Springfield, Massachusetts—a large town on the banks of the Connecticut River just east of where the Berkshires begin—had its turn.

If you want to feel insignificant and vulnerable, or if you just want to see the force of a very powerful medium-sized tornado, take a look at this video (hat tip, commenter “rickl;” for best viewing, watch full screen). Note what happens to the river:

Somehow, it reminds me of this scene:

Fixing the blog, and guilty TV pleasures

The New Neo Posted on by

Last night while my wonderful all-volunteer tech-support army of one worked on fixing the glitch in my blog, I sweated it out.

I’d been there before. Periodically, during the six years I’ve written this blog, something will go wrong that requires a major overhaul. Each time, even though all the content of the blog is supposedly stored by the host and then backed up again by my trusty tech-person, I get nervous. Very very nervous.

I am technologically inept. It has nothing to do with intelligence or lack thereof. We all have our strengths, and anything to do with tech stuff—computers, cell phones, the innards of cars—is not mine. In fact, I distrust the entire enterprise, although I love the benefits of using the technology. But it all seems rather magical and mysterious and opaque to me.

So while the blog was being worked on, and was down for about an hour (I tried to go to it once before I realized this, and got the message “fatal error,” which did nothing for my equanimity) I had to distract myself. What to do? I fastened on one of my heretofore secret guilty pleasures, the TV reality show “The Bachelorette,” on Hulu.

I know, I know. You’re almost as shocked as if I’d sent crotch shots on Twitter to a young admirer. But really, should I be judged so very harshly? It’s my version of a soap opera, and it has the added benefit of being real. Sort of.

What’s the harm in watching a mindless but entertaining show that follows a bunch of telegenic young people going to exotic places and having fun, plus the rivalry and thrills (engineered or not, fake or real) of the competitive battle for a young woman’s—ahem—heart?

All I can say is that it took my mind off my blog and its vulnerability for a full hour and a half, all that was needed. When I got the all-clear call, the roses were about to be given out, and my blog had landed safely.